What do you think makes better gameplay, a game world which trends toward true, naked risk with the possibility of catastrophic failure, or risk which is really the illusion of a challenge but biased toward player victory. I've been trying to find a way to improve trading and, while researching modern day commodity exchanging, ran across this interesting assertion (paraphrased):

Quote:

"Most people are risk averse. They don't really want to take a risk, which by its very nature means they could lose and lose big. What they want is a guaranteed outcome masked by the illusion of possible failure. This creates for them momentary excitement that dispels the boredom in their lives."

Whether this is true or not I don't know, but it got me thinking about how we build games and the systems we add to them. When we talk about saving, balancing, or create system for such things as combat or trade, the psychological aspect of risk management is always a key element of the discussion. So what do you think? I thought the answer was obvious at first. After all, everything we design is essentially an illusion, but we control how drastically the system swings between success and failure. The trend in games has been a broadening of appeal and move away from "Nintendo Hard" toward more warm and fuzzy caretaking of the player's time. So is the quote essentially true? Or more importantly-- can you have aspects of a game which mix both approaches to risk-- say a game which provides combat that trends toward player victory (eg, easy enemies & assured progression) but trading that's truly risky (you could "lose your shirt"); or trade that trends toward victory (eg, always guaranteed to make a profit if you just find the right place) but combat that's truly risky (eg, you could be killed by stray gunfire from two warring ships just after first starting). Thoughts?

I don't think players are easily fooled by the illusion of risks. Especially not when it revolves around important game mechanics. And if they discover what's really going on, it's just going to cause a meltdown for immersion.

Exaggerating the difficulty of a challenge is perfectly fine, but I wouldn't exaggerate the consequences.

Death is a risk, and quickload makes it an illusion. Constant quickloading makes it a very poor illusion. I would say that's the most direct application of that quote to games, at least in their current form. Nintendo-hard-no-continue, of course, means it's not an illusion at all.

Hi, I am new to this forum, this is actually my first post. I thought I would put by two cents in here.

I would say that while creating the illusion of risk is an artform all to itself, the inherent problem with it is that you can only trick the same player once. If the player catches on that the "risks" involved are only illusions, they are likely to lose their sense of immersion and their desire to continue the game as a whole.

Think of the game who sits down to digest a game, get's a bit frusterated, a bit burned out and decided to start using cheat codes. After blowing through the content of the game, the player is left with nothing to do but run around with god powers in a virtual world. It's only amusing for a little while give or take a bit for maturity of the player.

I'd be interested to see more of your thoughts on the matter.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator What do you think makes better gameplay, a game world which trends toward true, naked risk with the possibility of catastrophic failure, or risk which is really the illusion of a challenge but biased toward player victory.

I'd say somewhere in the middle. Make it too hard, and you end up serving a niche community putting off most everyone else. Make it too easy, and the game loses its game. The optimal difficulty level to implement in games, if your goal is to attract the largest amount of people to your game, would be in the middle of those two extremes.

You could also implement multiple difficulty levels that the players can choose from (if a single-player game/campaign).

I tend to think players want games to be fair, and will generally be happy to accept a genuine risk as long as they perceive the potential failure as being fair.

Taking your risky combat example, it wouldn't really be fair to the player to blow them out of the sky with stray gunfire as they're just starting, but most players will probably accept (but may still be annoyed by) being blown out of the sky by a clearly defined enemy who is on approximately level ground with the player.

I disagree with the original premsise that people are mostly risk averse. I think people have built within them risk taking straegies and actually seek risk out instintively.

From a biological standpoint the winners are the ones which actually take risks, ie hunting, mate competition and other risky behaviors can be found in the natural world.

It could very well be that game playing, engages those risk play strageieis and that is one reason why we play games (a form of pratice for the risk strategies).

-ddn

Games with the chance for devastating failure actually catch my interest far more than games that don't. Basically, nothing has any meaning if you are guaranteed to get it - value comes from what you have to give up (or go through) to get. Having setbacks and overcoming those setbacks adds a sense of value to one's efforts. And "winning" is only fun if you have a chance to loose. For instance, would you have fun racing a 2 year old in a marathon? Or would you have more fun winning against a track star, even though there was a huge chance for total failure?

But I should point out that this is just my opinion, and the general opinion of more hardcore audiences (this keeps coming up in my posts for some reason). Most gamers are casual, and are desperate to win at whatever they do; they really don't care about the quality of the win so long as they get it. You will have a much smaller audience for riskier play, but I personally think it's a much better game, and far less of a mindless click-fest of shiny, cookie, or pat-on-back hand-out of doom.

If real, true, tangible risk weren't exciting, Las Vegas would not exist...

I think challenges can be made to "feel" more interesting to challenge-seekers without increasing the risks or difficulty.

For one thing, most games and characters degrade and cheapen the reality of life threatening situations. I think this is really common in games, because as designers, we see the player as an immortal user instead of a human-like entity that's interacting with our world. As a result, the game characters treat everything too lightly, as if the player has no choice but to go all out, every moment of the game, for any trivial, selfless reason.

If missions that would seem insane in real life are regarded slightly more insane in the game, it would do a lot to build up the feeling of risk and suspense, as well as a sense of accomplishment.