Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
"getting to the good stuff" is the good stuff
Putting effort into something makes it an accomplishment
Without that it's just empty. I might as well watch a movie.
Single player games? Have at it.
Multiplayer ruins the fun for others, don't be that guy.
I would argue that even for single player if the game isn't fun getting to where you want to be in the game ... you should quit and find one that is.
@donuts I see nothing wrong with that as long as it's not a Skinner box or something. Getting skilled at a game is a legitimate reward that feels amazing when you get it. Dark Souls, Path of Exile, literally every competitive multiplayer ever, etc. all run off this feeling. It's there even in otherwise "easy" games like Skyrim and Dragon Age and stuff (knowing how to get more from your equipment etc.).
If you're not having fun any more or the endgame doesn't excite you enough to continue the grind, I'd advise switching to a different kind of game, one perhaps more to your liking. You're doing this for entertainment after all. I left the PoE grind because I just didn't enjoy it any more.
@RememberMe yes usually I like puzzle games that are well... short. You either get it, or spend time figuring it out.... Hopefully.
And they don't have grinding... So maybe that's the thing. I like to use cheats so I don't need to grind...
I guess if you want to practice your moves fine. I'd rather spend the time in other stuff.. Like movies/shows. I even watch those at 2x...
Also for this case I'm talking about mobile f2p...
@donuts what do you define as a "real" accomplishment? My definition would be "getting something that I worked for". Buying an Alduin action figure from my first earnings was a real accomplishment. Practicing skills enough to get into the next rank of a competitive multiplayer shooter is a real accomplishment. Eating delicious pho that I learnt how to make through trial and error is a real accomplishment. I spent about a year on and off in Minecraft building a dwarven fortress, that's pretty real. I have crappy coordination on controllers but I managed to beat Remember Me (the game) at the hardest difficulty after quite a few tries. That's real too.
I see no reason why game stuff that you worked for aren't real accomplishments. It's basically about how you see it. If you just game to chill out then that's your thing, that's fine too. Even for chill games like Minecraft, you can still do stuff there and I would say that also counts.
@donuts like I said, it's up to you. I also sometimes play stuff without needing to have "real" achievements, but I also like the other style.
As a side note, companies that take advantage of people's want to put effort into stuff can fuck right off. Looking at you, AAA industry/predatory phone games.
Demolishun875817dWhat is the purpose of play?
To develop skills in a non stressful environment. By playing with other people you develop social skills. Playing with objects you develop manual skills and hand eye coordination. Like you said, play should be non stressful, and not a grind. However, "the grind" can actually teach you how to not expect instant gratification. That real world accomplishments take time and effort. In the case you describe this may not be the case. If it isn't, and cheating compels you, what are you learning? Hacking? Finding exploits? These are problem solving skills. A game within a game.
I agree with you on the relax bit. I play games that are moddable for a reason. To hack the game how I want it to be. To me that is fun. There is no deadline and I can just play with the game mechanics.
@donuts congratulations you are a mutant immune to the modern skinner box. you and your many many progeny will surely escape the hellscape dystopian futures scientificially engineered advertising/games and the servitude of its attentionfarm mass slave mind empire.
@donuts "but the effort is just pressing buttons to gain exp"
if that's how you feel about playing the game, then you're playing a shit game.
pressing buttons should be just the medium to execute actions. the effort should be in figuring out and deciding which are the actions that will achieve victory.
grind is only a grind if the core gameplay loop is not fun. and if core gameplay loop is not fun, then the game is not a game, but just a time and money wasting skinner box.
in good games, where the core gameplay loop is fun, the grind is just called "gameplay" and it's the thing you go into the game for.
@Midnight-shcode this also gets into some thorny issues about what a game is.
I like to distinguish between 1. entertainment, 2. games, 3. fun.
both ideally are 'fun' (conveying a sense of immersion, flow, or pleasure).
a game is distinct (usually) from entertainment by the presence of interaction, but certain minimalists games have so little decision making, practice, or interaction-learning that in practice they're closer to entertainment.
theres also the issue of "interesting" interaction vs uninteresting ones. While in broad terms, it really comes down to the individual, in aggregate we can (usefully) say some things, by the utility, are either games or not. For example if having interaction were sufficient to make something a game, then light switches could become a game.
now supposed you added multiple and you had to hit a sequence to open a door. Now thats a sort of "game". So we see games are toys with goals.
Could really be a longer post.
@Wisecrack i disagree with your basic distinction. (also, i use "fun" because it's shorter to write than "engaging". example: Hellblade wasn't fun to play at all, but it was extremely engaging (mechanically, story-wise, emotionally))
back to the distinction of entertainment, fun, and games:
entertainment: anything people do voluntarily for the main and usually only purpose of spending time in an engaging way. meaning spending time with it is its own reward.
fun: one specific flavor of engagement. specifically, the cheery, lighthearted one.
an art form, of which most creations also intersect with the cathegory of "entertainment". a set of rules, interactions and state(s) that accepts players' inputs and responds by (either rule-generated, or other-player-input-generated) outputs usually in the form of change in the state(s). subdivides into game/toy (no win/lose conditions/objectives, in that case it's game only as form of media) and game/game (has win/lose conditions)
yeah, could be multiple manypages long blogposts. could be a whole book.
iamai237217dI can cheat in games which I like to know the ending but don't care how I get there like StarCraft 1.
Now economic games where I have a chance of winning I don't cheat like Sims, Age of Empires and Pharaoh. But I have tested cheats for Sims.
@Midnight-shcode I disagree that games *subdivide* into Games proper, and toys (rather that Games are something built on the addition of goals to toys). It may be a dictintion without a difference, but why the subdivision instead of the naturalistoc approach of games as extension of toys?
Also i love your definition of "games in the toy case are games only to the extent of the media form factor."
and we need a better term to represent that particilar idea or category.
Even though I'm talking about capital F "fun" (as in "pleasurable in general, and in particular pleasure to *interact with*), I like the distinction of types of fun here, and I don't think thats been sufficiently explored *on its own* as an idea.
I'm uncertain about the distinction you draw between "fun" and "engaging". Would you elaborate if you have the time.
On games vs entertainment, I draw the distinction, because not all entertainment is games, but all games are entertainment.
Also a lot of confusion to definition has been added over the years because most dont draw sufficient distincrions to account for player-intent vs designer intent vs impromptu toys/games vs the actual final design or result.
Hence like was said elsewhere, a badly designed game for example, may reduce to a glorified pause/play button on an interactive movie/cinematic, and it would as you wrote, "reduce to a game in form factor only" (paraphasing).
@iamai games of chance, or the removal of it, are actually another great example because what one type of player enjoys, such as a casino, that same sort of chance pisses off the types of playera in say, Stoneshard's chance-to-hit or Fortnite's damage per hit.
It's illustrative of the importance of knowing the types of player, the types of fun they enjoy, what kind of fun matches the genre, and player exepectations.
saucyatom108916dThere are just too many games nowadays that are exploiting human psychology with a damn skinner box. I'd dare to say most of them and all but a handful for mobile.
Like why the fuck do I need experience/leveling in Overwatch? Though this is the most harmless example as there are no unlockables, it is still messing with me. I have to try to ignore something that is only there to get me to play another round for some stupid internet points, with no way to turn it off if I don't want it, because I'm simply an addict and want to stay clean.