The People

alreadybaked · June 2014

Don't say they're doing it cause it wouldn't be this way if they were. They need to really consider hiring people that play the game and preferably the age of most their player base just for ideas. That would help benefit them and the people they hire. I mean the goal for any mmo really is to make it more enjoyable so doing what i just mentioned would accomplish that

theyancey · June 2014

They do play. Matt rolled a nightblade not long ago. BTW, what age do you think is the most prevalent? Why should this game not be made for the enjoyment of everyone?

Aett_Thorn · June 2014

So you'd rather they hire young people (don't know what age you think the players are, but I'm 32, and I'm thinking you are expecting them to hire people much younger than that) who play the game, but have no other skill sets?

I'd rather they hire competent coders, artists, and developers/producers who know what they are doing, regardless of age. Yes they should play the game, but they probably already do. The players will ALWAYS overplay the Devs, because they do have to spend time actually developing the game rather than just playing it, though, and might not be the right people playing through the right parts of the game in the right way to discover some bugs, though.

alreadybaked · June 2014

theyancey wrote: »

They do play. Matt rolled a nightblade not long ago. BTW, what age do you think is the most prevalent? Why should this game not be made for the enjoyment of everyone?

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

Aett_Thorn · June 2014

alreadybaked wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

They do play. Matt rolled a nightblade not long ago. BTW, what age do you think is the most prevalent? Why should this game not be made for the enjoyment of everyone?

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

So you are saying that they should hire people without college degrees (or even high school diplomas) to code the game?

alreadybaked · June 2014

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

So you'd rather they hire young people (don't know what age you think the players are, but I'm 32, and I'm thinking you are expecting them to hire people much younger than that) who play the game, but have no other skill sets?

I'd rather they hire competent coders, artists, and developers/producers who know what they are doing, regardless of age. Yes they should play the game, but they probably already do. The players will ALWAYS overplay the Devs, because they do have to spend time actually developing the game rather than just playing it, though, and might not be the right people playing through the right parts of the game in the right way to discover some bugs, though.

I agree with the comment! Although it wouldn't hurt to just get ideas from their main player base. Don't necessarily have to have a skill set to have a ton of ideas for a game you love to play and hell if you fall into the main player base there's a good chance the majority will like those changes as well.

Falmer · June 2014

alreadybaked wrote: »

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

You will find your estimate is off by quite a bit. Right now, according to the Entertainment Software Associations data. The average age of active gamers is 31.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

Now if you were to extrapolate the fact that TES is a 20 year old series... My guess is the average age of ESO is probably higher than the average of all gamers.

AlexDougherty · June 2014

There was a thread not to long ago, asking if there were any old fogeys around, turns out there are a lot of older players in this game. Remember the first TES game was in the eighties, and a lot of them stayed true to the franchise.

Now I'm a mere stripling at forty, and I don't think hiring a load of fifty year olds will necessarily advance the game.

Nor do I think hiring twenty year olds (which is what I presume the OP thinks is the baseline for the game) will help either. Most people in their twenties have the same sort of ideas, most people in their thirties know the ideas they had in their twenties were impractical and useless.

alreadybaked · June 2014

Falmer wrote: »

alreadybaked wrote: »

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

You will find your estimate is off by quite a bit. Right now, according to the Entertainment Software Associations data. The average age of active gamers is 31.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

Now if you were to extrapolate the fact that TES is a 20 year old series... My guess is the average age of ESO is probably higher than the average of all gamers.

thanks for the info! I don't trust everything I see on the Internet though but again thanks

butterfly442 · June 2014

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

alreadybaked wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

They do play. Matt rolled a nightblade not long ago. BTW, what age do you think is the most prevalent? Why should this game not be made for the enjoyment of everyone?

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

So you are saying that they should hire people without college degrees (or even high school diplomas) to code the game?

Obviously they already do that.

twev · June 2014

alreadybaked wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

They do play. Matt rolled a nightblade not long ago. BTW, what age do you think is the most prevalent? Why should this game not be made for the enjoyment of everyone?

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

otoh, you'd be surprised how many (in particular) older military vets play games, and retired military/civilian types, too.

And, some people play these games simply because they CAN'T 'Go outside for a walk for a few hours'.....
It's surprising how many people overlook little details like that.

Aett_Thorn · June 2014

They ARE getting ideas from their player base. That's what the forums and the /feedback command are for. No need to hire a subset of people when you can just get feedback from everyone who wants to give it.

Also, I can come up with a 1,000 ideas a day for this game if I want to. Doesn't mean that any of them would be any good, easy to code into the game, lore friendly, or even possible to do. There's also no telling if other people would like those ideas, and likely any idea that I did come up with would *** someone off.

Let's take an example of mine from a past game. I fought for three years to get the Devs of City of Heroes to buff a certain under-performing powerset up. At no point during this time did ANYONE say that this set couldn't use some of the changes that I was suggesting. Especially for one power, people all agreed with me on the forums about it needing a damage component. Not. A. Single. Person. Disagreed.

Eventually, the Devs made the changes. As soon as the patch went live, a handful of people popped up on the forum complaining that the change ruined their playstyle, and why would the Devs do that to them.

The moral of this story: even if you have 100% compliance in a subset of people, there is no way to guarantee that the rest of the players will like it.

SaibotLiu · June 2014

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

nerevarine1138 · June 2014

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

Makkir · June 2014

Falmer wrote: »

You will find your estimate is off by quite a bit. Right now, according to the Entertainment Software Associations data. The average age of active gamers is 31.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

Now if you were to extrapolate the fact that TES is a 20 year old series... My guess is the average age of ESO is probably higher than the average of all gamers.

I find that hard to believe. Those have to be survey results and I think the young e-peen crowd are less likely to take surveys. When I was using inboxdollars.com I took gaming surveys all the time. I just find it hard to believe with all the "hip" games out there across all platofrms (Black Ops, Modern Warfare, GTA, WoW) that the average age is 31. Maybe the average age of the survey participants was 31.

SaibotLiu · June 2014

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

I said sell, I said nothing about "art" or whatever emo crap you're on about.

The object behind making games is to make money. You can go play some Indie developers game and look at 2D sprites and tell your friends how cool and progressive you are. I take it by the fact that you're playing a AAA title, this doesnt interest you, like it doesnt billions of other people.

nerevarine1138 · June 2014

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

I said sell, I said nothing about "art" or whatever emo crap you're on about.

The object behind making games is to make money. You can go play some Indy developers game and look at 2D sprites and tell your friends how cool and progressive you are. I take it by the fact that you're playing a AAA title, this doesnt interest you, like it doesnt billions of other people.

Do you know how art becomes popular and sells a lot? By being new and exciting. By pushing boundaries. And by not listening to a bunch of whiny, entitled brats sitting in a room calling themselves a "focus group."

I'd rather play a great game than a carbon copy of everything that people have already figured out they like.

Mordria · June 2014

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

Thank you for saying this. So true.

KariTR · June 2014

I thought you were all saying the same thing, pretty much *shrugs* $:\$

SaibotLiu · June 2014

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

I said sell, I said nothing about "art" or whatever emo crap you're on about.

The object behind making games is to make money. You can go play some Indy developers game and look at 2D sprites and tell your friends how cool and progressive you are. I take it by the fact that you're playing a AAA title, this doesnt interest you, like it doesnt billions of other people.

Do you know how art becomes popular and sells a lot? By being new and exciting. By pushing boundaries. And by not listening to a bunch of whiny, entitled brats sitting in a room calling themselves a "focus group."

I'd rather play a great game than a carbon copy of everything that people have already figured out they like.

That's a great theory and all.

But the reality is, there are no games like that, and you're paying for just another MMO.

The status quo wins.

Seriously, no need to act like you're trying to market Mountain Dew and be all edgy and hip and *insert buzz word* MMO's are always the same, everyone knows it, and we still pay for it anyways. There's nothing "artsy" about it. And you can tell your liberal arts professor I said so.

kassandratheclericb14_ESO · June 2014

alreadybaked wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

They do play. Matt rolled a nightblade not long ago. BTW, what age do you think is the most prevalent? Why should this game not be made for the enjoyment of everyone?

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

Well I guess I am not their "main player base" and I don't matter since I am 42 and *le gasp* a female!!

Muhaaa haaa haaaa

Vizier · June 2014

You think they don't hire competent people? Really? One of the most successful, ground breaking and standard setting franchises in game history?

They are working on it...shrug.

And to the above post. Believe it. There are alot more of us "old fogies" out here than you know and we are more motivated to play. We know how far the industry has come. We dreamed of games like this and now that they are here we are all over it like white on rice. BTW the stats regarding the average age of gamers is likely drawn from registrations and activity logs...just sayin.

nerevarine1138 · June 2014

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

I said sell, I said nothing about "art" or whatever emo crap you're on about.

The object behind making games is to make money. You can go play some Indy developers game and look at 2D sprites and tell your friends how cool and progressive you are. I take it by the fact that you're playing a AAA title, this doesnt interest you, like it doesnt billions of other people.

Do you know how art becomes popular and sells a lot? By being new and exciting. By pushing boundaries. And by not listening to a bunch of whiny, entitled brats sitting in a room calling themselves a "focus group."

I'd rather play a great game than a carbon copy of everything that people have already figured out they like.

That's a great theory and all.

But the reality is, there are no games like that, and you're paying for just another MMO.

The status quo wins.

Seriously, no need to act like you're trying to market Mountain Dew and be all edgy and hip and *insert buzz word* MMO's are always the same, everyone knows it, and we still pay for it anyways. There's nothing "artsy" about it. And you can tell your liberal arts professor I said so.

If game developers took the attitude you do, this series wouldn't exist. No one was clamoring for an alternative to the standard D&D roleplaying game until someone showed them what was possible.

Art that becomes mainstream is still art. And it still wasn't made by listening to popular opinion, because most people are idiots.

Tannakaobi · June 2014

To be fair to the op some of the design decisions make it look as though the devs have never played an mmo before. Things such as:

- Not preparing for bots & cheats.
- The guild/AH system. (should not be guild related, even if you like the system over a faction AH then it should have been Cartels or a trade union or something. Guilds are for friends, not making profit.)
- The search functions in the guild shop.
- The all for all PVP i.e no level scaling.
- VR content.

I think part of the problem is that ESO tried to hard to please the mmo players. All the VR content, Craglorn, basically what they consider end game content misses the point.

The problem is they missed the one thing that makes people want to play end game.... The gear drops. The story and all is great, but end game is repetitive, if there is no gear to be had, what's the point?.

SaibotLiu · June 2014

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

I said sell, I said nothing about "art" or whatever emo crap you're on about.

The object behind making games is to make money. You can go play some Indy developers game and look at 2D sprites and tell your friends how cool and progressive you are. I take it by the fact that you're playing a AAA title, this doesnt interest you, like it doesnt billions of other people.

Do you know how art becomes popular and sells a lot? By being new and exciting. By pushing boundaries. And by not listening to a bunch of whiny, entitled brats sitting in a room calling themselves a "focus group."

I'd rather play a great game than a carbon copy of everything that people have already figured out they like.

That's a great theory and all.

But the reality is, there are no games like that, and you're paying for just another MMO.

The status quo wins.

Seriously, no need to act like you're trying to market Mountain Dew and be all edgy and hip and *insert buzz word* MMO's are always the same, everyone knows it, and we still pay for it anyways. There's nothing "artsy" about it. And you can tell your liberal arts professor I said so.

If game developers took the attitude you do, this series wouldn't exist. No one was clamoring for an alternative to the standard D&D roleplaying game until someone showed them what was possible.

Art that becomes mainstream is still art. And it still wasn't made by listening to popular opinion, because most people are idiots.

The vast majority of video games that are worth playing cost tens of millions of dollars to make. They're made by big companies who want to make a profit.

I dont think they're all that fussed worrying about what some hipsters definition of art is.

Hence why they're making video games, and you're playing them. They know whats best.

Which was the original point. If we designed a game you wanted, it would cost a lot, and not make any money. But Im sure it'd be real artsy.

Jankstar · June 2014

alreadybaked wrote: »

They need to really consider hiring people that play the game and preferably the age of most their player base just for ideas.

You can not hire based on age, it is a protected category in the USA. As long as they are of a legal age to work or have the correct permits you must treat them equally.

ExiledKhallisi · June 2014

News flash for you millenials...us Gen X men were gamers before you existed. Also, Most people in my guild are over the age of 25. 300+ active.

nerevarine1138 · June 2014

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

I said sell, I said nothing about "art" or whatever emo crap you're on about.

The object behind making games is to make money. You can go play some Indy developers game and look at 2D sprites and tell your friends how cool and progressive you are. I take it by the fact that you're playing a AAA title, this doesnt interest you, like it doesnt billions of other people.

Do you know how art becomes popular and sells a lot? By being new and exciting. By pushing boundaries. And by not listening to a bunch of whiny, entitled brats sitting in a room calling themselves a "focus group."

I'd rather play a great game than a carbon copy of everything that people have already figured out they like.

That's a great theory and all.

But the reality is, there are no games like that, and you're paying for just another MMO.

The status quo wins.

Seriously, no need to act like you're trying to market Mountain Dew and be all edgy and hip and *insert buzz word* MMO's are always the same, everyone knows it, and we still pay for it anyways. There's nothing "artsy" about it. And you can tell your liberal arts professor I said so.

If game developers took the attitude you do, this series wouldn't exist. No one was clamoring for an alternative to the standard D&D roleplaying game until someone showed them what was possible.

Art that becomes mainstream is still art. And it still wasn't made by listening to popular opinion, because most people are idiots.

The vast majority of video games that are worth playing cost tens of millions of dollars to make. They're made by big companies who want to make a profit.

I dont think they're all that fussed worrying about what some hipsters definition of art is.

Hence why they're making video games, and you're playing them. They know whats best.

Which was the original point. If we designed a game you wanted, it would cost a lot, and not make any money. But Im sure it'd be real artsy.

Again, you're horribly mistaken.

The companies/producers are the ones looking to make money. The smart producers are the ones who hire a good artistic team and let them do their work. That's when you get an Elder Scrolls series instead of another bad D&D-inspired ripoff.

You're confusing the term "art" with "unpopular". Every film, game, picture, piece of music or piece of clothing you consume/use is art. Whether or not you like to admit it. And great art only comes from great artists, who have never, ever, ever given a damn what the public thought of their work.

SaibotLiu · June 2014

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

SaibotLiu wrote: »

I'll put it like this, if you put a full team of competent dev's, with unlimited resources and an unlimited time frame, and gave anyone on the forums the opportunity to use them and make their own game, the crap would not sell.

They'd build the game"they" want to see made, which would appeal to maybe a handful of people. They'd laugh you out of the industry.

It's only by sacrificing our own preferences and seeing beyond our own noses do decent games get made. The majority of young people wouldnt understand that, and I personally wouldnt want them within 100 leagues of my city, or game, or whatever. Stay off my lawn.

Bull. 100% pure, uncut bull.

The best art (and yes, Mr. Ebert, games are art) is not made by popular acclaim. It is made by assembling a group of talented people with vision. When artists start basing their decisions on what they believe is popular, we end up with generic crap.

I said sell, I said nothing about "art" or whatever emo crap you're on about.

The object behind making games is to make money. You can go play some Indy developers game and look at 2D sprites and tell your friends how cool and progressive you are. I take it by the fact that you're playing a AAA title, this doesnt interest you, like it doesnt billions of other people.

Do you know how art becomes popular and sells a lot? By being new and exciting. By pushing boundaries. And by not listening to a bunch of whiny, entitled brats sitting in a room calling themselves a "focus group."

I'd rather play a great game than a carbon copy of everything that people have already figured out they like.

That's a great theory and all.

But the reality is, there are no games like that, and you're paying for just another MMO.

The status quo wins.

Seriously, no need to act like you're trying to market Mountain Dew and be all edgy and hip and *insert buzz word* MMO's are always the same, everyone knows it, and we still pay for it anyways. There's nothing "artsy" about it. And you can tell your liberal arts professor I said so.

If game developers took the attitude you do, this series wouldn't exist. No one was clamoring for an alternative to the standard D&D roleplaying game until someone showed them what was possible.

Art that becomes mainstream is still art. And it still wasn't made by listening to popular opinion, because most people are idiots.

The vast majority of video games that are worth playing cost tens of millions of dollars to make. They're made by big companies who want to make a profit.

I dont think they're all that fussed worrying about what some hipsters definition of art is.

Hence why they're making video games, and you're playing them. They know whats best.

Which was the original point. If we designed a game you wanted, it would cost a lot, and not make any money. But Im sure it'd be real artsy.

Again, you're horribly mistaken.

The companies/producers are the ones looking to make money. The smart producers are the ones....

I stopped reading right there...as soon as you start to indicate someone other than the people who are making money are smart, I cant pay you any more attention, nor should anyone else who values their sanity.

You've been arguing over some perceived vision of art that you can't even quantify with any consistency from one post to the next, other than "art is everything, it is unpopular and popular, just because you say it's art doesn't mean it isnt." Yes that's real helpful.

You start yammering on about how video games are art because you took offense to the fact that I pointed out that "you" couldnt make money designing a video game, that it would be a horrible mess. So really you were resigned to defeat on the original point, so instead made it all about "art not money". I can perfectly see the two coexisting, even if you, by your initial reaction to my post, can not.

Now please, go sell your narrow simplistic and naive notion of how the world works somewhere else, like to comparatively experienced college students. Adults are less concerned with semantics.

Brutalis · June 2014

alreadybaked wrote: »

Don't say they're doing it cause it wouldn't be this way if they were. They need to really consider hiring people that play the game and preferably the age of most their player base just for ideas. That would help benefit them and the people they hire. I mean the goal for any mmo really is to make it more enjoyable so doing what i just mentioned would accomplish that

...said Caligula, Commodus, Nero, Joffrey Lannister and Robin Arryn of the Vale.

coryevans_3b14_ESO · June 2014

kassandratheclericb14_ESO wrote: »

alreadybaked wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

They do play. Matt rolled a nightblade not long ago. BTW, what age do you think is the most prevalent? Why should this game not be made for the enjoyment of everyone?

The goal is to make it better by gathering info from their main player base so more people will find enjoyment in it. The majority is what counts here, so chances are that would make it more enjoyable for most people. I'd say most of their subs are from the ages of 15-25. Obviously that's a guess and nobody except them actually know the answer to that question

Well I guess I am not their "main player base" and I don't matter since I am 42 and *le gasp* a female!!

Muhaaa haaa haaaa

Average age of my guild is 37 (thank God) and 25 percent are female(confirmed through teamspeak).

Remember this, the average age of gamers will continue to go up as my generation was the first to have pong-Atari-Intellivision-colecovision-commodore 64 and so on. We will be the first generation to have reports of assaults happening in retirement homes due to someone hogging the game controller (or brain implant, whatever controller we're using in 2050).