Poll: Instant gratification in gaming

[de5gravity]

I was listening to this podcast at http://www.thepodcast.co.cc (shameless plug ) and it really got me thinking about the way we game today. I feel like we look for instant rewards too much, and don't focus on exploration and discovery enough nowadays. I think achievements and trophies are to blame to some extent, that and fast paced games like, say, the COD campaign.

Do you think this change is a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Sharalon]

Some people just like that kind of games and as for the achievements, yeah there are some games that abuse them to make the player feel like they are accomplishing something, but I would like to say that there are games for everyone. If you don't like fast paced linear games, there are a lot of open world games that calls for exploration.

Sure, I still see it from your point of view and I think that achievements are a really cheap way to design games, but if that's what the audience wants that's what they get.

 

[Enslave_All_Elves]

Neither. I want my shooters to be intense. The last thing I want to do is explore a shack for a folder or something. However, in a survival horror thing it can work very well to have to know your environment and seek suuplies.

Depends. I don't require it. I do hate when necessary items are unlockable and not available from the start. Want this FAMAS? Yeah? TOO BAD! *smack you with newspaper*

 

[Link XL1]

no games arent dealing out more instant rewards than they did before. and you cant lay the blame with achievements and Cod. yes, CoD doesnt have exploration, and its not suppose to! but that doesnt mean that every game on the market is suddenly becoming a CoD clone, although they certainly would like you to think that (MoH, homefront). there are plenty of exploration games out here (alan wake, oblivion, etc) and plenty more still being made (skyrim).

 

[espressojet]

look at the skinner box episode of extra credits

 

[Robert Ewing]

I think it truly depends on the type of player.
I mean don't take this the wrong way, but some people aren't that intelligent, so they would want instant gratification for an easy entertainment high. But there are also people that want to take the game seriously, and want to get achievements or see all the sights or find all the easter eggs etc etc.

So yeah, I guess the easiest way to regulate this is to make some sort of menu, with options to adjust the difficulty of something.

 

[Ace of Spades]

You need both, because a good game will have some instant-gratification to get a player's attention and then stagger the introduction of the more advanced content to keep them interested. For example, I would swiftly get bored if Fallout: New Vegas just dropped a minigun in my lap from the start, so it started me off with an array of crap weapons that meant I improvised my way through every encounter, and then staggers the availability of the best toys until I have a toybox full of appropriately ridiculous weapons to mow down legions of mutant creatures as I explore the wasteland. In short, you need pacing.

 

[Condor219]

It depends. When a game sets itself out to be a game with a wide-arcing, epic story, then no, instant gratification won't work. A good story has Action, Downtime, Action, Story Building, Action, etc. with those downtimes beig either huge lengths of time or small ones.

However, if a story that sets itself up to be an epic, and the story arc goes ACTION ACTION ACTION ACTION ACTION ACTION downtime MOAR ACTION like Black Ops felt like it did, it makes the story less immersive, and worse, in the end. When you're always focused on the action, you can't really grasp the story that's unfolding around you.

Does that mean that constant action and instant gratification is always a bad thing? No, not really. A game can just decide to be action all the time, and that can be very enjoyable, due to the challenge and fun of the gameplay itself.

But when you really look at it, the games that are widely regarded as the best (Mass Effect, Halo, Uncharted, Fallout, etc.) usually follow the Action-Downtime-Action kind of setup. It's what's natural in our lives (school/work, then leisure, then school/work), and it's what we're used to.

 

[Laser Priest]

You need both, because a good game will have some instant-gratification to get a player's attention and then stagger the introduction of the more advanced content to keep them interested. For example, I would swiftly get bored if Fallout: New Vegas just dropped a minigun in my lap from the start, so it started me off with an array of crap weapons that meant I improvised my way through every encounter, and then staggers the availability of the best toys until I have a toybox full of appropriately ridiculous weapons to mow down legions of mutant creatures as I explore the wasteland. In short, you need pacing.

This.

Dear god, this.

Instant light gratification keeps things interesting while having the bigger rewards hidden promotes the exploration.

 

[Katana314]

I find it amazing that people feel that it's possible to have fun "the wrong way".

Instant gratification is just as valid. If anything I'm glad we've moved away from the ridiculously deep simulators with 10,000 numbers to keep track of.

 

[MAUSZX]

I think achievements need to be more creative, I don't mind if they give you achievements for finished 1 level or finish the game, specially if they reward you for finishing in the hardest difficulty. But It is necessary to have more than just that.
I allways take an example with Naughty Bear. The game is fun, the reward you for finishing the level, but they also "invite you" to make things different, to kill someone in a special way, and to do something ironic for the chapter.
If it wasn't for the achievement it wouldn't be so fun as it with

 

[DEAD34345]

Well, I enjoy both gratification games like COD, but I also enjoy games at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, eg. almost every rogue-like. Both are good in their own ways, but AAA games definitely focus on instant gratification. It's why I spend more time staring at ASCII graphics than I do staring a beautiful HD scenery, sadly...

I'd love to see more mainstream games with the kind of long term enjoyment that only rogue-likes and certain Indie games seem to provide. I certainly don't want that type of game to replace instant gratification, but if there was enough variety that I wouldn't have to strain my eyes whenever I want to play a game with a little depth, that'd make me happy.

 

[Comma-Kazie]

I think there is room for both a full story and instant gratification; Modern Warfare 2 fit the bill pretty well with it's one-two-three punch of campaign, multiplayer, and Spec Ops.

 

[de5gravity]

I think there is room for both a full story and instant gratification; Modern Warfare 2 fit the bill pretty well with it's one-two-three punch of campaign, multiplayer, and Spec Ops.

The campaign is really short and I feel like it's a perfect example of instant gratification: action, explosion, short.

 

[Canadish]

I've noticed this myself, and I can remember exactly when it hit me how bad it's gotten.

I'd played Dragon Age 2, thought it was rubbish, decided to try Baldur's Gate out, after hearing everyone cite it as a masterwork.

Just one difference between the games?

In Baldur's Gate, there was over 2 hours of play before my first level up.
It was extremely rewarding when I did.

In Dragon Age 2, I leveled up after the First skirmish.
And then 2 more times before the introduction was finished.
It made leveling up somewhat meaningless, even tedious, because it happened so often.

 

[aarontg]

There's a difference between instant gratification and keeping a player interested before he falls asleep. A game can throw you into the action instantly but allot of the time story is sacrificed because the developer is concentrated more on keeping the player's attention. But nobody ever said that you needed action to do that. An example of what I mean is the beginning to fallout 3. Your'e not blowing anyone's head off within the first hour but somehow it keeps you just as interested as any call of duty game ever did. It does this with unique story delivery and giving you meaningful choices while starting up it's narrative rather than giving you the choice of which enemy testicle to blow off first.

 

[de5gravity]

I also wanted to talk about achievements. Don't you guys feel like it takes you out of the story sometimes? Like you're just playing, you're in the story, and because you killed a certain number of enemies you suddenly see something like "Not a people person" or something like that. I find that annoying honestly. I was playing FEAR 1 on the PC and I found it refreshing to not constantly see achievements pop up.

 

[Pearwood]

In some games (like TF2) they can be the main aim of the game, in others (like Portal 2) they can enhance exploration, and in others (like StarCraft 2) they're just a little extra challenge.

I remember getting trophies for falling into obvious death traps in Portal 2... not so much enhancing exploration as rewarding stupidity

 

[Bon_Clay]

You do need both as people have said. But I play games the way I want to. I don't give a damn what they intended, I explore my surroundings in games if they look at all interesting.

And I really don't care about achievements at all. I like easter eggs and hidden areas, and if you get an achievement for finding them that's cool as it is a recording of your success. But achievements for doing mundane tasks, especially ones REQUIRED to advance in the game I completely ignore.

 

[Dogstile]

It depends, because people are different.

Also, if I have an hour, I enjoy being able to pick up a game like COD and get the instant gratification.

However, if I only had an hour in oblivion? No point, i'll go do something else. Takes too long to find a reward.