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.

Decline Game releases without any artificial progression system -- gamers are revolted

Durandal

Arcane
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
2,117
Location
New Eden
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
https://medium.com/@fischerdesign/artifact-makes-players-go-cold-turkey-6ac757d31b1e
Going Cold Turkey With Artifact

Fabian Fischer

Dec 3
1*tqS85WXn4jg8KCJZseSxLA.jpeg

Artifact, the new collectible card game by Valve and Magic creator Richard Garfield, mostly gets rid of flavor enhancers. There’s basically no progression, no omnipresent carrot dangling in front of your nose, no regular guaranteed drip of rewards for the time you put in. And as expected, a sizeable amount of players is furious due to the absence of these mechanisms.

1*PsqUbRrqtKRP9d1uN6dXCQ.jpeg

That’s what you get for not satisfying your players’ addiction.

First off, a remark: Yes, as any other CCG Artifact also features the good old and highly questionable “booster packs”. At their core those randomly filled packs of cards are just lootboxes. But thanks to Magic: The Gathering they’ve been around long enough to not be the focus of the currently ongoing debate. The resulting business model however can and should of course be critisized. And yet, beyond the initial entry fee, the game is arguably less expensive than Hearthstone and the likes, at least when it comes to assembling a useful collection without having to put in dozens of hours of currency grinding.

So what are players missing? Exactly, that very grind. Evidence can be found in countless Steam reviews and reddit postings:

  • “Because there’s no progression system of any kind, there’s no real reason to play the game.” [Steam]
  • “Expecting people to ‘play for fun’ […] is ridiculous.” [reddit]
  • “Every game you win and play will feel unrewarded and just a waste of time. […] There is no XP, no ranking system and no virtual currency (or arcane dust) earned through winning.” [Steam]
  • “After 1 hour I had nothing to do […] no daily grind for currency” [reddit]
  • “Every other card game has a ingame currency where you can grind to progress but not here. I am already bored of this game as there’s no method of progression.” [Steam]
In stark contrast, let’s look at a statement made by Artifact’s project lead Brandon Reinhart:

“At its core, we want you to play the game because you enjoy playing the game.”
The gaping hole between a significant part of the player base and the philosophy of the game’s creators is exemplary for how deeply engrained extrinsic motivation and explicit progression are in the mind of the modern-day video game audience. The idea of playing for the sake of it seems to elude many players, some even think it’s completely absurd.

1*Z5pztiTVGpvLPJhQKRu17Q.jpeg

Beyond the self-contained “Gauntlet” runs, there’s barely any metagame in Artifact.

At the same time, the implicit progression in getting better continuously by grappling with the depths of an interactive system is one of the most genuine and enriching forms of player progression there is in the medium. But it has problems. It’s not obvious, hard to grasp, too “self-driven” and thus barely reaches through to the masses.

On the other hand, the idea of steadily rewarding the steady grind is easy to understand. Put in your time, do the work, get rewarded, feel good. A process that works for pretty much everyone, especially when it’s so often missed in the harsh reality of daily capitalist routines.

Now, a game like Artifact might alienate many players and even throw them out after just a few hours due to the missing progression mechanics. But did those players really enjoy the game itself then? And if they did not, isn’t that a healthier and more responsible way to treat your time? In the end it comes down to this: Do you want to spend a limited but truly and honestly enriching number of hours with a game; or do you prefer running the treadmill forever?

1*O6jHO8U-YwwdKG9_wnQJgQ.jpeg

The core gameplay in all its complexity is just as uncompromising as the overarching experience.

A couple of years ago, Richard Garfield’s “A Game Player’s Manifesto” spoke out against games that “set up an addictive cycle for players susceptible to that behavior”. At least partially it seems like this sentiment has bled into Artifact’s design. For once, it’s quite refreshing not having to constantly think about ways of optimizing your daily quest output or your “number of matches per hour” to grind up the ladder as quickly as possible. In this sense, the game is a brave and uncompromising effort, not just in terms of progression but also its highly complex gameplay that doesn’t seem to care all that much about the “casual” audience.

We’ll have to see how firm Valve will remain in this philosophy and if the game can make other developers or even some of its players rethink the concept of “progression” as a whole. One can always dream.

Take heed, aspiring developers. The Grind must be an integral part of your game before Fun can be attained. The seeds of skill trees must be planted, a new day must deliver new daily quests, the foundation of the home must be built out of lootboxes; the days of multiplayer-only games like Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike are over.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
2,323
Location
Illinois
:lol: Read the title, clicked on the thread thinking I'd say "HEY YOU KNOW ARTIFACT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PROGRESSION SYSTEM OR GOOD BOY POINTS AND YOU JUST PLAY IT LIKE A GAME" and then I was beaten to the punch.
 

warpig

Incel Resistance Leader
Manlet
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
7,364
Location
lmaoing @ your life
“At its core, we want you to play the game because you enjoy playing the game.”
BASED. I wish more devs had this kind of approach.


  • “Because there’s no progression system of any kind, there’s no real reason to play the game.” [Steam]
  • “Expecting people to ‘play for fun’ […] is ridiculous.” [reddit]
  • “Every game you win and play will feel unrewarded and just a waste of time. […] There is no XP, no ranking system and no virtual currency (or arcane dust) earned through winning.” [Steam]
  • “After 1 hour I had nothing to do […] no daily grind for currency” [reddit]
  • “Every other card game has a ingame currency where you can grind to progress but not here. I am already bored of this game as there’s no method of progression.” [Steam]
CUCKED. Gamerz were so well conditioned by the developers that they started to enjoy getting scammed out of their time. This crap even leaks into sp games :/
:negative:
 
Last edited:

Machocruz

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
4,372
Location
Hyperborea
But it has problems. It’s not obvious, hard to grasp, too “self-driven” and thus barely reaches through to the masses.

Fish bowl view in effect. A couple thousands of disappointed, when there are hundreds of millions of people playing video games, are the masses. Yeah Tetris, the most popular video game of all time, barely reached through to the masses because it had no progression system. Wii Sports barely reached through to the masses. The casinos in Vegas need to work some progression systems into the card tables, who the hell is going to play Texas Hold 'Em and blackjack just for enjoyment and the chance to win some money.
 

Mustawd

Guest


I did initially find this a stupid line. But the more I think about it the more it makes sense to me.

There are some gamers that get fun from the grind itself. They enjoy it. The carrot on a stick IS the game.

Think about this: A decade and a half a go people would say that a living world and player interaction IS the point of MMOs. But that has now morphed the MMO genre so much that forming relatuonships is no longer required to regularly get in a group. Leveling ib PvE is now considered a nuisance.

“Mustawd, you stupid light skinned latino, you’ve drank too many Zinfandels at dinner”, you say. Well, maybe you’re right.

But the point I’m trying to make is that these games have become a grindfest. It’s no surprise that it has attracted players who like grindfests. To try and say “you’re not enjoying the gameplay!!” is missing the forest for the trees.

Don’t you get it mang? For many CCG players the grind IS the point!!

I can personally testify to this. In my most drunken years there was nothing more I loved than to play a podcast series, fire up a Diablo clone, and click things to death while I learned about the Mongols/Ghengis Khan, English Civil War and the Anabaptists. All while left clicking to death everything I could see on screen.

It’s fun. It’s mindless. It’s entertaining in those particular circumstances. So it should be no surprise that the fanbase that is used to this type of gameplay is upset.

After all, how do you think people would react if you took out the loot system from a Diablo-like? I’ll tell you how they would react. They’d throw this glass of Zinfadel against the bar, that’s what I’d do.


Cheers!!
 

zeitgeist

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
1,444
When so many serious efforts have been and are still being made to gamify life and society, perhaps ungamifying a game isn't the best idea.

From what I've read, the game *still* requires you to buy virtual cards to form your deck, so having that kind of a financial progression where you give more and more money to the developers and don't receive a properly crafted sense of game progression in return obviously makes people feel swindled in some way. Surely if they just wanted to make a game that people would play for nothing more than fun, it would have no costs apart from the initial purchase.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,242
Location
Ingrija
Yeah Tetris, the most popular video game of all time, barely reached through to the masses because it had no progression system.

You fail. Tetris had score and a high scores table. And if you played far enough, the game rewarded you by increasing its difficulty. Even in 8-bit age designers knew players expected to be rewarded in some way for doing well.

This entire Genre has been constructed from rewarding players. And it has made a posturing CCG designer think his stupid game is something more than a treadmill.
 

zeitgeist

Magister
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
1,444
This entire Genre has been constructed from rewarding players. And it has made a posturing CCG designer think his stupid game is something more than a treadmill.
Staring at that abyss of monetization without a way to earn anything does seem like a rip-off.
Isn't it a natural development of the great societal incline though, like one of those self-service kiosks, where they expect the customer to pay for the privilege of doing the job of the employer. In this case, they expect the customer to provide his own sense of progression - essentially to hook himself up to the money milking machine, operate the machine, and say "thank you, please come again" to himself on behalf of the machine. The way people have been conditioned in other aspects of life, I wouldn't be surprised if it became a perfectly viable business model.
 

Trithne

Erudite
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
1,200
I think that applying the traditional CCG model to a video game suffers from a perceived lack of permanence; When I buy a bunch of NetRunner cards, they're a physical object I own.

While Artifact cards are technically no different, it doesn't feel the same - we don't view digital goods the same way. And games in which you can grind shit out for free have added to that.

Viewing Artifact as literally just a CCG makes me a bit more interested in it, but since I'm pretty sure the boosters are random I probably won't bother.
 

Machocruz

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
4,372
Location
Hyperborea
Yeah Tetris, the most popular video game of all time, barely reached through to the masses because it had no progression system.

You fail. Tetris had score and a high scores table. And if you played far enough, the game rewarded you by increasing its difficulty. Even in 8-bit age designers knew players expected to be rewarded in some way for doing well.

This entire Genre has been constructed from rewarding players. And it has made a posturing CCG designer think his stupid game is something more than a treadmill.

No one said anything about not rewarding players at all. High scores and difficulty levels are not modern progression systems as described here. They're complaining about no XP system, no grinding for currency, no online ranking. Playing for score is not mentioned in this article. Closest comparable feature is a ranking system, which is still different from high scores because a lot of people just try to beat their own top score in Tetris, not others'. There is no grinding up a ladder, no dailies.

At the same time, the implicit progression in getting better continuously by grappling with the depths of an interactive system is one of the most genuine and enriching forms of player progression there is in the medium. But it has problems. It’s not obvious, hard to grasp, too “self-driven” and thus barely reaches through to the masses.
Tetris is the definition of getting better continuously by grappling with an interactive system and self driven play. It definitely reached through to the masses, and that's just one example among the best selling games of all time. The game is satisfying to play in itself, hence it's popularity ever since it dropped.
 
Last edited:

Cromwell

Arcane
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
5,443
No one said anything about not rewarding players at all. High scores and difficulty levels are not modern progression systems as described here. They're complaining about no XP system, no grinding for currency, no online ranking. Playing for score is not mentioned in this article. Closest comparable feature is a ranking system, which is still different from high scores because a lot of people just try to beat their own top score in Tetris, not others'. There is no grinding up a ladder, no dailies.

So a game that is by its nature very competitive is made better without a ranking system? The only reason there is no currency is that valve wants you to spend money on the game because people are a delusional fucks thinking that "reselling" cards on the marketplace and earning dumbfuck points on the market somehow is the game paying for itself.

In all games that I played, with or against other people, people who claimed to play just for fun (its just a game) are always and without exception the ones that sucked the most at it.
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,906
That article is pure PR spin. Trying to make it out like people aren't revolted about their greedy monetisation but by deliberate incline. And I seriously doubt those "flavor enhancers" are missing by choice and not because they weren't ready yet.

And what cromwell said, matchmaking and ranking should be baseline for any "competitive" game. Hiding that ranking because everyone must be a winner is the actual decline.
 

HansDampf

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,471
Are we talking about ranking systems or progression systems? One is just another incentive to improve at the game. The other is grind. Why would you assume you'd be left with only casuals after you remove the grind?
 

Machocruz

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
4,372
Location
Hyperborea
So a game that is by its nature very competitive is made better without a ranking system? The only reason there is no currency is that valve wants you to spend money on the game because people are a delusional fucks thinking that "reselling" cards on the marketplace and earning dumbfuck points on the market somehow is the game paying for itself.

In all games that I played, with or against other people, people who claimed to play just for fun (its just a game) are always and without exception the ones that sucked the most at it.
Not at all, and I agree with abija There is no legit reason not to have online ranking in a competitive game in this day and age. That just limits the competitive scene immensely. I'm not advocating for this specific game. I mean, are its "booster packs" honest game design for the sincere enjoyment of the player...?

I'm arguing against claims based on the view in a small pool. I hear shit about games all the time that sound good if you think forums, the media, and STEAM reviews represent some kind of majority or what the masses (over 100 million hardware owners) think or want, etc. I have seen that they do not, not at all. Maybe if he limited his discussion to the card genre, but looks like he was speaking about games in general as well. And besides, there are people disagreeing with the disappointed parties in the Reddit threads cited, 62% of the STEAM reviews are positive. I'm not impressed by the support for his claims.

And yes there are people who say they play for fun as a defense for poor play. It's ego. But I don't think the Chappelle meme is referring to that kind of play for fun.
 

Zarniwoop

TESTOSTERONIC As Fuck™
Patron
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
18,718
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
"Gamers" these days are disgusting millennial plebs that love getting anally abused by Actiblizz, Bethesda and BiowarEA. They deserve X:Rebirth and Night Trap-tier shit.

We should nuke the entire site from orbit. Just to be sure.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,834
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
Reminds me of a passage in Kaczynki's Industrial Society and Its Future
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the power process. This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clearcut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).
Obviously all gaming is a degenerate expression of the power process.

But if you're going to look to games for a power process, at least make it something half intelligent like trying to get better at the game, having a tough contest with another player, exploring a well-written rpg world or somesuch. Grindfaggots are presumably too low IQ to enjoy those things.

I had thought that Pay-grinding and Play-grinding were equally shit, but I suppose the latter at least is a sort of power process, unlike Pay-grinding, hence the review bombing of Abortifact.
 

Projas

Information Superhighwayman
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
1,202
Location
Best Republic
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
What a retarded PR bullshit.

Yeah no, people aren't pissed about Artifact just because it doesn't have an "artificial progression system". People are pissed because the only way to acquire cards is to pay real life shekels for them.

Artifact isn't "no progression system". Artifact is "money is the progression system".

“At its core, we want you to play the game because you enjoy playing the game.”
"But first you have to pay 200 dollaridos for a single set of cards." t. Brandon

And yet, beyond the initial entry fee, the game is arguably less expensive than Hearthstone and the like
That's pure unadulterated bullshit. Every comparison between the two that I've seen was completely retarded and just took into account how much would shit cost if you bought it with cash, completely ignoring the crucial fact that one game gives you shit for free while the othe doesn't. Also note that Hearthstone's monetization model was literally the worst on the market before Artifact. They literally have to compare themselves to the worst shit out there and they still come out short.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,834
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
I've heard you can avoid grinding and play with all cards available randomly if you specifically play Casual Phantom Draft. However I'm not going to spend $20 to find out whether or not I end up with a full game, especially not when opening the packs you start with count as modifying the game so you can't refund it.
 

abija

Prophet
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,906
Just to prove my point, Valve bringers of incline bring battle royale to CS.
 

Bruma Hobo

Lurker
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
2,412
You fail. Tetris had score and a high scores table. And if you played far enough, the game rewarded you by increasing its difficulty. Even in 8-bit age designers knew players expected to be rewarded in some way for doing well.

This entire Genre has been constructed from rewarding players. And it has made a posturing CCG designer think his stupid game is something more than a treadmill.

20140205.png
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,549
The main problem here is it's a fucking card game. Simplistic and highly luck-based. Strip away the grinding mechanics and you'll see: they've always sucked.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,834
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
Wtf there isn't even a ranking system? That's appalling in a competitive game.
 

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