Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1027668 Posts in 41235 Topics- by 32851 Members - Latest Member: suetx2105

July 28, 2014, 06:35:16 PM
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGeneralWhat Minecraft and Farmville have in common
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Print
Author Topic: What Minecraft and Farmville have in common  (Read 11859 times)
Gimym JIMBERT
Level 10
*****


Feminism is back!


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2010, 06:27:57 AM »

Quote
Nothing actually changes except a couple of numbers associated to your character. I would say that is semantically quite different from a game where your activity is slowly sculpting a persistent change to your environment.




Farmville is not the social game with grinding seriously, MAFIA WARS is! Grind is bad when you have no option except to delay through repetition elements unlocking. Farmville and minecraft provide choice and strategy through finding various pattern of play, there is one game that is more EPIC and that's all the major difference. I could argue objectiveley that farmville is more deep than Braid because of combinatorial possibility (puzzle game are rarely "deep" in a strict sense, there is only one correct solution and then it's done).

Farmville and minecraft have the same mechanics, except the failure condition is different (survival vs wither).

80% of player enjoy Farmville with full option without paying, it's a fair deal, monetization bullshit is overblown because what Pincus said and done.

Sorry guys, i'm not liking farmville but at least I won't make intellectual dishonesty about its design, nor I will encourage this because I want good design practice to be understood and spread.

People diss farmville pretty much like some people diss minecraft, something they don't play nor understand the success or the actual design.


EDIT:


In every game people like their home made epic castle


http://farmville3d.com/
a collection of Landscape design in farmville very reminiscent of minecraft
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 06:54:29 AM by GILBERT Timmy » Logged


ILLOGICAL, random guy on internet, do not trust (lelebĉcülo dum borobürükiss)
Kylotan
Level 0
**

8177495 kylotan@hotmail.com kylotan2 worldpretending
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2010, 08:21:25 AM »

Secondly, there's some confusion between the two equally-horribly-named business models of social games and freemium games. There's often some crossover between the two, because they work well together, but don't tar both with the same brush.
I disagree with trying to split this into two distinct categories. The social aspect and the business model are orthogonal, and there's nothing inherently wrong with either. The problem is when you tone down elements that are fun, replace them with elements that are compulsive, and then essentially put paywalls between the player and their next reward.

Quote
Social games build viral marketing into their business model by having elements that encourage you to interact with (or spam) people on your social network. The current state of that is pretty ropey, both because most of the social aspects of the games lack any really interesting social interaction, and because they're a kind of cynical free marketing. Good for business, but doesn't make for great games.
But there's nothing inherent to socialness/virality that "doesn't make for great games". If my Steam or XBox games post messages to Facebook about my achievements, that is social, that is viral marketing, but it says nothing at all about the quality of the game. And if that was all that Farmville did, that wouldn't reflect badly on it either (apart from when it gets so much that it becomes spammy). The problem is that Farmville provides mechanisms to encourage you to harass your friends in order to make your own gains in the game.

Quote
The freemium stuff is an entirely different kettle of fish, however.
Except you're treating freemium as a different thing, when it's not - Farmville has a freemium business model, where some of the currency you buy your perks with comes in the form of referrals.

Quote
If you pay nothing to start play the game, and if whilst playing you're given the option of advancing at a slower rate for free or paying a bit of money for some cool items that might advance the game a bit quicker (or just look good), and it's totally your call as to which you do, how is that in any way dishonest?
Does Farmville tell you up front which features require real world money? Does it mention that certain things are only possible if you recruit friends? Does it tell you that you will be essentially taunted by being shown things that other players had to pay money to achieve?

That, to me, is less honest than saying "you bought the product - here it is, in its entirety. You get exactly the same as everybody else.".

There is also a strong thread among gamers which states that you shouldn't be able to introduce external resources to improve your standing within the game, as a point of fairness. Obviously this is not completely enforceable - an athlete with better training will run faster than one without - but for the most part we adhere to it, especially in terms of what can be done inside the game environment and within its duration. Many types of equipment, dietary supplements, and even methods are banned from sports for this reason. Thus it's not surprising that many gamers consider open flaunting of this to be somewhat unfair, even if the game in question explicitly allows it. Because it subverts their idea of what games should be like.

Freemium isn't inherently dishonest. I worked on a freemium game. But it doesn't (or at least didn't) hide key features behind a paywall. And it makes a big attempt to make something intrinsically fun - not something intrinsically compulsive.

Quote
To my mind, alongside perhaps episodic games, that's the most honest business model that exists in games right now. Do you want to pay money upfront for something that might be shit, or do you want to try something for free, and decide later whether you want to spend a few dollars or cents here and there (or carry on playing it for free, or just stop playing)?
Except you've stripped out the actual gameplay from this equation, and that's the most important part. Different types of payment allowing different players to get access to the same game is not terribly contentious. Different types of players that allow some players to get privileges and benefits over the others is something else. Imagine how chess tournaments would be if you were allowed to pay to have pawns upgraded to bishops.

Quote
I don't bedgrudge Notch the money I paid for Minecraft Alpha, and I'm looking forward to seeing where Minecraft goes in future, but if he offered a few stacks of diamond for a reasonable real-world price? Yeah, I'd buy it.
I think that's fine, for single-player games, if you don't mind the feeling of cheating yourself. (And if you don't consider it cheating yourself, that's fine too.)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 08:29:19 AM by Kylotan » Logged
Gimym JIMBERT
Level 10
*****


Feminism is back!


View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2010, 09:58:57 AM »

Except farmville IS NOT a competitive game therefore it does not change the fairness of the game. Better than that it have lightly cooperative gameplay, if a player is ahead because he spend real money, all his friend benefit from greater rewards (gift, xp boost from task, etc...) FREELY.

Those argument are irrelevant.
Logged


ILLOGICAL, random guy on internet, do not trust (lelebĉcülo dum borobürükiss)
C.A. Silbereisen
Schlagerstar
Global Moderator
Level 10
******


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2010, 10:31:06 AM »

Goddamnit Gilbert, stop shattering my preconceptions about Farmville. What am I supposed to use as an example of "everything that's wrong with gaming these days" in discussions now?  Cry
Logged

Iamthejuggler
Level 6
*


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2010, 11:06:25 AM »

They both have the same vowels in the names ... spooky!
Logged
Glaiel-Gamer
One Epic Motherfucker
Level 10
*


Stoleurface!


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2010, 11:10:24 AM »

I just wrote an article about Farmville-like game mechanics in Minecraft: http://www.indiepubgames.com/news/et-tu-minecraft

There's an interesting discussion going on at the minecraft reddit, too: http://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/ef3g6/what_minecraft_and_farmville_have_in_common/

I'd argue that game creators should try to minimize grinding and VRRS mechanics in their games. So, for instance, maybe Notch could put in a high-level item that would make mining near-instantaneous. Thoughts?

By your logic, mario and halo are the same game because both involve jumping on platforms and killing enemies.

Oh, the fact that in one you can also drive vehicles and kill by shooting with guns, and in the other you kill by jumping and shooting (!!!) fireballs and have to save a princess isn't important. If we had to consider all aspects of a game, we couldn't make dumb comparisons like this.
Logged

Gimym JIMBERT
Level 10
*****


Feminism is back!


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2010, 11:11:30 AM »

Goddamnit Gilbert, stop shattering my preconceptions about Farmville. What am I supposed to use as an example of "everything that's wrong with gaming these days" in discussions now?  Cry

Mafia war bro, mafia war Wink
Logged


ILLOGICAL, random guy on internet, do not trust (lelebĉcülo dum borobürükiss)
theweirdn8
Level 2
**

theweirdn8@live.com legendarynate nateisoraw
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2010, 12:17:38 PM »

lol slot machines usually just get too boring, but mincraft nicely implemented the rand(0,1000) method I believe.
Logged


-Check out my nice little Farming Game that is more than just raising farm animals and crops..
EMcNeill
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2010, 01:20:24 PM »

I guess what I can't wrap my head around is the fear and ethical hand-wringing that surrounds these techniques. So many people talk about the ethical questions as if everyone is aware of them; I might be horribly out of touch with current design thinking, or perhaps I'm just plain evil, but I'm not aware of what these ethical questions actually are. They make good business sense, but I don't think that fact makes them inherently evil from a player experience point of view.

I don't know if it's "current design thinking", but I've read a couple of articles that led me to write mine. Here's one of the arguments that got me thinking: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_255/7594-The-Player-and-the-Pusher-Man

Also, in http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2010/3/10/gdc-2010-the-day-before-day-1.html, Sirlin describes hearing about a masterfully built slot machine mechanic in a game, which gets people to put tons of money into the game and spend entire days trying to get the best items. He wrote:
Quote
This egregious, unethical practice is the kind of thing he should have prevented as extremely dangerous. If you are "playing to win" in business, yeah you'd do that. But doing so is damaging to the lives of our own customers. I waited until the end where you get to ask questions because I wanted to ask his take on that. I mean personally, I'm embarrassed to be part of an industry that so blatantly manipulates people like rats in a skinner box, and isn't he embarrassed about that too?

Also a quote that led me to think this was the common feeling, from http://www.third-helix.com/blog/?p=885:
Quote
The Zynga guy (whose name I’ve completely forgotten) opened with a blatant shot against the indie community, asserting that games like FarmVille are “just as indie”, and that indies should jump into the social games space and put their money where their mouth is. Apparently Zynga guy has no fucking idea what the indie community is all about, i.e. precisely the opposite of commercialized Skinnerian time- and money-sinks driven by business and user metrics instead of love of the art.


Quote
Whilst a system that gives rewards for repeatedly clicking on stuff might seem at first glance like some horrible dystopian brain control, the truth is the "click on a thing and get a reward, over and over again" is a mainstay of a lot of popular game genres which nobody seems to question in the same way they've questioned the Farmvilles of the world. RPGs, FPS games, 3rd person shooters, Sim- games, Godgames, puzzle games, casual games - all of these, at their core, are about rewarding you for clicking on stuff. Other genres might have different basic mechanics (moving, jumping, shooting, steering, etc) but all of them basically ask you to string simple repetitive actions together for a mixture of short, medium and long-term rewards.

The argument is that there's more going on in a player's head in most other games. The path to getting the reward isn't that simple. Usually there's some level of strategy or resource management involved. If it's so easy that this challenge becomes trivial, then the game turns into grind. I had thought that grind was universally acknowledged as a waste of time that everyone would rather avoid, before a bunch of reddit comments argued in defense of it, but I'd still say it ought to be avoided. In Farmville, the only way you can lose is for your crops to wither, so the only task assigned to the player is to show up within some fairly large time window and click. So the argument is that the reward in hardcore games comes (or ought to come) from an internal sense of achievement for learning and mastering a system, whereas the reward in Farmville is entirely extrinsic.

Quote
Is reported player enjoyment all that matters? Fuck yes! We're game designers, providers of entertainment... If we're not producing fun for people then we're doing it wrong. (Or we're making artgames, which are cool too, but for the vast majority of games the focus is still on providing an enjoyable experience). Whatever the incomprehensible part of the human psychology is that gives people an itch that they can only scratch by clicking on a thing and getting a reward, a lot of people have it and a lot of people get genuine pleasure out of doing it.

And I really disagree. See heroin, gambling, con games, etc. for examples of things that people readily enjoy (at least temporarily), but which are ethically problematic (if not always obviously wrong). Obviously games aren't so bad as those, but we can draw parallels between them, and that's enough to start getting me concerned. Thought experiment: what if we could invent a game that was enjoyable at first, but which would make them feel horrible if they stopped consistently putting in time and money? It makes great business sense. Players willingly come to it and willingly keep playing. I bet you they'd call it enjoyable. But I'd argue it's unethical.

Quote
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty cool that you went into writing that article with a set of preconceptions that have stirred a debate in which there are people defending Farmville who possibly wouldn't have done otherwise. You, perhaps unintentionally, framed some design techniques which are often held to be "bad" in terms of a game which is so popular partly due to its use of them that you made people reassess the usefulness and validity of those techniques. Talking about stuff and thinking about stuff like this is good.

Thanks, though I suspect you're being charitable here.   Wink  I was, in part, trying to be provocative, but I think I bit off more than I could chew in one article.
Logged
EMcNeill
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2010, 01:28:13 PM »

One, you assume players are playing Alpha, just like how you play Alpha. Classic mode requires no mining, lets you customize the world any time you want, and is free. It still has a significant playerbase.

I did contrast Survival versus Creative mode in the article. But I focused on the former since I thought that most people thought like this. Why, I wonder, does time investment impress us, if anyone could do it? It just seems like a waste, when you think about it like that.

Quote
Two, Minecraft has a number of different goals, depending on the player. For example, I don't seek out resources. Rather, I spend my time exploring a cavern, and when I'm done, I wander around until I find something else I feel like exploring (another cavern, a huge forest, whatever). To me, the enjoyment of Minecraft is in finding the things that the engine generates on the fly, rather than building some superstructure. Some people build things, others explore, other fight monsters. It's a game with player-defined goals, as there is no developer-defined goals except "live."

"If we say that Minecraft’s fun comes from mining, building, exploring, and fighting, three out of four parts are immune to my critique." So yeah, if you focus on the exploring or fighting, you minimize the grind, and that's totally legitimate. Other people play differently, and I'm mostly trying to analyze the other styles.

Quote
Also, seriously, what is with people latching on to the term Skinner box in regards to games lately? It's really starting to annoy me. Yeah, games have a vague resemblance to an experiment performed on rats. All games, from card to board to video, operate on a few basic principles. The fact that the Skinner box vaguely shares one of those principles (and I can't emphasize vaguely enough) does not mean every goddamn game is a psychology experiment.

I think the concern is that games are starting to use Skinnerian techniques more, and the resemblance is becoming less and less vague. I don't hold a lot of respect for a slot machine, and I'd hope to encourage other game designers to stay away from shallow design, even if it makes more money.
Logged
EMcNeill
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2010, 01:37:47 PM »

You could say the same about reading a book. Word after word after word... none of them providing a challenge... taking up a huge chunk of time. Aren't we beyond such nonsense? Or painting. Why waste time with stroke after painstaking stroke if you can just take a photo? What a time-sink!

Painting produces something substantively different from a photo. Let's say you want a realistic image of something (say, for record-keeping or something). Should you take a photo or painstakingly paint it, stroke by stroke? Painting, here, would be a waste of time. It's valuable elsewhere for its artistic potential. And even then, I'd say that if we had some hypothetical way of producing a painting directly from the artist's mind while circumventing the need to actually paint it, that would be a good thing. Spending time isn't valuable. It's the expression we want. So no, painting's not a grind.

Quote
What is frustrating about MMO grinding is that it's typically repeating exactly the same activity for with the only effect being that a couple of counters go up - or worse, repeating the same activity so that a counter doesn't go down (or your crops wither, or whatever). Nothing actually changes except a couple of numbers associated to your character. I would say that is semantically quite different from a game where your activity is slowly sculpting a persistent change to your environment.

People grind in MMOs and in Farmville and in Minecraft for the same reasons: to unlock the ability to do something later (raid, buy, build). Unless your mine is a creative expression for you (like my friend who's carving out the mines of Moria, but unlike myself who just wants more iron), I'd say it's just another type of grinding. And I argue that we ought to minimize the grind, since it's a waste of the player's time.

Quote
I agree insofar as to admit that Farmville is not intrinsically an awful game when compared to Minecraft. However it is damaged by the fact that so much of the Farmville mechanics are intrinsically tied in to revenue generation and viral marketing. With Minecraft, you get an honest product - spend your $10, and play the game how you like it. How many do you think would play Farmville under the same conditions?

Yeah, Minecraft has the advantage there.
Logged
EMcNeill
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2010, 01:48:13 PM »



In every game people like their home made epic castle

Those pictures are probably the most compelling defense of Farmville that I've ever read.

That said, I think a lot of the stuff I wrote about still applies. So, let's say that the true joy in Farmville and in Minecraft is the creative expression of building (not the whole truth, but let's run with that for a second). Why, then, do we agree to put so much mindless time into these games to get there? What about this time investment makes our creations feel more valuable, and why? Farmville seems pretty weak as a resource-management game, at least in my own experience of playing it. So is there any intrinsic reward to the farming part, or would we do that even if there were no decorations to unlock?
Logged
EMcNeill
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2010, 01:50:03 PM »

By your logic, mario and halo are the same game because both involve jumping on platforms and killing enemies.

Oh, the fact that in one you can also drive vehicles and kill by shooting with guns, and in the other you kill by jumping and shooting (!!!) fireballs and have to save a princess isn't important. If we had to consider all aspects of a game, we couldn't make dumb comparisons like this.

Who said they're the same game? The thread title is what they have "in common". So, yeah, Mario and Halo have platforming and killing enemies in common. I don't know if you can say anything interesting about that, but I think the similarities that I try to show in Minecraft and Farmville are at least a little compelling.
Logged
Gimym JIMBERT
Level 10
*****


Feminism is back!


View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2010, 02:34:02 PM »

Quote
Why, then, do we agree to put so much mindless time into these games to get there?

But that can be said for any entertainment and any hobby. What you called mindless time is the entire point, what's fun is the journey. Or every game would have sell with the "button to win". If you have a game where you had such a button, would the game be fun? If you could go straight to the end of the movie would it be interesting? Most game or movie is just artificial padding for building the emotional experience. Most story can be sum up into only 3 sentences, most game can cut the fat to leave only a few elements. With this logic what's the fun in a enemy with 3 hits over 1? It is the same strategy for the 3, once you figure the first it is just a matter of time to get all 3, right?

Quote
What about this time investment makes our creations feel more valuable, and why?

From my experience, both as a person and a designer, non creative people get more creative if they have some friction, it give low level goal to direct them and build confidence, as they master the rules, as they overcomes the limitation, they dare more adventurous construction. It's all about the sense of accomplishment, not necessary mastery, the feeling that what have been done is because of you. And to mark ownership of the effort we do things in a personal way, a creative way. Creative person don't need that much as creation is the enjoyment in itself, but that's not everybody.

Quote
Farmville seems pretty weak as a resource-management game, at least in my own experience of playing it.

Remember that the audience is merely compose from people who do not play and have no prior game exposition. Surely Farmville is not Victoria 2 but still operate on the basic underlaying design, of course less confusing. Remember that Farmville is design as an amusing distraction to fill down time. Gamer are train to time sinking design where you can barely lift your ass without screwing the session. I had played game from 8 to 24 hours straight without eating, those design is not healthy nor ethical compare to "do as you please" design from social game. Farmville is the new sudoku or the new cross word, you can't really compare it to traditional game, it let you process the data at your own pace. That does not make them bad, just as different sim city was from pac man.

Quote
So is there any intrinsic reward to the farming part, or would we do that even if there were no decorations to unlock?

Farming and gardening is pretty obvious and popular hobby, it fall under the "caring" motivation. Farmville is not exciting, it's relaxing. Gamer tend to seek tension and stressful type of hobby but not all entertainment are base under the idea of conflict. Farmville is such a design, it's about relaxing, relieving the tension and keep everything under control. We are not the target.

The only real criticizes we can accuse farmville to do is the shadowy friend spamming incitations. But that's something of the past, facebook inc just shut that.



If you want to criticize a game for being pure evil latch onto Mafia war. There is absolutely no skill nor planning involve. First the game is a total rip off of mob war with shiny button, no creativity involve.

Consider the basic gameplay loop :

Click to do job, get XP and money, a job is just a description with a name and a DO button, there is no failure just click!

You can use money to get items, but item have no other impact but unlock new job (new click)

When you have enough XP you get a new level which is new jobs (new click)

The game have a limit on the number of click you can do with stamina, that is the friction. This where most of the monetization came, obviously stamina replenish over time but you can speed it up by buying stamina point to do more click!

They have implement a system into job to slow down the content burn. Each job have a progress bar, it's an incentive to click more and do absolutely nothing but fill itself. Once the bar is complete you may have a rare item or an XP/money boost, and then the bar reset itself so you can start over.

To make you came back you can buy building, they generate money over time but at smaller flow that you can earn by cliking. Once stamina is empty, it keeps you coming back with a reward, the most time you spend away, the more money awaits you, so if you drop the game, you have an incentive to came back and play again.

The game have some competitive element, you can attack your friend, who ever have the most friend and highest level wins ...

Absolutely everything is wrong, total EVIL. No redeeming quality. Pure grind.


« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 02:39:13 PM by GILBERT Timmy » Logged


ILLOGICAL, random guy on internet, do not trust (lelebĉcülo dum borobürükiss)
Dragonmaw
Global Moderator
Level 10
******


Notorious D.R.G.


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2010, 03:19:14 PM »

You can quote multiple people in the same post, FYI.

Quote
I think the concern is that games are starting to use Skinnerian techniques more, and the resemblance is becoming less and less vague. I don't hold a lot of respect for a slot machine, and I'd hope to encourage other game designers to stay away from shallow design, even if it makes more money.

My concern is that people are just now learning about "Skinnerian techniques" and think they can play the intellectual by slinging it around everywhere. The plain fact is that games aren't using it more (well, except maybe Farmville or Mafia Wars), and it's not more prominent of a feature, people are just learning what it is and think they can look smart by using the term. Games have always been this way. They will always be this way. Every game, from Poker to Chess to Halo to Minecraft, operates on the principles of a "game." And all games, since the dawn of time, have similarities to Skinner's experiment. OUR WHOLE LIVES ARE SIMILAR TO SKINNER'S EXPERIMENT.

I just get so frustrated with this pseudo-intellectualist garbage. I like that you portray Farmville in a starkly different light, I just wish it wasn't with a term that every moron that has had a Psych 101 class likes to use.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 03:47:34 PM by Dragonmaw » Logged

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

-Snoop Dogg
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic