next »

[JWK5]

I think we all agree that grind is bad, but to be more specific grind is bad because the player isnt making any consequential decisions while grinding. - they arent playing a game any more, they arent having fun - they are 'working' .

Optional grinding isn't all that bad, and it is a consequential decision in and of itself. It allows the player to fine tune the difficulty of their challenges (if it is too hard grind until it isn't that's what she said). As long as it is a "take it or leave it" approach it's all good, but when you have to grind to actually progress at all (for example, you need 25 'Rat Tails' and rats only have a 3% drop rate) then it becomes more of a roadblock than a useful mechanic.


As far as XP goes, an alternate approach could be to vary XP by level disparity. The higher the player's level is over the enemy the less experience the player receives, the lower the chance for encounter, but the higher the item drop rate is (to counter-balance the fact that the encounters become less common).

[stefoid]

I get the feeling that games that feature a lot of grind, optional or not, - its just cheap filler as a substitute for content.

[baconman]

^ That's the Castlevania 2/MMO/Destiny argument, right there.

[JWK5]

Dark Souls has optional grinding but it doesn't serve as filler, it serves as player-controlled difficulty balancing. You could potentially beat Dark Souls without ever grinding at all, going purely on skill alone. Even without grinding you'll be able to upgrade your character fairly competently. However, with grinding you can improve gear you haven't invested time into yet and explore/expand your options. It allows those willing to invest extra time into the game a chance to give themselves an advantage.

[s0]

monster hunter handles "grind" even better than dark souls. youre supposed to repeat quests, but its not really a problem because 1. fighting monsters is fun and 2. the game is really based around getting intimately familiar with enemies' movesets and behavior. each time you repeat a fight youll probably optimize your strategy a little (or just learn to dodge better ) or come equipped with better gear and find ways to be more efficient about taking a monster down. but maybe that doesnt count as "grind" lol. MH also has a nice safeguard against farming trash mobs forever because you need materials from more powerful monsters to create better gear.

but actually, even "pure" grind can be fun. one of my favorite recent games is tap titans which is pretty 100% adulterated grind. also just idle games and incremental games in general.

[JWK5]

but actually, even "pure" grind can be fun. one of my favorite recent games is tap titans which is pretty 100% adulterated grind. also just idle games and incremental games in general.

The Dragon Quest/Warrior games are particularly rewarding when it comes to grinding because each new area's shops generally have equipment that is very high priced (for where you are at) but offer a huge boost in damage and defense. You can get by without them, but it feels very rewarding having put in the time and effort to have purchased them. I think that is ultimately the key to "acceptable" grinding (or even fun grinding), it has to feel rewarding.

[stefoid]

but actually, even "pure" grind can be fun. one of my favorite recent games is tap titans which is pretty 100% adulterated grind. also just idle games and incremental games in general.

The Dragon Quest/Warrior games are particularly rewarding when it comes to grinding because each new area's shops generally have equipment that is very high priced (for where you are at) but offer a huge boost in damage and defense. You can get by without them, but it feels very rewarding having put in the time and effort to have purchased them. I think that is ultimately the key to "acceptable" grinding (or even fun grinding), it has to feel rewarding.

I suppose by definition, if youre having fun, its not grinding.  

edit:  in the thread I started on player goals,   http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=46887.0   its perhaps related to this.  

Also by definition, grinding is a time-expensive activity.  Lets say you introduce a time-related carrot or stick into the game so that time spent grinding is simply suboptimal.  

[valrus]

I think Tap Titans illustrates that it's also a question of presentation/marketing.  There's no bait-n-switch to it; you're not promised dragons and given ladybugs.

GAME: "You're in a world of intrigue and ever-shifting factions, and your choices will change the course of history!"
PLAYER: "No, actually I'm spending a lot of time killing lizards for their tails.  And by killing I mean clicking ATTACK repeatedly."

TAP TITANS: "You know what, this is a game where you're gonna click on the screen.  It doesn't even matter where.  And you're going to do it about a hundred thousand times."
PLAYER: "This is substantially better than I expected it to be."

[stefoid]

Its funny that Cow Clicker couldnt be made grindy enough so that it could achieve parody.

[ProgramGamer]

Slightly related to this, the success of Tap Titans is part of the reason why I hate the iPhone/iPad/iPod/iOs/Apple in general's market for apps. They do next to no management on their store and apps that end up being literal money traps still get to be supported by them. I hate that because no one benefits from this, including Apple in the long run.

[Torchkas]

RPG systems leaking into other mechanic genres is complete ass. I don't want to be prompted with +200 xp and a window popping up that I got a level up in Fallout 3 after I just escaped the vault and I get my first gaze on the wasteland.

Breaks you right out of the experience, you know.

[stefoid]

RPG systems leaking into other mechanic genres is complete ass. I don't want to be prompted with +200 xp and a window popping up that I got a level up in Fallout 3 after I just escaped the vault and I get my first gaze on the wasteland.

Breaks you right out of the experience, you know.

Well, thats just a whole nother can of worms, isnt it?

[Sik]

You know, on the point on how XP is obtained, I was wondering this: how about each enemy having its own "XP target", where the XP you obtain is based on the difference between the enemy's and your current XP? So for example, defeat an enemy and you gain 10% of the difference between your XP and your enemy's, i.e. (enemy XP - your XP) × 0.1.

This brings up two implications:

• It discourages easy grinding since weaker enemies won't give you much XP, and potentially may not even be able to give you enough XP to keep going forward. You're pretty much forced to go for stronger foes.
• If the XP of the enemy is lower than yours, you can actually lose XP (since the difference is now negative). This makes fighting weaker enemies even a worse idea. That's what the player gets for being lazy, I guess =P
  

[s0]

lots of games use that kind of scaling. WoW does it iirc, as do many other MMOs. not with the losing exp part tho.

but like i said, does anyone actually farm easy mobs forever? in most games where that is even possible it takes  so long that it basically makes no sense not to move on to stronger enemies eventually. i think the bigger problem is games making it too easy to overlevel yourself.

[starsrift]

RPG systems leaking into other mechanic genres is complete ass. I don't want to be prompted with +200 xp and a window popping up that I got a level up in Fallout 3 after I just escaped the vault and I get my first gaze on the wasteland.

Breaks you right out of the experience, you know.

...So you, uh, think Fallout is not an RPG?

[Photon]

I think Tap Titans illustrates that it's also a question of presentation/marketing.  There's no bait-n-switch to it; you're not promised dragons and given ladybugs.

GAME: "You're in a world of intrigue and ever-shifting factions, and your choices will change the course of history!"
PLAYER: "No, actually I'm spending a lot of time killing lizards for their tails.  And by killing I mean clicking ATTACK repeatedly."

TAP TITANS: "You know what, this is a game where you're gonna click on the screen.  It doesn't even matter where.  And you're going to do it about a hundred thousand times."
PLAYER: "This is substantially better than I expected it to be."

This also deals a bit with the cheap illusion of player choice ("press A or B to try and save the world" sphiel) but that's probably another topic altogether.

You know, on the point on how XP is obtained, I was wondering this: how about each enemy having its own "XP target", where the XP you obtain is based on the difference between the enemy's and your current XP? So for example, defeat an enemy and you gain 10% of the difference between your XP and your enemy's, i.e. (enemy XP - your XP) × 0.1.

This brings up two implications:

• It discourages easy grinding since weaker enemies won't give you much XP, and potentially may not even be able to give you enough XP to keep going forward. You're pretty much forced to go for stronger foes.
• If the XP of the enemy is lower than yours, you can actually lose XP (since the difference is now negative). This makes fighting weaker enemies even a worse idea. That's what the player gets for being lazy, I guess =P
  

What an interesting concept! I'd actually never heard of that before.

And I totally get where Torchkas is coming from too. The whole "You fell off the bridge! Have 100 EXP and a cookie!" is kinda ridiculous. But the whole "achievement" thing is a slight spin-off of the topic at hand because its especially pervasive in the XBox world. I mean, are you even considered a proper console game (on XBox anyway) if you don't have oodles of (XBox Gamerscore) achievements? They aren't all bad, but do we want or need a "Complete Level 1,2,etc." achievement system?

[s0]

The whole "You fell off the bridge! Have 100 EXP and a cookie!" is kinda ridiculous.

but its actually closer to how experience is supposed to work in pen and paper rpgs. it's just computer rpgs that mostly reduce it to killing enemies.

[Torchkas]

...So you, uh, think Fallout is not an RPG?

It presents itself like that but that doesn't mean I like it.

[s0]

but you said "rpg mechanics in other games" and fallout IS a rpg...

[Torchkas]

It shouldn't be.