DeletedUser26965
tl;dr - there isn't one because any gaming purist would read the whole thing and ponder it for some time before responding with good deep thoughts of his own.
I've had some rather long discussions here and there over the years of what exactly defines and encoumpses gaming purism. It's certainly not a well defined concept and can mean quite a many different things to different people. I suppose one could make it a simple concept of any change is a bad change though I don't think that goes deep and broad enough. Certainly humans are initially apprehensive to change, that's quite natural and can often be attributed to any resistance for a proposal for change though it of course is never explicitly expressed as that being the reason why, typically some other thought up reason will do to satisfy the angst.
So one thing I have fought to change is the aborting of recurring quests one doesn't do. I have no desire to repeat that discussion here so much. My endeavor here is to get one thinking of what gaming purism is and how it may or may not apply to FoE in its current state, prior states, futures states and when considering proposals, suggestions and the like to potential changes in the game. I think when one considers what makes one thing an offense then one ought to consider if they're applying the gaming purist position and if so are they doing so consistently.
So to start off I've created a list;
Buying Diamonds
Aid Button
Tavern Avatar Button
Auto Battle
Collect All
Flashing incidents
Great Building Avatar Button
Hotkey's for Setting Productions/Goods/Units
Mobile Notifications
Cancel Production Confirmation
The list is by no means exhaustive but I would argue they are a violation of sorts to the gaming purist position. They speak to the so called "easy button" aspect of gaming. This is another fuzzy concept not so well defined you see. What constitutes an "easy button"? I would say something in the game that you would have to do in order to achieve the goal is now done for you automatically. So that is the defining characteristic of an easy button, if it's doing the goal you should be doing.
So in the case of the Tavern Avatar Button instead of going to that person's city, then to their Tavern, then opening their tavern, then clicking on an open seat to sit, those few steps to achieve the goal of sitting in a tavern are now done automatically for you, hence easier. This in the gaming world could also in a sense be construed as what's known as scripting. Scripting is a program that does the games actions for you and has been used in many games for "farming" stuff and the like but the essence is the same. Scripting will often get you permabanned from games so I don't suggest doing such.
So gaming purism also seems to entail a player doing the work so to speak. If it's done for them then they are no purist you see.
Of course games change and it's never fully known the consequences of any given change, this would be referred to as unforeseen consequences. One of those I think is the PvP tech lock change. Whereas before one was able to attack anyone now if they have not unlocked the tech for PvP that person can not be attacked. A consequence of this change is that now when you click on the attack button you get a message that says you can't attack them which you then have to exit out of and try the next person. This can be rather tedious in early age PvP especially if one is doing Daily Challenges that often have tasks that entail attacking.
A reasonable suggestion I made was to, like the Tavern Avatar Button, have the attack button indicate that person can not be attacked. Some of course might think of this as some sort of violation to gaming purism but I don't think it is because the change to PvP changed the dynamic and it's the change that made it more tedious now and all this would do is make up for that change. It also isn't doing something that I am trying to do to achieve the goal. My goal is to attack, auto battle is what achieves in part that goal automatically for you not an indicator they can't be attacked. Putting an arbitrary block to achieving a goal does not a purist make. So keeping it the way it is in the name of purism makes no sense unless it can be justified as such somehow.
That "arbitrary blocking" of things speaks to the detail of the purist position. One could of course think of a never ending variety of ways to putting up roadblocks to a goal. I am not as I've stated for putting up blocks that make no sense to the goal. One such block that makes sense is travel time when exploring a new sector, it makes logical sense that exploring should take time and so a timer is added. Another that makes sense is not knowing beforehand the defending units of a city, not only can this add a bit of excitement it also is a block of sorts that is in line with the goal one is doing and trying to achieve. Whereas, as I've mentioned about aborting recurring quests, throwing in a bunch of arbitrary blocks of aborting other quests has nothing to do with the goal of the tasks set in the quests you are doing.
In the end though I'm all for change and accept it openly and typically with ease. It is "just a game" after all as many say so even if the game looks nothing like some former version of itself I'm sure not going to get hung up about it, in that sense I am no gaming purist though I can appreciate the position. It think game makers should go into a game with two goals; make the game and keep it that way then make the same game but one that changes over time. That way the purists can stay in their own little world and everyone else can go to the other place. However if you're going to apply a purist position at least first recognize if it's applicable in the first place and why it is if you find it to be so, then for god's sake at least apply it consistently, if you're against one "easy button" you damn well better be against them all if you're any purist worth their weight in purity.
Peace and Be Well my fellow gamers.
I've had some rather long discussions here and there over the years of what exactly defines and encoumpses gaming purism. It's certainly not a well defined concept and can mean quite a many different things to different people. I suppose one could make it a simple concept of any change is a bad change though I don't think that goes deep and broad enough. Certainly humans are initially apprehensive to change, that's quite natural and can often be attributed to any resistance for a proposal for change though it of course is never explicitly expressed as that being the reason why, typically some other thought up reason will do to satisfy the angst.
So one thing I have fought to change is the aborting of recurring quests one doesn't do. I have no desire to repeat that discussion here so much. My endeavor here is to get one thinking of what gaming purism is and how it may or may not apply to FoE in its current state, prior states, futures states and when considering proposals, suggestions and the like to potential changes in the game. I think when one considers what makes one thing an offense then one ought to consider if they're applying the gaming purist position and if so are they doing so consistently.
So to start off I've created a list;
Buying Diamonds
Aid Button
Tavern Avatar Button
Auto Battle
Collect All
Flashing incidents
Great Building Avatar Button
Hotkey's for Setting Productions/Goods/Units
Mobile Notifications
Cancel Production Confirmation
The list is by no means exhaustive but I would argue they are a violation of sorts to the gaming purist position. They speak to the so called "easy button" aspect of gaming. This is another fuzzy concept not so well defined you see. What constitutes an "easy button"? I would say something in the game that you would have to do in order to achieve the goal is now done for you automatically. So that is the defining characteristic of an easy button, if it's doing the goal you should be doing.
So in the case of the Tavern Avatar Button instead of going to that person's city, then to their Tavern, then opening their tavern, then clicking on an open seat to sit, those few steps to achieve the goal of sitting in a tavern are now done automatically for you, hence easier. This in the gaming world could also in a sense be construed as what's known as scripting. Scripting is a program that does the games actions for you and has been used in many games for "farming" stuff and the like but the essence is the same. Scripting will often get you permabanned from games so I don't suggest doing such.
So gaming purism also seems to entail a player doing the work so to speak. If it's done for them then they are no purist you see.
Of course games change and it's never fully known the consequences of any given change, this would be referred to as unforeseen consequences. One of those I think is the PvP tech lock change. Whereas before one was able to attack anyone now if they have not unlocked the tech for PvP that person can not be attacked. A consequence of this change is that now when you click on the attack button you get a message that says you can't attack them which you then have to exit out of and try the next person. This can be rather tedious in early age PvP especially if one is doing Daily Challenges that often have tasks that entail attacking.
A reasonable suggestion I made was to, like the Tavern Avatar Button, have the attack button indicate that person can not be attacked. Some of course might think of this as some sort of violation to gaming purism but I don't think it is because the change to PvP changed the dynamic and it's the change that made it more tedious now and all this would do is make up for that change. It also isn't doing something that I am trying to do to achieve the goal. My goal is to attack, auto battle is what achieves in part that goal automatically for you not an indicator they can't be attacked. Putting an arbitrary block to achieving a goal does not a purist make. So keeping it the way it is in the name of purism makes no sense unless it can be justified as such somehow.
That "arbitrary blocking" of things speaks to the detail of the purist position. One could of course think of a never ending variety of ways to putting up roadblocks to a goal. I am not as I've stated for putting up blocks that make no sense to the goal. One such block that makes sense is travel time when exploring a new sector, it makes logical sense that exploring should take time and so a timer is added. Another that makes sense is not knowing beforehand the defending units of a city, not only can this add a bit of excitement it also is a block of sorts that is in line with the goal one is doing and trying to achieve. Whereas, as I've mentioned about aborting recurring quests, throwing in a bunch of arbitrary blocks of aborting other quests has nothing to do with the goal of the tasks set in the quests you are doing.
In the end though I'm all for change and accept it openly and typically with ease. It is "just a game" after all as many say so even if the game looks nothing like some former version of itself I'm sure not going to get hung up about it, in that sense I am no gaming purist though I can appreciate the position. It think game makers should go into a game with two goals; make the game and keep it that way then make the same game but one that changes over time. That way the purists can stay in their own little world and everyone else can go to the other place. However if you're going to apply a purist position at least first recognize if it's applicable in the first place and why it is if you find it to be so, then for god's sake at least apply it consistently, if you're against one "easy button" you damn well better be against them all if you're any purist worth their weight in purity.
Peace and Be Well my fellow gamers.
Last edited by a moderator: