Where have I pigeonholed? Where have I made unreasonable assumptions? The only assumption I have made is that if players are choosing option A (in this case grinding) over option B (in this case "oodles of content") that players enjoy A more than B. Is that not a fairly logical and safe assumption?
If a developer creates what they believe to be oodles of content, but none of the players like it or choose to participate int it, then the developer really hasn't created good content for the players.
Allegory earlier wrote:
If players are skipping your content in favor of a grind, then you haven't created enjoyable content. You should probably conduct some more customer surveys and better identify your target demographic or else it seems you are in danger of going bankrupt.
If the developers create 4 different methods of progression, and 25% of the population participates in each
method of progression, you can argue that that
portion of the population doesn't
like the other 3 methods of progression...even if all 100% of the content is in use. You're only focusing on the 3 methods they don't like. If people want to grind, they'll grind. If people want to quest, they'll quest. But you cannot say that just because the people that grind dislike the other 75% of the content does not
mean that it's not developed or conceived well by the developer. You're not being illogical (nor did I say that), I just think you're arguing with a narrowed scope of things.
If guildleves can be repeated without any need to break, then it is not the players' fault for choosing an option SE has given them.
But if they're doing it out of choice and not lack of options, it's not a grind
to them. Everyone has a choice.
Developers have complete control over what options are enticing and not enticing in their games.
This cannot be true. You're suggesting SE (or a developer) knows
what people are going to consider enticing or not enticing. If they know, then why are we even arguing this point?
When any player does anything at all in a game it is only because the developer made it possible and made it enticing for that player.
Yes, yes! But they do it because they
find it enticing. If you have a lust for cliff jumping, or sky diving, or climbing steep cliffs in the Alps...then you do it because you
find it enticing. Not because it's there. Not because God shaped the world in such a way to give you thrills. Because in you
, you see it as an opportunity for you to enjoy something. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of people that don't
find the above activities fun. A thrill...sure, but not necessarily fun and would rather do something else. The developer can put the plate in front of you. If you eat the meat and not the vegetables because you prefer it that way...it's not the developers fault. They made the vegetables, too.
First, you are discussing the concept in a binary fashion, that either games do or do not create incentive to level. It isn't a binary concept. At the very least we have a spectrum of how worthwhile it is to play at the lower levels.
I stated that most MMO's, in general from development to launch to life cycle, will push End Game content as a means of further progression. FFXI is one of the rarities that promotes regression of progression through level capped encounters (I'm just stating an example). I'm not limiting it to a binary statement, I'm pointing out the singularity
in the statement and concept...that Level Cap and End Game are the typicaly outline for progression in MMO's and RPG's in general. When you play Diablo...you want to level up. When you play FFXI, you want to level up. When you play WAR, LotRO, EQII, Guild Wars, AoC, WoW, Runescape, and almost every other MMO out there...you play to level up, progress, and move on with the content. It's a singular element.
Where it works in reverse is things like CoP level capped encounters in FFXI. Where it doesn't work in reverse is trying to level/progress/etc., below the cap and end game content when it's no longer of value. One can argue that SE alone has created a feasible system where below-cap content is still fun (ie. CoP missions). How many other MMO's can you say do this? And stating that...I re-address my former question. If this is the case, why are we even arguing the point?