next »

[SirNiko]

Here's a thing that somebody told me in a different forum - that the primary trait of an MMO is and should be time-sink based challenges. Perhaps there's some merit to that? I feel like most people consider grind to be universally bad, at the best it's just a substitute for variety of content. But there are people who like to grind, who jump into online games and relish the thought that their patience will be tested.

Is Grind a legitimate style of gameplay, or is it really something terrible that should be phased out of game design completely?

[Gimym TILBERT]

Grind need minimal management to be interesting.

Social game do it well in my opinion (once you care about their mecanics) game like farmville and mafia wars are basically sim city light with different presentation and interface and have the decency to NOT let you play the boring rpg parts. They are improvement on the basic mindless time sink grinding.

Rpg let you click a huge number of time to beat a single enemy with no strategy, social game let you click once and rack the reward. Everything else is management (what to buy to maximize exp and limit the amount of click and check).

In rpg you mostly can't avoid enemy, fleeing punish you sometimes with exp loss, and they appear annoyingly to artificially stop your progression with no choice from the player and at annoying frequency. Social game let you choose your challenge at your own pace leaving you completely in control of your progression.

The more level you have, the more enemies you have to beat to go next level, adding to the chore. Social game have a bunch of task reduction tools and mechanics (friends is just one of them) and some "automation" (buy some "source") to help you stay on interesting task and within the fiction.

Social game have perfected the mindless grinding mechanics, but they are overlooked because they don't feature the "deep" story, setting, exploration, navigation of traditional rpg. But there is still simple lesson to learn about "grind".

[C.A. Sinner]

I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that I should stop stating my opinion as fact? Sorry if it felt like I was, I didn't mean it (That's kinda why I threw a smiley face in there )

Nah, what I meant to imply that saying "most of (X) sucks" is kinda pointless because most of everything sucks. But I see your point now, so no hard feelings eh?  

Anyway, back on topic here.

Is Grind a legitimate style of gameplay, or is it really something terrible that should be phased out of game design completely?

I know people who enjoy grinding, and I've enjoyed with a fair amount of grind-based games myself, Etrian Odyssey being one in recent memory.

On the other hand though, I'm opposed to grind-based MMOs for same reason I'm opposed to games like Farmville. It's a cynical, exploitative form of game design that aims at getting players "hooked" (and in turn generating profit via monthly fees and DLC) above providing any genuine enjoyment.

[Gimym TILBERT]

On the other hand though, I'm opposed to grind-based MMOs for same reason I'm opposed to games like Farmville. It's a cynical, exploitative form of game design that aims at getting players "hooked" (and in turn generating profit via monthly fees and DLC) above providing any genuine enjoyment.

Any game mechanic fit that description, people play because they like that (i hate grind in all its form) HECK most of our game convention (life, credit, continue, challenge) are entirely derived from the arcade lust for more coins. And most social game are entirely FREE they are even more fair, you pay for comfort actually, that leave MMO as the greater evil though

[baconman]

Fighters. Racers. Rhythm games. Platformers. Even puzzle games. Think about it...

"Grind" is usually the entire point of gameplay, regardless of what kind of game it is. It's all in how you execute and reward the grind that matters. The stories and endings are usually one-shot deals, once you've seen it one time, blah blahblah, blahblaaah. The enjoyability, variety, and sense of accomplishment (or disappointment) that comes with the grind is all that people replay games for. And if it comes with surprises like a learn-it-later technique being useful for extra fun in early stages, or discovering secrets and shortcuts, then all the merrier.

You could actually ditch the map screen part of RPG's, and illuminate the entire plot by grinding vs. boss fighting. Grind all you want, and then see if you can take on the next boss. Win, and the plot advances. Lose, and you start the chapter over.

[Dustin Smith]

Heh. Fighters, racers, platformers, etcetera require actual skill though. I don't win a race because I completed x000 kiddie races beforehand, I win because I'm the best racer. And so on. I've got more reducto ad absurdisms, if you want.

I'd just want it to be less transparant that I'm mashing a button a predetermined amount of times before something fun happens.

Masocore platformers, a la I Wanna Be the Dude, kind of break this due to the sheer persistance you have to possess to beat them. It's like you have to have the levels down to sheer muscle memory.

To Mister Sinclair, from a couple posts back: That is true, even in 'casual' games like Shiren you have to focus more on attack patterns & food management than a traditional grind.

[RCIX]

I see grinding as an activity where you're just trying to level up your stats so that you can fight "interesting" battles, so you just repeatedly fight the same creatures over and over again to get more XP. You don't really need skill to fight these creatures but you have to be there to mash the buttons anyway.

[Muz]

Here's a thing that somebody told me in a different forum - that the primary trait of an MMO is and should be time-sink based challenges. Perhaps there's some merit to that? I feel like most people consider grind to be universally bad, at the best it's just a substitute for variety of content. But there are people who like to grind, who jump into online games and relish the thought that their patience will be tested.

Is Grind a legitimate style of gameplay, or is it really something terrible that should be phased out of game design completely?

I'm against deliberately designing games to be an addictive time sink. It pushes games from being casual entertainment into the realm of alcohol and recreational drugs. It's fine to sit on a computer and play your whole weekend off if you've got nothing to do. But grind-heavy MMOs are encouraging you to sit there all day. If they want to test patience, at least design the concept so that you log in every day, not literally every 5 minutes.

It's possible to design a grind that isn't boring. I didn't really feel the grind when playing Guild Wars or City of Villains, even though it's there. Grinding can be a legitimate style of gameplay, but a poor designer would make it boring.

[bvanevery]

I have been following this thread on and off for some time.  I'm not used to "Grind: good or bad?" actually being a question.  I tend to hang out with game designers who consider it bad.  I've been lazy about finding the words to try to convince others why it is bad.  This statement gives me a point of entry into the problem though:

"Grind" is usually the entire point of gameplay, regardless of what kind of game it is.

This is simply not true.  For instance, when I play a wargame or a Turn Based Strategy game, I am usually solving a complex pseudo-mathematical algorithm about spatial proximity.  How to get my units into position, how to maximize the number of enemies killed while minimizing my own casualties, how to meet the victory conditions of the scenario.  This is not a grind, this is an open ended puzzle.  Chess is not a grind game.  You may get bored playing chess, but it's not from grinding.  In chess and other games it's more accurate to say that you're "solving an open ended puzzle."

If we understand what grinding and grinding behavior isn't, then we can start to understand what it is.  Grinding is Skinnerian Conditioning.  If you want to maximize the amount of time that someone wastes on your game, drop the good rewards at random time intervals.  When an intelligent organism cannot predict the pattern of reward drops, the organism tries harder, harder, harder.  When this is done in the service of nothing more than making an imaginary number inside of a computer's memory get larger, it raises ethical issues.

[bvanevery]

Heh. Fighters, racers, platformers, etcetera require actual skill though. I don't win a race because I completed x000 kiddie races beforehand, I win because I'm the best racer. And so on. I've got more reducto ad absurdisms, if you want.

Right.  Golf is not a "grind."  Unless you're a retiree with an oxygen tank.     

I'd just want it to be less transparant that I'm mashing a button a predetermined amount of times before something fun happens.

Right.  Your brain wants something other than the empty calories of Skinnerian Conditioning.

[SirNiko]

If you want to maximize the amount of time that someone wastes on your game, drop the good rewards at random time intervals.  When an intelligent organism cannot predict the pattern of reward drops, the organism tries harder, harder, harder.  When this is done in the service of nothing more than making an imaginary number inside of a computer's memory get larger, it raises ethical issues.

While randomness does increase time sunk, I don't think it's critical for something to be a grind. Some games present the player with very non-random tasks, such as kill X monsters or earn X million points from completing fetch quests that are still 'grindy'. The key is that the activity is not mentally stimulating, but it is required to unlock access to the next step. We have an advantage over skinnerian conditioning in that we can be told how many times we must press the bar to get a reward, or the odds of the reward coming per press, whereas the rat has to figure it out via trial and error.

Most grind games (even ones based on randomness) tend to have end goals. Eventually you can collect all the equipment. Eventually you can find all the pets, or reach the highest level. It's the fact that you can set and reach goals that make these attractive and addictive in a way that drugs, alcohol and gambling are not, and in a way that is far less likely to destroy your life unless you choose to let it. Game designers, even exploitive ones, need to seek a balance to ensure that goals are sufficiently lofty to drive players to spend more time playing, but not so lofty that players declare them out of reach. I found grinding bosses for chips in Megaman Battle Network to be a bit on the dull side, but the amount of time it took was not so great and when you hit a milestone you could move on to a different task. On the other hand, collecting roses in We Love Katamari was simply too dull and time consuming for me to consider. I think I hit maybe 100,000 and decided that the time input simply was not worthwhile. I've never gone back.

[bvanevery]

While randomness does increase time sunk, I don't think it's critical for something to be a grind. Some games present the player with very non-random tasks, such as kill X monsters or earn X million points from completing fetch quests that are still 'grindy'.

Those X monsters drop items.  That's how players are kept grinding.  Same with busting crates and barrels.  People will still grind even when they've started to realize that it's not worth it, that it's not all that profitable in game terms.

The key is that the activity is not mentally stimulating,

The item drops provide a stimulation to the brain.

Most grind games (even ones based on randomness) tend to have end goals.

Imagine, if you will, a greater tapestry of life pursuits, dotted with little tiny pills of crack along the way.  The crack is what keeps you playing.  If there were only end goals, fatigue would set in, you'd realize this is boring, you'd quit.

[unsilentwill]

How someone can argue for grinding is beyond me. I'll give this a shot...

By mentally stimulating, he obviously meant that the battle takes more thought than press A for 3 hours.

If the end goal is boring, (why-should-I-save-the-world syndrome) than the designer is doing something seriously wrong. Make other characters endearing, interesting (maybe you could learn something from them), make the actions of the villain so repulsive you feel the need to stop them immediately, give them a time limit, etc. If the player is just playing for the item drops of endorphins, that is essentially purposefully addicting themselves. Which is World of Warcraft bad.

The point is, grinding is a lazy mechanic because it says "You are not Number enough to do this action. Play our game for hours (without any real challenge) until you are higher Number". It's funny for a genre based on DnD with so many different classes, the only way to ever solve problems is by brute force by higher numbers. Let the rouge (skillfully) backstab the lvl 50 bossman. Let low level characters do more on their way to higher levels, and you'll avoid grinding.

Or and as the original topic goes, money in games should come from the people you save. Simple.

[SirNiko]

The point is, grinding is a lazy mechanic because it says "You are not Number enough to do this action. Play our game for hours (without any real challenge) until you are higher Number".

To me this is mostly the reason I consider it bad. It serves as a lock for further content. The player is no longer playing for fun, but rather, they're weighing the cost of unlocking that content with the entertainment they will gain from that content. You could let the player move on to interesting content now and they would lose that boring time-sink. To me that is grind executed poorly.

But then, there are players who like that, for for reasons I do not share. Possibly they enjoy the suffering involved, so they can feel superior or accomplished. Or perhaps they just have vast swathes of free time they want to fill by playing a mindless game while chatting with friends or listening to radio. Whatever the reason, they like it, and companies are eager to provide. Why not let them enjoy that, in the same way that some people want to play competitive games and others just want to play co-op?

[bvanevery]

Or perhaps they just have vast swathes of free time

That one.

Whatever the reason, they like it,

That doesn't follow.  Skinnerian Conditioning is a successful motivator; doesn't mean people like what they're doing.  Can you ground this in a tangible?  Find one of these players who really really likes grinding for its own sake?  I've never met one, but I don't try to meet every player out there.

and companies are eager to provide.

because it's cheap content fill.

Why not let them enjoy that, in the same way that some people want to play competitive games and others just want to play co-op?

How much money do these grinders with copious free time have?  Or do they have all that free time because they're unemployed?  Or are they kids with access to Mommy's credit card?  If they are kids, there are ethical considerations to having them waste away in front of the screen for many hours a day.  A video game should at least stretch their brain somewhat, or stimulate them creatively.  It shouldn't just be them pressing a button wasting away all day.  China has enacted stiff laws about this for instance, with the penalties being the kid is sent to a deprogramming camp at the parents' expense.  If the players are adults, and the grind isn't so horrific that we're worried about ethics, then it's a question of whether you make a lot of money off their grinding or not.  I know a lot of adults who do not have this kind of time on their hands anymore.  I would rather try to take money from adults who have "normal" amounts of time, because I think there are far more of those than the ones who can grind.

As a game designer, grinding bores me to death, so that's a further reason why I wouldn't make such games.  To the extent that I want to sell a competing product, I will try to convince other people that grinding is boring, as that's in my financial self-interest.  You could call that Machiavellian and intolerant, if it weren't for the crappiness and life depleting aspects of grinding in the 1st place.

I'd rather see the game industry shun grinding than embrace it.  It would make the industry have more interesting jobs, or consulting gigs.  Games might be taken more seriously as an Art form if the industry dumps the crutch of grinding.  This in turn could lead to more money, fame, and creative freedom for game designers.

This is a case where I think Existentialism holds true, i.e. as you choose for yourself, you choose for others.  I know there's a camp that thinks "games are just fine as they are" and doesn't want any major change in how they are made.  The argument has been going on for a long time.  I remember a time in the mid-90s when half the game industry didn't recognize the validity of a "game designer" as a job title.  They thought programmers could design games just fine and a specialist putting on such airs was not necessary.  That argument is pretty much settled now, although programmers do still design games.