Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

1. "Shitty" is a subjective term. So yes, people play "shitty games" in the opinions of others. Now some actually come out and try and point out why they feel said games are "shitty". Amazingly enough it has fk all to do with being a hipster. At no point do people say others are not getting something out of said games btw, so not sure what the point of that bit was.

 

2. If you use popularity as an argument for the quality of a product, then you have lost said argument. If you turn around and try to explain why the mechanics are popular, then well done, you have a good case. If you just say "well it's popular so ergo it's quality", then the /facepalm reply is never going to be far away. And with good reason.

 

I'll ignore the flat earth comment as it was utterly pointless.

Ehh..? The right way to disprove my argument would be either to show that people indeed play bad games voluntarily or that there is something else which attracts players other than quality. Sort of what Deivos was doing a couple of posts back although he was digressing quite a bit.

You just grasp onto the terms I use which I can easily replace if they are not to your liking. You get nowhere by doing this. Instead, show me why the logic is wrong.

And if you think my logic is wrong. What explanation do you offer for popularity? Furthermore, do you think two games, one popular and one unpopular, are equals? Wouldn't you say the more popular one is more succesful and likely better than the other?

Trends, bandwagon effect, peer pressure, marketting.  That's what got I was able to though fast.  I am sure there I missed something. 

Decision making is a process that is not purely rational thing where we only weight objective measureable indicators.

"I still play because my friends are still playing"

"I still play because of community ingame"

"I still play because I invested so much time and effort over the years"

"I still play because [developer name] I support all their games"

"I still play because [developer name] is great and will change(or revert changes) what I don't like in future surely."

-------------------

Even if you don't agree with any of the above there is one thing. There is no objective quality to games that you can measure, at least not in a sense you seem to imply. Quality is not a sum of how many people like certain game. If more people like certain game it just mean that more people like it. Not more not less. 

What could be used as measureable objective quality of a game is things like: number of bugs, number of quests or classes or races and so on, how fast bugs and exploit get fixed, how fast Consumer Support resolve problems and so on. Still even those things are not easily measureable and especially comparable between games. Most importantly though while they have impact, sometimes great impact on game success it is not absolute one. There were and are games that released polished and with good support and failed and there are games that weren't as much polished and with bad support and succeded.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

What an amazing rant for accepting what you're given uncritically.  And just because something is popular because it's good at something that doesn't mean the thing is good. McDonald's is really good at marketing. That doesn't make McDonald's good.

The point is: there is no "fine dining" in MMOs, therefore the fastfood metaphor is trashed.

There has been fine dining in MMO's. You're inability to recognize it, doesn't mean it's not true.

We have only your word for it. What prevents anyone from claiming their preferred game is fine dining?

You need to prove that there is fine dining. I cannot prove a negative.

But my word is all that is needed. Clearly the given quality of a thing is entirely subjective and/or relative judgment. That I state there is fine dining in MMO's means there is, merely because I state it. The only way your claim that there is no find dining in MMO's can hold up, is if no one disagrees with you. I disagreed with you. So, you're wrong.

---

Originally posted by evolver1972

---

Originally posted by Ginaz

---

Originally posted by evolver1972 Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good.   Hitler was popular.   So was disco.   The masses don't always know what they're talking about.  Which is why true democracy sucks.

---

Wow, it only took the first reponse to the OP to mention Hitler.  New record?

---

Perfect example of my first statement.  :)

 

I also mentioned *gasp* disco!  :P

---

Somehow I doubt that you were around for the Disco era.

And no, he wasn't popular, a whole war to fight him an all... he was very charismatic to his countrymen, and he had meth in the soldiers water lol.

But nice job on the exaggerated and extremely attention seeking term of choice, couldn't of used something.... I don't know modern and familiar? Like... cars, soda, Justin Beiber?

Originally posted by fenistil

"I still play because my friends are still playing"

"I still play because of community ingame"

"I still play because I invested so much time and effort over the years"

"I still play because [developer name] I support all their games"

"I still play because [developer name] is great and will change(or revert changes) what I don't like in future surely."

-------------------

Even if you don't agree with any of the above there is one thing. There is no objective quality to games that you can measure, at least not in a sense you seem to imply. Quality is not a sum of how many people like certain game. If more people like certain game it just mean that more people like it. Not more not less. 

What could be used as measureable objective quality of a game is things like: number of bugs, number of quests or classes or races and so on, how fast bugs and exploit get fixed, how fast Consumer Support resolve problems and so on. Still even those things are not easily measureable and especially comparable between games. Most importantly though while they have impact, sometimes great impact on game success it is not absolute one. There were and are games that released polished and with good support and failed and there are games that weren't as much polished and with bad support and succeded.

All of those reasons are... I would never play a game because of that - and I'm sure some people do, but it is hardly widespread enough to make a serious impact.

Popularity is an objective measure as much as bugs per lines of code is*. And I've never said its an absolute one. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I've always formed it "popularity is evidence of some quality". If you've read anything else its just other posters misquoting / misreading my meaning.

*(BTW the number of quests, classes or races are definitely NOT a measure of quality)

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

We have only your word for it. What prevents anyone from claiming their preferred game is fine dining?

You need to prove that there is fine dining. I cannot prove a negative.

But my word is all that is needed. Clearly the given quality of a thing is entirely subjective and/or relative judgment. That I state there is fine dining in MMO's means there is, merely because I state it. The only way your claim that there is no find dining in MMO's can hold up, is if no one disagrees with you. I disagreed with you. So, you're wrong.

So let me get this straight: Anyone can claim their game is fine dining?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

We have only your word for it. What prevents anyone from claiming their preferred game is fine dining?

You need to prove that there is fine dining. I cannot prove a negative.

But my word is all that is needed. Clearly the given quality of a thing is entirely subjective and/or relative judgment. That I state there is fine dining in MMO's means there is, merely because I state it. The only way your claim that there is no find dining in MMO's can hold up, is if no one disagrees with you. I disagreed with you. So, you're wrong.

So let me get this straight: Anyone can claim their game is fine dining?

Yep. Your opinion that there is no fine dining is negated as being a fact by other people's opinion that there is fine dining. Isn't that obvious?

Originally posted by Quirhid

So let me get this straight: Anyone can claim their game is fine dining?

Really, it's ok that you enjoy "Mcdonald's equivalent" mmos, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people do. Hell, I used to play what are now considered tired old theme park titles that were designed to appeal to the masses and were marketed as such. For a time I enjoyed the product, but in the end, it just wasn't for me.

I moved on to other games that weren't as popular, but they suited my tastes much better. I never cared about the popularity factor, it was all about the product itself.

I do not share the tastes of the masses when it comes to current mmos, or music. I do however genuinely appreciate many movies from past to current ones. It's not about popularity, which is irrelevant, it's all about the product and how it mixes with me. As Humans rippen with age, this hipster mentality seems to diminish ever increasingly. Some people never truly "grow up" so sure it's always there, but unless you're still in high school or in the first half of your twenties, why this is such an issue for you is beyond me.  

Teenage drama for the most part, if you're looking through my eyes.

Originally posted by Cecropia

Teenage drama for the most part, if you're looking through my eyes.

Without the drama queens, we wouldn't have much of a forum, yes?

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Yep. Your opinion that there is no fine dining is negated as being a fact by other people's opinion that there is fine dining. Isn't that obvious?

If anyone can claim any game is fine dining and by doing so makes it true, don't you think it diminishes the whole notion? Afterall, the whole idea is to set your preference above everyone else's. You see if every game is fine dining, none is.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

Ehh..? The right way to disprove my argument would be either to show that people indeed play bad games voluntarily or that there is something else which attracts players other than quality. Sort of what Deivos was doing a couple of posts back although he was digressing quite a bit.

You just grasp onto the terms I use which I can easily replace if they are not to your liking. You get nowhere by doing this. Instead, show me why the logic is wrong.

And if you think my logic is wrong. What explanation do you offer for popularity? Furthermore, do you think two games, one popular and one unpopular, are equals? Wouldn't you say the more popular one is more succesful and likely better than the other?

Popularity is evidence of some quality. I have always formed it like that. I never said popularity means its a quality product. WoW does something right. Rift does something right. Eve does something right. GW2 does something right. They are not full of shit, like some of the posters claim.

If we turn this around, I can claim that "unpopularity is a sign that something is wrong". Which goes to say Mortal Online, Darkfall, Fallen Earth, Xsyon, Vanguard, Warhammer Online, Star Trek Online etc. have done something wrong or have serious flaws in them.

I judge no one for liking any of those games. I am merely observing the popularity of games and what it tells us about said games. And to tie this to my original post. I despise people who dislike games because of their popularity, and their need to brand the said games and their players to justify their position. They don't say "too mainstream" - they say "its a WoW-clone", "ez-mode MMO", "the players are sheep", "another game for the console generation" or whatever.

Accessibility.

Marketing.

Ease of use.

Cost.

Getting there first in the market and grabbing market share.

Time it takes to get into.

Carrot dangling progression.

Players knowing other players and not wanting to leave them.

Players not wanting to lose "their stuffz".

Players not knowing what else is on the market/on offer.

Loyalty to a particular brand/IP.

Loyalty to a particular type of game.

There are plenty of drivers for both popularity and for longevity of sorts, non of which you would classically attribute to "quality".

Popularity points to the potential that there is some quality there for some people, but when a forum poster says a game is good or bad, that is their subjective view. A billion people can play GW2 and someone who doesn't like it can say it is a "shit game" and that has NOTHING to do with him/her saying that because it is popular, it is because they think the mechanics are in their mind "shit".

Your analogy shows how retarded the whole popularity as a yardstick for quality is. Do I think two games, one popular and one unpopular are equal in quality?

Well it depends really, do they both have exactly the same mechanics?

Do they both have exactly the same advertising budget and reach out to exactly the same userbase?

Do they both appeal to the same userbase?

Because if they don't have pretty much exactly the same parameters, then saying one is more popular than the other due to quality is a false argument, when you should instead be looking at what makes the games tick.

And that's the trouble isn't it, people use the whole "popularity = quality" argument for products aimed at completely different audiences, with completely different mechanics, with completely different levels of accessibility and cost

If you are telling me that a game which can be played in a five minute pick up session for a quick blast and accessed through a browser, is more popular than one which takes hours to get into and requires a monthly sub, because of "quality" then you are, quite frankly, mad.

You could make an exceptionally high quality product, if that product is not as accessibile to as many people or is in some way "niche", whilst it may be more popular than it's direct niche peers, it will not be as popular as something more accessible and less niche. Amazing stuff.

Btw "Wow-clone", "easymode", "player sheep" and "console generation" may well be crappy old slurs, but non of them have anything whatsoever to do with popularity......

So popularity may point ot a product having quality, but it isn't clear cut, so the comment I made earlier stands, If you just cite popularity as proof of quality then you will get /facepalmed in response. If though you go and point out exactly what makes a product quality in your mind, then you have a good debate on your hands.

I don't like most modern mmos and I can assure you I am neither a hipster, nor do I like/dislike things based on how many other people like/dislike them.

Unfortunately for Quirhid, just because he does not like an analogy does not make it wrong. :)

We have had a few discussions before based around this topic. People do like big Mac’s and the company is making a mint. But that does not prove intrinsic quality, it is a fair analogy, like it or not.

As for an analogy for the future of gaming, I would suggest a sweet shop. The length of time you need to eat fast food will be too long to represent where MMO’s are heading. Casualness will be enhanced, lobby style gameplay advanced, the speed you get to top level increased. So something like a bag of candy as our analogy for future MMO’s will fit the bill better.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Accessibility.

Marketing.

Ease of use.

Cost.

Getting there first in the market and grabbing market share.

Time it takes to get into.

Carrot dangling progression.

Players knowing other players and not wanting to leave them.

Players not wanting to lose "their stuffz".

Players not knowing what else is on the market/on offer.

Loyalty to a particular brand/IP.

Loyalty to a particular type of game.

 

There are plenty of drivers for both popularity and for longevity of sorts, non of which you would classically attribute to "quality".

First, accessibility and ease of use are both usability and usability is part of quality. I should know, usability and user interfaces is my major. Loyalty to anything or being afraid to lose your progression are the worst reasons possible to play a game - and likely not very common too. But if they are common, people truly are stupid...

Second, none of those reasons attribute to any significant popularity. It might be why some people hang on to some games, but it does not explain mass appeal.

 

Popularity points to the potential that there is some quality there for some people, but when a forum poster says a game is good or bad, that is their subjective view. A billion people can play GW2 and someone who doesn't like it can say it is a "shit game" and that has NOTHING to do with him/her saying that because it is popular, it is because they think the mechanics are in their mind "shit".

I have encountered may players who dislike a game just because it is cool to do so, and they don't even know what the game is like. I'm sure you've come across them too. It has everything to do with feeling insecure about their own preferences and the need to justify them.

 

Your analogy shows how retarded the whole popularity as a yardstick for quality is. Do I think two games, one popular and one unpopular are equal in quality?

Well it depends really, do they both have exactly the same mechanics?

Do they both have exactly the same advertising budget and reach out to exactly the same userbase?

Do they both appeal to the same userbase?

Because if they don't have pretty much exactly the same parameters, then saying one is more popular than the other due to quality is a false argument, when you should instead be looking at what makes the games tick.

The point was to force you to make a statement about popularity if it was the only variable that was different between the two games. But you dodged it.

 

And that's the trouble isn't it, people use the whole "popularity = quality" argument for products aimed at completely different audiences, with completely different mechanics, with completely different levels of accessibility and cost

 

If you are telling me that a game which can be played in a five minute pick up session for a quick blast and accessed through a browser, is more popular than one which takes hours to get into and requires a monthly sub, because of "quality" then you are, quite frankly, mad.

 

You could make an exceptionally high quality product, if that product is not as accessibile to as many people or is in some way "niche", whilst it may be more popular than it's direct niche peers, it will not be as popular as something more accessible and less niche. Amazing stuff.

Again, accessibility contributes to quality. And you are paraphrasing me wrongly: I never said popularity = quality. If you want to bring math or formal logic into this, my argument would roughly be "popularity -> quality" where the arrow stands for logical implication meaning "if there is popularity, there is quality" and "if there is no popularity, nothing can be said about quality".

 

Btw "Wow-clone", "easymode", "player sheep" and "console generation" may well be crappy old slurs, but non of them have anything whatsoever to do with popularity......

 The sheep comment specifically refers to popularity and mass market appeal.

 

So popularity may point ot a product having quality, but it isn't clear cut, so the comment I made earlier stands, If you just cite popularity as proof of quality then you will get /facepalmed in response. If though you go and point out exactly what makes a product quality in your mind, then you have a good debate on your hands.

Just like changes in the spectrum or "wobbling" of stars is a sign of exoplanets, so is popularity a sign of quality. With the presumption that no one plays bad games, there is always quality where there is popularity. Those games do something right.

 

I don't like most modern mmos and I can assure you I am neither a hipster, nor do I like/dislike things based on how many other people like/dislike them.

Reply in green.

Originally posted by Scot

Unfortunately for Quirhid, just because he does not like an analogy does not make it wrong. :)

We have had a few discussions before based around this topic. People do like big Mac’s and the company is making a mint. But that does not prove intrinsic quality, it is a fair analogy, like it or not.

As for an analogy for the future of gaming, I would suggest a sweet shop. The length of time you need to eat fast food will be too long to represent where MMO’s are heading. Casualness will be enhanced, lobby style gameplay advanced, the speed you get to top level increased. So something like a bag of candy as our analogy for future MMO’s will fit the bill better.

Hey I take Big Macs over mud cakes any day. Both are made in roughtly the same time (as games are), but mud cakes take a lot longer to ingest. Does that analogy go right with you?

-Didn't think so.

Do you see my point now? Anyone can create an analogy to suit them.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Scot

Unfortunately for Quirhid, just because he does not like an analogy does not make it wrong. :)

We have had a few discussions before based around this topic. People do like big Mac’s and the company is making a mint. But that does not prove intrinsic quality, it is a fair analogy, like it or not.

As for an analogy for the future of gaming, I would suggest a sweet shop. The length of time you need to eat fast food will be too long to represent where MMO’s are heading. Casualness will be enhanced, lobby style gameplay advanced, the speed you get to top level increased. So something like a bag of candy as our analogy for future MMO’s will fit the bill better.

Hey I take Big Macs over mud cakes any day. Both are made in roughtly the same time (as games are), but mud cakes take a lot longer to ingest. Does that analogy go right with you?

-Didn't think so.

Do you see my point now? Anyone can create an analogy to suit them.

The McDonalds analogy is horrible.

600k people play EVE. 200k people play AoC. EVE is the McDonalds of MMORPGs.

It's just an ultimately stupid argument with a seriously flawed logic to it.

Example: I play the game "Salem" a lot and there's very few people who actually play that game - not because it's bad (atleast, i like to think it isnt) but because it caters to a small minority of players who loves crafting and permadeath in the games they play. 

I like to think there's (mostly, not always) a correlation between popular and good, but that doesn't have to mean it's the same for unpopular and bad... Dig around in indieDB.com and you'll find some awesome games you've never heard of - not because they're bad, but because they don't have the money to advertise for themselves.

So please, don't piss on those of us who likes the smaller, unpopular games and call us hipster and our games bad - that's just simplifying the topic. But yeah, if someone calls it "fine dining" they're pretty fucking stupid - but some of us actually do like some odd shit in our games, not because we want to be gamin-hipsters but because thats just what we like.

It's sorta like calling somosexuals for hipsters. Sorta, a little. 

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Scot

Unfortunately for Quirhid, just because he does not like an analogy does not make it wrong. :)

We have had a few discussions before based around this topic. People do like big Mac’s and the company is making a mint. But that does not prove intrinsic quality, it is a fair analogy, like it or not.

As for an analogy for the future of gaming, I would suggest a sweet shop. The length of time you need to eat fast food will be too long to represent where MMO’s are heading. Casualness will be enhanced, lobby style gameplay advanced, the speed you get to top level increased. So something like a bag of candy as our analogy for future MMO’s will fit the bill better.

Hey I take Big Macs over mud cakes any day. Both are made in roughtly the same time (as games are), but mud cakes take a lot longer to ingest. Does that analogy go right with you?

-Didn't think so.

Do you see my point now? Anyone can create an analogy to suit them.

The McDonalds analogy is horrible.

 

350k people play EVE. 200k people play AoC. EVE is the McDonalds of MMORPGs.

 

It's just an ultimately stupid argument with a seriously flawed logic to it.

And AOC is the Burger King of MMO's, with LOTRO taking the place of Wendy's and Mortal online, I dunno, Jack in the box?

Probably more accurate to call WOW McDonalds however, billions served and all that you know.

Point is, among MMORPG's, just like among fast food hamburger joints, the quality is pretty much the same between all of them, and the reason for one chain's greater popularity over another is less about one really being "better" than another, but more about who's advertising has been more effective over the long haul.

Where the food analogy fails is if you try to say one MMORPG is of a higher quality than the others, that EVE for some reason is the 5 Guys/Burger 21/BurgerMonger etc of Burger joints, when in fact there's no discernable evidence that is true.

There are differences in how things taste between food at the various low end restaurant chains, but that doesn't really reflect any difference in quality, but more about consumer preferences about certain features each might have (hey, I like my burger flame broiled, McDonalds doesn' t offer that)

Yet some folks hate McDonalds just  because it's McDonalds and the most popular, and take their business elsewhere.

I think a more interesting example in the real world of this phenomenon is how many people loath Walmart, and won't even shop there despite the fact it frequently has the lowest price for the item they are shopping for.

Their distaste has nothing to do with what matters, price, or quality, and everything to do with some esoteric perceptions about corporate unfairness or in fact, they are too hip or high brow to shop at such a store.

They are being hipsters in this scenario as well.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

First, accessibility and ease of use are both usability and usability is part of quality. I should know, usability and user interfaces is my major. Loyalty to anything or being afraid to lose your progression are the worst reasons possible to play a game - and likely not very common too. But if they are common, people truly are stupid...

Second, none of those reasons attribute to any significant popularity. It might be why some people hang on to some games, but it does not explain mass appeal.

Accessibility may be a yardstick of quality specifically for a user interface. But not for a total product. The local shop is more accessible to me than Harrods, but it doesn't have more quality due to that fact.

They may not be reasons in your mind, but they are, like it or not.

Second, yes, they clearly do.

 

 

I have encountered may players who dislike a game just because it is cool to do so, and they don't even know what the game is like. I'm sure you've come across them too. It has everything to do with feeling insecure about their own preferences and the need to justify them.

Some people certainly seem to dislike games/mechanics because it is the "cool thing to do", funnily enough though, most who do this seem to be "against" older systems and more niche mechanics. So not so sure about the whole "insecurity" thing in terms of popularity.

 

The point was to force you to make a statement about popularity if it was the only variable that was different between the two games. But you dodged it.

The point of the response was to say that that is virtually never the case. You came up with something which is just about implausible when looking at whole products. I didn't "dodge it", I pointed out the flaw in it.

 

Again, accessibility contributes to quality. And you are paraphrasing me wrongly: I never said popularity = quality. If you want to bring math or formal logic into this, my argument would roughly be "popularity -> quality" where the arrow stands for logical implication meaning "if there is popularity, there is quality" and "if there is no popularity, nothing can be said about quality".

Stop arguing then. If I want to bring math into this? Not really I use complex mathematics for my day to day work, why would I want to use it on a discussion forums for games? I wasn't aware that whacking in the = sign pointed to that.

Btw I see you avoided the main crux of the point, that unless you are comparing like for like products and have removed all other variables, then saying popularity is proof of quality is incorrect.

 

 

 The sheep comment specifically refers to popularity and mass market appeal.

Actually is specifically refers to the fact that popularity is not neccessarily an indicator of quality. Not that "I hate this because it is popular".

 

Just like changes in the spectrum or "wobbling" of stars is a sign of exoplanets, so is popularity a sign of quality. With the presumption that no one plays bad games, there is always quality where there is popularity. Those games do something right.

The trouble is your analogy doesn't hold. You see, for a scientific principle to hold, you have to be able to discount all other potential variables. If it was shown that other factors could cause star wobble then the effect would NOT be proof of an exoplanet. As it is as clear as day that there are other variables outside of "quality" which can impact upon popularity, then you cannot just say popularity is a sign of quality in anywhere near the same sense. Hence popularity is a sign of potential quality, but you need to then demonstrate said quality.

Again "bad games" is subjective.

I don't like most modern mmos and I can assure you I am neither a hipster, nor do I like/dislike things based on how many other people like/dislike them.

Reply in green.

Popularity can point to quality. It cannot though be used as proof of quality which many people seem to try to do here.

Plenty of people who dislike certain games do so with zero interest in whether said game has three people playing or three million people playing.

I have put forward two key principles:

1. That not everyone who dislikes modern games does so because they are "hipsters" who just don't like popular stuff.

2. That whilst popularity can be an indicator of quality, unless you have managed to remove all other potential variables, then the usual popularity = quality (no that doesn't mean I want to debate stochastic differential equations with you) argument that gets bandied about on here all the time, well it doesn't hold up on it's own without further clarification, at all.

To prevent this becoming even more of a circle jerk, if you are going to respond, stick to those two core arguments (not an order debate what you want, just seems sensible for the sake of clarity). But I fail to see how you can disagree with them. If you don't then we have been talking around the houses for the last few posts.