CepaCepa, on 18 January 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:
That, I'm afraid, is circular logic. Your topic at hand is "why is the game fun", because without answering that you can't answer the general question "Why does someone play the game". An intermediately premise is "The game is fun", which I think we all agree, otherwise the argument can't proceed.
Now if you ask "why is the game fun", you can't say things like "if the game isn't fun he wouldn't be playing the game", that's like saying "a rectangle should be defined to have 4 sides because otherwise it wouldn't be a rectangle", it's circular logic. You're using the presumed answer of the question to answer the question, defeating the purpose of asking the question in the first place, and hence does not provide any more proof than an "I said so".
So if you want to proceed to argue in the process that you've provided above, you have to first provide evidence that suggests that "matter of fairness and principle" is independent from the "total fun that a player gets". In other words, your opponent is arguing that "matter of fairness and principle is what makes the game more fun", so if you'd have to prove that "having fun in game" and "matter of fairness and principle" are independent. As for my opinion, I don't think they are independent. What you call "fun" already needs to incorporate all these details, which brings us to hyper-reality that you've mentioned.
At the bottom of hyper-reality is immersion, which is the state where concept of one's self and surrounding is temporarily replaced with something else, essentially blocking out certain information while retaining others. So here we have two entities: the joy a player gets by the very fact of "immersion", and the joy a player gets as he is immersed. If you're arguing that a player gets all his fun from simply being immersed regardless of content, you'd be supporting that everyone enjoys every movie equally given equal concentration. You'd also be suggesting that "temporarily unaware of a part of one's own personal history is the sole and indistinguishable reason for one's enjoyment of movies, books, games, and many social environments". Obviously (I hope this we agree) this is not the case, because naturally, the joy that you get as you are immersed also count toward your "fun", since these feelings still reside in your memory long after you get out of immersion. And your opponent is saying that "matter of fairness and principle" is something many people bring into the immersion (you need an assumption and a set of belief in the "immersed world", which may or may not overlap with your real world belief) and hence is an important factor in "having fun in an immersed game".
You have mentioned "challenge" as if it should be the only reason for one's enjoyment of the game, but if challenge can be clearly carved out and indeed is what makes things fun for most people, then why play the game? Why immersion? Why not find someone bigger than you in your gym and arm wrestle? That certainly is a challenge. Or see if you can tough your toes with your finger tips, legs straight together. You're constructing the whole issue as if these factors can be singled out, but the complex and (pardon the pun) fractal nature of human perception just doesn't support picking one parameter out and expect a meaningful unbiased observation.
To illustrate the point further, let's talk about "challenge" itself --- What is a challenge? Is it a challenge to try to jump 5 meters into the air with your own bare feet? It is not, because it is next to impossible. Is it a challenge to throw a coin and see whether if the head is up? No that's just gambling, not a challenge, because you have next to no input and control in the matter. Now going to a Casino for a night and trying to win 500 bucks is a challenge, trying to jump and touch your roof with your fingers is a challenge. Now, it is inherent that a "challenge" means that there is a "status" or "goal" that you're striving to achieve, your satisfaction resides within the "hope" of reaching that goal, or in the case of a clearly defined goal like this, to "WIN". "To Win" provides you with a mental state of confidence, security, dissipation of self doubt --- But wait, didn't you arbitrarily add in the self doubt and the insecurity and all those probable alternative results yourself by looking for the challenge?
You just can't model the brain as a linear system and have everything just fall into place. Like fractal, it just keeps going in circles in unpredictable orders and unlike fractals, it doesn't have a lvl 80 cap.
Your last paragraph seems to imply that nonlinear systems are not predictable. Either that or you're skipping a step. And human perception is not fractal in nature. And yes, self-doubt and insecurity are psychological constructs that help motivate us (as a population) to excel.
Anyway, that is all fine, and to answer your question (which I'm sure was rhetorical), one plays a game because it provides not only a challenge, but a challenge created by a dedicated team of, in some cases, hundreds of people, a challenge designed to feed your ego in the exact right way. Also, the challenge is intellectual, not physical - while there are physical elements involved in playing a video game, they are limited to clicking a mouse, pressing buttons/keys, and moving analog devices (sticks, mouse). There is some element of reflex, timing, accuracy involved, but the rest of the challenge pertains to your mind, not to your body.
The nonphysical nature of it makes it entirely different from arm wrestling, attempting to touch your toes with your fingers, jumping into the air and whatever else you mentioned. As I said, it's also a designed challenge, making it different from other nonphysical challenges such as learning Chinese or trying to verify the Riemann hypothesis.
I mentioned feeding the ego. Consider that a video game is a designed challenge. I'm talking only about the PvE, campaign, etc., portion here, not any part where you face other players (since that challenge is not designed). The enemies and bosses you meet in FotM and other places are there to give you a challenge... But consider that in the hyperreality, they are there to kill you, but in the real reality, they are there to be killed by you
That said, it remains that "fairness" must have a root in the lore to be part of immersion. Is there some (lore) agency/t that rewards you more if you pick a higher level? Of course not, and thus it is not part of immersion. The "fairness" is entirely in the real reality: merely the idea that you dedicate yourself more to beat a higher challenge, dedication that you could spend on farming other parts of the game for more money if the reward didn't match the challenge.
Stigma, on 18 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:
Perhaps you would cause less tension in this thread if you were to stop sounding condescending on multiple posts.
We do things for fun and a certain level of fun. I understand where you are coming from but I just think you're mistaken for trying to separate challenge and reward when they are not dichotomies but come in a bundle. If you get the challenge and reward you feel a better level of fun than just completing a challenge with no recognition. A reward for a challenge is about being recognized for that challenge whether it be for yourself or from others.
If we go with your philosophy then we might as well just remove all magic chests, all achievement awards, all loot drops because we can fuel our fun just with beating monsters into the floor. If you remove all dungeon rewards than you also might as well remove all loot, all magic chest, all achievements, etc in the game. The rewards also help define how hard a challenge.
Absolutely, we could remove all that and derive fun from just playing the game. I never understood the "congratulations, you had fun, now here's your shiny"
idea, but yes, of course there should be some sort of reward. Not to have a better level of fun, as you put it, but simply because otherwise you'd be wearing the same armor and use the same weapons for the entire game. I'm not even saying that there shouldn't be rewards, I'm just saying that people should realize that they actually are playing for the rewards. Their character certainly would be.
That said, I'm not certain that there should be more
rewards than for doing it on level 1. I see no reason for it. When you say "rewards define how hard a challenge", that is true, and not... the challenge is hard no matter how much rewards you get for it.
Gilles VI, on 18 January 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:
And we went back to square one...
There is no gating, you can do every fractal on lvl1, thus nothing is required for you to see all content = no gating.
There is gating, because the actual content (the reason to do the thing, especially multiple times) is the rewards, not the maps you run through.
Thaddeuz, on 18 January 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:
The discussion go nowhere. We don't agree with you, you don't agree with us and nobody gonna change their mind soon. You are not totally wrong. I mean some people see Fractal like a pain in the ass and don't do it anymore, other do medium daily just for the reward, other do high level fractal for the challenge but would stop doing that if there were no reward at all, and finally there is people that would continue to do high level fractal even if there were no reward at all.
But our point is that several people ( I include myself) are doing high level fractal because of the challenge. I would be piss if they remove the reward and probably would play less fractal since i also want to get enough gold for other part of the game. If the reward i get from the Fractal were my priority i would simply do daily 20-30 and maybe 40, but i would certainly not continue to higher fractals.
So basically you are doing it for the challenge but would be upset if they didn't give you a reward? HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING MAN??