Tekken Director Says Unlockables Are "Outdated"

[Podunk]

I like the idea of removing unlockable characters from a fighting game. I wouldn't want to pick a character and play them for weeks just to find out there's an extra guy that I like much better.

If people are worried about replay value/shelf life the obvious solution is to add other forms of unlockable content. Super Smash Brothers Brawl has me playing characters I don't care as much for to unlock all the trophies. Maybe put in some custom outfits/items or something. Seems simple enough.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't play games to unlock characters, I play them because I want to PLAY THEM.

 

[ChocoFace]

Love the idea.
Don't love the game.

Now i wish they did that to Street Fighter 4, i'm having a hard time unlocking Akuma and that damn Gouken (the unlocking process of this character is madness) .

 

[boholikeu]

I guess that's why I don't understand people who say they like unlockables because it "extends the play time of the game". It just sounds like the game you're playing is mediocre to begin with, and you need a carrot on a stick in order to justify spending more time with it.

Unlocking a new character gets you the carrot.

Well, if that really is the reason they play fighters then I know of a game with endless re-playability: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155898/?searchterm=Guitar%20Queer-O

You never get the carrot in that game. Your premise is flawed.

How is it flawed? People say that they like unlockables because the extra carrot on a stick motivates them to continue long after they would have normally quit (IE long after the base game play got boring). Many don't seem to actually want or care about the carrot either, as evidenced by their disdain at having the characters unlocked from the beginning. They just want something to chase. If that's all their main requirement for re-playability, the South Park game should last forever. =)

 

[NeutralDrow]

I guess that's why I don't understand people who say they like unlockables because it "extends the play time of the game". It just sounds like the game you're playing is mediocre to begin with, and you need a carrot on a stick in order to justify spending more time with it.

Unlocking a new character gets you the carrot.

Well, if that really is the reason they play fighters then I know of a game with endless re-playability: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155898/?searchterm=Guitar%20Queer-O

You never get the carrot in that game. Your premise is flawed.

How is it flawed? People say that they like unlockables because the extra carrot on a stick motivates them to continue long after they would have normally quit (IE long after the base game play got boring). Many don't seem to actually want or care about the carrot either, as evidenced by their disdain at having the characters unlocked from the beginning. They just want something to chase. If that's all their main requirement for re-playability, the South Park game should last forever. =)

Because unlockables aren't analogous to a carrot on a stick. The carrot they resemble is the "carrot" of positive reinforcement.

The stick-carrot is synonymous with "an inherently unachievable goal used as an irresistible motivation." The only way a game could have such a system would be if it promised to let the player unlock something, but never actually did so.

Since last I checked, Soul Calibur players could play as Yoshimitsu, Tekken 5 players could use Heihachi, Fate/Unlimited Codes players could use Zero Lancer, etc., unlockables aren't "dangling a carrot on a stick" unless you assume the stick is attached to a non-moving object.

And yes, I do realize you're trying to be funny. This is just in case you actually seriously believe what you're saying! ^_^

 

[boholikeu]

Because unlockables aren't analogous to a carrot on a stick. The carrot they resemble is the "carrot" of positive reinforcement.

The stick-carrot is synonymous with "an inherently unachievable goal used as an irresistible motivation." The only way a game could have such a system would be if it promised to let the player unlock something, but never actually did so.

Since last I checked, Soul Calibur players could play as Yoshimitsu, Tekken 5 players could use Heihachi, Fate/Unlimited Codes players could use Zero Lancer, etc., unlockables aren't "dangling a carrot on a stick" unless you assume the stick is attached to a non-moving object.

And yes, I do realize you're trying to be funny. This is just in case you actually seriously believe what you're saying! ^_^

The phrase "carrot on a stick" doesn't only refer to unachievable goals. Heck, one of the editor's of this website even used it when talking about achievements: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/editors_note/5947-Editors-Note-Carrot-on-a-Stick

Anyway, thanks for realizing it's just a joke. I only mentioned the South Park example as a hyperbole of how I see these people who "need something to work for" in order to spend more time with a game. I realize that rewarding players with new powers/items/etc is one of the main facets of gaming, but using rewards to stretch out the re-playability in spite of boring mechanics isn't good design IMO.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Because unlockables aren't analogous to a carrot on a stick. The carrot they resemble is the "carrot" of positive reinforcement.

The stick-carrot is synonymous with "an inherently unachievable goal used as an irresistible motivation." The only way a game could have such a system would be if it promised to let the player unlock something, but never actually did so.

Since last I checked, Soul Calibur players could play as Yoshimitsu, Tekken 5 players could use Heihachi, Fate/Unlimited Codes players could use Zero Lancer, etc., unlockables aren't "dangling a carrot on a stick" unless you assume the stick is attached to a non-moving object.

And yes, I do realize you're trying to be funny. This is just in case you actually seriously believe what you're saying! ^_^

The phrase "carrot on a stick" doesn't only refer to unachievable goals. Heck, one of the editor's of this website even used it when talking about achievements: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/editors_note/5947-Editors-Note-Carrot-on-a-Stick

Anyway, thanks for realizing it's just a joke. I only mentioned the South Park example as a hyperbole of how I see these people who "need something to work for" in order to spend more time with a game. I realize that rewarding players with new powers/items/etc is one of the main facets of gaming, but using rewards to stretch out the re-playability in spite of boring mechanics isn't good design IMO.

True. Unlocking something is pointless if the game itself isn't fun. Stretching re-playability isn't really a factor if no one likes it the first time around.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

To me though, I'd like to actually have incentive to play the game on my own as well as with my friends. No unlockables means I have even less reason to play the game without friends there. I feel they should just have codes or something else as an option.

 

[PureChaos]

nothing wrong with unlockable content

 

[Jharry5]

This has made me suspicious of the new Tekken game. Why has he said this now? Trying to prepare people for the fact that the only way to unlock characters from now on will be via the PS Store/XBL. No thanks.

Think I'll stick to the old-school Tekken games. At least unlocking characters then felt like an achievement, rather than a commodity.

 

[Woe Is You]

True. Unlocking something is pointless if the game itself isn't fun. Stretching re-playability isn't really a factor if no one likes it the first time around.

Which is interesting, since "the games aren't fun if you can't get to unlock stuff" is a common idea that I see here. I personally don't get any feelings of achievement beating a cheating CPU opponent X amount of times just so I can play as the character I'd like to play as.

Was beating Seth 25 times an achievement for me? No, it was some of the most tedious crap I've had to put up with.

 

[Soxafloppin]

NO THERE NOT!!!!

they give the game more depth!!

 

[boholikeu]

True. Unlocking something is pointless if the game itself isn't fun. Stretching re-playability isn't really a factor if no one likes it the first time around.

Which is interesting, since "the games aren't fun if you can't get to unlock stuff" is a common idea that I see here. I personally don't get any feelings of achievement beating a cheating CPU opponent X amount of times just so I can play as the character I'd like to play as.

Was beating Seth 25 times an achievement for me? No, it was some of the most tedious crap I've had to put up with.

Exactly! And so far none of the pro-unlockable commenters here have really addressed this point.

I'm still convinced it's mainly used as a band-aid to artificially extend playtime, similar to grinds in MMOs/RPGs.