No, I didn't miss the point. It's exactly why I picked on Torchlight. The weapon drop loop is one of those extra layers I was referring to. It's not the core combat gameplay at all, it's a layer on top of that. It's that management layer that adds enough to the underlying basic click-repeat gameplay to keep it interesting.
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make with this statement.
Tourchlight/Diablo and computer RPGs in general stem from DnD. Now to facilitate the narrative there has to be some kind of progression of the hero. If you just start and kill the end boss that would be a terrible story. In any kind of narrative there is a journey to acquire the power required to achieve that end goal. In DnD (or any tabletop RPG) that progression of acquiring the abilities to defeat the ultimate evil is represented by stats.
So the positive is simply a mechanical representation of the aesthetic narrative of the character. Yes you can simply view it that she has +3 strength, or she has faced so much combat and fighting that she is now physically stronger.
So there is an internal reason and logic in the game for why that progression is there. The character becomes stronger because she needs to become stronger to defeat the final boss. She gets better weapons because that rusty sword would not she started with would not not pierce the boss's flesh. It's not like these are here just to make the game more engaging (I'm not contending that they do) but they serve a purpose in terms of the aesthetic delivery of the game.
Totally, again as with any design consideration, some things are only applicable to some games. In this case, I'd say the dynamic nature of many of these FTP titles' content is exactly why they're valid examples of games that should be "allowed" to not be persistent.
I can agree with this. Though to make the rather snarky comment I don't mind most F2P games to be forgotten if only so that we forget how bad most of them are.
'Social games' are, arguably, the least socially engaging of all games since the social mechanics are simply there to bypass the waiting so that more people will wait and hopefully pay money to bypass and play.
Puzzle and Dragon has some interesting gameplay to it and its social aspect was rather refreshing when compared to things like xVille, but the kompu gacha of it still made me feel rather uncomfortable with it.
In both cases it feels like they are designed to extract as much money from people as they can as opposed to give them a good deal of fun for a fair price. I suppose that is kind of the what good vs evil freemium is.
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make with this statement.
Tourchlight/Diablo and computer RPGs in general stem from DnD. Now to facilitate the narrative there has to be some kind of progression of the hero. If you just start and kill the end boss that would be a terrible story. In any kind of narrative there is a journey to acquire the power required to achieve that end goal. In DnD (or any tabletop RPG) that progression of acquiring the abilities to defeat the ultimate evil is represented by stats.
So the positive is simply a mechanical representation of the aesthetic narrative of the character. Yes you can simply view it that she has +3 strength, or she has faced so much combat and fighting that she is now physically stronger.
So there is an internal reason and logic in the game for why that progression is there. The character becomes stronger because she needs to become stronger to defeat the final boss. She gets better weapons because that rusty sword would not she started with would not not pierce the boss's flesh. It's not like these are here just to make the game more engaging (I'm not contending that they do) but they serve a purpose in terms of the aesthetic delivery of the game.
This is a very odd distinction to make. In a discussion about mechanics, which everyone else seems to be talking about, you are insisting on discussing things in terms of narrative.
Of course it matters whether or not the mechanics reinforce the theme. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER FOR @MattBenic 's statement to be true.
mattbenic said:
No, I didn't miss the point. It's exactly why I picked on Torchlight. The weapon drop loop is one of those extra layers I was referring to. It's not the core combat gameplay at all, it's a layer on top of that. It's that management layer that adds enough to the underlying basic click-repeat gameplay to keep it interesting.
This is how developers often talk about Diablo-likes. This is normal developer speak. We need to be able to assume certain things in order to be able to talk to each other.
Whether or not the mechanics reinforce the narrative was NOT what @mattbenic was discussing. There is nothing about narrative in there. Arguing against him about that doesn't further this discussion.
Karuji said:
@BlackShipsFilltheSky I'm wondering if long term playloop would be a more apt description since meta is kinda "That which is of but not part of" Like metadata is data of data, but is not inherently part of the data itself. So if it is part of the game I don't believe it can be meta. Though I think we can move a taxonomy debate to a thread I shall soon be creating. And once we are talking about the same topic things should be quite a bit less baffling.
I was never focussing on "meta-game" THAT WAS YOU.
BlackShipsFilltheSky said:
I can't comment on the talk. But I think that designing FTP games is something that can be practiced without having to add In-App-Purchases to prototypes. And if you're planning to make FTP games in the future you SHOULD be acquiring FTP design skills now (if you're hoping to have any part in the design).
As I see it. Successful FTP games are almost all games that have long and compelling gameplay loops. I can't think of one successful FTP game that doesn't have a fat meta-game.
And people on these forums aren't really working at getting those skills (please correct me if I'm wrong). A lot of the focus of game design learning here seems to be to do with the shorter, more fun orientated gameplay loops.
So I'd be a bit weary of recommending to any South African developer right now that they pursue FTP. Or rather, I'd recommend that anyone thinking of going that route practice their meta-game design skills with a few prototypes, and prove that they can create a compelling game, before they worry about in-app-purchases. It really doesn't matter what you're planning on selling as in-app-purchases unless you've got the skills to get people playing your game for 10+ hours and to get people to being covetous of your virtual stuff.
Does that make sense? I'm definitely pro FTP where applicable, but it's a big game design challenge. Like @AngryMoose says, it's a new field of game design. Presuming that our boxed model game design knowledge will translate well is going to end in tears.
(I'm hoping that a few people here seriously consider practicing their meta-game/long compulsion loops/interlocking loops design. I see that as the first step for designers towards developing successful FTP games in South Africa))
This is what I was talking about. Seriously, read my words. It was about creating compelling games, NOT creating meta-games.
BlackShipsFilltheSky said:
As I see it. Successful FTP games are almost all games that have long and compelling gameplay loops.
...
(I'm hoping that a few people here seriously consider practicing their meta-game/long compulsion loops/interlocking loops design. I see that as the first step for designers towards developing successful FTP games in South Africa))
Once again.. What @BlackShipsFilltheSky said, exactly :) My point in choosing Torchlight had nothing to do with narrative.
Karuji said:
'Social games' are, arguably, the least socially engaging of all games since the social mechanics are simply there to bypass the waiting so that more people will wait and hopefully pay money to bypass and play.
I disagree completely here, the mechanics are there to: 1) Give you something else to do outside of the basic click mechanic. In other words, they're another larger loop outside of the core loop that would otherwise be mind-numbingly boring. They're on the same level as a progression/management component, and as such are as important to the overall game as that loot drop/upgrade process in Torchlight. 2) Give you an incentive to get other players involved, growing the core player base. This is closer to what you're suggesting, but it's less about the current player being more likely to pay and more about getting in more players that would eventually hopefully pay. This aspect obviously contributes less directly to the overall experience, but it's still indirectly important because the more players in a given player's network, the better the experience is for them, and removing that network would result in a very different game-which is why preserving the game without that network wouldn't make sense.
As an example here, let's move away from the typical *ville game, and consider the new SimCity. I admittedly haven't played it yet (waiting for a Mac version :)), so my knowledge of it is based on reading and discussing it with people like @Chippit who have played it and also think about it from a design perspective. From what I understand, while it would be possible to experience the raw mechanics without the social aspect of the game, the social layer is what drives players to build specialized cities, and depend on neighboring specialized cities for things they wouldn't produce directly. This layer fundamentally changes the way the game is meant to be played-so playing it ten years from now, disconnected from a network of neighboring cities, the experience will be totally different to what the designers intended. Sure some people will dust it off and try it, but they may well be disappointed that the dynamic isn't at all what they remembered, and the lack of social interaction will result in a lesser game.
I think I'd like to add a third reason for the social mechanics to exist in these games. Although it may overlap quite a lot with what @mattbenic said in his point 1)
3) Exploring other folks' cities/villes/fairs/dungeons etc can give players an enticing vision of what they can expect and foster some friendly competition. Knowing how you stack up against others, whether you're surpassing other players, or achieving the things you've seen them achieve, is a rewarding experience and as such motivates players.
Motivated players are certainly more likely to pay money to achieve their goals. Though I haven't built a social freemium game so I'm not too certain as to the power of this effect.
Spry Fox seem to believe that the multiplayer aspects of freemium games result in better revenue. I haven't heard them elaborating on exactly why and how, though I can speculate (as I have done). I know Spry Fox has built multiplayer into Leap Day, which seems to be monetized very similarly to Triple Town and be a comparable experience, but with the addition of multiplayer mechanics. I'd be VERY interested to hear about the results of this experiment.
Comments
Tourchlight/Diablo and computer RPGs in general stem from DnD. Now to facilitate the narrative there has to be some kind of progression of the hero. If you just start and kill the end boss that would be a terrible story. In any kind of narrative there is a journey to acquire the power required to achieve that end goal. In DnD (or any tabletop RPG) that progression of acquiring the abilities to defeat the ultimate evil is represented by stats.
So the positive is simply a mechanical representation of the aesthetic narrative of the character. Yes you can simply view it that she has +3 strength, or she has faced so much combat and fighting that she is now physically stronger.
So there is an internal reason and logic in the game for why that progression is there. The character becomes stronger because she needs to become stronger to defeat the final boss. She gets better weapons because that rusty sword would not she started with would not not pierce the boss's flesh. It's not like these are here just to make the game more engaging (I'm not contending that they do) but they serve a purpose in terms of the aesthetic delivery of the game. I can agree with this. Though to make the rather snarky comment I don't mind most F2P games to be forgotten if only so that we forget how bad most of them are.
'Social games' are, arguably, the least socially engaging of all games since the social mechanics are simply there to bypass the waiting so that more people will wait and hopefully pay money to bypass and play.
Puzzle and Dragon has some interesting gameplay to it and its social aspect was rather refreshing when compared to things like xVille, but the kompu gacha of it still made me feel rather uncomfortable with it.
In both cases it feels like they are designed to extract as much money from people as they can as opposed to give them a good deal of fun for a fair price. I suppose that is kind of the what good vs evil freemium is.
Of course it matters whether or not the mechanics reinforce the theme. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER FOR @MattBenic 's statement to be true. This is how developers often talk about Diablo-likes. This is normal developer speak. We need to be able to assume certain things in order to be able to talk to each other.
Whether or not the mechanics reinforce the narrative was NOT what @mattbenic was discussing. There is nothing about narrative in there. Arguing against him about that doesn't further this discussion. I was never focussing on "meta-game" THAT WAS YOU. This is what I was talking about. Seriously, read my words. It was about creating compelling games, NOT creating meta-games.
1) Give you something else to do outside of the basic click mechanic. In other words, they're another larger loop outside of the core loop that would otherwise be mind-numbingly boring. They're on the same level as a progression/management component, and as such are as important to the overall game as that loot drop/upgrade process in Torchlight.
2) Give you an incentive to get other players involved, growing the core player base. This is closer to what you're suggesting, but it's less about the current player being more likely to pay and more about getting in more players that would eventually hopefully pay. This aspect obviously contributes less directly to the overall experience, but it's still indirectly important because the more players in a given player's network, the better the experience is for them, and removing that network would result in a very different game-which is why preserving the game without that network wouldn't make sense.
As an example here, let's move away from the typical *ville game, and consider the new SimCity. I admittedly haven't played it yet (waiting for a Mac version :)), so my knowledge of it is based on reading and discussing it with people like @Chippit who have played it and also think about it from a design perspective. From what I understand, while it would be possible to experience the raw mechanics without the social aspect of the game, the social layer is what drives players to build specialized cities, and depend on neighboring specialized cities for things they wouldn't produce directly. This layer fundamentally changes the way the game is meant to be played-so playing it ten years from now, disconnected from a network of neighboring cities, the experience will be totally different to what the designers intended. Sure some people will dust it off and try it, but they may well be disappointed that the dynamic isn't at all what they remembered, and the lack of social interaction will result in a lesser game.
I think I'd like to add a third reason for the social mechanics to exist in these games. Although it may overlap quite a lot with what @mattbenic said in his point 1)
3) Exploring other folks' cities/villes/fairs/dungeons etc can give players an enticing vision of what they can expect and foster some friendly competition. Knowing how you stack up against others, whether you're surpassing other players, or achieving the things you've seen them achieve, is a rewarding experience and as such motivates players.
Motivated players are certainly more likely to pay money to achieve their goals. Though I haven't built a social freemium game so I'm not too certain as to the power of this effect.
Spry Fox seem to believe that the multiplayer aspects of freemium games result in better revenue. I haven't heard them elaborating on exactly why and how, though I can speculate (as I have done). I know Spry Fox has built multiplayer into Leap Day, which seems to be monetized very similarly to Triple Town and be a comparable experience, but with the addition of multiplayer mechanics. I'd be VERY interested to hear about the results of this experiment.
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/Spry+Fox+News/news.asp?c=49594