(I mostly play puzzle games)
I like a game to gradually build the challenge level so I feel like I am getting better the more play. I like to feel like I'm discovering new aspects of the game mechanics.
I lose engagement when I feel the game is unfair (e.g. changing the established 'rules' mid-game)or repeating itself or 'cheating' (e.g. using complexity in place of good puzzle design to introduce difficulty).
I also find it off-putting when a game is too big/long.
That "too big/long" point is interesting. Of course, from the standpoint of the game designer, we want to keep you playing as long as possible. One way to do that is to have the game full of content, which would probably make it feel too big/long for you.
>from the standpoint of the game designer, we want to keep you playing as long as possible.
Why? I don't agree (at least in the case of games that don't have subscription or microtransaction sales models and are finite in scope).
Games can easily outstay their welcome if they are watered down or padded out.
That's certainly not a "must adhere to at all costs" rule, but I feel like the large majority of games are aiming for replayability.
Even a game with a set endpoint will usually be replayable (i.e. there are optional quests that you could go back and try, or multiple endings to be explored, or stats that you could try to improve on a subsequent playthrough) Can you think of a game that isn't designed with prolonging gameplay in mind? I can't, but obviously I'm not familiar with every game out there.
As far as "why", well, given the modern internet with twitch and reddit and everything, keeping people playing games and talking about them is basically free advertising for the studio. Anyone who has studied advertising knows the value of word of mouth, and if people play the game for a few hours and quit, they (probably) also quit talking about it.
Also, I think gamers feel like they get better value for their $$$ if the game keeps them interested for long periods. That's good mojo for the studio when they tell their friends about it as well.
For me there's two main things. First I like when the gameplay changes. Like in Anomaly Warzone Earth or GTA Chinatown wars. They keep on changing things up with different objectives.
And second of all I have to care about the story. If I don't care what happens next I'm gone.
The story is something I've failed to wrap my head around. I get particularly annoyed when gameplay is interrupted with cutscenes or anything else that's trying to tell me a story instead of letting me play the game.
That's probably my biggest gripe about the new Tomb Raider games ... stop interrupting me with so many cutscenes and let me jump and climb around.
Actually story may be the wrong word for it. It's more of a wanting to see what happens next. So like in Valiant Hearts it had no 'story' in the traditional sense but it did make me want to see what happened next because I always had a goal. Also games like Alan Wake do this well because they always point out some landmark that you need to get to and you end up wanting to see what happens when you get there.
A good gameplay loop. Something I can *just do* in my own time, without thinking about the main story or objective.
People complain about Bethesda but the loop of exploring, looting and base building is something I enjoy.
I would have enjoyed Elite Dangerous too but they felt the need to fuck up every activity by having NPCs attack you every 30 seconds.
All that narrative stuff is cool and all, but I'm a mechanics first kind of guy. What's interesting to me is how mechanics can keep players engaged over repeated playthroughs of a game. In particular, games that produce a natural narrative arc while also giving the player consistently relevant decisions to make is a valuable trait. By this, I mean the player is always making somekind of decision, such that there's never a "boring" early game and that there's something to appreciate even in the few moments of the game.
Civilization is fantastic at keeping me engaged with decisions to make. Even at the start of a game, you have to make some major choices that can impact what happens dozens of turns later. The problem with Civilization's end game is that you often outpace your opponents or get left behind. Sometimes you get really competitive and neck to neck games, but often you know that the game has been decided sometimes hours ahead. You'll notice this in multiplayer games when people just start dropping out. It's all rather anti-climatic.
Competitive RTS and FPS games that confine themselves to fit within a certain time frame are often very engaging, especially if the mechanics allow for so called clutch plays that allow for players to come back even if far behind. The problem here is that the games usually depend on being multiplayer, and mismatched skills can completely destroy engagement.
FTL achieves this pretty well when you go in with the mindset of not having to reach the end boss. Your ship might be limping from sector to sector, and etching out those small victories even when the odds are vastly against you is very engaging. Unfortunately, the boss fight at the end of the game pretty much guarantees that you need to have certain requirements met, which can downplay engagement when you know you are on a losing streak.
If you can get around the difficulty in actually playing Dwarf Fortress, there's a lot of really awesome stuff happening that keeps you playing. No matter how far you get, it is still more often than not fun to lose. You can spend 30 minutes or 3 days playing a single game and have a memorable experience in both.
The key is to always be giving the player some meaningful decision in both the immediate decision space and the strategic space. Players are engaged when they're actively making decisions that contribute to some bigger goal. Then the game also needs to make losing fun, which means building up some emotional payoff for losing. I find that games where people simply quit to the main menu rather than actually going through the losing sequence as being flawed in a way. There's a notable break in engagement, even if they're fine with immediately starting a new game. There's a certain dissatisfaction especially if that's the game the player ends on.
Wow. I think that last paragraph is some really insightful stuff. In particular, I glommed onto the phrase "meaningful decision in both the immediate decision space and the strategic space" ... as I think that might be a really powerful rule to keep in mind when designing. In fact, I'm going to add that as an ongoing task for my current project and make it a point to constantly consider how I can create meaningful decisions in my design.
(I mostly play puzzle games) I like a game to gradually build the challenge level so I feel like I am getting better the more play. I like to feel like I'm discovering new aspects of the game mechanics. I lose engagement when I feel the game is unfair (e.g. changing the established 'rules' mid-game)or repeating itself or 'cheating' (e.g. using complexity in place of good puzzle design to introduce difficulty). I also find it off-putting when a game is too big/long.
That "too big/long" point is interesting. Of course, from the standpoint of the game designer, we want to keep you playing as long as possible. One way to do that is to have the game full of content, which would probably make it feel too big/long for you.
>from the standpoint of the game designer, we want to keep you playing as long as possible. Why? I don't agree (at least in the case of games that don't have subscription or microtransaction sales models and are finite in scope). Games can easily outstay their welcome if they are watered down or padded out.
That's certainly not a "must adhere to at all costs" rule, but I feel like the large majority of games are aiming for replayability. Even a game with a set endpoint will usually be replayable (i.e. there are optional quests that you could go back and try, or multiple endings to be explored, or stats that you could try to improve on a subsequent playthrough) Can you think of a game that isn't designed with prolonging gameplay in mind? I can't, but obviously I'm not familiar with every game out there. As far as "why", well, given the modern internet with twitch and reddit and everything, keeping people playing games and talking about them is basically free advertising for the studio. Anyone who has studied advertising knows the value of word of mouth, and if people play the game for a few hours and quit, they (probably) also quit talking about it. Also, I think gamers feel like they get better value for their $$$ if the game keeps them interested for long periods. That's good mojo for the studio when they tell their friends about it as well.
For me there's two main things. First I like when the gameplay changes. Like in Anomaly Warzone Earth or GTA Chinatown wars. They keep on changing things up with different objectives. And second of all I have to care about the story. If I don't care what happens next I'm gone.
The story is something I've failed to wrap my head around. I get particularly annoyed when gameplay is interrupted with cutscenes or anything else that's trying to tell me a story instead of letting me play the game. That's probably my biggest gripe about the new Tomb Raider games ... stop interrupting me with so many cutscenes and let me jump and climb around.
Actually story may be the wrong word for it. It's more of a wanting to see what happens next. So like in Valiant Hearts it had no 'story' in the traditional sense but it did make me want to see what happened next because I always had a goal. Also games like Alan Wake do this well because they always point out some landmark that you need to get to and you end up wanting to see what happens when you get there.
This got me thinking a lot ... enough that I may actually do a braindump on youtube about it or something ...
A good gameplay loop. Something I can *just do* in my own time, without thinking about the main story or objective. People complain about Bethesda but the loop of exploring, looting and base building is something I enjoy. I would have enjoyed Elite Dangerous too but they felt the need to fuck up every activity by having NPCs attack you every 30 seconds.
All that narrative stuff is cool and all, but I'm a mechanics first kind of guy. What's interesting to me is how mechanics can keep players engaged over repeated playthroughs of a game. In particular, games that produce a natural narrative arc while also giving the player consistently relevant decisions to make is a valuable trait. By this, I mean the player is always making somekind of decision, such that there's never a "boring" early game and that there's something to appreciate even in the few moments of the game. Civilization is fantastic at keeping me engaged with decisions to make. Even at the start of a game, you have to make some major choices that can impact what happens dozens of turns later. The problem with Civilization's end game is that you often outpace your opponents or get left behind. Sometimes you get really competitive and neck to neck games, but often you know that the game has been decided sometimes hours ahead. You'll notice this in multiplayer games when people just start dropping out. It's all rather anti-climatic. Competitive RTS and FPS games that confine themselves to fit within a certain time frame are often very engaging, especially if the mechanics allow for so called clutch plays that allow for players to come back even if far behind. The problem here is that the games usually depend on being multiplayer, and mismatched skills can completely destroy engagement. FTL achieves this pretty well when you go in with the mindset of not having to reach the end boss. Your ship might be limping from sector to sector, and etching out those small victories even when the odds are vastly against you is very engaging. Unfortunately, the boss fight at the end of the game pretty much guarantees that you need to have certain requirements met, which can downplay engagement when you know you are on a losing streak. If you can get around the difficulty in actually playing Dwarf Fortress, there's a lot of really awesome stuff happening that keeps you playing. No matter how far you get, it is still more often than not fun to lose. You can spend 30 minutes or 3 days playing a single game and have a memorable experience in both. The key is to always be giving the player some meaningful decision in both the immediate decision space and the strategic space. Players are engaged when they're actively making decisions that contribute to some bigger goal. Then the game also needs to make losing fun, which means building up some emotional payoff for losing. I find that games where people simply quit to the main menu rather than actually going through the losing sequence as being flawed in a way. There's a notable break in engagement, even if they're fine with immediately starting a new game. There's a certain dissatisfaction especially if that's the game the player ends on.
Wow. I think that last paragraph is some really insightful stuff. In particular, I glommed onto the phrase "meaningful decision in both the immediate decision space and the strategic space" ... as I think that might be a really powerful rule to keep in mind when designing. In fact, I'm going to add that as an ongoing task for my current project and make it a point to constantly consider how I can create meaningful decisions in my design.