On addictive design in RPGs

[Prime Junta]

Not to mention that RPGs usually don't employ intentional Skinner's boxes or psychological manipulation.

Haven't played many AAA RPG's released in the past 10 years or so, have you?

 

[Lacrymas]

Haven't played many AAA RPG's released in the past 10 years or so, have you?

Actually I can't think of having played anything AAA besides trying out the Witchers. :p Besides, I said usually while picturing AAA devs. There's also the interesting angle of how many AAA titles can actually be considered RPGs that have come out in the last 10 years.

 

[Latro]

Addiction - Addiction is a medical condition that is characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.

Frankly, it sounds like Sawyer is speaking from the 90's or some shit.

It's current year!!!!

Children are literally spending a significant part of their childhood on LoL, Minecraft, or whatever genuinely addictive (and designed to be addictive, many have cash shops) videogames out at the moment. When was the last time CRPGs have had any sort of influence Sawyer croons about to be considered "addicting"? These days the "grognard" is an enlightened man with many eclectic tastes, a true connosieur of digital experiences. He's out of touch.

 

[Lacrymas]

Frankly, it sounds like Sawyer is speaking from the 90's or some shit.

It's current year!!!!

Children are literally spending a significant part of their childhood on LoL, Minecraft, or whatever genuinely addictive (and designed to be addictive, many have cash shops) videogames out at the moment. When was the last time CRPGs have had any sort of influence Sawyer croons about to be considered "addicting"? These days the "grognard" is an enlightened man with many eclectic tastes, a true connosieur of digital experiences. He's out of touch.

I have a colleague who spends the majority of his time playing LoL instead of going to lectures. Soooo, yeah. Sawyer really is out of touch, I'm picturing him surrounded by a bubble of Yes Men confirming his biases all day. That would explain his total lack of awareness. It would also explain PoE.

 

[Prime Junta]

Haven't played many AAA RPG's released in the past 10 years or so, have you?

Actually I can't think of having played anything AAA besides trying out the Witchers. :p Besides, I said usually while picturing AAA devs. There's also the interesting angle of how many AAA titles can actually be considered RPGs that have come out in the last 10 years.

If your "usually" excludes most AAA RPG's published in the last 10 years, you might've wanted to mention that. They are the context for Sawyer's remark.

 

[Lacrymas]

If your "usually" excludes most AAA RPG's published in the last 10 years, you might've wanted to mention that. They are the context for Sawyer's remark.

They might have sparked his comment, but what was quoted here is just his "worldview" (if it can be called that) regarding games in general. If it was quoted out of context them maybe we should check out what context that is. If he's just talking about AAA "RPGs" and how he doesn't want to make them then that's a completely different story.

 

[Prime Junta]

If your "usually" excludes most AAA RPG's published in the last 10 years, you might've wanted to mention that. They are the context for Sawyer's remark.

They might have sparked his comment, but what was quoted here is just his "worldview" (if it can be called that) regarding games in general. If it was quoted out of context them maybe we should check out what context that is. If he's just talking about AAA "RPGs" and how he doesn't want to make them then that's a completely different story.

He was talking about design intent, and stating that he dislikes working on games where the design intent is addictive (and going on to explain that he considers such designs ethically untenable).

I don't see what's so controversial about that statement anyway -- the Codex is generally against Skinner-box mechanics. I suspect what's triggering people is when he seagued into ethics. I.e., this isn't about his design sensibilities at all, it's about his politics. Yay Codex.

 

[Lacrymas]

He was talking about design intent, and stating that he dislikes working on games where the design intent is addictive (and going on to explain that he considers such designs ethically untenable).

I don't see what's so controversial about that statement anyway -- the Codex is generally against Skinner-box mechanics. I suspect what's triggering people is when he seagued into ethics. I.e., this isn't about his design sensibilities at all, it's about his politics. Yay Codex.

This is what triggers me -

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.

And his insistence that we should be doing something else instead of playing games whenever we can. Maybe I like playing games instead of going to party on a Friday night and that's a completely valid choice that I consciously make. Games aren't keeping us prisoner or restraining us from experiencing the "real world" (whatever that is supposed to mean). We don't know if those "politics" of his are influencing how he makes games, but I'm pretty sure they do. It's just hypocritical of him to judge us when he has devoted his life to making games.

 

[Latro]

What are skinner-box CRPGs? That aren't MMO/MOBAs, genuine CRPGs, the type that Obsidian and Sawyer actually work on? His logic isn't inherently wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have a SDF on Codex, but his logic is...odd the majority of the time, hence the reactive head-scratchers from people when respond to his interviews or stated design philosophy (which includes basic common sense crpg design and then no fun allowed balancing or "I want people to go outside and enjoy the real world").

Speaking of which, I think Riot would be the perfect Sawyer company.

 

[Roguey]

He doesn't want to make addictive games because he thinks there are more important things to do. Like what?

Stuff like this I imagine

Complaining About Politically Active, Intellectual Lazy People

I am fed up with the laziness Americans, in general, show toward political awareness and criticism in this information age. By this, I do not mean that I am fed up with political apathy, nor do I mean that I am fed up with low voter turn-out. I also don't mean to hold up other republics as shining examples in comparison to us, but we project ourselves as a beacon of what a constitutional republic should be; it would be nice to live up to that standard. Much of what of what I'm writing is similar in tone to general critiques of political discourse in recent years. I don't feel like I have a particularly brilliant insight into our political landscape, but I felt the need to write about it because it greatly troubles me.

Specifically, I am filled with intense disappointment for an American voting society that has such incredible and unprecedented access to a wide spectrum of information but chooses to squander it -- a society that dehumanizes and demonizes political opponents that are more visible and exposed than ever, simplifies complex discourse to snide partisan jokes, and overlooks sober political debate in favor of media cheerleading.

Despite all of the incredible communication and education resources available to us, as a society we generally remain politically hostile, obstinately partisan, short-sighted, lazy, bull-headed, and willfully ignorant.

In 1993, I turned eighteen and became eligible to vote. Since then, in less than twenty years, here are some of the things that I, and many other internet-active Americans, can now do that were not possible (or at least practical for many people) then:

* Look at the full text, often with ongoing edits, of bills submitted to state and federal legislative bodies.
* Read the non-partisan analyses of bills by government officials, such as a legislative analyst.
* Look up how any representative has voted on any given bill ever.
* Look up the historical context of almost anything in our own past or the past of any civilization ever recorded.

In addition to those enormously valuable things, we also have the ability to do things like:

* Stream major legislative sessions from C-SPAN or look them up later on a variety of video sites.
* Read myriad sides and aspects of political debates in literally hundreds of venues that are friendly, hostile, or mixed relative to our own views.
* Watch, read, listen to, and respond to to the broader opinions and concerns of political figures, professional journalists, bloggers, private citizens, and all sorts of people from different backgrounds all over the world.
* Have our internet browsers automatically translate foreign websites into languages we can read, giving us access to primary documents, news articles, conversations, etc. -- basically everything we see above, but for the entire world.

Most people who are politically active on the internet do not do these things. I feel comfortable writing this because the evidence, though based on casual observation, is impressive in its consistency. People do not look at, much less read, the full text of bills. They wouldn't even be able to tell you where to find the text of bills, nor do they seem to care. The blogs that cover events of political significance rarely even bother to give the names of the very important bills being discussed, and almost never the numbers by which they can be properly identified. I will stop short of speculating on the reasons for these omissions, but I will say that it is lazy, unhelpful to serious political analysis, and intellectually indefensible.

In general, politically active people do not read non-partisan analyses of a bill; they read partisan analyses of those non-partisan analyses. They don't look up voting records themselves; they listen to the cherry-picked, context-free slams from polemicists. Voters don't learn historical facts, absorb different analyses, and formulate their own opinions; they listen to other people spin historical narratives that wrap up selective facts into a story that fits their predispositions. We don't seriously read the "other side" of a debate to understand perspectives; we skim selective quotations that cast our most disagreeable political opponents in the harshest light.

Despite having enormous resources of information available to us, every day our society largely spurns the opportunity to learn more about how our world has worked, how it has failed, and what people are trying to do about it today. So much more is immediately available to us, both passively and actively, than ever has been before. A lot of it is irrelevant, confusing, and infuriating. Too bad. It requires our effort to sort through. Whatever your education, whatever your background, whatever your occupation, the world is constantly changing, and we all must continuously engage the rest of the world to make any serious critical analysis of how we should move forward. If we float along on a sea of second-hand information and opinions put out by partisans and media outlets, we're politically active while being politically brain dead.

We become politically active to accomplish things. If a goal is well-reasoned and a course is sound, all the critical analysis, slams, and distractions in the world can't detract from that. I work with a literacy program that promotes literacy in part because it is believed to be an essential part of participating in a democratic society. There are millions of people in this country who strive and struggle every day to read, write, listen, and speak with the people around them -- simply to do basic things. If you're reading this right now, you have the ability to access and analyze -- and contribute to -- a staggering, unprecedented amount of information that can inform your participation in our government and in political culture. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm not saying it doesn't take time. But compared to the entire history of the world, it has never been easier than it is right now.

 

[almondblight]

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)

I think a lot of people here think addictive is a good thing. When PoE came out, a lot of the complaints were "What's the point of doing all of this boring combat if I don't get XP?" rather than "What's the point of doing all of this boring combat if it's boring?" I guess part of the problem is that if people started asking the latter, they'll realize that a lot of Codex favorites have a ton of boring repetitive combat that people stick with because they like seeing numbers slowly go up.

 

[Latro]

He doesn't want to make addictive games because he thinks there are more important things to do. Like what?

Stuff like this I imagine

And yet, this is one of the most hardcore CRPG forums on the internet (lmao) and you see political discussions among many other things all the damn time. Why would he think the issues of people avoiding "The real world" apply to the genre he actually works in? Most CRPG nuts have at least a decent minimum of intelligence and I see strong opinions concerning everything all the damn time. He's out of touch, very out of touch.

 

[Lacrymas]

Gamers are much more aware of what is happening around them than a lot of other people. He wants us to be more intellectually honest? There is much more honesty on the Codex than at political gatherings and campaigns. Games aren't preventing us from being educated and intelligent, quite the contrary. He may want to read some studies in the fields of gaming to be more intellectually honest.

 

[Roguey]

He doesn't want to make addictive games because he thinks there are more important things to do. Like what?

Stuff like this I imagine

And yet, this is one of the most hardcore CRPG forums on the internet (lmao) and you see political discussions among many other things all the damn time. Why would he think the issues of people avoiding "The real world" apply to the genre he actually works in? Most CRPG nuts have at least a decent minimum of intelligence and I see strong opinions concerning everything all the damn time. He's out of touch, very out of touch.

Most people who are politically active on the internet do not do these things. I feel comfortable writing this because the evidence, though based on casual observation, is impressive in its consistency.

 

[Prime Junta]

And his insistence that we should be doing something else instead of playing games whenever we can. Maybe I like playing games instead of going to party on a Friday night and that's a completely valid choice that I consciously make. Games aren't keeping us prisoner or restraining us from experiencing the "real world" (whatever that is supposed to mean). We don't know if those "politics" of his are influencing how he makes games, but I'm pretty sure they do. It's just hypocritical of him to judge us when he has devoted his life to making games.

Wow, he did trigger you.

Maybe you should drink a glass of water, calm down, and go over what he said again. It might turn out that he isn't, in fact, judging gamers at all.

(As to his politics influencing his work, well duh. That's true for any work with a creative component. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or painfully un-self-aware.)

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I don't see what's so controversial about that statement anyway -- the Codex is generally against Skinner-box mechanics. I suspect what's triggering people is when he seagued into ethics. I.e., this isn't about his design sensibilities at all, it's about his politics. Yay Codex.

It's probably semantics mostly, your first association with the word "addictive" seems to be various MMOs, MOBAs and mechanics present in modern RPGs that are heavily influenced by the first two but Codex isn't a Blizzard forum, what first comes to mind for the average Codexer is probably not being able to put down Fallout or PST for days because they were so enraptured by them.

You also seem to be arguing for something beyond what Sawyer actually said here, from what I recall he never actually brings up the point of engaging vs addictive design approach to games. He stated that his goal is to make a game that you pick up when you have absolutely nothing better to do and just throw it away the moment anything else grabs your attention. Especially when it comes to the RPG genre, I have no interest in such games, if they don't engage me on any level they just go straight to the trash bin.

Pillars design is much more engaging by intent: when levelling up, you almost(?) always get qualitatively new abilities -- things that you couldn't do before, but can do now.

Eh, what? In addition to health and endurance, your accuracy and overall defense increase every level, it's one of the main things that make encounters a breeze if you outlevel them regardless of specific tactics you use. MMO inspired modern design of bloating numbers as far as I'm concerned.

Not to mention that many of the new abilities on level up are just upgraded low level abilities with increased damage, radius or attacking a different defence (not that I'm claiming other systems are innocent of this mind you).

items don't have a progression where you're continuously dumping old stuff in favour of new stuff, and tougher enemies aren't just the same enemies with bigger numbers

In my playthrough item progression was quite linear due to enchanting/crafting but I'll concede here that apparently there are some powerful character builds designed around unique weapons (which looked quite unremarkable to me). I'd still prefer being able to make a unique bitchin armor from Dragon Scales for example instead of them just being a crafting ingredient that increases DR.

 

[Fairfax]

This thread makes no sense without Sawyer's full quote before my post.

 

[Lacrymas]

You also seem to be arguing for something beyond what Sawyer actually said here, from what I recall he never actually brings up the point of engaging vs addictive design approach to games. He stated that his goal is to make a game that you pick up when you have absolutely nothing better to do and just throw it away the moment anything else grabs your attention. Especially when it comes to the RPG genre, I have no interest in such games, if they don't engage me on any level they just go straight to the trash bin.

Exactly, that's what his quotes in this thread come down to. That he wants to make games that we play because we have absolutely nothing better to do and drop them as soon as something comes up. It also reveals his views on games in general. He comes off as viewing games as the basest of activities and anything else is preferable to playing a game. His reasoning for this is that there's a "world out there". The fuck? It's just very bizarre and unreal logic. Not only doesn't that mean anything it can be applied to basically everything. Oh, you are studying to be a doctor? Don't know know there is a "world out there"? Oh, you are reading a comic book? Don't you know etc.? Oh, you are going to the movies? Don't you know etc.? Oh, you are going to work? Don't you know etc.?

 

[Lhynn]

Quote is fairly old and out of context, but yeah, his design philosophy is still misguided. Its not even needed to argue semanthics here, he said he designs games so you can easily drop them and do something else, which means they are neither addictive nor engaging, they are plain and boring.

 

[Prime Junta]

Wow. You guys actually think that JES wants to make plain and boring games? And that that's what you took away from that quote? I can't even...

 

[Prime Junta]

Eh, what? In addition to health and endurance, your accuracy and overall defense increase every level, it's one of the main things that make encounters a breeze if you outlevel them regardless of specific tactics you use. MMO inspired modern design of bloating numbers as far as I'm concerned.

Uh, accuracy and defences increasing as you level up were in the original D&D. It's hardly a modern design. That's what THAC0 and saving throw progression is all about.

 

[Lhynn]

Wow. You guys actually think that JES wants to make plain and boring games? And that that's what you took away from that quote? I can't even...

No, i think thats all he can make. And what i took away from that quote is that he wasnt saying "i want to make fun and engaging games that will keep you playing and enjoying their free time" or something like that, he literally said he doesnt want people playing games but going out. Thats like a writer saying "i write my books so that people throw them out the window and go do something productive with their time, because i believe time spent outside is better than time spent reading".
Best books ive read have had me hours or even days reading them nonstop, its been a wonderful experience i wouldnt trade for anything. If they werent good or engaging this would not have happened.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Not boring maybe but rather inconsequential, no wonder he holds Bethesda games in such high regard.

Uh, accuracy and defences increasing as you level up were in the original D&D. It's hardly a modern design. That's what THAC0 and saving throw progression is all about.

In PoE's system of grazes, hits and critical hits accuracy is much more tied to the damage output, especially with PoE's unified mechanics (magic functions the same way as melee weapons). Yes, saving throws increase but not your AC, it does in PoE (Deflection).

Regardless, point is that you don't just get new abilities, your basic numbers increase as well which is one of the reasons you stomp over lower level critters and outleveling content is such a major concern in the game.

 

[Roguey]

Keep in mind that Fallout is in Josh's top three and he documented his experience with it as

The first time I played Fallout, I barely took breaks to eat and sleep. As soon as I finished it, I replayed the whole game again.

Aside from kill XP, I can't think of anything in Fallout that encourages addictive behaviors.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Keep in mind that Fallout is in Josh's top three and he documented his experience with it as

Indeed, it's no wonder developers make their best stuff when they're young and enthusiastic, before it becomes a job instead of a calling.