Its the developer/designers fault, and I say that as a developer/designer. Frankly…the current business forces us to do this.
Because the market is so crowded, devs are forced to chase any method of acquiring eyeballs that we can, and one of the cheapest, and best methods, is to keep players playing ALL THE TIME, so their friends see those ‘in game’ notifications. Its great free advertising. It also means people look at hours played and consider the game good value, which leads to good reviews and recommendations.
As a result, new games have MORE achievements, a bigger metagame, a bigger world, and more options. We WANT you to keep playing,playing,playing.
…and the key thing is, that 1% of players get super into a game and play 100+ hours. In virality terms, those players are 100xers, as the time-in-game is valid whether its 1 person playing 100 hours versus 100 playing 1 hour.
As a player, a key thing to do is to realize that the devs are trying to ensure nobody stops playing before they are bored. We FULLY expect most players to get bored without achieving everything, or doing anything. I’ve got all of the achievements in Production Line, but FFS I am the developer…it amazes me how many players have done this.
TL;DR: Devs are designing for the uber-addicted hardcore. Feel free to not be that demographic. 99% of you are not.
I am totally on board with this thread. I was trying to explain to a buddy why I don’t like Division 2, or Destiny, or Anthem or any of them. I am just at the point where I don’t want or need the obligation of daily quests, games that never end, games that want you to play them for years and years. Like I’m over it.
The worst thing Apex Legends did was add a battle pass, even though I wanted it. Suddenly I felt anxiety for not playing enough, because I wouldn’t finish the battle pass. It made me angry at the game, which I was enjoying the shit out of, so I stopped playing.
Bloodstained was a perfect game.
Deep enough to dig in if you wanted to, but it has an end. You can finish it, and move on to something else. Zelda BotW is the same. Play 100 hours or 20.
Divinity OS2 is another prefect game, in my opinion. The game is huge and epic without needless cruft and shitty quests meant to fill time. It has an ending, and you can replay it if you want to but it doesn’t expect you to.
I guess I’m just so over “live services”. Like fuck them, honestly. Give me more Bloodstaineds and less Fallout 76s.
What a great perspective and I can see how that would work.
Would this be the another reason for putting in the ultra-tough battles, puzzles, levels, or whatnot? People go online, share their frustration or curiosity, ask how-to and lo and behold more talk about the game, pumps up the interest, looks like more people are playing? That one person’s possible misery is expanded into a few others hearing about the game. Buzzbuzzbuzz. The game is already sold to that person, after all, it’s about maybe getting a few more to drop the dollars.
This is an interesting point, and I wonder if it affects me in reverse? When I only pay pennies or a few dollars for a game, I may not mind abandoning it at the first sign of tedium.
See I expect a game to be good, worthwhile, whether I spend 99 cents or 120 for some sort of “deluxe” package. What I will forgive, on some level, is graphics, voice acting (rather not have it than have bad), musical scores… like if the game doesn’t draw me in, for any amount of money, it’s just not worth it. I won’t “work” for either. I’ll learn, get better, play with others… so long as it’s enjoyable. When it becomes a chore, I’m done with that game and probably not likely to look at future games from the same source even.
I’ve always enjoyed watching others play stuff, even genres I don’t like to play at all. When I was a kid, I’d spend hours in Aladdin’s Castle or Spaceport without spending a quarter. In this era of YouTube, I will often watch a few hours of gameplay, and if I’m still interested in it, then I’ll buy it, if I’ve already lost interest, I would likely have bounced off it anyway (as I often do).
On a recent One Life Left episode, Ste Curran had an intriguing idea: instead of (or, at least, separately from) standard difficulty levels in games, let the player select different game lengths. So you would be presented with different “cuts” of the same game, which might be, say estimated 20 hours for the full experience; or estimated 8 or 3 hours for cut down versions, where the game designer has crafted full end-to-end experiences but with the less important / filler parts of the game skipped.
I would love that, as someone with more games than spare time. I’d guess I’d always choose the shortest version with the idea that I’d replay the longer version if I really enjoyed it.
I’m feeling this way about Magic Arena. MTG is great. I enjoy it the best of all the various CCG-like games out there. And Arena makes it playable for mere mortals. Mostly. But there are daily quests. And filling out your collection requires cards. Which come from gold. Which comes from those daily quests. I’m casual enough that I don’t want to throw a ton of money at the game, yet I want a variety of cards to build ‘decent’ decks from. But just the fact the game has dailies, XP, battle passes - I’m hard pressed to simply enjoy the game. I feel like if I’m not earning gold optimally, getting ‘value’, etc., then I’m wasting my time. It is a terrible cycle.
You absolutely need to give Book of Demons a try if you think you might like it at all. Their entire design philosophy is centered on respecting the player’s time and giving them an experience that can adapt to the time availiable. BoD has a “Flexiscope” system where you can pick the size of the dungeon you want to play – whether it’s a tiny 15 minute speed run, or a monster 90 minute crawl – and it will generate a session for you which is designed to give you a “full” game experience no matter what size you choose.
It works really well, and it’s nice to know I can dip into the game for 30 minutes and feel like I got a full session, not like I stopped something bigger right in the middle. Or, if I’m settling down with the game for the evening… make a big one, boss!
Wow, this is totally the oddest response to this thread. Like, what?
This thread also speaks to me. I find as I get older, I have less patience for stuff I once tolerated or even enjoyed. Survival mechanics, for example. Fuck. That. If I wanna worry about thirst and hunger I’ll get out of bed in the morning.
Like, when I told folks I was gonna start playing Far Cry Primal, many were like “play it on ultra hard silly mode where you only have one life and have to worry about hunger or whatever.” No. Fuck that. It’s a game. I wanna be a badass.
This is why I love games that respect my time. Let me save anywhere. Make crafting efficient and simple. Stuff like that.
That all depends a lot on the game involved.
If it is a survival game at the core, then hunger & thirst mechanics just make sense, it’s all about resource management and planning ahead anyway, and finding food and drink in these is not usually trivial. I found one of the best games in this regard (while certainly not easiy accessible) is UnReal World, I could barely be plied away from that game two years ago during Christmas holidays…
Obviously, you have to like survival games and (very important) be in the mood for one right now.
But if some rudimentary “you need to eat/drink every X hours” is added to a game that otherwise has little to no resource management, it’s just a weird oddity that really has no place there. Sounds a lot like that would’ve been the case for Far Cry.
I think one of the silliest examples of this was the survival mode in Fallout: New Vegas: added some other welcome changes, but it also made you go thirsty - while at the same time giving you a canteen that never seems to empty. So effectively, you only get a “you drink a bit” message every now and then.
When I encounter some Bullshit Gameplay I instinctively remind myself that many great games feel harsh and unforgiving. I have to get into this platformer with its backtracking and unresponsive controls, it’ll feel great to master. I have to get familliar with this wargame cause it’s so true and historical. I have to die a few times to realize how mechanics work in this big cool roguelike.
But it’s a wrong comparison. I’ve mastered Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings, very complex games, without ever pushing myself. I battled through Slay the Spire - a game that requires you to memorize a lot of stuff and can murder you just because of bad luck - and it was all great. I’ve played gameplayless walking simulators that captured me so I know that if I feel bored it’s not because it’s gameplay like that.
Case in point, half an hour ago I tried Rime. Got it for free somewhere. Lovely soundtrack, intriguing premise. But gameplay is generic 3D platforming without any danger or challenge, like Prince of Persia Sands of Time in ultra-relaxing mode. Dropped it and didn’t allow all the good things in the game to talk me going back. I have a huge list of games ahead of me, and there’s plenty of comfort game that I know I can turn on and have a good predictable fun.
I did pick that up at Christmas, but haven’t yet given it any time. What you describe sounds great, though, and it’s now moved to the top of my pile of shame, thank you!
Would love to see someone try something similar with a more narrative-focused game. Although now I think on it, I remember some LucasArts adventures giving the option of a slimmed down version of the game, with fewer puzzles, but you would still get the full story.
