Sign in to follow this  
JoeBoris

Theory: players don't know what they want

Recommended Posts

Bigdeadbug    173
[quote]What about FPSs that players spent hundreds of hours playing online with other people? Like Counterstrike or Quake?[/quote]

That is why I said a [u]8 Hour[/u] FPS not FPS's in general, they just happen to be a genre that sends to have short playtimes (at least in singleplayer). A game in which the total amount of time you could/would spend playing it is only a fraction of the time you would spend playing an MMORPG. The player would not expect to spend any of those 8 hours "bored" and in reality/ideally any decent game of that length would only have a few minutes were the player would be bored. A FPS player may say "Oh it takes half and hour to get into." or "The mission in the middle are boring" in much the same way an MMORPG player would say "It takes several hours before you hit the good part". The point is neither player should really hold the opposing players genre to the expectations developed from their genre, to do so would more often than not show a misunderstanding on their part.

[quote]I spent hundreds of hours playing Starcraft and Counterstrike, but haven't encountered a portion that is nothing more than a slogfest.[/quote]

Sorry, the word slogfest was only directed towards MMORPGs. In games likes StarCraft and Counter Strike that time that is not fun for the player would be when they are loosing or in a similar situation to that. Again this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and is to be expected from this type of competitive multiplayer game. In this case what I was talking about before would be along the lines of someone complaining that StarCraft 2 is a bad game because they lost several matches (which a lot of people do, although I suspect most of them speak out of frustration and don't necessarily mean it).

[quote]Why not just let players play the rest of the game from the start?[/quote]

The point is that over such a long period of play you will get times that are not enjoyed by some/allot of the playerbase. In TERAs case it would be expectational if they structured the game so they avoid having the first 8 or so hours being boring, but the complex and demanding nature of their combat system means they would require some sort of ramp up period as they introduce it to new players. This ramp up period will most likely be boring to a portion of the playerbase, but that, alas, is a problem with the design decisions made in no small part because it is an MMORPG.

[quote]What about Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2, which are famous for their "no grind" system? Also, World of Warcraft can be soloed to max level in around 7 days of play time (7 x 24 hours), and it is the most popular MMORPG of all time. [/quote]

Guild Wars is not an MMORPG and because of that doesn't suffer from some of the issues cause by being part of that genre, in other words its easier for them to avoid grindy situations although I don't recalling them in succeeding completely. Guild Wars 2 does seem unique in its approach so far, but Arenanet stating it has not grind does not mean it does not have one (from what I have heard one of the starting areas, the Norn I think, is relatively monotonousness from the start) and I'm sceptical whether it will have the staying power of some, classically designed, MMORPGs. Without playing the game first hand I can't give a more concrete option on the subject.

WoW is still, and most likely forever will be, a game front heavy with grinding content. Before the player can get into the meat of the game they must still level through 85, soon 90, level of content which although somewhat improved is still taxing on the majority of the players (especially the older content). Its success shows that in some respect people can look past that initial grind and have enough fun in the game to compensate for that.

To level the criticism of an MMORPG not being fun for an extended period of time or taking a seemingly long time to get into against a single game shows a misunderstanding of the genre or unreal expectations of it, at least in its current form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigdeadbug    173
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1334618972' post='4931936']
I used to just accept the fact that you have to grind and quest to level up in mmo's but lately I've been thinking why does that [i]have[/i] to be a part of all games? Why don't they make it so you can level up and progress by doing whatever you feel like doing at the time. Wouldn't it be sweet if there were games like that? Balancing and other issues aside, it would be awesome if you could get good experience for stuff like battlegrounds, arenas, world pvp, raids, and maybe even stuff like crafting or exploring. Anyone know of a game like that?

(I know this is off-topic, who cares)
[/quote]

World of Warcraft now uses that system, so does Star Wars: The Old Republic. In fact a lot of MMORPGs allow you to gain exp through means other than questing/killing mobs. GuildWars 2 is the best example of a game going this route, they claim it has no "endgame" in fact. This does ease the grind somewhat but does not remove it, I don't think that can be overcome completely without the genre morphing into something else entirely and as a result remove its goal driven gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeBoris    131
[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334620835' post='4931951']
World of Warcraft now uses that system, so does Star Wars: The Old Republic. In fact a lot of MMORPGs allow you to gain exp through means other than questing/killing mobs. GuildWars 2 is the best example of a game going this route, they claim it has no "endgame" in fact. This does ease the grind somewhat but does not remove it, I don't think that can be overcome completely without the genre morphing into something else entirely and as a result remove its goal driven gameplay.
[/quote]


Yeah I was excited when they announced exp for battlegrounds in WoW, but it's really not a substantial amount of experience and you don't get any additional exp for personal performance. Anyway, GW2 sounds cool in that regard because my idea was to lower the power gap between levels and make all raids and dungeons accessible and beneficial(relative to difficulty) to players of all level. If that was the case in WoW then the end-game would be a lot more fun that farming the latest 3 heroics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legendre    985
[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334620314' post='4931949']
Sorry, the word slogfest was only directed towards MMORPGs. In games likes StarCraft and Counter Strike that time that is not fun for the player would be when they are loosing or in a similar situation to that. Again this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and is to be expected from this type of competitive multiplayer game. In this case what I was talking about before would be along the lines of someone complaining that StarCraft 2 is a bad game because they lost several matches (which a lot of people do, although I suspect most of them speak out of frustration and don't necessarily mean it).
[/quote]

The process of playing SC, CS or a competitive sports is the "fun", there is no need to wait 8 hours to unlock the fun parts of SC, CS or competitive sports.

There is nothing wrong with complaining about constantly losing in SC, CS or sports. People enjoy activities that match their level of skill. E.g. When I play chess (a difference kind call "Go"), I don't find it enjoyable constantly losing to a much better player with little to no chance of winning. Nor do I find it enjoyable to constantly beat clueless newbies.

In Chess, if I find myself losing too much, I have the option of finding players closer to my skill level so I can enjoy the game right away. When I get better, I can always move on to better players to enjoy "endgame content". However, I am forced to perform the "MMORPG grind" regardless of how fast I progress. This is why grind is tedious: it forces players to repeat an activity that they already mastered over and over again.



[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334620314' post='4931949']
Guild Wars is not an MMORPG
[/quote]

In what way is Guild Wars not an MMORPG? Its massive, its multiplayer, it has a persistence world, it is an RPG.


[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334620314' post='4931949']
To level the criticism of an MMORPG not being fun for an extended period of time or taking a seemingly long time to get into against a single game shows a misunderstanding of the genre or unreal expectations of it, at least in its current form.
[/quote]

No MMORPG designer would intentionally force players to grind for 8 hours just to get to the fun part because "its part of the genre". The reason why grind exists is because many MMORPGs run on subscription. They have to continually pump out new content so players will keep subscribing. "Grind" is a way to slow down the player's consumption of content so that there is less pressure to keep producing new content to retain the playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigdeadbug    173
@Legendre

The point was that SC2 and similar games in that competitive multiplayer genre have periods of play time which would be seen as not as enjoyable. Much in the same way as the grinding sections of an MMORPG are viewed. To seriously complain about core elements of a genre (whether they are seen as positive or negative) shows a lack of understanding of the genre and by extension, in my opinion of course, is an instance were a player is not entirely sure what they want or what they want is not inline with what they can feasibly have.

ArenaNet [url="http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/features/default.php"]themselves[/url] consider GuildWars a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). A discussion as to why this is the case really warrants its own thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legendre    985
[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334669621' post='4932127']
The point was that SC2 and similar games in that competitive multiplayer genre have periods of play time which would be seen as not as enjoyable. Much in the same way as the grinding sections of an MMORPG are viewed.
[/quote]

I posted an explanation of why SC2 and similar games are not designed to have periods of play time that would be seen as not as enjoyable. And why grinding sections of an MMORPG significantly differs from "losing many matches consecutively".

[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334669621' post='4932127']
ArenaNet [url="http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/features/default.php"]themselves[/url] consider GuildWars a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). To really explore the differences between the two genres really requires its own thread.
[/quote]

Well, if I make an FPS and say I consider it to be an RTS, would you agree with me? According to your link, ArenaNet says the differences between their "CORPG" and MMORPG are: 1) instances 2) fast travel 3) emphasis on player skill 4) optional pvp. Not really any different from MMORPGs like WoW.

To be honest I am not sure why it is important to carefully divide games into genres? Genres are loose terms often used just to simplify conversations. Is there any benefit to gain from setting hard and fast rules on what defines an MMORPG and then making sure the game you design fit all these rules?

What happens when I coin a new genre "MORPG" - Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, and then say that Guild Wars 1/2 and World of Warcraft are both MORPGs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legendre    985
[quote name='Stormynature' timestamp='1334662215' post='4932096']
I am starting to come of the opinion that the conversation of this thread is making the thread's title definitively answered
[/quote]

Touché! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigdeadbug    173
[quote]I posted an explanation of why SC2 and similar games are not designed to have periods of play time that would be seen as not as enjoyable. And why grinding sections of an MMORPG significantly differs from "losing many matches consecutively".[/quote]

Actually they are designed to have periods of play that are not as enjoyable. Specifically SC2's ladder system is designed so that a player will on average loose 50% of all their matches. There's is a reason for this of course, like you said above, always winning is not fun for the majority of players and making sure they experiences periods of loosing makes those periods were they win that much better (there are other bonuses to this as well). The same is true for grinding within MMORPGs, without it players won't feel the sense of accomplishment from reaching certain goals. In both cases they are important element in that genres design, without which the genre would not be A the same and B quite as enjoyable. There is of course a fine balancing act with such elements within a game which is were good design comes into the equation.

[quote]Well, if I make an FPS and say I consider it to be an RTS, would you agree with me?[/quote]

Show me an well thought out justification for calling said FPS an RTS and I will call it one.

[quote]According to your link, ArenaNet says the differences between their "CORPG" and MMORPG are: 1) instances 2) fast travel 3) emphasis on player skill 4) optional pvp. Not really any different from MMORPGs like WoW.[/quote]

There are a number of points that GW devastates from MMORPGs enough for it not to be justified as one. I admit some of the ones used are really marketing buzz words that reflect the time at which the game was developed, but it was the best example I could find in the short time I had. The primary way in which is differs from MMORPGs is indeed its heavy use of instancing, the only "persistent" portions of the world are really virtual lobbies everything else is generated as and when players need it. That alone is reason enough not to put it into the MMORPG genre in much the same way you wouldn't consider Rise of Immortals an MMORPG.

[quote]To be honest I am not sure why it is important to carefully divide games into genres? Genres are loose terms often used just to simplify conversations. Is there any benefit to gain from setting hard and fast rules on what defines an MMORPG and then making sure the game you design fit all these rules?[/quote]

The most important benefit of using genres, and having strong definitions for them, is the way it allows for stronger academic research to be conducted into games. It's vitally important to know what you should/could directly compare a game to, what games your finding can be applied to and provide the reader a quick/easy way to know what you are discussing. Its part of the reason you are seeing the development and use of the "theme-park MMORPG" along with the "sandbox MMORPG". There are also other benefits, such as allowing players to know what to expect from a game.

[quote]What happens when I coin a new genre "MORPG" - Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, and then say that Guild Wars 1/2 and World of Warcraft are both MORPGs?[/quote]

Nothing really, in fact I seem to remember it being used before for the multiplayer portions of RPGs like Neverwinter Nights 2. The genre would be very general thought which would limit its use, the games it encompasses would have very little in common. Its the same principle as saying a game is part of the shooter genre, all that tells me is that the game involves shooting something. Describing a game as that may help in a very general conversation, but in most cases saying it is a Tactical FPS or Cover based Third person shooter would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legendre    985
[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334684356' post='4932205']
Actually they are designed to have periods of play that are not as enjoyable. Specifically SC2's ladder system is designed so that a player will on average loose 50% of all their matches. There's is a reason for this of course, like you said above, always winning is not fun for the majority of players and making sure they experiences periods of loosing makes those periods were they win that much better (there are other bonuses to this as well).
[/quote]

No they are not designed to have periods of play that are unenjoyable. No I wasn't saying that losing makes winning feel much better.

The real reason why we want players to win each match with a 50% probability is so that players feel entertained because their ability is evenly matched with the challenge they are receiving. Win most of the time = too easy, bored. Lose all the time to top professional players = too tough, bored. This is similar to the theory of flow in psychology ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)[/url]).

It is meant to make the game enjoyable [u][b]all[/b][/u] the time.


[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334684356' post='4932205']
The same is true for grinding within MMORPGs, without it players won't feel the sense of accomplishment from reaching certain goals. In both cases they are important element in that genres design, without which the genre would not be A the same and B quite as enjoyable.
[/quote]

In contrast, players with high levels of skill is forced into repeating the same tedious activity that players with low levels of skill is doing. Players see it as an unenjoyable grind because the activity that they are doing does not match their ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigdeadbug    173
@Legendre

A developer is essentially creating periods of play that are potentially not enjoyable for the player. That may not be a concious decision by the developer (and sorry if my original wording made it seem like I was implying it was), instead they would probably view it as a way to better engage the player in the game. To do this they will face the player with a challenge, one that they can feasibly, but easily, overcome. In the case of a game like SC2 this challenge is predominantly a test of skill, while in the case of an MMORPG grind it is predominantly a test of dedication. This challenge will undoubtedly be seen as unpleasant by part of the player base and as a result you are creating periods of play which are not fun from that players point of view. When the player overcomes these challenges they get a sense of achievement that would otherwise not be there without said challenges. In the case of SC2 this does in fact mean that the games a player loses can help provide a much more satisfying and enjoyable experiences for them when they win.

It is not a case of making the game enjoyable all the time but instead making it enjoyable [b][u]most[/u][/b] of the time.

[i][There is of course a lot more to it than just that and what you or I said are not mutually exclusive by any means, the periods of unenjoyable play server to create a more entertaining experience for the player overall.][/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeBoris    131
[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334705804' post='4932321']
@Legendre

A developer is essentially creating periods of play that are potentially not enjoyable for the player.
[/quote]


I'd just like to interject real quick and clarify that it's not always "not fun", but more like play that feels like work. I think everyone will agree that questing and doing dungeons to progress and explore new areas can be really fun, but after doing it for so long it starts to feel like a chore. However, there are those games that are literally just killing the same monsters over and over again which is probably what people refer to as a "grind fest". In those cases I don't think that is the developers intentions, but instead just lazy developers that don't feel like coming up with consistent new content. There is a big difference between those two types

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigdeadbug    173
It also varies from player to player. Even the classic "grind fest" is seen by some players to be fun. Developers have become much better at masking the grind by making you do more engaging activities and there is defiantly a distinction between lazy game design and good game design. Then again the techniques used seem to age poorly in a lot of cases so it may just be a case of the game, and by extension its design, being old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1334465369' post='4931345']
Players wanted AAs, bloom and a progressive ranking system in Reach, and I'm pretty sure that all of those things contribute to Reach's low level of success (compared to halo 3).[/quote]
I don't know enough about Reach and their developers to be able to have an opinion on that. But typically, something can be suggested by the players and then implemented by the developers, but that doesn't mean that it was those players who made them implement it. Developers also have a brain.

I mean, I suggested flying in Azeroth, Goblins, underwater realm and a ton of stuff in WoW and other games that has since been implemented. But was that because of my suggestions? I highly doubt it. Cataclysm was probably started on long before even WotLK was launched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1334417330' post='4931205']
[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1334409819' post='4931183']
Saying that I want the game to be different doesn't say anything about what specifically you want to see in the game.
[/quote]

I don't think players would "want" a game to be different without specifics. It is usually the case where they want something over another.

E.g. players who hate bloom in Halo wants the old system back. players who love bloom in Halo wants bloom and doesn't want the old system back.

Does anyone have an example of how "want" can be different from "don't want"?
[/quote]

My point is that gamers aren't as good at identifying the underlying issue. If they were, they sure as hell wouldn't be complaining about gear score in WoW, for instance. Because if you remove the gear score, you're still going to have the need for that level of gear, but now it's just gonna be even more players complaining because of how difficult it'll be to figure out the benchmarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1334719215' post='4932351']
In those cases I don't think that is the developers intentions, but instead just lazy developers that don't feel like coming up with consistent new content. There is a big difference between those two types[/quote]

The grindfest is what's called the "treadmill" by devs, and it's something that the professionals take very seriously, because it directly affects game sales. Too much grinding, and players start quitting the game. That's why they try to mask it with interesting stuff, because the right amount of grinding in a game (that which occupies your time but doesn't feel grindy) can make it survive for a lot longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legendre    985
[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1334719215' post='4932351']
I'd just like to interject real quick and clarify that it's not always "not fun", but more like play that feels like work. I think everyone will agree that questing and doing dungeons to progress and explore new areas can be really fun, but after doing it for so long it starts to feel like a chore. However, there are those games that are literally just killing the same monsters over and over again which is probably what people refer to as a "grind fest". In those cases I don't think that is the developers intentions, but instead just lazy developers that don't feel like coming up with consistent new content. There is a big difference between those two types
[/quote]

Yep. This is one of the points that I was trying to convey.


[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1334746685' post='4932439']
My point is that gamers aren't as good at identifying the underlying issue. If they were, they sure as hell wouldn't be complaining about gear score in WoW, for instance. Because if you remove the gear score, you're still going to have the need for that level of gear, but now it's just gonna be even more players complaining because of how difficult it'll be to figure out the benchmarks.
[/quote]

Yes I completely agree. Developers/designers too can fail to consider the full impact of a feature.

However, players/gamers can sometimes come up with amazingly detailed explanations of why certain features should stay/go. E.g. I found enlightening analysis done by fans about bloom and armor ability in Halo Reach (its not as straight forward as "bloom and armor ability is good/bad").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legendre    985
[quote name='Bigdeadbug' timestamp='1334745316' post='4932435']
It also varies from player to player. Even the classic "grind fest" is seen by some players to be fun. Developers have become much better at masking the grind by making you do more engaging activities and there is defiantly a distinction between lazy game design and good game design. Then again the techniques used seem to age poorly in a lot of cases so it may just be a case of the game, and by extension its design, being old.
[/quote]

*Nod*. Class grind can be fun for some players. E.g. I have little time for games nowadays and enjoy just logging on and mindlessly grinding mobs for 10-20 minutes knowing that I at least gain some EXP and Gold.

[quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1334747080' post='4932441']
The grindfest is what's called the "treadmill" by devs, and it's something that the professionals take very seriously, because it directly affects game sales. Too much grinding, and players start quitting the game. That's why they try to mask it with interesting stuff, because the right amount of grinding in a game (that which occupies your time but doesn't feel grindy) can make it survive for a lot longer.
[/quote]

Yep. I am currently programming an RPG by myself, and have come to realize that I would need to add some "masked grind" because I don't think I will be able to output new content fast enough.

However, I would like to emphasize that I am not trying to intentionally add in "unenjoyable" activities. The goal is to somehow make it fun to repeat old content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
josh1billion    195
I'd be curious to see whether psychologists have studied, and given a name to, this particular phenomenon: the disparity between what individuals [i]think[/i] they want and what they [i]actually[/i] want. The phenomenon is certainly not unique to just games.

[b]Edit[/b]: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion"]Introspection illusion[/url], perhaps.
Further reading: [url="http://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-you-what-they-want"]http://uxmyths.com/p...-what-they-want[/url]

[b]Edit again:[/b] I'd forgotten all about this -- Malcolm Gladwell has a great TED Talk on this very idea: [url="http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html"]http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sunandshadow    7426
From what I've seen of newbie game designers' attempts at game design documents, I think designers often don't know what they want at the beginning of the process either. Half the fun of the design process is figuring out what you want, and half the challenge of the creative process is figuring out what to input into yourself to make useful ideas come out.

Edit: I decided I wanted to ramble more about the psychology of creativity, since it's such an interesting topic. First off, I think game designers aren't fundamentally different from players. Every designer has to _be_ a player, just like every writer has to be a reader, every musician has to be a music fan, etc. If you're not consuming it you could make random attempts at producing it but you're not going to have any feel for what's functional and enjoyable. Many run of the mill players come up with a stray design idea or two when playing a game. It may or may not be a good idea, but the same can be said for the ideas of an experienced designer. The difference between the player and the designer is just that the designer has put time into thinking about design, and with that time has probably acquired a broader experience and more developed conceptual framework of what a game is and how it functions. With that experience and theoretical foundation the designer has mental tools to test ideas (and how they fit with other ideas) that an ordinary player doesn't have, and the designer also has the habit and mental toolbox to produce more ideas faster. But designing, like all creative and artistic fields, is intensely personal. We all have different experiences, have chosen different bits of others' theory to incorporate into our own, and that's why it's so rare to find two designers who can agree on a game concept to start developing. So, since "developer skill" is not a consistent or objective thing, nor a discrete thing that players absolutely lack, I don't think it really makes sense to draw a line in the sand between players and designers, as far as whose ideas are valid or interesting. Even once an idea has been fully implemented it's difficult to say if it is a good idea because that can only be measured in whether the players are having fun, and one game design is different amounts of fun for different players because they have different tastes and abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
josh1billion    195
[quote name='sunandshadow' timestamp='1334811298' post='4932691']
The difference between the player and the designer is just that the designer has put time into thinking about design, and with that time has probably acquired a broader experience and more developed conceptual framework of what a game is and how it functions. With that experience and theoretical foundation the designer has mental tools to test ideas (and how they fit with other ideas) that an ordinary player doesn't have, and the designer also has the habit and mental toolbox to produce more ideas faster.

[/quote]
Very well said.

[quote name='sunandshadow' timestamp='1334811298' post='4932691']Every designer has to _be_ a player, just like every writer has to be a reader, every musician has to be a music fan, etc. If you're not consuming it you could make random attempts at producing it but you're not going to have any feel for what's functional and enjoyable.[/quote]
One possible counter-example to consider would be Shigeru Miyamoto. Despite arguably being the world's most famous and successful game designer, he reportedly spends very little of his time playing games. I'm sure he plays the games he's working on, so your argument may still hold in that regard, though it would seem that one can still theoretically be an incredibly successful designer without actually gaming regularly.

(But don't get me wrong: I'd certainly agree that playing others' games would have a much greater benefit to a designer than not doing so.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1334751903' post='4932459']
However, players/gamers can sometimes come up with amazingly detailed explanations of why certain features should stay/go. E.g. I found enlightening analysis done by fans about bloom and armor ability in Halo Reach (its not as straight forward as "bloom and armor ability is good/bad").[/quote]

Good point, there's definitely pros and cons with both groups (gamers and developers).

[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1334752470' post='4932461']
However, I would like to emphasize that I am not trying to intentionally add in "unenjoyable" activities. The goal is to somehow make it fun to repeat old content.[/quote]

I think the most ingenius example of a positive grind in gaming history must be Diablo's system of difficulty (normal/nightmare/hell; where you need to beat the game in a certain difficulty to get the next unlocked). Essentially the same content all over again, yet wrapped around a context that makes sense and it's incredibly fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legendre    985
[quote name='josh1billion' timestamp='1334810101' post='4932686']
I'd be curious to see whether psychologists have studied, and given a name to, this particular phenomenon: the disparity between what individuals [i]think[/i] they want and what they [i]actually[/i] want. The phenomenon is certainly not unique to just games.
[/quote]

This topic has been extensively studied in economics. E.g. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference[/url]

Basically it says that asking individuals what they want is useless, and the best way to find out what they want is to actually see what they end up picking.

"Preference" is a huge topic in economics, both historically and in current times. It is highly mathematical and rife with controversy and debate (see Rational Agent Theory, Expected Utility Hypothesis, Behavioral Economics etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this