Interview Addiction-based game design with Jeff Vogel

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Jeff Vogel

Jeff Vogel <a href="http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/986/986323p1.html">talks to RPGVault about his MMO addictions</a> and reward based game-play:
<br>
<blockquote>It's a tricky thing to define, but I'll take a crack at it. A design is addiction-based to the degree that it encourages players to experience the same content again and again (often referred to as grinding) in return to obtain a series of rewards. These can be simple labels with no tangible effect (like an in-game title or some achievements), or they can be character improvements that give the ability to move on to a new location with a slightly different sort of grinding. I call this the grind/reward cycle, and it can keep players coming back to one game for years.
<br>
[...]
<br>
Similarly, in Lego Star Wars (and other games in the series), practically everything you do, from killing a foe to smashing open a door, results in your receiving studs (money) for buying rewards and characters. No matter what you are doing, the illusion of accomplishment is maintained.
<br>
<br>
Addiction-based design isn't a boolean, zero or one, true or false type of thing. Practically all successful games provide satisfying rewards to a player in return for long and skillful play - like unlocking new areas, making a stronger character, getting more stars in Guitar Hero. But some designs are built entirely around taking advantage players of being vulnerable to this sort of positive reinforcement. And, in the case of World of Warcraft, I am extremely susceptible... me and millions of others, which is why I now fearfully avoid it.</blockquote>
<br>
Vogel recommends <a href="http://www.progressquest.com/">Progress Quest</a> as a good example of this type of RPG mechanic in action.
<br>
<br>
Thanks <b>AndhairaX</b>!

 

[Dark_Paladin_Anti_Hero]

I never understood the point of these stating the obvious articles. He should provide examples of games that have included addiction-based gp and engaged more than just "one part of the mind" as he puts it, or maybe how games could. He mentions that these have a place in good game design, but doesn't say how. On the contrary, most of the time is spent saying in various ways how this is downright wrong. I've never played any of Spiderweb's games, so maybe they transcend the addiction/art barrier - I don't know.

 

[Andhaira]

His point does stand however. MMO's are prime examples of addiction based game design; they're ridiculously high level cap means ppl keep coming back and playing just for 'another level'. Rare items and armor also makes them keep grinding/creeping to get unqiue equipment. Taking down huge monsters as a group is another addiction.

Translating all that into single player rpg's is somewhat tricky though possible. (diablo series, an action rpg series has come quite close. In fact diablo 1 was a model for many MMO's in this case as it preceded them)

The question is though, SHOULD it be done? I personally hate having too many leveles. I prefer a PC to start out strong, but gain levels very slowly. The very thought of 80+ levels for a character is nauseating to me.

 

[JarlFrank]

WoW became boring after a while because there is just too much repetitive grind until you finally get your reward of levelling up. Didn't really offer enough gameplay to keep me hooked, and I would've liked to be able to see the whole gameworld a little more quickly, with less time investment into pointless grinding.

That's one of the worst design flaws of MMOs in my opinion. Grinding is not fun, but you have to do it all the time if you want to be a successful player, and you need to invest too much time into the repetitive parts of the game.

 

[Elzair]

Shamus Analyzes Hellgate

If you want to see a better analysis of 'addictive gameplay', read this, this and this.

 

[Raapys]

Well, as much as I dislike grinding, not having enough to do is actually worse. Take Age of Conan, for instance. Not sure how it is now, but when I played it just as it was released it took me maybe one or two weeks to get to the level cap. That's not much for a mmorpg, and afterwards I was left with pretty much nothing to do( end-game content wasn't really in at that time ). At that point I pretty much stopped playing, along with thousands of others.

I guess that my point is that mmorpgs are built upon grinds, without them there's really no content at all. The trick with this type of games is getting you to do those grinds with other players, at which point the grind becomes alot more enjoyable.

I've only invested a few hours into WoW myself, I prefer deeper character development and item systems in my mmorpgs, but the thing that nagged me the most was how I pretty much just ended up running around all by myself doing quests for xp. Compare this to my favorite mmorpg Anarchy Online, where leveling up by yourself after reaching level 40-50( out of 220/250 levels ) is practically impossible, and the difference is huge. Granted, the grind is alot longer in AO than in WoW, but you've so many more interesting moments doing it with a team of 5 others where teamplay is essential for your survival.

 

[Dark_Paladin_Anti_Hero]

Re:

AndhairaX, that's the point. His point does stand because he's just repeating the very basics of what we already know - MMO's are addictive and that's not too great. It would be great if MMOs made you think of creative ways to take down monsters and even low level characters could be decent if the player was smart, but as it is unless you invest months worth of hours into WHACK WHACK WHACK you're not going to be able to do the "fun stuff" (raiding, etc.). The 2000 levels still need to be there just to distinguish those who play more than those who don't; and those people can, I don't know, bling themselves out more with shiny platinum armor or something.

If you want to see a better analysis of 'addictive gameplay', read this, this and this.

Are you Shamus Young or do you just have a very unhealthy hard on for this guy?

 

[Elzair]

No

Are you Shamus Young or do you just have a very unhealthy hard on for this guy?

No, I am not Shamus Young, and I do not think I have an 'unhealthy hard on' for the guy. I do follow his site, and I have read a bunch of his posts, but that is because I think he writes interesting stuff. I linked to his posts about addicting gameplay because I think it covered the subject FAR BETTER than Jeff Vogel did. In the larpers-wargamers thread, I linked to him whenever I thought he made a good on-topic point and covered it in more detail than I was willing to. I also linked heavily to the Dave Arneson interview, and I certainly do not have a hard-on for that guy. That would be gross since I am not gay, and he is not alive.

 

[Selenti]

The problem with "well, they should just remove the addiction model" is that what makes these games addictive is generally also what makes them fun, it literally is the content.

You could argue that, say, Diablo 2 would deliver its basic content (graphics, storyline, cinematics) more effectively if it wasn't all about finding increasingly better items and killing monsters more quickly/impressively, but that ignores the fact that the treadmill is a large part of why people play the game in the first place: people LIKE getting new, better "loot".

Even in games that aren't really concerned with keeping you playing, lots of "stuff" to get is a huge selling point. "Thousands of quests", "hundreds of magical items", these are all selling points of the genre.

Sometimes, I want a really good story, maybe one I can affect through my actions. But sometimes I want to kill a bunch of monsters and get some flashy loot, too.

 

[Elzair]

Addiction

The problem with "well, they should just remove the addiction model" is that what makes these games addictive is generally also what makes them fun, it literally is the content.

You could argue that, say, Diablo 2 would deliver its basic content (graphics, storyline, cinematics) more effectively if it wasn't all about finding increasingly better items and killing monsters more quickly/impressively, but that ignores the fact that the treadmill is a large part of why people play the game in the first place: people LIKE getting new, better "loot".

Even in games that aren't really concerned with keeping you playing, lots of "stuff" to get is a huge selling point. "Thousands of quests", "hundreds of magical items", these are all selling points of the genre.

Sometimes, I want a really good story, maybe one I can affect through my actions. But sometimes I want to kill a bunch of monsters and get some flashy loot, too.

The point of addictive gameplay is to make it so there is never a good time to stop. The best way to do this is to give the player multiple little sub-goals, so that at least one and possibly more will always be pulling him forward. It is addicting if the player keeps thinking "just ten more minutes; just ten more minutes" well into the early morning.

It is not just the grind; it is everything. There are five 'hooks' that Diablo has: combat, exploration, levelling, plot/quests and looting. This means there is usually at least one pulling you forward at any one time. If you are tired of combat, you may keep going if you are about to hit the next area just to see what the level and new monsters are like. Otherwise, you might keep going because you are just about to level up. If neither of those are true, you probably have been fighting for a while, and you may have completed a quest, so you go back into town to get your reward and a new quest. Then you might want to identify your new loot, sell what you don't want and buy what you do. After all that is done, you might be ready for a little more combat, or you might want to complete just one more quest.

 

[denizsi]

MMOs are just ridiculous. Somehow, somewhere and sometime, it was carved in stone that an MMO would be a continuous world, open 24/7 and comfort to all players equally, and have periodic story updates, which are really money-traps. What's the point of throwing together insanely massive amounts of players who won't even get any kind of interaction from, let alone see, each other? Plus I find it to be a complete motivation killer to have a game running 24/7 regardless of you. MMOs make turn people with OCD-tendency into complete OCD wastes.

Also, has any MMO ever lived up to its promise of MMO battles, sieges, player-built cities etc.?

MMOs could learn from TV shows. Weekly story updates. Weekly quota for doing quests. Weekly quota for leveling. A certain limited amount of time for newcomers to join (eg. a game starts in June, and accepts new comers until December).

Periodic "Re-runs" for late comers, with 2-3 months of separation from each fresh starting server. Multiple servers that start the story at the same time, which would branch off in different directions away from each other as the game progresses depending on players' actions. It would be damn interesting to see what happened differently across other other servers.

"Season" breaks to keep people craving. Server mergers during season breaks for servers that have been going in parallels by a significant degree and to readjust/repopulate ongoing server sessions after quitters. Ability to "freeze" your character for a while and then go on from another server that's coming behind on story, so you won't be missing stuff if you want to give a break for a while. Plus crazy replayability due to multiple servers sessions. Players would know a lot more when starting a new server, so quality of game would potentially rise in servers populated with returning players.

And eventually seasons finales, after about a few years. All good things must come to an end, lest they degrade. Perhaps with a low-management freeform expansion that would let players run the things in the game to keep the server going, to keep milking the obsessive cows who would be content with such nonsensical stuff.

 

[Secretninja]

MMOs are just ridiculous. Somehow, somewhere and sometime, it was carved in stone that an MMO would be a continuous world, open 24/7 and comfort to all players equally, and have periodic story updates, which are really money-traps. What's the point of throwing together insanely massive amounts of players who won't even get any kind of interaction from, let alone see, each other? Plus I find it to be a complete motivation killer to have a game running 24/7 regardless of you. MMOs make turn people with OCD-tendency into complete OCD wastes.

Also, has any MMO ever lived up to its promise of MMO battles, sieges, player-built cities etc.?

MMOs could learn from TV shows. Weekly story updates. Weekly quota for doing quests. Weekly quota for leveling. A certain limited amount of time for newcomers to join (eg. a game starts in June, and accepts new comers until December).

Periodic "Re-runs" for late comers, with 2-3 months of separation from each fresh starting server. Multiple servers that start the story at the same time, which would branch off in different directions away from each other as the game progresses depending on players' actions. It would be damn interesting to see what happened differently across other other servers.

"Season" breaks to keep people craving. Server mergers during season breaks for servers that have been going in parallels by a significant degree and to readjust/repopulate ongoing server sessions after quitters. Ability to "freeze" your character for a while and then go on from another server that's coming behind on story, so you won't be missing stuff if you want to give a break for a while. Plus crazy replayability due to multiple servers sessions. Players would know a lot more when starting a new server, so quality of game would potentially rise in servers populated with returning players.

And eventually seasons finales, after about a few years. All good things must come to an end, lest they degrade. Perhaps with a low-management freeform expansion that would let players run the things in the game to keep the server going, to keep milking the obsessive cows who would be content with such nonsensical stuff.

/facepalm

 

[Jaime Lannister]

For me an addicting game either has to be challenging or have some sort of emergent gameplay like Rollercoaster Tycoon or SimCity. If a game's too easy I just quit unless the story hooks me.

 

[denizsi]

/facepalm

Yes, because the current model of MMOs are way better, and this consumerist gratificationist 24/7 graphical/social masturbation simulation approach is clearly the way to go. That also explains why we have so many people here who play MMOooops, wait. We don't.

 

[Yeesh]

This article was stupid. The idea that MMORPGs have some sort of secret, evil gameplay that's "addictive" in any way other than being fun just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and I think Vogel's attempt to codify this gameplay demonstrates that nicely:

It's a tricky thing to define, but I'll take a crack at it. A design is addiction-based to the degree that it encourages players to experience the same content again and again (often referred to as grinding) in return to obtain a series of rewards. These can be simple labels with no tangible effect (like an in-game title or some achievements), or they can be character improvements that give the ability to move on to a new location with a slightly different sort of grinding. I call this the grind/reward cycle, and it can keep players coming back to one game for years.

Basically, he's describing MMORPGs, which is pretty circular since he's supposed to be isolating their secret ingredient. Two key points:

First, I know EQ weighs heavily on people's minds, but WoW is what we're really talking about here, and WoW has more or less (and I'd say more) completely eliminated grinding from the leveling up process. It's funny that in the very next paragraph Vogel uses WoW's skill points to illustrate the kind of rewards that keep people repeating the same old content. Totally untrue. However things were previously, since the first expansion the grinding happens when you hit max level, by which point you're no longer gaining skillpoints.

If you start a character in WoW today, you can level all the way up to 80 without ever grinding for XP. Period. Of course there are other grinds that come into play at max level, but this entire concept of grind-based leveling no longer represents the gameplay of the most popular and influential of these games.

Second, yes there are other grinds. But people assailing that kind of max level gameplay are missing a VERY salient point: this is a multiplayer game. Get it? Is chess repetitive gameplay because the board is always the same? Are there, in fact, many multiplayer games you can think of that constantly bring in new scenery? A game like WoW provides a pretty freaking massive gameworld as it is, but yeah it does have a terminus point as far as content goes. But it's not a single player game. You're welcome to try and judge it by the same standards as CRPGs, but that's missing the point. That would be like taking points off of your favorite CRPGs because they don't let you play with friends. It's a different experience.

All those people wouldn't play WoW if it were single player; of that I have no doubt. Do you? But Vogel's analysis of what's addictive in the MMORPG gameplay model somehow ignores the MM.