next »

[Muz]

I'm on the anti-grinding side of the fence. I don't have enough time in my life to do what I want and click the same button repetitively in a game. I certainly wouldn't pay to skip the grind, though, because IMO, any game that relies solely on grinding as a game mechanic can't be a good one.

There are plenty of people who do love grinding though. Grinding isn't always boring. The whole idea is that it's an "A for effort" thing, in that the people who put the most effort into the game win. They don't even put heavy effort, just easy, laid back effort, sometimes with a friend.


My favorite form of grinding is what Cyber Nations does. Every day, you log in once for 5 mins, pay bills, then log off. You have to do this once every 25 days to not get deleted. It's very simple, it strongly appeals to casual players, and the hardcore ones can and do find other ways of getting ahead. No surprise that it's got a large player base.

Anyone who's ever created a CN nation would immediately see the other form of grinding - recruitment. Hundreds of alliances send out lots of private messages in the game every day, trying to recruit.. that's another form of grinding. Another form, more obvious in their tournament version, is trades. An individual has to dig into the game mechanics, find suitable trades for their nation, and spam dozens of others to try to get ideal trades.

It's still a lot of mindless effort, but it becomes a bit interesting because you're always doing the effort with other people. Since heavy grinding games are almost always social... it might be a good idea to try to force them to mass interact with others. But that introduces social power, and some people who look for simple grinding games don't want to deal with that.

[s0]

I'll still drop inordinate amount of time in roguelikes though.

Roguelikes aren't grind-based at all though. In fact, most of them actively punish grinding via hunger mechanics. In something like Nethack or Crawl, getting your level up so you don't get completely obliterated on the lower dungeon floors is a challenge in itself.

[Razz]

I don't mind grinding, as long as the enemies are interesting, varied, and fun to battle against.

Oh wait, that completely throws most rpg's and mmo's out the window

[Sorano]

Well, I'd say that depends to a lot of factors.

For example, in online games like Phantasy Star Online and World of Warcraft, one of the things you do constantly is complete dungeons repeatedly for daily bonuses, money and equipment. There's very strong grind incentive built into these games.

I never truly got bored because most occasions I was playing with different or familiar players on every occasion. Almost everyone always displayed varying combinations of character classes, equipment, abilities and skill, which kept things fresh. Plus, there was the social interaction to add to the value of the experience.

Killing a dragon with a buddy or acquaintance just feels good. Something to consider.

[SirNiko]

From a different perspective, Minesweeper is a sort of a grind game. Large parts of it involve making simple, obvious moves based on known patterns. Frequently you reach situations where there is no choice left but to click randomly and hope for the best.

The key is that Minesweeper doesn't use the grind as a gate to some other aspect of the game. In that light, it's simply a pass-time game for when you're bored or want a little low-thought interaction on the side. I'm certain we all have a game like that we enjoy playing.

[Bree]

I don't mind grinding, as long as the enemies are interesting, varied, and fun to battle against.

Oh wait, that completely throws most rpg's and mmo's out the window

Perhaps it's the aesthetics that can help ease grinding- the reason most people remember Earthbound's combat system is probably because of the writing and the strange pop-culture characters you fought against. I find that a strong art direction with cute characters always wins me over. Case in point: Dragon Quest. The battle system is at first blush as simple as can be, but I was too distracted by the critters with adorable puns like Sacksquatch and Cruelcumber to actually care. By the time the battle system got deeper (still haven't beaten it yet after several weeks), there have been some more generic monsters, but they're still rendered in Toriyama's charming style, and the bosses still have amazing puns. More kids' games need amazing puns.

[s0]

I don't mind grinding, as long as the enemies are interesting, varied, and fun to battle against.

Oh wait, that completely throws most rpg's and mmo's out the window

Your point being?

[gimymblert]

.... the point being that enemies are not interesting, varied and fun to battle against, which is the main problem of grinding.

Seriously, nobody try to address that point correctly, the usual approach is to have an unorthodox fighting system that qualify the game as not "yet another" fantasy expansion pack, which is fun 5 minutes but get old quickly as it fall back to old mindless practice. Next time with punctuation.

Oh wait: valkyrie profile, mario and Luigi, chrono trigger ...

[s0]

I don't mind platforming as long as the levels are well-designed, varied and fun to play through.

Oh wait, that completely throws most platformers, metroidvanias and run'n'guns out the window.

See what I'm trying to get at here?

Also,

Oh wait: valkyrie profile, mario and Luigi, chrono trigger ...

I'd like to add the excellent and underrated Resonance of Fate to that list. Some of the mechanics seem a bit far-fetched and esoteric at first but after a couple of battles they make total sense.

[Razz]

Perhaps it's the aesthetics that can help ease grinding- the reason most people remember Earthbound's combat system is probably because of the writing and the strange pop-culture characters you fought against. I find that a strong art direction with cute characters always wins me over. Case in point: Dragon Quest. The battle system is at first blush as simple as can be, but I was too distracted by the critters with adorable puns like Sacksquatch and Cruelcumber to actually care. By the time the battle system got deeper (still haven't beaten it yet after several weeks), there have been some more generic monsters, but they're still rendered in Toriyama's charming style, and the bosses still have amazing puns. More kids' games need amazing puns.

I've actually been dying to play Dragon Quest for that reason alone; The enemies look so charming and interesting that I honestly wouldn't mind battling them over and over again. Maybe this is why I enjoy atmospheric games like Knytt and SOTC; To me charm beats gameplay anyday.

I don't mind platforming as long as the levels are well-designed, varied and fun to play through.

Oh wait, that completely throws most platformers, metroidvanias and run'n'guns out the window.

See what I'm trying to get at here?

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 )

Either way though, to me most RPG's focus more on the NUMBERS of the enemies instead of the design and the battle scenario. I'm not saying ALL rpg's and mmo's are bad, but that's just my personal experience with them.

[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?

[gimymblert]

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".

[s0]

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.

[gimymblert]

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.