DOTA 2 and League are too simple (top-down, click-movement, 4 abilities) for 10M hours per day. Even BR...

DOTA 2 and League are too simple (top-down, click-movement, 4 abilities) for 10M hours per day. Even BR, shooting being one of the most skillful playstyles, seems niche. Lobby games are repetitive and shallow. What should the industry know about fun gameplay, and what archetype would be your pick for the most entertaining game? It's easy to fix any genre and simple to make fresh. A few developers is enough for producing a couple of characters, items, areas, and activities per day, having an MMO of content in 1 month.

Attached: IEMAPG.png (800x600, 17.78K)

Why do so many mentally ill autistic faggots like yourself post the same thread every single fucking day

Why are MOBAs, MMOs, and Battle Royales the only genres you're considering? Why does the perfect game have to be multiplayer? Why should a good game be played for 10 million hours across all users every day? Can't it just be perfect to the much smaller crowd of people who actually give a fuck about its genre?

Every game should be made for everybody.

>mentally ill autistic faggots
you answered your own question

A game made for everybody is a game made for nobody.

All games are made for everybody, you retard.

>Every food should be made for everybody
>Every song should be made for everybody
>Every movie should be made for everybody
>Everybody should be the same

Attached: 11199746271.png (200x198, 17.49K)

>too simple (top-down, click-movement, 4 abilities)
Sometimes less is more.
2.5D isometric aeon of strife similar fortress assault game going on two sides has proven to be much better and thight than failures like Paragon a 3D attempt at the genre.

all aeon of strife styled fortress assault game going on two sides games suck
least fun genre ever

Demigod was fun.
Up until end of season 3 LoL was fast casual fun.
Its a casual genre by nature but sweaty nerds and faggots at HoN and DOTA2 development teams never understood that.
Tencent Activision Blizzard(now Microsoft Activision Blizzard) made hots and made it too casual and filled it with fur shit and mounts and blizz faggotry.

Science defined fun via motivation since 1985.

>>Every food should be made for everybody
That's true though. Every floral food item I can think of is fine.

>>Every song should be made for everybody
Science has quantified feelings produced by smiles, comparing to chocolate bars and money; it can do that for anything.

>>Everybody should be the same
Physiology *is* the same (starter cells, propagation math, and resulting systems).

How many diets are full-nutriments? Approximately 2%?

I didn't think Paragon had little reasoning for having so few players, but it showed how little APS is actually often happening in MOBAs.

My best time on LoL was Dominion.

Attached: 1652409915800.jpg (944x2406, 533K)

Attached: smiling.jpg (515x220, 105.55K)

simple is best

Attached: 1601922271610.jpg (1000x1000, 101.31K)

>Science defined fun via motivation since 1985.
The fuck does this have to do with my point? You think that fun is universal and therefore that the perfect game should be fun for everyone? These studies are literally done with the bare minimum definition of "engagement".

>These studies are literally done with the bare minimum definition of "engagement".
From where are you getting that information?

Attached: An example of objective quality (physiology); the correlative to 'accessibility', for depth, is creativity.png (887x183, 40.61K)

I don't like MOBAs, MMOs or Battle Royales so it wouldn't be made for me, meaning it's not made for everybody.

It's impossible to objectively measure engagement, so any study predicated upon how to force it must be operating on surface traits.

>nutriments
oh god the pasta was right you are the nutriments schizo!

Have you finally dropped the "Quality is of objectivity" because you realized it sounded stupid?

MMO simply means "massively multiplayer". So you're obviously being subjective.

>It's impossible to objectively measure engagement
Why?

>Why?
Because any measure of human emotion has to rely on self-reporting and the human brain is notoriously horrible at that.

No it doesn't; think.

The only alternative is reading body language, which is also far from an exact science. Either way, the emotions of a human must pass through a human to be judged, and so cannot be treated objectively.

>So you're obviously being subjective.
No shit, I said I don't like them, of course it's my subjective preference.

Nope; try again.

There is no objective and foolproof way to detect human emotion. If you want to prove me wrong, post your proof.

>nuh uh
Wow we've got a real man of science here.

"Literature, art, and gameplay that are OK for everybody are plausible"; "specific sorts are more rewarding"; agreeing with either of these is believing in objectivity of designs and critiques.

Attached: Objectivity - Spatial Intensity.png (613x113, 13.17K)

>Literature, art, and gameplay that are OK for everybody are plausible
Nope, there's always gonna be someone out there that doesn't like it.

You're not evidencing anything.

I, being someone who enjoys video games more than average, have played a lot of video games. To the point that mechanics that are relatively well-suited for someone with minimal video game experience are boring to me. How would you make a game that is ok for the average person while not boring those like myself out of their minds?