This.
Brink is trying to catch new players, and it has a lot, a lot, of replay value, but you can’t keep the players who are like this hooked for eternity. They will stop playing the game [eventually], and there is nothing that can be done.
close release worries
Maca
(Maca)
#41
Auzner
(Auzner)
#42
My belief is that they will spend more time being absent than purposely giving “serious players” a hard time. I can’t count how many times I’ve told someone how obstructive/annoying/immature they’re being to have them respond with “it’s just a game” and “you take it too seriously”. In L4D on expert coop that is an unacceptable answer. And how do advanced mode players ever expect to get to expert mode with that kind of attitude? They won’t because they’re casual gamers. They only play expert mode so their achievements fill up. If the achievement wasn’t there they would be staying out of it more.
Coolaguy
(Coolaguy)
#43
Your argument, which most people would probably agree with on some level, is that extrinsic motivation is a poor substitute for intrinsic motivation.
I’ve heard numerous interesting talks over the years about how extrinsic rewards in games can “make gamers play more and enjoy the experience less”. Sometimes, extrinsic motivations can even drive compulsive gamer habits in the pursuit of ultimately shallow extrinsic rewards (example: Xbox Achievement for some absurd and painful grind).
Numerous other studies have looked at instances where you ‘bribe’ (with rewards for performance) school children to get better grades or for such activities as colouring. The startling and fascinating results are that such extrinsic rewards can actually (over the long term) suppress and overcome the intrinsic motivations that would usually drive productive behaviour (e.g. studying to do well in school or colouring for enjoyment, respectively).
TED Talk on the science of motivation (HIGHLY recommended):
Another obvious detractor of extrinsic rewards is when their implementation is ill-conceived and players are tempted by or rewarded for behaviours that sabotage the gaming experience for other players (i.e. multiplayer achievements, such as the L4D ones you mentioned).
The detrimental effects of extrinsic motivators aside, you can’t discount the fact that they can be very effective in driving participant behaviour, especially over a limited time frame. ‘Variable reward systems’ are remarkable in that they are actually psychologically addictive. Variable reward systems don’t act on the conscious part of our mind, so we aren’t actively aware of the influence that variable reward is having over our decision making processes. Extrinsic reward systems can serve to increase the level of engagement in a game and, by extension, make the experience more fun for the player, more popular in the gaming community, and more profitable for the developer.
What Constitutes a “Gamer” - Some Interesting Trends:
The definition of what constitutes a “gamer” is not as cut and dry as you make it seem. Every franchise defines its audience differently, as based on the offering at hand and the way the game is targeted (and marketed). Gaming is a commercial medium, and no developer is immune to real fiscal concerns.
Given these commercial drives, we’ve seen an interesting trend in the industry over the years where companies have increasingly tried to ‘broaden’ the game’s offering to make it inclusive to as many ‘casual gamers’ as possible. A couple of examples are the general decrease in difficulty and duration of in-game campaigns.
The reason for this is that the non-core market is the growth market for video games, whereas the core market has become increasingly saturated. Interestingly, as many developers shift their offering towards the casual gamer, some developers have discovered a niche in providing unparalleled and unflinching hardcore gameplay (e.g. Borderlands, Demon Souls, etc.).
A number of remarkable developments and innovations have taken place over recent years to the point where a paradigm shift seems just on the horizon. World of Warcraft has lead to incredible innovations in the video game business model (MMO subscription fee and variable reward) and in the market for virtual goods (e.g. Chinese gold grinders, eBay auctions for WoW characters, etc.). World of Warcraft has been tremendously profitable for Blizzard as a result. Seemingly out of nowhere was Zynga’s Farmville, which has tapped into previously completely unrealized markets (like 40+ women) with the remarkable innovation of social integration and the psychological compulsion for reciprocity (“Here’s a sheep, Facebook Friend! Take this sheep! Water my crops, please?.. Oh please, water my crops! I planted too many and can’t water them myself! Oh gawd… Won’t someone please help me water my cr— Oh, thanks!”).
Brink doesn’t exactly seem poised to launch the next major paradigm shift, but I do think that it demonstrates real gameplay innovation. If Brink successfully implements the elements proposed to imbue non-hardcore, non-team-oriented gamers with actual team-oriented behaviours and understanding, then it will have achieved a pretty significant innovation milestone. Likewise, Brink will potentially be bridging the gap between the more casual offline gamer and the online hardcore multiplayer gamer, which would be another significant innovation.
As a consequence of some of Brink’s potential innovations, it will be welcoming a different class of gamers into the fold. Because these gamers don’t hail from the same stock of players who are intrinsically motivated to compulsively play multiplayer games online for hours on end, who can say what this new demographic of gamers will need to motivate them to keep them playing? Certainly, the definition of what a gamer is and isn’t is changing. Splash Damage is poised to be an impetus for that change. Time will tell how innovative Splash Damage’s offering actually is and whether Brink is a commercially successful title or not.
For Splash Damage’s sake, I hope that they capitalize on the innovations that they are developing, rather than generating an innovative title with poor commercial reception whose innovative elements are ‘stolen’ by other developers who then realize Splash Damage’s would-be benefit (‘Second Mover Advantage’).
umm i have a headache
tokamak
(tokamak)
#46
You clearly don’t know how some people treat their music or movies.
I do like the brownie points though. But I’d rather see statistics. Stuff like ‘most kills with one turret’ ‘furthest jump’ that sort of shizzle.
Herandar
(Herandar)
#47
[QUOTE=Coolaguy;266141]A number of remarkable developments and innovations have taken place over recent years to the point where a paradigm shift seems just on the horizon. SNIP.
Brink doesn’t exactly seem poised to launch the next major paradigm shift, but I do think that it demonstrates real gameplay innovation. If Brink successfully implements the elements proposed to imbue non-hardcore, non-team-oriented gamers with actual team-oriented behaviours and understanding, then it will have achieved a pretty significant innovation milestone. Likewise, Brink will potentially be bridging the gap between the more casual offline gamer and the online hardcore multiplayer gamer, which would be another significant innovation.
For Splash Damage’s sake, I hope that they capitalize on the innovations that they are developing, rather than generating an innovative title with poor commercial reception whose innovative elements are ‘stolen’ by other developers who then realize Splash Damage’s would-be benefit.[/QUOTE]
The more I think about it, the more I think that SMART is going to become a standard feature in the FPS genre that are developed after Brink is released. (Think Horse put that seed in my head.) Not so much for the parkour running and jumping abilities, but for the lack of hindrance when moving. I imagine that after playing Brink for a while, and then trying another first person game where you can get stuck on fences and vegetation would be tremendously frustrating.
I don’t know if it qualifies as a true innovation, but definitely a radical refinement.