Seeking assistants for the Asuran Catapult Project. Applicants will be tested for aerodynamics.
In my opinion, Dailies are a shallow gameplay mechanic
Just looking at the thread’s title and the gist of the discussion, I’ll ask:
- What would a deep gameplay mechanic be?
- Aren’t all gameplay mechanics essentially the same?
* Aren’t we all just sitting at our computers, moving our game piece to one area or another and clicking the mouse or pushing keys to have our piece interact with virtual stuff in the game?- Why is doing the above in one fashion shallow, and another not shallow?
- Aren’t these rewards just more virtual confetti?
- And above all, are these rewards really that important that you have to have them?
Ah… a reductionist argument. No, you are incorrect. Wholes are more than the sum of their parts. Playing games are not disordered clicks of mice and random firing of neurons. I can simplify you as a configuration of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen (etc) atoms but that simplification does not represent you, even if it accurately accounts the material of which you are made.
Ah, but I never said disordered or random. Even players who choose to go see what’s over yon virtual hill are making choices. This does not change the fact that they are indeed at a computational device, using a man-machine interface to exercise those choices. The actions the player is taking are similar no matter his choices. However, through suspension of disbelief, the actions the player is envisioning are very different depending on where he moves his game piece, and what he chooses to interact with.
The OP calls the dailies shallow. This would imply that he thinks peoples’ choices are constrained because of the dailies, robbing the game of depth. The new dailies do in fact entice people to particular areas of the game. So, in that sense, once you choose to complete the dailies, your choices of where to go to do so are limited – but choosing to do the dailies is still a choice. However, people feel “forced” to do the dailies because of the reward.
So why is the daily mechanic in its current form in the game? It’s there because the community asked for it, not in so many words, but by asking for a great many things. Most of the new daily requirements are keyed to try to address shortcomings in the game pointed out by players, or to try to accommodate as many players’ preferences as possible. Did ANet fail in this implementation as the OP believes? Perhaps, but if they did, it is because they listened to the community.
Ah, but I never said disordered or random. Even players who choose to go see what’s over yon virtual hill are making choices. This does not change the fact that they are indeed at a computational device, using a man-machine interface to exercise those choices. The actions the player is taking are similar no matter his choices. However, through suspension of disbelief, the actions the player is envisioning are very different depending on where he moves his game piece, and what he chooses to interact with.
No, you didn’t say they were random, what you did say:
- Aren’t we all just sitting at our computers, moving our game piece to one area or another and clicking the mouse or pushing keys to have our piece interact with virtual stuff in the game?
So what I say is that by closing my eyes and clicking (psuedo)randomly, would I not be sitting at my keyboard, clicking the mouse, and having my piece interact with the virtual stuff in the game? If your argument is valid, then you have reduced all gameplay (and use of the keyboard) to something no more meaningful than random clicks. You didn’t say it, but it follows from your argument.
The moment you concede that there is order in the movements, clicks, decisions, then you need to concede that there is a level of complexity in this order. Information is being transmitted and processed. The intricacies of this processing and its level of complexity would indicate the “depth” of the activity. For example, a game where you are repetitively presented with a square and a triangle and must click on the square is also just a series of mouse clicks and decisions. I hope you can understand why this game would not be judged by humans as “deep.”
So if you wish to honestly compare the depth of activities in the game, have at it. But your argument that boils down to:
Aren’t all gameplay mechanics essentially the same?
doesn’t hold water.
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
Only if you are fixated on the rewards. I’m not (I buy dyes with my laurels), but I know a lot of forumdwellers are. Kind of saddens me to be honest, that a lot of people apparently need the imaginary reward to enjoy or do something.
What you do not understand is that many of these forum dwellers (myself included) actually do not need a reward. The very presence (and exclusiveness) of the reward is the problem.
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
Daily achievements for Laurels.
Daily fractals for Pristine Relics.
Daily event chests for Loot / Precursors.
Weekly guild missions for Commendations.
Monthly achievements for Laurels.
Overall DR on Loot.Everything is tied to the checklist now. Once completed, it is hard to find a reason to stay logged in.
Ah, but I never said disordered or random. Even players who choose to go see what’s over yon virtual hill are making choices. This does not change the fact that they are indeed at a computational device, using a man-machine interface to exercise those choices. The actions the player is taking are similar no matter his choices. However, through suspension of disbelief, the actions the player is envisioning are very different depending on where he moves his game piece, and what he chooses to interact with.
No, you didn’t say they were random, what you did say:
- Aren’t we all just sitting at our computers, moving our game piece to one area or another and clicking the mouse or pushing keys to have our piece interact with virtual stuff in the game?
So what I say is that by closing my eyes and clicking (psuedo)randomly, would I not be sitting at my keyboard, clicking the mouse, and having my piece interact with the virtual stuff in the game? If your argument is valid, then you have reduced all gameplay (and use of the keyboard) to something no more meaningful than random clicks. You didn’t say it, but it follows from your argument.
The moment you concede that there is order in the movements, clicks, decisions, then you need to concede that there is a level of complexity in this order. Information is being transmitted and processed. The intricacies of this processing and its level of complexity would indicate the “depth” of the activity. For example, a game where you are repetitively presented with a square and a triangle and must click on the square is also just a series of mouse clicks and decisions. I hope you can understand why this game would not be judged by humans as “deep.”
So if you wish to honestly compare the depth of activities in the game, have at it. But your argument that boils down to:
Aren’t all gameplay mechanics essentially the same?
doesn’t hold water.
I asked questions. You make the assumption that those questions are the argument. I was asking the questions to get people to focus on what they are actually doing (i.e., the choices they are making). Perhaps my approach was misguided.
The OP calls dailies shallow. Yet the current dailies offer choices. If, as you say, "The intricacies of this processing and its level of complexity would indicate the “depth” of the activity." then wouldn’t having more choices as we do now indicate greater depth than before? However, the current dailies (in some cases, anyway) limit choices about where to do while adding choices about what to do. In the terms used in the non-link provided by Tobias, ANet has added complexity but not depth. While they added options, they also removed options.
However, the fundamental choice is neither where nor what. It is the choice to do or not to do. So why are people choosing to do the dailies if they would really prefer to be doing something else? I think we all know the answer to that question.
And thanks for engaging in the discussion.
COMING SOON, an exciting new feature for Guild Wars 2… Reputation and Factions!
Experience the thrill of what makes every other MMO so much better than GW2, by taking part in fantastic new daily quests! Slowly crawl up the social ladder, by completing repetitive chores every day — with the promise of maybe one day owning a magic pair of boots, or a hat!
Check out hot new Factions, like The Horse-Killers Council: Nestled in the hills of Queensdale, is a secret fort where a cadre centaur-slaying warriors are looking to recruit new would-be members. Each day, you can go hang out at their place and defeat 10 centaurs, thus gaining one point of prestige with these fine ladies and gentlemen. Every 1000 points puts you up a rank, and when you get to the top rank you are awarded a set of shoulders!
Once you have attained the highest status amongst each of the nine factions we’re introducing, you may then enter an exciting new dungeon: The Halls of Deja Vu! Each mini-boss has a 5% chance of dropping a piece of gear. Unless all five of your party members have a full set of the new dungeon gear, only THEN may you pass to the final chamber and defeat the boss! Oh, the intrigue!
Finally, we’ll be doing away with those horrible daily achievements and rewards that you all hate so much. They were far too restrictive and demanding, and sometimes required some modicum of attention. Now, you won’t have to pay attention at all — by the end of all this stuff, you’ll have the routine memorized and will be doing it in your sleep. Why, it won’t even feel like a GAME anymore!
(edited by Fyrebrand.4859)
I asked questions. You make the assumption that those questions are the argument. I was asking the questions to get people to focus on what they are actually doing (i.e., the choices they are making). Perhaps my approach was misguided.
Really? OK, the answer is still “NO.”
The OP calls dailies shallow. Yet the current dailies offer choices. If, as you say, "The intricacies of this processing and its level of complexity would indicate the “depth” of the activity." then wouldn’t having more choices as we do now indicate greater depth than before? However, the current dailies (in some cases, anyway) limit choices about where to do while adding choices about what to do. In the terms used in the non-link provided by Tobias, ANet has added complexity but not depth. While they added options, they also removed options.
Choices do not have to indicate any depth of significance. I can have you choose to differentiate triangle/squares, circles/triangles, or circles/squares. Big deal. Most of us probably mastered all of these tasks by the age of 4 — no matter what task we choose the game is overly simplistic and trivial to our capabilities. The choice itself can be done irrationally or randomly and is of little consequence.
However, the fundamental choice is neither where nor what. It is the choice to do or not to do. So why are people choosing to do the dailies if they would really prefer to be doing something else? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Yes, we know. They are being manipulated into doing them. What is your point?
And thanks for engaging in the discussion.
Patronizing… nice.
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
I asked questions. You make the assumption that those questions are the argument. I was asking the questions to get people to focus on what they are actually doing (i.e., the choices they are making). Perhaps my approach was misguided.
Really? OK, the answer is still “NO.”
The OP calls dailies shallow. Yet the current dailies offer choices. If, as you say, "The intricacies of this processing and its level of complexity would indicate the “depth” of the activity." then wouldn’t having more choices as we do now indicate greater depth than before? However, the current dailies (in some cases, anyway) limit choices about where to do while adding choices about what to do. In the terms used in the non-link provided by Tobias, ANet has added complexity but not depth. While they added options, they also removed options.
Choices do not have to indicate any depth of significance. I can have you choose to differentiate triangle/squares, circles/triangles, or circles/squares. Big deal. Most of us probably mastered all of these tasks by the age of 4 — no matter what task we choose the game is overly simplistic and trivial to our capabilities. The choice itself can be done irrationally or randomly and is of little consequence.
However, the fundamental choice is neither where nor what. It is the choice to do or not to do. So why are people choosing to do the dailies if they would really prefer to be doing something else? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Yes, we know. They are being manipulated into doing them. What is your point?
And thanks for engaging in the discussion.
Patronizing… nice.
It seems that you are more interested in having an argument than making one, so I’ll pass on continuing. Good day to you.