I wrote an essay

[Dundee]

And it is here.

I had some help writing it.  But it was inadvertent help, and that guy is in jail now anyway.

Feedback-n-comments would be better here.  Discussion?

Please to excuse the other random nonsense on my blog.  It's a blog.

[Mr_PeaCH]

Howdy Jeff.

Let me start by saying I think you wrote a good essay.  By that I mean, you took an issue (near and dear to our hearts) and a new slant (Kaczynski) and you worked things through to a logical and sensible conclusion.  Most impressive to me was that I was formulating a couple of thoughts throughout the essay and in your closing paragraph...

Fortunately these aren't opposing play-styles: You needn't choose which to provide to which player. Rather, the player needs to be given choices in how, when and which goals to satisfy, but not the option to opt-out of satisfying any goals at all. The player has to be forced to do something, but just exactly what that something is and how to go about doing it, should be a choice left up to the player.

you pretty much put your finger right on one of them.  And in my little mental gymnastic where pleasure synapses begin firing at the moment I found we were in agreement we sort of see the type of forced-choice-goal-satisfaction dynamic that you're describing.  You "forced" me to read your essay, and as I read it I made a "choice" about where I thought it would take me; as I reached your "goal" I found "satisfaction" in having reached the same conclusion myself.  Alternately, I might have made a choice to disagree with what you said and presumably found satisfaction in coming here to argue the same point.  But let's leave PvP off the table for now shall we?

Another part which I agree with your "Kaczynskied" game design theory is the 'every player is a measure of both type A and B' to which I would extend the analogy that sometimes I feel like an A and other times I'm more B and that games that deliver lots of one but less of the other or character classes that tend to cater to one or the other are a let-down.  But I guess I don't think it's because of a lack of theorizing about this dichotomy among game designers; it's more likely that delivering both is, like... hard and stuff.  Not being a game designer and merely lurking around some boards which are occasionally graced by them, I may well be in the wrong here.

Now I want to tell you the one thing I was hoping to read about in your essay.  I kept waiting for you to "say the secret woid" and you never did.  Can you guess what I was looking for in your Game Design Theory, dare I say hoping to find?

Fun.  I know, I know; I'm hitting below the belt.  But it did occur to me and in light of a recent blogging by Lum it was fresh in my mind.  The notion that many games have implemented theories and even claimed to have learned from past failures (theirs, others) and while the theory behind the game 'works'... it's just not fun.  Your essay was themed in goals and effort and autonomy and success, but it occurred to me that we can have all that in a game and it still not be fun.

So, for what it's worth, there you go.  Maybe it's a place to start and I really would like to discuss it more with you and others; theoretically, specifically, etc.

[Xilren's Twin]

I don't know that I agree with this.  People want goals and autonomy?  Fine.  To a point I think can be true, but as they say, the devil is in the details.  How you successfully implement such a gameworld to satisfy both of these needs of autonomy and forcing players to have goals they want to do is tough.  I think it starts from a false assumption and therefore misses a pretty important point.

Here's my main objection to this reasoning.  Most players' goals are a simple yet nebulous i.e. have fun with the game.  Translating that goal into something concrete in the game often gets done wrongly IMHO.  We're pretty good at giving in-game goals to people (i.e. get to level 10 so you can get cool spell/item/power X!, collect 1million gold and found a city), but to me that's focused on the wrong part.  If the PROCESS of getting to that goal isn't fun, why are we playing?

Kaczynski's Law:

a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals

If we're talking about business, or personal development fine, i'll buy that.  But we're talking about GAMES here; pure entertainment vehicles.  Therefore the focus should be on the EFFORT part being actually entertaining.  My goal in pvp isn't simply to win, it's to have fun whether I win or lose.  My goal in pve isn't to hit max level, it's to have fun playing through the gameworld even if a dragon snacks on me.

That IS the FUCKING GOAL!

IMO of course :)  

Xilren

[Dundee]

Wellllll, sure.  The reason we're playing games to begin with is to have fun, and be entertained.

Sadly, Kaczynski didn't have a lot to say on the topic of 'fun', directly.

I'll argue that if you just wanted to be entertained, you'd watch a movie or read a book.  We play games because we want 'fun' (as opposed to entertainment), and that implies applying some effort on our part.

What's the saying?  Everyone makes their own fun.  Otherwise it's called Entertainment.

You could even say that autonomy is what makes it fun.  Otherwise it's 'work'.

Anyway.

I'm currently playing a ton of Harvest Moon.  I can't think of a single thing in the game that's fun.  Fishing?  Nagh.  Digging for fossils?  Don't think so.  Picking flowers or shaking chickens 'til an egg falls out?  Certainly not.  And I'm pretty sure it's not the un-skipable cut-scenes either.

But overall, the game is a lot of fun for me.  This might be because it satisfies the power-process.  There are goals which must be accomplished.  There are a wide variety of choices to make about how to satisfy those goals.  All of these require some effort, and usually (but not always) that effort pays off.

Point being, that if the game satisfies the power process, then it is fun, because that's what fun means.

Kaczynski would argue that the reason we play games to begin with, is because the 'power process' isn't served in real life.  We have goals (food, clothing, shelter), but these are trivial to obtain (so they don't satisfy the 'effort' aspect).  And we're typically not given enough autonomy to be satisfied (since the way to obtain food, clothing and shelter is to show up at work every day when they tell you to, obey, and don't leave until they tell you that you can).

So we play games to satisfy the power process, and if the game does that for us, then we say, "Ooh!  This game is fun!".

[Xilren's Twin]

But overall, the game is a lot of fun for me.  This might be because it satisfies the power-process.  There are goals which must be accomplished.  There are a wide variety of choices to make about how to satisfy those goals.  All of these require some effort, and usually (but not always) that effort pays off.

Point being, that if the game satisfies the power process, then it is fun, because that's what fun means.

Kaczynski would argue that the reason we play games to begin with, is because the 'power process' isn't served in real life.

Yeah but Kacynski was a fucking nutjob too so take what his says with a giant grain of salt eh?  

Seriously, I feel like we aren't speaking the same language here.  Either that or there a giant disconnect on the concept of fun.

Speaking for myself, I see no manner in which something which satifies the power process somehow magically equals "fun".   Just because I accomplish a reasonably attainable goal with some effort has no bearing on whether the goal itself was worthwhile to me nor if the effort to get there was somehow rewarding in and of itself.  

Here I had long thought mmorpgs were not about the destination but about enjoying the journey, yet by Unabomber logic, the opposite is true. And what scares me is I think most dev's have either conciously or unconciously bought into this same mindset: the end justifying the means in terms of actual gameplay.  Give people in-game goals and they'll happily slog through the most brain dead process imaginable to ge there.  Like say unlocking a force sensitive slot perhaps?  Consider, the most common form of gameplay we've seen in current mmorpgs released to date or still in development is "do something that would be unfun as a stand alone game repeatably until you get X".  Isn't that exactly what you were describing?

Is the process of battling mobs fun in and of itself?
Is the process of crafting items fun in and of itself?
Is running a shop/business/guild enjoyable of itself?

These are the staple activities the player are actually DOING on a daily basis, and most of them suck.  This isn't about backstory, or balance or even difficulty, it's about process.

The process of playing a game should be fun.  Effort does not auto equal fun.  But by the same token, effort also doesn't have to be unfun.  I hope others will chime in b/c I really think this sort of assumption is at the crux with many gamers dissatisfaction of the genre today.  It's about the execution of the effort, not the end state.

Xilren

[HaemishM]

I have to agree with Xilren. No amount of achievement in a game will ever matter to me if the process is not at some point fun. At some point, all processes will become unfun (familiarity breeds contempt), but the longer you can put off the process become unfun, the better.

Complexity of process does not necessarily push the unfun out, but it can help. Simple mechanics with subtle complexities are the best bet, in the abstract.

[Dundee]

Yeah but Kacynski was a fucking nutjob too so take what his says with a giant grain of salt eh?

Heh.  But that's what makes it fun to talk about.

Speaking for myself, I see no manner in which something which satifies the power process somehow magically equals "fun".   Just because I accomplish a reasonably attainable goal with some effort has no bearing on whether the goal itself was worthwhile to me nor if the effort to get there was somehow rewarding in and of itself.

Well sure, we could attach all sorts of conditions and exceptions to the terms used, but can we assume that if the goal isn't worthwhile to you, then it doesn't count as a goal at all?

Here I had long thought mmorpgs were not about the destination but about enjoying the journey, yet by Unabomber logic, the opposite is true.

Not necessarily.  If the theory is correct, then it applies to the journey, too.  i.e. What makes the journey 'fun'?

And what scares me is I think most dev's have either conciously or unconciously bought into this same mindset: the end justifying the means in terms of actual gameplay.  Give people in-game goals and they'll happily slog through the most brain dead process imaginable to ge there.

No, I think that's terrible.  Slogging through brain-dead processes doesn't sound fun to me at all.

Consider, the most common form of gameplay we've seen in current mmorpgs released to date or still in development is "do something that would be unfun as a stand alone game repeatably until you get X".  Isn't that exactly what you were describing?

No, I don't think so.  There's nothing in that essay that speaks to repetition at all.  Most people don't find repetition of any sort very enjoyable.  In fact, I think I said just the opposite:  The player needs lots of choices about whither and how to pursue his (or her) goals.

The process of playing a game should be fun.

I agree.

Effort does not auto equal fun.  But by the same token, effort also doesn't have to be unfun.

True.  It can also be work.  Or it could even just be boring, etc.  I agree that is bad.

[Xilren's Twin]

Well sure, we could attach all sorts of conditions and exceptions to the terms used, but can we assume that if the goal isn't worthwhile to you, then it doesn't count as a goal at all?

But didn't the essary also say we need to force goals onto player so they dont have the option of sitting around autonomouosly doing absolutely nothing?  If we assign goals by fiat, I would think it's rather important if the goal is actually something a player would deem worthwhile.

Not necessarily.  If the theory is correct, then it applies to the journey, too.  i.e. What makes the journey 'fun'?

This is right back to what im talking about with process.  To me, the process should mean engaging gameplay that's enjoyable in and of itself.  Seriously, it's that simple (simple to say anyway).

No, I think that's terrible.  Slogging through brain-dead processes doesn't sound fun to me at all.

But wait a sec, didn't you just say...

I'm currently playing a ton of Harvest Moon. I can't think of a single thing in the game that's fun. Fishing? Nagh. Digging for fossils? Don't think so. Picking flowers or shaking chickens 'til an egg falls out? Certainly not. And I'm pretty sure it's not the un-skipable cut-scenes either.
But overall, the game is a lot of fun for me.

This, to me, does not compute.  All of the process you are doing over and over aren't fun yet your still enjoying playing?  You say this might be because this satisfies the power process.  I'm thinking its more because in that game the unfun activities aren't annoying enough or (more likely) don't take long enough to cause you much disatisfaction.  But, that if you had to do them for 10 times as long and as often the perceived fun of reaching your goals would diminish accordingly.  

Sadly, what you described also sounds like most mmorpgs i've played.  The main difference being time; in a single player game, if you can get through unfun parts quickly they may not be enough of a negative to stop your overall enjoyment.  But in mmorpgs those unfun activities never end or take so damn long they easily eclipse whatever fun the goal might have brought you.  Go take a look in Lineage2 thread to see a prime example of what i think is wrong with mmorpgs today.  There are players actually convinced that slogging through tons of unfun gameplay to acheive some state where suddenly the game play becomes fun is ok.  "It only for the Hardcore".  Bleh; why does they have to be a delay?  Why can't the process itself be the reward.

The process of playing a game should be fun.

I agree.

I glad you agree.  So, in your opinion, why is the process of playing most mmorpgs not fun?  What does it take to design and engaging process?

Xilren

[Jayce]

a fun game is not necessarily a sticky one (though the inverse might be true).

So you are saying that people won't necessarily stick around if a game is fun, but that stickiness MAKES its own fun?  Can't say I'm sold on that one.

Also, a quibble - Bartle types aren't mutually exclusive (though that seems to be a common misconception).  That's why you get percentages when you take the test.

[Dundee]

But didn't the essary also say we need to force goals onto player so they dont have the option of sitting around autonomouosly doing absolutely nothing?  If we assign goals by fiat, I would think it's rather important if the goal is actually something a player would deem worthwhile.

Yes.  If it's not a goal the player deems worthwhile, then it's essentially not a goal at all.  In a perfect world, we let the player choose a goal himself, we just don't allow him to opt-out altogether.

Not necessarily.  If the theory is correct, then it applies to the journey, too.  i.e. What makes the journey 'fun'?

This is right back to what im talking about with process.  To me, the process should mean engaging gameplay that's enjoyable in and of itself.  Seriously, it's that simple (simple to say anyway).

But then how can we explain the Harvest Moon situation:  Where a number of activities that are not 'fun' taken singly, are fun as a whole?

No, I think that's terrible.  Slogging through brain-dead processes doesn't sound fun to me at all.

But wait a sec, didn't you just say...

This, to me, does not compute.  All of the process you are doing over and over aren't fun yet your still enjoying playing?

I didn't mean to imply a high degree of repetitive gameplay.  There are a lot of activities in the game, none of which you do for very long.  Some of them you can't spend a lot of time doing (once you milk the cow, it is milked, you're done and you move on), and others (like fishing) you just don't have to do for longer than you want to.

You say this might be because this satisfies the power process.  I'm thinking its more because in that game the unfun activities aren't annoying enough or (more likely) don't take long enough to cause you much disatisfaction.  But, that if you had to do them for 10 times as long and as often the perceived fun of reaching your goals would diminish accordingly.

Surely.  I shouldn't say that if a game satisfies the power process then it will be fun, but rather, if it doesn't satisfy the power process, then it probably won't be fun.

But that just seems like common sense:  If there are no goals (qualified as you like), the goals are too easily attained, too difficult to attain, or I'm not given enough choice about how go about attaining those goals, then I'm probably not going to enjoy the game.

And games that are too repetitive aren't satisfying the power process.

Sadly, what you described also sounds like most mmorpgs i've played.  The main difference being time; in a single player game, if you can get through unfun parts quickly they may not be enough of a negative to stop your overall enjoyment.

I don't think that it is enough to say "Nothing about this game annoys me, therefore it is fun."  Surely there has to be something fun about a game first, then not spoiled too much by the annoyances a designer's ego has put in your way.

But in mmorpgs those unfun activities never end or take so damn long they easily eclipse whatever fun the goal might have brought you.  Go take a look in Lineage2 thread to see a prime example of what i think is wrong with mmorpgs today.  There are players actually convinced that slogging through tons of unfun gameplay to acheive some state where suddenly the game play becomes fun is ok.  "It only for the Hardcore".  Bleh; why does they have to be a delay?  Why can't the process itself be the reward.

That would be nice.

I glad you agree.  So, in your opinion, why is the process of playing most mmorpgs not fun?

The process of playing many MMORPGs isn't fun because the gameplay is too repetitive.  Goals are unimportant or even irrelevant to the players.  Some of them are too easy, and even the ones that aren't 'too easy' will become too easy over time, as players master the game.

But that's also not a completely fair question, because many MMO's are fun for many people for a long time.  'Many' all being relative, of course.

Old Man Murray's Rune Review springs to mind:
He puts his outstretched palms about two inches away from each other and says "simplistic, repetitive melee combat is fun for this LONG".  Then he stretches his arms apart as wide as they'll go and says "our game is this LONG."

What does it take to design and engaging process?

"Come up with a core gameplay dynamic which is fun, and build upon that" is fairly common design philosophy, believe it or not.

But MMO's need a lot more depth and breadth (also width, height and some undiscovered dimension, I guess) than the stock 10-hours-of-shootin' FPS.

[Dundee]

a fun game is not necessarily a sticky one (though the inverse might be true).

So you are saying that people won't necessarily stick around if a game is fun, but that stickiness MAKES its own fun?  Can't say I'm sold on that one.

No, I'm saying that just because a game is fun doesn't mean that people will continue playing it for a long time

But that if you see a game that people do play for a long time, it's probably a fun game.

Correlation, though, not causation.

Also, a quibble - Bartle types aren't mutually exclusive (though that seems to be a common misconception).  That's why you get percentages when you take the test.

The theory is that the more like one thing you are, the less like the other.  The test (which Bartle didn't write) enforces this by forcing you to choose one side or another like the Ultima Gypsy.  Nick Yee's survey didn't force respondents to choose, and failed to find the inverse correlation that Bartle's Essay assumes exists.

[HRose]

Correlated thread:
http://www.corpnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=651