next »

[Blink]

Long term rewards are great in games, they give drive and direction - but they can also excuse terrible immediate gameplay.

Unrewarding, repetitious tasks - boring or dull interactions, unsatisfying direct manipulation, or even just things that feel like chores - all of these things are unpleasant to do on their own, but come up a lot in games with long term goals or rewards that do satisfy certain desires in a game. Design is the rules and restrictions of gameplay creating fun, at least in our field, and if we don't have fun rules and interactions at a base level, we end up hating the game we are playing.

Right now I'm playing a couple mobile games. Some are more manipulative than others, and put up tons of barriers and restrictions tied to unenjoyable work. Others, like Clash of Clans, do the same thing but with interesting and entertaining interactions (eg. I need more coins, so I should invade this base... where solving how to invade is a fun puzzle in itself).

So I contend this: games should not be fun for the long term objectives, rather, they should facilitate and give reason to our immediate interactions (the thing we play itself). In Mario Galaxy, most of the levels themselves are incredibly fun to play - however, we know that upon completing levels, we unlock new levels with new powerups and more missions, more music, cool zones, etc. The immediate gameplay is rewarding, but so is the long term gameplay. In these modern mobile games, the short term gameplay exists only to facilitate long term gameplay, which can also be accessed through microtransactions, so it's actually a conflict of interests for the immediate gameplay to be too enjoyable (Clash of Clans being the exception since the in game economy is only competing with time, but the user can reduce this effect even with good strategy and planning of resources).

Are microtransactions in games inherently leading to this? No, but when gameplay creates in game currency that competes with a real world investment, then this system cannot succeed. Either the gameplay will fall short because too good of gameplay would mean no one bought anything (because they didn't mind going through gameplay to get money) or you need to separate the ingame economy from the gameplay (which it looks like is what Clash of Clans does, and is doing okay off of).

tl;dr: blargh, mobile games. Polygon had a great article related to this recently too.

Should we design the long term objectives only after establishing great immediate gameplay? Or does the quality of a long term objective/reward excuse short term gameplay shortcomings?

[ThemsAllTook]

Seems like these two really need to be kept in balance, though I don't think all games need long-term goals. If too much importance is placed on long-term goals, the optimal way to achieve them might end up involving less enjoyable immediate gameplay. If the most enjoyable parts of your immediate gameplay don't necessarily move you toward your goal, players might never reach the goal.

Spelunky is an interesting example. There are quite a lot of different ways to play it: You can try for the highest score, or fastest time, or lowest score, or try to get through the whole game with some restriction imposed (for example, no using shotguns), or just play normally and try to finish.

Since the daily challenge is ranked by score, the most optimal way to play would be to gather every bit of loot on each level, never buy anything in shops, and always wait for the ghost so you can get the most out of your gems. What I found was that the long-term goal of getting the top rank on the leaderboard for that day got in the way of my immediate enjoyment of the game. Waiting around for the ghost to show up isn't fun. Sometimes I just want to buy stuff in shops instead of murdering all shopkeepers. Sometimes I don't want to pay attention to every possible piece of loot in a level to get the most out of it.

The most enjoyable way I found to play was to completely ignore money and just try to progress to the end of the game. I never really get to play this way during daily challenges though, because the long-term goal gets in the way of how I want my immediate gameplay to go.

[s0]

for me it's very simple: if i don't care about the moment to moment gameplay of a game, the long term rewards aren't going to entice me. if i do, i think it's neat to have different goals to work towards beyond just completing a level or whatever (i like the idea of gear/leveling up/character customization in games).

[Uykered]

Ya, that's basically what grinding is. Not playing for the current boring tasks but for a reward later on.

[SirNiko]

The rule I've always followed:

If you wouldn't play any part of the game if it didn't offer you the rewards, then that part of the game has a problem.

That said, there are people who do like grind heavy games. They have an audience. But that's a very niche audience.

[s0]

But that's a very niche audience.

it's probably more people than you think. ppl saying they played through an xbox game they didnt even like just for the achievement points isnt that uncommon.

i think some ppl are so "addicted" to the feeling of success that they don't really care if they only "succeeded" at wasting their time doing something unproductive they don't even enjoy.

[SirNiko]

I wouldn't say they're all addicted to the feeling of "success" - for some people it's a challenge of proving they can suffer through it. But yeah, addiction or addictive personalities certainly account for a portion of those people that I hadn't considered when I wrote that.

My experiences were in some grindy Korean MMOs. When talking with some of the other players on the forums they actively preferred games that are tests of who can spend more sleepless night grinding or waking up at ungodly hours to be the first to kill a randomly spawning boss. They actively wanted to exclude fair-weather players from the end-game, to make it an exclusive club for people who were willing to suffer through weeks of boring but easy grind. There's some level of challenge that exists there where players have to figure out how to use their finite number of waking hours in the day to accomplish as much as possible. While that sounds horrifically boring to me, I can understand how somebody of a certain mindset could find it genuinely amusing.

I think that group still accounts for a pretty small minority that already enjoys plenty of attention since it's so easy to (accidentally or purposefully) develop games for. You're better off making sure the core game is fun regardless of the rewards you get for playing.

[Muz]

Fun is in higher level tasks and the lower level atomic tasks. By atomic, I mean tasks that can't be split into smaller tasks. There's academic writing on this, but I can't be bothered to find it.

Higher level tasks's appeal is the epic win - that's a task so difficult, almost impossible to achieve. That's why they're more common in shitty grindy MMOs.. anything can be an 'epic win' as long as nobody gets there. An epic win in Pacman would be reaching the 'last level' with a full score.

Sid Meier is a perfect example of someone who does the atomic tasks well. You're always looking forward to the next thing. Another example are those MMOs where you're given checklists of easy tasks (like build a house by clicking this one button), then rewards for completing it.

If the atomic tasks are fun, people will keep playing. The fun of mid level tasks don't really matter that much, it's either looking forward to the game now or in the final stages.

The atomic tasks appeal to your sense of flow. The high level tasks appeal to your sense of ambition.

[s0]

what's an example of a "mid level task"?

[Blink]

Given that immediate objectives were listed as atomic (like "Build a House" which was as easy as clicking a button in the right place) then I'd assume mid-level is completing a series of objectives, but not the entire game or any major feat for the game as a whole. So, beating a level for example, or finding all the feathers in a single quest. Basically a level, that was what I took from Muz's thoughts.

[Muz]

what's an example of a "mid level task"?

Mini-bosses. Quests.

Higher level tasks are things that take a lot of effort but you'd do it for the bragging rights alone.

Something like Sigmund in Dungeon Crawl would be a mid level task. You'll come back to kill him later, for loot or experience or just plain revenge. It's still exciting but not something that'll make you think about starting up the game. Unless you really hate him.

[SirNiko]

Are high level tasks automatically for bragging rights alone?

Tower of the Sorcerer is a game where everything intertwines with everything else. It doesn't work at a granular level, because every choice you make impacts your ability to complete the game. Pushing up against a slime to fight it wouldn't be interesting as a standalone activity, and collecting the items isn't really interesting without considering them in the context of all the possible upgrades and how they increase your ability to explore the tower as a whole. However, it's still fun working your way up to that point - each choice you make is interesting and meaningful, but would not be if it wasn't in the context of the full game. I think most people would define Tower of the Sorcerer as a game you can play for enjoyment outside of simple bragging rights. This is a high level task that is fun without an associated reward.

You could also take any one really fun sidequest from a game that counts as a mid-level task and turn it into a high level task by making a standalone game out of it. Taking a single level from Super Mario Galaxy and playing it as a standalone game would be enjoyable (albeit very brief) so it doesn't make sense to suggest that it becomes a thing you play for bragging rights only. It seems odd to suggest it turns into something you do for bragging rights alone when in the context of a larger game it does not.

I think you've got a good idea there, though, that even if a game is "good" while it is only fun for mid or high level tasks it would be better to try and include more mid and low level tasks to ensure the game introduces more fun at more points. I enjoyed Tactics Ogre as a whole game, for example, but there were many individual battles that just weren't fun. If the developers could have made individual battles or party management more interesting the game would have been better overall even though I already considered it good.

[s0]

what's an example of a "mid level task"?

Mini-bosses. Quests.

Higher level tasks are things that take a lot of effort but you'd do it for the bragging rights alone.

Something like Sigmund in Dungeon Crawl would be a mid level task. You'll come back to kill him later, for loot or experience or just plain revenge. It's still exciting but not something that'll make you think about starting up the game. Unless you really hate him.

ah ok, i get it now, thanks

[hmm]

My favourite anecdote on this topic comes from the making of Mario 64. The developers spent expended a lot of effort to figure out how to make the sensation of just moving Mario around satisfying and fun, before moving on to the higher level design.

I'm a non-grindy player so I favour this kind of approach. They've got to work on all levels, starting with the second-to-second play.

[Graham-]

But that's a very niche audience.

I think Cow Clicker disproves this. The whole casual explosion is basically "grinding for non gamers." The sense of progress is so prevalent, so necessary, so desired, that interesting mechanics can take a back seat to the sense of growth.

Though I realize you are talking about Grindy-grinds, like in WoW... oh wait.

---

One of the reasons I like JRPGs - and RPGs in general - is the sense of "going somewhere." I want the game to tell me what to do, so I don't feel like I am wasting my time when I do do something. If I know there is something on the other side, that if I engage in a certain activity, become good at it, I won't be disappointed later on.

It's like if you get a degree, or take an apprenticeship, you want to know that your effort will lead somewhere. Obviously you want to enjoy your day-to-day tasks, but even more importantly than that, you want to know that your effort will mean something, that good or bad, in the end you won't regret exchanging your time for whatever the process gave you.

[s0]

WoW has a large "non-gamer" audience

[Graham-]

Does it really? I can't tell if I'm being mocked.

[Blink]

I definitely know "non-gamers" that play WoW, although they also play GTA and CoD. The lines are blurring on this one - people who grew up playing games no longer fully stopped, it's becoming a welcome casual activity between friends even if nobody plays 20hrs of games a week. It's really interesting. Not sure if that's what CA Sinner was going for or not, but it's relevant.

And Graham: be more optimistic! The internet might be bad... but, hopefully not that bad and/or right here. Not in mah threadz! D:<

[s0]

no im serious. i know several WoW players who don't otherwise play games (they don't play CoD or GTA either). WoW is pretty enjoyable as a casual game, it doesn't have to be 6 hour guild raids.

@blink: i was responding to this (was probably unclear because my post got paged)

I think Cow Clicker disproves this. The whole casual explosion is basically "grinding for non gamers." The sense of progress is so prevalent, so necessary, so desired, that interesting mechanics can take a back seat to the sense of growth.

Though I realize you are talking about Grindy-grinds, like in WoW... oh wait.

[SirNiko]

I think Cow Clicker and Farmville fall into that same category of games that are non-gamer friendly. They all have a strong social aspect that you can enjoy so that the grind is really peripheral. My experiences have been the same as CA's, in that I know a lot of people who don't play many video games at all, but they really like World of Warcraft or the new Star Wars MMO.

Also, among those that I cite as being an audience for "Grind games" like Korean MMOs, World of Warcraft is pretty anathema. Compared to Aion or Lineage, WoW gives rewards pretty effortlessly, uses things like badge drops to put hard caps on the maximum amount of time you need to get access to high level gear. Most of the grindy things in the game are completely optional, like special mounts or super-rare gear that you don't need to collect to see all of the game's content. It also features a lot of quests that are genuinely fun to play even without the attached rewards. Plus, it has a strong social aspect that can be enjoyed even by people who normally don't like to play video games.

WoW has some grindy content to it, but it's pretty rare and completely optional.

Going by Bartle's dimensions of gamer psychology, pure grind games like Aion: Tower of Eternity and early versions of Maple Story (maybe it's still that way?) tend to appeal to very high "achiever" types who may or may not have any interest in socializing outside of comparing high scores. Cow Clicker, WoW and farmville have much more to appeal to socializers, explorers and killers that give you things to distract you from the grind by a little or a lot.