But… I like it when number go up!
How about when the number goes up and has a real-time effect on the world you play in, showing you the fruit of your labour growing as you progress further and further?
I mean that sounds nice, but honestly I don’t “progress” nearly as much as I “faff about” so stuff like XP lets me have the illusion of progress while I spend 30 hours roaming around the starting area looking for collectibles. I’m not sure what a real-time effect on that would look like.
Agreed. There’s a reason there’s an entire genre of mobile games doing exactly that
Addiction? Greed?
I haven’t played Tears of the Kingdom but that construction mechanic seems like the coolest and most engaging implementation of “crafting” ever.
It’s so good. I’ve been playing it again and it is hard to stop sometimes.
When I learned that frozen meat had ice physics and I could glue a pile of the stuff to the bottom of a plank with a fan on it to make an all-terrain sled I knew it was the greatest mechanic ever added to a video game
Nintendo fans when their game is just gmod:
They knew more people would try to fly everywhere so they made the wing disappear after a minute or so… But then we figured out how to make a perfectly balanced single fan flier 😌
Really depends on the genre but especially AAA have definitely over done it. Personally I love terraria and forager and those games are grindy like that but it fits the game. As opposed to the loot/crafting system in Control, that game really didn’t need it and would have been more enjoyable without it (tho I still really enjoyed the game due to the story and telekinesis combat)
Yeah, Terraria is a great example of a game where the grind is integral to the game. Needing to get 20 drops from a particular creature encourages you to explore the specific zone deeply enough to really enjoy it. There’s no story to progress through, it’s just exploration and grinding to get different materials.
Similarly for Minecraft. Is it “grinding” to mine diamonds at z-level 11, or is that the game?
JRPGs and MMOs are the ones who generally don’t respect your time with their XP grind systems.
I’m sorry what’s wrong with xp?
XP-based progression isn’t always padding. It definitely isn’t hard to find examples where it is, but it’s also a pretty good solution to a common problem: you want the game to present a hero’s journey, where you start out weak and eventually become powerful, but you want a generic way to handle the players’ progress.
It’s really the same as the debate in TTRPGs like D&D, where the DM could either reward levels based on XP earned from killing monsters, or could forego that altogether and award levels at set points in the story. In a video game setting where you intend things to be really open ended / the player should have a lot of freedom about what tasks they do and in what order, it’s hard to handcraft exactly what each player’s adventure and progression should look like, so an XP system is a really simple way to generalize it for everyone.
It’s only padding if it requires you to engage with a lot of content that you otherwise wouldn’t want to do, before you can progress the story you’re actually interested in. But that’s not the fault of the system itself, it’s in how the designers chose to use it.
This meme has application versatility like Angry Hitler.
It’s true but while no padding would be ideal, I’ll take busywork padding over NES style “overwhelming difficulty spike” padding any day.
Yeah FUCK that shit, that’s why I’m not into retro games at all. Oldest I’m going is Quake
Oh I play retrogames alright
But in emulation, with save states and rewind. And fuck any pretentious retrogamer that would call me a faker for that.
Disagree. Progress is good. It’s grinding when it becomes too much. A little salt on my chips is good, too much is inedible.
Too many people want games to just be the end and it’s terrible. I gotta assume this is mostly coming from kids with a ruined attention span.
Doesn’t experience points based progress imply grinding?
There are more ways to have progression and I agree that exp points is a lazy (or pay2win) solution.
It implies a reward for work, which is a basic model all games use for basically everything you do.
How is it pay 2 win if you’re not paying anything?
[edit] Okay, you said “or” xD Yeah, I’m sure Call of Duty would sell it to you.
If you cannot complete a task cause you aren’t strong enough, you have to either grind for exp or get better gear by collecting pointless objects and doing the list based crafting.
These things have nothing to do with any story progression and just suck up time and that’s the point of the meme. You can perfectly design a game that uses less lazy ways of giving players a rewarding feeling that don’t hold off the story line or take loads of time.
There is nothing wrong with gamers that want to have this, it’s that every game that goes this route is not for a lot of casual games so it’s not nice that almost every rpg goes this route.
Why I’m dragging pay to win into this, I don’t know. Frustration with current generation games probably 😆 Also that they want you to spend lots of time in the game so you would spend more money in it, while I want to just play 1-2 hours and have a nice experience and story.
Really depends. Exp points range from a mere UI feature for skill progress (you’ve picked a lock you’re this much closer to getting better at picking locks), over fungible skill progress (you’ve picked 100 locks so you get stronger and can spend a skill point on archery), to pay2win madness.
Structurally exp points come into play each time any progression in a game is not immediate – “defeat the guardian at the gate, now you can go through the gate” has a 1:1 relationship between things-you-do to more-access-to-things, if you have to collect ten fox skins to gift to the guardian to let you through that’s a 10:1 relationship. Doesn’t sound like exp but in the raw game mechanics those things are isomorphic.
…to bring that later point a bit into perspective: Imagine a card game where you have five stacks of ten cards. You draw cards from the first stack (not just the top card) until you get a certain card that’s guaranteed to be in there (say the ace of spades), once you have it you can continue to draw from that stack, or move on to the second stack. Once you’ve drawn the special card from the last stack the game is presumed over though you’re free to both draw from any stack that still has cards on it, as well as sit around on the table doing nothing.
Doesn’t sound like a game? Uninteresting? It depends: It’s the mechanics of your usual walking simulator and they can tell very good stories. It’s progression by (semi-)random n:1 actions. If the environmental storytelling is good, if the setting is engaging, if the mystery is enticing, then time will pass like nothing. If you’re doing it with actual cards yes it’s pure grind.
tl;dr: It’s (modulo pay2win bullshit) not about the raw game mechanics, but how they’re dressed up, that make things grindy or not.
There are lots of other ways for progression instead of inflicting more damage because of some numbers.
I think of:
-
Just getting better at jumping/slashing/tactics
-
Having limited gear that you have to switch out or improve throughout the story
-
Gaining new abilities or allies
And just that if you keep “improving” and inflicting more damage and have higher defense, at the same time the opponents become stronger, it would have been the exact same difficulty level if the numbers just stayed the same.
And just that if you keep “improving” and inflicting more damage and have higher defense, at the same time the opponents become stronger, it would have been the exact same difficulty level if the numbers just stayed the same.
There’s two main aspects to this:
You want the difficulty curve for the PC to be steeper than for the player for well balanced gameplay, if it’s the other way around or stays completely flat things tend to get sluggish and/or boring fast. That is, while the PC character goes from nobody to world-saving superhero legend the player only needs to have a modicum of skill increase to get an erm sense of pride and accomplishment. You can challenge player skill by giving them more to handle when it comes to controlling the PC, say that extra move a skillpoint unlocked now needs additional timing and tactics, to use it properly the player, not the PC, will have to learn that skill, too.
Then, levelling up PC power also provides a check on what regions the player can (sanely) access giving a natural way to unlock regions over time, prompting players not to run everywhere but stay in a region for a while, explore, see things, etc, without feeling boxed in by “find key to unlock door” tropes. That way you can have an open world and still write a (mostly) linear story, in principle even without having a main quest. Of course, don’t auto-level enemies then. If enemies would be trivial at the PC’s power level rather make them run away.
That player skill progression doesn’t work if the optimal gameplay in each and every situation no matter what character you start out as, over the whole game, is to play a stealth archer, looking at you Skyrim. Meaning that it’s important to triple and quadruple-check whether your design allows players to optimise the fun out of the game which they will invariably do if given the chance. That btw is why killing things in Witcher 3 gives so little XP: If you want to grind XP the most efficient way is to do side quests, those dastardly game designers really trick you into playing the game, how devious :)
Usually you should have an experience in mind and bullet-proof your mechanics to provide that experience. Or at the very least be aware of what kinds of experience can be cheesed out of mechanics that you brainstorm. Whether you discover an experience you want to convey from mechanics you come up with or you craft mechanics to elicit a particular experience: Ultimately a game isn’t about the mechanics, they’re a tool to direct player behaviour and with that player experience.
-
