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

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

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.

If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.

Songcaller

The problem remains that the definition is available but people don't want to accept the definition in some sort of crusade against the information the devs have given. If Ashes becomes anything other than PvX I won't play and if the game continues the current path of PvX I will play. I think if you are quibbling about tags then perhaps you have bigger issues, at least with the current information provided I can suggest that I am of the target audience at least.

Okeydoke

There are crusaders crusading. Just 2-3 more years of this.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.

Again, you are not getting it.

Intrepid want to explain the game to people.

They say the game is PvX.

We have what - four different definitions of PvX in the last few posts of this thread?

While you may well have a definition that you like, there is literally no way for you to know if that is the definition Intrepid have for it. PvX encompasses games from WoW through to Dark Souls, Mario Cart to CoD, and as such is not a particularly good term to try and explain your game to people.

People coming from those games would look at what Intrepid have said about the game and have wildly different pictures of what the game will be - if you don't see that as an issue, I'm not sure what to say.

And again, this is the easier of the two terms we are talking about here to try and define.

Okeydoke

If people are that challenged that they can't figure out what pvx means in the context of an mmo, theres nothing anyone can say to help them. 5th graders deal with harder concepts.

bigepeen

Let's not be pedantic, and just look at the systems described so far to give us a good idea of what the game aims to be. Obviously, we know that this game isn't meant to be a PvE or PvP game, otherwise it would be generalized as such.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.

Again, you are not getting it.

Intrepid want to explain the game to people.

They say the game is PvX.

We have what - four different definitions of PvX in the last few posts of this thread?

While you may well have a definition that you like, there is literally no way for you to know if that is the definition Intrepid have for it. PvX encompasses games from WoW through to Dark Souls, Mario Cart to CoD, and as such is not a particularly good term to try and explain your game to people.

People coming from those games would look at what Intrepid have said about the game and have wildly different pictures of what the game will be - if you don't see that as an issue, I'm not sure what to say.

And again, this is the easier of the two terms we are talking about here to try and define.

With your logic, using Pv*anything* is confusing. If someone says it's pve, then how do they know if it's mario, darksouls, wow. How do i know a pvp game isn't a fps or a fighting game?

They said there will be dragons in the game, is that going to confuse people and make them think this is monster hunter?

For starters, you usually don't see ashes is a PvX, Sandpark, MMO and focus in on the pvx part and assume the game is cod. That part is being silly.

Outside of that, yea, people will have some idea but won't know what the game is until out and i don't see that as a big deal.

But what do you think they should describe their game to make sure it's not confusing to anyone?

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

If it means nothing to you then yes, ignore it, and focus on the features they have mentioned.

Again, you are not getting it.

Intrepid want to explain the game to people.

They say the game is PvX.

We have what - four different definitions of PvX in the last few posts of this thread?

While you may well have a definition that you like, there is literally no way for you to know if that is the definition Intrepid have for it. PvX encompasses games from WoW through to Dark Souls, Mario Cart to CoD, and as such is not a particularly good term to try and explain your game to people.

People coming from those games would look at what Intrepid have said about the game and have wildly different pictures of what the game will be - if you don't see that as an issue, I'm not sure what to say.

And again, this is the easier of the two terms we are talking about here to try and define.

With your logic, using Pv*anything* is confusing. If someone says it's pve, then how do they know if it's mario, darksouls, wow. How do i know a pvp game isn't a fps or a fighting game?

They said there will be dragons in the game, is that going to confuse people and make them think this is monster hunter?

For starters, you usually don't see ashes is a PvX, Sandpark, MMO and focus in on the pvx part and assume the game is cod. That part is being silly.

Outside of that, yea, people will have some idea but won't know what the game is until out and i don't see that as a big deal.

But what do you think they should describe their game to make sure it's not confusing to anyone?

If they say the game is PvE, you can role out all PvP.

There isn't much at all that can be ruled out by saying the game is PvX other than being able to rule out the game not having both some amount of PvP and PvE.

The reason we get so many people coming to these forums with such mistaken assumptions as to what Ashes is about is because Intrepid are not clear enough about what the game is.

Sure, someone could spend hours on the wiki trying to work out what the game is - but people should be able to do that in 30 seconds wit ha clear, concise statement from Intrepid - but that is not a statement they have made yet.

Again, this is the problem, this is why this thread exists.

bloodprophet

Interesting.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?
And they are not separated.

Noaani

bloodprophet wrote: »

Interesting.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?

That is a fifth take on what PvX means.

And again, it is one that is not necessarily wrong, but is also not necessarily right.

Xerheart

Noaani wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Interesting.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?

That is a fifth take on what PvX means.

And again, it is one that is not necessarily wrong, but is also not necessarily right.

Basically my take on PvX, is that, equal (ish) focus on Pve and PvP. If we took a larger sample size than just those on these forums, my guess is that a majority of people would interpret PvX as such. That would just be my assumption though.

Interesting to see so many takes on it however.

CROW3

Green is not blue, but is made of blue.
Green is not yellow, but is made of yellow.
Green is green.
Such is PvX.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Green is not blue, but is made of blue.
Green is not yellow, but is made of yellow.
Green is green.
Such is PvX.

PvX is green.

Is this the sixth take on PvX so far?

CROW3

bloodprophet wrote: »

Interesting.
I never seemed to have that problem.
Is it really that hard to see PvX and assume there will be equal amounts of PvP and PvE?
And they are not separated.

CROW3 wrote: »

Green is not blue, but is made of blue.
Green is not yellow, but is made of yellow.
Green is green.
Such is PvX.

@Noaani - explain to me how these are such different perspectives that they would be separated.

Noaani

They aren't massively different, but they are different.

The fun thing about green is it can be equal parts blue and yellow (which would make this perspective the same as Bloodprophets), but 90% yellow and 10% blue is still a form of green - as is 90% blue and 10% yellow.

So, Bloodprophets definition is more rigid - equal parts PvP and PvE. This is essentially a single shade of green, not all greens that exist.

Yours is less rigid, some PvE, some PvP.

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

They aren't massively different, but they are different.

Bwahahahahahaha 🤣. I love it.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

They aren't massively different, but they are different.

Bwahahahahahaha 🤣. I love it.

If you are selling a product that people can't see, where the only thing they have to go on is your explanation of it, would you not want that explanation to be fairly accurate?

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

If you are selling a product that people can't see, where the only thing they have to go on is your explanation of it, would you not want that explanation to be fairly accurate?

It’s green.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If you are selling a product that people can't see, where the only thing they have to go on is your explanation of it, would you not want that explanation to be fairly accurate?

It’s green.

This green? #002e00
Or this green? #bbfcbb

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

This green? #002e00
Or this green? #bbfcbb

You decide.

Edit: Sorry, I’ll be clearer. Yes. 😉

Child Item