The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 487 times Debate No: 67725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I'm going to say something that may anger a whole race of gamers, but I feel I must. MMORPG's are a failure as a whole they all have not reached the correct scale necessary. I heard of them awhile ago, but they lack everything that would make them worth while. Now this is easily debatable and I'll think it'll show below, but so many needed essentials are missing. Tons hardly feel interactive with other players which I feel is beyond important. No consequences is a system worked into most games. Why is this in an MMORPG where I want to feel like I'm actually in a adventure trying to survive. Something I can't stress enough why don't the players directly and permanently change the environment. Imagine if one of the best players and his team could take over a city or start a war against another team or army. This would keep the game fresh for years to come considering the environment would change nearly every day. The grinding delusion and disappointment is to me and some others downright terrible. People spend hours fighting the same enemies leveling up their character while in the delusion it matters. How and why does it matter if everyone can complete the same quest and get the same legendary. Legendaries should live their names players become legends for having them instead of everyone having one and bragging. Completely makes them feel dull and disappointing since everyone has one. Overall what I'm saying is the idea of a MMORPG is genius, but it hasn't been done successfully.


MMORPG stands for Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.

This is an experience like no other. You take a noob level one trash tier player and you nurture it and make that beautiful set of pixels on your screen become that Level 110 major pro that wrecks the noobs to the highest degrees imaginable.

Along the way, you will come across monsters, or at the very least obstacles to you leveling up. In addition, each level requires more XP (experience points) to get to the next level than the difference between the previous one. Depending on which MMORPG you are playing, HP (health points) can be a factor and dying can either mean literally dying for good and having to start back form level 1 or perhaps having to lose all items you gained in your inventory and remaining at your level but super poor. Different MMORPGs have difference severity of punishment for failure as some are specifically designed to be more chilled out than others and cater for a different temperament of player/gamer.

The Contender here seems discontented with the fact that you can fight a low level char many times and still reach high levels rather than risking it on a higher level char to level up faster (at the higher peril of death being more probable) this is similar to real life where the difference between the same numeric levels of higher ranks is often far more severe than the difference between lower ranks. So, for instance, the difference between a black belt and brown belt, in a martial art is often far more severe than between a yellow and white belt.

The realism is on point to a degree but of course it's only fun if it's simple and not mind-boggling. Who wants to have to strategize an entire war strategy every time they want to level up? sure some players do, there's online chess for that or even complex war strategy MMORPGs specifically for those specialized player types.

I think the issue my opponent has is with the fighting-styled games where everything is far too simplified and unrealistic. What my opponent has failed to understand is that games aren't always suppose dot be super realistic even fi it is 'role-playing' a real scenario.
Debate Round No. 1


Realism isn't what I meant obviously MMORPG's aren't made for realism. What I'm trying to say is the world needs to be more interactive and make leveling up more worthwhile. It'd be nice to take control of positions on the map or build your own and defend it. I honestly along with others don't find grinding fun killing the same monster again and again. What if someone could level up to prepare for battle and one that mattered. Sure there's PVP, but it feels repetitive and pointless. Let's give an example say I was the most powerful player in a MMORPG this would not matter to anyone. Why because my character really isn't any different from others or unique and please don't mention character design. This doesn't mean appearance it means in making a difference real interaction. Imagine a world where your characters name was talked about through out the world a real success. Instead your left wanting more (levels), but this never ends of mattering as you have accomplished nothing. Basically being able to change the world something everyone wants a chance to do this motive would make players try harder and more interesting and overall a world I'd try my hardest to be a part of. (Side Note) You lied about different variety levels of punishment they all are extremely chilled punishments which makes characters lazy and oh so dull and boring. (Lastly) It annoyed me severely that you said you may fight low levels many time to get to high levels. Duh as I said grinding which is again pointless and doesn't lead to any meaningful progression.


My opponent explains that his/her friends and himself/herself do not enjoy playing fighting styled RPGs (which are a subsect of RPGs, as there are RPGs that are barely competitive in any whatsoever and some entirely uncompetitive ones where it is just you and your character, no leaderboards, nothing). Now, aside from the fact that my opponent has described only one type of MMORPG, is the further issue that he/her and his/her friends are a subjective, unverifiable and unsubstantiated source on the matter. The fact is that MMORPGs form a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry collectively. You don't get that rich unless your customers are being pleased and satisfied, especially not in the luxury goods/service department (which MMORPG falls under as opposed to gas or water sellers who could be considered providers of essential goods and services). Everyone who plays MMORPGs lived before it never having played it and, unless they develop an addiction to the game, they remain never needing it for the entirety of their playing of it. The only reason the game makes money is they remain popular enough to either get advertisers interested in purchasing licenses or they offer premium membership which many players, out of sheer love of the game, purchase to expand their experience of it (and sometimes removal of advertisements is part of the privileges). How on Earth do they succeed if my opponent and his/her friends are to be considered the almighty source of taste in the gaming industry? The fact is they are in the vast minority, if anything.

My opponent states that player-vs-player feels annoying and repetitive and that he/she dislikes players who abuse lower levels over and over to level up as oppose to constantly increasing the odds of losing or at least maintaining it by challenging higher levels sooner than is comfortable. My opponent's entire basis for this is that he/she doesn't happen to like it despite the billion-dollar corporations running these games having a massive userbase of hardcore lovers and loyal players. This is simply absurd and I hope to see something remotely substantial in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2


Ogarth forfeited this round.


I thank my opponent for this debate and believe that all that has to be said has already been said.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. There were alot of problems with Con's case. Specifically, applying their own subjective values onto a topic in too narrow of a frame. Pro was able to refute Con's claims against grinding, lack of social immersion, and noob-hunting. Pro showed that these games tailor to the specific tastes of gamers and accurately expressed the truism that it's subjective depending on the individual gamer. Lastly, Pro's final round was left unchallenged by Con. Due to Pro remaining standing in the end amongst other reasons given above, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. This is a clear win for Pro.