What is the rationale for including achievements, experience points, leveling systems, emblems, and other such "reward systems" into games? I've been seeing this happen more and more in FPS games (most recently Modern Warfare 2) which don't have "monthly subscription fees" like many online RPGs. With monthly subscription games, the benefit of reward systems is relatively obvious: if you get your players addicted, they'll continue playing -- and paying -- and the game company will profit. But with FPS games, the benefit (if any) is much less obvious, and I'm trying to figure out what it is. Is it as simple as games designers just wanting to add some more spice into their games? Make an otherwise bland and repetitive shoot-em-up more interesting and varied? Or is there a more nefarious reason? For example, Modern Warfare 2 recently came up with an expansion pack -- basically, they recycled some old maps from the previous version of the game and charged $15 for it. Since the game has been out for some time, you'd think everybody had forgotten about it by now and moved on to something else. But alas, people bought into the so-called "stimulus pack" with record-breaking numbers [1] which is possible, I think, only because of how addicting that game is. And the addicting element is, of course, the numerous reward systems that are present in that game. What are some other possible reasons why we see reward systems in virtually every game out there today? Is it the game industry's "copy machine" doing its thing -- game designers are including it simply because everyone else is? Do you view reward systems as being exploitative of their players? What do you think of the following quote by Jonathan Blow about the reward systems present in World of Warcraft?

Quote: That kind of reward system is very easily turned into a Pavlovian or Skinnerian scheme. It's considered best practice: schedule rewards for your player so that they don't get bored and give up on your game. That's actually exploitation. . . . Developers should provide activities that interest players rather than stringing them along with little pieces of candy so that they'll suffer through terrible game play, but keep playing because they gain levels or new items. [2]

Should game designers stop including these addicting reward systems into their games and focus more on other ways of making their games fun and innovative? Or do you think that the blame rests more with the players -- after all, they're the ones who buy these games, and as long as they continue doing that, there's no reason for game designers to abandon something that works? Please share any other thoughts you have on reward systems in video games! I'm currently in the process of writing a paper on the topic and your input would help. Alternative viewpoints welcome -- you can probably tell what mine is (I didn't put much effort into hiding it). Thanks!

Quote:Original post by serioso
What is the rationale for including achievements, experience points, leveling systems, emblems, and other such "reward systems" into games?

It keeps people playing, and it keeps people talking about your game. It's free publicity and I reckon that, if people get hooked on an original game, they're more likely to be queueing up at midnight for the sequel = $$$$$$.

It also gives you something to aim for, instead of just fragging all day every day for the sheer hell of it - believe me, this gets dull and you might find yourself giving up on the game entirely.

Back on the $$$ front, keeping people hooked on your game for longer also has the advantage that you as a developer get your money's worth - if it's a big budget game that ends up in the bargain bin after six months then I wouldn't exactly be enamoured with that end result.

Quote:
Is it as simple as games designers just wanting to add some more spice into their games? Make an otherwise bland and repetitive shoot-em-up more interesting and varied?

I would say so, although I'm not an industry insider of any description. FPS games really are quite simple and quite repetitive, so it serves the gamer well to provide some incentive and a little bit of spice and flavour.

It's nice to shoot somebody and see yourself getting promoted, instead of "I have 41 kills. There's not even a leaderboard. Whoopee." which is just stale, boring and pointless. I'd rather watch a TV program in which somebody just sits in a chair watching paint dry.

Quote:
Or is there a more nefarious reason? For example, Modern Warfare 2 recently came up with an expansion pack -- basically, they recycled some old maps from the previous version of the game and charged $15 for it.

Call of Duty is an extreme case. That cow has been milked dry by Activision to the point of physical pain and there's no signs of it stopping any time soon, and hardened "fanboys" will buy anything.

Quote:Since the game has been out for some time, you'd think everybody had forgotten about it by now and moved on to something else.

Halo 3 has been out longer and is still one of the most (possibly the most - I haven't checked Major Nelson's lists in a while) popular and most played games on Xbox LIVE. Modern Warfare 2 is massively popular, even the original Modern Warfare launched two months after Halo 3 still has about 2000 people on at a time and I have zero problems finding a game to this very day (I don't have MW2, for the record).

Quote:Is it the game industry's "copy machine" doing its thing -- game designers are including it simply because everyone else is?

More than likely. I didn't play the beta but apparently Halo:Reach has a Call of Duty style perks and rank system, but simply because it's Halo people will fawn over it as some kind of earth-shattering epiphany.

It's like Apple; a bad version of the technology you had last year, at stratospherically high prices in a shiny case, what's not to like?

Quote:
Do you view reward systems as being exploitative of their players? What do you think of the following quote by Jonathan Blow about the reward systems present in World of Warcraft?

Quote:
That kind of reward system is very easily turned into a Pavlovian or Skinnerian scheme. It's considered best practice: schedule rewards for your player so that they don't get bored and give up on your game. That's actually exploitation. . . . Developers should provide activities that interest players rather than stringing them along with little pieces of candy so that they'll suffer through terrible game play, but keep playing because they gain levels or new items. [2]

I refuse to take anything Jonathan Blow says seriously. He creates a bland, pretentious platformer with stupid music and a stupid name and thinks he's some kind of God; he's one to talk about terrible gameplay after all.

He calls reward systems "exploitation"? How does he know that people aren't interested in getting new perks or levels? Some people like grinding through games (I don't, myself). "terrible gameplay" is rich coming from him as I personally thought Braid was undiluted garbage, yet he has the cheek to lay into other people for doing things their way? Sorry, can't take him seriously; what a tool.

If the pacing is done correctly, reward systems can be great.

So is the question "why would designers implement systems that keep people playing their game for the longest amount of time?" o.O

I don't see what's so bad about it. If the player doesn't like the gameplay, then he's free to quit playing. If the rewards are interesting enough for the player to keep playing what he otherwise thinks is a bad game, well, congratulations, you just turned a bad game into a good one using those rewards.

Because I got the get that fucking gnome into the rocket. Gahhhh.

Quote:Original post by serioso
Should game designers stop including these addicting reward systems into their games and focus more on other ways of making their games fun and innovative? Or do you think that the blame rests more with the players -- after all, they're the ones who buy these games, and as long as they continue doing that, there's no reason for game designers to abandon something that works?

One reason that they are present is that the publishers and/or console manufacturers either require or recommend it. The basic design of XBox Live gamercards, or Steam profiles, or the PSN, includes the concept of that kind of awards. When you are on those systems, you play by their rules.

Another reason is that they act as advertising for the game. Non-customers are going to look at the achievements even if they don't play the game; hopefully this will encourage them to become customers.

Another reason is that they provide talking points. They can act as 'hooks' for people to discuss the game. They provide FAQ items, and give focus on various aspects of the game. Difficult achievements can generate a lot of discussion.

Another reason is that they can be used as a form of copy protection; If only known paying profiles can create and update their stats, it will increase the odds that they will pay.

Another reason is that they provide telemetry. The studios can better judge kind of content to include or exclude in future titles.






As for there not being many games that don't, you need to look around a bit more. There are thousands of games that don't have them.

Offline PC games don't have them. Older console games don't have them. The non-online-centric devices (Wii, DS, PSP, cell phone games, etc) generally don't have them, although a few titles implement them. The vast majority of online web games don't have them.

They are a relatively new phenomenon, and they are focused more on online-centric consoles and the major PC gaming hubs. If you leave those sheltered areas you will discover a broad range of creative and innovative games.

i hate it. I want innovative gameplay and interesting multiplayer mechanics.

Adventure games where the only puzzle is "Use Gun On Man" are pretty boring. That is COD:MW2. BF:BC2 is a bit more varied but still the same.

Mount & Blade: Warband - now THAT is a game!