Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyltran
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
People compare different tabletop rpg's to each other and call them games as well. Technically you roll dice and have character sheets. You also roleplay but some are considered objectively better than others. While renaissance may not be a game the fact is EQ is a game and immersion is part of it. So I would definitely call it a good game.
As for what it has over other games when gameplay is concerned? It's not so balanced that it's homogeneous. Allowing different ways to solve different problems. There are so many different styles of soloing for example. I would argue the ability for an enchanter to change their form and access locations they wouldn't otherwise to be part of gameplay. In many games this would be considered "Stealth" gameplay. It isn't just limited to enchanters, of course, which is why I used them as examples.
The game doesn't just not hold your hand but provides you more tools to achieve the things you want to do. There's less restrictions. Sure, waiting for something for hours to spawn may not be engaging but the entire game isn't about that either. That's no different than waiting for another week or so for a raid lockout isn't engaging or fun either which other mmorpgs use aplenty and rare drops aren't limited to just EQ (many games have drops that are in the 0.01% drop range.)
The fact is EQ is a game. That provides many things that other games don't and has things that are superior to other games (lore and immersion.) so for those players where these things matter. I'd argue it's subjectively a better game than the alternatives. After all.. I am enjoying my so far brief time back here than them. In the end though we're both EQ players and I think we're arguing semantics. Haha. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] |
I wasn't arguing it wasn't a game period, the renn faire argument was just that saying "this is a great game because of it's immersion" is a bad argument because lots of things are immersive without being games.
I have nothing wrong with saying "I enjoy EQ more than WoW", but the post I was responding to was specifically saying other people's recommendations for changes would make the game worse.
If you want to argue a game's "goodness" is purely subjective that is fine and I'm not gonna really argue with you, but if you're going to argue that there is some objectivity or some way to state that something someone enjoys is "worse" then I think you're wrong. That is what Roth was saying, that by implementing a change other people would want they would make EQ worse.