These elements are simply too appealing for most gamers, they allow continuation of the game, a reason to keep playing and generate continual interest in the same way new map releases have previously.

I understand your argument, but having played Call of Duty 4 just to have a Golden Desert Eagle. I have to say it makes the games far more interesting to play. Not to mention there are alot of PURE games still around. Quake 3 online comes to mind.

I would disagree with it if it came with a payment structure, along the lines of say social games like Mafia Wars on FB where people can essentially buy better in game items to edge out people playing them game regularly.

The moment a game tells me I have to travel across some town to help some dude by bringing him some BS object to get something else is where I tune out.

My favorite gaming moment is a room of people playing on the same Battlefield server, squadded up and cooperating in first person.

Are the sequels to battlefield 1942 as good as the original? I played a lot of the original back in 2003/2004

In some of the examples you cited, it's not really MMORPG-ification though. It's just RPG-ification. That's just an artifact of people wanting more depth in the games they play. They want to feel like a play-session has impact on future sessions, and that previous choices are important.

I agree with you on the TF2 point. COD4 as well. I've shyed away from those games because I came late to the party, and felt like a level 14 rolling into Arathi Basin with a bunch of level 80s... if you know what I mean.

Amen, jwray. I don't mind some RPG elements thrown into a particular genre, but only when it creates a completely new type of game. System Shock 2 comes to mind. It took the FPS and turned it on its ear, adding inventory, stats that could be increased (which then added more gameplay, etc...). But it doesn't need to be in EVERY fucking game.

Ultimately, it's what Farhad mentioned that rings the most true for me. It's easy to implement and adds longevity to a title. By promoting such things as sunk cost fallacy, it makes sure the gamer continues to return for more.

These tactics are becoming increasingly common as a way of making all sorts of things more addicitive. Scientology was designed with this in mind ("Level up from OTII to OTIII for only $10,000 of courses!"). Boy scouts have merit badges. Videosift has star-ranks to grind. It increases quantity rather than quality of participation.

And every internet forum has a post-count next to the user's name to show other nerds how much better that guy is because he's posted here 25000 times and you're new, so stfu. etc.etc.

Except video-sift... but you're right about the stars... and you've got 250! You min-maxer!

There's still great "pure" games out there. Supreme Commander for RTS (part 2 is sounding hawt). The Empire Total War demo was freaking amazing. I need to pick that one up, but I don't believe that one has anything unlockable except for a special edition with some extra units. I can not freaking wait for Arma II (Demo is nearly ready for release btw). Left 4 Dead achievements are just kind of "there", in fact I don't even go out of my way to get them.

I dunno, just hasn't really seemed to effect any of the games I really like. I only played WC III for the back story, I was always more of a C&C kind of guy, but I definitely dislike the de-emphasis on base building some RTS's (like that one) go for. Building a fortress town is half the fun for me in those games. There was nothing very strategic about that one I felt minus a few maps. It was pretty much just move the story along.

Keep in mind MS -requires- that any game released on the XBOX have some sort of achievement or stat tracking system.

Oh yeah, what does getting the 250 diamond next to your name unlock...?

SO... your skillset is to be THE determinate for successful gaming... when playing a "real time strategy" or "first person shooter" game...

BUT IF... Skills can be a function of time spent on a game, and...

IF... your position is persistent features unlocked by time spent shouldn't exist in certain games...

AND... you play games with any sort of score, or time limit...

THAN... your gained skills are a persistent feature that only you possess.

SO...essentially, you're against games having more meaning than they should in people's lives... so that games can be enjoyed when they are played, and not considered outside that time.



I hear (see) your cry for help, and I say to you: You are not alone. You can get a tan this summer. I believe in you; I'll always believe in you.

You can essentially take TF2 off the list, the weapons aren't unlockable through achievements anymore, they're just random drops as you play.

Some of the best, and most fair competitive online gaming I've had was in Guild Wars. In PvP you are at NO disadvantage to anyone else (except for factors outside the game's control, like pings and hardware). It made for really intense and purely skill based gaming. However, Guild Wars is also a team game, and so of course it was riddled with all the problems of being in a 'team'. HELLOOOOO DRAMA!