5 ms·

In my opinion one of the worst things to happen to online modern gaming is the tendency towards several different kinds of "rewards" for the player. I don't thi

by mdoms 5y ago

In my opinion one of the worst things to happen to online modern gaming is the tendency towards several different kinds of "rewards" for the player. I don't think I'm unique in this view but I also know a ton of gamers disagree with me. A recent example is Battlefield 2042. The game is massively flawed, but one of the silver linings is the Portal mode, which enables highly customizable games on retro maps. It's fun - a lot more fun than the base game. But almost no one plays it because DICE (the developer) has disabled XP rewards for the mode, meaning people can't "earn" points which enable them to unlock yet more rewards for the main game. If you read the forums or subreddit you'll see people claim to enjoy Portal mode, but also say things like "what's the point in playing Portal if you can't earn XP". It's an attitude I don't understand at all - the point in playing Portal is that it's a lot of fun! But most of the community seems to disagree with me and as a result Portal mode is empty. You can criticize game developers all you want for turning games into work (or skinner boxes) but from what I can tell there's a huge amount of demand for this type of gaming and very much less demand for high-quality, fun experiences without an endless stream of "rewards".

gowld 5y ago
That seems like a win-win -- it separates the XP-chasers from the "play for fun" cohort, so they don't annoy each other.
- mdoms 5y ago
  Maybe it would be a win-win with a big enough player base, but as it is the Portal mode is basically empty now - at least in the Australasia region. BF2042 player numbers have dropped too far to sustain it I'm afraid (for other reasons we shan't get into).
powersurge360 5y ago
I have a lot of friends who play almost exclusively shooters and this kind of stuff is what's put me off of the genre. I really miss back when you could get a copy of unreal tournament or half life deathmatch and just drop in w/ all the guns unlocked and available and just rampage. I know it's a different genre completely from the more realistic shooters like Battlefield and Call of Duty, but even still I miss the unfettered drop-in fun in those older games and there seem to be hardly any left.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Unreal's mutators were great! It was like the fun you could get from Quake console without having to read and type a lot. Also very discoverable.
- mdoms 5y ago
  One of the coolest things when I was playing games as a kid was working my way through the single player story, but being able to "skip ahead" and see all of the cool guns and gadgets by opening a multiplayer session. Nowadays you're locked out of most of the weapons in MP unless you're willing to put in 40+ hours (and much much more in some games).
- Talanes 5y ago
  > I know it's a different genre completely from the more realistic shooters like Battlefield and Call of Duty, but even still I miss the unfettered drop-in fun in those older games and there seem to be hardly any left. Old Battlefield was great for drop-in fun too. My high school had Battlefield Vietnam on the library computers, and you could usually find a couple people running a LAN game at lunch to drop into if you wanted.
vorpalhex 5y ago
XP gates weapons and equipment in the base game. You are literally not getting to do all the fun stuff if you don't grind some.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Thats a bit of reductionist view, xp gates started of as a fun mechanic. You play the base game, and unlock new weapons that you try out and compare with older ones. You get sense of progression and something new to play with. Its a good mechanic to keep player interested and expose them to different play-style. Problems starts when money-people starts to poke around with this and design it for exploitation, making XP levels too big, making starting weapons worse and lategame weapons overpowered. After that they give you solution of buying XP booster etc. They literally break their game in order to sell you solution.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Yeah, XP gating on paper has positives: reducing choices for new players, giving you achievements, etc. I'm explaining why I am an "xp chaser" though - I don't care about my BattleRank but I want those locked weapons.
btkramer9 5y ago
I think this is a result of adults making up a much larger share of gamers and profits to gaming companies. I've noticed myself doing this and I can pause it if I try but I don't think I can turn it off. Playing games as a kid, it was all about exploration and doing fun things. I didn't beat many games but I played a lot of them. As an adult, I need to be setting goals and earning achievements. There always needs to be something I'm working towards. It's fun planning/achieving at first but after a few weeks it just feels like i've given myself another job then i get burnt out and reset. I haven't played battlefield 2042. I bet you're right that portal mode is fun but I'm willing to bet if I was to play I would probably start to express the same sentiment that there's no point in playing portal mode if it doesn't help me progress in the game. It's stupid and I have a hard time admitting it but it's true. Sometimes I wish I could just enjoy a game for what it is and not be thinking about "what next?" or "what does this accomplish?". I think its just because we're adults (and probably because we have fully developed prefrontal cortexes?)
- cyber_kinetist 5y ago
  My reason for not playing Portal mode was that I couldn’t find good servers with enough players and low ping in the Asia region (I managed to play a really good game of BF3 conquest by luck, but that was it.) Actually, I still want to play Battlefield 4 more than 2042, but am forced to play 2042 for the same reason. The sad reality of multiplayer shooters is that people flock to whatever is the latest and has the biggest number of players…
coldpie 5y ago
This is pretty close to ruining multiplayer in Halo Infinite, too. They totally botched the rewards system (it's really, really bad), so everyone is complaining about that. But the core gameplay is actually really great, among the best in the series. If the stupid, tacked-on reward crap wasn't there, everyone would just be enjoying a fantastic online shooter. Instead most of the buzz around the game has been negative because of their terrible rewards system. But it's hard to argue with Fortnite's success, hence all the braindead clones.
- ansible 5y ago
  > They totally botched the rewards system... If the stupid, tacked-on reward crap wasn't there, everyone would just be enjoying a fantastic online shooter. Ah, I remember the old days, when you "won" by having your side win, and having a Kill / Death ratio sufficiently above 1.0. I haven't played much since the Halo: Reach release. Even back then, they had started adding XP, so that you could earn a higher rank... which didn't mean anything in-game as far as I knew. Just access to more fancy armor mods and such.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Progressing a meaningless rank is like the perfect amount of multiplayer grind. Just something that signifies "I've played this game a lot" for the players who care, without forcing it on those who don't.
- physicsguy 5y ago
  I just don’t care about the rewards, I like dropping into Infinite and playing some SWAT. As the rewards don’t impact the game, it doesn’t matter to me. I always hated having to grind in COD for guns
WindyLakeReturn 5y ago
>If you read the forums or subreddit you'll see people claim to enjoy Portal mode, but also say things like "what's the point in playing Portal if you can't earn XP". It's an attitude I don't understand at all - the point in playing Portal is that it's a lot of fun! But most of the community seems to disagree with me and as a result Portal mode is empty. I have a strong preference for rougelites over rougelikes because the former includes a meta-game progression. It includes a sort of XP that makes me enjoy the game loop more, even though the fun from the actual game loop would in theory be equal regardless of some sort of meta-progression. I also enjoy fighting games with RPG mechanics over those without, once again because there is a meta progression system. It isn't just a matter of getting better, because you'll end up facing harder enemies who also are now better and the skill doesn't change. I think these concepts are related to what you mention. Even RPGs in general have this sort of progression across a long span of playing that adds value to a game beyond what the minute to minute gameplay offers, despite enemies getting stronger and the net gameplay not really changing. When I play Diablo style ARPGs, same thing. I get stronger, but so do the enemies, and the gameplay remains much the same but I wouldn't play the game if it didn't have what I'll call potentially pointless progression. I also think it is interesting to measure potentially pointless progression that becomes so pointless it harms player experience. Possible examples, and I say possible because the threshold changes per person, are Elder Scrolls games, especially Oblivion, and FF VIII. Both games are some flavor of RPG where enemies get stronger as you get stronger. Not enemies in new locations and often not even new enemies. You level up, the enemy you were just fighting also have gotten stronger. With a good build and knowing the system you can ensure your own level curve is higher and thus a real power difference happens that matches more classical RPGs, but it is also possible for those not min maxing to become overpowered by enemies. This factors into my fun even though it has little direct impact on my minute by minute gameplay (at least until one side really overpowers the other). Video games have always had this sort of progression that increased fun despite not looking like it adds to the fun during the minute by minute gameplay. What has happened is that developers have found ways to tie these mechanics to other factors that can then be optimized, generally for the purpose of making money, though sometimes you see developers optimizing engagement for the sake of engagement. This sort of optimization can end up running counter to the minute by minute gameplay. Progression becomes so important that people sacrifice enjoyment of the gameplay so they can get enjoyment of the potentially pointless progression. While grinding isn't new, there was almost always some other gameplay as the goal. Now that has changed to grinding just for the sake of more grinding. In the past that would have been the sign of a bad game and people would not engage if there was no end payoff, but these days it has been optimized to just the right level to replace fun with compulsion. It makes one wonder what is the ultimate game. Imagine a game that you plug in and then it fills the TV with light patterns that activate all your pleasure centers like some cyberpunk electronic drug. Is that the future down the path we are currently going? Was that always what was waiting us at the end of the path of entertainment even before video games existed?
cyber_kinetist 5y ago
For the XP example you’ve come up with, I think the more pragmatic reason why people were swarming around Portal XP farms was not that people were particularly hungry for just grinding XP, but because grinding them was the only way to gain access to the really important guns and equipment (which you need in order to enjoy the actual base game!) And the XP grind in 2042 is excruciatingly slow (although BF3/BF4 also had this issue and there were many complaints about it). The thing is, most people actually want fun. I’ve never seen BF players play it solely for gaining the highest rank/level, since the real merit for BF is that it’s a sandbox shooter that creates all sorts of complex emergent situations and rewards you for dealing with it both reactively and creatively. But there are so many aspects of 2042 that actively tries to hinder this “fun” and are arbitrarily forced at the players (the XP grind, lack of server browsers, the difficulty of changing squads, squad size limits, no global chat, etc etc.), and players genuinely hate them. So I really don’t believe that “most of these players are mindless consumers who just enjoy skinner boxes, and they demand those type of games”.

by mdoms 5y ago

gowld 5y ago

That seems like a win-win -- it separates the XP-chasers from the "play for fun" cohort, so they don't annoy each other.

mdoms 5y ago
Maybe it would be a win-win with a big enough player base, but as it is the Portal mode is basically empty now - at least in the Australasia region. BF2042 player numbers have dropped too far to sustain it I'm afraid (for other reasons we shan't get into).

powersurge360 5y ago

I have a lot of friends who play almost exclusively shooters and this kind of stuff is what's put me off of the genre. I really miss back when you could get a copy of unreal tournament or half life deathmatch and just drop in w/ all the guns unlocked and available and just rampage. I know it's a different genre completely from the more realistic shooters like Battlefield and Call of Duty, but even still I miss the unfettered drop-in fun in those older games and there seem to be hardly any left.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Unreal's mutators were great! It was like the fun you could get from Quake console without having to read and type a lot. Also very discoverable.
mdoms 5y ago
One of the coolest things when I was playing games as a kid was working my way through the single player story, but being able to "skip ahead" and see all of the cool guns and gadgets by opening a multiplayer session. Nowadays you're locked out of most of the weapons in MP unless you're willing to put in 40+ hours (and much much more in some games).
Talanes 5y ago
> I know it's a different genre completely from the more realistic shooters like Battlefield and Call of Duty, but even still I miss the unfettered drop-in fun in those older games and there seem to be hardly any left. Old Battlefield was great for drop-in fun too. My high school had Battlefield Vietnam on the library computers, and you could usually find a couple people running a LAN game at lunch to drop into if you wanted.

vorpalhex 5y ago

XP gates weapons and equipment in the base game. You are literally not getting to do all the fun stuff if you don't grind some.

me_me_me 5y ago
Thats a bit of reductionist view, xp gates started of as a fun mechanic. You play the base game, and unlock new weapons that you try out and compare with older ones. You get sense of progression and something new to play with. Its a good mechanic to keep player interested and expose them to different play-style. Problems starts when money-people starts to poke around with this and design it for exploitation, making XP levels too big, making starting weapons worse and lategame weapons overpowered. After that they give you solution of buying XP booster etc. They literally break their game in order to sell you solution.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Yeah, XP gating on paper has positives: reducing choices for new players, giving you achievements, etc. I'm explaining why I am an "xp chaser" though - I don't care about my BattleRank but I want those locked weapons.

btkramer9 5y ago

I think this is a result of adults making up a much larger share of gamers and profits to gaming companies. I've noticed myself doing this and I can pause it if I try but I don't think I can turn it off. Playing games as a kid, it was all about exploration and doing fun things. I didn't beat many games but I played a lot of them. As an adult, I need to be setting goals and earning achievements. There always needs to be something I'm working towards. It's fun planning/achieving at first but after a few weeks it just feels like i've given myself another job then i get burnt out and reset. I haven't played battlefield 2042. I bet you're right that portal mode is fun but I'm willing to bet if I was to play I would probably start to express the same sentiment that there's no point in playing portal mode if it doesn't help me progress in the game. It's stupid and I have a hard time admitting it but it's true. Sometimes I wish I could just enjoy a game for what it is and not be thinking about "what next?" or "what does this accomplish?". I think its just because we're adults (and probably because we have fully developed prefrontal cortexes?)

cyber_kinetist 5y ago
My reason for not playing Portal mode was that I couldn’t find good servers with enough players and low ping in the Asia region (I managed to play a really good game of BF3 conquest by luck, but that was it.) Actually, I still want to play Battlefield 4 more than 2042, but am forced to play 2042 for the same reason. The sad reality of multiplayer shooters is that people flock to whatever is the latest and has the biggest number of players…

coldpie 5y ago

This is pretty close to ruining multiplayer in Halo Infinite, too. They totally botched the rewards system (it's really, really bad), so everyone is complaining about that. But the core gameplay is actually really great, among the best in the series. If the stupid, tacked-on reward crap wasn't there, everyone would just be enjoying a fantastic online shooter. Instead most of the buzz around the game has been negative because of their terrible rewards system. But it's hard to argue with Fortnite's success, hence all the braindead clones.

ansible 5y ago
> They totally botched the rewards system... If the stupid, tacked-on reward crap wasn't there, everyone would just be enjoying a fantastic online shooter. Ah, I remember the old days, when you "won" by having your side win, and having a Kill / Death ratio sufficiently above 1.0. I haven't played much since the Halo: Reach release. Even back then, they had started adding XP, so that you could earn a higher rank... which didn't mean anything in-game as far as I knew. Just access to more fancy armor mods and such.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Progressing a meaningless rank is like the perfect amount of multiplayer grind. Just something that signifies "I've played this game a lot" for the players who care, without forcing it on those who don't.
physicsguy 5y ago
I just don’t care about the rewards, I like dropping into Infinite and playing some SWAT. As the rewards don’t impact the game, it doesn’t matter to me. I always hated having to grind in COD for guns

WindyLakeReturn 5y ago

>If you read the forums or subreddit you'll see people claim to enjoy Portal mode, but also say things like "what's the point in playing Portal if you can't earn XP". It's an attitude I don't understand at all - the point in playing Portal is that it's a lot of fun! But most of the community seems to disagree with me and as a result Portal mode is empty. I have a strong preference for rougelites over rougelikes because the former includes a meta-game progression. It includes a sort of XP that makes me enjoy the game loop more, even though the fun from the actual game loop would in theory be equal regardless of some sort of meta-progression. I also enjoy fighting games with RPG mechanics over those without, once again because there is a meta progression system. It isn't just a matter of getting better, because you'll end up facing harder enemies who also are now better and the skill doesn't change. I think these concepts are related to what you mention. Even RPGs in general have this sort of progression across a long span of playing that adds value to a game beyond what the minute to minute gameplay offers, despite enemies getting stronger and the net gameplay not really changing. When I play Diablo style ARPGs, same thing. I get stronger, but so do the enemies, and the gameplay remains much the same but I wouldn't play the game if it didn't have what I'll call potentially pointless progression. I also think it is interesting to measure potentially pointless progression that becomes so pointless it harms player experience. Possible examples, and I say possible because the threshold changes per person, are Elder Scrolls games, especially Oblivion, and FF VIII. Both games are some flavor of RPG where enemies get stronger as you get stronger. Not enemies in new locations and often not even new enemies. You level up, the enemy you were just fighting also have gotten stronger. With a good build and knowing the system you can ensure your own level curve is higher and thus a real power difference happens that matches more classical RPGs, but it is also possible for those not min maxing to become overpowered by enemies. This factors into my fun even though it has little direct impact on my minute by minute gameplay (at least until one side really overpowers the other). Video games have always had this sort of progression that increased fun despite not looking like it adds to the fun during the minute by minute gameplay. What has happened is that developers have found ways to tie these mechanics to other factors that can then be optimized, generally for the purpose of making money, though sometimes you see developers optimizing engagement for the sake of engagement. This sort of optimization can end up running counter to the minute by minute gameplay. Progression becomes so important that people sacrifice enjoyment of the gameplay so they can get enjoyment of the potentially pointless progression. While grinding isn't new, there was almost always some other gameplay as the goal. Now that has changed to grinding just for the sake of more grinding. In the past that would have been the sign of a bad game and people would not engage if there was no end payoff, but these days it has been optimized to just the right level to replace fun with compulsion. It makes one wonder what is the ultimate game. Imagine a game that you plug in and then it fills the TV with light patterns that activate all your pleasure centers like some cyberpunk electronic drug. Is that the future down the path we are currently going? Was that always what was waiting us at the end of the path of entertainment even before video games existed?

cyber_kinetist 5y ago

For the XP example you’ve come up with, I think the more pragmatic reason why people were swarming around Portal XP farms was not that people were particularly hungry for just grinding XP, but because grinding them was the only way to gain access to the really important guns and equipment (which you need in order to enjoy the actual base game!) And the XP grind in 2042 is excruciatingly slow (although BF3/BF4 also had this issue and there were many complaints about it). The thing is, most people actually want fun. I’ve never seen BF players play it solely for gaining the highest rank/level, since the real merit for BF is that it’s a sandbox shooter that creates all sorts of complex emergent situations and rewards you for dealing with it both reactively and creatively. But there are so many aspects of 2042 that actively tries to hinder this “fun” and are arbitrarily forced at the players (the XP grind, lack of server browsers, the difficulty of changing squads, squad size limits, no global chat, etc etc.), and players genuinely hate them. So I really don’t believe that “most of these players are mindless consumers who just enjoy skinner boxes, and they demand those type of games”.