Quote:

Original post by Kest The grinding issue made me consider something else. I think there are at least four different types of gameplay: 1. Negative gameplay: Doing something negative for the experience. 2. Positive gameplay: Doing something positive for the experience. 3. Negative grinding: Doing something negative to obtain something positive. 4. Positive grinding: Doing something positive to obtain something positive. Individual player preference can swap between 1<->2 and 3<->4. But regardless of player preference, the presence of #1 does not hurt the game if it is optional, while the presence of #3 can hurt some players, regardless of how optional it is. Unfortunately, it works the other way as well. Players who enjoy something as #2 would enjoy it even more as #4. Getting rewards for doing something that you love to do well is what it's all about. My exploration gimic would work that way. If I hide very valuable treasure in ancient tombs, some players who hate to explore may feel compelled to search them out. But I believe the cost is worth it. And the negative effects can be diverted somewhat by having other types of gameplay that are rewarding in the same way.

I feel that we should figure out how to get to 4 without having to even bother with 2. Grinding in games, as it currently stands, is just not worth it, and only seems to be there because people haven't bothered to try something new. Suikoden manages to get rid of grinding by having characters level up extremely quickly to the current enemies level. Enemies are level 90? Well, in 8 battles, your level 1 characters will be level 90 too. Only if you want to get above the enemies levels, does grinding appear. Some other RPGs (such as Ultima) get rid of grinding by having limited levels.

I'm not asking for the best experience of my life in video games. I just think that you can avoid many of the current tedoius factors with a little innovation. When I ask people why they play Final Fantasy, mostly it's "For the Story", not "For the 1.8 million battles I fight".

Quote:

Original post by Nytegard I feel that we should figure out how to get to 4 without having to even bother with 2.

Are you sure you didn't mean that the other way around? Gameplay that doesn't give rewards (2 instead of 4) removes any incentive to do it when you don't enjoy it. That's a strategy worth considering. But I think RPGs are most appealing (and simultaneously most annoying) because they risk it all and go for as much of #4 as possible (which turns out to be #3 for some). I wouldn't consider a game with pure 1 and 2 to be much of an RPG, since it makes any type of goal-oriented character development impossible.

Quote:

When I ask people why they play Final Fantasy, mostly it's "For the Story", not "For the 1.8 million battles I fight".

If you ask me, Final Fantasy itself is just one huge grind. If the majority of gamers who play it are playing it for the story, then the story itself becomes a positive reward while the battles are positive/negative gameplay. Gamers who don't play it for the story are just completely out of luck if they don't enjoy the battles.

Well, I meant #3 instead of #2.

Honestly, I don't think you really need grinding at all in RPGs, but I guess it comes down to what exactly is an RPG?

To me, a good RPG has the ability to beat it with very few fights. I believe in Planecape Torment and Fallout, you can beat both games with under 10 total battles. They give you alternative approaches to the game which are really more puzzle solving and turn the games more into adventure games than classical style Video Game RPGs.

I guess that's why Ultima 7 was the RPG I enjoyed the most. The fighting was purely automated, so I never really had to do any of it, and I played for the story. It felt more like an interactive novel than a movie with battle fillers.

As I previously mentioned RPGs in the 1990s, at least on the computer, evolved away from the needless early 1980's ish gameplay that remained with Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. Unfortunately, RPGs in general died in popularity until FF7, so the only system of gameplay we have now are the pointless grinds.

Now, I'm not saying we should go retro, as that's just plain stupid, but we can bring back some of the gameplay advances that were lost in the past generations. It's only new if we haven't seen it ourselves before, not if it hasn't been done before.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Way Walker If a video game threatened to be the biggest blast of fun I'd ever had in my life, I might put up with the tedium to experience that. So this is not true: Quote: Original post by Way Walker If I don't enjoy it, I won't do it.

But there's the question of enjoyment. I find flying on an airplane to be unpleasant and I avoid it when possible. However, if I'm particularly excited by the end result, the flight becomes part of the experience in a positive way. Instead of simply being restricted to an uncomfortable seating position in an already uncomfortable seat, it's drawn up into the anticipation. I'm striving toward something greater, and that is a great feeling, one that I enjoy.

It's like I said before, I've turned off a game and gone outside when it got tedious. That doesn't mean the task changed. That means the task was no longer worth it to me for the reward that was expected.

Quote:

Quote: I think here's maybe the disconnect: No video game has ever come anywhere near being the biggest blast of fun I've ever had in my life. Are you saying that Oblivion is the biggest blast of fun you've ever had in your life except when you're trying to make money in it? No. I'm saying the price of the player's tolerance is irrelevant to my point. It always has been.

It is relevant to your point. You suggested making the payback miniscule to deter it. If the player's tolerance isn't relevant, then there's no matter of reducing the reward, it's simply a matter of "in or out".

Quote:

Original post by Nytegard Well, I meant #3 instead of #2.

So you mean to get as much of #4 without having #3? That's not really up to us. That's up to player preference. The most we can do is narrow in on our target audience, which removes more #3 for them, while creating more for everyone else. #2 is always safe when optional, because #1 is safe. But #2 style gameplay is rarely as enticing as #4.

In very generic terms, all video games that have a scripted story are implementing #4 style gameplay. The story is the reward, and playing any part of the game is the positive/negative gameplay. This is how I view RPGs that are focused on a story instead of gameplay. If you remove all possible grind from a story-oriented RPG, you end up with a completely non-interactive movie.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Quote: Original post by Kest No. I'm saying the price of the player's tolerance is irrelevant to my point. It always has been. It is relevant to your point. You suggested making the payback miniscule to deter it. If the player's tolerance isn't relevant, then there's no matter of reducing the reward, it's simply a matter of "in or out".

The scale of the reward is relative to the scale of the tedium. Turn the tedium down enough, and the reward doesn't need to be that high to make it tolerable.

If you would willingly play incredible games (large reward) while puting up with tedious elements, but would not play normal games (reduced reward) while puting up with those same tedious elements, then you would benifit from the reduction of a reward gained by performing a tedious activity. That was my point.

Aside from games being pretty looking deserts with too few interaction possibilities, a major bad feature is having 'monsters' evenly spaced like a minefield (so you cant go 10 seconds in a straight without activating another) and standing like manikins (or wander a circuit repeatelty). Having many at once all in sight of each other, but who just stand there as you loudly attack one of them while the rest noticing nothing.

Much more interesting would be have many fewer targets which you have to hunt and/or watch their purposeful movements to pick the best moment to strike them. Having ones that run away instead of running straight at you to attack might also be more interesting.


I like to explore in games and have been impressed by how large some of the worlds have gotten, but that simply makes for more virtually empty space (apart from the endless monster minefields). Unforunately unique littel vignettes filling the world one end to the other isnt likely until the game companies find a way to tap into player created assets (and a workabe way to vet/integrate them)

The way I see it, RPGs worst flaw is they lack "playful" gameplay. When I'm playing a shooter, the total value of fun at a given moment is based mostly on what I'm doing at that very moment. Shooting, grenading... continuous pulses of fun. On the other hand, someone currently farming away in WoW experiences fun at a different frequency. He's farming for things that come later... loot, power, story, etc. He's doing unfun things because the goal is fun.

The reason of this difference is clear. The rules of RPGs vs shooters or fighting games have much different characters and one of the biggest effect of this for me personally is that your interaction with the game is less visual and tangible. For example, throwing a ball at the wall and watching it bounce in game is a greater interactive experience then selecting "complete quest" and watching a dialog window jump up and say "Thank you so much stranger, my village will celebrate this day of freedom for all of eternity!" Of course I'm biased, because video game story has always lacked proper treatment in video games and instead tell stories like a movie or book rather than like it should, a video game (interactive medium!).