The Crime of Punishment

[Doctor Professor]

The confusion between challenge and punishment is pervasive, and it causes a lot of problems throughout the industry. I've written about it here: Test Skills, Not Patience: Challenge, Punishment, and Learning [http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/11/test-skills-not-patience-challenge.html]. In this thread, Mengtzu brought up the connection to learning - that's huge, and I talk about it in the essay: punishment actively inhibits learning.

The essay also happens to quote Shamus a couple of times.

Azaraxzealot brought up the elitism side of things - I wrote about that too: Status and Signals: Why Hardcore Gamers Are Afraid Of Easy Mode [http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2010/01/status-and-signals-why-hardcore-gamers.html]. On some level I can understand a community wanting to keep out the "riff-raff", but it's dangerous to try to keep something niche - if the fandom doesn't have an influx of new people, it can die out.

 

[Fearzone]

(Welcome to my world. Do you know how hard it is to be a fan of unique, interesting gameplay these days?)

I love MMOs but I'm in the group wishing the would be a little harder, that they wouldn't just be the menial grind, and that bad play and bad players would be punished just a little more than they are, and also that I would have more motive to stay alive and play well, and not be careless. But then I read your second to last paragraph about grouping, and blaming others when the party fails, especially if there were a serious death penalty (I mean even armor repair bills could raise ire in our guild; I was good with the auction house so those expenses were always trivial to me, but it was surprising how many level cap players never used it except to buy things). Anyway, just wanted to say, you're right again.

Also, people mistakenly say WoW is easy. That's not true. A lot of WoW is easy, but it's content spans a wide range of difficulty levels, if you go looking for the harder stuff. At least original WoW was that way, and early Burning Crusade. Blizzard did not sit down and say: "are we going to make this for casual or hardcore players?" but rather designed a game that would appeal to a broad range of abilities. The easy content is the first foot it puts forward, but not the last.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

Zapping people in a reward-based environment is of course bad for getting money out of them, but don't apply this to the entire genre, please. You speak about it as it were absolute and consistent throughout online games, when you have games specifically designed around harsh death, where death is not merely a setback but a gameplay trigger (get ganked in Mortal Online, lose your stuff... sounds bad, but you get the opportunity to revenge yourself, invite your clan mates to the fun, declare war ... you get the point).

Im not saying that either way is the preferred one to me, it all depends on the game really, but things needn't be the same everywhere just because more people can be tricked into thinking they enjoy an environment where there is no punishment.

 

[omicron1]

Let me propose something about "status" in an MMO.

There are some who want material status. They want to feel like they've "Made it," like they're special, and they want to do so by having something physical that sets them apart from other people. Kinda like billionaires who buy diamond-coated doorknobs, only in this case it's fancy armor and weapons. For example: World of Warcraft endgame content.

Then there are some who want prowess. They want to be able to train, learn, and gain an intrinsic mastery over the game that sets them apart from others. This is equivalent to a martial arts black belt. For example: EvE Online.

Both concepts can be "metagamed," through activities such as gold farming/ingame purchases for physical wealth; or through cross-game skill.

These two status types are not available to equivalent degrees across the board, and tend to be somewhat directly opposed. The skilled player doesn't want to be beaten by someone who just bought his way into power or rolled well on the loot drops; the rich player doesn't want to be beaten by some upstart with lower-level armor and a dinky sword. It is, I believe, nearly impossible to truly balance the two approaches.

Of these two, the skilled player might be most for harsh penalties; they do not impact him in the same way that they impact the wealthy player.

Neither of these approaches is particularly friendly to the outsider, the casual gamer - he will be beaten by the skilled and outclassed by the wealthy, with little recourse in either direction. The only way to give him parity is by removing the skilled and the wealthy's advantages, and then you lose both of them.

...

I remember a game called MAngband - a multiplayer roguelike. It had some very, very stiff penalties - permadeath, item loss, etc. - as well as calling for very skill-focused gameplay. But it also had status symbols - in particular player housing. Anyone with even a small residence on the outskirts of town had something of a unique status symbol, and the most wealthy players could buy mansions with moats and exterior walls. So the wealth-based approach is at least somewhat appreciated by both kinds of gamers.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

i think what "they" are looking for is a way to keep all the n00bs out. they want to keep EVERYONE who is not at their skill level from enjoying games as much as possible because they want the gaming world all to themselves.

I hate to be inflammatory, but that does seem to be the case with the majourity of people I encounter who proclaim "make it harder!" in MMOs.

Shamus said it all very well, as usual. Punishment does not make a game harder, it makes it harder to enjoy. Great for those who are fine with that, but I'll leave my punishments to the BDSM chamber.

that wasn't inflammatory, that was pretty much what i was trying to say. or were you saying that it may be inflammatory to agree with me?

 

[Jumwa]

that wasn't inflammatory, that was pretty much what i was trying to say. or were you saying that it may be inflammatory to agree with me?

I just didn't want to come off as insulting anyone who prefers more difficulty. I am sure there are some out there who don't wish greater difficulty for the reason we've stated, but all I seem to see are people seething with loathing for "newbs" and "idiots" who just aren't as good at the game as they are, for whatever reason(s).

It's pretty much impossible for me to engage in a discussion about the issue of difficulty in WoW, for instance, without someone making a searing comment about how if someone can't handle it they don't deserve to get anything from the game, or to play, or ____.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

that wasn't inflammatory, that was pretty much what i was trying to say. or were you saying that it may be inflammatory to agree with me?

I just didn't want to come off as insulting anyone who prefers more difficulty. I am sure there are some out there who don't wish greater difficulty for the reason we've stated, but all I seem to see are people seething with loathing for "newbs" and "idiots" who just aren't as good at the game as they are, for whatever reason(s).

It's pretty much impossible for me to engage in a discussion about the issue of difficulty in WoW, for instance, without someone making a searing comment about how if someone can't handle it they don't deserve to get anything from the game, or to play, or ____.

totally agree with you there. that's all i can ever see as well.

 

[chaosfact]

I, for one, am in favor of heavy punishment for failure.

Raising the skill requirement to pass a challenge forces the player to improve if he's going to win. But punishing more heavily motivates him to improve, lest he be punished. By analogy:

Raising the high-jump bar forces the athlete to jump higher. If he doesn't improve, he'll never succeed. Leaving it at its present height, but setting it on fire, motivates the athlete to jump higher. If he doesn't improve, he may or may not succeed - but the price to be paid for failure is unacceptable.

Personally, I prefer the second route. NetHack is my favorite game because I always feel motivated to succeed, not forced. I certainly CAN ascend by blundering around hoping for lucky breaks, and have done so (Digging for Victory, anyone?). But since one careless act can cost me my whole character, I feel motivated to improve my tactics and learn more about the game.

 

[Brainst0rm]

Welcome to my world. Do you know hard it is being a fan of good, coherent storytelling these days?

Oh LORDIE yes, I know it's hard.

Anyway, excellent article. Gets right to the point. 'Punishing' games are typically a result of lazy or misguided design. I think that the scarcity of checkpoints in Metroid Prime 2 is a point of contention? So, yes, while the Metroid Prime's are all challenging, when they became punishing, it's a bad thing. I wish more developers would learn that. Making a game frustrating doesn't make it better - it makes it frustrating.

 

[chaosfact]

Frustration can be a tool to motivate players to improve.

 

[lomylithruldor]

I, for one, am in favor of heavy punishment for failure.

Raising the skill requirement to pass a challenge forces the player to improve if he's going to win. But punishing more heavily motivates him to improve, lest he be punished. By analogy:

Raising the high-jump bar forces the athlete to jump higher. If he doesn't improve, he'll never succeed. Leaving it at its present height, but setting it on fire, motivates the athlete to jump higher. If he doesn't improve, he may or may not succeed - but the price to be paid for failure is unacceptable.

Personally, I prefer the second route. NetHack is my favorite game because I always feel motivated to succeed, not forced. I certainly CAN ascend by blundering around hoping for lucky breaks, and have done so (Digging for Victory, anyone?). But since one careless act can cost me my whole character, I feel motivated to improve my tactics and learn more about the game.

Harsh punishment in a MMO (like losing gear or level) is more like breaking the athlete's leg if he doesn't jump high enough. He'll have to waste time recovering from his failure instead of improving his skills. You learn by failures, not by the fear of failures. If the punishment is too harsh, people will try to cheat or won't do it instead of trying harder.

 

[chaosfact]

If the punishment is too harsh, people will try to cheat or won't do it instead of trying harder.

How is "people will cheat" an argument against anything? Cheaters are a problem, so ban them and the problem is solved.

I'm not trying to say every game needs to be enormously harsh with death penalties. Of course not - that would limit the market only to the super-hardcores. But it's a mistake to say "punishment is categorically inferior to difficulty as a means of inducing improvement". It has a place, just like Animal Crossing-style failure-free games have a place. Neither is going to be mainstream.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

You said it very well in a mature manner.

I have to say... Good job

 

[Firehound]

I believe in a MMO where death is more then your character falling down, then the game gently picks them up and whispers about how "it'll be okay" and "Your all right" like the player is a baby who has just tripped trying to walk and started crying.

I'd like a game where death was something a player could recover from, but didn't want to have happen to you over and over. Eve was too far, but AC as far as I've heard was just perfect.

Games that are too unforgiving are annoying. Games that forgive too much are easily forgotten about.

Also: THere hasn't been a game that allows PVPers to do more then kick someones shins to death, then gain some special PVP currency that allows everyone to know that you kicked a lot of shins when you use stuff you bought from it. Can't there be some actual drops from killing someone? I mean, I don't know about you, but If I were a wizard who just electrocuted a fighter who nearly killed me, I would see to looting him afterwards- if only to afford the healing to remove the damage he caused.

 

[squid5580]

Honestly, I would like a game that really throws as much shit as it possibly can at you, but doesn't punish you too hard for personal mistakes.

That is when a game should punish you. If I chuck a grenade and get hit by it because I ran and stood on top of it I should be punished. If I cast sleep on a bunch of skeletons and then find their bony hands giving me a rectal exam yeah my bad I deserve whatever I got coming.

But if I am playing Silver Surfer for the NES and I die because well the whole screen is filled with bullets and other traps then yeah make the punishment not so bad. Because that is not a personal mistake. That is just a simple lack of memorization.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Actually, Nerf Now have said all I wanted to say for me. Damn them.

 

[Rayansaki]

There is still one more kind of punishment that can be implemented that works better in MMOs... Rewarding players better if they go through the content more smoothly, giving extra goodies if the party reaches the end of the instance without anyone dieing or without a party wipe, or with a very short time run through. This rewards skill without directly punishing failure.

Wow had this in some instances. I haven't played for a while, but I remember a dungeon in caverns of time, set in Stratholme allowing players to fight an extra boss for a Dragon mount if they reached it within a set time.

 

[Centrophy]

But what's required to get past the level is not actual skill at this point, it's patience and memorization. In an arcade game where the goal is to set a high score through mastery by repetition, this model works fine, but in a skill based game such as a tactical RPGs or puzzle solvers, it fails.

Then how do you define skill? Because patience and memorization are integral major components of it, to me.

And i was just talking about the example offered with Force Unleashed, and similar games.

Ah, this seems more like a political debate. Take for example in school systems. You have mandatory tests on subjects, so much so that the schools now focus on getting their students to pass the tests rather than learn the material. It happened in Florida, oh about ten years ago when they introduced the FCAT or even before that and the SAT courses. I remember that the majority of the curriculum focused on studying to pass that test. Were the students really learning or were they just memorizing what would be on the test? If those lessons were put to the test in the real world would they pass? I happen to believe they wouldn't.

It's the same as learning when mob a jumps out of monster closet b and learning to dodge at this time. Over time with enough repetition, the player may play that level flawlessly. Put the player in a new level with the same mechanics. I can guarantee that they will take damage or die depending on the game. Demon's Souls is a good example of this.