Notgames Forum

As far as I can tell, there's two types of players of (AAA) video-games:

1. People who really enjoy interacting with the rules and achieving goals. They tolerate the narrative and the fictional world (but will demand a "skip" option for every cut scene).

2. People who enjoy the narrative and the fictional world. They tolerate the structure of doing tasks to receive rewards (but this better not be too hard, and better open up more narative and world to explore).

The people in each group tolerate what the people in the other group really enjoy (the reason why they play the games in the first place). But not many people seem to really enjoy both. As a result, nobody can actually say they like video-games.

(And as another result, video-games cannot be experienced as art in my practical definition of art is that of which nothing is wrong. )

It is so strange that the "Skip gameplay" or "Autosolve puzzle" button has not really become standard practice yet.

I do believe you can enjoy both mechanics and narrative. For example, when I was younger I liked the fighting in Final Fantasy as much as I liked the story.

However, now days I tend to be more polarized like you put it.

Interesting subject. I've been thinking about this because the "skip" option has been available in hidden object games for quite a while. I think it's one of the best developments in games in a long time. They know that their player base are casual gamers. Puzzles are fine but if you can't get past one, you'll likely never finish the game. Consequently, you'll likely never buy a similar game again.

And I usually fall into the 2nd type of player.

When you were younger! Of course. Kids like everything. They are a very easy audience.

Interesting.  This touches on a question I've been musing on lately regarding games as escapism (are they really?  Most people seem to think so.  Should they be?)  Maybe I'll expand upon this thought later when I have more time.

As far as a direct answer to your question, I've noticed particularly as I've grown older that I do indeed enjoy games less.  I've also grown cynical about why others play them as well.  My current viewpoint is that most games really are hacking into our psychology to make us keep playing and keep buying - they've become a well-designed set of reward schedules.  There is a very compelling literature on this in psychology, about how reward schedules (particularly variable schedules, where you know there's a reward, but not exactly when it will come) are irresistible to lab rats and people alike.  Basically, the reward is dangled in front of you (shiny set of armor + nasty sword), and you jump through hoops to get it.  But does anyone else notice the empty feeling that comes with finally achieving the reward?  It's my guess that people grow out of these games when they start to recognize that, while others simply clamp on to the next reward and set of hoops without questioning it.

For me, the things that tend to give me true enjoyment are the beautiful (aesthetically) things that you can bring into existence from time to time.  For example, in a Final Fantasy game, I might earn a powerful spell that has a beautifully rendered effect when I cast it.  It's part of the style of FF games to make these very elaborate, almost like a little show that you can create every so often.  I like those

There is also no question that you can feel a sense of accomplishment from overcoming a challenge, though this is also an effect that sits in a psychological sweet spot.  The idea of "flow", where difficulty fluctuates perfectly with the player to reward accomplishment, while always remaining just challenging enough (maybe I didn't explain that well, but I'm sure people here are familiar with the concept).  I don't like feeling like a game is manipulating me, though I now wonder whether my intellect, in recognizing that, is possibly robbing me of some honest fun.

Anyway, I learned long ago not to project my cynicism on others, or assume I know how they work.  I'm interested to hear what others think.

I think we should be very critical of flow! Not so much because it's manipulative but because it locks the player up in an all too safe cage of fake contentment.

I've been wondering lately if not increasing the difficulty might not be the key to more satisfying play. Because when the mechanical challenge of the game seizes to pose any problems, you are invited to become more creative with the game. As you get used to the system, more opportunity opens up to be playful and to let your imagination play a bigger part in the experience. So instead of always increasing the difficulty and thus ensuring that the play experience actually remains the same, forever, simply keeping the difficulty constant, and allowing the player to get ever better at dealing with the mechanics, the actual experience would start changing, would become more personal, more creative, more imaginative (and in a sense more challenging, but in an intellectual, emotional way rather than a mechanical one). If only to get away for the drugs-like pattern of flow (the necessity for ever increasing dosages to produce the same effect), it would be a very good thing to experiment with.

Maybe such games already exist, to test this theory. Does anyone know any games that do not get more difficult as you progress?

The idea of perfectly sustained flow makes me think of this comic:

http://prophotogroup.com/Video-gaming.html

The only games I can think of that don't ramp are the so-called art games, like Majesty of Colors, Every Day the Same Dream, etc.  As far as mainstream games, maybe The Sims.  Taking the idea a step further, do we need difficulty at all?  As in, maybe as designers we could shift our paradigm from challenging players to enabling them, like productivity software does (a bland example, but don't take the analogy too far).  Could we require less of players, instead being there and being ready at the user's pace?  One thing that I see as a disadvantage of the videogame medium as it currently exists is that it demands the user's constant attention and intense focus.  Could we make a less demanding and yet perhaps more enjoyable experience?

An idea that I've always had along those lines is to get the game off the computer box and incorporated in our living environment better.  If you have a painting that hangs in your living room that people admire when they come over, why not have a digital screen in the same space that displays an interactive painting?  Something like FATALE, but where it inhabits a friendlier space.  People can casually interact with it as they walk by, and just as easily drop it and move on, then come back to it during the normal ebb and flow of a social event.  Others can enjoy what's unfolding from a distance as others "play" the work.  Its presence, like a painting, adds something to the environment.  Anyway, I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent, but I like to theoretically explore potentially extreme ways of altering the medium's basic idioms.

I would say most modern games have a fairly flat difficulty progression. The insane difficulty ramping is more from the 80's and 90's. You are also aware of hidden-object games which also have a fairly flat progression with the occasional odd difficult puzzle thrown in.

Yes, I agree with you that Hidden Object games are very interesting!

Most indie games certainly still do have progressive difficulty. As do all RPGs.

The AAA games that I've played still have progressive difficulty, partially caused by introducing new game mechanics and features throughout the game (the "kitchen sink" or "carpet bombing" approach of multi-million dollar productions). You're right that modern high end games feel much more relaxed than old games. But I think this is often a very clever application of the flow principle. I never get the feeling that the game allows me to roam, that it poses no obstacle anymore and that I can finally explore its world. There's always something that needs to be beaten. And it never becomes easy (or there is always one thing that is extraordinarily difficult -which always feels like a mistake or sloppy design).

Yep, I was just going to say that. I work on hidden object games for my day job, and I'm kind of seeing this genre as the one potential place that the notgames approach could really take off, since I think it is already very close, and there is already a significant market there...

Modern games struggle with gaminess vs narrative. Personally, I like game that are simply games and narratives that are simply narratives. Trying to add narrative to a game is a fool's errand.

Yes. What I'm hoping to see is the "gaminess" evaporating from the Hidden Object Game genre, leaving only the "narrative" part.

Right now it seems that most important part of a Hidden Object Game, that makes it better or worse in terms of quality, popularity, sales, is the notgame part, which you could describe as the "narrative" part. The game, or "gaminess" part seems to be there as a structural holdover for the more hardcore players.

But that's all uninformed speculation on my part. Still, I find it encouraging.

Indeed!

Isn't this the same in AAA titles?
(and the  very reason why a lot of indies like retro: to focus on the gaminess instead of the AAA games' attention for world design, characters and narrative)

Im finding more and more I prefer games that are gamey. Gaminess in games that have a strong sense of place, not even so much story, bothers me. This has largely been the case for me. But as I've considered these things, I've also started to appreciate and enjoy "pure" games more. Hidden object games don't feel as gamey. They also have a strong narrative (not necessarily good) and immersion. Because of the casual nature of the puzzles they take on more of a toy quality.