Context, Challenge and Catharsis

Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I don't think catharsis is an appropriate replacement for gratification. Truth be told, if it should be changed it should be to "entertainment", "enjoyability", "engaging" (which itself is a measure of how well a game does what it does) or something along those lines. Ultimately, a game needs to be enjoyable. If it's not fun, it doesn't matter how cathartic it is.
 

Kahani

New member
May 25, 2011
927
0
0
Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Something was getting in the way of the catharsis factor, which seemed odd, because there was so little else besides the catharsis factor. Perhaps, I realized, the three-leg model was due for a bit of revision. A qualification needs to be added: namely that catharsis needs to be working alongside something else to work.
That's not a qualification, it's inherent in the model from the start. A three-legged stool can get away with having one leg longer than the others, but it can't get away with only having one leg. Or two for that matter. You mention challenge here, but you missed that even in a game with relatively little story, there is still plenty of context. That you're talking about hitting zombies with a battery powered sledgehammer, rather than changes in RAM bit values due to impulses from a controller, is a lot of context right up front. Simply change the zombies to living humans and, with no change in any of the gameplay, suddenly things are completely different.

So yes, a three-legged stool needs three legs, and games aren't fun if they're just mindless spectacle an nothing else. I'm really not sure this needed a whole new article, since that's exactly what you said the first time.
 

FallenMessiah88

So fucking thrilled to be here!
Jan 8, 2010
470
0
0
Catharsis can come in many forms, but the common demoninator will always be a return on investment. It's simply satisfying to see your efforts pay off.
 

Banzaiman

New member
Jun 7, 2013
60
0
0
Conceptually I stand entirely behind this analysis and reasoning, because it makes total sense. However, I can't help remember that in Yahtzee's own review of Just Cause 2 he says that the story is crap and that it's pretty much too easy. Whether there was a bit more to the other two legs that he didn't mention in the review or not I'm unsure, but I'm hoping he addresses how Just Cause 2 got to be one of his favorites of the year when it stands almost entirely on catharsis.
 

Orekoya

New member
Sep 24, 2008
485
0
0
Banzaiman said:
Conceptually I stand entirely behind this analysis and reasoning, because it makes total sense. However, I can't help remember that in Yahtzee's own review of Just Cause 2 he says that the story is crap and that it's pretty much too easy. Whether there was a bit more to the other two legs that he didn't mention in the review or not I'm unsure, but I'm hoping he addresses how Just Cause 2 got to be one of his favorites of the year when it stands almost entirely on catharsis.
I think this is a misinterpretation of the word challenge as to mean a task that is difficult to perform rather than a call to engage in any kind of contest or task. That would make that challenge is the call to engage with the game. Most games have one overarching challenge and several smaller ones designed for the purpose of the larger one. Often enough completing the smaller ones will help you in completing the larger one. The central challenge of Super Mario is to rescue the princess, but there are plenty of smaller ones such as "can you get the mushroom before it falls into a pit or goes off-screen".

To go back to the DR2/3 examples, the challenge of building combo weapons isn't that the task of building combo weapons in DR2 is difficult. It's an incredibly easy task, but you are still being challenged to go out, collect the parts then bring them back to a bench. In DR3 there is no challenge occurring: essentially you are pushing a button and getting a combo weapon.
 

Banzaiman

New member
Jun 7, 2013
60
0
0
Orekoya said:
I think this is a misinterpretation of the word challenge as to mean a task that is difficult to perform rather than a call to engage in any kind of contest or task. That would make that challenge is the call to engage with the game. Most games have one overarching challenge and several smaller ones designed for the purpose of the larger one. Often enough completing the smaller ones will help you in completing the larger one. The overarching challenge of Super Mario is to rescue the princess, but there are plenty of smaller ones such as "can you get the mushroom before it falls into a pit or goes off-screen".

To go back to the DR2/3 examples, the challenge of building combo weapons isn't that the task of building combo weapons in DR2 is difficult. It's an incredibly easy task, but you are still being challenged to go out, collect the parts then bring them back to a bench. In DR3 there is no challenge occurring: essentially you are pushing a button and getting a combo weapon.
If that's what he means then it does make sense, though just being asked to do something is a rather perfunctory part of a game. Also, the way he describes challenge in his articles seems to imply that it is supposed to impose some difficulty, the way he talks about the buildup of frustration needing release.
 

Orekoya

New member
Sep 24, 2008
485
0
0
Banzaiman said:
If that's what he means then it does make sense, though just being asked to do something is a rather perfunctory part of a game. Also, the way he describes challenge in his articles seems to imply that it is supposed to impose some difficulty, the way he talks about the buildup of frustration needing release.
Yes but having to do ANY kind of task to get a reward is still inherently more difficult than performing NO task and still getting the reward. I'm guessing that's why he's using challenge the way he is, probably pulling on all the meanings of these words can infer. Context can refer to anything from story to the environment's setting - shooting people in a desert feels different than shooting people in a jungle.

Also, while you might feel it is perfunctory, the mechanics in how challenges are layered, issued and addressed are not a given. Devs have to plan for how/when/where their players will be challenged. "Can you build combo-weapons" was a challenge in DR2 that existed alongside other smaller challenges within a larger challenge. A challenge that has now been removed in DR3, and nothing seems to have been put in its place: creating a hole in the engagement. Add to the fact that we can so easily compare the mechanics of DR3 to DR2 and this lack of engagement seems all the more palpable.
 

Banzaiman

New member
Jun 7, 2013
60
0
0
Orekoya said:
Yes but having to do ANY kind of task to get a reward is still inherently more difficult than performing NO task and still getting the reward. While you might feel it is perfunctory, the mechanics in how challenges are layered, issued and addressed are not a given. Devs have to plan for how/when/where their players will be challenged. "Can you build combo-weapons" was a challenge in DR2 that existed alongside other smaller challenges within a larger challenge. A challenge that has now been removed in DR3, and nothing seems to have been put in its place: creating a hole in the engagement. Add to the fact that we can so easily compare the mechanics of DR3 to DR2 and this lack of engagement seems all the more palpable.
I'll give you that, having to do something is harder than having to do nothing. We're probably looking at the same thing from two different angles. In your example, where you see the challenge as "you have to create combo weapons" I see the challenge as "you have to stay alive long enough to gather the components and figure out which combinations aren't crap under pressure" or something.
 

Orekoya

New member
Sep 24, 2008
485
0
0
Banzaiman said:
We're probably looking at the same thing from two different angles. In your example, where you see the challenge as "you have to create combo weapons" I see the challenge as "you have to stay alive long enough to gather the components and figure out which combinations aren't crap under pressure" or something.
Possible. I see what you describe as the stipulations of a challenge like it was an unspoken exchange between the dev and player that goes something like:
"Can you create combo weapons?" 'Maybe! What would I have to do?'
"Gather the components and figure out the combinations in specific areas with a crafting bench." 'Alright, anything else I need to know?' "Yes, these parts are among hordes of zombies and they can even get into the area you have to craft from. Also some of the combinations are better than others."
 

VinLAURiA

New member
Dec 25, 2008
184
0
0
Tying in with your point about Minecraft, then, of working towards having something in order to appreciate it, instead of it just happening with no build-up as in blowing up countless ragdolls in Garry's Mod?
 

head desk tricycle

New member
Aug 14, 2010
97
0
0
The most infectious ideas have catchy names. Off the top of my head, how about "the Tripodal Theory," or "Yahtzee's Triangle."
 

Lazule

New member
Oct 11, 2013
131
0
0
ImmortalDrifter said:
To say Dead Rising 2 was hard is kind of laughable. I know full well I sound like one of those insufferable faggots who claim to be better than everyone else, but hear me out.

Rescuing survivors in Dead Rising 2 was probably the biggest objective. All of the plot missions were very short, with a lot of time in between to do one of two things: Fuck around or Rescue survivors. Until you hit level 50, rescuing survivors is the obvious choice, as it gives you lots of PP, combo cards, and a chance to go back to Royal Flush. Going back to Royal Flush is what makes the game easy. Every time you go back to the safe house you have the opportunity to build 3 sets of tenderizers, 2 defilers, and a set of knife gloves. (Possibly more depending on the surrounding zombies and where you come from) Those three weapons are all you need to win the entire game. Period. Most of the other combo weapons are either too impractical (Power Guitar), too bulky (Tesla Ball), or simply unusable (drill bucket) to have any use besides playing around. That's my problem with your whole argument. Dead Rising 2 basically hands you the best weapons in the game constantly anyway, if you really think anything in DR2 (aside from the Twins and TK) is hard then you're just impairing yourself. If you impair yourself in DR3 you get the same result, a game that is seemingly stupidly unfair in many respects. Adding to that there were blenders fucking everywhere, the quick grapple removals and shove run removed any threat a horde may pose, and MOST COMBO WEAPONS WERE JUST GIVEN TO YOU BY THE WORK BENCHES ANYWAY!

That being said, yeah the weapon lockers did remove a lot of the satisfaction of fucking around. Building a Blitzkrieg or Freedom Bear in DR2 was sweet because you had to know where to look for the items and truck them to a specific bench to build them with any kind of efficiency. The big ostentatious weapons are a treat. The more you have a treat the less special it becomes. Everybody knows that though. I wonder why the designers don't.
You gotta admit that its stupid to take on almost any boss without Recovery Items through... The Beer Hat is one of those OP combos as well for that reason. (The key here is that you need to prepare before the boss fight this is something most games this days forget about, DarkSouls does this very well)

The Knives Gloves are imo the best melee weapon of the game for boss fights since they have a fast aspd and you can get like 3 shots then back off and avoid the boss attack.
 

lowkey_jotunn

New member
Feb 23, 2011
223
0
0
KingsGambit said:
I don't think catharsis is an appropriate replacement for gratification. Truth be told, if it should be changed it should be to "entertainment", "enjoyability", "engaging" (which itself is a measure of how well a game does what it does) or something along those lines. Ultimately, a game needs to be enjoyable. If it's not fun, it doesn't matter how cathartic it is.
Respectfully, that depends a lot on your definition of "enjoy"

How many people watch _Steel Magnolias_, cry their eyes out ... and then rewatch it a few months later. How many people went into _Passion of the Christ_ expecting an enjoyable time?

I use movies as an example, as they've been around a bit longer, but the same holds true for Video Games. I played through _Spec Ops: The Line_ and can honestly say that I did not enjoy it. It wasn't fun or enjoyable. But I loved it. There was a catharsis that didn't stem directly from the game, but rather from all the same "Spunkgargleweewee" games (to borrow from Yahtzee here) that have become bland and samey. Spec Ops was able to help release frustration caused by other games, giving it a high catharsis factor for me... it also allowed for some personal reflection and insight, but those don't really fall into the 3C scheme.

Don't get me wrong, enjoyable is good. Entertaining is good. But there are much deeper emotions into which we can tap. Literature, music, movies... these have been doing it for years. Video games certainly can, too.