Do you think you are a part of the "Target Audience"? Why or Why not?

I was going to ask this in the related thread, but I feel this question is specific enough to need a separate thread.

I'll start:

I think I am a part of the target audience. Here is why.

I value the emergent storytelling that comes from a persistent open world competitive environment as the apex of modern gaming. Games like Eve, Darkfall Online, Lineage 2, and Mortal Online have been among my favorite examples. Games where the world is not an instanced theme park, but a theater of war for real-world people to not have to role-play, but to actually be a part of a real war. To me, the drama and betrayal that comes from these environments is better than any book I can read or movie I can watch.

This is what Ashes is trying to do with the node and corruption systems. The node system turns the traditional MMORPG world into a living, breathing theater of war. No longer will zones, be static areas for developers to tell their stories, but instead they will be dynamic areas for players to live their stories.

What also appeals to me about Ashes is that, unlike the four games listed above. Ashes has what those games have, and the features of a modern MMORPG. Mounts, cosmetics, housing, and good graphics. I have always said that I love Sci-fi, but if there was a fantasy game that was like EVE with modern third-person combat. That would be the game for me. Ashes is not exactly that, but it is a close enough cousin to get me excited and accept some of the things I feel are flaws.

If you think I am not a part of the "Target Audience", based on anything I have just said. I invite you to tell me why as well.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

The idea that end-game is the focus, that the ''real fun'' is the end game, is a great part of what made mmo-rpgs so stagnant and... honeslty, garbage these last years.

I would say that what has done this are developers not pushing out enough quality end game content.

There is nothing at all wrong with a game with an end game focus - unless the game doesn't have the end game content to support it.

You even basically prove this point by saying that leveling can be the most fun part of the game if done right.

If done right.

If end game is done right, it is the most fun part of the game, but both leveling and end game are shit if they are not done right.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

There is nothing at all wrong with a game with an end game focus - unless the game doesn't have the end game content to support it.

Depends what you mean with focus.

If you mean that there is where the replayability is and since replayability is the most important part of a game the end game is the most important, then we agree.

Noaani wrote: »

If done right.

If end game is done right, it is the most fun part of the game,

We're going in the realm of the subjective here.
Arguably the end game is going to be more stale than leveling, which for many excludes it as being the most fun part.
Its also a subjective status because leveling is usually the honeymoon you have with a game so there's that too, to consider (although it often goes well into the post max-level period).

Either way, my point was that ignoring leveling was a huge mistake done by modern mmo-rpgs.

It appears like AoC won't do that.
Here's hoping.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

We're going in the realm of the subjective here.

We went in to subjective when you said leveling content can be the most fun part of the game if done right.

That is subjective, 100%.

All I did was point out that the best part of a game is the part of the game that is made the best.

Xerheart

@Vhaeyne

Absolutely, I think you worded it exactly right. I feel like AoC has the opportunity to provide solid content that will wrap me up in it and have me enjoy, especially with a solid guild/group of friends.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

It really does feel like I am the man from Plato's allegory explaining things like trees and the sky to people who have only seen shadows on the cave wall. I am not trying to sound like an elitist or anything. I just truly struggle to find the words to convey how good real competitive open-world games MMORPGs can be.

No worries, you're not sounding elitist. I feel like it just sounds like you are a huge fan of this type of MMO style and you want others to get to experience something you really enjoy as well. At least, that's how I took it XD.

I def think I could have lots of fun even without a heavy PvE scene. Although I am thinking of adding a thread trying to see how people would like some bits of end game PvE implemented if it were to be added (I think it's going to be a lot of "what-ifs" and hypothetical situations though haha, as obv we stated, PvE would be a lot lower on the priority list of development concerns).

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

You are complaining about generic terms

PvE, PvP, Sandbox and Themepark are generic terms.

PvX and sand-park are not.

I mean, all you need to do in order to see the confusion among players is look at this thread and the wide variety of people that think the game is definitely aimed directly at them (there is no way any one game can have both Dygz and George as their target player, as an example).

This thread wouldn't exist if that information was obvious or clear.

Intrepid have told us a lot - but a lot of what they have told us is meaningless in terms of understanding who the game is actually for.

How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?

If PvP and PvE are generic, then i don't know how PvPvE aka PvX is not. Same thing with sandpark, if themepark and sandbox are generic, then how is sandpark, a genre that exists between those two extremes not also a generic descriptor.

Once again, they have also told you more than just PvX and Sandpark.

It's like you going to a mechanic, the mechanic saying "There was a leak" and then going on to explain the details of the leak, explaining exactly where it is. Afterwards, you go to your buddies and start mocking the mechanic for saying there was a leak because of how generic the phrase is, completely ignoring the details they told you afterwards.

Ashes has a lot of features. I don't think it's crazy to think there are people who might like some and not others. Dygz is here because despite the features he doesn't like, there are other aspects of the game he likes.

I'm pretty sure the info is clear. If there is an issue, it's that people don't have experience with the systems they are implementing. To even start to understand how the game is played you have to factor in how the systems play off each other.

So you want them to use more generic terms to define the audience of the game? That is kind of silly and comes across as some weird way to gatekeep. As i said when talking about dygz, there are many features in the game. People might like some while not liking others. At the end of the day, just let people play the game. If they like it, cool, if not, also cool.

beaushinkle

Some quick reality checking to make sure everyone is on the same page:

"The developers anticipate max level should be attainable in approximately 45 days if you play roughly 4-6 hours per day"

Napkin math puts that at 225 hours of play time to hit max level. If dedicated players are going to be putting in 1000 hours of playtime, that's around 1/4th of their experience. If dedicated players are going to be putting in 10,000+ hours of playtime, that's ~1/40th of their experience.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Maybe they will come up with something innovative to allow to open world raids to compete with WoW raids.

Can't happen.

You can't say that for sure. That's what would make it innovative, after all.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?

Define them.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?

Define them.

I'm pretty sure i did.

When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.

While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, you are free to do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.

Archeage is a sandpark if you want an example, at least thats what the devs were trying to make.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?

Define them.

I'm pretty sure i did.

You didn't - though at least now you have tried.

When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.

This definition would have every online game I have ever played be considered a PvX game.

A game with both an arena and a raid is a PvX game by the above.

If Intrepid wanted Ashes to be a PvPvE game, why did they not use that instead of PvX? PvPvE is a term that a few games have used - including ESO. PvX is simply a way to try and distance Ashes from those games - which then forces us to have to ask what exactly is it about those games that Ashes is trying to do differently in order to need to create that distance?

We don't know, because we have no real idea what Intrepid mean by PvX - so we can't compare that to games that are PvPvE that Intrepid is trying to create that space between.

Perhaps someone should ask Steven what the difference between PvX and PvPvE is - and if nothing, why he didn't just stick with a term that has been in use for years and is somewhat understood.

While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, basically go do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.

Archeage is a sandpark if you want an example, at least thats what the devs were trying to make.

I'm aware that Archeage attempted to call itself a sandpark game, but it did an equally bad job of defining what that was.

The game had an incredibly linear leveling progression, and had a single path to gear once you hit the level cap - and no real content other than getting that gear. In their case, "sandpark" became little more than a marketing term to explain why they never spent any development time on new content (that game received less new content in 4 years than EQ2 received yearly - over a decade after release).

Thing is, I have also seen other games (EQN, specifically) that called themselves a sandpark that basically had a plan of building a complete sandbox game, and then adding full themepark content to it. This is vastly different to what Archeage did (or tried to do, or claimed to have done), and was what Steven made it seem like Intrepid was aiming for with Ashes back in 2017 - 2019.

This is why these terms are not good terms to use. They are not defined in any way, shape or form.

Songcaller

PvX means your gear can be used for any event, although tailored gear might be better for certain events. Most other MMOs differentiate between PvE Gear and PvP Gears (Which I detest) and PvX was the reason I backed. It does not denote Player vs player vs environment because as Noaani said, all MMOs can be classified as such. The PvX Title relates only to the gear in my opinion.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

PvX means your gear can be used for any event, although tailored gear might be better for certain events. Most other MMOs differentiate between PvE Gear and PvP Gears (Which I detest) and PvX was the reason I backed. It does not denote Player vs player vs environment because as Noaani said, all MMOs can be classified as such. The PvX Title relates only to the gear in my opinion.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.

This is a unique take on the definition of PvX that I have never seen before - and if nothing else just furthers the point that as a term it really means nothing, as it means different things to different people.

Songcaller

I'm amazed you have never come across the term before. I believe Archeage is also PvX in terms of gear. Age of Conan was PvX until the devs added PvP Armour. Some definitions may be obscure but the obscurity doesn't make the term wrong. I would not accept another definition.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I'm amazed you have never come across the term before. I believe Archeage is also PvX in terms of gear. Age of Conan was PvX until the devs added PvP Armour. Some definitions may be obscure but the obscurity doesn't make the term wrong. I would not accept another definition.

I've come across the term before - that isn't the issue.

The issue is - as I have said - the term has no real definition.

Your definition still leaves EQ2 as being a PvX game (when I left it, at least), even if WoW isn't.

Songcaller

Yeah, the problem relates to the server functions - Most MMOs will have a RP Server, a PvE Server and a PvP Server, but, the same equipment would be used on all three which umbrellas them under PvX.

If you add in PvP Armour then on the PvP Server most would use PvP Armour, in a PvE Server most would use PvE Armour and in an RP Server you would have a mixture.

Of course, I've simplified the umbrella term to avoid confusion. I will repeat I only play PvX Games, once the gear becomes separated by the PvE and PvP Tag I often quite within a year.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?

Define them.

I'm pretty sure i did.

You didn't - though at least now you have tried.

When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.

This definition would have every online game I have ever played be considered a PvX game.

A game with both an arena and a raid is a PvX game by the above.

If Intrepid wanted Ashes to be a PvPvE game, why did they not use that instead of PvX? PvPvE is a term that a few games have used - including ESO. PvX is simply a way to try and distance Ashes from those games - which then forces us to have to ask what exactly is it about those games that Ashes is trying to do differently in order to need to create that distance?

We don't know, because we have no real idea what Intrepid mean by PvX - so we can't compare that to games that are PvPvE that Intrepid is trying to create that space between.

Perhaps someone should ask Steven what the difference between PvX and PvPvE is - and if nothing, why he didn't just stick with a term that has been in use for years and is somewhat understood.

Yep, COD is a pvx game. Has a pve campaign and a pvp multiplayer.

Someone can say im wrong but to my knowledge PvX == PvPvE. I's an easier way of saying it and a term i've seen used for a while now. Not sure why they need to say something else. What did you think the x meant. You think we were going to be fighting aliens or something?

Once again, you ignore the fact they have given us more than this. Back to my mechanic example, they said there was a leak and explained it. You are coming back and saying a leak could be anything.

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, basically go do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.

Archeage is a sandpark if you want an example, at least thats what the devs were trying to make.

I'm aware that Archeage attempted to call itself a sandpark game, but it did an equally bad job of defining what that was.

The game had an incredibly linear leveling progression, and had a single path to gear once you hit the level cap - and no real content other than getting that gear. In their case, "sandpark" became little more than a marketing term to explain why they never spent any development time on new content (that game received less new content in 4 years than EQ2 received yearly - over a decade after release).

Thing is, I have also seen other games (EQN, specifically) that called themselves a sandpark that basically had a plan of building a complete sandbox game, and then adding full themepark content to it. This is vastly different to what Archeage did (or tried to do, or claimed to have done), and was what Steven made it seem like Intrepid was aiming for with Ashes back in 2017 - 2019.

This is why these terms are not good terms to use. They are not defined in any way, shape or form.

When AA was first launched, it had linear level progression but not have linear gearing which was the idea. The game is introduced with the linear level progression and then sets you loose at the end.

Define what you mean by full themepark content and what made you think it was going to have it and now wont?

If this is about instanced raids, they said early on the instancing was going to be limited, mostly around story content and the best gear was going to come from open world bosses.

Once again mechanic example, they have explained a lot of the games features to us so saying they said this one word that you thought meant something doesn't excuse you ignoring all the other things they have said about the game.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

What did you think the x meant.

Again, what I think it means is unimportant.

What you think it means is unimportant.

What Neurath thinks it means is unimportant.

What is important is that the three of us all have different meanings for it - and all of them are both right and wrong because there is no definition for it.

Okeydoke

Some of you guys are overcomplicating the fk out of this. This is not rocket science. Pvx is a term that describes a game or a game mode as being player vs anything, including pvp and pve and generally not separating the two.

That pvx game could still have elements of pve or pvp separately sectioned off, but in general the pvx rule set applies so it labels itself a pvx game.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

Some of you guys are overcomplicating the fk out of this. This is not rocket science. Pvx is a term that describes a game or a game mode as being player vs anything, including pvp and pve and generally not separating the two.

That pvx game could still have elements of pve or pvp separately sectioned off, but in general the pvx rule set applies so it labels itself a pvx game.

In other words, it doesn't really mean anything.

Okeydoke

It describes the general rule set of the game and let's players know that they can expect pvp and pve to be intermixed with each other the vast majority of the time.

Child Item