Extra Credits

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Asherian Command**

Melissia wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
You cant say it is "rife" in the gaming industry, otherwise you are saying it is "rife" in life in general

It is.

Right now, a person with a non-"Caucasian" name has a noticeably smaller chance of getting a response after submitting a resume than a person with a generic "white" name. This was proven in numerous scientific studies. Similarly, right now, without proper controls (which most companies either don't have or don't practice), women are almost universally rated less than men on performance reviews for the same quality of work-- again, this was proven in scientific studies. And these are just scratching the surface.

By default, we as a society devalue the experiences, desires, and needs of non-whites and non-males. This is a thing that exists. By the way, it's also proven that white men are more likely to dismiss out of hand evidence of gender and racial bias, well-- I linked that study to you in a PM, and you continue to prove its findings every time I talk to you

This is why companies need to be urged to adopt controls necessary to minimize or eliminate the chance for bias to slip in their selection and creative processes. Amongst most of the companies out there, they currently simply do not have said controls. Even Google, which prided itself on its unbiased look on the world, found it had insufficient controls in many areas. The more vagueness and ambiguity, the more likely biases will slip in to your business processes.

What. The hell are you talking about. That does not happen in the games industry. There is currently a movement in the industry to get more people into the games industry that are multicultured.

Those studies also forgot that more women go to unversities than men. not as many men seek education as women do.

The Games Industry is radically different from other industries as we are 10 years ahead of everyone and always at the cutting edge of technology. We have already gotten out of the brown age of graphics and movies are starting to get into that age/era of making everything gritty and dark.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

nomotog wrote:
I have played progress quest. It is a oddly compelling game you know. It's kind of a good example of how easy it is to fall into a skinner box. It's a game with no gameplay except watching a bar fill up, and a little giggling at some of the funny names.

I know, I played it too.

**Melissia**

Sounds annoying . Glad I never played.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Nah, it is fun, you should try it. You can even play it in a browser now. My advice it is to open it in a tab, look at the very beginning for the intro, and then just let it run while you just look at other tabs. And forget about it. If you ever remember it, go back to the tab and look at how much you have progressed and how could it is! Time well invested!

**HiveFleetPlastic**

nomotog wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The video in the OP talks about a good and important topic! A lot of games seem to try to maintain "player concurrency" and "engagement" without worrying about the quality of that experience. The player's engagement correlates with the quality of the experience, I hope, but it's not caused solely by it.

It's a tricky issue, because concurrency can be important. It's hard to play a game if you have nobody to play with, and so you can get led that way by good intentions - we need to incentivise players logging on so that they and other players have someone to play with, right? That way they can enjoy playing the game.

(I really want to make a convoluted wargaming analogy here, but I probably shouldn't.)

So let's take a topical example. In World of Warcraft they recently added a Garrison, a little base that your character builds. Then it attracts followers, who you can send on missions at a command table in the garrison. The missions take a set amount of time to complete - many of the early ones are 30 minutes to an hour, which fits in the scope of people's playtime, but others are four, six, or ten hours long. The followers get a reward for completing a mission and then you can send them on one again.

What this promoted was people logging on when they didn't intend to play other than to send their followers on missions, and at weird times of day. So for example, many people would log on before they went to work, just to send their followers off on missions. Is that enriching their lives? Get home, don't have time to play? Better log on and send followers on missions. Woke up at 3am? Maybe followers are finished with missions? Better check, I'll go back to sleep after. Is this making people's lives better? Probably not. Are they doing it because it's particularly fun? Probably not. It probably should not be there in its current form.

There are lots of similar mechanics designed to promote concurrency that are probably overall bad for players. Do they have bad effects? Almost unquestionably. How do you do them better, though?

We know by now that people have a drive to progress stuff that will make them carry on doing it long after all fun has faded. How can we keep the fun part without falling prey to the awful part? A practical limit to progress probably helps, a point beyond which doing the unfun, repetitive thing is unnecessary. Being able to graduate from mechanics is a good way to prevent them outstaying their welcome, I think. The worst offenders in this category typically have no way to do that - you can keep on grinding out levels on your battle pets with very little practical limit.

That said, part of this is driven by players! Does your game have 2345079 hours of gameplay, the first ten of which are actually fun? Such value! Buy now! (Though of course that desire in itself is also driven by marketing.) I guess we also need to work towards emphasising conciseness as a positive trait for a game - that it's good it doesn't overstay its welcome. People do seem to have been recognising that more and more.

Ooo that is a good post. Have a cookie.

Thanks! That sounds delicious!

nomotog wrote:
One thing that really helps is the ability to brake the game. Like when I played dark room, rather then going along and waiting for my wood to be harvested, I just edited my save file to give me the wood. Ya I cheated. Cheating/moding is a way for the player to basically shape the game so it fits their life rather then shaping their life so it fits the game.

Yeah.

But it also undermines the progression system that forms the basis of it.

I don't know that leveling systems are all that wonderful anyway. I could probably do without them, personally? They're just a convenient abstraction and maybe overused

nomotog wrote:
To jump back to the idea of garrisons, What if they didn't have fixed times. Like if you had a follower on a mission, but no time to log in, you could just leave them on their mission and they whould keep gathering supplies. Or maybe you log in and see they have an day left on their mission, but you want them now. You should have the option to pause their mission, put them on something else well you play and then put them back on their mission to pick up where they left off.

That's absolutely a possible solution that's friendlier to the player - let them change it on their own schedule instead of it being optimal to conform to the game's.

It does have some disadvantages. Now I'm getting stuff for "free" just for having my garrison. Is the best strategy now to level tons of characters and just vacuum up the free gold and items while offline? Actually, many poor souls fall victim to that with the current system. The fix could make it even worse.

nomotog wrote:
Extra credits also did some videos about time management in gaming too. (I could pull out a video on almost any topic. ; P)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQtFo_E_Ea0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyFSbm79uBY

Those are really good videos and touch on a lot of things that are really important! Someone playing a game and it making their life better are not the same thing, and it's good for designers to remember that.

**nomotog**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
nomotog wrote:

Ooo that is a good post. Have a cookie.

Thanks! That sounds delicious!

nomotog wrote:
One thing that really helps is the ability to brake the game. Like when I played dark room, rather then going along and waiting for my wood to be harvested, I just edited my save file to give me the wood. Ya I cheated. Cheating/moding is a way for the player to basically shape the game so it fits their life rather then shaping their life so it fits the game.

Yeah. But it also undermines the progression system that forms the basis of it.

I don't know that leveling systems are all that wonderful anyway. I could probably do without them, personally? They're just a convenient abstraction and maybe overused

nomotog wrote:
To jump back to the idea of garrisons, What if they didn't have fixed times. Like if you had a follower on a mission, but no time to log in, you could just leave them on their mission and they whould keep gathering supplies. Or maybe you log in and see they have an day left on their mission, but you want them now. You should have the option to pause their mission, put them on something else well you play and then put them back on their mission to pick up where they left off.

That's absolutely a possible solution that's friendlier to the player - let them change it on their own schedule instead of it being optimal to conform to the game's.

It does have some disadvantages. Now I'm getting stuff for "free" just for having my garrison. Is the best strategy now to level tons of characters and just vacuum up the free gold and items while offline? Actually, many poor souls fall victim to that with the current system. The fix could make it even worse.

nomotog wrote:
Extra credits also did some videos about time management in gaming too. (I could pull out a video on almost any topic. ; P)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQtFo_E_Ea0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyFSbm79uBY

Those are really good videos and touch on a lot of things that are really important! Someone playing a game and it making their life better are not the same thing, and it's good for designers to remember that.

The undermining is the importation part. A good skinner box will trick you into thinking it actually matters or that you are actually progressing. Moding yourself in super armor and weapons just reminds you that you are playing a game. Aslo modeing a game lets you tailor it more to yourself and life style. Like lets say you don't have a lot of time to play, but you still want to make it to max level. You should be able to mod your EXP gain.

Leveling can be useful as a nice clean way to introduce/change new systems and mechanics as you play. It's more organic and responsive then story and fits better with an open game. You don't want to shove everything about the game on the player all at once, and you don't really way the game to feel the same always the way though. (depending on how long it is) Leveling is a nice easy way to mix things up without making a mess.

Garrisons already give you materials for free, so it's not that big a change. It's also kind of nice to have like a set ammout of free materials so someone without a lot of time can log in and have fun without having to grind a lot of ore out. Then again you could just let people have fun without grinding, but then we are getting into a new type of game almost

.

**Asherian Command**

Leveling can be useful as a nice clean way to introduce/change new systems and mechanics as you play. It's more organic and responsive then story and fits better with an open game. You don't want to shove everything about the game on the player all at once, and you don't really way the game to feel the same always the way though. (depending on how long it is) Leveling is a nice easy way to mix things up without making a mess.

Not always. In puzzle games in particular there aren't 'levels' that you get, you go to levels, but you do not level up. You get more tools or objects to learn how to use through gameplay. This happens quite a bit in puzzle games that are trying to illustrate a point.

In most modern games outside of RPGs there are no real leveling bits except in multiplayer.

Garrisons already give you materials for free, so it's not that big a change. It's also kind of nice to have like a set ammout of free materials so someone without a lot of time can log in and have fun without having to grind a lot of ore out. Then again you could just let people have fun without grinding, but then we are getting into a new type of game almost

You are talking about Warlords of Draneor correct?

The entire point that blizzard has implemented garrisions to make players feel like they have an obligation to stay online and pay their subscription. (Though this is not the only means that Blizzard goes about this.

The undermining is the importation part. A good skinner box will trick you into thinking it actually matters or that you are actually progressing. Moding yourself in super armor and weapons just reminds you that you are playing a game. Aslo modeing a game lets you tailor it more to yourself and life style. Like lets say you don't have a lot of time to play, but you still want to make it to max level. You should be able to mod your EXP gain.

True but we also have games that readily block modding. As it is looked down upon by Triple A companies.

**nomotog**

Asherian Command wrote:
Leveling can be useful as a nice clean way to introduce/change new systems and mechanics as you play. It's more organic and responsive then story and fits better with an open game. You don't want to shove everything about the game on the player all at once, and you don't really way the game to feel the same always the way though. (depending on how long it is) Leveling is a nice easy way to mix things up without making a mess.

Not always. In puzzle games in particular there aren't 'levels' that you get, you go to levels, but you do not level up. You get more tools or objects to learn how to use through gameplay. This happens quite a bit in puzzle games that are trying to illustrate a point.

In most modern games outside of RPGs there are no real leveling bits except in multiplayer.

Garrisons already give you materials for free, so it's not that big a change. It's also kind of nice to have like a set ammout of free materials so someone without a lot of time can log in and have fun without having to grind a lot of ore out. Then again you could just let people have fun without grinding, but then we are getting into a new type of game almost

You are talking about Warlords of Draneor correct?

The entire point that blizzard has implemented garrisions to make players feel like they have an obligation to stay online and pay their subscription. (Though this is not the only means that Blizzard goes about this.

The undermining is the importation part. A good skinner box will trick you into thinking it actually matters or that you are actually progressing. Moding yourself in super armor and weapons just reminds you that you are playing a game. Aslo modeing a game lets you tailor it more to yourself and life style. Like lets say you don't have a lot of time to play, but you still want to make it to max level. You should be able to mod your EXP gain.

True but we also have games that readily block modding. As it is looked down upon by Triple A companies.

Puzzle games are a little diffrent, but saying you only see leveing in RPGs is kind of washy statment when you see how many games are RPGs or they have RPG elments in them. I can't even think of the last game I played without RPG elements.

You know when you explain garrisons like that, they sound pointless and or evil. If all your system is is just a thing to keep people playing, then why have it?

I think all games should at the very least let you edit your save, or download new save. A lot do let you do that now a days. You could also just being back cheat codes. up up down down = unlimited money.

**Asherian Command**

Puzzle games are a little diffrent, but saying you only see leveing in RPGs is kind of washy statment when you see how many games are RPGs or they have RPG elments in them. I can't even think of the last game I played without RPG elements.

You know when you explain garrisons like that, they sound pointless and or evil. If all your system is is just a thing to keep people playing, then why have it?

I think all games should at the very least let you edit your save, or download new save. A lot do let you do that now a days. You could also just being back cheat codes. up up down down = unlimited money.

Simply because publishers want money. They will anything in to garner the attention of a wider audience and to pump money out of their audience. IT is a sickening thing that has grown more and more common.

Hence why many designers are predicting that there might be another video game crash. Where the triple A games will stop being the things people think of.

Free to play games are worse though. As they aren't really... Free to play....

Puzzle games are a bit different and take more time to make than regular games in general.

RPG elements are in everything nowadays. So yeah I was a bit wrong on that bit.

**Melissia**

I for one agree that cheats should be allowed, and even embraced. Sometimes, after I'm done with the game, I just want to mess around with it and do bizarre thing that can only be done with cheating. If that improves replayability for me, the game is better for it.

**Asherian Command**

Melissia wrote:
I for one agree that cheats should be allowed, and even embraced. Sometimes, after I'm done with the game, I just want to mess around with it and do bizarre thing that can only be done with cheating. If that improves replayability for me, the game is better for it.

Most Serious Sam games and several other games do this, But nowadays its restricted behind a paywall.

**Co'tor Shas**

I like how bethesda games do it. They just give you access to the console (at least on PC).

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Melissia wrote:
I for one agree that cheats should be allowed, and even embraced. Sometimes, after I'm done with the game, I just want to mess around with it and do bizarre thing that can only be done with cheating. If that improves replayability for me, the game is better for it.

For solo games, of course. But for multiplayer competitive games, obviously not. Multiplayer collaborative games are not as clear. Should we allow cheating in them? Will that no cheapen the fun if your teammates are overpowered compared to you because they cheated, and you feel you cannot have a meaningful contribution unless you cheat yourself?

**BrookM**

Asherian Command wrote:
Melissia wrote:
I for one agree that cheats should be allowed, and even embraced. Sometimes, after I'm done with the game, I just want to mess around with it and do bizarre thing that can only be done with cheating. If that improves replayability for me, the game is better for it.

Most Serious Sam games and several other games do this, But nowadays its restricted behind a paywall.

Or behind item scavenger hunts, ugh.

**DarkNecro**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I like how bethesda games do it. They just give you access to the console (at least on PC).

Yea I love that about Bethesda games, it also opens up alot of fun things to do like......... having 10 dwarven centurions dropped into a city and watching the carnage.
I think there was even a YouTube series where they made two different armies of npcs and had them duke it out in a feild.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

DarkNecro wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I like how bethesda games do it. They just give you access to the console (at least on PC).

Yea I love that about Bethesda games, it also opens up alot of fun things to do like......... having 10 dwarven centurions dropped into a city and watching the carnage.
I think there was even a YouTube series where they made two different armies of npcs and had them duke it out in a feild.

Or the nuclear chicken chain reactions that the Gamespot guys do...

**nomotog**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Melissia wrote:
I for one agree that cheats should be allowed, and even embraced. Sometimes, after I'm done with the game, I just want to mess around with it and do bizarre thing that can only be done with cheating. If that improves replayability for me, the game is better for it.

For solo games, of course. But for multiplayer competitive games, obviously not. Multiplayer collaborative games are not as clear. Should we allow cheating in them? Will that no cheapen the fun if your teammates are overpowered compared to you because they cheated, and you feel you cannot have a meaningful contribution unless you cheat yourself?

I think it depends on the game and depends on the cheats. Like a cheat code to unlock all the stuff you can unlock would be good, but a cheat code to make yourself invisible, then no. Like in a mmo, the ability to enter a cheat code to unlock max level and all the epics, yes. A cheat code to make your health never go down no. I kind of know something like that wouldn't really fly in a mmo, but I wish it would.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

nomotog wrote:
I think it depends on the game and depends on the cheats. Like a cheat code to unlock all the stuff you can unlock would be good, but a cheat code to make yourself invisible, then no.

If reaching the best gear was nigh unfeasible in the game without the cheat, then I disagree. Unlocking the best gear would be for all purpose equivalent to becoming invisible or having your health never go down : something only accessible through cheating. And ti does devalue a lot the feeling of having “won” something from those that did not cheat.

**nomotog**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
nomotog wrote:
I think it depends on the game and depends on the cheats. Like a cheat code to unlock all the stuff you can unlock would be good, but a cheat code to make yourself invisible, then no.

If reaching the best gear was nigh unfeasible in the game without the cheat, then I disagree. Unlocking the best gear would be for all purpose equivalent to becoming invisible or having your health never go down : something only accessible through cheating. And ti does devalue a lot the feeling of having “won” something from those that did not cheat.

In most games getting the best gear is unfeasible. It would basically be a thing where you want to PvP, then you use the code and you PvP, or you could try going hard core in a self imposed challenge by not using the cheat. Kind of like the people who play dark souls on bongos.

**Melissia**

If the game design says "only those who have no life and put in a billion hours in to this game get to have the competitive equipment", then it's a shoddily designed game anyway. Someone who plays a lot should have one and only one major advantage, and that's experience playing the game.

**nomotog**

Melissia wrote:
If the game design says "only those who have no life and put in a billion hours in to this game get to have the competitive equipment", then it's a shoddily designed game anyway. Someone who plays a lot should have one and only one major advantage, and that's experience playing the game.

Sad thing is that is how some games. (mmos) are made. It's kind of a big reason why mmos are dieing because it's a problem on many levels. One is that people just don't have the time to play that much, so a game designed to demand a lot of time is really unattractive. Also skinner boxes are kind of unfun. I mean they can get you, grab you, but after they let you go you don't like them anymore. You become more sensitive to their tricks and harder to fool. Most people tend to start hating mmos after they move to their second one when all the tricks that made them like the first no longer work. It's also kind of hard to make a good skinner box. It's kind of funny, that I recall a job posting that was for, as they called it, a character attachment specialist. It was basically looking for someone who could design systems to make players more likely to player longer. A whole position dedicated to making the box.

**Sigvatr**

nomotog wrote:

Sad thing is that is how some games. (mmos) are made. It's kind of a big reason why mmos are dieing because it's a problem on many levels.

You could not be more wrong. MMOs, F2P ones to add, are the most lucrative genre there is in the entire world of gaming, especially on the Asian market, but also in the US / EU.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Sigvatr wrote:
nomotog wrote:

Sad thing is that is how some games. (mmos) are made. It's kind of a big reason why mmos are dieing because it's a problem on many levels.

You could not be more wrong. MMOs, F2P ones to add, are the most lucrative genre there is in the entire world of gaming, especially on the Asian market, but also in the US / EU.

I'm somewhat embarrassed by how much I've spent on Planetside 2.

**nomotog**

Sigvatr wrote:
nomotog wrote:

Sad thing is that is how some games. (mmos) are made. It's kind of a big reason why mmos are dieing because it's a problem on many levels.

You could not be more wrong. MMOs, F2P ones to add, are the most lucrative genre there is in the entire world of gaming, especially on the Asian market, but also in the US / EU.

I could be wrong. I was speaking off the cuff going with me gut. MMOs are at a stage where the highest rated and most talked about ones are the ones not released not released. The ones who trash current day mmos. There is a huge amount of dissatisfaction in mmo players.

With the mass of F2P games, I am kind of worried that it's going to be another zynga arc. They were doing really well before people caught on. Most of the F2Ps out there hemorrhage players like mad. It's the big reason you see them advertised so much, they always need fresh players who haven't been burned out on them. Players who don't regret that $50 gold purchase because they haven't maid it yet.

**Asherian Command**

Melissia wrote:
If the game design says "only those who have no life and put in a billion hours in to this game get to have the competitive equipment", then it's a shoddily designed game anyway. Someone who plays a lot should have one and only one major advantage, and that's experience playing the game.

What? Who said that?

Unreal engine is free, 3ds Max is 5000$ for a full liscense, Gimp is free, The only expense is for 3d modellers and graphics systems

There is also the money we have to put into retailers. Say a game is 60$ we developers will only get 9 dollars from that 60$, the rest of it is spread apart across various companies. (The publisher and the Retail store)

But that is a different debate.

Bad game design in my opinion is one where it requires the player to waste entire hours of their life. And make them feel obligated to play a game, instead of wanting to play. I don't want someone feeling like they have to play my game. That is gakky game design.

Good game design is wanting to play a game.

Games like Talos Priniciple and several others are games that make you feel like you want to play that game. gakky game design IE hearthstone, Evolved, Destiny and several others are obligiations that the player feels like they have to play in order to complete something. Yes hearthstone is a terribly designed and non consumer friendly game. Contray to public belief it is basically liking playing a high stakes poker game, and when the player can win the player could get something to aid them later on but chances are they are not going to get the cards they want.

In order to progress the players have to spend each day or every three days the players have to play as many as 5 games on ranked or unranked in order to get gold that they can use to get cards. This is basically like paying someone to gamble but with a video game.

People can see this with several other things in real life like Raffle tickets and or the 30 million dollar raffle ticket. Some people feel obligated to buy a raffle ticket to feel better about themselves or to try and win. To be better than they currently are.

Sadly Games are getting to this point in gaming where Triple A companies are starting to put paywalls on certain things and force the player to either A pay money to go faster, or B use tremendous amounts of time in order to be competitive with group A. Or C players that play casually but not at all as often as group B. Group D which is the people who quit the game out of frustration.

**ZebioLizard2**

Sigvatr wrote:
nomotog wrote:

Sad thing is that is how some games. (mmos) are made. It's kind of a big reason why mmos are dieing because it's a problem on many levels.

You could not be more wrong. MMOs, F2P ones to add, are the most lucrative genre there is in the entire world of gaming, especially on the Asian market, but also in the US / EU.

Some of them are even sport, Dungeon Fighter Online is one of the top games in Korea.

**nomotog**

This video is talking about exit points that were mentioned in the last video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjkWec61gQ

Other videos have talked about how long a player should play a game and this talks about how you can make players stay or leave. It feels a little appropriate for me because am playing BLTPS. That game has no good exit points. I found it rather frustrating too. I was like ok when I make it to a good stopping point I'll take a brake, but there was never a good stopping point. Any time I finished anything the game would pop up with something new for me to do. It got grating after awhile.

**Asherian Command**

nomotog wrote:
This video is talking about exit points that were mentioned in the last video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjkWec61gQ

Other videos have talked about how long a player should play a game and this talks about how you can make players stay or leave. It feels a little appropriate for me because am playing BLTPS. That game has no good exit points. I found it rather frustrating too. I was like ok when I make it to a good stopping point I'll take a brake, but there was never a good stopping point. Any time I finished anything the game would pop up with something new for me to do. It got grating after awhile.

Those are important to remember. Like if I remember correctly in diablo 3 there are points when you complete a quest where there is a lull between the gameplay, where you are identifying items and preparing for the next raid. Most people stop after two raids in a greater rift. As it is exhausting even though technically you are doing a ton of work and you are trying to complete in under 15 minutes. And this happens quite often most players in d3 complete a Rift in less than 10 minutes.And most quit after three rifts. Though i am not including those who have complusive or addictive personalities that play for hours upon hours on end.

The thing right now is we are designing games to be addictive and not designing games to be entertaining and fun, and remind ourselves that we want to ensure our players are still okay and are not devoting their life to playing our game. it is an important decision to remind ourselves as designers that our players are still human, and that we should be careful on how we design our games so we do not accidently make something comparable to cocaine.