These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Unbiased Criticisms for the Game
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-10-23 02:17:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
What's the design philosophy?

For fresh subs?
There's nothing to do in station.
There's nothing to do in space.

Stylistically?

It's a design that takes no advantage of reinforcing gameplay exploration nor of reinforcing any type of logon behaviors. What does this signify? It's basically a huge "If I limit everything, maybe subs will be interested enough to initiate their skill queue for some type of gameplay and enjoy it'."

Here's a blog post about SWG's design. It's discussing maximizing both simplicity (quick logons for setting offline crafting and harvesting) and efficiency (having the fastest advancement of any MMO on its introduction). That's a very clear setup for how subs should enjoy the sandbox. If they get locked in to some banter with their crew or in an adventure, that's magnificent.

As a further note, SWG is listed as having a churn problem, ascribed to "lack of content". That's actually a really helpful baseline. If most "potentials" for any game quit because of that, there's aplenty possible for improving the fantasy and reward of the experience -- it's a video game. Can any here imagine or list a game that seems less interesting after a decent amount of the content is completed? That explains WoW's sub trends perfectly! This is a great correlation: stuff to do is reason to come play.

There's also decent reason to disregard mechanics as the reason a game is great or popular. MOBAs are pretty shallow, playing the same map and farming the same creeps over again, but the games have some of the best PCUs. This is where established motivation science helps. Competence (mastery), relatedness (competitiveness and socialization), and autonomy (freedom of choice and depth) are principal. To undermine these is to undermine what's being touted as the best reasons to come back and to refer crews for that competitiveness play.

If I said you could only use 15 words, would you ever speak?

That's a conundrum, isn't it? Fresh subs come with the idea that they can be competitive and maybe thrive like they were dropped in a castle with no caste system. In fact, being relevant is probably the only reason they would stay. A sandbox game has no design prerogative to limit that, in a huge bait-and-switch that ends up asking for more money, basically.

Quote:
It's the fresh sub wondering about reprocessing his cool ores.. and instead selling it on the market because of his low efficiency. It's wondering what the margins are on producing ships.. and it being absolutely without profits. With other MMOs, especially original WoW, there's so much diversity -- achievements, mounts, leveling, WPvP, instanced gameplay including arenas and gamemodes, the fantasy fulfillment of "raiding" and exploration, and professions. All of those define an average character experience. It's a game. Limiting gameplay because there hasn't been enough money paid is unrealistic and inauthentic. The market is keen on that. Some $500 spent for every 25M SP of experiencing this MMO would obviously rather be applied for a more enthralling hobby.

There's a whole, established science of motivation; and SP is completely worthless for that intrinsic motivation that really defines play and creativity (but puts it behind a paywall). Paying money is also initiated by motivation. There's a deep game beyond SP. That's where the sustain and referral potential is.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2015-10-23 02:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: helana Tsero
Dror wrote:
What's the design philosophy?

For fresh subs?
There's nothing to do in station.
There's nothing to do in space.

Stylistically?

It's a design that takes no advantage of reinforcing gameplay exploration nor of reinforcing any type of logon behaviors. What does this signify? It's basically a huge "If I limit everything, maybe subs will be interested enough to initiate their skill queue for some type of gameplay and enjoy it'."

Here's a blog post about SWG's design. It's discussing maximizing both simplicity (quick logons for setting offline crafting and harvesting) and efficiency (having the fastest advancement of any MMO on its introduction). That's a very clear setup for how subs should enjoy the sandbox. If they get locked in to some banter with their crew or in an adventure, that's magnificent.

As a further note, SWG is listed as having a churn problem, ascribed to "lack of content". That's actually a really helpful baseline. If most "potentials" for any game quit because of that, there's aplenty possible for improving the fantasy and reward of the experience -- it's a video game. Can any here imagine or list a game that seems less interesting after a decent amount of the content is completed? That explains WoW's sub trends perfectly! This is a great correlation: stuff to do is reason to come play.

There's also decent reason to disregard mechanics as the reason a game are great or popular. MOBAs are pretty shallow, playing the same map and farming the same creeps over again, but the games have some of the best PCUs. This is where established motivation science helps. Competence (mastery), relatedness (competitiveness and socialization), and autonomy (freedom of choice and depth) are principal. To undermine these is to undermine what's being touted as the best reasons to come back and to refer crews for that competitiveness play.

If I said you could only use 15 words, would you ever speak?

That's a conundrum, isn't it? Fresh subs come with the idea that they can be competitive and maybe thrive like they were dropped in a castle with no caste system. In fact, being relevant is probably the only reason they would stay. A sandbox game has no design prerogative to limit that, in a huge bait-and-switch that ends up asking for more money, basically.

Quote:
It's the fresh sub wondering about reprocessing his cool ores.. and instead selling it on the market because of his low efficiency. It's wondering what the margins are on producing ships.. and it being absolutely without profits. With other MMOs, especially original WoW, there's so much diversity -- achievements, mounts, leveling, WPvP, instanced gameplay including arenas and gamemodes, the fantasy fulfillment of "raiding" and exploration, and professions. All of those define an average character experience. It's a game. Limiting gameplay because there hasn't been enough money paid is unrealistic and inauthentic. The market is keen on that. Some $500 spent for every 25M SP of experiencing this MMO would obviously rather be applied for a more enthralling hobby.

There's a whole, established science of motivation; and SP is completely worthless for that intrinsic motivation that really defines play and creativity (but puts it behind a paywall). Paying money is also initiated by motivation. There's a deep game beyond SP. That's where the sustain and referral potential is.


I tried to understand what you posted I really did.

did you just have half a thought and then just copy paste from some game design theory book or blog your reading in your first year college course...

Also EvE has more stuff to do than pretty much any game you could name... however finding that content is harder than the majority of games

"...ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new.... thats where eve is placed... not in cave."  | zoonr-Korsairs |

Meanwhile Citadel release issues: "tried to bug report this and the bug report is bugged as well" | Rafeau |
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#3 - 2015-10-23 02:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Isn't a criticism automatically biased since it has a view against something?

Aside from that, ah.......ok I guess.
Paul Pohl
blue media poetry
#4 - 2015-10-23 02:31:57 UTC
thanks for confirming why 'game design' is one of those non-degrees
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-10-23 02:38:40 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Isn't a criticism automatically biased since it has a view against something?

Aside from that, ok I guess.

Is the result of scientific research bias?

helana Tsero wrote:
I tried to understand what you posted I really did.

did you just have half a thought and then just copy paste from some game design theory book or blog your reading in your first year college course...

Also EvE has more stuff to do than pretty much any game you could name... however finding that content is harder than the majority of games

I hear that the best suggestion for not understanding something is asking a question. If you're not interested enough for that, then why post?

So, in an average experience with MMOs, limiting players to just training their "combat stats" instead of actually having an industrial role is the standard? That's, of course, ludicrous.

The gameplay can seem great.
Quote:
The level of skillfulness that a game supports is less relevant than the option of being the best -- it's great competing over roles and "top scores". So, it's on SP to prove itself, and there's no obvious way it can. The game relies on very non-PvP methods of making ISK (for countering exploitation), so the idea that PvP should somehow sustain gameplay interest is unfeasible. Thus, limiting the other playstyles (as a design philosophy) is completely counter-productive.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2015-10-23 02:43:35 UTC
I actually have an interest in game design, and I am struggling to find a clear point in all you've posted. Something about player retention I take it?
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2015-10-23 02:49:54 UTC
I physically cannot understand what point you're even getting at with this short essay. I've read it 3 times now and I simply cannot figure out what you are trying to say.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#8 - 2015-10-23 03:00:15 UTC
This is a stealth SP pack thread, isn't it?

ISN'T IT?!!?

Mr Epeen Cool
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#9 - 2015-10-23 03:08:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
Ok I have no idea about most of that. But if you want to understand the design philosophy behind eve I suggest watching one of the old trailers Causality or Butterfly effect, the philosophy is literally spelled out.

Apropos of nothing, I personally think that these single trailers are hundred times better than This Is EVE, one of the worst trailers ever to be made and resulting in almost no retention. Probably even worse than a CNN article. Technically good from a editing standpoint sure...out of context clips, explosions, bombastic music with fake emotion key changes, the editor could probably work in Hollywood, but terrible for answering the question "what is eve".

Anyone coming into eve waiting for content to be served up like wow is already a lost subscriber even before they start.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#10 - 2015-10-23 03:08:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Dror wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Isn't a criticism automatically biased since it has a view against something?

Aside from that, ok I guess.

Is the result of scientific research bias?

In general scientific results themselves cannot be biased, they can only be reasonable, or not reasonable based on the data and experimental methods they're derived from.

Bias is a function of people, not data (and unfortunately people can design biased experiments even unintentionally).

What scientists and others (particularly the media) do with scientific results can certainly be biased.

I'd argue that the whole purpose of good science is in a way to provide evidence to support bias, not bias in further experimentation (that's not a good thing and requires careful consideration at times in experimental design), but bias in terms of outcomes that affect thinking.

However scientific research is not criticism either. That's is a kind of pointless analogy.

Cristicism however, is automatically biased. It can be objectively biased (eg. evidence based decisions), or subjectively based (eg. this thread).

Subjective bias is just opinion, which is exactly what this thread is. It isn't scientifically based.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2015-10-23 03:15:29 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Dror wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Isn't a criticism automatically biased since it has a view against something?

Aside from that, ok I guess.

Is the result of scientific research bias?

Scientific results themselves cannot be biased, they can only be reasonable, or not reasonable.

Bias is a function of people, not data.

What scientists and others (particularly the media) do with scientific results can certainly be biased.

I'd argue that the whole purpose of good science is in a way to provide evidence to support bias (not bias in further experimentation, but bias in terms of outcomes that affect thinking).

However scientific research is not criticism either. That's is a kind of pointless analogy.

Cristicism however, is automatically biased. It can be objectively biased (eg. evidence based decisions), or subjectively based (eg. this thread).

Subjective bias is just opinion, which is exactly what this thread is. It isn't scientifically based.

If there is commonality, say of inherent psychological drives and fulfillments, there is no room in game design for "but subjectivity". If you would say criticism is automatically biased, how could you have compassion for the idea of flaws?

Motivation science is established.

Quote:
You're making the whole of issues out to be a people problem. Prove it, then. Prove that motivation isn't some inherent process that design has to be submitted to. Prove that undermining player skillfulness is motivating, instead of its alternative of allowing progression and mastery.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#12 - 2015-10-23 03:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Dror wrote:
If there is commonality, say of inherent psychological drives and fulfillments, there is no room in game design for "but subjectivity". If you would say criticism is automatically biased, how could you have compassion for the idea of flaws

On the first part, I'm not a social scientist, so have no clue.

On the second part, it's easy to have compassion for flaws, by providing objective criticism, or otherwise recognize the limits of opinion. No blame is required and bias doesn't automatically mean 'without compassion'.

Why would compassion have any bearing?
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2015-10-23 03:36:13 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Dror wrote:
If there is commonality, say of inherent psychological drives and fulfillments, there is no room in game design for "but subjectivity". If you would say criticism is automatically biased, how could you have compassion for the idea of flaws

On the first part, I'm not a social scientist, so have no clue.

On the second part, it's easy to have compassion for flaws, by providing objective criticism, or otherwise recognize the limits of opinion. No blame is required and bias doesn't automatically mean 'without compassion'.

Why would compassion have any bearing?

Because if it's not about compassion, it's not about understanding; and that whole definition of bias is just a huge appeal to the dictionary, arguing semantics.

Isn't the OP an objective criticism?

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Jonas Kanjus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2015-10-23 03:50:25 UTC
To the OP, one cannot be unbiased and criticize at the same time. Look at both definitions from the Oxford Dictionary:

unbiased: showing no prejudice for or against something; impartial.
criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes

So, since you started your post by attacking Eve's design philosophy, that would make you a critic since the design is a perceived fault to you.

Also, scientific research is initially based on the scientific method, which should be unbiased. IMO, scientific research (or science in general) becomes biased when the public (or specific groups) are opposed to the ideals behind the research. The bias is fed from the feelings and moral obligations of the public and/or specified groups. Alternatively, those specific groups and/or public become biased when sides within them are formed.

So ya, the topic of this thread is an oxymoron.

My start date to EVE Online: 6/25/2005 8:24:57 AM UTC
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#15 - 2015-10-23 03:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Dror wrote:
Because if it's not about compassion

That was kind of my point. So if it isn't about compassion, why would compassion have any bearing?

It wouldn't, so didn't warrant adding into the discussion.

Quote:
...and that whole definition of bias is just a huge appeal to the dictionary, arguing semantics.

Well, we communicate in written words in a forum. Semantics are indivisible from that. If you write what you don't mean, then it's all kind of pointless, so the basis of any discussion is that you wrote what you meant, which in this case makes little sense.

Quote:
Isn't the OP an objective criticism?

If it's objective or not, I don't believe so.

The start of your OP asks a question and then provides two answers that very clearly demonstrate your position. There is nothing objective about it. That part, which defines your whole underlying view, is very subjective.

For fresh subs?
There's nothing to do in station.
There's nothing to do in space.

Is clearly a very subjective judgement.
Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-10-23 03:55:02 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

On the first part, I'm not a social scientist, so have no clue.


Implying social 'scientists' have a clue

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2015-10-23 04:07:52 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Well, we communicate in written words in a forum. Semantics are indivisible from that. If you write what you don't mean, then it's all kind of pointless, so the basis of any discussion is that you wrote what you meant, which in this case makes little sense.
Forum doomsday blow!

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2015-10-23 04:09:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Jonas Kanjus wrote:
To the OP, one cannot be unbiased and criticize at the same time. Look at both definitions from the Oxford Dictionary:

unbiased: showing no prejudice for or against something; impartial.
criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes

So, since you started your post by attacking Eve's design philosophy, that would make you a critic since the design is a perceived fault to you.

Also, scientific research is initially based on the scientific method, which should be unbiased. IMO, scientific research (or science in general) becomes biased when the public (or specific groups) are opposed to the ideals behind the research. The bias is fed from the feelings and moral obligations of the public and/or specified groups. Alternatively, those specific groups and/or public become biased when sides within them are formed.

So ya, the topic of this thread is an oxymoron.

An appeal to the dictionary is a logical fallacy, ya know..

I could pull the same dictionary and probably another definition that fits. Again, it's just semantics at that.

Yet, there's no unbased critique in the OP. It's simply saying that, even per CCP videos, motivation and expectations are key to improving retention and thus the overall experience. If development criticizes their game, are they biased against it? That's an underwhelming standard for definition.

Scipio Artelius wrote:
Dror wrote:
Because if it's not about compassion

That was kind of my point. So if it isn't about compassion, why would compassion have any bearing?

It wouldn't, so didn't warrant adding into the discussion.

Quote:
...and that whole definition of bias is just a huge appeal to the dictionary, arguing semantics.

Well, we communicate in written words in a forum. Semantics are indivisible from that. If you write what you don't mean, then it's all kind of pointless, so the basis of any discussion is that you wrote what you meant, which in this case makes little sense.

Quote:
Isn't the OP an objective criticism?

If it's objective or not, I don't believe so.

The start of your OP asks a question and then provides two answers that very clearly demonstrate your position. There is nothing objective about it. That part, which defines your whole underlying view, is very subjective.

For fresh subs?
There's nothing to do in station.
There's nothing to do in space.

Is clearly a very subjective judgement.

There's a lot more for that post, so this seems like quite the shallow assessment.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Jonas Kanjus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-10-23 04:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Kanjus
Dror wrote:
Jonas Kanjus wrote:
To the OP, one cannot be unbiased and criticize at the same time. Look at both definitions from the Oxford Dictionary:

unbiased: showing no prejudice for or against something; impartial.
criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes

So, since you started your post by attacking Eve's design philosophy, that would make you a critic since the design is a perceived fault to you.

Also, scientific research is initially based on the scientific method, which should be unbiased. IMO, scientific research (or science in general) becomes biased when the public (or specific groups) are opposed to the ideals behind the research. The bias is fed from the feelings and moral obligations of the public and/or specified groups. Alternatively, those specific groups and/or public become biased when sides within them are formed.

So ya, the topic of this thread is an oxymoron.

An appeal to the dictionary is a logical fallacy, ya know..

I could pull the same dictionary and probably another definition that fits. Again, it's just semantics at that.

Yet, there's no unbased critique in the OP. It's simply saying that, even per CCP videos, motivation and expectations are key to improving retention and thus the overall experience. If development criticizes their game, are they biased against it? That's an underwhelming standard for definition.



You seem to be missing the point. From what I have just read, you seem to think for one to be biased or a critic, they need to have a negative opinion. However, being biased or a critic goes both ways. It is very well conceivable for CCP to have a positive bias towards their product.

Another point you seem to be missing, you are pointing out perceived faults of the game; which by definition, makes your whole opinion biased.

I will stand by my previous statement that the thread topic is an oxymoron.

My start date to EVE Online: 6/25/2005 8:24:57 AM UTC
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2015-10-23 04:28:19 UTC
Jonas Kanjus wrote:
Dror wrote:

An appeal to the dictionary is a logical fallacy, ya know..

I could pull the same dictionary and probably another definition that fits. Again, it's just semantics at that.

Yet, there's no unbased critique in the OP. It's simply saying that, even per CCP videos, motivation and expectations are key to improving retention and thus the overall experience. If development criticizes their game, are they biased against it? That's an underwhelming standard for definition.



You seem to be missing the point. From what I have just read, you seem to think for one to be biased or a critic, they need to have a negative opinion. However, being biased or a critic goes both ways. It is very well conceivable for CCP to have a positive bias towards their product.

Another point you seem to be missing, you are pointing out perceived faults of the game; which by definition, makes your whole opinion biased.

I will stand by my previous statement that the thread topic is an oxymoron.

Unbiased just means fair.

Do you actually have anything to say about the topic?

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
123Next pageLast page