Originally posted by declaredemer

"Rational basis" is being used in your sentence in an entirely different way that I am accustomed to.  You should look it up --Google it-- and then reconsider how, and when, you use it.  You probably picked it up somewhere.  You also said you "recused" yourself -- Google it-- and misused the word.  Aside: you are inappropriately using words, and this is not an "insult" such as you calling me a "drama queen."  It is genuinely confusing me.  Aside:  under your rational basis standard, the term you used, you are challenging the concept, and the burden would be yours to bring forth evidence.  You are picking-up these terms somewhere and misusing them.

There are various very rude terms I'd use right now, but you're not worth me getting banned. Suffice it to say, I don't like you as a poster at all.You're easily one of the worst and most tedious people I've ever had the misfortune to read. I'd rather subject myself to the Twilight books than try and make sense of your gibberish.

Yes, I planned to recuse myself, and yes, I know what the damn word means. However, I couldn't let your idiocy slide and had to mention that I am still waiting for you to provide something other than your meaningless bullshit to try and reinforce your irrational, condescending, and ultimately stupid argument. You've got a lot of bullet points and colored fonts, and a lot of centered text, but you don't say anything worthwhile at all.

Originally posted by Lidane

There are various very rude terms I'd use right now, but you're not worth me getting banned. Suffice it to say, I don't like you as a poster at all.You're easily one of the worst and most tedious people I've ever had the misfortune to read. I'd rather subject myself to the Twilight books than try and make sense of your gibberish.

Yes, I planned to recuse myself, and yes, I know what the damn word means. However, I couldn't let your idiocy slide and had to mention that I am still waiting for you to provide something other than your meaningless bullshit to try and reinforce your irrational, condescending, and ultimately stupid argument. You've got a lot of bullet points and colored fonts, and a lot of centered text, but you don't say anything worthwhile at all.

You have not only proved my point about the reverence of technology, but also something along the lines of community.

The only people who have hurled personal insults at others are the two Commercialized/Linear gamers:  you and MrBloodworth, which is why the communities in "commercialized" games are so . . . hostile, crude, and unfriendly.

If you're misusing terms, and it confuses and I mention it, that does not give you a license to (a) continue to misuse at least one of the terms and (b) call me names ("I don't like you."  "Worst and tedious" person.  I do not take any of this personally, although I suspect you do.  If you want to have an intelligent discussion about the tension that exists today between immersion gamers and commercialized/linear gamers and the lack of innovation, I welcome and invite it.  If you are going to call me names, as you did earlier --"drama queen"-- you prove an important but also an unfortunate point about yourself.  

Calm down.  Come back.  And I would be happy to have a "discussion" with you that is fair and free of name-calling.  I want someone to prove me wrong.  My ideas are not infallible, but I have learned a lot from this discussion.  I neither like nor dislike you, but I appreciate your linear/commercialized perspective.

Originally posted by declaredemer

  I neither like nor dislike you, but I appreciate your linear/commercialized perspective.

I don't have a "linear/commercialized" perspective. That's a meaningless phrase to me.

As for me, I'm not taking this personally. I just don't like you at all as a poster. You've offered nothing of substance except a bunch of circular gibberish, bullet points, centered text, charts, and whiny self-absorption about your poor, maligned "immersion gamer" (another totally meaningless phrase) life, with posts full of assumptions about people and nothing worthwhile to back any of it up.

Posting in this thread has been a total waste of my time that could have been used on something more valuable. Your entire argument is absurd on its face, lacks merit, and is ultimately meaningless.

Originally posted by declaredemer

Is This Really an Immersion Gamer v. Commercialized Gamer Discussion?

 

Immersion Gamer	Commercialized Gamer
"Fascinating"	"Fun"
Tradition is respected	Science is respected
Development is an art	Development is a science
Gameplay is varied	Gameplay is controlled
Individual gets credit	Guild gets credit
Worlds are large and diverse	Worlds are small and fixed
Innovation is revered	Technology is revered
Character development and story is the goal	"Ownage" and accomplishing things is the goal
Complex	Simple

 

Community

Immersion Gamer v. Linear/Commercialized Gamer

• What are the goals;
• Why are these two groups incompatible (or are they); and
• What are the community values?

Lidane,

I created this table in response to your post that you do not care about innovation but care about "fun" and "polish."  Everyone likes "fun" and "polish," but my premise was that immersion gamers desire and expect more.  Fun and polish leaves an immersion gamer something to be satisfied.  

It really showed me that there is a tension between immersion gamers and commercialized gamers.  Would it be more accurate, or more palatable, if I replaced the word "commercialized" with "linear."  Immersion Gamers v. Linear Gamers.  Aside: I was also going to add "complex content" and "simple content."

I have chosen "commercialized" though because the premise of this whole topic is INNOVATION, and commercialized gamers claim that these new payment schemes are "innovative."  It really is a creative crisis in MMORPGs today, and immersion gamers are losing - badly.

The only attacks on the merits of the struggle have been "jaded bullshit" and the use of technology.  The use of technology is a red herring because no one disputes its importance and certainly not its use.  It is the reverence of technology; the belief that without it innovation is not possible, and so forth.  Commercialized gamers say that technology is innovative, and perhaps that is true for the graphics company . . . but a shiny new weapon is not exactly my idea of innovation, and it is certainly not the innovation that many of us desire.  We want something more, deeper, and challenging than "fun" and "polish."

I welcome and invite, absent personal name-calling, any challenges to the idea that innovation is not missing or lacking in today's MMORPGs, and that commercialized/linear gamers do not exist.

I also need to fit in the "community" aspect of MMORPGs and what immersion and linear/commercialized gamers expectations and goals are in that respect.

Originally posted by declaredemer

It really showed me that there is a tension between immersion gamers and commercialized gamers.  Would it be more accurate, or more palatable, if I replaced the word "commercialized" with "linear."  Immersion Gamers v. Linear Gamers.  Aside: I was also going to add "complex content" and "simple content."

Those are still just a bunch of useless catchphrases with no meaning. I don't care what words you use, the whole premise is still ridiculous.

Gamers are individuals that cannot and should not be placed into nonsense categories like "linear/commercialized" and "innovation/immersion" or whatever bullshit you're trotting out now. What draws one player to an MMO can't easily be applied across the board to another, and separating a genre filled with millions of players into two mutually exclusive categories is stupid.

You're over-generalizing and over-compartmentalizing millions of people and just so that you can whine that you're not being catered to by game developers. That's it. It's why this topic of yours has no meaning, no merit, and is ultimately useless. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.

Originally posted by Lidane

Those are still just a bunch of useless catchphrases with no meaning. I don't care what words you use, the whole premise is still ridiculous.

Gamers are individuals that cannot and should not be placed into nonsense categories like "linear/commercialized" and "innovation/immersion" or whatever bullshit you're trotting out now. What draws one player to an MMO can't easily be applied across the board to another, and separating a genre filled with millions of players into two mutually exclusive categories is stupid.

You're over-generalizing and over-compartmentalizing millions of people and just so that you can whine that you're not being catered to by game developers. That's it. It's why this topic of yours has no meaning, no merit, and is ultimately useless. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.

One of the difficulties is that you said you were going to "recuse" yourself.  You have also said that you do not "like" me.  It is why you use language such as "bullshit" and MrBloodworth used "jaded bullshit."

The table has proven true in both of your vehement reverence of technology.  I have explained why "immersion" and "linear/commercialized" gamers are useful concepts; there are other gamers such as PvPers and Raiders, among others.

Your personal dislike and bias, however, prevent you from thinking logically and having a meaningful discussion.

EDIT:

Honestly, you two are very similar as commercialized gamers, and illustrate my point:

• Lindane:  "bull shit"
• MrBloodworth:  "jaded bullshit"
• Both revere, and strongly defend, technology
• Both believe that innovation is technology
• Both believe that innovation is not possible without technology
• Both use name-calling repeatedly.
  • Aside:  I think name-calling only hurts your argument; but since your arguments failed --"jaded bullshit" and "bullshit"-- I understand but do not respect the resort to name-calling.
  • I might not like or dislike you, but I do not respect you for name-calling.

Commercialized gamers, as shown by Lidane and MrBloodworth, are very similar; this is why it is difficult for me, and others, to pay 15.00 to associate with these kinds of communities.

I want to add an element to the table that includes "community," as immersion gamers and commercialized gamers have very different concepts of community and community values.

You are trying to cram too many things into a 1D axis

Immersion verses goal oriented play

sandbox vs linear play

simple play vs complex play

large diverse worlds vs small and fixed worlds.

Fascination vs Fun, both are matter of opinion, people can be fascinated by a goal oriented game and and someone can have fun in a immersion type game.

Tradition vs science, well I would consider current games to be overly traditional, reusing the same game structures over and over again just because they are traditional.

Development art vs science, making a good mmo of any type is still more an art then a science, a mainly quest oriented linear game could easily be a very artistic and immersive activity.

Individual vs Guild credit, simply false, given the emphasis on solo play, a majority of players only use guilds as a social group. The people who make the most use of the guild structure are the raiders and they for the most part are a minority of the player population.

World size is primarily dictated by the age of a game. A developer that tries to make too large and diverse of a world on release is likely to fail due to financial issues.

Character and story development vs goal oriented play is the only thing on this list that could be considered a defining difference.

simple vs complexity is a matter of opinion. I will make the claim you need the right amount of complexity for an immersive game. Too much would actually make it less so and this level will differ by individual. Some goal oriented players will like complex games and some will like simple games. EVE is an example of a highly goal oriented game which is very complex.

Originally posted by declaredemer

Commercialized gamers, as shown by Lidane

Again, I'm not a "commercialized gamer", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. I'm a 36 year old woman with a job, a life, and my own individual mind, and tastes in games. Stop compartmentalizing me into your stupid bullshit categories like some kind of cog in a machine.

Just because I think your argument is stupid, overly narrow, and ultimately meaningless doesn't automatically mean I fit into some neat little box that you can label me with.

Yes, I said I would rather have a simple, fun, polished game that was well made over a shitty game that is trying too hard. Why? Because I'm a grown woman with a career, a relationship, friends, and a life who is finishing one degree and looking at graduate school. I have very limited game time. I'm not going to waste my money or time on a shitty, unpolished game just because it's "innovative". I'd rather just relax and have fun. That doesn't make me a "linear" gamer, or "commercialized", or whatever other retarded category you want to put me into. It makes me a human being who has other priorities and a whole life that doesn't revolve around MMO's, but who still enjoys the genre.

That's why I don't like you as a poster. You see everything in absolutes. Either someone agrees 100% with you or they're "linear" or "commericialized" or representative of some larger community that only exists in your narrow little mind. Well, REAL human beings don't work like that. Most people, including me, operate in shades of grey. I can appreciate depth and all that in a game. Just because I don't shout about it from the damned rooftops or write up long, incoherent posts with centered text, charts, and bullet points doesn't mean that I'm some mindless robot who only follows a "linear" path.  I'm just an individual.

The OP says...
The mystery and tragedy of the destruction of immersion in MMORPGs has created a vacuum of creativity.
What? Run that by me again laddie!

We have MMORPGS. The immersion factor of which has been destroyed, tragically and mysteriously????

William Shatner would have something to say to you OP.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

O

 

So, am I to take it you know what's best for me. What suits my needs/taste.

 

That's where i stoped reading, becouse no, no where do i say this.

Ahh, ok. Well, that's part of what I got when you stated that I was discussing games/gameplay that did not exist. In all seriousness, if you can point me to a game that meets the points I listed in my last post (you may have to go back and read it, hehe) I'd be more than happy to play it. Trouble is, I've played all of them (I personally don't count NCSoft games in this category: they're more midline to me, above indie and below AAA). There just aren't any made in the UO/AC mold.

The genre needs more diversity. People (not you, at least I haven't seen you, heh) like to throw around the term "niche", often in a belittling way, when describing certain games. Well, hello, the whole genre aside from WoW is niche. Gamers need to realize that, and game companies need to as well. Point? Don't be afraid to try something different than the current WoW mold. I doubt that kind of kizmit will ever happen again. Pick a "niche" that isn't filled and go for it.

Originally posted by Lidane

Again, I'm not a "commercialized gamer", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. I'm a 36 year old woman

I stopped right there to be fair to both of us; this is not, and never was, about you.  You take this very personally, which I why I think you resort to name-calling and "dislike" me.  I do not care if you like or dislike me because I do not take this personally.

I have defined, and illustrated, what both "immersion gamers" and "commercialized gamers" are.   I welcome, and invite, any criticism of these concepts ("bull shit" and "jaded bull shit" do not cut it). 

You ought to keep your real-life details to yourself; they neither interest me nor are they relevant.  In my view, you are a "commercialized gamer" because

1. Your priorities are "fun" and "polish" (over innovation); and
2. You revere technology.

On the points I listed, you fit most of the bill.  During this discussion, however, you have yourself conceded the two points above.  This is not personal, but it does illustrate the validity, and I would say accuracy, of the concepts:  immersion and commercialized gamers as separate, distinct, and at odd with each other groups.

Originally posted by declaredemer

I stopped right there to be fair to both of us; this is not, and never was, about you. 

I never said it was about me. I'm saying that your entire argument is stupid because you're compartmentalizing millions of gamers into two mutually exclusive categories that are entirely subjective and have no meaning at all, and solely because game developers aren't bending over and kissing your ass and following your circular bullet points, useless charts, and whiny centered text to give you whatever mythical "immersion" that you say you want.

Throwing my personal details into the mix was meant to show that not every person fits neatly into some bullshit category. And yes, that's exactly what your little "immersion" and "linear" categories are, so I call it like I see it. I'm sorry it offends your delicate sensibilities, but that's how it is. I'm not going to sugarcoat my words when I think something is both fundamentally flawed and a ridiculous argument.

I also don't "revere" technology, which is another meaningless canard from you. I simply recognize the fact that without it, none of us would even be on the Internet, much less playing MMO's at all. Also, without advancement in technology (and no, I'm not just talking about graphics-- gameplay counts as well) games cannot and will not evolve or innovate. Innovation and Technology are not mutually exclusive, and it's stupid to compartmentalize the two or treat them as separate things.

Yes, my priority is fun. Why? Because at their core, MMO's are GAMES. They're meant to be enjoyed. They're a way to unwind and relax after a long day at work and at school. They're supposed to be fun. I served my time in old school EQ1 already, where I'd spend just as much time in Norrath as I did at work so that I could possibly advance my characters. Never again. These are games, and hobbies, and are meant to be fun. The moment they become work or otherwise Not Fun is the moment I stop playing them. Life's too short to get so caught up in a GAME that everything else falls by the wayside.

Lidane,

At this point I will let you have the last word.  You take this way too personally for me.

Originally posted by kdkirmse

You are trying to cram too many things into a 1D axis

Immersion verses goal oriented play

sandbox vs linear play

simple play vs complex play

large diverse worlds vs small and fixed worlds.

Fascination vs Fun, both are matter of opinion, people can be fascinated by a goal oriented game and and someone can have fun in a immersion type game.

Tradition vs science, well I would consider current games to be overly traditional, reusing the same game structures over and over again just because they are traditional.

Development art vs science, making a good mmo of any type is still more an art then a science, a mainly quest oriented linear game could easily be a very artistic and immersive activity.

Individual vs Guild credit, simply false, given the emphasis on solo play, a majority of players only use guilds as a social group. The people who make the most use of the guild structure are the raiders and they for the most part are a minority of the player population.

World size is primarily dictated by the age of a game. A developer that tries to make too large and diverse of a world on release is likely to fail due to financial issues.

Character and story development vs goal oriented play is the only thing on this list that could be considered a defining difference.

simple vs complexity is a matter of opinion. I will make the claim you need the right amount of complexity for an immersive game. Too much would actually make it less so and this level will differ by individual. Some goal oriented players will like complex games and some will like simple games. EVE is an example of a highly goal oriented game which is very complex.

My original idea was "tradition v. process."  

Commercialized gamers see the development of an MMORPG as a "process" involving science and technology and not art that involves innovation and creativity.  The reason why we have "art eras" is because the artist paints using a new form, style, and so forth.

Process prevents, or at a minimum does not facilitate, innovation.  Why?  Because it is Tuesday and the classes, already created, need to get done; there is no room whatsoever to create a "new" and "different" class.  It is Wednesday and the raid dungeon needs to be completed by Friday; there is no room for changing the entire concept of the raid and so forth.

Tradition is the area where you could say I allude to "older" games; these games had more challenge to them.  More options.  More depth.  And so-on.  I will not name specifics, but I think the idea is general.  There was a respect for the story, and the world, and an appreciation for the immersion that came with it.

Character Customization/Development

It is really a tragedy that "innovative" character customization is that we went from 5 to 50 hairstyles; that is neither innovative nor necessarily a customization.  It is perhaps the least significant part of customization.  
 

It is about using innovation, though not necessarily technology, to allow players to develop truly unique characters.

The tragedy is that commercialized gamers, at this point, might be hostile to real and meaningful customization choices that require difficult decision-making:  which Quests; which mobs; which area; faction-system; and so forth that open up additional Quests, abilities, and so forth to create a truly unique character.  People are just following a linear path today, almost always look the same --hate how everyone's raid gear looks exactly the same, sometimes just a different color-- and think that their character is somehow different.

Aside:  it is why, in a different thread, we were talking about what sort of innovations do gamers want.  The one feature that was mentioned that really took-off was allowing players to actually design their own weapons:  attributes and appearance.

Commercialized/Linear gamers, however, might not only dislike these ideas . . . but be hostile towards them or overwhelmed by them.

Originally posted by declaredemer 

 Commercialized gamers see

The tragedy is that commercialized gamers, at this point,

Commercialized/Linear gamers, however, might not

You still don't get it. The inherent flaw in your argument are these ridiculous categories.

There is no such thing as a "commercialized gamer" any more than there is something called an "immersion gamer". They're meaningless terms. Also, trying to compartmentalize millions of gamers into two mutually exclusive categories where you make all these assumptions about who and what those people are is absurd.

Drop the idiotic categories of gamers and the gibberish lists and you might start to get somewhere in forming a coherent argument.

Is This Really an Immersion Gamer v. Commercialized Gamer Discussion?

 

Immersion Gamer	Commercialized Gamer
"Fascinating"	"Fun"
Tradition is respected	Science is respected
Development is an art	Development is a science
Gameplay is varied	Gameplay is controlled
Individual gets credit	Guild gets credit
Worlds are large and diverse	Worlds are small and fixed
Innovation is revered	Technology is revered
Character development and story is the goal	"Ownage" and accomplishing things is the goal
Complex	Simple

 

This table is not flawed because it is an overgeneralization.  You can, it is my opinion, divide a sizable number of individuals in the MMORPG community as Raiders, Immersion Gamers, PvPers, or Linear/Commercialized Gamers; there are other categories as well.

The table is flawed because it is underinclusive, not because it is overinclusive. 

I still do not know how to place "community" in there.  I think Immersion Gamers tend to value the individual over the group.  Real-life values over character attributes.  

Originally posted by declaredemer 

The table is flawed because it is underinclusive, not because it is overinclusive. 

No. It's flawed because its entire premise is ridiculous, and it's a small-minded assumption about a genre that encompasses millions of people.

Originally posted by declaredemer

Is This Really an Immersion Gamer v. Commercialized Gamer Discussion?

 

Immersion Gamer	Commercialized Gamer
"Fascinating"	"Fun"
Tradition is respected	Science is respected
Development is an art	Development is a science
Gameplay is varied	Gameplay is controlled
Individual gets credit	Guild gets credit
Worlds are large and diverse	Worlds are small and fixed
Innovation is revered	Technology is revered
Character development and story is the goal	"Ownage" and accomplishing things is the goal
Complex	Simple

 

 

This table is not flawed because it is an overgeneralization. 

I concede it is an "overgeneralization," but it is not flawed in that respect.  It is flawed in the respect that there are additional elements such as "community" that are not addressed.

You can define the majority of MMORPGers as "commercialized gamers" (look at their language; values; reverence for technology; and so forth) and "immersion gamers" (respect for tradition; complex content; and appreciation of the artistry that exists in MMORPG-creation).

"Ridiculous" or "bullshit" or "jaded bullshit" does not cut it.  I need a real analysis.  Why? I want to improve the table.  If you cannot analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the table, then I will point out where your analysis is empty at best or a veiled personal insult at worse (personal insults occur as far as I can tell from "diluted soul" to "arrogant snot" due to real-life issues such as insecurity).  ASIDE:  I mention this as an aside, and I do not want to make an issue of it, but I have yet to see someone from the "immersion gamer" side hurl a single personal insult toward their "commercialized gamers."  If that does not show the serious difference between these two groups, then see the above table and see their comments.  Compare.

Additional features:  community, vernacular ("leet" v. "treasure"), values (real-life principles v. character attributes).

(With these additional features, I think I can create an even more accurate table that demonstrates the tension that exists between immersion and commercialized/linear gamers.)

Immersion Gamer	Commercialized Gamer
"Fascinating"	"Fun"
Tradition is respected	Science is respected
Development is an art	Development is a science
Gameplay is varied	Gameplay is controlled
Individual gets credit	Guild gets credit
Worlds are large and diverse	Worlds are small and fixed
Innovation is revered	Technology is revered
Character development and story is the goal	"Ownage" and accomplishing things is the goal
Complex	Simple

Fascinating vs. Fun

This is a ridiculous conflict that doesn't exist. It is entirely possible for a player to both be fascinated by a game and how it is made and consider it fun. The idea that you're either intellectually curious about a game or that all you care about is fun is a non-starter. Right away, this list is bogus.

Tradition vs. Science

Another useless comparison that has zero basis in the real world. If anything, the entire MMO genre is based on Tradition, since most developers look at what has come before, and what has worked, and they keep doing it. Also, there is nothing wrong with Science. Science involves experimentation and trying new things to see if they work. If you're trying to use it as a way to say that so-called "commercialized" gamers don't want experimentation, you fail.

Development as art vs. Development as science

Bogus comparison, just like the fascinating/fun one. Game development is BOTH. It takes the creativity of artists, writers, and game designers AND the science of computer programmers and coders to make a game.  For all of their graphics, or elaborate gameplay, or unique art design, or whatever, at their heart, all computer games are still lines of code and numbers. You can't separate art and science in development.

Varied gameplay vs. Controlled gameplay

Another conflict that ignores reality. Why? Because ALL gameplay is ultimately controlled by the game mechanics that the developers put in. Even a game like Darkfall, with FFA PvP and full player loot, has final control over what its players can and cannot do. A player might be given the freedom to decide what they want to do that day (Craffting, fighting, etc.), but all of the tools of the game, and all of the limitations are placed in there by the developers by design.

Individual vs. Guild

This just sounds like an ego problem. An individual player should not be able to take down the most powerful mobs in an MMO by themselves. That's what guilds are for. If a guild has to be involved in killing a mob, they SHOULD get credit for it, since they had a hand in it too.

Large, diverse world vs. Small and fixed

This isn't a conflict between players. It's a design desicion that players have no control over. Some developers put in hard zones. Others have more natural transitions between areas so a world feels seamless. Some developers make large, open games only to find players congregating in similar areas with loads of wasted space. Others make smaller, but more varied worlds because they can then really work on the art design of an area and make each section unique.

Innovation vs. Technology

I've already gone over this part. These two things are not in conflict with each other and are not mutually exclusive. One directly leads to the other as it always has.

Character development vs. "Ownage"

Another false conflict. There's more to MMO players than roleplayers and l33t kiddies. There are plenty of people who exist in between the two extremes, or who don't care about either of them and just want to relax and play a game.

Complex vs. Simple

Another design decision that you're turning into a player conflict. Developers are the ones who decide if a game's mechanics are complex, or not. Players decide if the game is worth their time or not. Also, some developers, like Blizzard, take the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach, since WoW might start off simple, but some of those high end encounters are VERY difficult and take a long time to plan for, gear for, and master.

Complexity itself isn't always a good thing, BTW. For example, I was in the original beta for WW2 Online back in 2000-2001. At the time, it had VERY complex gameplay. Firing a single shot from a rifle took no less than five precisely timed keystrokes, and flight was impossible without a joystick setup. It had a very unforgiving learning curve. Players could die in a single shot, with no ability to learn from their mistakes since you never knew who killed you or where they were. Those were design flaws, and coupled with its very buggy state at release, the game paid dearly for that complexity.

Originally posted by Lidane

Tradition vs. Science

Another useless comparison that has zero basis in the real world. If anything, the entire MMO genre is based on Tradition, since most developers look at what has come before, and what has worked, and they keep doing it. Also, there is nothing wrong with Science. Science involves experimentation and trying new things to see if they work. If you're trying to use it as a way to say that so-called "commercialized" gamers don't want experimentation, you fail.

How many of today's gamers do you think have ever played or give a crap about pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons? The entire MMO genre may be based on it, but those who have not tried it or do not care about it, have no basis of comparison or judgement. And most, I would assume, would rather keep it that way.