If I could change one thing in Black Ops, I would attempt to better separate casual and hardcore gamers from each other. One way would be to offer them different contracts.
The current system makes all contracts available to all players. Only the most skilled players even attempt the most difficult contracts which offer the best rewards. This is silly, because more skilled players have an easier time leveling up, anyway. They also tend to be achievement-oriented gamers (challenge junkies) who would be more tolerant of a slower pace of leveling. It's the less skilled players who most appreciate and need the bonus XP and CoD Points.
So separate them.
Black Ops already allows players to sacrifice all progression for Prestige. Offer players interested in Prestige more difficult contracts. Make it so that the hardcore's "easy" contracts are similar to the casuals' "difficult" contracts.
This would lessen the frustration of casual players by giving them contracts which are both within their ability and worth plenty of XP. More accessible contracts would provide more short-term enjoyment, and more XP would increase long-term enjoyment.
Currently, too many CoD players are frustrated because they are lobbed in with players of vastly different skill levels.
Showing posts with label rewards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rewards. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, June 03, 2010
unlimited achievements
I'm not far into Mass Effect 2, but I'm very impressed so far. One thing Bioware did right was adding an in-game achievement system in addition to Xbox Live Achievements.
Console game developers shouldn't limit themselves to XBL Achievements, Avatar Awards and PSN Trophies. Design as many as you can, because gamers love them.
Console game developers shouldn't limit themselves to XBL Achievements, Avatar Awards and PSN Trophies. Design as many as you can, because gamers love them.
Monday, August 17, 2009
purchases and drops
I've been playing Mass Effect again, after re-buying it through Games on Demand (partially to test the service), and I noticed something common in games that annoys me. I can purchase items, but the same items are commonly dropped as loot. Half the time I buy something, I find that same item not long after. In effect, I'm paying for early access, rather than actual ownership.
Should loot and purchasable items be the same? It's a question often asked in regard to MMOs, but it should be considered for other games as well. Actually, the MMO question is usually "Which should be better?", a follow-up to the one I pose.
How might a player act if he knows purchasable items appear as drops, too?
On the one hand, the player might hoard his money, as I do. He might ignore the stores almost entirely until he can afford those few epic store items that don't drop. In this case, the store is almost pointless to include (assuming the game doesn't allow the player to lose items by death or failure).
On the other hand, the player might spend freely. Now, the store is fun, but the loot loses its value since the player usually has what he wants already when something drops. Or the player is disappointed whenever he finds he has "wasted" money on something that drops shortly after.
It makes sense to me to make purchasable items and looted items different, because they seem to interfere with each other otherwise.
One way to do this is to divide sale items and loot categorically (ex: armor is looted, but armor augments and customizations must be purchased). But I'm sure there are many possible avenues.
Should loot and purchasable items be the same? It's a question often asked in regard to MMOs, but it should be considered for other games as well. Actually, the MMO question is usually "Which should be better?", a follow-up to the one I pose.
How might a player act if he knows purchasable items appear as drops, too?
On the one hand, the player might hoard his money, as I do. He might ignore the stores almost entirely until he can afford those few epic store items that don't drop. In this case, the store is almost pointless to include (assuming the game doesn't allow the player to lose items by death or failure).
On the other hand, the player might spend freely. Now, the store is fun, but the loot loses its value since the player usually has what he wants already when something drops. Or the player is disappointed whenever he finds he has "wasted" money on something that drops shortly after.
It makes sense to me to make purchasable items and looted items different, because they seem to interfere with each other otherwise.
One way to do this is to divide sale items and loot categorically (ex: armor is looted, but armor augments and customizations must be purchased). But I'm sure there are many possible avenues.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
the thrill of victory
Jason repeats a common criticism of MMOs post-Everquest. He thinks they need harsher penalties for failure in order to make victory feeling like a bigger accomplishment.
I would deepen the thrill of accomplishment another way. Instead of making penalties harsher -- and I've written before on that subject -- make challenges more difficult. And make some so difficult that those victories are not inevitable.
I'm not against player setbacks. In fact, I wrote another article about getting players to accept setbacks. Of particular importance is the section on power:
Whether or not the penalties for failure in combat should be more severe than merely respawning depends largely on other systems in a specific game, as demonstrated above. There are also many penalty systems, like this, which haven't been explored deeply.
In other words, the question "Should a game/MMO have penalties for failure beyond death?" is not a simple yes/no question. But, generally speaking, I still believe in two basic principles: (1) players should experience low moments as well as high moments; (2) the main penalty for failure should be a player's disappointment in him or her self, rather than a judgment made on the player by the game.
I would deepen the thrill of accomplishment another way. Instead of making penalties harsher -- and I've written before on that subject -- make challenges more difficult. And make some so difficult that those victories are not inevitable.
I'm not against player setbacks. In fact, I wrote another article about getting players to accept setbacks. Of particular importance is the section on power:
....The other ingredient, keeping the gameplay fun despite the loss, is more difficult, largely because of an inherent importance of optimization in current MMO models. In the player's eyes, it's not the character's circumstances which have been reduced; it's the character. If the player's character is merely a medium of power, then the loss of power is a loss of identity. The character is diminished, rather than the same character having to approach challenges in a different way.
Think about running out of ammo for your favorite gun in Halo, Goldeneye or some other first-person shooter. You probably cursed your luck and thought about how much more difficult the gameplay was going to be without that weapon. Maybe you were even asking yourself how long you'd have to fight with an inferior weapon before regaining your prized instrument of destruction. But you didn't turn off the console. Why? Because the weapon was just something your character was using...it was not representative of your character. Bond loves his PP7, but he's still James Bond without it. The Master Chief is equally the Master Chief with an assault rifle, pistol or needler.
Whether or not the penalties for failure in combat should be more severe than merely respawning depends largely on other systems in a specific game, as demonstrated above. There are also many penalty systems, like this, which haven't been explored deeply.
In other words, the question "Should a game/MMO have penalties for failure beyond death?" is not a simple yes/no question. But, generally speaking, I still believe in two basic principles: (1) players should experience low moments as well as high moments; (2) the main penalty for failure should be a player's disappointment in him or her self, rather than a judgment made on the player by the game.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
earning vs taking
I've been playing Mercenaries 2 the past couple days. One interesting feature is how allied and employer factions are in possession of resources you need, and you can take those resources at any time. By completing missions for those allies, you can earn rewards like special airdrops. But you can also take oil and money from them, albeit angering them in the process.
It reminds me of Neverwinter Nights. In that game, some NPCs offered quests or items, but you could also earn experience points by killing them. One reward could replace the other, or you could find ways to achieve both.
In any case, it can be a fun scenario when an NPC or faction has resources the player can only obtain by force and opposition. It's particularly interesting when the game challenges the player to stick to good and friendly actions, because evil is the easier way.
It reminds me of Neverwinter Nights. In that game, some NPCs offered quests or items, but you could also earn experience points by killing them. One reward could replace the other, or you could find ways to achieve both.
In any case, it can be a fun scenario when an NPC or faction has resources the player can only obtain by force and opposition. It's particularly interesting when the game challenges the player to stick to good and friendly actions, because evil is the easier way.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Borderlands preview
If there's one game I was hoping to hear more about at E3, it's Borderlands. Gearbox is combining so many things I love: First-Person Shooter combat, Diablo-style loot, a vast open world, vehicles, monsters, dynamic enemies, RPG classes with skill customization, choice in story, etc. This gives every indication of being an awesome, long-lasting game that offers players surprising and personal experiences.
I strongly recommend this site called E3 Feed for finding E3 news on the games you're interested in. I've used it to comb through all the previews and interviews I could find on Borderlands, and I'm going to try to consolidate that information here so that you can see why I'm excited about this one.
The game's tone is both serious and silly. There can be spiders leaping at your face, and then there's fishing by grenade. The revamped art style has apparently helped to allow more lighthearted gameplay.
Borderlands is set on a planet called Pandora, where a massive treasure hold called The Vault has long been rumored to exist. The player chooses between one of four mercenaries who have just arrived on Pandora to find this treasure. The locals don't like you, and neither does the wildlife. Gameplay is mostly about going around killing stuff with unique weapons and chosen skills in search of more unique weapons and new encounters.
The characters you can choose between are Brick the bruiser, Roland the soldier, Lilith the siren, and Mordecai the hunter. Brick is a brawler. Gearbox's Randy Pitchford compares Roland to the Master Chief from Halo, and says he can deploy a shield with a turret on it. Lilith can "phase walk", making her invisible until she appears in the heart of enemies to release an explosion. And Mordecai is a "master sniper" with a big falcon-like creature he can send at enemies. Whichever character you select, you will level that character up RPG-style, selecting skills to develop him or her as you wish. Though I'm not 100% certain, it seems aiming is unaffected by statistics and is entirely based on player skill.
Weapons variation is similar to that in Diablo 2, with the game generating items on the fly. Even the developers are surprised by some of the weapons the players will use (that video is from January, by the way). You'll see things in this game you've never seen, like healing turrets and even healing sniper shots. Imagine your group's medic healing from far outside the firefight.
Gearbox is trying to make enemies dynamic as well. For example, that ShackNews article points out that some spiders will leap at you while others will roll toward you. There will be especially powerful versions of creatures, like the "hero" mobs of Diablo 2. From the Gamespot preview:
This game is as much about exploration as it is about action and achievement. And, like Oblivion, the world repopulates itself with creatures and other enemies as you kill them. From GameSpy:
Borderlands is coming to the Xbox 360, PC, and PS3... this year, the devs expect. I think you understand now why this game is so high on my list. Not many games offer many months' worth of fresh gameplay, but Borderlands looks like it might do just that. Here's hoping Gearbox succeeds.
I strongly recommend this site called E3 Feed for finding E3 news on the games you're interested in. I've used it to comb through all the previews and interviews I could find on Borderlands, and I'm going to try to consolidate that information here so that you can see why I'm excited about this one.
The game's tone is both serious and silly. There can be spiders leaping at your face, and then there's fishing by grenade. The revamped art style has apparently helped to allow more lighthearted gameplay.
Borderlands is set on a planet called Pandora, where a massive treasure hold called The Vault has long been rumored to exist. The player chooses between one of four mercenaries who have just arrived on Pandora to find this treasure. The locals don't like you, and neither does the wildlife. Gameplay is mostly about going around killing stuff with unique weapons and chosen skills in search of more unique weapons and new encounters.
The characters you can choose between are Brick the bruiser, Roland the soldier, Lilith the siren, and Mordecai the hunter. Brick is a brawler. Gearbox's Randy Pitchford compares Roland to the Master Chief from Halo, and says he can deploy a shield with a turret on it. Lilith can "phase walk", making her invisible until she appears in the heart of enemies to release an explosion. And Mordecai is a "master sniper" with a big falcon-like creature he can send at enemies. Whichever character you select, you will level that character up RPG-style, selecting skills to develop him or her as you wish. Though I'm not 100% certain, it seems aiming is unaffected by statistics and is entirely based on player skill.
Weapons variation is similar to that in Diablo 2, with the game generating items on the fly. Even the developers are surprised by some of the weapons the players will use (that video is from January, by the way). You'll see things in this game you've never seen, like healing turrets and even healing sniper shots. Imagine your group's medic healing from far outside the firefight.
Gearbox is trying to make enemies dynamic as well. For example, that ShackNews article points out that some spiders will leap at you while others will roll toward you. There will be especially powerful versions of creatures, like the "hero" mobs of Diablo 2. From the Gamespot preview:
Groups of enemies, like loot drops, are procedurally generated, so you never know quite what you're going to get. You could get a timid pack of pup skags with a few adults escorting them. Or you could run afoul of a fierce pack of adults with a spitter thrown in for good measure. The pack we saw was headed up by a "Badass Fire Skag." Yes, that is what it is actually called.The game also includes vehicles, which can be customized. And yes, you can fight in those vehicles:
This game is as much about exploration as it is about action and achievement. And, like Oblivion, the world repopulates itself with creatures and other enemies as you kill them. From GameSpy:
One mission we saw involved a team of players cooperatively taking over a factory yard filled with bandits in order to detonate a pipeline, with frantic gunfire flying everywhere. In a nod to one of Borderlands' other inspirations, World of Warcraft, raid scenarios like this can be replayed infinitely as a nice diversion from the main story's progression.Borderlands will supposedly offer the sort of co-op gamers had hoped to find in games like Fable 2. You will be able to take your single-player mode character into another player's campaign. That's the complete open world with all of your character customizations and loot. And because the action is FPS, a level 1 character can group with a level 20 and still have fun. Up to four players can play together online, and two offline. You'll decide for yourself how to divide loot.
Borderlands is coming to the Xbox 360, PC, and PS3... this year, the devs expect. I think you understand now why this game is so high on my list. Not many games offer many months' worth of fresh gameplay, but Borderlands looks like it might do just that. Here's hoping Gearbox succeeds.
Monday, March 16, 2009
the game must go on
Last night, I played LOTR: Battle for Midde Earth 2 (RotWK expansion) with a cousin for the first time in months. Neither of us had played in all that time, and we knew we'd be rusty. We started a war... and, sure enough, we lost the first battle. But we were back in the swing of things by the third battle.
A benefit of the form, a non-linear series of challenges, that a player can fail and not feel discouraged. Had my cousin and I been forced to replay the exact same scenario until we beat it, returning to the game after such a long hiatus would not have been as fun.
In general, it's good for players to have options and variety even when they fail. Reward success by means other than level/story progression.
A benefit of the form, a non-linear series of challenges, that a player can fail and not feel discouraged. Had my cousin and I been forced to replay the exact same scenario until we beat it, returning to the game after such a long hiatus would not have been as fun.
In general, it's good for players to have options and variety even when they fail. Reward success by means other than level/story progression.
Monday, March 09, 2009
real-time rewards
One of the coolest features in Call of Duty 4 multiplayer is the way players are rewarded for getting so many consecutive kills without dying. Kill 3 enemies without dying and you can call in recon (see where enemies are on the map). Kill 5 enemies without dying and you can call in an airstrike. Kill 7 enemies without dying and you can call in an attack helicopter.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in single-player and co-op modes?
Why don't we see this sort of thing in single-player and co-op modes?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
reset
I finally got past rank 55 in CoD4 multiplayer, which means that I've entered Prestige Mode. Prestige means that all of my weapon and Perk unlocks, and all of my Challenge completions are undone, but my stats remain intact and an icon by my name tells everyone of my accomplishment.
This is an awesome feature. Gamers have always been able to start games over, but it's rare to be rewarded for doing so (unless you count accomplishments for higher difficulty levels). CoD4's system offers only bragging rights. I'd like to see games with more tangible rewards for restarting.
Diablo 2 might have the best reset system. After completing the five-act adventure, the player has the option to replay all quests and areas while retaining all skill, attribute, and equipment progress. It's the same adventure taking place under very different circumstances -- a powerful player-character, powerful NPCs, more loot and more skills.
An MMO that never really materialized, originally called Realms of Torment, had a concept of character generations. The player's character would slowly age and eventually die. In that time, the character would marry, which would produce a child. The player would then start over as the child, but the child would begin with some of the former characters equipment and a blend of both parents attributes and skills. Theoretically, the marriages could take place in different parts of the world, thereby allowing each player-character to begin from a different location. And the cycle repeats.
Another failed MMO, Trials of Ascension (one of my favorite game ideas), also allowed characters to die permanently. But in that game, each life of the player would have tangible effects on the gameworld. And the player had the option to sacrifice some time to leave an artifact behind. The artifact would be an item with extraordinary power, and possibly an associated legend, hidden randomly in the gameworld for another player to discover.
There are many ways to reward players for starting over and keeping that replay fun. I wish games would do so more often.
Incidentally, this gives me a very general idea for a game. Imagine a single-player adventure with automatic saves and no manual saves. Throughout, there are many choices, some with far-reaching consequences. There are many possible endings to the game... not just plot possibilities, but which characters end up alive or dead, successful or defeated, etc. Each time the player beats the game, he can do it all over again with knowledge gained from experience, shaping new choices.
The gist, and the hardest part of the game's design, is to make it difficult for the player to find a wholly satisfactory ending. In other words, the player is encouraged to keep replaying until he achieves the "perfect" playthrough. If many of those choices are not as simple as right/wrong or happy/sad, then the player might sometimes change a decision and realize the first was actually better. Anyway...
This is an awesome feature. Gamers have always been able to start games over, but it's rare to be rewarded for doing so (unless you count accomplishments for higher difficulty levels). CoD4's system offers only bragging rights. I'd like to see games with more tangible rewards for restarting.
Diablo 2 might have the best reset system. After completing the five-act adventure, the player has the option to replay all quests and areas while retaining all skill, attribute, and equipment progress. It's the same adventure taking place under very different circumstances -- a powerful player-character, powerful NPCs, more loot and more skills.
An MMO that never really materialized, originally called Realms of Torment, had a concept of character generations. The player's character would slowly age and eventually die. In that time, the character would marry, which would produce a child. The player would then start over as the child, but the child would begin with some of the former characters equipment and a blend of both parents attributes and skills. Theoretically, the marriages could take place in different parts of the world, thereby allowing each player-character to begin from a different location. And the cycle repeats.
Another failed MMO, Trials of Ascension (one of my favorite game ideas), also allowed characters to die permanently. But in that game, each life of the player would have tangible effects on the gameworld. And the player had the option to sacrifice some time to leave an artifact behind. The artifact would be an item with extraordinary power, and possibly an associated legend, hidden randomly in the gameworld for another player to discover.
There are many ways to reward players for starting over and keeping that replay fun. I wish games would do so more often.
Incidentally, this gives me a very general idea for a game. Imagine a single-player adventure with automatic saves and no manual saves. Throughout, there are many choices, some with far-reaching consequences. There are many possible endings to the game... not just plot possibilities, but which characters end up alive or dead, successful or defeated, etc. Each time the player beats the game, he can do it all over again with knowledge gained from experience, shaping new choices.
The gist, and the hardest part of the game's design, is to make it difficult for the player to find a wholly satisfactory ending. In other words, the player is encouraged to keep replaying until he achieves the "perfect" playthrough. If many of those choices are not as simple as right/wrong or happy/sad, then the player might sometimes change a decision and realize the first was actually better. Anyway...
Friday, February 27, 2009
fasting
Games don't have to choose between making resources either plentiful or scarce. No resource has to be supplied in steady stream throughout the game -- be it ammo, mana, health, gear, or other.
My religion, like others, includes an annual time of fasting. For forty days, we make especially difficult sacrifices to remind ourselves of our reliance on God. A game's players can similarly be called to fast; to go without something they normally have access to. The fast can be forced, encouraged, or merely suggested. The player might even be given the choice of what to sacrifice. There's a variety of possible benefits.
The general idea of a fast has been implemented many times before, but I believe there's still plenty of room for innovation.
The most common form of fasting in games is temporarily forcing the player to use a particular weapon or category of weapons. Bioshock, for example, occasionally removes the player's guns so that plasmids must be relied on exclusively. Many shooter games remove players' preferred weapons from time to time.
Another form is lack of aid resources. Left 4 Dead's AI director sometimes makes first aid kits unavailable to increase difficulty.
The form of fasting I find most compelling is reliance on persons or characters. This might be more common in games than I can recall right now, but I'm sure much more exploration is possible.
As in my religious example, such reliance might be constant throughout one's experience but reinforced in a particular moment. People tend to ignore what they are used to, so the momentary emphasis is important. For example, the player in Deus Ex is constantly dependent on NPCs to understand the what's going on (the plot), but it's not until the player realizes he has been lied to or manipulated that he becomes actively aware of that dependence.
A couple shooter games I've played included moments when the player's wounded character is firing at enemies while being dragged by an NPC ally. Left 4 Dead is fully of dependency caused by temporary inability (such as being pinned beneath a Hunter).
What other forms might fasting take in games? and to what purposes?
My religion, like others, includes an annual time of fasting. For forty days, we make especially difficult sacrifices to remind ourselves of our reliance on God. A game's players can similarly be called to fast; to go without something they normally have access to. The fast can be forced, encouraged, or merely suggested. The player might even be given the choice of what to sacrifice. There's a variety of possible benefits.
The general idea of a fast has been implemented many times before, but I believe there's still plenty of room for innovation.
The most common form of fasting in games is temporarily forcing the player to use a particular weapon or category of weapons. Bioshock, for example, occasionally removes the player's guns so that plasmids must be relied on exclusively. Many shooter games remove players' preferred weapons from time to time.
Another form is lack of aid resources. Left 4 Dead's AI director sometimes makes first aid kits unavailable to increase difficulty.
The form of fasting I find most compelling is reliance on persons or characters. This might be more common in games than I can recall right now, but I'm sure much more exploration is possible.
As in my religious example, such reliance might be constant throughout one's experience but reinforced in a particular moment. People tend to ignore what they are used to, so the momentary emphasis is important. For example, the player in Deus Ex is constantly dependent on NPCs to understand the what's going on (the plot), but it's not until the player realizes he has been lied to or manipulated that he becomes actively aware of that dependence.
A couple shooter games I've played included moments when the player's wounded character is firing at enemies while being dragged by an NPC ally. Left 4 Dead is fully of dependency caused by temporary inability (such as being pinned beneath a Hunter).
What other forms might fasting take in games? and to what purposes?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
pots vs chests
Apparently, Blizzard developers have at least had internal discussions about treasure chests and keys. It's not a debate that must be limited to fantasy games. Lockers, desks, and ammo crates often perform the same role in realistic FPS games. The essential question is this: When loot is part of gameplay, is it better to control supplies by distribution or by access?
Keys and hacks are methods of access control. The player might be able to see where the loot is stored, but he cannot access that loot because the container is locked. Supply is determined by skill (such as hacking ability) or by meta-loot (such as keys).
Unlocked or open containers are methods of distribution control. If the player can see it, the player can get it. Supply is determined by the frequency and locations of containers.
Which would you use? or would you use a combination of the two?
Fable 2 has locked chests requiring silver keys to open, with silver keys hidden in fixed locations around the gameworld. This has two benefits: (1) the player is encouraged to explore, and (2) anticipation is allowed to build before loot is acquired. Unfortunately, I don't recall any loot in those chests being that spectacular, so the lack of access is more disappointing than exhilirating. And searching for silver keys rarely, if ever, leads to other rewards (even aesthetic rewards, like a striking view).
Diablo 2 has both locked and unlocked containers, with keys acquirable by drop and by purchase. The main problems here are: (1) keys are so common and cheap as to be mundane, and (2) locked chests don't always provide better loot than unlocked containers. Again, keys don't seem to be much fun.
Fallout 3 and Oblivion make unlocking loot containers a skill. The result is that loot frequency becomes an important variable to overall gameplay -- if you can't or won't pick/hack locks, then your character must make do with far less equipment and money. This is a better use of access control. Bioshock also uses this system, though in a more fluid way (allowing skill-augments to be swapped out).
I prefer distribution control. Diablo 2's gear and loot system, overall, is less about maintaining needs than discovering wants. It favors spectacular finds over mundane acquisitions.
Can an access system, like keys and hacks, be spectacular?
Keys and hacks are methods of access control. The player might be able to see where the loot is stored, but he cannot access that loot because the container is locked. Supply is determined by skill (such as hacking ability) or by meta-loot (such as keys).
Unlocked or open containers are methods of distribution control. If the player can see it, the player can get it. Supply is determined by the frequency and locations of containers.
Which would you use? or would you use a combination of the two?
Fable 2 has locked chests requiring silver keys to open, with silver keys hidden in fixed locations around the gameworld. This has two benefits: (1) the player is encouraged to explore, and (2) anticipation is allowed to build before loot is acquired. Unfortunately, I don't recall any loot in those chests being that spectacular, so the lack of access is more disappointing than exhilirating. And searching for silver keys rarely, if ever, leads to other rewards (even aesthetic rewards, like a striking view).
Diablo 2 has both locked and unlocked containers, with keys acquirable by drop and by purchase. The main problems here are: (1) keys are so common and cheap as to be mundane, and (2) locked chests don't always provide better loot than unlocked containers. Again, keys don't seem to be much fun.
Fallout 3 and Oblivion make unlocking loot containers a skill. The result is that loot frequency becomes an important variable to overall gameplay -- if you can't or won't pick/hack locks, then your character must make do with far less equipment and money. This is a better use of access control. Bioshock also uses this system, though in a more fluid way (allowing skill-augments to be swapped out).
I prefer distribution control. Diablo 2's gear and loot system, overall, is less about maintaining needs than discovering wants. It favors spectacular finds over mundane acquisitions.
Can an access system, like keys and hacks, be spectacular?
Friday, January 30, 2009
don't ignore player success
In the Call of Duty: World at War single-player/co-op campaign, enemies spawn in an infinite stream until the player pushes forward to seize the objective. That means that how many you kill is irrelevant. They keep coming until your player stands in the targeted location.
Medal of Honor: Airborne does it differently. If you stand in one place and keep shooting enemies, they'll continue to spawn for a while, prolonging the experience. But the game eventually rewards you for your kills by ceasing to spawn new enemies for that location.
These are different kinds of games -- one involves pushing forward on a linear path, while the other lets the player parachute onto any location of the battlefield and approach objectives from many angles. But regardless of that difference, I'd say Airborne's spawn method is better. Even if reaching locations or destroying AA guns (or whatever) is the main goal, kills should be rewarded.
Every activity central to gameplay should be rewarded. No accomplishment should be completed overshadowed by another.
Medal of Honor: Airborne does it differently. If you stand in one place and keep shooting enemies, they'll continue to spawn for a while, prolonging the experience. But the game eventually rewards you for your kills by ceasing to spawn new enemies for that location.
These are different kinds of games -- one involves pushing forward on a linear path, while the other lets the player parachute onto any location of the battlefield and approach objectives from many angles. But regardless of that difference, I'd say Airborne's spawn method is better. Even if reaching locations or destroying AA guns (or whatever) is the main goal, kills should be rewarded.
Every activity central to gameplay should be rewarded. No accomplishment should be completed overshadowed by another.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
effort and punishment
I once read about a psychological study that compared the effect on children of praising intelligence versus praising effort. If a child is usually rewarded for accomplishment with phrases like "You're so smart!", then the child is likely to value intelligence over effort. Consequently, when the child fails at something, he or she usually attributes the failure to a fault in intelligence and is not very motivated to try again. If a child is usually rewarded for accomplishment with phrases praising effort, then he or she is likely to try again, believing any obstacles are probably surmountable through persistence and adaptation.
That's what I thought of when I read Shwayder's excellent post on rewards and punishments. Ryan talks about how lows and highs are relative to one another. Accomplishment feels greater when something is risked in the struggle (pride is always risked, but its power varies greatly from one personality to another). In the end, Shwayder emphasizes rewards for effort.
I'd bet that adequately rewarding effort makes it easier for players to stomach tough punishments. Perhaps, the more effort is rewarded, the harsher punishment can be without diminishing fun.
Think of sports. If your team loses a game, there's no replaying that game. You can have a rematch later, but that loss is still on your record, a significant memory (especially for rivals). If you have a good coach, he's going to point out both your mistakes and your progress. Losing is never a fun feeling, but it's more bearable when you receive recognition for admirable actions or improved performance.
In college football, players accrue individual stats independent of team performance. A good player on a losing team is often recognized for individual achievement. Replay highlights help to remind losers of their better moments, not just the bad. In Goldeneye64, a player might lose and yet smile at receiving the "Most Dishonorable" award. In LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2, the pain of losing a battle is sometimes offset by enjoying an epic event, like a Balrog setting dozens of soldiers aflame.
One thing that's rarely seen in games, because it's hard to program, is pointing out mistakes. The usual scenario is that a player can try a challenge over and over and over, yet always have to figure out mistakes on his own. Coaching mechanics still have a long way to go in games. Even in multiplayer games, you can't rely on players to seek out advice from other players, though highlighting good instructors in community resources can be good.
I'm certain that rewarding effort and coaching can help keep a game fun through loss and punishment. What I'm not certain about is how exact and predictable the relationship is. I'd play it by ear.
That's what I thought of when I read Shwayder's excellent post on rewards and punishments. Ryan talks about how lows and highs are relative to one another. Accomplishment feels greater when something is risked in the struggle (pride is always risked, but its power varies greatly from one personality to another). In the end, Shwayder emphasizes rewards for effort.
I'd bet that adequately rewarding effort makes it easier for players to stomach tough punishments. Perhaps, the more effort is rewarded, the harsher punishment can be without diminishing fun.
Think of sports. If your team loses a game, there's no replaying that game. You can have a rematch later, but that loss is still on your record, a significant memory (especially for rivals). If you have a good coach, he's going to point out both your mistakes and your progress. Losing is never a fun feeling, but it's more bearable when you receive recognition for admirable actions or improved performance.
In college football, players accrue individual stats independent of team performance. A good player on a losing team is often recognized for individual achievement. Replay highlights help to remind losers of their better moments, not just the bad. In Goldeneye64, a player might lose and yet smile at receiving the "Most Dishonorable" award. In LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2, the pain of losing a battle is sometimes offset by enjoying an epic event, like a Balrog setting dozens of soldiers aflame.
One thing that's rarely seen in games, because it's hard to program, is pointing out mistakes. The usual scenario is that a player can try a challenge over and over and over, yet always have to figure out mistakes on his own. Coaching mechanics still have a long way to go in games. Even in multiplayer games, you can't rely on players to seek out advice from other players, though highlighting good instructors in community resources can be good.
I'm certain that rewarding effort and coaching can help keep a game fun through loss and punishment. What I'm not certain about is how exact and predictable the relationship is. I'd play it by ear.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
a better roles model
Yes, roles model. That's not a typo.
MMOs and other multiplayer games could learn a great deal from Left 4 Dead, particularly in regard to combat roles. In Left 4 Dead, no person in the group is mysteriously regarded by all enemies as the tank, so all players have to keep an eye on each other.
"Grouping" hardly describes it. This is as close to real soldier camaraderie as I've ever experienced in a game. You have to constantly watch the backs of your buddies. They rely on you completely; they pay for your mistakes... not with minor injuries, but with their lives. You're sharing resources -- whoever needs a healthpack most gets it, regardless of who happens to be carrying one. You can only carry one at a time, so giving is always a sacrifice.
And perhaps that's the key component. More than any game to date, Left 4 Dead enables and encourages sacrifices for the sake of teammates. Sometimes you sacrifice pills or healthpacks. Sometimes you sacrifice your life.
I'm not stretching the truth. Among my friends in Left 4 Dead, it's not uncommon to see true sacrifices -- selfless acceptance of hardship for the sake of another. One person will speak into his headset, "Don't come get me", because he knows the rest of us stand a better chance of surviving if we don't chase his captured and pinned character into the middle of an unmanageable horde. Death means he is only a spectator for minutes at a time... possily a long time. Sometimes the player healing another with his healthpack is down to half-health himself, but he's chosen to help the person with the most need.
It's honestly pretty touching, and a phenomenon all game developers should take note of. With the unlikeliest of settings, a zombie infestation, a game has managed to contribute a deep and lasting lesson to gamers. People can learn more about being a soldier from playing Left 4 Dead than from most war games, and even many documentaries.
MMOs and other multiplayer games could learn a great deal from Left 4 Dead, particularly in regard to combat roles. In Left 4 Dead, no person in the group is mysteriously regarded by all enemies as the tank, so all players have to keep an eye on each other.
"Grouping" hardly describes it. This is as close to real soldier camaraderie as I've ever experienced in a game. You have to constantly watch the backs of your buddies. They rely on you completely; they pay for your mistakes... not with minor injuries, but with their lives. You're sharing resources -- whoever needs a healthpack most gets it, regardless of who happens to be carrying one. You can only carry one at a time, so giving is always a sacrifice.
And perhaps that's the key component. More than any game to date, Left 4 Dead enables and encourages sacrifices for the sake of teammates. Sometimes you sacrifice pills or healthpacks. Sometimes you sacrifice your life.
I'm not stretching the truth. Among my friends in Left 4 Dead, it's not uncommon to see true sacrifices -- selfless acceptance of hardship for the sake of another. One person will speak into his headset, "Don't come get me", because he knows the rest of us stand a better chance of surviving if we don't chase his captured and pinned character into the middle of an unmanageable horde. Death means he is only a spectator for minutes at a time... possily a long time. Sometimes the player healing another with his healthpack is down to half-health himself, but he's chosen to help the person with the most need.
It's honestly pretty touching, and a phenomenon all game developers should take note of. With the unlikeliest of settings, a zombie infestation, a game has managed to contribute a deep and lasting lesson to gamers. People can learn more about being a soldier from playing Left 4 Dead than from most war games, and even many documentaries.
Monday, August 11, 2008
variety of rewards
Someone told me yesterday about a study, which they heard on TV news, that claims to show that non-monetary incentives are generally more effective than cash incentives for motivating employees. The theory is that employees are already making money, and most people are more apt to get excited about a different kind of reward (tickets to a sports game, for example) than an extension of the same reward (more money).
If that's true, then we could expect the same psychological pattern in games. Generally, you'll get more bang out of a different kind of reward than more of the same.
That seems right to me. Variety of rewards is always good. The hard part's ensuring every reward can be appreciated by all.
If that's true, then we could expect the same psychological pattern in games. Generally, you'll get more bang out of a different kind of reward than more of the same.
That seems right to me. Variety of rewards is always good. The hard part's ensuring every reward can be appreciated by all.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
role model system
In games with lotto-type reward systems (not necessarily random, like Diablo 2, but some degree of unpredictable variation), you can encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior by adjusting reward probabilities.
If a player is disruptive in any predictable and measurable way, shift loot tables and such so that he or she is less likely to receive the best rewards; and, if possible, vis versa. Thus, bad behavior is discouraged without completely demotivating disruptive players from abandoning the game... and this might even offer a chance at redemption. Conscientious players are the most likely to have the best rewards, so these leaders are thus placed in the spotlight and advertised as role models.
If a player is disruptive in any predictable and measurable way, shift loot tables and such so that he or she is less likely to receive the best rewards; and, if possible, vis versa. Thus, bad behavior is discouraged without completely demotivating disruptive players from abandoning the game... and this might even offer a chance at redemption. Conscientious players are the most likely to have the best rewards, so these leaders are thus placed in the spotlight and advertised as role models.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
victory and combat
This is in response to an MMOCrunch article asking what motivates PvP in MMOs.
In regard to MMOs, my experience suggests that players who love PvP in current MMOs focus more on bragging rights and the rewards of victory than on the combat itself. All combatants want to win, of course. But MMO PvP is not like the PvP in Killer Instinct or Call of Duty 4, in which players are more likely to remember cool combos and surprising events than whether they won or lost a particular match.
It's important to recognize that the thrill of battle and the thrill of victory are distinct from one another.
FLOW
They are generally separate, though they can be the same -- and that, I believe, is the ideal. By now, most developers are familiar with the concept of flow. Flow is when the end and the experience become one. It's when we become lost in the moment because the moment is completely fulfilling. The concept is thousands of years old, actually. In the past, it was called inspiration (God working through individuals) or wù-wèi (無為 or 无为, a central concept to Confucianism and taoism). Flow/inspiration is essentially communion with the "game". It occurs when the participant is able to accept the game (its rules, goals, setting, etc) without reservation and without struggle.
Repetitive actions are often (necessarily?) a key component. Repetition diminishes struggle by increasing familiarity with both thought and execution. It diminishes reservation by normalizing and internalizing the setting and goals.
I doubt that challenge is a necessary component of flow, as this graph suggests, because flow includes the elimination of challenge. When Michael Jordan "entered the zone", he wasn't trying anymore; he was simply doing. In my Asian Philosophy course in college, we never did come up with a perfect English translation for wù-wèi, but my best guess is "effortless action". It can occur with actions as complex as NBA basketball or classical guitar; it can also occur with actions as simple as gardening or swimming. Flow is not limited to challenging tasks.
Flow is not the completion of challenges, but the fulfillment of self. It's the realization of self by means of participation in something. And because it's the realization of self, different actions produce flow for different individuals (though some aspects of self are universal).
It can happen through exploration. I'm an explorer, so it's easy for me to lose track of time and all else while flipping through pictures (notice the repetitive action) like these or reading. It can happen through something as passive as listening to music or watching a movie -- simply absorbing something of personal relevance.
Engagement, rather than challenge, is necessary. The experience must fill the appetite. Perhaps engagement can take the form of challenge, but there is necessarily no struggle in flow (struggle and challenge are not completely synonymous).
Anyway, I didn't originally intend for this article to be about flow. =P
My original point is that victory and combat are related, but should be analyzed separately. Well-designed rewards won't always support poorly-designed combat; and vis versa. Each should be able to stand on its own.
In regard to MMOs, my experience suggests that players who love PvP in current MMOs focus more on bragging rights and the rewards of victory than on the combat itself. All combatants want to win, of course. But MMO PvP is not like the PvP in Killer Instinct or Call of Duty 4, in which players are more likely to remember cool combos and surprising events than whether they won or lost a particular match.
It's important to recognize that the thrill of battle and the thrill of victory are distinct from one another.
FLOW
They are generally separate, though they can be the same -- and that, I believe, is the ideal. By now, most developers are familiar with the concept of flow. Flow is when the end and the experience become one. It's when we become lost in the moment because the moment is completely fulfilling. The concept is thousands of years old, actually. In the past, it was called inspiration (God working through individuals) or wù-wèi (無為 or 无为, a central concept to Confucianism and taoism). Flow/inspiration is essentially communion with the "game". It occurs when the participant is able to accept the game (its rules, goals, setting, etc) without reservation and without struggle.
Repetitive actions are often (necessarily?) a key component. Repetition diminishes struggle by increasing familiarity with both thought and execution. It diminishes reservation by normalizing and internalizing the setting and goals.
I doubt that challenge is a necessary component of flow, as this graph suggests, because flow includes the elimination of challenge. When Michael Jordan "entered the zone", he wasn't trying anymore; he was simply doing. In my Asian Philosophy course in college, we never did come up with a perfect English translation for wù-wèi, but my best guess is "effortless action". It can occur with actions as complex as NBA basketball or classical guitar; it can also occur with actions as simple as gardening or swimming. Flow is not limited to challenging tasks.
Flow is not the completion of challenges, but the fulfillment of self. It's the realization of self by means of participation in something. And because it's the realization of self, different actions produce flow for different individuals (though some aspects of self are universal).
It can happen through exploration. I'm an explorer, so it's easy for me to lose track of time and all else while flipping through pictures (notice the repetitive action) like these or reading. It can happen through something as passive as listening to music or watching a movie -- simply absorbing something of personal relevance.
Engagement, rather than challenge, is necessary. The experience must fill the appetite. Perhaps engagement can take the form of challenge, but there is necessarily no struggle in flow (struggle and challenge are not completely synonymous).
Anyway, I didn't originally intend for this article to be about flow. =P
My original point is that victory and combat are related, but should be analyzed separately. Well-designed rewards won't always support poorly-designed combat; and vis versa. Each should be able to stand on its own.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
making room for the little guy
From IGN's preview of Warhammer Online:
"At this point, a large hydra steps off the Ark, accompanied by his Dark Elf beastmaster. Players have twenty minutes to defeat these bosses before the whole quest resets and starts over again at the beginning. This massive, multi-headed baddie was far too powerful for our little fifth-level Swordsman, so we had to be content with darting in to get a few quick hits in while some higher-level players distracted him."
The emphasis is mine. This is one of those things that should occur in all MMOs, but sadly doesn't: weak characters helping powerful characters to conquer a shared encounter.
Let's face it... Frodo was a child playing a man's game. He was tiny. He was weak. He was inexperienced. And yet, he participated in combat with trained badasses like Aragorn and Legolas; and yet, he was a hero.
A player doesn't have to be capable of single-handedly slapping a dragon silly or stuffing a kraken in a goldfish bowl to feel heroic. A player doesn't even have to be capable of killing his enemy to feel heroic. The player just has to feel as if he's contributing to something of great importance, and in a way that reveals individual merit.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Frodo and Samwise. I'm more than content to act as just a small character in a drama that stretches far beyond my own involvement.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Aragorn and Legolas. I''ll take weaker friends along on my journey, knowing that their contributions will be worthy of remembrance, too, if they are only made capable of individuality. Don't you think those veterans would have been impressed by and laughing about Sam's masterful use of a frying pan against his goblin foes in Moria? After the battle, were they talking about the elf's crazy arrow work or the lowly hobbit's surprising possession of a mithril chainmail vest?
Enable true individuality (in skills, possessions, experiences, etc), create common causes to fight for (ala Warhammer or SWG), and the grouping of the powerful with the weak will be commonplace and fun.
"At this point, a large hydra steps off the Ark, accompanied by his Dark Elf beastmaster. Players have twenty minutes to defeat these bosses before the whole quest resets and starts over again at the beginning. This massive, multi-headed baddie was far too powerful for our little fifth-level Swordsman, so we had to be content with darting in to get a few quick hits in while some higher-level players distracted him."
The emphasis is mine. This is one of those things that should occur in all MMOs, but sadly doesn't: weak characters helping powerful characters to conquer a shared encounter.
Let's face it... Frodo was a child playing a man's game. He was tiny. He was weak. He was inexperienced. And yet, he participated in combat with trained badasses like Aragorn and Legolas; and yet, he was a hero.
A player doesn't have to be capable of single-handedly slapping a dragon silly or stuffing a kraken in a goldfish bowl to feel heroic. A player doesn't even have to be capable of killing his enemy to feel heroic. The player just has to feel as if he's contributing to something of great importance, and in a way that reveals individual merit.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Frodo and Samwise. I'm more than content to act as just a small character in a drama that stretches far beyond my own involvement.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Aragorn and Legolas. I''ll take weaker friends along on my journey, knowing that their contributions will be worthy of remembrance, too, if they are only made capable of individuality. Don't you think those veterans would have been impressed by and laughing about Sam's masterful use of a frying pan against his goblin foes in Moria? After the battle, were they talking about the elf's crazy arrow work or the lowly hobbit's surprising possession of a mithril chainmail vest?
Enable true individuality (in skills, possessions, experiences, etc), create common causes to fight for (ala Warhammer or SWG), and the grouping of the powerful with the weak will be commonplace and fun.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Cheating that's good
I think it was Nintendo that introduced the gaming world to acceptable cheats. A cheat code could be entered in Contra for a hundred extra character lives. Other games allowed cheats to be entered for invincibility, special characters, and dozens of other perks. The goal was to increase a game's replay value by enabling players to approach it in multiple ways.
Games like Goldeneye on the N64 changed the rules a bit. The developers probably didn't want players to cheat their first time through the game and undercut the game's difficulty, so they came up with a system of gameplay achievements by which players had to earn their cheats. Some were harder to acquire than others. The cheats were also more depthful than those in most games. Playing through the game with dual SMGs or a grenade launcher made every level feel different, but players were capable of switching cheats (from one weapon to another) or ignoring them (going back to normal weapons for that level) in the middle of gameplay. It was a very dynamic system.
Yesterday, I watched a video showing a few skull (cheat trigger) locations in Halo 3 and their effects. The player is encouraged to explore the environments; sometimes in remarkable ways, such as using a mobile gravity lift to spring to out-of-reach places. The cheats can have great replay value (like the ability to turn off one's HUD, which even includes the player's gun graphic) and unexpected results (like hearing a fellow soldier yell, "For Sparta!").
CHEATS FOR MMOS?
Every cheat I can remember for any game is for solo play only. Afterall, we usually don't want one player to have a great edge over another. And perhaps MMOs, in particular, generally require a more level playing field, because the cheater is a component of the non-cheater's virtual world. But could there be room for something similar in MMOs?
Permanent effects? No, I don't see much viability for those. Goldeneye's unlimited ammo cheat and Contra's extra lives are example of permanent effects, because they can last through the whole game.
But temporary effects? Sure! Reward players in ways that only temporarily offer some fresh gameplay experience.
Exploration rewards
Just as real explorers get a rush of energy from making a discovery, players could get temporary bonuses from discovering particular objects, locations, and even information (such as in a conversation with an NPC).
Such buffs are particularly enjoyable when they are unique and clearly explained.
Unique how? If I'm rewarded for a discovery with a stat bonus I could produce myself or solicit from another player (like a simple shielding spell), then I probably won't feel any pressing need to make use of my reward before it fades. Oblivion offers combo buffs (like health + endurance) for Ayleid well discoveries, but that's not much better. The bonus shouldn't last too much longer than normal buffs, or else a player might run from one discovery to the next to build up enough power to, for example, make a boss fight easy. It's better to make the reward unique by type than by duration. Do something truly unlike the player has ever seen before.
Clarity means not just placing a spell icon in the corner and making your player go to his spell journal to figure out what the spell effect does, ala Oblivion. The effect's nature should be briefly and obviously explained without the player needing to flip through his interface.
Of course, rewards don't have to take the form of stat bonuses or powers. Discoveries can trigger ghost NPCs to appear and speak with the player, trigger epic and/or unexpected battles, trigger environmental events (ex: the player moves something out of curiosity and a small hut collapses, to the ire of the nearby homeowner), or any number of other things. But I suppose buffs are more in line with the topic of game "cheats". Still, if one of those NPC conversations or battles resulted in a faction advantage or special gear augmentation, it might count.
Achievement rewards
Defeat an encounter under special circumstances (ex: in a remarkably short amount of time, or disadvantaged in some way) and you'll receive a temporary reward. Or repeat an act for Nth time, like slaying your hundreth orc (not all in the same place, hopefully).
Community rewards
The player might even be rewarded for community participation or services. Give an item to a lower-level player for the Nth time and receive a reward. Or start/join a group for the Nth time. Or spend so much time/money on community items, like fireworks.
Promoting charity among players is something I'd really like to see rewarded more regularly in online games. Through smart rewards, you can get at least a small number of players motivated toward selfless actions during gameplay. And if you can motivate a few, those few will motivate many more through example.
Honestly, I don't think I covered this that well, but you probably get the general idea.
Games like Goldeneye on the N64 changed the rules a bit. The developers probably didn't want players to cheat their first time through the game and undercut the game's difficulty, so they came up with a system of gameplay achievements by which players had to earn their cheats. Some were harder to acquire than others. The cheats were also more depthful than those in most games. Playing through the game with dual SMGs or a grenade launcher made every level feel different, but players were capable of switching cheats (from one weapon to another) or ignoring them (going back to normal weapons for that level) in the middle of gameplay. It was a very dynamic system.
Yesterday, I watched a video showing a few skull (cheat trigger) locations in Halo 3 and their effects. The player is encouraged to explore the environments; sometimes in remarkable ways, such as using a mobile gravity lift to spring to out-of-reach places. The cheats can have great replay value (like the ability to turn off one's HUD, which even includes the player's gun graphic) and unexpected results (like hearing a fellow soldier yell, "For Sparta!").
CHEATS FOR MMOS?
Every cheat I can remember for any game is for solo play only. Afterall, we usually don't want one player to have a great edge over another. And perhaps MMOs, in particular, generally require a more level playing field, because the cheater is a component of the non-cheater's virtual world. But could there be room for something similar in MMOs?
Permanent effects? No, I don't see much viability for those. Goldeneye's unlimited ammo cheat and Contra's extra lives are example of permanent effects, because they can last through the whole game.
But temporary effects? Sure! Reward players in ways that only temporarily offer some fresh gameplay experience.
Exploration rewards
Just as real explorers get a rush of energy from making a discovery, players could get temporary bonuses from discovering particular objects, locations, and even information (such as in a conversation with an NPC).
Such buffs are particularly enjoyable when they are unique and clearly explained.
Unique how? If I'm rewarded for a discovery with a stat bonus I could produce myself or solicit from another player (like a simple shielding spell), then I probably won't feel any pressing need to make use of my reward before it fades. Oblivion offers combo buffs (like health + endurance) for Ayleid well discoveries, but that's not much better. The bonus shouldn't last too much longer than normal buffs, or else a player might run from one discovery to the next to build up enough power to, for example, make a boss fight easy. It's better to make the reward unique by type than by duration. Do something truly unlike the player has ever seen before.
Clarity means not just placing a spell icon in the corner and making your player go to his spell journal to figure out what the spell effect does, ala Oblivion. The effect's nature should be briefly and obviously explained without the player needing to flip through his interface.
Of course, rewards don't have to take the form of stat bonuses or powers. Discoveries can trigger ghost NPCs to appear and speak with the player, trigger epic and/or unexpected battles, trigger environmental events (ex: the player moves something out of curiosity and a small hut collapses, to the ire of the nearby homeowner), or any number of other things. But I suppose buffs are more in line with the topic of game "cheats". Still, if one of those NPC conversations or battles resulted in a faction advantage or special gear augmentation, it might count.
Achievement rewards
Defeat an encounter under special circumstances (ex: in a remarkably short amount of time, or disadvantaged in some way) and you'll receive a temporary reward. Or repeat an act for Nth time, like slaying your hundreth orc (not all in the same place, hopefully).
Community rewards
The player might even be rewarded for community participation or services. Give an item to a lower-level player for the Nth time and receive a reward. Or start/join a group for the Nth time. Or spend so much time/money on community items, like fireworks.
Promoting charity among players is something I'd really like to see rewarded more regularly in online games. Through smart rewards, you can get at least a small number of players motivated toward selfless actions during gameplay. And if you can motivate a few, those few will motivate many more through example.
Honestly, I don't think I covered this that well, but you probably get the general idea.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Give up the reins
Sorry for the late blog today. I'm still getting situated after moving out of my apartment.
Today, I just want to expand on something I said over at Cuppy's. It basically goes back to the design element I always talk about: dynamics.
DYNAMICS AND SURPRISE
The point of including dynamics is often to provide surprises and a sense of discovery to the gameplay.
That's not always the case. Some dynamics aren't about surprise. The field choice in a football or soccer game (home field or the opponent's field) affects the gameplay, but nobody arrives at the field shocked at what they're walking into. In this case, the setting dynamic is mainly intended to alternate certain advantages between teams.
But dynamics are often included to deter predictability and enable discovery. In old boardgames like Monopoly and Sorry, even in PnP games like Dungeons & Dragons, the primary factor in success or failure was the roll of the dice. The player has at least a vague sense of the odds and exercises some control of his or her experience through other actions, but chance/luck is pivotal to gameplay -- and that's at the very heart of what makes such games appealing.
In Mario Kart, much of the fun was in not knowing what weapon would be awarded for crossing a weapon tile (meaningfully designated by a big question-mark). Where a player could find a weapon tile that hadn't yet been used was also generally luck. In Diablo 2, another title with blockbuster sales, loot was acquired from heavily-randomized loot tables, special "named" or "hero" enemies spawned randomly, and levels were rearranged for each replay to encourage some wandering.
Dynamics for discovery/surprise don't have to be so random as that game's, but a larger pool of potentials generally equals a stronger sense of surprise.
IN MMOs
I've always known that any MMO design of mine would generally take a radical step away from the predictability of current MMOs.
Rewarding effort
Current MMOs are primarily concerned with rewarding effort: "Here's the goal. Here's the path. Here's your playbook. Now, go do it!"
This model is essentially linear. It generally promotes active performance but passive imagination and limited character involvement. Non-character skills, like coordination and strategic planning, are rewarded. Character personalization and empathy are deterred by ideal skillsets, ideal gearsets, ideal group configurations, and such.
Discovery is subjugated to efficiency. Most players of these MMOs appreciate explorative gameplay, but the implicit direction of the games is funneled achievement; and players usually go where the game directs them.
Rewarding discovery
My MMO would be primarily concerned with rewarding discovery: "It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road... and there's no telling where you might be swept off to." -- Bilbo Baggins.
This model is essentially open. Performance takes a backseat to reception; to absorbing, experimenting with and playing with (rather than merely employing/expending) the wonders of the world. It rewards tactics (reactionary planning) over strategy (planning before the experience begins). Characters are unique and personal because the majority of their gear, skills, and so forth were acquired unexpectedly. Unique characters reflect unique experiences... experiences which were chosen only indirectly (like encountering a grizzly bear because you chose to wander through the woods, though you were just as likely to pass through that forest without even seeing a bear).
In the words of Will Wright (who I respect more than perhaps any other game designer):
Please note that I have no intention of completely shirking linear and achievement-based experiences in my game design. What I'm saying is that I would place the emphasis on the opposite end.
I believe the most rewarding affection of any game is a child-like sense of wonder and awe.
It happens when a Halo player sees his character go flying through the air as a rocket explodes beneath him. It happens when an Oblivion player climbs over a hill to be presented with an incredible view of distant ruins or a lush field of wildflowers. It happens when a Mario Kart player watches her green turtle-shell bounce off a dozen walls before finally smacking into her own vehicle. It happens when a Battle for Middle Earth 2 player watches the troll he just killed take out a few of his men in its death throes.
That's the sort of gameplay I want to design... the sort that makes your eyes go wide as you breath the words "Oh, cool." =)
Today, I just want to expand on something I said over at Cuppy's. It basically goes back to the design element I always talk about: dynamics.
DYNAMICS AND SURPRISE
The point of including dynamics is often to provide surprises and a sense of discovery to the gameplay.
That's not always the case. Some dynamics aren't about surprise. The field choice in a football or soccer game (home field or the opponent's field) affects the gameplay, but nobody arrives at the field shocked at what they're walking into. In this case, the setting dynamic is mainly intended to alternate certain advantages between teams.
But dynamics are often included to deter predictability and enable discovery. In old boardgames like Monopoly and Sorry, even in PnP games like Dungeons & Dragons, the primary factor in success or failure was the roll of the dice. The player has at least a vague sense of the odds and exercises some control of his or her experience through other actions, but chance/luck is pivotal to gameplay -- and that's at the very heart of what makes such games appealing.
In Mario Kart, much of the fun was in not knowing what weapon would be awarded for crossing a weapon tile (meaningfully designated by a big question-mark). Where a player could find a weapon tile that hadn't yet been used was also generally luck. In Diablo 2, another title with blockbuster sales, loot was acquired from heavily-randomized loot tables, special "named" or "hero" enemies spawned randomly, and levels were rearranged for each replay to encourage some wandering.
Dynamics for discovery/surprise don't have to be so random as that game's, but a larger pool of potentials generally equals a stronger sense of surprise.
IN MMOs
I've always known that any MMO design of mine would generally take a radical step away from the predictability of current MMOs.
Rewarding effort
Current MMOs are primarily concerned with rewarding effort: "Here's the goal. Here's the path. Here's your playbook. Now, go do it!"
This model is essentially linear. It generally promotes active performance but passive imagination and limited character involvement. Non-character skills, like coordination and strategic planning, are rewarded. Character personalization and empathy are deterred by ideal skillsets, ideal gearsets, ideal group configurations, and such.
Discovery is subjugated to efficiency. Most players of these MMOs appreciate explorative gameplay, but the implicit direction of the games is funneled achievement; and players usually go where the game directs them.
Rewarding discovery
My MMO would be primarily concerned with rewarding discovery: "It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road... and there's no telling where you might be swept off to." -- Bilbo Baggins.
This model is essentially open. Performance takes a backseat to reception; to absorbing, experimenting with and playing with (rather than merely employing/expending) the wonders of the world. It rewards tactics (reactionary planning) over strategy (planning before the experience begins). Characters are unique and personal because the majority of their gear, skills, and so forth were acquired unexpectedly. Unique characters reflect unique experiences... experiences which were chosen only indirectly (like encountering a grizzly bear because you chose to wander through the woods, though you were just as likely to pass through that forest without even seeing a bear).
In the words of Will Wright (who I respect more than perhaps any other game designer):
"By far, the most interesting stories I've heard from computer gamers are always the stories that they tell me about what they did in the game."Rewarding both, but favoring discovery
Please note that I have no intention of completely shirking linear and achievement-based experiences in my game design. What I'm saying is that I would place the emphasis on the opposite end.
I believe the most rewarding affection of any game is a child-like sense of wonder and awe.
It happens when a Halo player sees his character go flying through the air as a rocket explodes beneath him. It happens when an Oblivion player climbs over a hill to be presented with an incredible view of distant ruins or a lush field of wildflowers. It happens when a Mario Kart player watches her green turtle-shell bounce off a dozen walls before finally smacking into her own vehicle. It happens when a Battle for Middle Earth 2 player watches the troll he just killed take out a few of his men in its death throes.
That's the sort of gameplay I want to design... the sort that makes your eyes go wide as you breath the words "Oh, cool." =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
