Defeat Penalties: TLDR version

If you complain about rewards in mmorpg games "Success is it's own reward, I don't need this gold or XP or gear! It can just say I win and that's enough!" AND if at the same time you complain about penalties in mmorpg games "Failure is it's own penalty, I don't need to lose gold or XP!" then your cool. You really do like just doing some individual challenge in the game, and don't care about advancing yourself in the larger picture of the game.

But if you like accepting the advancement in the games larger picture, but complain about a larger picture setback...this is just complaining about losing while being all for it if you gain.

Defeat is the penalty; we don't have to penalize you a second time.

And guildwars 2 will be trying to cater to you. On something I'm not sure can ever be adequately satisfied - wherever there is a potential for advancement, it casts a shadow. Which is the potential not to aquire that advancement and fall backward instead. You can't be satisfied until advancement does not exist, for the shadow it casts (Ie, I went backward! It's a penalty!!!).

Ohhh, poetic!

I think there are better penalties than simply guiding a character along for X amount of minutes. I can't find it now, but another blogger was suggesting fighting your way out of death (and if you can't even manage that, default to the jog of shame). The death jog is a bit like the jumping level in a FPS - a jarring change of core gameplay. Except jumping levels atleast require some skill.

Defeat 'penalties'. The bigger picture.

I wrote this on someone elses blog and thought I'd put it here. Though google bots will hate me for 'duping'.

Now, basically if you see it as a penalty, your (selectively) losing sight of the bigger picture and missnaming everything. Imagine you have a game of snakes and ladders that lasts for 600 hours. Is going down a snake a penalty? No, it's part of play.

Now you could even take out all the snakes and have either a few squares of advancement, or jumps up a ladder. Would not going up a ladder be a penalty? No, it's just part of play.

Well stick with having snakes for now because it's clearer.

Okay, what's happening is your looking at the short term picture and inventing a game there - your thinking 'Hey, I'll shoot for that ladder - hope I can make it! That's the challenge, to get to that ladder!'. Then you hit a snake instead and go 'Aww, what's the point of this snake! You don't need snakes/penalties to have the challenge of getting that ladder!

Your problem is, your focusing on the small picture, and when you do, the snakes become penalties instead of just normal gameplay elements.

Even if you removed the snakes, you'd probably treat not hitting a ladder as a penalty. After all, in wow death means earning less in one hour and you already see earning less as a penalty.

You think you can have challenge without penalty. It's only because you cherry pick, seeing the bigger picture when it's a ladder, but when it's a snake you only see a smaller picture and go 'what's the point?'.

Think about it, do you say '1000 gold? What's the point? - it could just say I win! I don't need to earn 1000 gold for it to be a challenge!'. Do you? No, I see no rants on that! On complaints about the apparent 'penalty'. You only say 'I don't need a penalty for it to be a challenge'. You never say 'I don't need a reward for it to be a challenge'!

Inside, you like winning in terms of the big picture, but when you lose in terms of the bigger picture, you game ambiguity, look only at the short term and call it unnecessary 'penalty'. Equally the 1000 gold is unnecessary 'reward' if your really only interersted in the short term challenge, but you don't complain about that, do you?

Neither is reward or penalty. Just ladder and snake on your way to the end. And yes, unless you buy the hype the game is endless, there is an end as much as Die Hard had an end, despite Die Hard 2.

Was that even an ad? Or zeal for the emperor?

I have to say this zelot take on this video is different. It's like their not even trying to sell you a game! They are just so damn focused on the empire retaking a certain sector, it's like them just getting pumped about it, rather than trying to assure you it'll be fun.

It's an interesting take - certainly someone that focused on the fiction of their gameworld is atleast interesting to watch exactly how they'll get hyped next!

Defeat penalties - a peace offering middle ground which will no doubt not be enough

Tesh has made a post about a line I looked at awhile ago with Guild Wars 2 : Death and other inconveniences

Okay, I had an idea, but honestly I suspect until a full on explorationist agenda is supported by games with no real trace of play to win, it wont satisfy. Ironically the explorationists wont be happy until the play to wins are driven before them and they hear the lamentations of their womens. I'll describe it anyway.

Something like if you go for ten minutes and kill X number of monsters in that time all without being defeated or dying, you get $$$ bonus gold. Fail = don't. Actually that's a little like the optional extra challenges you can take on in doofus, if you've ever read about them.

But I suspect it'll still be taken as a penalty, as the person who is defeated isn't having taken gold away, but they are missing out on extra gold. And aren't we all being a bit limited in our view by having (any) play to win challenge?

How to attract customers - "Your about to become the victim of a brutal ambush!"

I love the pitch that your going to be royally screwed if you come play our game. It is indeed refreshingly different. Also perhaps they could say 'Hey, why climb a bell tower in real life and be gunned down by cops, when you could express your dark bitterness in our game (after an extended subscription because 'time is on your side') pretty much endlessly, without being riddled with cop bullets that are probably banned by the geneva convention?'

Ya know what, no ones going to remember that they ganked you months ago. They can't even remember their own passwords half the time.

I think lawyers should start pitching the idea of marrying, so you can really get someone in a divorce years latter (Time is on your side!), and the lawyers obviously garner up the moolah from it. Same principle - set up dysfucntional human relationships for cash-money!