Thursday, August 18, 2011

Article: The Problem with Achievements

I have noticed that games can be classified along a certain spectrum, with "flow" on one end, and "rewards" on the other.

Basically, there are games that try to give you a great experience by sucking you into the world and make you forget you're playing a game, and then there are games where you try to get all the achievements, upgrades, rewards and trophies until you see the words "100% complete" on the menu screen.

Prime examples of the former end are Adventure games like MYST, or moody games like Silent Hill, while the later game type includes Tony Hawk games, and casual genres like Tower Defense games.

Of course, the line grays in the middle, where games like RPGs might go.*

Now, here's the big problem:  the flow end of the spectrum is universally more fun than the reward side.

Hardly a controversial statement, of course; studies relating to games and other tasks have shown that when you do something with no reward, you're doing it simply because you enjoy it; you do it to do it, in other words.  But when you do something and expect a reward, the joy comes from receiving the reward, not performing the act.

Ever talked to a kid's baseball team that just lost a game?  Those kids didn't have fun.  The winners had fun.  But the teams played the same game.  To them, the batting, pitching, catching, throwing, and running is all just stuff you have to get through to score or prevent the opponent from scoring.  Every score is a small reward, as well as each out on the opponent.  The biggest reward is winning, and without it, the kids have no fun.

But if you listen to pros, who play the game because they love the game, when the press interviews the a player from the losing team, the disappointment is always mild:  "You win some you lose some, we'll just work on our game a bit more and practice, but we played a good game."

Then there is always the example of an ump making a bad call and the coach flips, or a fight happens on the field.  This happens when the team wants to win, they seek the reward, and when something sets them back they explode with rage.  Rage is not an emotion I tend to associate with a good time.

Pictured: fun!
And even though achievement games aren't always that fun, even though they might be frustrating, and we throw our controllers and scream when we screw up, we still play.

Rewards are addicting.  Rewards are nicotine and heroin.  A pleasant smoke becomes a necessary moneysink when the addiction kicks in.

The same works for games.  I have played completion games again and again, long after they stopped being fun, even after I've gotten 100% I reset and play again.  I don't even enjoy the rewards on the second runthrough, but I am still addicted and have to keep playing.

We shouldn't let our players be addicted to games.  They've already bought the game, so there is no need, from a business point of view, to keep them hooked.

Of course, different types of games and payment methods might appear to change the case, like MMOs, but even then, I argue that good old-fashioned enjoyable gameplay should be its own reward.  People will continue to play non-addictive, flow-driven MMOs as long as new content keeps getting released.

Rewards become a copout for bad games; it's almost as if the creator is saying "Sorry the game sucks, and thanks for sitting through it, so here's a cookie."  And even when the gameplay is good, a reward on top of that diminishes the enjoyment of the gameplay, making it feel worse than if there was no reward. (Again.)

Reward-based games are a guilty "pleasure" for me; I still play them often, even though I get no fun, and I wish I didn't waste my time on them.

Pictured: games!
We should fix this within the industry by minimizing, or at least offsetting reward-based games in favor of flow-based games.

-----

*Aside:  My thoughts on the middle ground

I've noticed a major problem with RPGs that generally prevents me from liking too many, and ultimately, I think the cause is that the two sides of the flow/completion line are having a tug of war with RPGs.

While I do play RPGs, my first playthrough is an experience marked by atmosphere, storytelling, and as little grind as possible.  I want my RPG experience as close to the flow end of the spectrum as possible, and I don't like RPGs that don't give me that option.

After beating an RPG once, I switch gears and on a second playthrough my brain enters completion mode, and I try to get 100% completion, and I start to get frustrated when the story gets in the way.

This is the dichotomy that hurts my RPG playing experience, but it comes out just fine in other genres.  Notably, it works in the games which are "mostly moody" with extra content afterwards.  The best example that springs to mind is Shadow of the Colossus, where your first playthrough is forced into the flow side of the scale, and when you beat the game once, all of the extra content gets unlocked.  Shadow of the Colossus forces your hand and makes you play it the flow way first.  Silent Hill does the same thing.  Even God of War does this to a degree.

The opposite cannot happen.  I can't play a game to complete it first, then go for a moody second playthrough, because the moody side of the spectrum only really works once, on the first playthrough.  It's like watching a suspense movie a second time:  it loses the suspense because you know everything already.

No comments:

Post a Comment