It seems like every fucking game is trying to incorporate features of MMORPGs. Back in the good old days skill-based games like starcraft, counter-strike, AOE II, and CivII were kept entirely separate from grind-based games like everquest. Then WC3 came along as an RTS with "hero units" that "level up" and all that MMORPG bullshit. Age of Mythology did the same shit. The civilization series felt that "veteran" units weren't enough and invented a whole BS tech tree of level-ups for units. Age of Empires III implemented unlockable shit that totally unbalanced the RTS. TF2 (Valve's next significant fps after counter-strike source) started out as a pure skill game but then for some inexplicable reason they decided to mingle it with MMORPG bullshit through an achievement system that unlocked additional items. Now it is no longer a pure SKILL game, but is based heavily on how much time you spent GRINDING on achievement servers for the limited-availability items.
Now, I've got nothing against MMORPGs themselves. I just like to keep that kind of crap SEPARATE from my FPS and RTS games. Nowadays, almost every new FPS or RTS game throws in some unlockable bullshit that upsets the perfect balance (think original starcraft) that a game is supposed to have. This really irritates me. I play these games for a change of pace from WoW, not to do the same shit.
Stumble This
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.
My favorite gaming moment is a room of people playing on the same Battlefield server, squadded up and cooperating in first person.
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.
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.
Except video-sift... but you're right about the stars... and you've got 250! You min-maxer!
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...?
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.