Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Theory: players don't know what they want


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
72 replies to this topic

#1 J03_b   Members   -  Reputation: 131

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:16 AM

I've just been reading the Halo 4 forums and it's pretty sad how useless and unhelpful most of the posts are. Most people don't even seem to realize what actually makes a game fun and what ruins it. I know people have different ideas of what's fun and what's not, but some just don't seem to know any better

People ask for gimmicks and other things that actually start to take away from the gameplay and make it less enjoyable in the long run. As an example, assassination animations are kinda neat to watch sometimes but they are really just a big waste of time that leaves you vulnerable and your target open for a kill steal (and they are easy to do on accident). A sprint ability is another addition that can ruin games for a lot of different reasons. I might be wrong but I think that a majority of players would agree with me if they were just properly informed.

It's not just a problem with Halo players either. I played WoW for a long time and they kept adding stuff to make the game more "convenient" like flying mounts, dungeon group finder, bg queues from anywhere, 10x as many mailboxes, etc... Eventually, adding all that stuff really takes away from the experience. It used to be a real adventure that took time to do stuff, which made it more fun and much more rewarding. Now you can pretty much just reach max level is a couple weeks then sit in the auction house and play the entire game there. What fun is that? That would be like if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town. You might think 'yes no more annoying traveling!' But after beating the game in a few hours, you would realize that you missed out on a lot.



My biggest question is if anyone disagrees with me on these points, and why? And do other people think about this stuff

Sponsor:

#2 Telastyn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3718

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:45 AM

This is a well known phenomena

#3 HelloSkitty   Members   -  Reputation: 152

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 April 2012 - 10:10 AM

I've seen this happen to many a game:

My most notorious example is runescape. I remember maybe 5 or 6 (or 8, after this long, I lose track) years ago I started playing this game, and I immediately found myself lost. And I said to myself "I hate being lost". But I played on for a few months because that's what my friends did. Then, I learned there was a map of the world. And I wasn't lost anymore, and I always knew where I was. Well, that took away the feeling of discovering a place I've never been before. I couldn't go anywhere new, because there was always a map. But at least I could experience the boredom of moving between cities.

Or not. After two years, I made use of teleportation. But at least I could still experience the troubles of walking to places between cities, because teleportation doesn't go there. Nope, fairy rings and boats. Everywhere is easily accessible. Did the game just disintegrate into teleport here, kill stuff, teleport there, kill stuff, teleport yonder, sell items, teleport, buy weapons, teleport, kill, teleport do this, teleport, teleport, teleport...

They even started putting in bonus experience weekends where people could reach level 99 with half as much toil. One can imagine how those who reached level 99 before this "feature" must feel about the new, less disciplined people who think reaching level 99 is a trifle.

"Why, when I was your age...."

What many people don't get is that more feeling goes into planning a vacation than being at the vacation.

http://www.cracked.c...ness-wrong.html

Quoth:

But get this -- when doing a study of vacationers, the happiest people were the ones in the weeks leading up to a vacation. It was all about anticipation. Again, it looks like our brain rewards us more for working toward a goal than for actually arriving there.




The Law of Large Numbers plays an important role here. Not the statistics version. The pinball version.


"Oh, if I get more points, that obviously means I'm a better player!"


Pinball makers caught wind of people who think like that, which is almost everyone, and started giving 100 points for hitting a bell instead of 10. No, 1000. 10,000! A million! 9001!


People cheer at the thought of getting more points, but later regret that most of the screen is wasted, covered by the 0's in the lower decimal places. There is a symbolic meaning to that, somewhere, hello Gatsby.


Economic inflation is related to this.


Going back to that article, our brain rewards us for pursuing rather than arriving. When people request and demand "convenience features", that is part of the pursual of the goal. But once that feature is put into place, there is much less pursuing and more arriving, which makes things less fun in the long run.


A penny for my thoughts? Do you think I have only half a brain?

Not-so-proud owner of blog: http://agathokakologicalartolater.wordpress.com/

#4 Acharis   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2993

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:13 PM

LOL, I would say it's more like a fact than theory :)

That's why we are designers and they are players. If they knew what is good for the game they want to play we would be not needed anymore :)

Also, it is not only lack of understanding, frequently/sometimes they might have a hidden agenda (tripple true for multiplayer games), they want features that make their personal strategy more efficient. And they regularly forget what they proposed earlier and can say it is bad after you implemented it (althrough that's rarer, but still not very rare).



The thing on which you can trust players is interface in my opinion, if they say some button is better somewhere else they are usually right. Still you have to keep an eye on this since hardcore players forget how it was when they were newbies and might propose too complicated interface.

Europe1300.eu - Historical Realistic Medieval Sim (BETA)


#5 Tom Sloper   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8642

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 April 2012 - 06:27 PM

This is a well known phenomena


Phenomenon, yes. Another example is the Edsel, which was a car designed partially on market research results.
-- Tom Sloper
Sloperama Productions
Making games fun and getting them done.
www.sloperama.com

Please do not PM me. My email address is easy to find, but note that I do not give private advice.

#6 lmbarns   Members   -  Reputation: 458

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:46 PM

My most notorious example is runescape.


lol same thing happened to my favorite game of all time, Ultima Online....after 3 years playing religiously they put in a parallel world that was a completely safe zone, in an open world pvp game. They also went down a path adding gardening and stupid spirituality crap. In a game where you could cut somebody's head off and feed it to your pet and take all their stuff as your own from their dead body... .....................................................

#7 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 963

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:17 AM

lol same thing happened to my favorite game of all time, Ultima Online....after 3 years playing religiously they put in a parallel world that was a completely safe zone, in an open world pvp game. They also went down a path adding gardening and stupid spirituality crap. In a game where you could cut somebody's head off and feed it to your pet and take all their stuff as your own from their dead body... .....................................................


Whats is wrong with adding a completely safe zone?

If you prefer open world PvP, you can always stay in the original world. Players who dislike PvP can play in the parallel world, instead of going to another MMORPG.

I don't see how it affects your enjoyment of the game.

#8 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 963

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:45 AM

It's not just a problem with Halo players either. I played WoW for a long time and they kept adding stuff to make the game more "convenient" like flying mounts, dungeon group finder, bg queues from anywhere, 10x as many mailboxes, etc... Eventually, adding all that stuff really takes away from the experience. It used to be a real adventure that took time to do stuff, which made it more fun and much more rewarding. Now you can pretty much just reach max level is a couple weeks then sit in the auction house and play the entire game there. What fun is that? That would be like if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town. You might think 'yes no more annoying traveling!' But after beating the game in a few hours, you would realize that you missed out on a lot.


WoW's phenomenal success is often attributed to their willingness to eliminate the inconveniences that older games were unwilling to remove. Many things can be said about this but I'll keep it to two short points.

1) Time wasting is not equal to "fun" or "rewarding".

Using your Pokemon game example: 10 hours of real time walking across a barren landscape with no encounters just to get to the next town is neither fun or rewarding. Interesting, engaging and interactive challenges make a game more fun and rewarding than inconveniences or artificially wasting the player's time.

2) There are different kinds of "fun" or "rewarding" depending on your target audience.

When I was younger, I could spend 5+ hours daily playing games (at the expense of homework unfortunately). Nowadays, with a job and friends/family commitments, I am only able to play games irregularly and only for around 30-45 minutes at a time. If you're designing a game for the latter group, you need to ensure that they will be able to have fun in those precious 30-45 minutes, instead of spending hours travelling or looking for groups in game.

#9 J03_b   Members   -  Reputation: 131

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

WoW's phenomenal success is often attributed to their willingness to eliminate the inconveniences that older games were unwilling to remove. Many things can be said about this but I'll keep it to two short points.

1) Time wasting is not equal to "fun" or "rewarding".

Using your Pokemon game example: 10 hours of real time walking across a barren landscape with no encounters just to get to the next town is neither fun or rewarding. Interesting, engaging and interactive challenges make a game more fun and rewarding than inconveniences or artificially wasting the player's time.

2) There are different kinds of "fun" or "rewarding" depending on your target audience.

When I was younger, I could spend 5+ hours daily playing games (at the expense of homework unfortunately). Nowadays, with a job and friends/family commitments, I am only able to play games irregularly and only for around 30-45 minutes at a time. If you're designing a game for the latter group, you need to ensure that they will be able to have fun in those precious 30-45 minutes, instead of spending hours travelling or looking for groups in game.


Firstly, WoW's phenomenal success is due to a lot of things, but we won't get into that.

But anyway, you seem to be very misinformed about WoW. Aside from the fact that a 10 hour walk is obviously an extreme exaggeration, there are plenty of things to do when traveling in WoW, particularly while you're leveling. Mainly finding quests and their objectives, gathering resources, searching for rare enemies and chests, running into and fighting other players, aiding friendly players, and (not so much after the first playthrough) just exploring the terrain. Even assuming you know about all that stuff, then calling that a waste of time is simply your opinion. My opinion is that it was an adventure, and it looks like most people here agree.

Also if you don't like that style of game, or if you just want a game that moves quicker, then maybe you should try games like warcraft 3 or team fortress 2 or tetris or something. MMOs just take a lot of time to play and honestly, there isn't much to do in only 45 minutes except a little questing or couple battlegrounds/dungeons (even with the conveniences)



Edit:
And I know that it's good business for them to attract players like you with those conveniences, but it makes me mad that they are essentially trading hours of my fun for 45 minutes of yours

#10 lmbarns   Members   -  Reputation: 458

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 02:30 PM


lol same thing happened to my favorite game of all time, Ultima Online....after 3 years playing religiously they put in a parallel world that was a completely safe zone, in an open world pvp game. They also went down a path adding gardening and stupid spirituality crap. In a game where you could cut somebody's head off and feed it to your pet and take all their stuff as your own from their dead body... .....................................................


Whats is wrong with adding a completely safe zone?

If you prefer open world PvP, you can always stay in the original world. Players who dislike PvP can play in the parallel world, instead of going to another MMORPG.

I don't see how it affects your enjoyment of the game.


Because the pvp zone became empty when everyone could go farm in complete safety.

When part of playing even a non pvp templates in that game was that occasionally you'd encounter murderers when outside of cities which added to every part of the game (there were counters, you could recall away, or run, and you could put a bounty on your killers head). There were bounty hunters who just hunted murderers to collect bounties for their heads.

With non pvp templates, when you were in a dungeon, or at a monster spawn and had built up loot, you had to make a choice whether to kill just one more before banking, or play it safe and bank. That entire process was taken away when you could farm until you were overweight, then bank.

Risk vs. Reward made some places hot spots while others weren't. Meanwhile tamers and "farming" characters could farm in complete safety aside from low end AI and that money was just as useful in either world. So first it ruined pvp, second it ruined the economy, 3rd it alienated the original "core" players of the game who watched it deteriorate in a completely different direction from what it a) started as and b) had been for years.

I was making real money playing in as a teenager because it was SUCH a great game, in game houses sold for hundreds of dollars, then they messed it all up and a new batch of sissy players was ushered in, all my friends left and eventually I did too.

Initially there were very popular websites which were basically the forefront to blogs where people tricked, scammed, death gated random players as "episodes", there was some real class to being outlaws.

#11 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:03 PM

That's what I've always been saying but no one understands.

Players don't know what they want, they keep asking for stuff that's just going to ruin or unbalance the game.
They don't even know how to play the game to it's full potential..

Then we got the bigshot studios who are supposed to be professional game developers and game designers.
But what do they do? They listen to all the players who don't know whats best for the game.

So what do we get? unbalanced game where there's a new OP class every month and everything is simplified to the point that there's no challenge in the game anymore because they are listening to all the players who don't know how to play the game to it's full potential.

And what I've said is only the surface of this idiocy.

#12 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 963

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:03 PM

But anyway, you seem to be very misinformed about WoW. Aside from the fact that a 10 hour walk is obviously an extreme exaggeration, there are plenty of things to do when traveling in WoW, particularly while you're leveling. Mainly finding quests and their objectives, gathering resources, searching for rare enemies and chests, running into and fighting other players, aiding friendly players, and (not so much after the first playthrough) just exploring the terrain. Even assuming you know about all that stuff, then calling that a waste of time is simply your opinion. My opinion is that it was an adventure, and it looks like most people here agree.


The 10 hours walk exaggeration was meant to contrast your "if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town" exaggeration.

It really depends on whether the game is designed for players to have an adventure while travelling. I have played an MMO in which it takes 30-60 mintues to travel from one city/town to another. It was a lot of fun because the travelling is the content, and the whole MMO was designed around overcoming challenges on your way from one place to another.

But if an MMO is about exploring dungeons for example, there is really no point in forcing players to spend 30-60 minutes travelling just to get to your intended content. Better to let the players instantly teleport to the entrance of the dungeon.


Also if you don't like that style of game, or if you just want a game that moves quicker, then maybe you should try games like warcraft 3 or team fortress 2 or tetris or something.


Warcraft 3, Team Fortress 2 and Tetris are not MMORPGs.

#13 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 963

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:12 PM

Because the pvp zone became empty when everyone could go farm in complete safety.


Oh wait, Trammel and Felucca weren't separate servers?! Players can hop back and forth?!

Wow, that is pretty terrible game design.

#14 lmbarns   Members   -  Reputation: 458

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:45 PM


Because the pvp zone became empty when everyone could go farm in complete safety.


Oh wait, Trammel and Felucca weren't separate servers?! Players can hop back and forth?!

Wow, that is pretty terrible game design.


Yea it would have been completely fine if you had to play either style of server, but they made it so monster dropped "trammel stones" which you could put in the dirt and wait for a moongate to spawn 10 seconds later to travel to a clone of the existing world, but safe from being killed by other players..............and it opened up an entire clone of the existing map for people to place new houses on. Where previously houses had such significant value because all the placements were taken, just the few that decayed would fall as people quit, went on vacation, etc. I remember 1 group of IT guys paid $2,000 for a castle, real money, and it was seen as a safe investment because they could get most of it back due to the shortage of housing during the first few years, after enjoying it for a while as a guild. I sold a large marble house for $225, smaller houses for $100.

So when the parallel clone safe world opened and twice as many people had houses, half the houses were in the safe world so people just stayed there. Heck, they could walk to their house carrying millions in gold without fear of being killed. Many people only went back to felucca to refresh their main house (which was the tits initially, but it's value slowly died just like the core population)

Then the entire game then became sitting in a dungeon room with 20 other guys and 5 things to kill and everyone taking each others loot. Then they made it so only the person who did significant damage could loot so advanced people would run through and 1 shot each monster people were fighting and take the loot from newbies as a form of grief.

#15 J03_b   Members   -  Reputation: 131

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 04:18 PM

The 10 hours walk exaggeration was meant to contrast your "if they took all the roads out of a Pokemon game, and just put all the gyms in one town" exaggeration.

It really depends on whether the game is designed for players to have an adventure while travelling. I have played an MMO in which it takes 30-60 mintues to travel from one city/town to another. It was a lot of fun because the travelling is the content, and the whole MMO was designed around overcoming challenges on your way from one place to another.

But if an MMO is about exploring dungeons for example, there is really no point in forcing players to spend 30-60 minutes travelling just to get to your intended content. Better to let the players instantly teleport to the entrance of the dungeon.

...

Warcraft 3, Team Fortress 2 and Tetris are not MMORPGs.


Except that I wasn't exaggerating at all. After you reach the max level, you can do or queue for everything else the game has to offer while standing in the AH, including dungeons, BGs, raids, arenas, RBGs, crafting, and trading. It's literally the same thing as if all the gyms were in one place and your opponents just came to you.


And who decided what the game is "about"? I'm saying WoW used to be designed for battling other players out in the wild and getting into big fights over the control of quest areas and gathering spots, etc, as well as doing dungeons and raids. I think the fun involved in that is definitely worth the time spent traveling to the instance(which was also never anywhere near 30-60 minutes). So that's why I suggest that if you want a game that's more about queuing for short sessions with other players, then why play something with miles and miles of landscape that you never use or even see? Do you just have to play something called an MMORPG?

#16 J03_b   Members   -  Reputation: 131

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 04:26 PM

Where previously houses had such significant value because all the placements were taken, just the few that decayed would fall as people quit, went on vacation, etc. I remember 1 group of IT guys paid $2,000 for a castle, real money, and it was seen as a safe investment because they could get most of it back due to the shortage of housing during the first few years, after enjoying it for a while as a guild. I sold a large marble house for $225, smaller houses for $100.



I just wanna say it sounds like Ultima was a lot of fun and I really like the whole open world pvp, full loot, high risk style of game. I tried Eve online and a game called Darkfall because they both have similar concepts, but both have pretty big downsides that makes it so they take a really long time to get into and I just don't think they were worth it

#17 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 17060

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 04:39 PM

I forget what famous game designer said it, but one popular quote is, "Ask a group of players what they want, and they'll give you a laundry list of last year's most over-hyped features".

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.                                                                                                                                                       [Need free cloud storage? I personally like DropBox]

Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal


#18 lmbarns   Members   -  Reputation: 458

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2012 - 11:54 PM

Where previously houses had such significant value because all the placements were taken, just the few that decayed would fall as people quit, went on vacation, etc. I remember 1 group of IT guys paid $2,000 for a castle, real money, and it was seen as a safe investment because they could get most of it back due to the shortage of housing during the first few years, after enjoying it for a while as a guild. I sold a large marble house for $225, smaller houses for $100.



I just wanna say it sounds like Ultima was a lot of fun and I really like the whole open world pvp, full loot, high risk style of game. I tried Eve online and a game called Darkfall because they both have similar concepts, but both have pretty big downsides that makes it so they take a really long time to get into and I just don't think they were worth it


Yes I played Darkfall and UO was fundamentally better in every way except darkfall has the best pvp gameplay if you leave your computer running 24/7 for a year macroing. But in no way was it nearly as wholesome an experience. UO had non-pvp templates that could make money and hundreds of skills, but you could only gain 700 skill points so you had to pick your 7 skills. It made it very diverse, and amazingly robust. Even on a non pvp bard character, you had a chance of winning if you used the area to your advantage.
UO was almost completely player skill based rather than grinded characters and gear. You could kill a maxed player with far less, it just took the right approach.

#19 J03_b   Members   -  Reputation: 131

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 April 2012 - 02:36 AM

Yes I played Darkfall and UO was fundamentally better in every way except darkfall has the best pvp gameplay if you leave your computer running 24/7 for a year macroing.


Eve online is pretty much the exact same way. Eve actually has time-based skill training where you just queue the skills to learn and they learn after the set amount of time. Each level 4-5 skills take weeks to learn, so you're stuck just waiting around for months before you can fly better ships

#20 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 963

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:25 AM

I just wanna say it sounds like Ultima was a lot of fun and I really like the whole open world pvp, full loot, high risk style of game. I tried Eve online and a game called Darkfall because they both have similar concepts, but both have pretty big downsides that makes it so they take a really long time to get into and I just don't think they were worth it


This is why conveniences are needed to make it easier for players to get into a game. To many players, "long traveling time" is equivalent to the big downsides that stopped you from getting into EVE.

When I last played EVE about a year ago, I remember the extremely long time it takes to travel from place to place. My friend and I wanted to meet up in-game and it took us more than 30 minutes just to do so.

Except that I wasn't exaggerating at all. After you reach the max level, you can do or queue for everything else the game has to offer while standing in the AH, including dungeons, BGs, raids, arenas, RBGs, crafting, and trading. It's literally the same thing as if all the gyms were in one place and your opponents just came to you.


I don't see why this is "bad". If the intent of the game designer was to make a dungeon/BG/raid/arena/RBG/crafting/trading game, why stop players from playing the game by making them travel?

For example, if I make a game about dungeons, I would certainly let players instantly teleport to the entrance of each dungeons, instead of having to waste time traveling to them.

And who decided what the game is "about"?


The game designers get to decide what the game is "about".

I think the fun involved in that is definitely worth the time spent traveling to the instance(which was also never anywhere near 30-60 minutes).


If the activity is so fun, why are we stopping players from doing it via traveling?


So that's why I suggest that if you want a game that's more about queuing for short sessions with other players, then why play something with miles and miles of landscape that you never use or even see? Do you just have to play something called an MMORPG?


Because I like playing MMORPGs, the fun parts, without all the time wasting.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS