Arbitrary tasks need to go.

[Sewblon]

I have been thinking about when Jonathon Blow said that games should not have stories because stories conflict with challenge for a month now, then I realized that challenge is what we need to remove. The goal of the developer is for the player to finish the game, they want the player to remember the experience as worthwhile but the player can't do that if the player did not deem the game worth finishing, and if you introduce an obstacle or a challenge, you are interfering with that objective. But as human beings we are programed to enjoy learning how to do new things and doing things that we are naturally good at, and I can't think of a way to do that without challenge. Can anyone shed light on this dilemma? Just To clarify, this problem is present weather or not the game has a story, it is not a question of story VS interactivity, it is a question of the need to challenge the player VS the need for them to eventually finish the game. On some level, any kind of challenge sends a message to the player that they are not intended to finish/enjoy the game.

 

[hotdogoctopus]

The Dilemma is that we're lazy. It used to be that you worked hard and gained something worthwhile. Now, we all want the 'brass ring' without so much as even looking at it. We have lost the ability to take pride. People who are proud are devalued and people who have nothing to be proud of are thrust onto a pedestal. That's why rap culture succeeds and why paris hilton isn't dead face down in an abandoned pool. Oh well, who is John Galt?

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

Games need challenge, that is their very purpose, to provide a clear goal and obstacles in the way of that goal for us to overcome, and hopefully give us satisfaction at having reached that goal. Without challenge, there is no real fun or purpose to play the game, if you just easily mow through the entire thing it will likely be boring and you will feel like you're doing nothing at all. Watching a movie would be better because there is no challenge in it, and you're not forced to interact with anything but rather experience the story or watch the spectacle. That's a big issue, because you need to interact with the game, it has to effectively keep your attention, but with no challenge there is no real sense of danger or excitement meaning one would lose interest rather fast. So really, I see no solution to having no challenge in a game.

 

[APPCRASH]

I usually remove challenges from my life. Every time my brother challenges me to a game of chess, I tell him to set up the bored. My first move is to flick over his king and say something along the lines of "12 turns." Then walk away while he has to clean up.

 

[Pacman_69_42]

I usually remove challenges from my life. Every time my brother challenges me to a game of chess, I tell him to set up the bored. My first move is to flick over his king and say something along the lines of "12 turns." Then walk away while he has to clean up.

.......... best chess strategy ever

 

[Sewblon]

Sorry for pushing this thread back onto the front page, but I really can't figure this out and feel that we need to discuss it.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I think whoever this Jonathon Blow person is is full of it. Games are a wonderful storytelling medium; the player's action driving forth the plot is a good way to ensure they're actually paying attention to the point of immersion, and emotional involvement is spiced by the player's feeling of responsibility.

On the other hand, removing the challenge of a game seems to sort of counter the purpose of making the thing a game at all. Admittedly, there are two lines that mustn't be crossed, but in between those lines, a game's challenge to a player should be high enough to avoid boredom, but low enough to avoid frustration. Without enough challenge, the gameplay, paradoxically, becomes a distraction rather than an enhancer. Too much challenge, on the other hand, either drives the player's mind off the story or places incredibly high expectations of it (anything to make the slog worthwhile).

So, I'd say the bottom line is that while games can certainly function without stories (as they originally did), it would be a waste of the medium's potential to not have them. Luckily, the gaming industry seems to have arrived at this conclusion already.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Honestly, I dont think it's "challenge" thats missing from today's games. The problem is "filler" and "fluff"... like you said, Arbitrary tasks.

Take God of War for example.
It's a great series with a magnificent storyline. Sure, it can get challenging, and if you don't make it to a checkpoint, you gotta start all over again, but you still have fun running through just trying to accomplish that task and when you beat the game you feel you EARNED it, especially since things get ramped up to "vicious" near the end.

Now the problem begins when fans REACH that end and look at how long it took them to do it... anything below 6 hours and people start bitching. And that is the ultimate source of gaming woes today... the "time" vs. "quality" conundrum.

You see, many games have decent enough storylines and riveting game play. But because the populace seems to get sand in their collective Waaah-ginas when ever a game falls short of the 40+ hour mark, game developers feel pressured to somehow extend that gameplay. For some, it's as easy a decision as tacking on higher difficulty levels, others satisfy this with various degrees of "multiplayer" or even DLC. But TOO MANY developers are falling back on the old RPG tactic of "menial tasks" to "extend" game life... such fun distractions as "timed races", "fetch quests", and "collecting hidden stuff scattered around the environment". Then Microsoft hit upon a wise idea... trot out this completely meaningless "rewards" "Achievements" system. Not to be outdone, every other console started eagerly developing a similar system, giving you online trophies and gamer points that earn you absolutely jack shit beyond the self-bestowed pride of telling your friends about it. It's the modern day equivalent of putting you initials in after a game at the arcade, only without the deviant joy you obtained when you put in "ASS" or "FUC"

Grand theft auto is my favorite game to roll out when I get on this soapbox about game extention through mundane tasks. I actually was really interested in the gritty crime story of GTA IV, but I have YET to finish the game because I swear it seems to just go on forever and ever and ever. This is made worse with the absolutely frustrating mechanic of "virtual friends" calling me every friggin 20 minutes wanting to go out on some sort of useless "date" that feels like it drags me away from the story and causes my game play experience to hit a MASSIVE trainwreck.

"fetch quests" and "escort quests" round out the arbitrary task tree and to me are game killers. I have many, MANY games sitting on my shelves where the world hangs in the balance, where evil still reigns, because somewhere along the way in my quest to save the universe from God knows what, I simply got BORED and couldn't bring myself to pick it up again. My heart goes out to those little virtual world's facing impending doom in the Limbo of "Hyena's Incomplete Games", because what started out as fun usually ended up as "work", and ultimately ended up collecting DUST.

I understand that people want to get what they pay for, I really do. Times are hard, and spending $60 bucks on a fly by night adventure, such as Terminator's 3 hour slap to the face makes gamers feel like they got ripped off. But somewhere, there is going to have to be a little give and take.. Gamers are going to have to stop whining and demanding two week long epics while expecting absolutely the best gaming experience ever, and Developers with really good games are either going to have to stop having a standard "industry" price for games or else find better ways of maximizing game time without using by-the-book fillers. I have long felt it's time that gaming publishers stop throwing an arbitrary $60 price tag on a game simply because every OTHER game on that console is $60. Games should be like books, or other products and decide individually what to price a game. Games like Metal Gear Solid 4 have EARNED the right to demand $60 bucks... new IP's like Prototype should have to work their way up, unless it's from a really good company that can command a slightly higher price based on "name brand recognition".

I hope I have given you food for thought.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Story for me.

I'd rather play a jrpg for story than a crappy fps for interactivity

 

[Andy_Panthro]

I think the story can be quite important to a game (depending on the game of course), but having a challenge is important.

The key is having the ability to challenge different levels of gamers, so that people have the chance to complete a game without needing to be overly skilled. Basically, I'm saying I like difficulty levels. I tend to choose normal or easy, depending on the game, but I know people who go for the hardest difficulty to give themselves more challenge.

 

[GodsOneMistake]

If we remove challenge what than, a game that plays itself? HAha that could never happen.... Right?