|
[Prefer your blog posts on a sexy, dark background, without screwed up picture captions? Head on over to read this post and many others at Glenalysis! Though feel free to post your comments here.]
Battling for the Fate of Skyrim... until it gets Old
I've never really been into open-ended sandboxy games. For me I just felt like they have far too much content for me to care about. Sure, they might have an interesting main storyline to follow along with, but I just feel like these games always seem to outstay their welcome for me. When I put a game like Skryim down, the experience doesn't end on a high note, but a low one. The game just fizzles out into obscurity to gather dust in my gaming library.
I had played Fallout 3 a few years ago, and was initially intrigued by the exploration and the immersive nature of the game. That is, until I reached the level cap, and felt so powerful that the game really lost any sense of challenge or tension. I had barely explored a quarter of the map and I was already bored with the game. I had plenty of powerful weapons, with little need for better ones, and the story just wasn't interesting enough for me to want to see more of it.
Bah! This is just Fallout 3 with Elves!
 |
When Skyrim first came out, I looked at it with similar suspicion. Sure, it was the fifth entry in the popular Elder Scrolls series, and I had heard many people rave about how much they love it. But I was still skeptical... until I saw it on a Steam sale on Christmas for $40. A $20 savings within a month of release for a major game! I had never seen such a thing, so I thought "screw it, why not?".
On a side note, if you ever see Alpha Protocol for $5, go for it. Best $5 I've spent in a long time.
 |
Granted, I clocked in 98 hours into the game, which is nothing to sneeze at. I genuinely got pulled into the thrill of exploring the game world like I never had before, and I was eager to discover what was around the next corner as I explored its vast landscape. But around the time I achieved 80 points in Destruction magic and about 60+ in Conjuration, I could easily summon Dremora Lords and hurl Incineration spells practically at will. Combat suddenly became boring and mindless. Sure, there were stronger enemies, but they were more damage sponges that a major threat, and fighting tougher foes like Dragon Priests came down to more luck than skill, as they could easily one-shot me if I wasn't careful.
I ended up just setting the game down to easy mode to fight Alduin and beat the main story quest... then I was just done with the game. I hadn't seen the Stormcloak/Empire conflict to its conclusion, nor killed all of the Dragon Priests, or learned all the Dragon shouts, but I didn't really care. The game just got stale for me and I ended up moving on to other games.
And by moving on I mean going back to playing Starcraft 2.
 |
When it comes to games, I prefer my games tighter and more focused, with just the right amount of content and good direction to create a game that comes together into a satisfying whole, where completing it gives me a feeling of triumph and enrichment. "Endless" games just don't seem to do it for me.
A Tale of the Bearded Muse
I recently read a blog post of a friend of mine, who went into a personal story of his own shifting taste in games. He talks about how his interest has shifted from wanting to beat games as soon as possible, to savoring the experience of games and taking his time through them. Further, he dreads seeing the games he's enjoy come to an end, and has thus become more interested in games that essentially never end, like MMOs.
Craig during Freshmen year.
 |
His tastes sound like the complete opposite to what I thought made games fun. This intrigued me, and inspired me to delve into the core appeal of what one might call "endless" games.
A Little History
Old-school games back in the Atari and Arcade days largely fell into two camps. The first were games that presented the completion of the game as the ultimate goal and challenge. These games were marked with a constant, forward momentum, minimal exposition, and were largely about the thrill of conquering the challenge the game had to offer. From Golden Axe to Metal Slug, these games were typically your light brawlers, shoot-em-ups, or fighting games that drove the player ever forward toward a final, climactic confrontation.
The second were games that a player could never win, only hold out until they inevitably lose. Games like Asteroids or Centipede are good examples of this, where the player's main driving motivation was to get the highest score for bragging rights and the sense of accomplishment.
It was a simpler time.
 |
As games moved out of the arcades to the home, new approaches developed to increase the longevity of games. This included such things as having multiple endings, hidden content, optional challenges, multiplayer, or even tools to allow for player-authored content.
While not every game offers a massive breadth of content, there are plenty of games looking to give players the ability to enjoy their games for as long as possible.
The Neverending Story
A number of different trends have emerged over the years geared toward making games last longer and keeping players hooked. These trends fall roughly into a few catagories:
- True Endless Experiences
These are games that do not have an end state. Games like Farmville are great examples of this. Rather than setting out an ultimate goal for the player to complete, they instead give players a set of tools by which they may define and work toward their own goals. Such games lack any true terminal goals, which end the game experience upon completing, but do often use incremental goals to give players a sense of forward momentum and achievement.
Clearly looking to go into the Pro League
 |
As far as actual objectives are concerned, however, these are externalized from the game itself and put into the hands of the players themselves, so they can decide for themselves what they want to achieve. Often such games also lack a definite loss state, removing an element of games that could potentially turn off players from playing further.
Games like Farmville in particular have the appeal of being about management and control. For people that with busy, chaotic lives, these games provide a little "island" of their very own which they have full control over. By the same token, however, they can just as easily be seen as boring, as your progress does not lead you to any goal outside of what you define for yourself.
- Faux Endless Experience
These are games that feel like they go on forever, but in reality have a finite amount of content. Sandbox games like the Grand Theft Auto series or MMOs like World of Warcraft are some of the most famous examples of this. They provide a large amount of missions and objectives directed within the game, and that content is distributed such that players may take on different tasks at their own pace and in the order of their choosing. This gives players a greater sense of agency in the narrative of the game, as well as making their experience unique in comparison to their friends.
MMOs and Sandbox games diverge a bit, however, in their core appeal. For MMOs, it is the social element that keeps many players coming back, even years after the game has gone out of style. People build friendships around their guilds, trade things at auction houses, and enjoy major raids and other group content. These kinds of games leverage the sense of camaraderie among players, and in some cases can allow for rather compelling emergent social drama to emerge, energizing the playerbase by showing just what can be done in the game's possibility space.
Sandbox games go for more of a hard-coded system of emergence, based on different permutations of the games' many interacting systems. From the behavior of civilians to physics systems, they create a space where the player can enjoy causing mayhem and delight in watching how the world will react. Perhaps the funniest thing I have heard happening comes from a story a friend of mine told me years ago about Fallout 2. He was in a city (New Reno, I believe) talking to this mafia boss type guy at a bar. He ends up pissing him off, so the Mafia guy starts shooting him.
Now, the interesting thing about early Fallout games is that if someone is firing a ranged weapon and it misses, it has a chance of hitting someone else in the line of fire. In this case, it hit a prostitute on the other side of the bar, who immediately became hostile, pulling out a knife and attacking the mafia guy. The mafia guy kills her, which aggros the rest of the prostitutes in the city, which proceed to attack him, which aggros the rest of the mafia guys. In other words, one stray bullet started a full-on mafia vs prostitute war.
In essence, these types of games are most often about exploration and taking in the game over the course of a long time. Often they are the ones that have the largest amount of substantive content for people to sink their teeth into. Yet such games can have their own problems, where the grind of trivial side quests and objectives can become boring, especially after main story objectives are complete.
- Session-Based Play
Many games today either include a multiplayer mode or are based entirely around the multiplayer experience. These games, while often having far less content than massive, sprawling games, often enjoy longevity equaling or even exceeding the playtime of even the largest sandbox games. Most of these experiences are competitive, like League of Legends, though some like Left4Dead hold the promise of having more co-op focused games in the future (though Left4Dead does have a competitive mode as well). In either case, they rely heavily on an energized player base and community to keep them active and in the spotlight for players (not unlike with MMOs).
Tired of me bringing up how awesome League of Legends is every other post? Me neither!
 |
Such games overwhelmingly provide a virtually unlimited play experience, though the narrative possibilities have not been explored nearly as much. Perhaps the closest to that trend is in the upcoming game Diablo III, which will feature randomized quests, in addition to its traditional randomized loot and dungeons. Until we have more sophisticated systems of dynamic narrative, I believe our best bet at an unlimited narrative experience comes from the players themselves.
These types of games are perhaps the most like their old arcade counterparts, with each session being a competition to reach some ultimate goal. Yet even after the goal is achieved, the game isn't over. Far from it, as the game encourages you to experience the struggle to reach that goal over and over again, with the thrill and unpredictability of human allies and adversaries providing an emergent narrative of sorts for the player to enjoy.
As I alluded to, the biggest pitfall of session-based games is that for the most part they are competitive, or otherwise focused around overcoming a challenge, which can limit its appeal among inexperienced and casual players.
- Community-Driven Content Creation
With the advent of level editors and authoring tools, it has become easier than ever for players to not only play with one another, but share a piece of their creativity with the communities of their favorite games. Starting with Starcraft (if I'm not mistaken), excellent content development tools were made and, perhaps more importantly, integrated into the main game such that players could easily stumble upon mods and custom maps.
Further, there have been games like Minecraft designed entirely around user-generated content and mods and sharing it with others (thanks to Minecraft's multiplayer mode). This kind of initiative goes beyond just providing more content for players, but actually makes that content feel more meaningful, as it is made by friends and fellow gamers that the player can relate to, perhaps motivating them to get in on the action.
Games that feature this create a much more intimate relationship between the player and their game, as it allows them to be a part of the game they love and through it create their own mini-game experience of their very own. Of course, getting people to want to do this requires players that are interested enough in the game in the first place to take the time to make such mods, not to mention the extra development time required to make such tools, so it isn't always the best option for all games.
The Story Continues
There is yet one other point I touched upon I have yet to cover - the idea of player satisfaction - the feeling of triumph and the validation that the time spent with a game was worth it. Alas, that is another story entirely, and rather than shoehorn it into this discussion, I will leave it for my next post. Stay tuned!
|
But a couple weeks ago, I picked up the game for the first time in over a year. I realized "I don't play games just to get XP--theoretically, I should be playing a game because it's fun." So I've been exploring, with no XP involved at all, and it's fantastic.
RPGs have us hooked on the Skinner Box. It's up to us to figure out on our own it's not the way to play games.
This is a good point to explore though. I'll dive more into it with my next entry. Thanks for the comment!
Actually what you're talking about is what's great about Fallout, especially New Vegas. Multiple endings and different paths that have consequences should be developed further not discouraged because you feel it's a clunky design.
You misunderstand my point. I'm all for having multiple endings and consequences, that's not what I'm getting at at all.
What I'm talking about is when you have a game where you are basically playing it like a dungeon crawler for the first, lets say, 3rd of the game, then the remaining 2/3rds are a non-challenging adventure game. When that transition happens you are going to lose people (like what happened with me). The experience becomes inconsistent, and the entire way you approach the game at that point has to dramatically shift for you to want to continue to play beyond that point.
You need to recognise and understand (along with many other people) that games are NOT about goals or rewards etc. - they're NOT about the destination - they're about the process of competing itself (in a structured environment), by writing your own story, (in whatever manner) - they're about the journey - and competition (as the state of competing) can be perpetual...
So whether or not a game has any recognised or even scripted ending - an overall goal that can be gained or not - is purely subjective on behalf of an individual game, as part of its subjective application, and has nothing to do with its definition (as a game). Goals being subjective is merely part of a subjective application on behalf of those taking part in such an activity in the first place - and is part of deciding what type of activity it is on a subjective basis - e.g. a game, puzzle, competition or merely perceiving a work of art etc..
ALL games are competitive. The only difference is how - nearly all games use or have some form of indirect competition (setting or AI for computer games, etc.), and many also use direct competition between players.
At the end of the day, for this matter, it's all about finding the right balance between the gameplay and the size and depth of its setting. (Plot and narrative (stories told within such a setting) are not a game).
The biggest problem appears when the size and scope of a game (especially setting) outweigh the gameplay depth (especially its development), and so the game gets boring and overly repetitive - (which is, of course, subjective). (Sacred 1&2 are like that for me). But this is something computers can deal with and mitigate to a far better degree than any other medium used for games, if people understood how and why...
I disagree that games are about goals or rewards. Yes, there are plenty of games out there that do allow a player to explore them in the manner of their choosing, and I recognize that Skyrim is one such game. But goals and rewards are part of the design of, really, all games, and they aren't just there for show. They serve an actual purpose and players respond well to them, so I don't agree they are a problem or something for developers or players to just ignore.
That kind of philosophical talk may sound great, but I just don't think it holds up to the reality of the industry. That said, I am intrigued by your blog, so I'll check that out.The point of the article is that, in my opinion, I don't think this is the most effective approach. If the game isn't about goals or rewards, then don't have goals and rewards in your game. Having the first part of the game be very goal and reward driven and then suddenly not once you reach a level cap is bad design, imo. It creates a dissonance between player expectations and what they experience in-game. Again, this is something I will go into more detail on in my next post.
The latter part of your post I agree with. I think open world games need to find better solutions for dealing with the massive amount of content they have. I think its safe to assume most people play Skyrim for combat, questing, and becoming more powerful, especially if they haven't played other games in the series.
I for one believe in having games like this be more about *qualitative* content rather than quantitative. By that I mean rather than having getting a new sword that does an additional 2 damage or something, why not get a sword that talks? A magic carpet? Something that isn't your generic piece of loot. I actually found the mask that teleports you into this sort of pocket dimension to be the most intriguing item in the game, and it's a shame there aren't more like it.
The problem we have - ( which itself, is a symptom of a even larger problem - read my blog) - is that the word game itself is not recognised or understood for what it represents, either in isolation or in relation to other, similar concepts and words - (puzzle, competition, art, work and play etc.).
One of the main symptoms of this problem, is the lack of full recognition and understanding of the difference and relationship between the word's definition, and its application.
Goals and rewards etc, are part of the word's application, and have no place in its definition - instead merely being implied by the use of the word competition itself.
But it's possible to compete for goals and rewards that do not, nor even cannot exist... Competition itself is not defined by such goals or rewards to be gained - but the behaviour of TRYING to gain them, (even if impossible).
The word game represents such a competitive process, which is why goals and rewards are not explicitly and objectively required for games to exist.
The lack of recognition and understanding of competition itself, is therefore a big part of why we do not fully understand games themselves...
Obviously consistency is key for many elements of a game - not just the nature of it's competitive aspect - and the same can be said for puzzles and competitions too.
The most powerful element computer games have to offer, is for gameplay development - (especially written (by the player) - and it's here my blog will wind up, but will take a while to get there...
I think you are getting way more abstract than you need to be, and to be honest your posts are a bit hard to follow as a result. From what I understand you are touching on this idea of "games" no longer adequately describing what games have become.
This I agree with. There are plenty of "games" coming out these days that are not games in the traditional sense, but are more like "interactive entertainment." The game industry is undoubtedly diversifying, but that doesn't mean our old (if imprecise) definition of games is no longer relevant. Far from it. I think there will always be games as we know them today as well as less competitive "interactive entertainment" for those looking for something different.
But to say that traditional goals and rewards should be ignored or discarded in the name of some enlightened understanding of what a game is or is becoming I think is just denying the reality of the business.
Brilliant, and although I may state it differently as how personal relation is > definition you are more or less on the same wave length as me.
If games satisfied there wouldn't be this discussion though, at least not right now. The market is more or less irrelevant to the understanding. Once you have understanding you can then reason direction. But to understand the problems, you have to break them down. Abstractly through the comprehension of language like Darren or through asking yourself the tough questions.
Goals and rewards can be great. But if they don't apply they don't have consistent meaning and thereby they don't have purpose and the end products become obvious uninteresting abstractions. And so instead of well designed connection to the player we have instead replaced this intelligent design with commercialization filler, disconnected content (with exception to base emotional highs), and sent the industry spiraling toward and being hopelessly mired in mediocre stagnation.
Without a correction at it's roots where the purpose lies in delivering a connected experience there won't be a change to the problem.
"If games satisfied there wouldn't be this discussion though, at least not right now." Satisfied what? Who? I already talked about how there are "games" that are branching outside of the traditional definition of games and allow players to define their own experience.
Certainly goals and rewards can be misused, and may even be unnecessary for certain games. You could even make the argument that some reward mechanisms are a lazy replacement for players feeling a sense of accomplishment simply by virtue of experiencing and completing said goals themselves.
I think you and Darren are exaggerating this "problem," and it is already being addressed by many companies like That Game Company and their new title Journey. They are all about experimenting in the realm of breaking with these kinds of conventions.
But I don't buy that if only game developers woke up to some revelation about how you don't need goals/rewards that every game will follow suit with Journey. Traditional games with their rewards and goals are here to stay, I think, as such things have long predated video games in the form of board games like chess or, well, every sport in existence. I think you misguidedly framing this as a "problem" rather than an *alternative* to traditional game design. So relax, you'll get more "no goals, no rewards" kind of games in the near future, trust me.
The "who" is anyone who isn't served by mainstream gaming convention. The "why" is because triple A gaming hasn't really addressed role playing at all (except with base concepts from over 30 years ago) , or really anything with authorship or serious artistic form.
Certainly goals and rewards can be misused, and may even be unnecessary for certain games. You could even make the argument that some reward mechanisms are a lazy replacement for players feeling a sense of accomplishment simply by virtue of experiencing and completing said goals themselves.
No, no it's actually that they completely miss the reasoning for even making a game at all. Achievements and awards are a cheap out, for actually purposeful authored content. And in general modern gaming doesn't address goals except in the most superficial format. Kill dragon, take loot from corpse, craft and sell. Those aren't goals those are busywork tasks without authored purpose. They have nothing to do with playing, they have nothing to do with gaming after being repeated a few times. The equation quickly slips into the "do job for $"
I think you and Darren are exaggerating this "problem," and it is already being addressed by many companies like That Game Company and their new title Journey. They are all about experimenting in the realm of breaking with these kinds of conventions.
It's not really being addressed honestly, it's being toyed with. Sony is a huge company, with a long history of corporate shenanigans. Is journey making some valid artist statements, definitely. But it is most likely a "puzzle piece" to the entire equation of quality gaming and not actually a benchmark game.
But I don't buy that if only game developers woke up to some revelation about how you don't need goals/rewards that every game will follow suit with Journey. Traditional games with their rewards and goals are here to stay, I think, as such things have long predated video games in the form of board games like chess or, well, every sport in existence. I think you misguidedly framing this as a "problem" rather than an *alternative* to traditional game design. So relax, you'll get more "no goals, no rewards" kind of games in the near future, trust me.
I didn't say they didn't need goals, I took it a step farther. They need to rethink why payers play games at all. The irony here is also Sony is only marketing "Journey" on the playstation, Sony has in the past created a lot of benchmark ideas they have a super smart game making team, but they also have a history of imho thumbing their nose at their player base.
So while Journey will likely be an interesting side view of gaming I highly doubt console heads will give a rip.
I think at this point we are pretty much on the same page with eachother, just describing the same issues in different ways. You are getting more into the idea of player satisfaction with their games, which is the topic I'm covering next. Let's leave it at that for the time being, as I think we've strayed enough off-topic for now.
Well - I did suggest you read my blog first... ;)
"From what I understand you are touching on this idea of "games" no longer adequately describing what games have become."
No, although it's greater than what I've written here. What has happened, is that many people think that using a computer as a medium is 'special', and so affects what activities and behaviour it is used for and to enable.
Which is, of course, wrong. Although, as a medium, a computer can enable different methods of enabling such behaviour, and different ways of interacting with such a medium, the actual activities it enables are nothing special at all.
What types of activities are we specifically having problems with?Games, art, puzzles and competitions, (and even work and play).
The main problem we are having, is that puzzles and competitions are being called *games* - just because they're using a computer...
And the main reason for that, is because games, puzzles and competitions etc. are not fully recognised and understood, even outside of computers themselves - and the reason for that is... Well - read my blog, and find out!
"But to say that traditional goals and rewards should be ignored or discarded"
It's not about that at all. It's about understanding WHY they exist, and therefore HOW they can be used as best as possible depending on the activity they're part of.
Goals and rewards are the end RESULT of some behaviour.* The NATURE of such behaviour involved, and the NATURE of such rewards, MATTERS, for the type of activity we're trying to enable and/or promote.
By only focusing on the actual rewards/goals themselves - the result of any such behaviour - especially in relation to games, people then get confused between cause and effect, and the very nature of competition itself.
Rewards/goals are generally about the subjective APPLICATION of competition, and can include games, puzzles and competitions, (or even just work and play), within their jurisdiction. As such, it's about what they're EFFECTED and CAUSED by, that matters for the definition, and therefore presence and role, of games.
As I said - this is all about CONSISTENCY - especially CONSISTENCY in making, and designing GAMES, instead of puzzles or competitions or a load of stuff thrown together - (usually at a/the game's expense) - that are just being labelled games, because 'we' don't know any better...
A 'choose your own adventure' book, is (generally) a puzzle - a maze in literary form. Is that what it is considered to be, either in such a form, or even in equivalent visual form? No, of course not...And this is why we have problems - not using the language (that already exists) in a consistent manner...
*Major EDIT/ADDITION:
I suppose I should add a bit on here, though I covered it in my blog. What we call 'gamification', is, of course, perceived as using such rewards to promote other behaviour. But since the nature of the rewards and the behaviour they are supposed to promote is not specific, the term itself is a complete misnomer - it should really be called 'competification' - using competition itself to promote other behaviour - (and is really extremely basic, and extremely common/old - and probably not just for humans, either, except for specific methods/applications (of course)).
So, games are naturally competitive activities. This means, of course, that 'competification' can be present and used within games. The problem, however, is with how it's APPLIED, in relation to what games happen to be - and that is where we have problems...
This is great and this is something that I think Glen's take on things would have us move away from rather towards. An RPG should really provide the framework for the player to create their own "role" within that world. Fetch quests and things like that have become just a bad mechanism to try to accomplish that feeling for the player. Another thing that has really hurt these games is the addition of the GPS marker. You can see this when you play Skyrim and there's no way to figure out what you're supposed to do just by looking through the journal. What was great about Final Fantasy, at least on the PS1, was that you're told what to do next in the dialogue and if you didn't pay attention you'd have to wander around for awhile until you came across what you were supposed to do. There wasn't even a journal at all. Granted, in those games there wasn't really a journal, at least not from what I remember.
I don't know where you get the idea that I don't think we should have true roleplaying in games. I am all for that. I am saying that in the context of Skyrim, the game is largely driven by completing quests and getting loot. There is undoubtedly exploration in the game, but I think they tried to appease two different types of players and failed to please one of them.
The first are those that like to explore every nook and cranny of a game for its secrets, which they pulled off really well. The second are those that play for a more traditional dungeon-crawler experience of gaining levels, loot, etc. For this second group the fact that you can hit the level/power cap so quickly relative to the amount of content in the game is problematic, as you no longer have the drive to explore that content further.
What you are talking about is a completely different discussion. For what it's worth, I don't think there is a whole lot of solid "role playing" in Skyrim in the interpersonal sense. And yes, there aren't enough RPGs that explore true roleplaying effectively. But that is a completely different topic than what I'm getting at.
Also, maps/GPS stuff were put in for accessibility, not to dumb down the experience. Not everyone has the time or patience to wander around trying to figure out where to go. Most games give you the option to turn it off if you so choose, but as far as I know Skyrim does not.
As far as a journal goes, Final Fantasy games really only had one quest going on at any given time, so there was no need for a journal. Again, it comes down to accessibility. Not everyone is willing or able to do a marathon gaming session and complete all the quests they get before forgetting about them. Some people play a couple times a week, or move on to other games for a while and come back to them, and for those people a journal is essential, so you can re-orient yourself to the game more quickly. Again, it is done in the name of allowing more people to enjoy the game, whether you think its how RPGs aught to be or not.
That's not true that in Final Fantasy there was only one quest going on at one time. There were multiple things to do at any given time, except maybe in the beginning. The map markers do dumb it down though, you can quibble about accessibility vs. dumbing down all you want, but it's really dumbing down. This is where Skyrim really tried to appeal to more people not in the sense of what you're talking about with the dichotomy between dungeon crawling and exploration. What has to be done is there has to be enough information within the game pertaining to the quests so that you can figure out what to do without the map markers. Unfortunately, for a lot of the quests in Skyrim you must follow the arrows (although there is a mod on PC that is addressing this). Bethesda failed badly here because it seems to me it is easier just to program the markers than it is to provide the clues for the quests within the game.
Glen is right in that the nature of cRPG's are not really what this blog post exists to cover - and so belongs in a different, separate, thread.
However, the nature of cRPG's, and the problems such a label itself is causing, especially in relation to one particular element, is ultimately what my blog exists to discuss/tell.
The problem with the term role-playing-game, is that it is being used to describe a collection of three (main) disparate elements/concepts, that all exist and can/should be considered separately, (and can merely be used in combination), not all of which are consistent with being used to label a type of game in the first place... (One of these elements is what my blog is here to talk about.) Unfortunately, by using a single label to describe ALL of these elements, (when it is only truly consistent with one of them), one, main element it is inconsistent with is therefore not being fully recognised and understood in isolation, and therefore being used to its full potential - ( again, this is where my blog (eventually) comes in).
But it gets even worse! Although there are three main elements such a label is consistently recognised to represent - (however inconsistent such a label may be) - there are other concepts which people feel should be part of such a description/definition too - however inconsistent they might be, too. Which is where my blog so far, begins... (Game/art - cRPG's/plot & narrative)).
"But goals and rewards are part of the design of, really, all games, and they aren't just there for show. They serve an actual purpose and players respond well to them, so I don't agree they are a problem or something for developers or players to just ignore."
Neal and Jana Hallford summarized the purpose and importance of rewards and this quote should be printed on the monitors and paychecks of every game designer in the business:
“It’s surprising how many developers forget that it’s the victories and treasures – not the obstacles – that make people interested in playing in the first place. If you stop giving out the carrots that will keep players excited, or even worse, if you start punishing them for their curiosity, you’re only going to drive away the very people who want to enjoy your game."
Again - I suggest you read my blog - the problems you are all making is described there:
You are all mistaking (some of the reasons) WHY (games are played), for WHAT (games are) and HOW (they are played and therefore exist).
Goals, being an application of competition, are merely part of why we take part in any such (a competitive) activity - why we compete. The behaviour involved in competing, however, can also matter, in, for and by itself.
The problem we have, is that the behaviour the word game itself represents an application of, has nothing to do with such rewards - nothing to do with why it exists - only with what behaviour is taking place, (and therefore how such rewards/goals are reached/gained).
Without placing such rewards/goals etc., within such a context - they have no meaning or relevance, which is a problem I see, and part of why games, puzzles and competitions (especially) are not being understood either in isolation, or in relation to each other - because as far as such rewards and goals are concerned, there may be NO DIFFERENCE between them...
Game, art, puzzle and competition represent applications of BEHAVIOUR (things that happen) - and without placing, recognising or understanding such a thing, and therefore being able to place any and all matters related to such a concept, in relation to their application, we're all just going round in circles, not fully knowing or understanding exactly what it is we are really trying to do, and therefore how (best) to do it.
Perhaps the real irony is that while I can't maintain interest in an endless game, if I like a shorter game, I'll play it over and over again for years. Not only am I performing the same action, but I'm going through the same action structure and plot dozens of times. Many of my single-player games (the good ones, anyway), I've played in their entirety at least five times apiece. Some of my favorites, as many as 40. I'm not talking single-session games like Super Mario Bros., either. This also isn't even considering "tradition" games that I habitually play at the same time every year.
Multiplayer is strange for me to consider. I'm never around anyone who wants to play video games, and I don't have reliable Internet service, so anytime I get to play a multiplayer game, it's a situation of "How nostalgic, I haven't done this in a long time." It's a novel situation simply due to its rarity. That's a tough situation to judge.
Also, your posts draw way more comments than mine.
I think the "dumbing down" of games like Skyrim and such has more to do with money than anything else. Making huge, open-world games are expensive, so they need to draw in as many players as possible to get a return on their investment. Therefore, they need to keep the gameplay simple enough for most people to pick up and play.
Still, I think a lot of companies go about this the wrong way. Extra Credits makes a great point about how there is a huge difference between making a game *accessible* and making a game *easy*. http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/easy-games
@Douglas- The point of a game like Skyrim isn't to feel like you're done, actually the point is to feel like you're never done. That is, to create your own role within a world that to some extent might react in some way to the creation of that story. However, this is where the discussion should be going. It shouldn't be going in the direction of so-called repetitiveness since any game is repetitive at its core. Ever play Mario? Or Tetris? Well all those games are are endless jump and run fests or flipping blocks around and making lines disappear. I mean that doesn't really describe what the game is and how complex it is does it?
Anyways, the discussion should be going in the direction of figuring out how the player's actions can be reflected in the game world. Sandbox games are amazing, they just need to be developed more. If you don't "get" them or don't have the attention span for them, maybe you shouldn't be in this discussion because there obviously is a huge market for them.
Since there's been some puzzlement expressed at why people might feel that way, there are a couple of reasons I think I can see:
1. Big open worlds offer more exploration content than mechanics-driven games. Particularly if the world can change, either in itself or through NPC actors, a big world is a lot more fun for an Explorer-type gamer than a mechanics-based game where the fun is in mastering a few physical actions. The core competencies of (for example) a Mario Kart are memorization and manual dexterity, while enjoyment of an open, world-y game depends on perception (pattern recognition) and curiosity about world-system interactions -- key aspects of an innate preference for exploration. Small, master-the-mechanics games just don't scratch that particular itch.
2. Big open worlds encourage player-directed activity, where mechanics-focused games are more about being good at doing the specific things permitted by the developer. Some people play Minecraft and drop it five minutes later because they get frustrated at not being told what they're supposed to do. Not knowing the path to the "win" state is frustrating. Others -- the ones who naturally like big open worlds -- are laughing in delight five minutes into Minecraft because they're not constantly being told what they're "supposed" to do.
For these two reasons, I find it very instructive that Todd Howard of Bethesda said one of the key lessons they learned from how Fallout 3 ended was "Don't let the game end." Gamers don't choose to play the entirety of a big, open, worldy game because their primary goal is to master several dexterity-based mechanics and then move to the next game. They happily played for 200+ hours because they enjoy the pretense of "living in" a big, sprawling world filled with dynamic, interacting systems to explore. When they find such a (rare) gameworld, it's completely natural that they don't want it to end.
I think the success of games like Minecraft and Skyrim suggests that a game designed to be a truly "endless" world-simulating single-player game could do pretty well. There seem to be enough gamers who enjoy and prefer player-directed exploratory play to make such games commercially worthwhile. Here's hoping that more such games get made.
The problem is I think these two kinds of play contradict eachother, and create a dissonance in the game's design. People like me that enjoyed getting more stuff and accumulating in power over time end up being disappointed once you reach a certain level of power, yet most of the world still remains there left to be discovered.
I think designers of such games need to A) commit to either an exploration game or Diablo-esque dungeon crawler and make design decisions around that, or B) Create a Skyrim-like exploration RPG where the focus is on the novelty of what you come across, not growing in power. If exploration is the main draw, then focus on that, and give players plenty of cool things to stumble across, and de-emphasize the need for loot and absurd amounts of power.
Lumping Minecraft in with SkyRim doesn't feel right.
And I don't feel there is much substantial pattern recognition in a game like SkyRim or that the game's systems invoke any curiosity unless you haven't played RPGs before or everyday is GroundHog Day for you.
Also there is exploration in a Mario game. They do have that element to them for those that want that. There is always hidden coins and secrets to find by playing the levels again. There is also always more ways to play the same levels.
On the surface of course this isn't that apparent and maybe you need to be told that the gold coin you found is really the 7th eye Of the staff of an old wizard that is rumored to have lived in the hills alone for the last 399 years. Doomed to solitude until his power is returned to him by a nameless wanderer.
But i would just as soon abstract all that out because I have read all that rpg gaming tripe enough times that it tends to go in one ear and out the other anyway. :)
SkyRim just too big of a time commitment for some like myself. I do recognize that some love those sandboxes to run around in and seem to have endless appetites for that stuff. If it was my first rpg and I hadn't played a few Ultimas, Wizardries, Might and Magics, etc then I might be in. But as it is it feels like you have to take everything out of your life when you sign up for a game like that. And attempts at trying to pace something like SkyRim never seem to work because you forget what you did last time time and it takes an hour just to get back in the groove.
If you don't believe whats around the corner is worth a look why randomly wander over there. Part of the problem is games have become to rote and predictable. I can calculate without even recognizing it the probably of something worth my time exploring it. I can within reasonable accuracy determine the value of the journey. And frankly Bethseda is fairly predictable.
So then the issue becomes will I choose to journey randomly in an area because I believe this is likely where something interesting changes, or creates provocative thought or game play.
At a certain point in a game like Tomb Raider you stop inspecting the grains of sand because the time vs reward is so lousy. BUT, if the journey is actually interesting (BG) I'll search every cotton pickin square inch.
Darren's ~ point comes to mind again depth vs size. and Bethseda sad as it may seem isn't really all that and a bag of chips for depth. So why search under every rock or view every horizon.
Zelda (in most of its iterations) is one of the few that actually pulls this off, and they do it by making the journey worthwhile. And this has absolutely zero to do with achievement.
Bethesda doesn't give that guarantee. Bethesda doesn't give you Minsc clamoring or Jaheira being sarcastic, and it also doesn't give you much thats visually relatable or interesting to look at. Bethesda doesn't give surreal relatable action either anymore I hear.
I played AoC, and it proved one thing to me very very well, believability is everything. I believe it when I do a head chop, I believe it when I use an arcade style move using button combination to perform 1 task. I found that the delivery of killing blows and well designed believeable costumes and landscape was worth playing a crappy MMO for 2 months.
My observation is that games like Skyrim and Minecraft are similar in that they and big, open games like them are more exploration-friendly than other games. Exploration-friendliness is a continuum, not a binary box. There are many ways to get there; my view is that the combination of bigness and openness gets you there more effectively than other high-level design choices.
There's definitely exploration in many kinds of games. As you say, players are rewarded for looking around in a Mario game; the same is true in Crysis 2. But I think it's also true to say that these games aren't designed -- as games like Minecraft and Skyrim are -- to reward curiosity about the gameworld as the primary player experience. Crysis 2 has collectibles... which it frequently discourages you from exploring to find by scripted events that spawn new enemies in order to maintain CoD-like excitement (and by disabling quicksave to preserve progress). That doesn't mean games like Mario or Crysis 2 have "no" exploration -- it means they have less of it than games like Skyrim and Minecraft whose core structures are explicitly designed to encourage player-directed tinkering with gameworld systems.
It's important to note that I'm not criticizing games that emphasize action-mastery. Why would I be opposed to designing games that a lot of people obviously enjoy playing? My point is that, in addition to those games, I believe that there are also people who enjoy big, open gameworlds that have lots of systems that interact in interesting ways.
There is no game that perfectly satisfies those interests, including Minecraft and Skyrim. But some do it better than others, by design. And I think it's good (and important) that those games get made, too.
This is incorrect. well, partially at least. If you don't care about the lore and world of Tamriel then yea you won't care much about discovering new places. Part of what destroys this sense of discovery is the fast travel mechanism and the GPS marker system. You don't have to think about what you're doing you just have to talk to someone follow an arrow there and back and then you're done.
A is wrong. Have you played Dark Souls? That is one of the best games ever made and there are both of those elements involved. The world, though, turns out to be somewhat small once you come to know it. B i agree with to some extent. Part of the novelty, though, is having a sense of progression for your character. I do agree though that there does need to be more novelty. Fallout: New Vegas to me had that though. The various vaults had their own stories and a lot of the characters had some fun quirks. There was that story about Boone's wife being sold into slavery for 1000 caps by that woman that ran the inn that was absolutely horrifying.
I was a bit unclear in my description. Let me clarify:What I meant was that if a designer was to make a Diablo-esque dungeon crawler, built around loot and growing in power over time, that creates a problem for a very long, open-world game, as it requires you to either make it take a long time for players to reach the level/power cap, or you end up with situations like Skryim where you reach the power cap early, and then combat loses all tension since you are too powerful.
I have not played Dark Souls, but I did play Demon's Souls, and by my understanding those games were designed around a consistent level of difficulty vis a vis the player being vulnerable throughout the whole game, so that mitigates the power issue a bit. If done well, then yes, Dark Soul's approach can mitigate that problem.
And there you have your answer.
Bethesda is dull, their lore is in fact the problem.
It's an issue of delivery, everything they write that I've seen falls into the bad acting, monotone, uninvolved manner. It comes across as lore told for mere sake of the lore instead of in authored manner.
when I explore something or try to get immersed in the lore of a creative art, I am looking for the personality, the unique to me experience of the medium, the thought provoking arguments that hold me silent, the in game action that speaks for itself without words, the body language .. everything.
When I jump into a Bethesda game, the first thought in mind is always ... these guys will make something I will really, really like "someday". and always I am confronted with the thought that this day isn't it. Some things they have done in the past are better than others ( .. dungeon design and overall layout, non combat involvement (particularly dynamic platforming) being the highlights. But large expanses of unknown territory are like a blank sheets of paper only filled with outlines of unauthored writing.
And you may not like this but it's the truth that it's a lot like reading faux lore. Very in depth, very long, very interested in itself, yet comepletely unrelatable writing.
Try this watch the first 5 minute intro for Baldur's gate, and then take a good honest look at Bethesda's latest title. And ask yourself, which one nags at your subconscious more? Which one is more obvious and predictable? Which one reads like a story just for you? Which one forces you into an unalterable experience and which one simply opens the door?
Bethesda is dull, their lore is in fact the problem."
I guess we have to differ on this, since it is just an opinion. The lore is quite amazing in Fallout and in Elder Scrolls. It's intricate and complex.
I began watching a playthrough of Baldur's Gate on Youtube and the opening monologue about who you are and all that seemed like really standard D+D stuff. When you say that the lore is unrelatable to you that tells me that you don't really "get it". Does the world or the universe care about you in particular? Should the history and myths of a world be concerned about you in particular? The lore isn't there to be about you, the player, while it is interesting and all those things you say it is, which is exactly what it's supposed to be.
Well the level cap, ostensibly, is supposed to be a mechanism that alleviates this problem. It does take quite some time in Skyrim to get to the max level, but I do agree that at that point every enemy in the game is pretty trivial. Therein lies the solution though, there should be the content there that challenges but there does need to be a sense that you could go in some places as just an explorer.
On another note, when I played Oblivion, I would like to find Ayleid ruins and just go into them. This wouldn't necessarily be for the purpose of finding challenging combat, but to take on the role of some kind of treasure hunter or adventurer within that world. What could be said about this, though, is that there wasn't much to be found that was really unique but I did find valuable stuff like jewels and gold and things like that. As I said before there need to be more avenues for creating that sense of player authorship. In this example, there could be rare artifacts that pertain to the history of the world, but aren't necessarily in terms of "loot", that is something that can be equipped or used in the traditional sense. However, these could be given to a museum or something and then this could develop the story of the game world in some manner.
And the fact of the matter is that I was pretty much a one-man army at level 35 or so focusing in Destruction and Conjuration. Didn't even have to be close to the level cap to be able to deal with most enemies with ease.
But more than just the difficulty of combat was that I ran out of interesting spells to get, and the spells I had were already insanely good, so that's what really made me tire of it more than anything else.
@Joshua
I began watching a playthrough of Baldur's Gate on Youtube and the opening monologue about who you are and all that seemed like really standard D+D stuff. When you say that the lore is unrelatable to you that tells me that you don't really "get it". Does the world or the universe care about you in particular? Should the history and myths of a world be concerned about you in particular? The lore isn't there to be about you, the player, while it is interesting and all those things you say it is, which is exactly what it's supposed to be.
In part yes, the experience is to the reader. And what better way to tell an experience than to place the reader at the center of it. It plays at the readers ego, it plays at the readers self interest, and it has the highest capacity to involve the player in something of value to them.
It's not the only way to tell a story, but honestly there isn't a more relatable way.
I mean you can certainly tell stories in other ways, reflections of ideas without even using a doll/puppet/muppet.
You could tell someone elses story and follow along them or a million other ways. But Bethesda puts you right there, they attempt to use the heros journey and they only use generic sci fi and fantasy, coupled with lengthy exposition.
Fall Out 3 for instance starts out ok, and then it drops you in an expansive miniverse all at once without much for direction. You head toward town, but the characters don't capture the experience. The whole experience is rather unbelieveable and feels contrived. None of the characters relate, The quests make sense, and seem to be worthwhile but the people are from another planet. The little town which is supposed to be a center of livelihood seems mostly abandoned and worthless, the nuclear bomb worshippers directly ripped off from cult films is frankly not that appealing.
The only halfway interesting character .. arms dealer?
then you go outside the world and some of the lay is interesting, but by this time your confronted with vampires, zombies, mutant ogres, giant ants ... and all of them without any really connected meaning except under the broadly painted "post-apocalyptic" brush .. almost as if your farming quest areas. And it's really primarily what you are supposed to do.
And that was as far as I could be bothered to get involved with a bethesda game. They leave you wondering if they made their games about 5 years before the release date, because generally the the movement either seems convoluted, or the or the characters look blank.
Then there's the completely immersion breaking dynamic monster levelling and satellite quest hubs in Morrowind -Feels like a single player MMO. With worse layout, run 20 feet theres a whole other generic quest hub .. a lot like shrek walking around in his first movie sight seeing all the fantasy characters of yesterday.
I understand the reason for exploration, good exploration is one of the most valuable parts of a game. Discovery is important, interesting discovery in particular. But lore for the sake of lore, discovery and rewards just for discovery and rewards. Why care?
What do the characters mean to me? At least, what are the characters and what are they saying about any subject that has meaning to you the player? What ideas are they talking about? Who am I in all of this and what do I mean to this experience?
Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a decent example of how to deliver a personal experience. Ideas that make you think deeply. Exploration that keeps you wondering about whats behind the next door. The treasure is shallow, the gameplay becomes redundant. But I know by the end of the experience, I will look back and recommend the diversity of play and story experience.
It doesn't have to be a movie experience, but if you can't relate why anyone should care beyond the first hour of a game (fall out 3) why continue?
"Why would I be opposed to designing games that a lot of people obviously enjoy playing?"
Referencing JJ Abrams once again: "No community is best served when only the elite have control."
"But more than just the difficulty of combat was that I ran out of interesting spells to get, and the spells I had were already insanely good, so that's what really made me tire of it more than anything else."
I think one problem with Skyrim is for many players, Bethesda effectively blocked access to experimenting with complex strategies and concepts. Through a combination of unrealistic grinding requirements and by forcing players to commit skill points to increase the default merchant gold limits which they set way, way too low. I'm 180 hours into a third play-through, I've exclusively used a bow from the start (no magic and one handed as a last resort) but I still haven't reached 100 in archery. The gold restriction can turn 30 minutes of play into 2 to 3 hours of play and if the players chooses not to commit skill points to bartering it turns the first 20 to 30 hours of play into a grueling and unnecessarily frustrating grind. Especially if you're playing as a mage since magic is way underpowered compared to weapons.
So I'm trying to say lol... is many people probably played Skyrim for a couple hundred hours and thought they'd seen it all. But there's far more to Skyrim than meets the eye and most people will never see it because Bethesda buried it way too deep.
Here is why some don't like Skyrim:
1). The stories and chatter are endless blah blah blah fantasy gaming tripe that I have seen over and over and over. Much rather keep it all concise. And leave the details to my imagination. Probably why I wish we had some technical limitations like in the old days that forced everyone to be concise and to the point. :)
2). Too much of a time commitment. Some people spend more time on the character editor alone than I am willing to spend on an entire game. :). It is a time sink. And very difficult to break it down into manageable bite size chunks.
3). Quantity over quality. There is a decided lack of polish in a game like SkyRim. It is a jack of all trades so nothing feels that great in the game. But there is something for everyone.
4). Lot of downtime in these games. Let me see. I am using my downtime to experience virtual downtime. That grows old.
But more than just the difficulty of combat was that I ran out of interesting spells to get, and the spells I had were already insanely good, so that's what really made me tire of it more than anything else. "
Were you playing on Master difficulty? Admittedly, I think Oblivion's Ultimate difficulty was harder. However, Dark Souls is considered a difficult game, but once you've become experienced enough you can take everything in the game on with ease. Skyrim does have its problems of course, one of those was getting rid of the ability to make your own spells that existed in Oblivion. I think all in all your criticisms are kind of shallow and not well thought out.
That's the beauty of it.
"4). Lot of downtime in these games. Let me see. I am using my downtime to experience virtual downtime. That grows old. "
Another comment that really shows that so many people on this particular blog don't get RPG's. If you want constant action there are games available for that.
It's good that it's practically impossible to get to that level. I didn't realize that you could actually get every skill up to 100. The level cap should be about the equivalent of getting about 3 or 4 skills to level 100. There are mods on PC, though, that increase the difficulty of enemies and dragons, etc. as well.
The combat of Skyrim and Dark Souls are completely different. There is very little skill involved in Skyrim's combat, and thus the only thing that makes it interesting is getting new spells/abilities/equipment. Dark/Demon's Souls has an element of skilll with timing, blocking, counterattacking, etc that is much more in-depth, so it isn't as mindless.
My point goes beyond combat or anything like that, but you don't seem to be getting it. My point is that, from a casual player's perspective, or just from someone that picked up the game and isn't a diehard fan of these style of RPGs, or whoever, the game presents the focus of the experience differently in the early game than in does in the late game.
In terms of a player who has never played these games before, and doesn't know what to expect, they look to the game to tell them what the game is about. The mechanics they interact with, particularly early in the game, set up expectations for how the rest of the game will work. On the surface, that means doing quests, getting, loot, etc. This is what all other RPGs teach players, and like it or not that's now their conditioned and they are entertained by those systems.
So when you effectively reach a point where the tension of combat is gone, since you don't need better spells, weapons, etc, and thus have little incentive to explore for better loot (because realistically, how is someone to know which are the cool lore areas and which are just dungeons for loot gathering?) then you start to lose people. I'm not saying all people, but I'd say a significant amount.
From a designer's perspective, you need to account for players that are going to play this way, looking to the game (and to some extent marketing) as to what kind of game they expect to play. For players to experience most of the content in the game, they have to go against the grain of what the majority of the game mechanics "tell" them about what's important in the game, and that I think that makes for questionable design. If there were greater incentives and mechanics built around exploring, then you would have a more well-rounded game.
In a perfect world, everyone that plays games like Skyrim would be die-hard RPG fans interested in learning the lore and exploring every corner of the game for the sake of the wonder of seeing what is around every corner. But that's not what the majority of the mechanics are built around. The fact is that the core gameplay does not support the weight of the size of the world. Essentially, this boils down to that you either:
A) Have to play the game as you describe, purely for the sake of exploration and treat the leveling up and getting better stuff component as secondary.
or B) Play the game trying to get the best stuff for the type of character you have, then once you reach a certain level of power you basically treat the game as an adventure game, with some monsters here and there as speedbumps or distractions to your ultimate goal of seeing what the world has to offer.
And for criticisms that are "shallow and not well thought out," I'd say I'm doing pretty good considering this has gotten 50+ responses already.
"Let me clarify:What I meant was that if a designer was to make a Diablo-esque dungeon crawler, built around loot and growing in power over time, that creates a problem for a very long, open-world game, as it requires you to either make it take a long time for players to reach the level/power cap, or you end up with situations like Skryim where you reach the power cap early, and then combat loses all tension since you are too powerful."
Why grow in power? Some of the most memorable characters in fiction never changed a bit. And they delivered some of the most immersive experiences. Power has no purpose except to primarily demostrate growth, if your character doesn't grow why have levels to demonstrate something abstractly without relation?
Why not delevel? Why not simply change the natures of the character? (mario anyone), why not take on a different aspect of the character in different instances, or become smaller or younger like Merlin?
The hero's journey is a bout a trial and learning from it, why does that mean you ding?
All these abstract overlays, stolen from a game 35+ years old and still to this day people are arguing there purpose in roleplaying. And just don't get it.
If the focus stays on what the story means to the player, and it has at least some intelligent well delivered connection to the player, you can make any believable game like, and it will be enjoyed.
Even a self made up experience, for oneself, or a made up experience for other players (player to player) has to have a personal connection to be well received. So ask yourself why do you find yourself having to make up an experience completely ethereal to the actual experience in the game to enjoy yourself in a game that should already provide that wonderful experience...
If the experience doesn't work, it doesn't work. Why correct the playwright?
Well that's it, isn't it? The whole question underpinning a lot of what is being discussed. And the answer to that also provides one of the most powerful and important elements computer games (especially) have to offer:
To develop the gameplay - especially if it's written (by the player(s)), rather than told (to the player(s))...
I relate Darren, I played months of Neverwinter Nights. And not for the basic story game itself, but for the player created worlds which were far more interesting. Imho, Bioware failed miserably with this game in delivery, but by accident or purpose they made something far greater in scope.
Player driven content can be wonderful, if it has a very thoughtful relational context and leaves room to the imagination to create the rest.
The problem is most of the player driven content in games comes down to 2 major faults.
Either the content lacks polish or is incomplete, convoluted ect. Or you see player just like Iain forcefully creating an experience within an experience which has no context to the already provided experience.
The typical hanging out in social hubs on MMOG server X to where players speak in literal format to tell their own story. I have no problem with either, but I don't participate in either as well because either the make believe within make believe is broken when the conversation ends due to the already provided constraints killing the suspension of disbelief, or the lack of polish leaves you wanting something far more relational, or well designed.
Exascerbated leveling systems and power skill gain without functional relation only make the problem worse. Going from level 1 to level 2 has almost no relational meaning. Now if you were to demonstrate from jedi apprentice to jedi knight we could relate to your meaning. But this never happens in video games and I have a serious problem with that, because it leaves out the point, which is the journey and not the end result only.
Completely arbitrary rewards and incentives are just as much to blame. The relational story should flesh out the pathway of the hero as well enough without blatant exposition (or story killing abstract x marks the spot). Or without cheese constantly dangled at the end of the maze (really tunnel more often).
The game play when demonstrated correctly, really honestly should flow along with the characters journey, and not necessarily be in direct correlation of the player character's prowess or ability to overcome obstacles. But rather how these abilities are applied intelligently (or with skill) should determine the outcome of an obstacle or encounter.
When gameplay is measured and based solely or primarily on one abstract formulaic process (hitpoints vs damage) everything is reduced to meaningless mathematical equation.
The argument of what is actually going on in relation to the puppet must be demonstrated in greater depth for the formula to have connection than a very very abstract sense of power.
Example.
If a character engages a spider. What does the spider mean to the character? If all it means is a hit point modifier. then it's a total abstraction.
But what if the monster's primary function isn't to damage but to cripple with poison? entangle in a web? What if it has a name and place that give the creature reference, a legend or myth surrounding it? What if the creature has intelligence and can speak, or how would it behave "really" if it didn't?
But when characters have only 1 identity "hit points" (the characters sole identity). every encounter subsequently is likewise ultimately reduced to a completely abstract formula ~Hit points
Hit points I believe have been demonstrably taken out of their original intentional context. Which imho was to demonstrate "morale" or willpower. Which give far greater range of believeability to a single note abstraction. I think of all the roleplaying video games I've played Zelda demonstrates this idea the best.
But if you absolutely must use an all encompassing single formula to demonstrate the affects of character vs challenge, doesn't a much more believable "Conan like" formula demonstrate this with less intrusive suspension of disbelief with a much more refined contextual process of development . Heroic Figure vs. Unstoppable Deity, where there are at least somewhat believable limitations to what a character can be?
And such is D&D, where the abstractions are the minors and the force of will and multi-faceted game play have the capacity to be the majors. It is by good story telling and more holistic game play that these relational ideas become less abstract and more believable.
So when I talk in reference to power "who needs it", it's because without relation it's just a meaningless set of rules.
You're not quite looking at this in the right way - this is FAR more fundamental than that.
First off - this is not about about any content itself - but it's application in enabling a game to take place.
(It also has absolutely nothing to do with cRPG's etc. - it's far more fundamental, which is why labelling it by such a term is so limiting).
Imagine I'm playing a game where I'm given a gun and have to shoot something, ok?
Now, we're talking about growth - or, more specifically, gameplay development depth, as opposed to width.
Imagine that if I shoot a number of targets within a certain period of time, I gain some new capability.
The nature of what is gained, however, is what ultimately matters.
If I started with a gun that is accurate, but slow firing, and then get given (earn) another gun that is proportionately less accurate, but fires faster - then what has improved - what has grown? The answer is nothing - it hasn't. This is WIDTH - additional capability that is merely different from what is already present - not better or worse.
However, if the gun improves, either in accuracy or rate of fire, for example, then it would count as (development) DEPTH.
However, if, for example, as the gun improved in accuracy etc., the size of the target, (or time to shoot it, for rate of fire), happens to change in relation and proportion to the improvement in the gun itself, then how can it be perceived as an improvement (for the player) in the first place?
Another example of this, would be if the gun did a certain amount of damage per shot, which is then improved and developed as the game is played, but the targets also scale proportionately, so there's no related improvement at all.
I call this 'the same-thing-but-better-syndrome', and many games suffer from it to an overwhelming degree. (Such an element can have a place in making a game easier to design/develop etc., but unless it's mitigated in some way, it has a tendency to make games boring/overly repetitive, again).
Unfortunately, many games make the development itself something the player has no direct power over at all - in which case, it has nothing to do with the actual gameplay - what the PLAYER does/can do - and so has nothing whatsoever to do with it being a game, let alone the type of game it is!
An example of this would be the gun increasing in damage for every target I hit. I'm not improving the gun, so it's not part of the gameplay. And if the targets then increase proportionately too - then why bother? Nothing the game/medium does has any bearing on it being a game - only the player matters for such a word's definition and its consistent application.
And so none of this, so far, is where the real power lies.
The power all this has to offer, is when the player has the power to develop any element within a game that has a direct impact on the gameplay itself - irrespective of how they've already played the game.
If it's merely tied to the basic gameplay itself - the basics of what the player does - (such as automatically improving based on such actions - (the gun improving for each target shot)) - then that is how it must be described and defined - (e.g. a shoot'em'up in this example). The action done in reaction to such behaviour has nothing to do with it being a game at all, and cannot/should not affect it's label in any way.
(Think Dungeon Siege (I) etc.).
This is why any power over the development of any element that can (and must) affect the gameplay, by it's very nature, must be above-and-beyond such basic gameplay itself.
For example - if I shoot enough targets in the example above, I gain an ability to fire a choice of ammunition - (explosive/armour piercing etc.) that can allow me to hit multiple targets if I can use them accordingly.
The biggest problem people have, is in mistaking GAMEPLAY development, for character development in cRPG's - but character development is merely how it's SUBJECTIVELY applied in that game. Gran Turismo uses similar elements to enable the development of cars - for both width, (additional equivalent cars), and depth, (both improving cars you have, and gaining additional better cars as it is played). But Gran Turismo is not a cRPG.
The ability to develop ANY gameplay - for ANY type of game, irrespective of how it has already been played - is one of the most powerful elements computers bring to games (in a simpler to implement manner than other media).
The problem, is that we're not recognising the fundamental elements involved, nor are we recognising the difference between things that the player DOES, and things that happen TO the player in such a manner.
It was trying to figure out the reason for the latter, that I wound up with my blog, here - which also helps to understand the reasons for the former, aswell:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110311/6174/Contents _NEW.php
This I totally agree with, and bravo for tying in specific examples this time.
I actually talked about this a bit in another post here: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/GlenCooney/20120225/162471/Shinobi__The_Way_of _the_Ba
dass.php
I argue that action games are most fun when the player feels they are growing in skill over time, rather than artificially becoming more powerful through the game. This certainly applies to other games, of course.
I think that what we are seeing with RPGs and games that have artificial improvement of a player's character rather than themselves is a focus on the spectacle of getting a nicer, shinier sword or better spell. And it makes sense why they'd do it, since it feeds the addiction some players have toward bigger and better things. Style over substance, if you will.
I think that works to an extent with more casual-oriented games, but it only entertains people at a primitive level. Making a system that allows players to feel stronger or more accomplished themselves makes for much for satisfying games, though is obviously much trickier from a development side.
Excellent point about game play.
I personally enjoy some level of competition in 1 particular game I play WoT, as your score increases you are arbitrarily placed in more difficult circumstances. Most player never range beyond 55% win ratio and the elite never see far past 60-63% win ratio.
But the implementation is fairy arbitrary and more often than not the odds change from difficult to nearly unwinnable. on 15 man teams this makes a competitive game seem more like craps. At a certain point your skill at affecting your win/loss plateaus. There are ways to push the envelope but they are frustratingly difficult as your issue resides in changing other players (random pick ups) to play more as a team.
Competiton is fun to a point at I rate somewhere on their scale in top 1%, but to be one of the "elite" is more than I care to manage.
And you are right, every RPG I can think of leaves out the dynamic of player influenced gameplay, so in the sense of player challenge never changes on a scale. Or they attempt to do so with arbitrary leveling application of monsters (EQ/Morrowind). which doesn't work either.
I think though I don't mind not being put to the test every moment I'm enjoying my free time. I enjoy relaxing and stimulating my brain after a day of work instead. I think I now understand your grief with that problem. nothing learned if there is nothing being practiced to push you past your "break" point. Where you fail a few times and then improve.
This is just a small taste of where my blog is heading - the amount of stuff I've got built around all this (and upon what my blog already contains) is far greater (and more specific) than anything I can put into an single reply or post.
@Joshua
I played the Beta of World of Tanks quite a lot (almost had an IS4) - but had to quit since my internet connection (3G wireless) couldn't handle the full game - (download is too big) :(
----------
If you want to take anything away from my replies here, then take this:
The ability for a player to have power, control and influence over a game, (whilst playing it), above-and-beyond the basic game-play, is the most powerful, single element computer games have to offer (beyond the capabilities of any and all other media).
EVERY type of game can be affected by it - even interchangeably - (i.e. a player can have the power to change a game (of one type) into another) - aswell as, and including ANY AND ALL ingredients in the game itself - it's content, setting AND mechanics!
Yes, we have made some (small) steps towards some of these, but generally in isolation, unfortunately...
What I see as being possible, however, is FAR beyond anything discussed anywhere on this site, or available to play, at present... (For a good reason probably - we wouldn't be sure of HOW to make it!)
So, if you think computer games have reached their full potential - think again!
But I've got an awful lot to wade through on my blog first - (the next post alone is doing my head in atm, tbh - (it doesn't help that I'm ill atm, either :( )).
-----------------------------
Understanding all that's represented in what I wrote above, is the reason why my current blog posts talk about the nature of the problems (and solutions) as much, if not more than the actual problems/solutions themselves - (which some people do not seem to like/care for) - but it's important to understand, in order to place the most solid foundation possible upon which to build as high as we possibly can go...
And how many characters from Luke Skywalker to Kermit the Frog, make more than 1 or 2 dynamic changes?
Joshua is talking about growing in *power* whereas Iain is talking about changing in terms of personality, personal growth, etc.
Your character stands at the face of a closed doorway, and pathways exist leading away. why does the character choose one direction or the other at all? The player chosen purpose should be the reason for being there. The story should only represent enough content to show reasoning. There has to be connected reasoning though.
If the story writer tells me there is cheese behind the door I will be annoyed at the simplicity of the task. But if there is a conscious purpose that is greater than simple cheese fetching I will want to discover where the cheese is. (unless of course I'm really hungry). I may even consciously try other paths just to see if perhaps the cheese was randomly misplaced.
If the task is too ambiguous or perceivably mundane, I won't care to go this way or that for very long.
If I can see I'm running down a 1 way tunnel my expectations will narrow and I will lose interest. If I am running around in a cardboard box shaped universe and just as interesting as a cardboard box world I'm not going to care either. the purpose will be lost, because the world is "flat".
Most games fall into 1 of these 2 categories.
Tunnels ~ Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 3?
Expansive flat worlds ~ Bethesda and most MMOGs.
BUT, if you narrow the shapes into bite size chunks with a purposeful meaningful direction. BG to Zelda to platformers with levels to Zork? Even EQ actually kept this basic flow chart to some extent. You can keep the focus centered while still offering an expansive discovery filled world.
the important overlooked part about having "zones" is to lend greater identity to the holistic game, with a overly large sized consistent world you create even more inconsistency and necessary exposition to explain the differences in environment change, as well as create too much confusion to your character identity. and sometimes as they aren't well defined as is the case with WoW in many places, the purpose degenerates from a place with meaning to a theme park with no more identity than the visual "rides".
But on the other hand, it all comes down to people's tastes. I think there are ways to make open worlds interesting if you make the right mechanics that steer players toward a greater appreciation for exploration. In that respect I am pleased that Journey seems to be designed to do just that.