These thoughts are sort of a spinoff from the thread a few pages back. I'm going to try to express myself as best as I can, because that thread took me back and made me re-evaluate my positions. However it seems the more I thought about it, the more extreme my position became. Basically, It would seem that ALL rewards essentially undermine the enjoyment of a game.

When you think about what people do for fun, the entire reason for engaging in a leisure activity is that it's enjoyable. The activity itself. Just doing the activity is itself fun. Otherwise, it's not really a leisure activity. So, video games being a leisure activity, the fun should come from simply playing the game moment to moment, be that the thrill of combat, the joy discovery, problem solving, or whatever else the game offers.

However when there is a reward involved, this alters the ability of the player to enjoy the moment to moment pleasure of the game, simply because now instead of focusing on the present, the player has to focus on future. If you are driven to play because of that reward, this shift prevents the player from merely enjoying the present moment on its own, since the expectation is now that the present moment carries later on a future reward. Obviously if you are not driven to play because of the reward, the reward is unnecessary. So by playing for a reward, you are undermining the inherent value of the game's moment to moment pleasures.

I know somebody, probably Claude is going to say "Well, isn't level 2 a reward for finishing level 1?" No it's not. See, once you've completed a challenge, explored an area, or killed all the enemies, you can't really continue that moment to moment pleasure since there's nothing left to stimulate you. The moment to moment pleasure of discovery, fear or whatever else compelled you to play is gone. So, the game puts you in a different environment, with new challenges to tackle, new enemies to kill, or new areas to explore. In short, level progression is merely a way to ensure you can continue have moment to moment pleasure.

That's also why in a sense I don't enjoy actually beating games, because once it's over, that's the end of the inherent pleasure in playing. There are no more situations left.

So the more rewards there are in a game or the more complex the player investment system, the more the mere act of play is devalued. This has obvious implications for Destiny.

I see your point. In your point's scope, I believe you are correct.

However, I believe the scope can be expanded a bit. For instance, you mention different levels being unlocked as way to avoid repetition. Can't rewards be shed the same light? Isn't the ability to use a BR a way to avoid the repetition of using the AR?

I see your point, but since this is about "fun", no objective answers can really be drawn. It varies from person to person, game to game, and hinges on many other factors as well. I don't really mind rewards systems unless they impact gameplay; even then, it depends on the situation. In fact, my main issue with gameplay altering rewards is that they can make it hard for new/losing players to get good. But I digress. I did go for the Gold Visor and Cortana voice in Halo: Reach, but I really didn't play differently. I did go for challenges that I might not have, but nothing beyond that. While conclusions can certainly be drawn about this, it is a subjective issue; people will disagree on it, but noone is really wrong. Well, someone stating an opinion as a fact is wrong in that respect, but their opinion is still valid.

That's also why in a sense I don't enjoy actually beating games, because once it's over, that's the end of the inherent pleasure in playing. There are no more situations left.

Yeah. I enjoyed the story of Bioshock Infinite, the gameplay and character moments of Tomb Raider (seriously, stick around Lara's friends when you get a chance and talk to them, there's a bunch of good non-main-plot dialog to be heard) and the sneaking and planning and execution (heh, talk about a double meaning of a word :p) of Dishonored… but then they all ended.

Then there's Skyrim. In that game the storyline is secondary and gameplay is primary. Something like two years later I can load up a save, point in a direction, and just explore. Maybe I'll go fishing. Or scavenge for alchemy supplies, or raid a crypt, or fight a tense battle against a bunch of bandits. I like good writing in games. I think gamers have been pretty fortunately lately to get a bunch of good storylines. But there is still something to be said for a game that doesn't end after 10 hours, or 50, or 100.

Bungie has said that they have a ten year plan for Destiny. They also said repeatedly that, yes, there will be a storyline, but they also want to make the world itself something players will want to come back to. I like those implications. :)

Bungie has said that they have a ten year plan for Destiny. They also said repeatedly that, yes, there will be a storyline, but they also want to make the world itself something players will want to come back to. I like those implications. :)

That could be cool, assuming that the moment to moment pleasure of revisiting the areas is good, either through new challenges in the areas, or by having new areas constantly added.

With all the focus on emergent gameplay that we've heard, I can't imagine things will be as cut-and-dried as you seem to think with regard to rewards.

Sure, when there are goals like achieving a specific objective or completing a raid, loot that is randomized to a degree is to be expected. But what about simply stomping through the wilds and exploring? Coming across an enemy outpost that has you outgunned six ways from Sunday, and realizing you can bait some nearby creeps (or another faction) into a battle with that outpost, allowing you to either sneak in and loot the place in the chaos or mop-up afterwards (just as an example), I think there will be plenty to keep us entertained. I think the original moments that we create are going to be reward enough beyond cheevos and loot.

Fingers crossed for a cheevo called "Richard Parker", btw.

~M

I definitely agree with a lot of these ideas, and all of them to a certain degree. I think this is the reason why so many people are in love with Skyrim and even Minecraft (including me). I do however love games with achievements and rewards for different reasons, and sadly a good game does not always equal longevity. One of my favorite games of all time is Chrono Trigger, but it's not exactly a game you can play as non-stop (even with its 13 (or 15 if you count minor changes) endings). But like previously stated by other replies that is one of the reasons why I'm very excited for Destiny. It seems like it's going to have a story I love and plenty to do even after the story is done.

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

As much as some like to criticize Cody's opinions and thoughts in general, I can't say I disagree with him on this one.

In fact, I am surprised that so many game developers have taken player investment, or other goal-oriented systems, so far as they have. Considering the fact that some developers have employees specifically devoted to making their games appealing to gamers, it alarms me that reward systems are becoming so prevalent in new releases. Do they not believe that gameplay should be it's own reward? Perhaps, they are focusing too much on designing games that are immensely gratifying in the short run (in order to sell bajillion copies), while sacrificing long run gratification potential (so they can sell another game next year).

This makes me wonder something about two games I've played a lot recently - Borderlands 2 and Mass Effect 3 (specially co-op).

These games have huge reward/player investment systems. I have tons of fun in spite of those, however, and think the core gameplay is pretty awesome in both. My proof is that in Borderlands 2, I'm having as much fun at level 61 with crazy stupid gear as I was at level 1 with the intro pistol; in Mass Effect 3 I still favor a lot of the original characters, and just equip whatever gear fancies me at the moment.

Am I blind to the reward systems and how they've manipulated me into having fun? I don't think so - I'd play these games if the reward systems went away. Some proof would be with Mass Effect 3, as I remember those moments during the demo when I nearly burst into tears with how perfect it all was.

EDIT: Battlefield 3 is a good example of a game with huge reward mechanics that, at it's core, I thought had underwhelming gameplay that did not nearly engross me as much as the two examples above.

I see your point. In your point's scope, I believe you are correct.

However, I believe the scope can be expanded a bit. For instance, you mention different levels being unlocked as way to avoid repetition. Can't rewards be shed the same light? Isn't the ability to use a BR a way to avoid the repetition of using the AR?

In a single player game, obtaining new weapons works on exactly the same principle I mentioned, yes.

In multiplayer, it is completely different because you ruin the game by making certain players unable to use certain weapons.

I see your point. In your point's scope, I believe you are correct.

However, I believe the scope can be expanded a bit. For instance, you mention different levels being unlocked as way to avoid repetition. Can't rewards be shed the same light? Isn't the ability to use a BR a way to avoid the repetition of using the AR?

In a single player game, obtaining new weapons works on exactly the same principle I mentioned, yes.

In multiplayer, it is completely different because you ruin the game by making certain players unable to use certain weapons.

What about in regards to co-op? I instinctively lump it in with the single player.

Overjustification effect

- No text -

Basically, It would seem that ALL rewards essentially undermine the enjoyment of a game.

When you think about what people do for fun, the entire reason for engaging in a leisure activity is that it's enjoyable.

Yes - I agree. But what if achieving something difficult is considered fun? For example, hunting game. People bring back trophies to prove they've done something difficult. That trophy is then incentive for someone else to do the same or better. I'm not sure I see a difference between that kind of trophy and a virtual one (asides from the animal welfare implications). The fun aspect is in being competitive, either with yourself or with others.

But that's exactly the "niche" achievements occupy. Do in-game rewards also fit into that spot?

To me, comparing in-game rewards to trophy leads to the idea of automatically getting a laser sight or whatever after you hunt enough animals, not the animal itself to display.

Basically, It would seem that ALL rewards essentially undermine the enjoyment of a game.

When you think about what people do for fun, the entire reason for engaging in a leisure activity is that it's enjoyable.

Yes - I agree. But what if achieving something difficult is considered fun? For example, hunting game. People bring back trophies to prove they've done something difficult. That trophy is then incentive for someone else to do the same or better. I'm not sure I see a difference between that kind of trophy and a virtual one (asides from the animal welfare implications). The fun aspect is in being competitive, either with yourself or with others.

The trophy itself is not the difficulty; the act of hunting is. Bagging the biggest buck which will win the trophy is the challenge. Of course people find difficult things fun.

It's exactly the same. If the motivation is simply to get the trophy, rather than the joy of hunting, then the enjoyment of the act of hunting itself is devalued.

I don't see that much of a distinction to be honest. One man's fun is another man's unnecessary gold visor.

The trophy itself is not the difficulty; the act of hunting is. Bagging the biggest buck which will win the trophy is the challenge. Of course people find difficult things fun.

It's exactly the same. If the motivation is simply to get the trophy, rather than the joy of hunting, then the enjoyment of the act of hunting itself is devalued.

Interesting. I think, perhaps a little idealistic, to 'hunt for the hunt' rather than for the bragging rights. I see what you're saying, I just think the great, unwashed masses like to brag.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about the purely cosmetic rewards. I suppose you do see the distinction when you exclude those from the argument, no?

The trophy itself is not the difficulty; the act of hunting is. Bagging the biggest buck which will win the trophy is the challenge. Of course people find difficult things fun.

It's exactly the same. If the motivation is simply to get the trophy, rather than the joy of hunting, then the enjoyment of the act of hunting itself is devalued.

Interesting. I think, perhaps a little idealistic, to 'hunt for the hunt' rather than for the bragging rights. I see what you're saying, I just think the great, unwashed masses like to brag.

Ok fine, that might be true. All that means is that the unwashed masses get a worse experience hunting since they aren't doing it purely for the sake of enjoying the moment of doing it.

Just a pity they won't listen to their prophet of fun!

One's motivation to do something fun doesn't necessarily impact how fun it is. Ultimately, the motivation in both cases is to have fun. Triumphing over adversity is a type of fun, having something shiny to show off is another. You can't make a statement about which is better, and neither can I. Fun is subjective, and you can't make such generalizations.

One's motivation to do something fun doesn't necessarily impact how fun it is. Ultimately, the motivation in both cases is to have fun. Triumphing over adversity is a type of fun, having something shiny to show off is another. You can't make a statement about which is better, and neither can I. Fun is subjective, and you can't make such generalizations.

That is a good point. There have been occasions where I came home from work at 10pm, turned on Reach and was too exhausted to decide what to do so just did the mission in the daily challenge. Normally I decide what I want to do but there are times you need a nudge, whether it be exhaustion or lack of creativity in general. I think the real difference comes down to finding a way to help the player find unique experiences through these kinds of encouragement rather than just finding bonus XP. An interesting challenge to be sure, but I think for the percentage that have limited time to play games, it could be the difference between a game they like and a game they spend all their free time on.

- No text -

One's motivation to do something fun doesn't necessarily impact how fun it is. Ultimately, the motivation in both cases is to have fun. Triumphing over adversity is a type of fun, having something shiny to show off is another. You can't make a statement about which is better, and neither can I. Fun is subjective, and you can't make such generalizations.

I dunno. What if your motivation isn't your own?

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

I thought "Do or do not, there is no try" gave me the green light...

=P

One man's fun is another man's unnecessary gold visor.

I hope you don't mind, but I may get that tattooed somewhere. :)

Speaking of wrong trilogies.

Speaking of wrong trilogies.

Is there a problem with the gravitational pull?

But what if achieving something difficult is considered fun?

Accomplishment is another valid reason to pursue something — even in something that's ostensibly a leisure activity. I fundamentally disagree with Cody's primary assertion; not all rewards undermine the enjoyment of a game. I would definitely agree that some do, but there are plenty of examples where this isn't the case, and in fact I'd go so far as to say the majority of videogames operate on the principle of rewarding the player to keep them engaged.

We're going in circles!

In reality it is not an objective argument.

Accomplishment is another valid reason to pursue something — even in something that's ostensibly a leisure activity. I fundamentally disagree with Cody's primary assertion; not all rewards undermine the enjoyment of a game. I would definitely agree that some do, but there are plenty of examples where this isn't the case, and in fact I'd go so far as to say the majority of videogames operate on the principle of rewarding the player to keep them engaged.

I would agree with this statement. A personal example would be when my wife played Firefight in Reach with me. She didn't get gratification from getting a headshot, she got gratification because confetti would fly and children would yell happily. So is this reward a bad thing? Not really, it actually made the game more fun for her (and me because she was enjoying herself).

Now when it comes to grinding for armor, I think that is fundamentally flawed system (even though every buys into it) because my charcter is forced to evolve. I can't start out with the look I want, I have to 'earn' it by playing. I never actually feel like unlocking armor in H4 is a reward, it'd more of a "finally" feeling.

but there are plenty of examples where this isn't the case, and in fact I'd go so far as to say the majority of videogames operate on the principle of rewarding the player to keep them engaged.

I agree, and this is why I think modern gaming is regressing. It's precisely for this reason. Developers reward to players to engage, instead of simply being intrinsically engaging!

Speaking of wrong trilogies.

Is there a problem with the gravitational pull?

mucfly, you bojo! Dose boards don't work on watuh! Unless you got POWUH!!!

- No text -

I agree, and this is why I think modern gaming is regressing. It's precisely for this reason. Developers reward to players to engage, instead of simply being intrinsically engaging!

Quelle surprise I agree with you, partially. Modern gaming is reward-based, with perhaps a few exceptions. We have gamers which are motivated by reward (MR) and gamers which are motivated by engagement (ME). Games need to be designed, and if you're designing for an MR player, you may not be catering for an ME player. Vice versa, a game designed for ME players may not keep the interest of MR players.

However, I don't agree that MR players can only enjoy rewards and the ME players can only enjoy engagement. I think it's much more multifaceted.

In saying that, if you are an extreme ME or MR player, you'll probably be drawn to very different games.

and in fact I'd go so far as to say the majority of videogames operate on the principle of rewarding the player to keep them engaged.

This.

I believe that the majority of games do operate on this principle. And this in itself is fine, the problem comes when you consider the rewards are given based on one of two factors: investment of time or skill level.

If a game rewards based on the investment of time, then your skill level is all but irrelevant for obtaining rewards. This upsets all of the "good" players. On the other hand, if a game rewards based on skill, then the "bad" players will never be able to obtain the same rewards as the "good" players. The problems are evident: each scenario upsets a different group of players. The bottom line is that there are more "bad" players than "good" and the more players you can keep engaged the more $$ you make. Games have become very socialist-minded in this aspect.

Probably the solution is having rewards that even bad players can get over time, but that takes less time the more skilled one is. Finding the right balance is probably very difficult, though. And of course, people will still complain.

We have gamers which are motivated by reward (MR) and gamers which are motivated by engagement (ME). Games need to be designed, and if you're designing for an MR player, you may not be catering for an ME player. Vice versa, a game designed for ME players may not keep the interest of MR players.

However, I don't agree that MR players can only enjoy rewards and the ME players can only enjoy engagement. I think it's much more multifaceted.

In saying that, if you are an extreme ME or MR player, you'll probably be drawn to very different games.

I really like this summary! I feel most 'young' or 'new' gamers tend to lean towards being MR players (simply because of mobile gaming basically domineering that style if gameplay. While those of us who have been playing games longer (say the last generation of consoles) had games that 'had' to engage us to sell. So that's what we know and love!

- No text -

- No text -

I wholeheartedly agree on this: that socially agreed upon rewards--be they accomplishments, time commitments, incentives to continue, etc.--devalue the game, for me.

That is not to say that rewards specifically devalue the game, but that in a social setting, bragging rights will often trump a personal agenda, and that's where I get frustrated. Because I never get to decide what I'm bragging about... My profile, inventory, etc. decide that for me.

I always enjoyed the social aspect of games before I started playing online on a larger scale leader-board, on other people's schedule, and with other people's expectations. When the pool of players was me and three friends, Being the least of three was not nearly as psychologically vexing as being the lower-middle of 10,000,000. I was always able to set my own goal and be rewarded with reaching it, and could negotiate the terms of my goal with the kids sitting next to me, even if their goal was different.

Now I often enjoy games, but not always. Occasionally I feel the social pressure that someone I don't know will think less of me for something I shouldn't feel required to care about. I find myself more and more drawn back to co-op, single player and offline games, because I can still set my goal as I see fit, whether the goal is finish the level, or rack up a friendly-fire body count, or zone out and enjoy the scenery.

See, most of the "rewards" in games themselves don't bother me. Whether it is simply there for me to accept as a reward or despise as an obstacle to my own reward system, the item, incentive, score, etc. is agnostic to my personal value system, and it's just another piece of the game mechanic I can deal with how I please. Yet when You (in the greater social sense) tell me which reward matters, when gaining or losing that reward reflects value on me within your value system, that's when it degrades my experience. I can still have my own value/reward system, but I'll have to deal with everyone else's too, even if I try to ignore it.

I don't see a different trajectory for games going forward, and I get my fun where I can, but I'll always prefer a self-imposed reward system to an socially-imposed one.

- No text -

- No text -

...that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing. Such a little thing.

Quelle surprise I agree with you, partially. Modern gaming is reward-based, with perhaps a few exceptions. We have gamers which are motivated by reward (MR) and gamers which are motivated by engagement (ME). Games need to be designed, and if you're designing for an MR player, you may not be catering for an ME player. Vice versa, a game designed for ME players may not keep the interest of MR players.

However, I don't agree that MR players can only enjoy rewards and the ME players can only enjoy engagement. I think it's much more multifaceted.

Perhaps the biggest difficulty is whether we can couple motivation and enjoyment in the way you've done. This is the stumbling block for me. I've been motivated by the modern rewards systems plenty of times where I retrospectively feel like I would have had more fun and been less stressed out by not doing so.

That is, my own experience is that anyone can be motivated by rewards whether or not they'll enjoy the game overall all that much, and that's entirely the issue I have with these systems.

//==============

I had a period where I was hooked on Reach's credit system. It wasn't unenjoyable because the game was less enjoyable on a moment-to-moment basis. It sucked because I was driven to play the game when I otherwise wouldn't have wanted to, and I almost got rid of the game in frustration after coming out of that phase.

I want to be able to unconditionally like and play games again. I don't want to have to like what's left after consciously avoiding their icky parts.

Now when it comes to grinding for armor, I think that is fundamentally flawed system (even though every buys into it) because my charcter is forced to evolve. I can't start out with the look I want, I have to 'earn' it by playing. I never actually feel like unlocking armor in H4 is a reward, it'd more of a "finally" feeling.

As ever, the devil is in the details. This is why I take issue with this kind of sweeping, generalising Cody decree: it has massive collateral damage for things that an awful lot of players do enjoy (consciously or otherwise), not only in modern games (as Cody would have you believe) but also in older generation games dating all the way back to coin-op arcade games. What is effect of the power pill in Pac-Man other than a reward? Mario's temporary invulnerability? Extra lives for reaching so many points? Smart bombs in shoot ‘em ups? History is replete with examples of positive reward mechanics in games.

When discussing grinds, frequently these are rewards for meta-game activities rather than the primary mechanics. I think that's an important distinction, because anything that encourages or prioritises secondary game mechanics over the primary ones is likely to be less enjoyable (that's why they're secondary mechanics, after all). Where these are concerned, yes, I think there's a danger they can be harmful to the game's sense of fun, but as with so many things, YMMV.

The only way I've ever seen this managed even close to "right" was in WoW and similar MMOs where you split the player base into skill based players and time investing players.

The time investing players tend to stick with raids and prepping for raids, while the skill based players tend to spend more of their time in PvP (battlegrounds and arenas). Both get rewards relevant to their in-game needs and both are mostly content.

Right now, I still think the best way for Destiny to tackle this issue it to have a multitude of difficulty levels in single player, with gear quality based on difficulty level; and have an algorithm that amplifies and dampens gear as is necessary (so that the better gear still has a slight advantage, but not game breaking advantage) to keep multiplayer competitive.

As ever, the devil is in the details. This is why I take issue with this kind of sweeping, generalising Cody decree: it has massive collateral damage for things that an awful lot of players do enjoy (consciously or otherwise), not only in modern games (as Cody would have you believe) but also in older generation games dating all the way back to coin-op arcade games. What is effect of the power pill in Pac-Man other than a reward? Mario's temporary invulnerability? Extra lives for reaching so many points? Smart bombs in shoot ‘em ups? History is replete with examples of positive reward mechanics in games.

I think the biggest difference in the older games (Pac-Man, Mario, even arcade shooters) is that it's all part of the primary mechanics (right?). I mean any reward your getting is to help you through the game, not getting you XP or whatever. So I agree that these are positive examples, but they are so because its part of a temporary game. You didn't have a medal chest or achievement list to show off. Only your name at the top of the list. You were never doing "secondary mechanics" because the game was king

As someone who played arcade games for only a few years near the end of their time, I'm doing a lot of speculation. It seems like the rise of these "secondary mechanics" that reward players is a fairly new. I love stat tracking, but when the secondary mechanics take over the primary mechanics I take issue with that. I feel like newer games with xp leveling is a big problem, (Maybe rankings in general?) because people can just grind. Reach was the first Halo game I felt like that, H3 had rankings, but it did take skill to reach high rankings, where as Reach and H4 both only require time to reach your visible rank.

Idk, I'm running on a Full Throttle right now so it's hard to concentrate! But there are some more thoughts!
Let me know if I'm wrong! ;)

I think, generally speaking, I agree. In that the most important thing is the core gameplay loop, and rewards don't necessarily add anything to that if the core gameplay is solid to begin with. Grinding to get those rewards might even burn you out on an otherwise fun game. I'm not sure I'm ready to say that ALL rewards inherently reduce the fun I'm having. I guess I'm still holding out hope that there's a happy middle ground.

Racing sims are a good example of what Cody's talking about, at least for me. Forza 4, of course, has rewards. You earn money from completing races or leveling up your driver, and can buy new cars and parts with that. But the rewards aren't strictly necessary (outside of the "career" mode you can drive any car on any track) to enjoy the game. The reason I play Forza is the act of driving the cars. Turning in to a corner and feeling the way that particular vehicle transfers weight between the wheels, how it behaves under heavy throttle or brakes, and trying to finesses those controls perfectly, is the most sublime gaming experience for me.

And if I play Forza without the rewards, for instance simply driving my car around a track in tuning mode (where there are no competitors other than my own best lap, and no rewards because there is no "victory") and trying to get the tuning of the car just right, that fun is still there. Simply driving the car and trying to do it the best that I can is fun. And no matter what mode I'm playing in, whether I'm racing against friends online or earning money in career mode, the real reason I'm playing is that feeling. The fact that I'm earning money is merely a side effect, and I would keep racing whether it was there or not. And it some ways, I wish it weren't - if I could immediately obtain every car and upgrade part in career mode, I would. I would then be able to have that experience of trying every vehicle and experiencing its unique driving characteristics, and tuning it to drive how I want. Without having to reach a point where the developer decrees that I've earned it (in this case, by having earned enough in-game money).

How will this affect Destiny? That depends on how much fun the basic gameplay mechanics are on their own (an unknown currently), how rewards are obtained/awarded (also unknown), and how those rewards affect gameplay, if at all (also unknown). So, it's definitely something to keep in mind, but precisely what it means is... unknown. :)

I think yes, as long as having a different weapon isn't detrimental to the other players' experience (for example, the player with the "better" weapon inherently does better and is rewarded with more XP than the others, or an even bigger equipment advantage than they already had).

I feel like newer games with xp leveling is a big problem, (Maybe rankings in general?) because people can just grind. Reach was the first Halo game I felt like that, H3 had rankings, but it did take skill to reach high rankings, where as Reach and H4 both only require time to reach your visible rank.

This is something that always confounded me. Halo 4 I definitely agree fits what we're talking about because your level did affect gameplay since you couldn't play with certain weapons or abilities until you earned them. Halo Reach though I was always surprised how many people were affected by the leveling system. I personally did not play for the experience, I played because the game was fun and mostly just ignored the experience. Sure I'd use it to buy armor but never played TO GET the armor. I realize that some people still don't like the system because you can't get some of the armor without playing for a really long time, but I still am of the opinion that if you don't enjoy playing the game why are you playing it to earn an item that you only experience in the game (that you don't enjoy)?

To me the line is drawn when these systems directly affect gameplay, like Halo 4 or CoD for example where you can't use a weapon that someone else can because you've only been playing for 20 hours while they've been playing for 80. This has negative impacts because it can create a false idea of "I'm not enjoying the game now, but that's because all I can play with is the Assault Rifle, but when I get the DMR, ooooh man, it's going to SO MUCH FUN!" If you think that about cosmetic items (especially in a first person game, I'm not even sure what to say.

I'm going to focus on your main reason for opposing player rewards (and by extension player penalties ), which is that focusing on the future somehow diminishes the experience in the now. RPGs are the most common example of this, they focus nearly entirely on the future, but I think strategy games are a better example. The quote above is Sid Meier's, of Civilization fame. Focusing on the future, and using player investment as a mechanism is when way to drive interesting choices in the now.

Let's take XCom; (either the new or the old, both are excellent). The future is constantly on the players mind, as losing resources and soldiers early on is costly, but recovering technology and resources is key. This leads to lots of interesting decisions, "Hey, do I risk this guy to stun an alien for a live capture, or play it safe." Or, "I can take our 4 aliens with a rocket, but I'll lose important resources if I do." Focus on the future is what Makes XCom such a tense taught experience.

Dark Souls is an action game that does this. By letting the player invest in a character, but making those resources vulnerable (You can lose them by dying) it forces skilled play.

That's just one way to look at it, player rewards have a host of other positive applications. They can be used to open up new gameplay avenues after a player has mastered the basics. Elder Scroll games, COD use the rewards of new mechanics in a steady drip instead of just dumping them on the character. Alternatively, people love the saratonin rush of a nice drop in an MMORPG or ARG.

As normal, you are dead wrong here. An excessive focus on moment to moment gameplay is just as detrimental as infinite treadmill reward systems. How many shallow blockbuster Uncharted style linear adventures or character action games do we need? Why should every game have buckets of regenerating health, and save systems that restart you at a checkpoint? The view that only moment to moment gameplay matters impedes progress and innovation.

I'm going to focus on your main reason for opposing player rewards (and by extension player penalties ), which is that focusing on the future somehow diminishes the experience in the now. RPGs are the most common example of this, they focus nearly entirely on the future, but I think strategy games are a better example. The quote above is Sid Meier's, of Civilization fame. Focusing on the future, and using player investment as a mechanism is when way to drive interesting choices in the now.

You are not interpreting my point correctly. The moment to moment enjoyment of the game OF COURSE INCLUDES DECISIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE, such as strategic choices, or planning for future encounters. In your example of a turn based strategy game, yes you have to be thinking ahead, BUT THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF AS DECISIONS YOU MAKE IN THE MOMENT OT MOMENT PLAY, which are themselves enjoyable.

You are also wrong in thinking that opposing rewards means opposing penalties.

I feel like newer games with xp leveling is a big problem, (Maybe rankings in general?) because people can just grind. Reach was the first Halo game I felt like that, H3 had rankings, but it did take skill to reach high rankings, where as Reach and H4 both only require time to reach your visible rank.

This is something that always confounded me. Halo 4 I definitely agree fits what we're talking about because your level did affect gameplay since you couldn't play with certain weapons or abilities until you earned them. Halo Reach though I was always surprised how many people were affected by the leveling system. I personally did not play for the experience, I played because the game was fun and mostly just ignored the experience. Sure I'd use it to buy armor but never played TO GET the armor. I realize that some people still don't like the system because you can't get some of the armor without playing for a really long time, but I still am of the opinion that if you don't enjoy playing the game why are you playing it to earn an item that you only experience in the game (that you don't enjoy)?

Perhaps I need to clarify! Sometimes my ramblings can be confusing even to me.
So for Reach, which I loved, I played because it was fun. I didn't play for the armor or "title status" however because they are implemented, I noticed them, even though I didn't want to. My main comparison here is that in Halo 3 being a General was tied to your skill level (right? At least that's how I remember it) but in Reach, there is no visible skill level (except in the Arena) only XP level. So to get to Mythic status didn't depend on skill, rather gathering XP which could be done in any game mode, not just MP.
I was super excited to break the level 40 barrier in Halo 3, but in Reach and Halo 4 SR I don't have that drive because its just a number based on how long you've played.

To me the line is drawn when these systems directly affect gameplay, like Halo 4 or CoD for example where you can't use a weapon that someone else can because you've only been playing for 20 hours while they've been playing for 80. This has negative impacts because it can create a false idea of "I'm not enjoying the game now, but that's because all I can play with is the Assault Rifle, but when I get the DMR, ooooh man, it's going to SO MUCH FUN!" If you think that about cosmetic items (especially in a first person game, I'm not even sure what to say.

I absolutly agree with this statement. I don't play for the armor, rather when I happen to unlock armor I look at it and say, "So what did I do to get this? Why couldn't have been unlocked from the start?"

So yeah, items that affect gameplay I have more problems with, which is why COD and Battlefield have always turned me off. Halo 4 went in that direction and it bothered me, but I got over it because I had enough fun still playing. It'll be interesting to see what direction both Halo 5 ans Destiny go in regards to this issue.

I'm hoping Bungie takes it's cues partially from classic RPG's. I do like working towards feeling more powerful. At the same time I hope that (and doubt this will be) you don't just unlock weapons at levels, I hope it's a progression of feeling better somehow. In a single player environment that is very satisfying. Which is why my only concern with it is how will that work with competitive multiplayer? I am hoping they have something that will make the multiplayer feel balanced so that when I convince some of my hold-out friends to get Destiny a year after me I don't have to start a new character to make it feel fair.

Totally! I've got those friends as well! I like to call them lazy bums but then once they get the game they whip me, so maybe I'm doing something wrong... :/

I'm going to focus on your main reason for opposing player rewards (and by extension player penalties ), which is that focusing on the future somehow diminishes the experience in the now. RPGs are the most common example of this, they focus nearly entirely on the future, but I think strategy games are a better example. The quote above is Sid Meier's, of Civilization fame. Focusing on the future, and using player investment as a mechanism is when way to drive interesting choices in the now.

You are not interpreting my point correctly. The moment to moment enjoyment of the game OF COURSE INCLUDES DECISIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE, such as strategic choices, or planning for future encounters. In your example of a turn based strategy game, yes you have to be thinking ahead, BUT THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF AS DECISIONS YOU MAKE IN THE MOMENT OT MOMENT PLAY, which are themselves enjoyable.

So in other words, reward systems can actually improve the moment to moment experience?

Let me quote your original point,

However when there is a reward involved, this alters the ability of the player to enjoy the moment to moment pleasure of the game, simply because now instead of focusing on the present, the player has to focus on future. If you are driven to play because of that reward, this shift prevents the player from merely enjoying the present moment on its own, since the expectation is now that the present moment carries later on a future reward.

So either focusing on the future alters the ability for players to enjoy games and destroys enjoyment of the moment, or it enhances it. If focusing on the future can increase the enjoyment of the present (as you just conceded) then your argument vanishes.

You are also wrong in thinking that opposing rewards means opposing penalties.

Why? if the issue follows your thesis, that rewards cause alter player behavior in a negative way by putting less focus on the now, punishments do the exact same thing. Now the player is altering their behavior to avoid a punishment instead of gain a boon.

So either focusing on the future alters the ability for players to enjoy games and destroys enjoyment of the moment, or it enhances it. If focusing on the future can increase the enjoyment of the present (as you just conceded) then your argument vanishes.

Focusing on a FUTURE REWARD is detrimental to present enjoyment. Argument still there, since thinking ahead 4 turns in Civ is not thinking about some stupid reward.

Eh, it seems to me everyone is making an arbitrary distinction between "rewards" and things you get for specific play. You argue against rewards, but you've made your own definition for them. People seem to have set up some dichotomy between gameplay and rewards. This is getting to the point of arguing against "rewards", where "rewards" are reward systems you can make points against, and then using that to oppose rewards in general. You're overstretching your argument, which is close to a strawman. (The difference being, you didn't create a fake argument to refute, but you are still arguing against one thing and then claiming you refuted another.) A gold visor is a more abstracted reward then getting closer to victory, but both are rewards. And I'm opposed to things like Halo 4 or CoD's gun unlocking systems, but I'm not going to state that any reward systems make a game inherently less fun.

So either focusing on the future alters the ability for players to enjoy games and destroys enjoyment of the moment, or it enhances it. If focusing on the future can increase the enjoyment of the present (as you just conceded) then your argument vanishes.

Focusing on a FUTURE REWARD is detrimental to present enjoyment. Argument still there, since thinking ahead 4 turns in Civ is not thinking about some stupid reward.

Why not? My early game Multiplayer strategy in Civ IV revolves around heavy chopping to rush an early wonder that isn't useful till the mid-late game. IF that's not delaying pleasure for a reward, I don't know what is. Unless sitting around watching workers chop for two weeks is your idea of fun.

What you are saying now is that only rewards that don't fit into some kind of system that only you seem to understand are valid. So tell us, what are your terms? What's a future reward vs. an immediate reward? Without defining the kinds of rewards you are so concerned about, you just end up constantly moving your goalposts around your fuzzy definitions.

Focusing on a FUTURE REWARD is detrimental to present enjoyment. Argument still there, since thinking ahead 4 turns in Civ is not thinking about some stupid reward.

Ah, we're getting to the heart of it. Rewards are stupid when you think they are.

I think this isn't the either/or thing you make it out to be. Some rewards might motivate me to change my style of play, and in the process discover new things to enjoy about the moment-to-moment gameplay. (I learned to appreciate the fun to be had with stickies going for the Lee R. Wilson Memorial achievement.)

I also have free will. I can choose not to pursue rewards that are not fun for me to pursue. That's why the only Halo game in which I have all achievements is ODST, which, interestingly enough, doesn't have any competitive multiplayer achievements.

About achievements, the bulk of the ones I've gotten I've not gotten on purpose, so there's no way you can say the existence of those rewards in any way detracted from my fun or, in your words, always devalued my game experience.

I also have free will. I can choose not to pursue rewards that are not fun for me to pursue. That's why the only Halo game in which I have all achievements is ODST, which, interestingly enough, doesn't have any competitive multiplayer achievements.

I might be stepping in it, but, like I asked above, does everyone have the maturity to act on their desires - to make decisions for themselves?

This thread keeps reminding me of my wife's mother's boyfriend's son. He's... like what, twelve? Anywho - he bangs on about how we never play any fun games (spoiler: the games he likes are more or less loathed in places that end with bungie.org).

Sure, maybe he's just a kid, and he'll grow out of it. Maybe he won't. Have I? Have you? Are we sure?

I also have free will. I can choose not to pursue rewards that are not fun for me to pursue. That's why the only Halo game in which I have all achievements is ODST, which, interestingly enough, doesn't have any competitive multiplayer achievements.

I might be stepping in it, but, like I asked above, does everyone have the maturity to act on their desires - to make decisions for themselves?

This thread keeps reminding me of my wife's mother's boyfriend's son. He's... like what, twelve? Anywho - he bangs on about how we never play any fun games (spoiler: the games he likes are more or less loathed in places that end with bungie.org).

Sure, maybe he's just a kid, and he'll grow out of it. Maybe he won't. Have I? Have you? Are we sure?

Fair point. As a kid, I didn't have access to a computer (personal computers didn't really exist) or a console (unless you count Pong). VCRs didn't exist either, so I was really into books and music. I was interested in the arcades, but never spent enough time there to call it a hobby. (For whatever reason, I was into vector arcade games.) I played several early Mac games later, but Marathon was what motivated me to buy a computer capable of color. But I digress.

In regards to this issue, I can't say I've grown out of a habit I formed when I was young. I do have a compulsive streak, though, and the argument here seems to be that rewards tap into motivations that have nothing to with having fun. I can't tease it all out. I can say I have a stack of games I haven't finished because at some point I wasn't having enough fun to continue. The reward model has never interested me much because that seemed to involve time or skill I didn't have at age 30, which is when modern gaming began for me. I have coveted some rewards, though, like the Recon helmet (which this community helped me get), but for the most part, I'm aware I'll never be broadly competitive, so never imagined I'd get all or even most of the rewards a game had to offer. Why lust after a Maserati when you know the career you've chosen (and that you're happy with) will never allow you to own one?

Saying all this makes me realize how far I may be from the average gamer, so I think I'll just shut up now.

- No text -

The trophy itself is not the difficulty; the act of hunting is. Bagging the biggest buck which will win the trophy is the challenge. Of course people find difficult things fun.

It's exactly the same. If the motivation is simply to get the trophy, rather than the joy of hunting, then the enjoyment of the act of hunting itself is devalued.

Interesting. I think, perhaps a little idealistic, to 'hunt for the hunt' rather than for the bragging rights. I see what you're saying, I just think the great, unwashed masses like to brag.

Ok fine, that might be true. All that means is that the unwashed masses get a worse experience hunting since they aren't doing it purely for the sake of enjoying the moment of doing it.

But... trophies are given at competitions. If a trophy is a reward, but someone wants to hunt for the sake of hunting, then why would they even enter the competition, except to 'win', to be noticed, or for the reward?

You could say they have noble intentions - perhaps to serve as an inspiration for others, to raise awareness, for the joy of testing hunting skills against others who presumably would be of comparable skills, a personal challenge to push to be better.

But do any of those require competition or trophy?

Really what you're arguing against when including 'reward' is competition itself.

If I love hunting, I could do it on my own. I can see accomplishments of people in competitions and strive to better those achievements without seeking reward or recognition. Many inspirational people don't put themselves in those positions, but are rather noticed for their achievements and attention is brought to them. I could contact competitors and find out if they want to do go out and hunt for the sake of hunting without the context of competition and reward.

It just feels like you're causing a sort of entrapment - anything with a reward system takes away from enjoyment of the process. Well, if someone is doing something knowing there is a reward at the end, it's almost guaranteed they're doing it, in some manner, for that reward. Otherwise, why bother?

I think your end result about rewards taking away the 'fun' really is a necessary conclusion, for those who more value non-reward-oriented gameplay.

For games with rewards, really your only choice is to not play it for the rewards, and just forget about the people who do. Their fun is in the race to the reward - whether competing against others, themselves, or the game, and perhaps whatever comes with that experience. Your fun is in anything about the game that is not intrinsically linked with reward-oriented gameplay.

But yes, we can only hope, and encourage, developers to not lose sight of people who do not play for rewards, and provide experiences, or mechanics that *ahem* reward that style of enjoyment indirectly; so the reward isn't the goal, but rather an arbitrary bonus experienced by the player as they simply continue playing how they like playing.

Quelle surprise I agree with you, partially. Modern gaming is reward-based, with perhaps a few exceptions. We have gamers which are motivated by reward (MR) and gamers which are motivated by engagement (ME). Games need to be designed, and if you're designing for an MR player, you may not be catering for an ME player. Vice versa, a game designed for ME players may not keep the interest of MR players.

However, I don't agree that MR players can only enjoy rewards and the ME players can only enjoy engagement. I think it's much more multifaceted.

In saying that, if you are an extreme ME or MR player, you'll probably be drawn to very different games.

Nice explanation. Motivation I think really is the key factor in Cody's crusade against rewards.

ME and MR players are, still, rewarded with something, otherwise why keep playing?
For MR, the rewards are tangible, offered, objective, persistent displayable achievements; social from a me-first perspective.
For ME, the rewards are arbitrary, memorable, indirect, subjective, intangible experiences.

The problem isn't rewards, the problem is the kind of rewards the developers build their game to provide, and the type of experience they encourage their players to push for. Neither reward style is inherently 'bad', and as you say, there can most definitely be crossover.

How can you reward 'better' players, and also reward 'worse' players, without putting both classes of player on different planes? If players are playing for rewards, what motivation do the better players have for pushing for their rewards if the worse players just get the same rewards? The system inherently rewards higher skill with better rewards.
The other type of reward is simply non skill-based rewards; like campaign completion - you can choose any difficulty, and if you finish the game, you earn the reward. There's no real 'bragging' right, and it's not necessarily as endearing to higher skills; because hey, what value is getting the game-completion reward on the hardest difficulty if I could have done the same thing in a fraction of the time on easy?
Reward systems are inherently designed to reward better for higher investment, whether time or skill. I don't think there is any way to reward 'worse' players equally to 'better' players, without having a reportedly 'broken' reward system.

It's a dilemma, to be sure. Build in rewards to your game, and you're seeking competitive players. You must in some way be sure to reward more time and skill with better trophies, whether gameplay altering or esthetic. Just keep in mind if it's gameplay-altering that you don't want to piss off other players who aren't playing for rewards.

Or you could just build a game without tangible rewards, and hope to gain the loyalty of players who don't play for reward, but remain playing because you have such a great game that the reward is in the experience, in the social, in the story, in anything BUT competition with promise of reward.

- No text -

But... trophies are given at competitions. If a trophy is a reward, but someone wants to hunt for the sake of hunting, then why would they even enter the competition, except to 'win', to be noticed, or for the reward?

You could say they have noble intentions - perhaps to serve as an inspiration for others, to raise awareness, for the joy of testing hunting skills against others who presumably would be of comparable skills, a personal challenge to push to be better.

But do any of those require competition or trophy?

I don't necessarily disagree with the central ideas of your point, but I did think of two things that I think bear pointing out.

One being achievements are not like trophies in the sense that when you enter a competition you are competing against other people actively, they are right there most of the time even. Achievements are often even a passive way to track your progress in a game. And in game rewards are usually similar. I have used the example of Halo Reach many times, I played it because the gameplay was awesome, I never once thought "Oh man, I need to get this awesome helmet! I need 1,000,000 more credits!"

Secondly, marathons are a great example of a competition where a lot (if not most) of the people that run them do it for enjoyment and not because they hope to win.

Now, I do not think that this means that those rewards in games are good, just pointing out my thoughts when I read your post.

I also have free will. I can choose not to pursue rewards that are not fun for me to pursue. That's why the only Halo game in which I have all achievements is ODST, which, interestingly enough, doesn't have any competitive multiplayer achievements.

I might be stepping in it, but, like I asked above, does everyone have the maturity to act on their desires - to make decisions for themselves?

This thread keeps reminding me of my wife's mother's boyfriend's son. He's... like what, twelve? Anywho - he bangs on about how we never play any fun games (spoiler: the games he likes are more or less loathed in places that end with bungie.org).

Sure, maybe he's just a kid, and he'll grow out of it. Maybe he won't. Have I? Have you? Are we sure?

Fair point. As a kid, I didn't have access to a computer (personal computers didn't really exist) or a console (unless you count Pong). VCRs didn't exist either, so I was really into books and music. I was interested in the arcades, but never spent enough time there to call it a hobby. (For whatever reason, I was into vector arcade games.) I played several early Mac games later, but Marathon was what motivated me to buy a computer capable of color. But I digress.

In regards to this issue, I can't say I've grown out of a habit I formed when I was young. I do have a compulsive streak, though, and the argument here seems to be that rewards tap into motivations that have nothing to with having fun. I can't tease it all out. I can say I have a stack of games I haven't finished because at some point I wasn't having enough fun to continue. The reward model has never interested me much because that seemed to involve time or skill I didn't have at age 30, which is when modern gaming began for me. I have coveted some rewards, though, like the Recon helmet (which this community helped me get), but for the most part, I'm aware I'll never be broadly competitive, so never imagined I'd get all or even most of the rewards a game had to offer. Why lust after a Maserati when you know the career you've chosen (and that you're happy with) will never allow you to own one?

Saying all this makes me realize how far I may be from the average gamer, so I think I'll just shut up now.

Ditto.
Also, define "gamer" :P
But really, what is an 'average gamer'? In what context? In a way, I don't think you're far from an average gamer; I think, as with many things online, there's a lot of people out there than we think associated with something we think is less significant. It's a small fraction of the whole who speak up the most, and if a subject encourages more passion on one end, then there will naturally be more voice on that end, even if there is more quantity on the other.

How do we know who the average gamer is? I suppose we could look at sales figures. And that may be why "player investment", or even online multiplayer (which I like you typically avoid) is so much more prevalent in 'modern gaming' now than it used to be; because the shorter-term passion is higher in that context. There end up being more sales there, causing developers either to think that is what the majority wants, or just that that's where the money is.

Maybe the average gamer doesn't care for that class of game. But if those gamers never make their existence truly known, then we're in a downward spiral losing out to the more vocal, visible, lucrative demographic. =/

In short, don't shut up ;)

Yes 'reward' is probably a misleading phrase. As you say, all gamers are rewarded by something, we should maybe be talking about gamers that are motivated by unlockables and gamers that are motivated by exploration rather than saying one is rewarded.

One being achievements are not like trophies in the sense that when you enter a competition you are competing against other people actively, they are right there most of the time even. Achievements are often even a passive way to track your progress in a game. And in game rewards are usually similar. I have used the example of Halo Reach many times, I played it because the gameplay was awesome, I never once thought "Oh man, I need to get this awesome helmet! I need 1,000,000 more credits!"

Aye, and I think elsewhere in this thread the types of rewards have been discussed. I was just referring to general reward systems, whether competing against yourself (more akin to profile achievements, game progress, etc) or others (character boons); either way, the result is a tangible, display-oriented reward (gamerscore, leaderboard, achievement badges, etc)

Secondly, marathons are a great example of a competition where a lot (if not most) of the people that run them do it for enjoyment and not because they hope to win.

Exactly. But as per one of my comments, the 'reward' in that case is still display-oriented; I can say "I ran and completed X marathon!" Whereas, if it were purely for the enjoyment of running (per the hunting analogy), then why wouldn't I just run the same length outside the marathon event? If I wanted I could still track my accomplishment in comparison to others if I didn't care about its 'reward'. Basically, if I'm running in a marathon, even if my placement in the end doesn't matter and I'm only doing it complete, I'm still running to earn the achievement of completing that marathon; that would be my reward, even if it's not in competition against others.

Again, this is based in the context of reward-oriented tasks.

Now, I do not think that this means that those rewards in games are good, just pointing out my thoughts when I read your post.

For sure :)

Really, I can't say I'm for or against reward-based gaming, because I recognize the value of 'fun' is very subjective. I just hate when someone makes an objective judgement on a subjective point. =P

Even if reward-oriented gaming (presume it's hugely successful) spells the downfall of gaming as we know it, it's the rise of something else that, of course, is success to others, a different type of gamer. *shrug* We just don't want the ones who fall /:)

- No text -

It looks like I'm going to be commissioned to make an educational game for my institute's science outreach programs. Just so I'm clear, if you're playing for education, that's good, right? That's not reward?

Exactly. But as per one of my comments, the 'reward' in that case is still display-oriented; I can say "I ran and completed X marathon!" Whereas, if it were purely for the enjoyment of running (per the hunting analogy), then why wouldn't I just run the same length outside the marathon event? If I wanted I could still track my accomplishment in comparison to others if I didn't care about its 'reward'. Basically, if I'm running in a marathon, even if my placement in the end doesn't matter and I'm only doing it complete, I'm still running to earn the achievement of completing that marathon; that would be my reward, even if it's not in competition against others.

My immediate thought was a friend of mine who doesn't ever talk about running marathons and runs more than anyone I know, but then again, he is definitely the exception. Anyone else I know that runs a marathon talks about it for weeks leading up to it, so good point :)

And I am NEVER sarcastic

I guess I should elaborate a bit as my original post assumed a lot.

If I were in control of the universe and all things therein, here's an example of what I would do (raping and pillaging aside):

There would be 7 levels of difficulty (an obvious choice...)
As soon as you start up your game you will be asked what level you would like to play at: 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 7? These levels of difficulty are not unlocked by completing previous difficulty levels, rather they are all available initially and you are free to go get destroyed in level 6 if you so please.

Difficulty level 1 would be normal mode (there will be no "easy", if you can't beat easy mode then you are [idontknowthestrikethroughcommand] probably [/idontknowthestrikethroughcommand] not old enough to be playing the game). Level 2 would be hard, level 3 would be insane, level 4 would be x, level 5 y, and so on and so fourth.

Level 4 difficulty would be impossible to make any sort of progress in having not obtained at least some gear from the previous difficulties. So on and so forth for difficulties 5-7 as well.

However, not only do enemies hit harder, have more health, etc. in increasing difficulty levels but their mechanics are also slightly different. This should effectively make difficulty level 5 (for instance) fundamentally harder than difficulty level 4, regardless of how sparkly your loot is. It should also help to keep players interested in additional playthroughs/difficulty levels.

Level 7 difficulty should be virtually unbeatable by even the most skilled players in the game's best gear.

The result is players can choose their campaign difficulty level, but all players are subjected to the same multiplayer experience (like most every other game). So, to balance multiplayer to an enjoyable, accepted degree their should be an algorithm in place that dampens level 6 difficulty gear and amplifies level 2 difficulty gear ( for example). They should be dampened and amplified to a degree where the higher level gear is still advantages, but to an almost negligible degree (keyword: almost).

And that's pretty much it.

Some more thoughts:

• I DO NOT want multiplayer rewards. If there are multiplayer rewards they should be based on skill, not time.
  
• Weapons and gear should be purchasable for a significant amount of MS points. This way if players want that small advantage in multiplayer that bad, and they can't get the gear from the harder difficulties, then they can spend all of their parents money to teabag that player that's been killing them just one time. This would also provide another constant stream of revenue, as there are people out there that have no problem spending $500+ on pixels. (I know this seems to counter my previous point, but it doesn't. Maybe I can explain later if someone wants to know)
  
• I think it would be awesome if the city held players of all difficulty levels and difficulty levels were chosen when players embark on each mission rather than at the main menu(much like instances have evolved in MMOs).

TL/DR: gerbils

Why lust after a Maserati when you know the career you've chosen (and that you're happy with) will never allow you to own one?

Because it makes the most glorious sound in the world. :P

That's how I tend to approach achievements and such, though. There are certain achievements (mostly multiplayer) I know I'll never get without either cheating or playing in a way that is not enjoyable for me. So I just ignore them. Unfortunately some either aren't able to do that, or haven't yet realized that they can/should.

That's how I tend to approach achievements and such, though. There are certain achievements (mostly multiplayer) I know I'll never get without either cheating or playing in a way that is not enjoyable for me.

Lol. ALL of Destiny's achievements are technically going to be multiplayer ones :-p

That's how I tend to approach achievements and such, though. There are certain achievements (mostly multiplayer) I know I'll never get without either cheating or playing in a way that is not enjoyable for me.

Lol. ALL of Destiny's achievements are technically going to be multiplayer ones :-p

I'm sure you were just kidding, but before someone else jumps on you, I'm sure he meant achievements that don't require you to play with other people and probably even more specifically ones that don't require you to do certain things in competitive multiplayer.

Level 4 difficulty would be impossible to make any sort of progress in having not obtained at least some gear from the previous difficulties. So on and so forth for difficulties 5-7 as well.

However, not only do enemies hit harder, have more health, etc. in increasing difficulty levels but their mechanics are also slightly different. This should effectively make difficulty level 5 (for instance) fundamentally harder than difficulty level 4, regardless of how sparkly your loot is. It should also help to keep players interested in additional playthroughs/difficulty levels.

Level 7 difficulty should be virtually unbeatable by even the most skilled players in the game's best gear.

Once upon a time I was talking with all sorts of people at Valve and having a good time. One of the designers on Portal 2 said that they pretty much eliminated the twitch puzzles from the first game, because as a puzzle game, it was frustrating to KNOW the solution, but struggle to actually execute it. The act of solving the puzzle and arriving at the solution should be the hard part.

Same thing with action games. If I have the skill, or knowledge of the game required to play at a high level, then it's frustrating having to get gear merely to compete on higher levels of difficulty. Imagine you're the best Destiny player in the world, but you can't play on level 7 because you don't have a piece of good gear. You're stuck having to acquire gear, i.e. not running and jumping and shooting stuff. Basically, you're no longer playing the real game. You have to do bullshit in order to keep playing even though you are the best player in the world.

If there has to be gear, then the least worst way to do it would be to do it like a JRPG, where the gear isn't random, and is obtained in specific ways on specific quests. At least then you can play more of the real game before moving on, because the quests and stuff are ostensibly fun in their own right.

If there has to be gear, then the least worst way to do it would be to do it like a JRPG, where the gear isn't random, and is obtained in specific ways on specific quests. At least then you can play more of the real game before moving on, because the quests and stuff are ostensibly fun in their own right.

I agree, I much more enjoy picking a difficulty that I find enjoyable and later missions being more difficult because they assume you mastered certain skills in the game already.

Usually I played on Heroic in Halo games when playing solo because I found it the right amount of challenge with the right amount of fun. I would be very annoyed to have to play normal before being able to play heroic.

Personally, I very much enjoyed the difficulty system in Left 4 Dead 1. If Destiny could do a similar thing I would be very happy.

Once upon a time I was talking with all sorts of people at Valve and having a good time. One of the designers on Portal 2 said that they pretty much eliminated the twitch puzzles from the first game, because as a puzzle game, it was frustrating to KNOW the solution, but struggle to actually execute it. The act of solving the puzzle and arriving at the solution should be the hard part.

Same thing with action games. If I have the skill, or knowledge of the game required to play at a high level, then it's frustrating having to get gear merely to compete on higher levels of difficulty. Imagine you're the best Destiny player in the world, but you can't play on level 7 because you don't have a piece of good gear. You're stuck having to acquire gear, i.e. not running and jumping and shooting stuff. Basically, you're no longer playing the real game. You have to do bullshit in order to keep playing even though you are the best player in the world.

Firstly, I don't recall the twitch puzzles that you're talking about, but I have no problem with the idea of "struggling" to execute the solution, whether it's known previously or not. I would argue the opposite actually (at least in action games, discovering the solution is pretty much the name of the game when it comes to puzzle games). Some of the most frustrating moments I've had while playing video games is when I did not know what to do (ie: did not know the solution). Execution, and the pursuit of execution, to me, is the fun part. This train of thought is vastly supported by pretty much every raiding guild in every MMO (not to mention every RL sport, but that's another argument). Nearly no guilds learn the boss fights by first hand experience and trial and error, they [mostly] all learn the fights through "reading the strats". This fact lends credibility to the idea that the fun is in the execution.

More relevant to my original post though, I do not mean to suggest that I would want Destiny yo be a "farming" game. Every level of difficulty would have different mechanics and therefore be a different experience, regardless of the gear that you are wearing. Say you begin on level 3 difficulty and the first boss has 3 primary abilities, after a few attempts you master evading his offense and you beat him. Fast forward to level 4 difficulty. The first boss now has 3 primary abilities and 2 secondary abilities. Again, you struggle to execute the proper defense to beat him. Finally after you figure out your failures, you bring him down. These are 2 completely different experiences on the same boss, you should therefore feel like you are not being forced to farm gear, you are merely experiencing all the game has to offer. Let's say you are an incredibly coordinated person with fast reflexes and quick thinking and were able to start on level 4 difficulty and bring down the first boss...Awesome, you get level 4 difficulty gear, but you've missed the experience of level 3 difficulty's first boss. That's not a terrible loss considering there are still 3 more different variations, harder versions of that boss.

I guess what it comes down to is that you would not necessarily feel like you are merely getting gear to compete at the higher difficulties. Rather, you are experiencing the lesser difficulties so that you can experience the greater difficulties.

This idea, to me, fixes Borderlands failures of True Vault Hunter Mode and Ultimate Vault Hunter Mode--where each mode is essentially the same experience as the last.

Usually I played on Heroic in Halo games when playing solo because I found it the right amount of challenge with the right amount of fun. I would be very annoyed to have to play normal before being able to play heroic.

This is the exact opposite of what I suggested. I very much dislike when developers make you unlock difficulty modes. If you can somehow manage the hardest difficulty without having played the others, then more power to you.

I guess what it comes down to is that you would not necessarily feel like you are merely getting gear to compete at the higher difficulties. Rather, you are experiencing the lesser difficulties so that you can experience the greater difficulties.

Wrong on so many levels. I should get to experience the difficulty level that is challenging for me. Why should I have to play easy modes just to later play the modes that are of appropriate difficulty for me?

Usually I played on Heroic in Halo games when playing solo because I found it the right amount of challenge with the right amount of fun. I would be very annoyed to have to play normal before being able to play heroic.

This is the exact opposite of what I suggested. I very much dislike when developers make you unlock difficulty modes. If you can somehow manage the hardest difficulty without having played the others, then more power to you.

This flies in the face of what you said in the post:

Level 4 difficulty would be impossible to make any sort of progress in having not obtained at least some gear from the previous difficulties. So on and so forth for difficulties 5-7 as well.

That's exactly what you are suggesting. You just said right there that if you don't obtain gear from lower difficulty levels, then the higher ones should be impossible to progress in. This means you have to play the easy difficulties if you want to play the harder ones, and that is awful awful design.

I should get to experience the difficulty level that is challenging for me

This is the very point of opening all the difficulties from the start. You are free to choose the difficulty level that is challenging for you. If you start on level 3 difficulty and find it too hard, then you can revert back to level 2 difficulty. Vice verse, if you find it too easy then you are more than welcome to try your hand at level 4 difficulty.

I should get to experience the difficulty level that is challenging for me

This is the very point of opening all the difficulties from the start. You are free to choose the difficulty level that is challenging for you. If you start on level 3 difficulty and find it too hard, then you can revert back to level 2 difficulty. Vice verse, if you find it too easy then you are more than welcome to try your hand at level 4 difficulty.

And what point would there be to that when you said YOU WANTED THE LEVELS TO BE IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT GEAR FROM EASIER LEVELS.

And if you DON'T need gear to be able to succeed on level 7, then the gear merely exists as a way to buff bad players so you don't have to do your job and properly balance the difficulty levels, nor do the players have to actually learn anything or really get any better.

We're having a breakdown in communication somewhere and it's likely because I haven't laid out an exact model of each difficulty level. (This is not some plan I've had for weeks, this is just something that's floating around in my head. Never the less, the confusion is likely my doing.)

Level 4 difficulty (or 3, or 5 ...this number is irrelevant at this point. Just know that at some point in the progression of difficulties there should be a wall that you cannot get over unless you've experienced a lesser difficulty) should seem impossible, and should be all but impossible; however, you are welcome to try your hand at it from the start.

You seem to not factor in the effect that evolving mechanics will have.

Example:
You start up your game, you select the difficulty that befits you and you play the game. Upon finishing the game, you realize that the next level of difficulty is now easier. Heck maybe you even have the ability (and yes, gear) to skip the next level of difficulty and go straight to the next iteration. The bottom line and the crucial point is that no matter which difficulty level you play next, it will be a different experience than the one you've just had because of the additional mechanics.

I'm going to back out of this discussion for a bit. Too many capital letters and it seems to be going nowhere.

It looks like I'm going to be commissioned to make an educational game for my institute's science outreach programs. Just so I'm clear, if you're playing for education, that's good, right? That's not reward?

It's, in a word, hot.

Heh, true enough. I guess I could qualify that statement as competitive/PVP multiplayer.

I gotta say, just from my time around the forums, I really like you, Cody Miller. I might not agree with you all the time, I might not like how you express your my-way-or-the-highway opinions, but, man, your comments spark some excellent discussions. Sure, those discussions could sometimes do without the RAGING DISAGREEMENTS, but even the ideas and opinions expressed in ANGRY-ALL-CAPS are great to read. I love reading what everyone else's opinions on things are, CAPS and all, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, and I just wanted to thank you for being a sort of catalyst for awesome discussions like this. Just work on your delivery a bit and you're golden ;)

It looks like I'm going to be commissioned to make an educational game for my institute's science outreach programs. Just so I'm clear, if you're playing for education, that's good, right? That's not reward?

This is the educational game company everyone should be looking to. Specifically the Super Solvers series. Fun games with an educational twist.

- No text -

It looks like I'm going to be commissioned to make an educational game for my institute's science outreach programs. Just so I'm clear, if you're playing for education, that's good, right? That's not reward?

This is the educational game company everyone should be looking to. Specifically the Super Solvers series. Fun games with an educational twist.

OH MY GOD GIZMOS AND GADGETS!

FIBERGLASS BODY, SHAPED LIKE A ROCKET!!!!!

...if Socrates loved arguing about principles of video games on internet message boards.

Stop corrupting the youth, Cody!

You are also wrong in thinking that opposing rewards means opposing penalties.

Why? if the issue follows your thesis, that rewards cause alter player behavior in a negative way by putting less focus on the now, punishments do the exact same thing. Now the player is altering their behavior to avoid a punishment instead of gain a boon.

Punishment ENHANCES THE NOW.

Which scenario do you think is more thrilling / exciting / satisfying:

1. Hitting a jump shot in a pick up game with your friends in which your team is up by 30 points.
2. Hitting a jump shot at the buzzer, winning the NBA championship by one point.

Obviously number 2. Why? Because something is on the line, and failure leads to severe consequences. Missing the jump shot in 1. is no big deal, thus success carries little satisfaction since failing is not significant. But in 2. if you miss, your team loses the NBA championship, and your team spent the entire season winning for nothing.

In scenarios like 2, you always see an intense outpouring of emotion, proving that these are the most moving experiences people can have. People cannot contain their excitement and pleasure. Nobody jumps and cheers and screams when nothing is on the line.

So, when you undertake a challenge in a video game, and you realize punishment exists for failure, then something is now on the line! This enhances the moment to moment pleasure of playing, through tension.

Thinking about punishment enhances the now by increasing tension. Thinking about reward devalues the now since you realize the now is only a stepping stone to get what you really want.

But what about when you miss the jump shot, or when you're on the team that loses by 30 points? Your example is correct, but you haven't addressed the issue of how punishment isn't similarly bad as rewards are, even though it does nearly the same thing.

Hmm..

Hit a jump shot, gain points, and win the game by 1 point NOW
Hit a jump shot, gain an increase in your season stats towards an award farther down the line.

Miss a jump shot with 2 seconds left, your team loses, NOW
Miss a jump shot with 2 seconds left, you're disqualified from an award farther down the line.

Tension is subjective. Results are absolute. Which is better or worse? Depends who you talk to, what goal(s) they're aiming for, what sort of experience they value more when they play. Functionally, comparing positive and negative results, per examples illustrated above, are the same.

Cumulative results toward a consequence (good or bad) in which you can't lose by failing the condition, only get closer by being fulfilling it; and exclusive results that require only fulfillment in order to be complete, else you fail. (perhaps even a mix of both)

Seems like you were comparing cumulative success (there's no tension in missing a shot because you're not aiming for a goal which penalizes you for missing), with exclusive success (in which there's an element of "tension" NOW because if you lose, you FAIL).

You can have both types of results, rewards and penalties, being cumulative and exclusive. Drop your subjective opinion about which you think is better, and it comes down to how the developer decides to build win and fail scenarios, and what type of emotion they want to draw out of someone while playing.

If they want to attract a Cody, they need to not include cumulative rewards, and only include rewards and/or penalties that occur immediately.
If they want to attract the mainstream gaming crowd, as seems to be the trend these days, they'll include both types of rewards and maybe penalties, but definitely nothing bad that happens immediately (like, die and OMG start the level over?! Moar checkpointz!)

I see your logic, Cody, but you're riddling your arguments with capitals and your opinion as objective truth, and THAT PISSES PEOPLE OFF ;) (also sparks huge, ranting, and sometimes interesting, discussion threads :P)

You are also wrong in thinking that opposing rewards means opposing penalties.

Why? if the issue follows your thesis, that rewards cause alter player behavior in a negative way by putting less focus on the now, punishments do the exact same thing. Now the player is altering their behavior to avoid a punishment instead of gain a boon.

Punishment ENHANCES THE NOW.

Which scenario do you think is more thrilling / exciting / satisfying:

1. Hitting a jump shot in a pick up game with your friends in which your team is up by 30 points.
2. Hitting a jump shot at the buzzer, winning the NBA championship by one point.

There's something inherently self-defeating about your analogy in #2, in that what you call a punishment is not getting a reward you would get as the result of a cumulative record of achievement.

If I need five stickies in a game to get an achievement, and I've got only four with 20 seconds to go, tension is added to the gameplay, and whether you call that the result of a reward or punishment is a question of semantics.

Not winning the NBA is a lack of a reward, not a punishment. Since you still have everything you had before.

Except arguably you may even have more now since you have the experience of coming so close (which is in addition to or greater than experience you may have had in the past).

You're just twisting words (poorly) to try and worm your way out of the fact that your point is fundamentally wrong.

Not winning the NBA is a lack of a reward, not a punishment. Since you still have everything you had before.

Except arguably you may even have more now since you have the experience of coming so close (which is in addition to or greater than experience you may have had in the past).

You're just twisting words (poorly) to try and worm your way out of the fact that your point is fundamentally wrong.

Punishment is necessary to create tension in games, since in 99.99999% of cases there is nothing significant on the line while playing a video game. It's an analogy.

First of all, there seems to be some confusion here as to what certain terms mean, so I'd like to lock them down so that we can move on with the discussion while using a set of terminologies. I am also going to start all the way at the beginning, not to try to belittle you, but so that everyone who reads this is on the same page.

Rewards

A "Reward" I shall define as:
"Something you receive which intends a positive feeling or reinforcement."

Now, this can indeed mean "level 2" as you suggest, as can cutscenes, dollops of story, items, chunks of XP, in-game currency, lore segments, achievements, unlocks in-game, etc etc etc. The reach of this word is far-flung and many people far smarter than me have discussed it to great length.

The important thing about "Rewards", however, is that they tie intrinsically into what makes a "Game". Games (in general, not just videogames) are simply a variety of structured human interaction with an environment which has goals, rules, challenges and rewards (even if that reward is "You won" or "You didn't lose").

Compulsion Loops

In videogames (and, indeed, many other games), what you very-often find is that they are designed around what are known as the "compulsion loop". This term has been given a bad rap recently due to it being linked to slow-burn Facebook games such as Farmville, et al. The Compulsion Loop, however, has always been a part of videogame design from the get go.

A compulsion loop is (at its core) four main steps:

1. Commitment
2. Trigger
3. Action
4. Reward
(5. Repeat)

These may be called different things depending on who you are talking to at the time.

So, to break this down

1. Commitment.
This is your simple act of playing the game, or taking an action in the game, or even paying to play the game. This sets up your mind for what is to come. This includes "I will get to the other side of this room" and "I will finish this level".

2. Trigger.
This is a sudden disparity between how you want things to be (or are told they should be) and how things appear. The prince needs saving, or 3 Grunt Aliens and an Elite Alien enter a room that you must progress through, or a door is locked that you feel like you need to open.

3. Action.
This is the action you take to resolve the trigger. Killing the aliens, progressing through the level towards the kidnapped prince, or you search and enact for a method of opening the door.

4. Reward.
This is what you are given for completing the action succesfully. Ammo, Resources, In-game relationships or reputations, XP, etc as I previously stated.

It should be clearly understood that these aspects are spread throughout games in many different ways, and you will have short, medium and long-term loops, all of which offer rewards. For example, at any given time you may be attempting to:

• Aim at one moving enemy (for the reward of reduced numbers of enemies you are currently facing)
  
• Kill the entire squad of enemies (to allow you to progress the level)
  
• Navigate the specific building/area in which you are currently playing (to see and experience more content)
  
• Finish the current level (To see more story, whether or not you've seen it before, and/or see more content)
  
• Finish the game (To feel a sense of completion)
  
• (Meta-loop) Play the game and feel good.

Motivation and personal commentary.

Now, different people may have different views on what motivates them. You state, for example, that you do not particularly enjoy finishing a game. You do not enjoy the "longest-term" goal (excluding the meta-game of community engagement). Now, this is fine, but the fact that it is there should never be assumed to "undermine the inherent value of the game's moment to moment pleasures" for other players.

Personally, I adore rewarding players in all sorts of ways. When Call of Duty added XP and unlocks, while I rarely played Call of Duty I was very happy with the direction the videogame industry was going. I never enjoyed the "One-Shot and lose it all" methods of Counterstrike, or the original Halo/Halo 2, but loved the addition of XP in later Halo games.

Conclusion (tl;dr)

The point I am trying to make here is that you have ALWAYS had a reward in games you play, of a multitude of different types. Your post, however, seems to suggest that you only like very specific kinds. I would ask that you, simply, understand that one man's meat is another's poison, and that your apparent dislike of long-term rewards is an outlier in the gaming industry's design mantras, let alone business mantras (ie keeping players playing for longer periods of time using XP-based multiplayer).

Nicely put, and an excellent explanation of how this all works. More stuff like this please Ross!

- No text -

- No text -

It sounds like clarity was needed, if not a conclusive agreement or disagreement. :)

The end.

and there's at least three unanswered posts still waving in the wind... at least :P

I hear that :p I put a lot of thought into mine.

That message was meant for the limerick thread! It'd been a while and nobody announced the winners.

- No text -

Apologies for not responding in a timely manner, I didn't see that you had responded under this mountain of a thread.

Punishment ENHANCES THE NOW.

Which scenario do you think is more thrilling / exciting / satisfying:

1. Hitting a jump shot in a pick up game with your friends in which your team is up by 30 points.
2. Hitting a jump shot at the buzzer, winning the NBA championship by one point.

Obviously number 2. Why? Because something is on the line, and failure leads to severe consequences. Missing the jump shot in 1. is no big deal, thus success carries little satisfaction since failing is not significant. But in 2. if you miss, your team loses the NBA championship, and your team spent the entire season winning for nothing.

Right, so something on the line beyond the simple joy of play can increase tension, and improve the now. We both agree to this point. You still haven't established that giving the player a boon for something is somehow different.

I posit that depending on implementation of the reward structure, it is no different. Here's a simple example, time attack modes with ratings or leader boards. These contain both a punishment (hey you didn't go fast enough so you failed and can't get to new content till you get it right) and rewards (Hey you completed the level really fast, here's a trophy to show off, or a place on a leader board, or some bonus content to play with). Monaco is a recent game that does this really well.

And that's just one example, there's many more.

Just a pity they won't listen to their prophet of fun!

Well of course, nothing can be done until his sermon is complete!

Not true! Bungie has a game creation record of 1.2 trillion simulated and 15 actual. They are ready to make games on demand.

Ok fine, that might be true. All that means is that the unwashed masses get a worse experience hunting since they aren't doing it purely for the sake of enjoying the moment of doing it.

I must have glossed over this post when it first went up.

Yesterday, you said to me

I'm sorry if I give off that impression, and that's obviously not true that there's only one way to enjoy a game.

And yet here, you're suggesting - nay, not suggesting, but stating outright - that if you're playing (or hunting, or whatever) for any reason other than the sake of enjoying the moment, your experience is 'worse' than it would be if that WERE your reason for doing what you're doing.

AND THAT IS WRONG. ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG.

It might true for you (maybe) - but it is NOT true for the people you're talking about. It's this absolutist attitude that makes it so difficult to talk to you about this stuff - you've got great ideas, a lot of the time, but they're couched in ways that make me want to throw up my hands and walk away.

Thinking about punishment enhances the now by increasing tension. Thinking about reward devalues the now since you realize the now is only a stepping stone to get what you really want.

ohhhhh
This whole time I thought you were being your pedantic, idealistic, prescriptivist self, but what I quoted, that I get. I still think you're completely wrong in generalizing it to all rewards and all gaming, for reasons that have been talked about plenty, but this is more understandable than "a lot of rewards have negative effects so let's generalize it".