[MUD-Dev] The changing nature of fun

[John Buehler]

brian hook writes:

> This is something that has come up on numerous occasions, and to
> me is probably one of the oldest and hardest problems.  I'm not
> talking about "what makes things fun", but the much harder problem
> of "Why is something not fun now and was fun before".

> I'll just cite some examples where you have, quite simply, mutual
> exclusions.

[snip]

> The above are just some examples of things that are fun and not
> fun, and the level of fun depends entirely on the player and the
> situation.  This is important -- NOTHING IN THE GAME CHANGED, BUT
> THE SUBJECTIVE ENJOYMENT ITSELF DID.  This is a major issue.

> Games that naively try to "fix" the above end up losing a lot of
> personality.  You get rid of CR, and suddenly there doesn't feel
> like there's much risk.  But now, at the same time, you're more
> willing to explore new areas that you may have not have done
> before.

> You get rid of forced interdependence by emphasizing soloing, and
> now you've given the players immense freedom but now they're no
> longer interacting with others.

> You get rid of down time, and players aren't impatient all the
> time, but they suddenly find the game is too intensive (they don't
> get their "breathers" forced on them) and they don't get to know
> their adventuring partners.  Socialization breaks down.

> Make travel less tedious, and suddenly the world arbitrarily
> shrinks.  A world is as large as the longest time it takes to get
> from Point A to Point B.  It doesn't matter if you have a 256 x
> 256 mile world, if you can fly fast enough or teleport, it feels
> like a couple connected rooms in a MUD.  Conversely, a game that
> takes place entirely in a single castle can feel huge if you have
> to creep along the entire time for fear of discovery (think of
> Thief, where some of the mansions felt absolutely mind blowingly
> huge because you had to crawl through them).

> Anyway, no real point, just curious what others thought about
> this.

Good topic.

I would offer that directed linearity is the bane of deeper
enjoyment of games.

The 'linearity' is clear enough.  It comes from the 'consequences'
mindset.  Fight in EverQuest and you run the risk of having a corpse
in the wrong place.  The consequence is that the corpse has to be
recovered.  Sometimes it's fun and sometimes it's not.  But it's
obligatory.  It's a consequence of dying.  It's linear.

The 'directed linearity' is even worse.  The entertainment of games
is usually predicated on advancement.  This can be advancement of
skills, levels, equipment, possessions, standings, whatever.  Go up
or be left behind.  The game is seen as a ladder, and we climb UP
ladders, not down.  We all know the effects of social stratification
that comes from the leveling ladder.  The rhetorical question at
this point is: why aren't 'failure' scenarios as entertaining as
'success' scenarios?  Yes, sometimes they are, but if 99% of corpse
recoveries are no longer fun, then I'd chalk that failure scenario
up as 'unentertaining'.

There is a third element involved, and that is the frequency of exit
and entry points on that 'directed linearity' vector.  How often can
I hop out of what I'm doing and switch to some other form of
entertainment?  In a single player game, I can just set the game
aside.  In a realtime multiplayer game, I can't set the game aside,
and I'm probably also committed to some activity for a period of
time.  How long is that period of time?

I can recall marathon sessions in EverQuest where we'd fight our way
into a room deep in a dungeon, then 'camp' that room, killing
everything around it.  For one player to leave that setting was a
major undertaking.  The departure of a key character might render
the entire situation impractical.

What is most entertaining is doing what I want when I want to do it.
Games that drag me into activities that I don't want to do right now
have the characteristic that you're talking about: what used to be
fun ceases to be fun.

So the solution that I see is to break the directed linearity of
gameplay and to instead pursue a more piecemeal style of play.  Note
that this is a request for piecemeal style of play.  Not piecemeal
tasks or instant travel by a single character, etc.  Perhaps players
should be running multiple characters, ala The Sims.  Perhaps
players should be able to not only run their own character or
characters, but also peek over the shoulder of other players'
characters so that they can join in on the fun of what their friends
are doing with their characters.  Perhaps offline behavior by
characters can be implemented so that an activity that a player
isn't too enthusiastic about actually participating in (but which is
a part of their character's in-context life) can take place for the
retention of the in-game fiction.  For example, actually spending a
realistic amount of time at the forge, hammering out plates for a
full set of armor.

The point of the offered solution is to make it entertaining to head
in more directions in the entertainment space of the game, and to
permit players to make direction changes more frequently.

Games like Quake and Unreal Tournament remain entertaining because,
while having a sense of linearity to them (advancement), the
interactions really aren't very directed.  The players just mix it
up, trying to shoot each other, with both success and failure being
entertaining.  Further, entry and exit points are frequent.  I can
leave a game anytime I want and I can enter a game anytime I want -
essentially without penalty.

I don't offer Quake or Unreal Tournament as panaceas of gaming.
However, they illustrate the notion of the piecemeal style of play.
The tasks are short in duration and players come and go as they
like.

JB


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev