Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

On addictive design in RPGs

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
I try to make games that are enjoyable but not addictive. I want people to be able to pick them up, put them down when they have something more important to do (which should be almost anything), and eventually stop playing entirely.

I always thought he just had bad opinions and was a bad writer, but this is absurd. It's one of the most condescending, self-serving loads of shit I've ever seen a developer say.
First of all, not wanting to make addictive games is bad for business, so he's already wrong there. He shouldn't try to harm the company that employs him.

The worst part is that he's fully convinced that playing games should be one's lowest priority, and that everyone should get rid of them after playing. He doesn't know what people can do in their free time, he doesn't know what games mean to each person, he doesn't realize that gaming is a much better addiction than most common alternatives. Sure, people should do more than work, pay bills and play games. Still, why the hell does Sawyer think he can tell players what they should be doing with their time? Can he even define - objectively - when a person's addicted to a game in the first place?
It takes a special type of idiot to undermine the hobby that puts food on his own table.

All of this bullshit because games require electricity.
 
Last edited:

Trashos

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
3,413
I try to make games that are enjoyable but not addictive. I want people to be able to pick them up, put them down when they have something more important to do (which should be almost anything), and eventually stop playing entirely.

I always thought he just had bad opinions and was a bad writer, but this is absurd. It's one of the most condescending, self-serving loads of shit I've ever seen a developer say.
First of all, not wanting to make addictive games is bad for business, so he's already wrong there. He shouldn't try to harm the company that employs him.

The worst part is that he's fully convinced that playing games should be one's lowest priority, and that everyone should get rid of them after playing. He doesn't know what people can do in their free time, he doesn't know what games mean to each person, he doesn't realize that gaming is a much better addiction than most common alternatives. Sure, people should do more than work, pay bills and play games. Still, why the hell does Sawyer think he can tell players what they should be doing with their time? Can he even define - objectively - when a person's addicted to a game in the first place?
It takes a special type of idiot to undermine the hobby that puts food on his own table.

All of this bullshit because games require electricity.

Yes, I don't get it either, what's all that BS about games requiring electricity? Have Californians lost it completely? Enviromentalism is one thing, but this sounds like hysteria.

Also, I agree that the "addictive" part is very weird. How does he try to make the games non-addictive? What would he do differently if he wanted to make addictive games? I don't get it.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
But all the electricity lost in the endless threats bemoaning PoEs faults, man that's a terrible foodprint right there, he made it addictive to talk shit about the game
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
I would absolutely love it if the Codex was so traumatized by Sawyer that they started holding up f2p gambling and treadmill games as a paragon of game design. Everyone sitting around and discussing the merits of Candy Crush Saga and Dungeon Keeper Mobile. That would be epic.

Make it happen.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
ITT we find out that Codexians don't know the difference between 'addictive' and 'engaging'

(or think 'addictive' is a good thing, which makes grinding in WoW the pinnacle of great gameplay)

(which is worse)
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
ITT we find out that Codexians don't know the difference between 'addictive' and 'engaging'

(or think 'addictive' is a good thing, which makes grinding in WoW the pinnacle of great gameplay)

(which is worse)
Can't say ITT we find out anything about you, as it seems your stupidity was well established long before I joined the Codex.

Sawyer himself tries to describe how a player who isn't "addicted" should behave:
I want people to be able to pick them up, put them down when they have something more important to do (which should be almost anything), and eventually stop playing entirely.

Which is just as idiotic as your conclusion.
 

Trashos

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
3,413
All the best games I have played, I consider them addictive. That's what made me come back for more and more. Maybe he means something different, but then someone should explain.

Now, where is my cigarette.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
All the best games I have played, I consider them addictive. That's what made me come back for more and more. Maybe he means something different, but then someone should explain.

Now, where is my cigarette.

"Addictive" means something built around a fast frustration-reward cycle. Classic examples are the Civilization series with "just one more round," most RTS's, and just about every MMO ever where the moneymaking model is to keep people playing no matter what. And of course almost every "casual" game from Angry Birds to Candy Crush. It's based on a treadmill of frequent rewards for repetitive actions which hooks directly into your dopamine system.

"Engaging" means something that snags your imagination, intelligence, or emotions. It's a goal that's inherently opposed to "addictive," because eventually the story will end, the puzzles will be solved, or the system will be mastered, and that's it... until, perhaps, you return to it a few years later.

Addictive games can have engaging elements and vice versa of course; Civ has a quite a bit of system to master which is engaging rather than addictive, and most RPG's also rely on character and gear progression which are addictive rather than engaging. So while the two are opposed, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
 

Trashos

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
3,413
Prime Junta, good explanation. But...

"Engaging" means something that snags your imagination, intelligence, or emotions. It's a goal that's inherently opposed to "addictive," because eventually the story will end, the puzzles will be solved, or the system will be mastered, and that's it... until, perhaps, you return to it a few years later.

... I will argue that the best case scenario is a combination of "engaging" and "addictive". I am not being theoretical here, my 2 favorite videogames are the Football Manager series (one.more.game) and Civ4 (one.more.turn). Both are very demanding intellectually too.

You noted how most RPGs also offer rewards at short notice in the form of kill XP (not PoE, but the reason for not using this system is supposed to be different). What I am trying to say is that "engaging" and "addictive" are not opposed (the way you describe them), but complementary. Excellence requires both.
 
Last edited:

Prime Junta

Guest
... I will argue that the best case scenario is a combination of "engaging" and "addictive". I am not being theoretical here, my 2 favorite videogames are the Football Manager series (one.more.game) and Civ4 (one.more.turn). Both are very demanding intellectually too.

Note how most RPGs also offer rewards at short notice in the form of kill XP (not PoE, but the reason for not using this system is supposed to be different). What I am trying to say is that "engaging" and "addictive" are not opposed (the way you describe them), but complementary. Excellence requires both.

That's a matter of taste. I only enjoy addictive mechanics in my games if they proceed naturally from the premise (e.g. tech development in a strategy game).

I don't like them if they're there just to hook the player (e.g. reward for performing an activity rather than accomplishing a goal).

With RPG's specifically, I have a strong preference for engaging over addictive. I by far prefer games which feature strong systems, strong story, strong lore, or strong exploration over games built around progression, XP rewards, or some such.

A part of this is, I suppose, aesthetic. Addictive designs are cheap. Flappy Bird is addictive. If you feel it necessary to stuff mechanics like that into an RPG, it suggests that you don't trust your systems and content to be strong enough to keep the player interested, or you're chasing some secondary goal -- keeping the player playing to bilk more money out of them (MMO's), meeting a "must be X hours long" goal set by marketing, or whatever.

DA: Inquisition is a great example of what happens to RPG's when addictive design takes over -- endless grinding, endless gear progression around just numbers going up, endless "find all the shards" questing, and so on and so forth.

The Witcher 3 is also greatly weakened by the addictive design elements -- the treasure hunts for example; if they had just focused on making it as engaging as possible it would've been a much stronger game overall. CDProjekt does engaging content exceptionally well and W3 has it in spades; all that addictive filler just dilutes it.

tl;dr addictive design embodies the decline, behead designers advocating it
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
There's lot of options in-between addictive mobile trash and "pick-up and play" games where you fuck around with them for half an hour then drop them to watch the evening news or take a nap. You can't do that with Thief for example because there's no hand holding and the levels are huge, there's no radar and you rely on excellent sound effects, not to mention that the game is immersive as fuck and just draws you in. If Josh were charged with making a Thief sequel today, he'd end up watching a series of videos of idiots getting lost in Bafford's manor as an inspiration before getting to work.

Not that Sawyer should be attacked for this or anything, he's just being honest in this instance instead of spouting platitudes (we're so passionate about our work, we love our customers, we're always interested in pushing the envelope etc.) other modern designers/people in the gaming industry do, when the reality is that they feel exactly as he does which is evidenced in the bland, mediocre products they make.

Being passionate and ambitious about your work does reflect in the end product, it's a cliche phrase but it does (it's not enough on its own to make a classic that will stand the test of time of course but still a prerequisite in the vast majority of cases). Gaming industry got too big for its own good, creative people either got pushed out or mellowed down and settled into "pay bills/raise family mode" and as a result we're left with a bunch of old farts that have nothing more to give and hamster wheel people that are enthusiastic about their work about as much as your average post office receptionist.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,656
I try to make games that are enjoyable but not addictive. I want people to be able to pick them up, put them down when they have something more important to do (which should be almost anything), and eventually stop playing entirely.

I always thought he just had bad opinions and was a bad writer, but this is absurd. It's one of the most condescending, self-serving loads of shit I've ever seen a developer say.
First of all, not wanting to make addictive games is bad for business, so he's already wrong there. He shouldn't try to harm the company that employs him.

The worst part is that he's fully convinced that playing games should be one's lowest priority, and that everyone should get rid of them after playing. He doesn't know what people can do in their free time, he doesn't know what games mean to each person, he doesn't realize that gaming is a much better addiction than most common alternatives. Sure, people should do more than work, pay bills and play games. Still, why the hell does Sawyer think he can tell players what they should be doing with their time? Can he even define - objectively - when a person's addicted to a game in the first place?
It takes a special type of idiot to undermine the hobby that puts food on his own table.

All of this bullshit because games require electricity.

Why did you say you want people to eventually stop playing your games entirely? And why are you making RPGs if that's the case, since they're usually lengthy games and made with replayability in mind?
Because there is a world outside that is awesome and terrible and people should engage it most of the time instead of continually retreating from it.

RPGs are long and can have a lot of content, but they don't encourage you sit and play them incessantly. They don't demand that you play them multiple times. And if you do play them multiple times, there's nothing that says you have to do back to back playthroughs. Replayability is a side-effect of non-linear quest design and supporting role-playing in general, not a goal in itself.

Many MMOs are designed to be addictive and actively encourage players to play incessantly -- or close to it. A lot of social games encourage players to play the game at regular intervals. I don't like that. I don't want to make games that cause people to deprioritize other aspects of their lives.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
ITT we find out that Codexians don't know the difference between 'addictive' and 'engaging'

(or think 'addictive' is a good thing, which makes grinding in WoW the pinnacle of great gameplay)

(which is worse)

Addictive - wel, I belive it is games like Cookie Clicker or Clicker Heroes.
Engaging - Fallout, BG, System Shock.
PoE? Boring.

Btw still don't get it what pontification mean. :(

Sawyer himself tries to describe how a player who isn't "addicted" should behave:
I want people to be able to pick them up, put them down when they have something more important to do (which should be almost anything), and eventually stop playing entirely.

But thas have no sense at all. Sawyer confer games with a properties they do not possess. It's not a games that keep them in chains, it is themself who can't control them.
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
All the best games I have played, I consider them addictive. That's what made me come back for more and more. Maybe he means something different, but then someone should explain.

Now, where is my cigarette.

"Addictive" means something built around a fast frustration-reward cycle. Classic examples are the Civilization series with "just one more round," most RTS's, and just about every MMO ever where the moneymaking model is to keep people playing no matter what. And of course almost every "casual" game from Angry Birds to Candy Crush. It's based on a treadmill of frequent rewards for repetitive actions which hooks directly into your dopamine system.

"Engaging" means something that snags your imagination, intelligence, or emotions. It's a goal that's inherently opposed to "addictive," because eventually the story will end, the puzzles will be solved, or the system will be mastered, and that's it... until, perhaps, you return to it a few years later.

Addictive games can have engaging elements and vice versa of course; Civ has a quite a bit of system to master which is engaging rather than addictive, and most RPG's also rely on character and gear progression which are addictive rather than engaging. So while the two are opposed, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Addictive means with a tendency to cause harmful need to do something. It's a medical condition, not a game design philosophy term is being misused here much like millenials and "literally". It's also a myth most of the time, but that's a different subject.
It was used hyperbolically by Sawyer while he was speaking out against extended use and multiple playthroughs. Roguey's second quote reinforces it:

Why did you say you want people to eventually stop playing your games entirely? And why are you making RPGs if that's the case, since they're usually lengthy games and made with replayability in mind?
Because there is a world outside that is awesome and terrible and people should engage it most of the time instead of continually retreating from it.

RPGs are long and can have a lot of content, but they don't encourage you sit and play them incessantly. They don't demand that you play them multiple times. And if you do play them multiple times, there's nothing that says you have to do back to back playthroughs. Replayability is a side-effect of non-linear quest design and supporting role-playing in general, not a goal in itself.

Many MMOs are designed to be addictive and actively encourage players to play incessantly -- or close to it. A lot of social games encourage players to play the game at regular intervals. I don't like that. I don't want to make games that cause people to deprioritize other aspects of their lives.

Also part of his argument is the fictional removal of one's free will, typical SJW bullshittery. I'd be inclined to agree if he was talking about games that prey on "whales" and try to rip people off, but he's arguing against extended use in general.
Most MMOs have constant positive feedback and rewards, yes, but they're same type of rewards and feedback these "addicted" players would find elsewhere. If the "addicted" didn't spend 60 hours a week playing WoW, he'd find some other game with fetch quests, constant XP and random loot.

WoW-like MMOs with raids and loot with extremely low drop rates are not addictive, just like a lottery isn't. They're a tax on stupidity, designed to reward people just enough to keep them hoping and coming back for more. One could very well argue against that type of design, as I do, but the fact they prey on the weak does not mean they're addictive. Not in the true sense, anyway.

Sawyer thinks playing multiple back to back playthroughs is too much already. Wanting people to play his games a couple of playthroughs at most and eventually stop playing is not helping anyone against "addiction". It's just Sawyer being a self-serving, condescending idiot who thinks he's saving the world by having his players consume less electricity.
 

Duraframe300

Arcane
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
6,395
Addictive means with a tendency to cause harmful need to do something. It's a medical condition, not a game design philosophy term is being misused here much like millenials and "literally". It's also a myth most of the time, but that's a different subject.


:updatedmytxt:
 

Trashos

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
3,413
OK, I am not the right person to carry the argument here, since I have never played MMOs (when I want to compete directly against people, I do sports or play chess), FB games, DA:I or Witcher 3. I 'll keep what you guys are saying in mind, but I want to emphasize that the Codex Top 50 list is full of RPGs with kill XP.

Addictive means with a tendency to cause harmful need to do something. It's a medical condition, not a game design philosophy term is being misused here much like millenials and "literally".

I think Prime Junta does have a point when he says:

"Addictive" means something built around a fast frustration-reward cycle.

I just don't think this bad in itself as a partial element. On the cotrary, I consider it necessary in entertainment (as a part of a whole).

Also:

Also part of his argument is the fictional removal of one's free will, typical SJW bullshittery.

Agreed, I got a strong authoritarian vibration from Josh's sayings. Like he feels the need to protect me, 'cause I am an idiot.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
I just don't think this bad in itself as a partial element. On the cotrary, I consider it necessary in entertainment (as a part of a whole).

I'll have to qualify what I previously said: it's not always and inevitably bad. It becomes bad if it doesn't flow naturally from the mechanics or premise or incentivises behaviour that's otherwise rote, repetitive, or unnatural.

For example, XP for mine clearing in KOTOR 2, combined with a bunch of big fat minefields (e.g. on Telos). Clearing mines is completely rote and unchallenging, and the XP reward pushes you to lawnmow the minefields. Alternative strategies become objectively worse.

It's even worse if it becomes a core gameplay element, e.g. grinding respawning mobs, fetch-me-10-of-this quests, or similar, as is the case in much of modern RPG design.

Systemic XP works great for games entirely built around systems -- roguelikes for example. It's a poor fit for games built around hand-built content.

Kill XP in classic RPG's isn't there to make the games better; it's there because it was inherited from tabletop RPG's which had it (and where it isn't a problem because of the role of the DM who moderates and adjudicates). By now it's simply so deeply entrenched that removing it leads to a huge howl.

The same applies to all 'addictive' mechanics. If it's a natural consequence of the premise and mechanics, it can complement it well; there is an addictive dimension to almost all turn-based games, for example, and tuning the length of the turn for maximal enjoyment is a big part of it. If it's 'designed in' specifically to hook the player and keep him hooked, I don't like it. (And yes, it's usually easy to tell.)

Far be it from me to interpret the words of Saint Joshua, but I do get the impression that when dissing addictiveness he is talking about the bad kind -- stuff that's been put in specifically to be addictive -- and not the good kind -- stuff that's addictive as a side effect of a good design.

(How well he actually reaches these goals is a different topic and one that I don't feel like exploring right now.)
 

Fairfax

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
3,518
OK, I am not the right person to carry the argument here, since I have never played MMOs (when I want to compete directly against people, I do sports or play chess), FB games, DA:I or Witcher 3. I 'll keep what you guys are saying in mind, but I want to emphasize that the Codex Top 50 list is full of RPGs with kill XP.

Addictive means with a tendency to cause harmful need to do something. It's a medical condition, not a game design philosophy term is being misused here much like millenials and "literally".

I think Prime Junta does have a point when he says:

"Addictive" means something built around a fast frustration-reward cycle.

I just don't think this bad in itself as a partial element. On the cotrary, I consider it necessary in entertainment (as a part of a whole).

Positive and negative feedback loops are necessary, and are neither good or bad. At the end of the day, you can have a ton of feedback loops but fail to entertain the player.
A game like Civ has multiple, immediate consequences at every turn, and even during turns where the player is just waiting, one can see the rest of the map unfold in ways that also reflect the player's decisions. There's always something new to observe and interpret at every turn, and every single game is different. That's great game design. Doesn't mean it's addictive at all, let alone harmful.

Also:

Also part of his argument is the fictional removal of one's free will, typical SJW bullshittery.

Agreed, I got a strong authoritarian vibration from Josh's sayings. Like he feels the need to protect me, 'cause I am an idiot.
I meant this in both in the sense that you mention, and also in regard to this idea that a video game could be addictive. As if players weren't well aware of what they're doing and what they're getting from it.
People spend thousands of hours in WoW because they want to. They don't have a physical dependence or some helpless compulsion. If they wanted to stop, they'd stop. Most do at some point.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
6,165
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Serpent in the Staglands Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
People spend thousands of hours in WoW because they want to. They don't have a physical dependence or some helpless compulsion. If they wanted to stop, they'd stop. Most do at some point.

It's not really that simple. If it was then a lot of the people who quit WoW to play Swtor would have dived back into WoW, but a lot of them just moved on from MMOs.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
The material impact of video games is fairly low, as are individual rates of consumption (for the majority of people, anyway). The more video games move toward full digital distribution, the smaller their environmental impact should become. Video games do require a lot of electricity to both make and play, which does have a negative impact and is perhaps the most difficult thing to reconcile. I try to make games that are enjoyable but not addictive. I want people to be able to pick them up, put them down when they have something more important to do (which should be almost anything), and eventually stop playing entirely.

Oh my god. This is the best quote ever, Roguey!

The main purpose of a game developer is to create games that players will enjoy. The games that players enjoy the most have a common characteristic: they are addicting. Being paid to make games that are purposely not addicting is like being paid to make chocolates for people that hate sugar. It doesn’t make any sense and it’s counter-productive. So, let me get this straight. Sawyer and Tin Cain made a combat system in PoE that was streamlined and bland just because they wanted to be more inclusive. Now, Sawyer talks about how he doesn’t want players getting addicted in order to save electricity! He wants then to save their time to do something more important. Let me guess, they should play less games in order to save the environment! Jesus Fucking Christ. The studio should be renamed “SJW entertainment”.
 

Duraframe300

Arcane
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
6,395
Edit: Eh, forget what I wrote.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom