Home » News » Game On or Game Over: The Sarah Jessica Parker of gaming
News

Game On or Game Over: The Sarah Jessica Parker of gaming

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Andy: Last week we touched on something that I felt deserves its own topic, so here we are. One of the things we talked about, is how many games these days always have a virtual carrot dangling in front of the player as they play the game. There’s always that next level of progression, the next unlock, the next skill point or weapon upgrade. It’s no secret that part of the reason those are there is to keep the player playing. Heck, some games even have rewards for consecutive days played. There’s never been much pushback from gamers about things like this, and I don’t think there should be – that’s not the point of this article. Things like that keep gamers coming back and keep the disc in the tray which is ultimately what developers and publishers want.

The thing that bothers me about that carrot approach is that it seems that next ‘carrot’ is why I keep playing a game. I want that next upgrade point or level increase so I keep playing the game. Heck, I like new shiny stuff so I’ll keep trudging along in a game. However, there are some titles where it feels like the game is made around the ‘carrot’ and not the other way around. By designing a title around ways to keep the player playing you run the risk of taking away the fun of actually playing the game itself.

Maybe it’s just me, but there have been some games that have released recently that see to build in the ‘fun’ last, and only after they have multiple hooks to keep you playing and progressing and unlocking things. Maybe it’s just me, it could be that I’ve become more cognizant about games, or maybe my expectations for what makes a good game has changed but it’s something I am noticing more and more. So, before I really get into the meat of this topic what are your thoughts on that? Is it something you have noticed as well?

Go-Go-Carrots-01

Nicholas: I can certainly understand what you’re talking about, but I’ll be honest in saying that I’ve really not taken much notice to it as of late. Now I should follow that statement by revealing that I’ve essentially only played two games for the past three months or so – Wolfenstein The New Order and Assassin’s Creed 4 Black Flag, but for each game, I can hand-on-heart admit that I’ve completely enjoyed both. Yes, in AC4 I spent some time just sailing around looking for ships to engage in battle with just to salvage parts to upgrade my own, and in hindsight I can totally recognise how part of me just did that so I could see how my ship looked with a new part, but even then I still enjoyed what I was doing.

I’d be interested to get some examples from you though of games where you’re recognizing this trend. I also wonder whether this ‘carrot’ approach is being taken because other areas of the game are lacking – such as story or gameplay. If I look at both of the games I’ve been playing lately, both have had really engaging stories and seriously rewarding gameplay. Perhaps it’s this reason that the ship upgrading task never bothered me because in-between each battle I’d be going to a new mission and I’d be looking forward to what Kenway was going to do next. So yeah, before I continue, what are some games you’re noticing this trend you’ve identified, and are there any other elements of their design that you believe are obviously lacking?

Andy: Well, obviously there is one game that has really got me thinking about this topic, and I almost feel for bringing it up again – but Destiny is a prime example and fresh on everyone’s mind. It’s an absolute grind, and there are some things where the game simply says “Need better gear” before you can do them. They essentially force you to do the same thing over, and over and over again to grind out better gear and get that next ‘carrot’ if you will. Final Fantasy XIII is another example that comes to mind. There are some bosses in the game that you can’t beat straight away, instead you have to go after the ‘carrot’ of grinding levels to be able to get further into the game. Those are two that immediately come to mind, but there are many others out there as well.

I want to be clear here though. I am not talking about a game where there is a normal type progression system in place to unlock things. Like Assassin’s Creed where you have to get to point X in the story before you learned how to use bombs, or something similar. Things like that make sense and at least seem like they are incorporated into the story. What I’m talking about here is when there is no tangible reason to keep doing what the game wants us to do. Titanfall is another example. Keep doing the same thing to unlock another gun or titan upgrade… but for what reason? None really, because the story of the game is paper-thin and there are only so many game modes available. As much as I enjoyed the game, it quickly grew old and stale. That’s what I mean when it seems like a game is designed around a mechanic (unlocks) versus tailoring those things to fit the game.

This ties into my second point I mentioned above, that being the fun factor. The loot cave in Destiny being the most obvious example. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that thought shooting into a cave was fun. Yet, there are thousands of people that did it because the mechanics of the game basically forced them to do so. Now, on the flip side, I am currently playing Forza Horizon 2 and there are a ton of unlocks for that game. Over 200 cars plus upgrades for each car. Yet, playing that game (I currently have 41 cars in my garage) doesn’t feel like a grind at all. There are four races per championship and you have to constantly use different cars so there is a ton of variety. I don’t feel like I ‘have’ to do any of it though, and I am having a blast doing all of it.

I know the people that work on these games put a lot of time and effort into them, there’s no denying that. It just seems to me that games have shifted into trying to keep us playing that one game for months on end with these little ‘carrots’ instead of focusing on the maximum amount of fun for the gamer. As odd as it’s going to sound, I think we (gamers and game media) are partly to blame. I know what you’re thinking, how the hell are we to blame? Easy, how many comments, reviews and what have you have you seen say something like, “Only a ten hour campaign” in a negative tone. Is it necessarily a bad thing to have a 10 hour story if those ten hours are absolutely amazing? Would you rather play a game for 10 hours and be amazed or play a game for 30 hours or more but feel like you were just slogging through things because you had to? Is one inherently “worth” more than the other?

Go-Go-Carrots-02

Nicholas: The expression “quality over quantity” comes to mind here. While a 10 hour campaign mightn’t be a whole lot, a 20 hour (or more) boring campaign is certainly not a better option. Like you’ve touched on, the entire point of games is to be fun – that’s the reason I sit down and play with my Xbox One on the weekend, it’s the reason you do the same and I’m fairly confident it’s one of the main reasons the rest of the community does to. If the game I’ve just bought isn’t enjoyable, whether the campaign lasts for five hours or 30, I’m going to put it down for good in the same time. I certainly think the developers need to focus on ensuring there’s enough content in their game to justify the $60USD-$100AUD price tag, but at the same time it has to be decent.

Touching on your game examples above though, interestingly enough I’ve not played either Destiny or Final Fantasy, which probably explains why you’re so much more passionate about this topic. That prompts me to ask however – is this ‘carrot dangling’ mechanic more prevalent in particular genres? Final Fantasy is an RPG and Destiny is an MMO – both games are fairly large in scale and I wonder if this has anything to do with it? Are shooters and FPS games typically exempt because of their nature? We spoke last week about grinding in Destiny, is this pursuit for unlocking better gear just to progress what’s involved in these kind of games? Furthermore, with games like The Crew and The Division trying to become more MMO-like in design and size, is there a risk this could soon start to affect more game types?

Andy: I think it has already affected other genres, it could be that those other genres are just better at hiding it. Take an FPS for example, either Call of Duty or Battlefield as they are the same in this example. Set aside the single player aspect and look at the multiplayer portion. You start off at level 1 and you get ‘carrots’ in the form of ranks, guns, attachments, etc. as you progress. You have a handful of modes and maps to do this on. Have no fear though, when you start to get bored of those maps they’ll sell you more and you can get even more ‘carrots’ because they are almost always added in with map packs. Yet, the reality is you are doing the same thing over and over again. Sure, the experience may be slightly different depending on who you play with, but the overall feeling is the same as every other time.

Some RPGs hide it better as well. Skyrim was a game that I never felt like I did the same thing twice even after playing it for as long as I did. With Final Fantasy XIII though I felt like it was mind-numbing and I lost interest in that game after it became too much of a grind and took away the fun. I actually haven’t played a Final Fantasy game since then either. As I mentioned before, racing games have the same ‘carrot’ idea as well, by unlocking cars, parts or upgrades. Some racing games do it better than others. Forza 5 for example is a beautiful game and technically amazing, but I grew bored with it after a while because it was the same nine tracks with only the cars changing. Conversely, Forza Horizon 2 has a ton of cars, but the unlocks are quick and there is enough variety that allows me to ‘want’ to play versus the “I have to play to unlock this’ mentality.

To answer the last part of your question though, I do think we’ll see more and more of this type of approach going forward. I think anytime you hear a developer say “You can unlock…” that’s the ‘carrot’ approach. The key is balancing that while still allowing the player to have fun and feel like they are the one making the decisions. I think open world games, by their nature, have a little more room to spread things out but I’m willing to bet almost every genre has used this approach in some way or another. So maybe the better question is this. Have we come to a point in video game development that the developers have run out of tricks to hide or disguise the ‘carrot’? Or could it be that we have played so many games now, that we can see it for what it is, that being a mechanism to just keep us playing? Maybe a combination of both?

Go-Go-Carrots-03

Nicholas: Here I’m not too sure. In the examples above I wonder whether those are legitimate cases or if it’s simply the nature of the game, but let me explain though. Take Battlefield as an example. I’ve finished the single player and now I’m ready to go into multiplayer. Yes, the online maps and guns within the game are set until more DLC is released, but is that necessarily a problem? For those FPS fans, their excitement and enjoyment from playing online doesn’t just come from experiencing a new battleground to fight on or new weapons to fight with each match, but the competition between the competitors, the tricky shots, close calls and comradery between mates. The reason there aren’t 100 maps out of the gate is because having a small list allows you to master the environment and get good at them. Eventually you do get bored of the same maps after a while and this is where DLC comes into play to keep things different and exciting. That all said though, people do the same thing over and over again in these games because it’s what they enjoy.

This is similarly the case with many racers too I think (or at least the track-based ones). Once again, you might only have nine tracks (and I do agree with you, that is perhaps too small a variety), but it’s all about mastering those courses, perfecting racing lines and setting the best lap times. Some people will enjoy changing to a different vehicle and some might like to stick to a select bunch. This though is the nature of racing. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, watch F1 each year even though the tracks are always the same because they enjoy the excitement of racing. The setting (that is, tracks and vehicles) don’t always need to change because the content and stuff happening within the race itself is always dynamic.

In those examples above I don’t think the level-up bonuses are carrots to keep you playing, but more so just a reward for playing the game itself – however the rewards are often second to most of those players. Of course, some people might put gameplay second to unlocking those rewards, but for me (at least with racing games), the reason I might race on a track over and over again won’t be because I want to unlock a Bugatti at Level 20 or what have you, but because I really enjoy that particular circuit and trying to get better each time is something I get enjoyment from.

With all that said, the question I’d like to put back to you is perhaps it’s not an issue of developers being unable to ‘hide’ it, but are developers running out of ideas of things to do in their games – and is that the reason you/we/people are considering those kind of rewards as ‘carrots’ to merely continue playing? Consider the original Assassin’s Creed. Each mission essentially required you to repeat the same few tasks over and over until you were able to assassinate your target. Contrast this to Assassin’s Creed 4 where each mission has a variety of tasks which differ from mission to mission, and because they’re broken up and mixed about it doesn’t feel too repetitive. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, why do you think it is? Have developers simply done everything there is to be done in games? Are they pressed for time? Lazy even?

Andy: Man, I have to admit, when reading the first half of your reply I was ready to go with several comments, but your last paragraph is spot-on and puts it home. I’m not vain enough to say that developers are lazy, granted I have very little idea of what goes into the making of a game – but even yearly iteration titles still take a considerable effort. I’m also not sure I can say that we’ve seen everything there is to be done in terms of reward-based gaming, but will also say it sure seems like it doesn’t it. Maybe the better way to phrase it, is developers are merely doing what they know, and what works. We talked a couple weeks ago how at times developers put stockholders first and maybe this ‘carrot’ approach is geared a little towards appeasing them and keeping the game in the tray longer. After all, I think that’s one of the biggest reasons the ‘carrot’ of the unlocks and rewards exists. The gamer always has the next trinket to keep playing for.

Here’s the thing though, at the end of the day I think most gamers are willing to overlook, or maybe not even consider, things as long as the game is fun. If the game is fun, and I am enjoying playing it I don’t care one way or the other what unlock is coming next. Forza Horizon 2 is a perfect example, I am just flat out loving the game. Sure winning cars (17 at the time of me writing this – not bragging promise) via the Wheel Spin is fun, but I don’t think my enjoyment would be less if that wasn’t there. It’s a bonus on top of the cake if you will. Whereas a game like Destiny, it seems like those unlocks are required for me to get to the fun – i.e. the Raid. Those are two games, at least for me, that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. In one the fun comes first and in the other I have to grind to get to the fun. When I sit down to play a game, the one that is fun right away is the one I will pick 99% of the time unless I have friends that need help with a level or something. I don’t want to make it sound like I am picking on Destiny, it’s just the game that’s in everyone’s mind right now so it’s easy to use as an example. It seems Destiny is a case of a developer creating a ‘carrot’ system and putting fun aside. When a game puts fun second, then I think there is a problem.

Maybe it’s my nostalgia kicking in of gaming in its early years. When every game we bought was meant to be fun, it was meant to be played, beaten and then shared with friends. We didn’t have to worry about shareholders, marketing, hype or making sure we logged into it every day to keep getting those rewards. It was an innocent time of gaming where we didn’t have to worry about DLC, mandatory installs or patches. The game we bought was the game we got. Our biggest concern was blowing hard enough on the cartridge to get it to work right. Over time the business side of gaming has crept farther and farther into it. To close out this week’s article let me ask you a simple question, that may not have a simple answer. Has the business of gaming started to ruin the fun of gaming? We seem to spend a great deal of time talking about sales, shareholders and profit versus… you know the fun of gaming. Can we ever get back to just having fun, for no better reason than because?

Go-Go-Carrots-04

Nicholas: I certainly think so, and I think we’re still seeing examples of this all the time. Sure, each game I play has a patch I need to install from the start and yes, sometimes those patches are the size of what used to be a full game last generation. Sure, gamed often come with DLC and microtransactions where what we buy on launch isn’t necessarily the end of the game, but all this can be ignored when you’re having fun. For me, I know for sure that I’ve been enjoying the last few games I’ve owned a whole lot. Wolfenstein is a perfect example of a purely fun game, one where the business side of gaming hasn’t seemed to had an influence at all. Assassin’s Creed 4 is a little similar. Sure it has DLC, sure it has a season pass and it even has a multiplayer feature that I could do without, but I still thoroughly enjoyed the game while playing through it.

There’s no denying that companies’ pursuit for profit has led to some less-than-desirable features make their way into games, and there’s no denying that some games are blatant money-grabs with no real substance – but I think it would be a gross generalization to assume this represents the industry as a whole. Like we’ve discussed in the past, gaming has just evolved over time and with it has come a list of features we don’t like, but at the same time, let’s not forget all the new ones we love too. The industry has never been perfect and horrible games have existed since the very beginning (E.T. anyone?), as always, it’s just a case of picking the good ones and weeding the bad ones out. I don’t think we’ve ever moved away from just having fun – well some have, but not everyone.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.

Tags

This article may contain affiliate links, meaning we could earn a small commission if you click-through and make a purchase. Stevivor is an independent outlet and our journalism is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative.

About the author

Nicholas Simonovski

Events and Racing Editor at Stevivor.com. Proud RX8 owner, Strange Music fan and Joe Rogan follower. Living life one cheat meal at a time.