Artificial Restrictions

[catmorbid]

The topic has been discussed every now and then, but I don't think we have one dedicated for it. I wasn't sure where to put this thread, so it went here. It's also probably my longest post so far, and I'm sorry for that, if it troubles you.

To the point:

I would like to ask you, especially the MO devs, what's your take on artificial restrictions in a mmorpg. Are they necessary, and if so, why?

In case you're quite not following what I mean by Artificial Restrictions in a mmorpg, here's a clue: Levels. Levels are by far the biggest artificial restriction ever introduced in rpgs. Funny enough, they're kinda like the biggest thing rpg's generally are known for, and also the biggest artificial restriction.

Some things cannot be represented realistically without adding some artifical restrictions, but they can sure be masked pretty well. For example, any open world game in general always has borders somwhere. Take Oblivion e.g., you had these invisible walls at some point, and you just got a text saying "you can't go this way!" etc. if you tried - another major example of an artificial restriction. Many games try masking this restriction, by using a natural restriction, like an unpassable mountain area. That's a lot better already, but if you have a "rather large" area which is clearly inside a fence made of impassable mountains, it also seems pretty annoying.

I understand most of those restrictions, which are due to technical issues, such as, you cannot dive in a game, because it would've taken too much time to add the feature - and there wasn't underwater content planned. Ok, sad, but not a big loss. However, when you find a place surrounded with a tiny little moat, which you could walk through, but you can't because it's water, and apparently swimming wasn't on the feature list, it gets a little annoying.

Basically, while the above mentioned restrictions and similar are annoying, i'm happy to say that they are becoming the rarity, and instead you see very believable worlds today. However, what bugs me the most are artificial restrictions that are not technical, as in graphical or world-related, but gameplay related. These restrictions ruin the fun for me, most of the time.

A simple example: An iron broadsword requires strength of 10 and skill 10 to wield, while a steel broadsword magically requires strength of 15 and skill of 15. I.e. restricting content and/or "balancing" the content according to how powerful the character is - regardless of if you use levels or not. Anyone with even a quarter brain lobe working should realize how dumb that is. I know similar approach has been the norm for who knows how long, and I know exactly why it has been made so: Having an equipment-centralized approach with the idea that you must gather more and more powerful equipment which deal more and more damage so you can bash more and more powerful creatures (which magically are only so much more powerful than you compared to your level).

So while restricting where your character can go, and if can he dive or not, is due to technical reasons, having those same reasons in gameplay mechanics actually has no valid reasons at all. I honestly believe that we could get rid of 95% of the artificial gameplay restrictions and still have a good game which would feel balanced.

Most artificial restrictions are applied because of introducing artificial game mechanics that need such restrictions to make them actually work (in balance with other features). For instance, the beforementioned level/stat requirements for equipment are needed only because the equipment get increasingly and significantly more powerful. This means that while you can barely kill a rat with you shoddy iron shortsword, you can easily slay a troll with your über sword of leetness (rats can't even damage you at that point, and they're BIG rats you know).

Instead of having 10 000% damage difference, the two weapons could only have a rather minor difference in damage, some stat requirements based on weapon size/weight, not their überness, and maybe the most significant effect could be the durability. This said, a good quality weapon would last longer than a shoddy one, hence making it more valuable in combat. And of course, when you introduce character skill affecting how well you can swing the weapon, plus player skill, it wouldn't make a big difference even if someone gave a newbie a good quality sword - you'd most likely just get your ass kicked and your nice sword stolen.

I'm under the impression, that MO intends to take a similar approach to equipment, like I just described, which I truly, honestly hope. But this isn't just about items, it's about every single restriction you can find in a game: -You can only drink a potion x every 30 seconds - Why?
-You can only climb ladder type y with skill level 30 - Why?!
-You're unable to draw a weapon in a city - WHY?!!

Those are very simple and minor things, yet they're all huge artificial restrictions. Instead of artificial restrictions presented, you could try something like this:
-Alchemical potions are poisonous, so if you drink them too often, you'll risk an overdose, which is bad.
-Your chances of falling is 5% and your climbing rate is pretty slow with ladder y at skill 30, but sure, give it a go!.
-You can draw a weapon in a city, but it's a criminal offense, hence you risk getting punished if you do so.

The effect is equally the same, but the restriction is no longer artificial, but an integral and logical part of the game. There's a valid reason for it, other than "this just needs to be like this, so it's balanced... uknow"!

So with a little bit more work, could it be possible to get rid of most of gameplay related artificial restrictions. Those dependant on hardware issues are a whole another thing, and there isn't much to do about them, but gameplay issues mostly aren't. So what's the problem here? Why not?

Thank you for reading this far. Arigato. Kiitos.

[Doomtrain]

Nice post .
But most developers are lazy and like to copy-past things that worked before.
What we will have in MO ? time will tell we can only hope for best.

[Hereshk]

Read all your post, and I agree. It really enhence the immersion into the game and its true that there's never a big difference to make less artificial.

I dont believe that we can get rid of everything, but major stuff like invisible walls and the ones u said should be doable.

According to what I've read around the forum, I think its the direction the game is taking.

[Rathius]

Well said Catmorbid,
This is one of the things that I really try and push for in a lot of posts dealing with how "unbalanced" things can be or those people that say that something is outright a gamebreaker. It just takes a little thought into the issue to find out how it could feasibly work without saying it -has- to be this way.

I was glad to see your example of the potions, I had actually used that one, hehe.
Another example is the bandaging that so many people want. Yes, you can bandage, but why in the world would you be able to do it while engaged in active combat? You have clothing and armor in the way, you need some time to get to the wound and apply the bandage. If you need instant healing, use something magical or alchemical like a potion.

[ccoa]

Originally Posted by Rathius

Another example is the bandaging that so many people want. Yes, you can bandage, but why in the world would you be able to do it while engaged in active combat? You have clothing and armor in the way, you need some time to get to the wound and apply the bandage. If you need instant healing, use something magical or alchemical like a potion.

Also the debuff WoW gave you when you bandaged yourself.

But I really like your post. But I guess the real question is where would you say those things. Like the ladder for example, where would it say that you have a high chance of falling and you're not that good at climbing but give it a shot? on a sign next to the ladder? At first I was thinking maybe a thought bubble appears on your screen but then again I though, why do I have to think? Why can't I just act? The potion is a different story, you could simply put it in the tooltip.

[Traceur]

very interesting choice of topic catmorbid.

firs off, let's define artificial restrictions. most people do not gravity as an artificial restriction, even if it's coded, though they may see it as such if their avatar has wings and they couldn't counter affect gravity. so artificial has nothing to do with code or the fact everything in a software is technically artificial:
a restriction feels artificial when we don't expect it to be there.

it is not even our freedom that we demand - while less artifical restrictions give us more freedom to have a chance of breaking them, in fact the same rule can also be applied towards the positive - nobody complains about flying in a sci-fi space opera game with spaceships, we'd expect it, but being able to walk in the air in mount & blade would be seeing as an exploit:
an advantage feels like an exploit when we don't expect it to be there.

it is those things which break your expectations and remind you that "this is just a game", your expectations of it as a world shouldn't be followed, that make us cry "artificial" or "bug exploit". if you think about it, most game companies are just more honest. this is just a game, and their throwing it right in our faces: so what? why should you expect otherwise? do you complain you can't pick fruits from a panting of a tree?

here's the catch though:
just like human avatars have an uncanny valley when they start to resamble too much 'real humans' graphically and we start to notice all the little differences, so can gaming environmnets aproach their own uncany valley in terms of reliability, and this doesn't need to have anything to do with graphics:

how do we normally convince ourselves something is real in real life? while avoiding the deep philosophical discussion over it's legitimacy, the most common answer is public aproval & repeatition: we know it's real because other people see it too. so in our mind, when we share an expirience with others, and we can close our eyes, open them, and it will stil be there. we become much more confident about it being real. our logic tells us it isn't real, but this very instinct in us tells us it is.

the result is that MMOs are by their very essance as multiplayer persistent worlds are inhabitants of the environmental uncanny valley, and where so from the age of MUDS. we share our expiriences in them with others, we can log off and log on, and the world would still be there.
this triggers our instincts that this might very well be real, and conflicts with our knowledge telling us that it isn't: we want to solve that internal conflict, we want it to be real.

and it's a vicious unforgiving circle, because as we push on the uncanny valley of environments, more and more things disturb us. the more realistic it gets, the more realism we demand, the less forgiving we become.

we very comfortably put things on a scale between "emulation" and "simulation": emulation replicates the phenomena, simulation replicates the circumstances. for example not being able to pull a weapon in cities is emulation, guards forcing you to put it back is more of a simulation. but then we'd find guards "mind control" over our characters even more immersion breaking, and ask for a guard warning/threatening/fighting us to do so. we'd find guards instant knowledge that we took out a weapon even more immersion breaking, and ask for a witness and patrol system, and eventually we'd dig into the immersion breaking of their bad AI compared to our human mind. in truth there is no clear line which defines a difference between emulation and simulation: it is an endless dig into the chains of cause and affect, and with each step we'd take more simulations for granted and call it emulation, and want the causes of those circumstances to be simulated, again and again. do not underastimate the extant of human intiution to detect inconsistencies beyond the sensual perception: there is no finale MMO which would give us an "eternal bliss" of satisfaction, the more realism we eat the more hungry we get, and reality itself is one thing a game can never be.

does that mean immersion is a fool's errend? possibly, but it doesn't have to be:
immersion might very well be a balancing act, and we who demand it right now know only one factor (realism) and want it in the extreme, without knowing against what factor should it need to be balanced. IMO we are lacking something basic in our equasion, something we haven't realized or thought of yet. it clearly isn't "game", because any course of gameplay or game style could be lead my immersionist systems - for example even leveled items could make sense if items where sunctioned by ruling factions and your reputation with them, classes could make sense in a world where local guilds enforced a monopoly over their trade and tried to kill those who broke it... it might become harder, but you can push any gameplay formula into any level of immersion based systems.
so if it isn't against gameplay, then what is it? we just don't know. but without that balance, peace & satisfaction in the uncanny valley will never be found.

[Mats Persson]

I get what you are saying, catmorbid, but I can only guess what kind of answer or elaboration you are looking for. You are giving most answers yourself and yet don't seem to realize where they take you

I'll run them through in split-personality-mode, just for the fun of it:

Levels are by far the biggest artificial restriction ever introduced in rpgs.

Me: Yes, and by most designers and most players the one regarded as the biggest driving-factor in a game. Let me introduce my alter ego, Benny, straight from the depths of the worlds you are talking about.

Hey, Benny, what do you think of levels? A MMO without levels?

Benny: What? No levels? Ffs, how would I know how 1337-skilled I am without Levels? What would I aim for? How would I know which monsters to attack? Which quests I can take? Come on!

For example, any open world game in general always has borders somwhere. Take Oblivion e.g., you had these invisible walls at some point, and you just got a text saying "you can't go this way!" etc. if you tried - another major example of an artificial restriction.

Me:Would it be better with no walls at all, letting you see the actual edges of the heightmap where everything is really ugly, walk off the edge of the map and fall forever, or die?
Some games "repeat" the map, making you enter from left when going right. Are you saying every game must "repeat" in this way, which of course will have severe impact on the entire layout of the game map?
Or should the whole terrain engine be redesigned, making a spherical heightmap solution (that would need looots of work) to form a confined planet (that would need looots of work), not to mention a lot of custom inhouse-tools for editing (that would need loots of work)?

Benny: Hey, look! I found this weird bug over here. It's like a big glitch in the ground and I'm like almost stuck. Cool. Hey? Where did that mob go? Wtf am I doing here out in nowhere? Better run back.

Many games try masking this restriction, by using a natural restriction, like an unpassable mountain area. That's a lot better already, but if you have a "rather large" area which is clearly inside a fence made of impassable mountains, it also seems pretty annoying.

Me: The alternative being.. ?

Benny: Yeah, sure would be cool to see what's behind those mountains, but there's a 60+ cave over here with rare spawns. gtg.

However, when you find a place surrounded with a tiny little moat, which you could walk through, but you can't because it's water, and apparently swimming wasn't on the feature list, it gets a little annoying.

Me: So what you say is no swimming = no water at all? Or to keep the unswimmable water, that is annoying cause you know you can't swim in it, but just not use it as a moat? As it kind of reminds you that you cannot swim in it?

Benny:?

A simple example: An iron broadsword requires strength of 10 and skill 10 to wield, while a steel broadsword magically requires strength of 15 and skill of 15. I.e. restricting content and/or "balancing" the content according to how powerful the character is - regardless of if you use levels or not. Anyone with even a quarter brain lobe working should realize how dumb that is. I know similar approach has been the norm for who knows how long, and I know exactly why it has been made so: Having an equipment-centralized approach with the idea that you must gather more and more powerful equipment which deal more and more damage so you can bash more and more powerful creatures (which magically are only so much more powerful than you compared to your level).

Me: I couldn't have given a better explanation myself, so why do you ask? This is by many designers and players regarded as the system as it's insanely addictive, constantly lets you fight for, and get, new gear and the feeling of being rewarded for your efforts. Whether you or I like it or not doesn't matter, as many millions of other players are more than happy to pay for it.

Benny: I actually agree with you Camorri, I would like to be able to use any sword whenever I want.. Like I found this lvl 80 sword the other day but had to put it on AH as I'm Paladin-Ranger and cannot use it. That sucks.

So while restricting where your character can go, and if can he dive or not, is due to technical reasons, having those same reasons in gameplay mechanics actually has no valid reasons at all.

Me: Yes, as you and I have just proven, it has: it keeps the game entertaining, simple and addictive for the vast majority of players out there and is very easy to balance.

Benny: Ha lol noob, run to mommy and commplain I ganked you lilltle lvl 30 lowbe wimp. roflmao.
..what?

I honestly believe that we could get rid of 95% of the artificial gameplay restrictions and still have a good game which would feel balanced.

Me: Yes, I believe so too, but then we are looking at a totally different genre of games, coming much closer to a simulator or virtual world.

Benny: I've played Fligh Stimulator, but it was buggy and the plane couldn't take off.

Instead of having 10 000% damage difference, the two weapons could only have a rather minor difference in damage, some stat requirements based on weapon size/weight, not their überness, and maybe the most significant effect could be the durability. This said, a good quality weapon would last longer than a shoddy one, hence making it more valuable in combat. And of course, when you introduce character skill affecting how well you can swing the weapon, plus player skill, it wouldn't make a big difference even if someone gave a newbie a good quality sword - you'd most likely just get your ass kicked and your nice sword stolen.

Me: You are describing a much more balanced system, close to MO. But you do realize that this system seems extremely boring to most players?

Benny: lol Why choose to play a game with a dull steel brodsword doing 12.5 damage cause it's crafted by some "mastersmith" (yeah, right) whan you can play this fancy game where you get the 4.5 meter, neon-glowing Godslayer of Hitpoints +50k DMG?

I'm under the impression, that MO intends to take a similar approach to equipment, like I just described, which I truly, honestly hope. But this isn't just about items, it's about every single restriction you can find in a game: -You can only drink a potion x every 30 seconds - Why?

Me: Simple game-mechanic. You cannot stack up on Ultimate Healing Potions and go for the Boss you're not supposed to be able to kill 20 levels later.

Benny: Sux

-You can only climb ladder type y with skill level 30 - Why?!

Me: Much easier to implement and control in that way. Also, people would get tired to death by having to climb the same stupid ladder 50 times before giving up and see it as a bug.

Benny: How do i do petticion?

-You're unable to draw a weapon in a city - WHY?!!

Me: Otherwise you would have to implement a complicated and unecessary guard-system, and people would have a reason to stay in the cities causing lag. Enabling combat would require even more bandwidth causing yet more lag, and by totally removing this possibility you save up a lot of bandwidth. It's a quick and smart solution that players find themselves in and it avoids breaking the game. Why should you be able to draw a weapon in the city? Cities are for getting quests and buy stuff. Didn't you know the fun is outside! :P

Benny: Ye I find that frustrating too but you get used to it.

Those are very simple and minor things, yet they're all huge artificial restrictions. Instead of artificial restrictions presented, you could try something like this:
-Alchemical potions are poisonous, so if you drink them too often, you'll risk an overdose, which is bad.

Benny: No dont make me have to keep track on how many stupid potions I've been drinking. That sounds like a bug. And it's stupid. Why would I want that when I have this clock showing me when I can drink my next? That other game also has it, are you too lazy to do it?

-

-Your chances of falling is 5% and your climbing rate is pretty slow with ladder y at skill 30, but sure, give it a go!.

Benny: As I said, no way. Why would I have to take chanses on a stupid ladder?

-You can draw a weapon in a city, but it's a criminal offense, hence you risk getting punished if you do so.

So now i have to keep track on where I can draw my sword and not, too? If I'm not allowed to, don't let me be able to do it. Much easier that way.

The effect is equally the same, but the restriction is no longer artificial, but an integral and logical part of the game. There's a valid reason for it, other than "this just needs to be like this, so it's balanced... uknow"!

Benny: Logical part of game? Artifical restrictions? Why do I care. gtg. cu
OOC: lfg TI grind lvl75 tank just bosses btw wts epic 66 [Unhallowed Bloodzombie Claymore] /tell

Why not?

Me: You know why not. We've quickly become a minority. Some, not knowing better, even say a dying species.

[catmorbid]

Originally Posted by ccoa

But I really like your post. But I guess the real question is where would you say those things. Like the ladder for example, where would it say that you have a high chance of falling and you're not that good at climbing but give it a shot? on a sign next to the ladder? At first I was thinking maybe a thought bubble appears on your screen but then again I though, why do I have to think? Why can't I just act? The potion is a different story, you could simply put it in the tooltip.

Oh there are ways, like explaining your skill proficiency when clicking the skill etc. or introducing some sort of difficulty level which you see on mouseover.

Originally Posted by Traceur

...
does that mean immersion is a fool's errend? possibly, but it doesn't have to be:
immersion might very well be a balancing act, and we who demand it right now know only one factor (realism) and want it in the extreme, without knowing against what factor should it need to be balanced. IMO we are lacking something basic in our equasion, something we haven't realized or thought of yet. it clearly isn't "game", because any course of gameplay or game style could be lead my immersionist systems - for example even leveled items could make sense if items where sunctioned by ruling factions and your reputation with them, classes could make sense in a world where local guilds enforced a monopoly over their trade and tried to kill those who broke it... it might become harder, but you can push any gameplay formula into any level of immersion based systems.
so if it isn't against gameplay, then what is it? we just don't know. but without that balance, peace & satisfaction in the uncanny valley will never be found.

Good post overall, and I agree that you'd probably get only more hungry the more you eat, but if that's your cake, I say go for it The thing is, at some point you have to realize where the line between obsession and practicality is (a difficult thing at times), and draw that line, understanding how far technical limitations allow you to go. But I also say, that as long as the technical limitations allow, one should never stop.

Originally Posted by Mats Persson

I get what you are saying, catmorbid, but I can only guess what kind of answer or elaboration you are looking for. You are giving most answers yourself and yet don't seem to realize where they take you

...
some good stuff here
...

You're absolutely right. The majority probably does think like that, but still, I can't but help feel that so many are only led to think like that, and they would actually think otherwise if they were given the chance to do so. Benny probably wouldn't - or who knows - but Johnny might.

Originally Posted by Mats Persson

Me: You know why not. We've quickly become a minority. Some, not knowing better, even say a dying species.

Well, I say we go and buy ourselves an island and plot a plan for world domination. We'd probably be plotting forever, but hey it's fun!

[Lachrymose]

i couldn't agree with you more. i just don't like anything artificial being added to games where it doesn't absolutely need to be. which is the main reason i'm against something like random crits.

as far as geographical restrictions go, something about the invisible walls just takes away a lot from the immersion and realism from a game. here's a solution: instead of creating an invisible boundary or natural boundary (like a mountain range), if the world is basically on an island, just put a huge creature way out in the ocean, and if anyone attempts to go that far to see what's out there, one of these creatures will spawn and it can just insta-kill him. after the first time, they'll learn to just not go out that far anymore.

as for the weapons. i agree that it's dumb for certain weapons/armor to have level requirements. anyone should be able to use a sword, but if they aren't strong enough to use it, maybe they could hold it, but they couldn't swing it at all. instead of requiring a skill to use certain weapons, the uber sword of leetness should just do minimal damage at an insufficient skill level. sure, it will still do slightly more damage than a normal weapon, but in the hands of a noob it won't reach it's full potential. then as your skill increases, the damage done by the uber sword of leetness will reach that potential, and it will be well beyond the damage done by the noober sword of lameness.

your other suggestions are great too. you should be able to drink 10 potions in a row if you want to, but either they won't be effective after the first one, or you'll OD and die. same thing with harvesting resources. you should be able to at least attempt to harvest anything you want. in UO you could mine anywhere, but if your skill was low, you wouldn't be successful.

i think since MO has done away with levels, that's a huge step in the right direction. although, i'm afraid some artificialness probably just can't be taken out without causing some other bigger problems.

[Divinius]

Its good to see Mats is still alive. I haven't seen him here in like a year, which is very interesting because these forums haven't been around for a year.

[LightsabeR]

Great thread catmorbid and valid points made by all.

Mats, I think that while Benny does represent quite a big part of the MMO players, I feel there's also a lot of players who think Benny's rather clueless.

Now whether SV decides to go after Benny and his friends or cater more to the "dying species", is of course up to you.

Originally Posted by catmorbid

You're absolutely right. The majority probably does think like that, but still, I can't but help feel that so many are only led to think like that, and they would actually think otherwise if they were given the chance to do so. Benny probably wouldn't - or who knows - but Johnny might.

Definitely agree with this. I think many new MMO players just don't know any better and go with what the game developers have been feeding them.

[lokius]

I agree, catmorbid did a great job with this topic. Though I think it may be possible to put some restrictions ( not that I want them ) without breaking immersion. What do I mean is all in all we are talking mostly about games in fantasy settings, so who says that the world of such game couldn't be flat supported by few giant turtles, there would be an edge of such world where you can actually fall off.

[catmorbid]

I personally completely understand and accept every restriction, albeit artificial ones that are due to technical reasons to make the game more fluent and allow for better playability. But if the end product is an over-simplified crap, I'm not liking it... So compromises are acceptable, and even obligatory. But the more one would be able to hide, mask or remove any artificial restrictions, the better. But, total absence of any artificial restrictions, should be a goal, and I still believe that when technical reasons are put aside, it's a realistic one.

[holo4ever]

I like Benny ... reminds me of too many people )

OT:

Yes, having no restrictions would be _THE_ ultimate game. But...as Mats said, that would be a virtual world simulator more than a fantasy game tbh. And.... for it to work the technology would have to be a little better, not by much, even with this engine they could do it, but as they said, it would take a lot. Maybe, UT4 engine when it comes out(if) will make it possible, who knows ?

again... nice one mats with benny

[Traceur]

what's wrong with virtual fantasy world simulators? people say this like it's a bad thing, like "it would not be a game so it won't be fun", and that's BS IMO:
it includes games within it: battles are games. crafting can be a game. negotiation and maneuvering in the player market could be a game. that Atzec/Maia game with bowling balls being thrown like basketballs could be a game. but all the games would be emergent from the simulator.

[lazyasian224]

Originally Posted by catmorbid

But, total absence of any artificial restrictions, should be a goal, and I still believe that when technical reasons are put aside, it's a realistic one.

Agreed. I think as long as the devs do their best to try to improve immersion past the level of the other MMO's out there, we are moving towards the goal of complete realism. Just because we may never get there doesn't mean we can't try.

[catmorbid]

Originally Posted by Traceur

what's wrong with virtual fantasy world simulators? people say this like it's a bad thing, like "it would not be a game so it won't be fun", and that's BS IMO:
it includes games within it: battles are games. crafting can be a game. negotiation and maneuvering in the player market could be a game. that Atzec/Maia game with bowling balls being thrown like basketballs could be a game. but all the games would be emergent from the simulator.

Weren't they using decapitated humans' heads in that games?

Anyway, there's nothing bad with virtual fantasy world simulators. I'd certainly play such

[Manorothh]

I´m totally agree with the first post, and althought there´s a lot of Bennys in the world (of warcraft), i really think that there´s a lots of people that don´t have started to play any mmorpg because of they don´t have found a game that gives them what they really want: feel free and alive in that world.
So , i think that a game with those kind of concepts and ideas will atract lots off people, like me.

[Victor]

As I pointed out in another thread, there are more FPSers and Action/Rpgers out there than there is MMOers.

The devs should not be afraid to try to aim for more realism, immersion etc... Look what happened to AoC, they dumbed it down to an WoW clone, cry and dismay emerged on the beta forums, they banned many of their beta players that strongly opposed their changes and shortly after they released their game... their unfinished game let me add.

Nonetheless, if I were a MMO dev, I would stay the hell away from generic MMO concepts and implement more features that can be found in FPS' and Action/RPGs. Because there is a larger market out there, and to be honest, if you can still appeal to the MMOers and also the larger gaming crowds, then you have a win win scenario.

To be perfectly honest, I believe Benny is in the minority.