The ritual of passage, how long should a player play before having fun?
by Kyrah Abattoir · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 09/28/2011 (2:11 am) · 14 replies
I had today a discussion with a friend about the upcoming BattleField3, i'm a bit worried about blindly ordering a game when the prequel (Bad company 2) left me with a mixed feeling.
Long story short our discussion drifted toward what he believes was the root of my complains about Bad company 2 "You didn't play it long enough"
His argument was that in a game like a Battlefield game, it's normal that a new player gets completely obliterated, and doesn't get to have fun, until he hit a certain level of skill.
In my opinion, a good game is providing a new player with fun nearly imediately after he gets a feel for the controls, a good example would be TF2, you might not rack up kills and top the scoreboard on your first session, but there are plenty of ways to be useful to your team as a beginner.
I ended the discussion pretty quickly because to me it just felt like a mix of trolling and elitism, but a lot of games tend to use the "rite of passage" method, for example, by providing veteran players with better weapons and perks, or in the case of some MMOs, by making you understand that the "real game" is once you reach level X, so your goal is to level up as fast as you can to reach this point where you can enter the "big boys court".
You can imagine that i'm a little biased on this topic, but it's also a bit of a dilemna, you want to offer players a certain satisfaction for getting better at the game, but in a competitive game, how do you ensure that new players won't get their experience of the game destroyed by older players?
Also I hope this will dispell the beliefs that i am "that game designer who hate players"
Long story short our discussion drifted toward what he believes was the root of my complains about Bad company 2 "You didn't play it long enough"
His argument was that in a game like a Battlefield game, it's normal that a new player gets completely obliterated, and doesn't get to have fun, until he hit a certain level of skill.
In my opinion, a good game is providing a new player with fun nearly imediately after he gets a feel for the controls, a good example would be TF2, you might not rack up kills and top the scoreboard on your first session, but there are plenty of ways to be useful to your team as a beginner.
I ended the discussion pretty quickly because to me it just felt like a mix of trolling and elitism, but a lot of games tend to use the "rite of passage" method, for example, by providing veteran players with better weapons and perks, or in the case of some MMOs, by making you understand that the "real game" is once you reach level X, so your goal is to level up as fast as you can to reach this point where you can enter the "big boys court".
You can imagine that i'm a little biased on this topic, but it's also a bit of a dilemna, you want to offer players a certain satisfaction for getting better at the game, but in a competitive game, how do you ensure that new players won't get their experience of the game destroyed by older players?
Also I hope this will dispell the beliefs that i am "that game designer who hate players"
About the author
3D artist, programmer, game designer, jack of all trades, master of none.
#2
I made this topic because i feel there are a LOT of games today that seems to add some form of early game grinding to keep players hooked, not because they find the game fun, but by pushing further away the time where they will be able to compete on an equal footing with the older players.
If you look at the battlefield serie for example, unlocks either make you a more efficient player, or give you more gameplay elements (as a medic you have to unlock your reviving paddles). As a result, whena player unlock magnum bullets or body armor, he's basically getting a straight upgrade over a new player.
On the other hand in TF2 Most weapons and gadgets you unlock are essentially sidegrades, or offer a specific advantage for a big tradeoff, so in TF2 they are more variations that reward a specific style for a price (direct hit rocketlauncher: more damage if you touch directly your target, but less splash radius)
09/29/2011 (1:27 pm)
I agree i think peoples should have fun in the game right from the start and not after they "worked" for it. Of course becoming a good playe doesn't happen overnight but the journey should be more important than the destination.I made this topic because i feel there are a LOT of games today that seems to add some form of early game grinding to keep players hooked, not because they find the game fun, but by pushing further away the time where they will be able to compete on an equal footing with the older players.
If you look at the battlefield serie for example, unlocks either make you a more efficient player, or give you more gameplay elements (as a medic you have to unlock your reviving paddles). As a result, whena player unlock magnum bullets or body armor, he's basically getting a straight upgrade over a new player.
On the other hand in TF2 Most weapons and gadgets you unlock are essentially sidegrades, or offer a specific advantage for a big tradeoff, so in TF2 they are more variations that reward a specific style for a price (direct hit rocketlauncher: more damage if you touch directly your target, but less splash radius)
#3
09/29/2011 (11:33 pm)
Easy to learn, hard to master. That's the way it should be. Good example is Legions vs. Tribes, the basics like movement is almost everything you need to have fun in Legions but getting a capper pro requires skill, where as in Tribes you need a lot more, team coordination so on, but mastering it is more rewarding. 
#4
However a lot of that has to do with the community and I had a pretty good one in KC.
09/30/2011 (12:09 pm)
I play a lot of fighting games. I like when a game is easy to get into and hard to get really good at. I have been playing SFIV for 4 years, I still haven't reached where I want to be. However I still have lots of fun.However a lot of that has to do with the community and I had a pretty good one in KC.
#5
If you are targeting your game to the mass market, you want to front load the rewards. Make it easy for the player to get the first couple of rewards, then make the next one a little harder, the one after that a little more hard, etc.
Yes, this is the same model that casinos and drugs use to hook people. But it can also lead to very good game design.
09/30/2011 (12:33 pm)
It really depends on the target audience of your game. Some hardcore players (like your friend) love the "rite of passage" approach, but I think they are the exception to the rule. An exception large enough to fund several multi-million dollar games but, IMHO, they're an over served market.If you are targeting your game to the mass market, you want to front load the rewards. Make it easy for the player to get the first couple of rewards, then make the next one a little harder, the one after that a little more hard, etc.
Yes, this is the same model that casinos and drugs use to hook people. But it can also lead to very good game design.
#6
Other titles have created game play that lends itself to allowing a new player feel productive among good players. In my opinion this leads to a better experience but is far harder to do right. Often times the titles you see that take this route have spent years in development tuning and tweaking.
09/30/2011 (12:52 pm)
If you have a deep pocket of resources I would say 5 mins of playing before the player should feel a decent connection to the experience. There are multiple ways to do this. In terms of hardcore shooters I've seen companies do a sort of matchmaking service that more experienced players can skip past or insert themselves at a higher default level. This allows new players to be introduced to the gameplay at the same rate as others and you only progress when your skills allow you to.Other titles have created game play that lends itself to allowing a new player feel productive among good players. In my opinion this leads to a better experience but is far harder to do right. Often times the titles you see that take this route have spent years in development tuning and tweaking.
#7
During my time on Might and Magic and Heroes of Might and Magic, I was taught that if the player wasn't having fun within the first 5 - 10 minutes of any game content, I was tackling game design in a bad way.
Finding ways to show the player fun, and the promise of more fun through out the entire experience of the title was our goal. Giving a taste of a future, fun mechanic in the game was vital.
The thought that you have to slog through content to find the fun in a game makes me shudder.
09/30/2011 (1:17 pm)
This is a great question!During my time on Might and Magic and Heroes of Might and Magic, I was taught that if the player wasn't having fun within the first 5 - 10 minutes of any game content, I was tackling game design in a bad way.
Finding ways to show the player fun, and the promise of more fun through out the entire experience of the title was our goal. Giving a taste of a future, fun mechanic in the game was vital.
The thought that you have to slog through content to find the fun in a game makes me shudder.
#8
HOMM imo wasnt really much fun until you got into week 3, that said i cannot think of a single game that has consumed more hours of my time more than homm2/3 (incuding over a decade of MMO playing) did so i guess the non fun starting 2 weeks of ant particular map is a very small portion, and this i believe is the same thing with any decent RTS, of course adding more players changes the dynamic if RTS games, to be not remotely fun at all imo.
FPS, if you are not having fun in the first 5 minutes, its a junk game, if its MP and if the sole reason for you NOT having fun is getting fragged all the time its time to switch games, if youve already switched 5 times, its time to switch genres.
RPGs and not fun have different categories of design failures that can do this, for example, i cannot play gothic, or any of its sequels, the whole how to play mechanic is uncomfortable making it not fun. Dialogue will keep a game fun if its a slower game, theres a lot of these in the RPG world.
Just an added note, as far as MP FPS is concerned, theres no such thing as cheat free servers, if you ever log onto some steam games and see certain tags i can nearly guarantee these guys have the ability to cheat without being detected. I was using wallhacks and headshot hacks on steam protected servers for a long time, but then i guess thats what you get when you combine Steam cafe with a University games lab :)
Anyway the point is, there always a chance that you are getting killed cheaply in online FPS games, there is no such thing as a gamer that is 'so good they call you a cheat' player, they are either cheating or exploiting, i guarantee it :p
09/30/2011 (1:54 pm)
This is a question that has wildly differing answers depending on the genre, and just to pick on the MM series since it was named and some of my favourite games (when they were 3do at least).HOMM imo wasnt really much fun until you got into week 3, that said i cannot think of a single game that has consumed more hours of my time more than homm2/3 (incuding over a decade of MMO playing) did so i guess the non fun starting 2 weeks of ant particular map is a very small portion, and this i believe is the same thing with any decent RTS, of course adding more players changes the dynamic if RTS games, to be not remotely fun at all imo.
FPS, if you are not having fun in the first 5 minutes, its a junk game, if its MP and if the sole reason for you NOT having fun is getting fragged all the time its time to switch games, if youve already switched 5 times, its time to switch genres.
RPGs and not fun have different categories of design failures that can do this, for example, i cannot play gothic, or any of its sequels, the whole how to play mechanic is uncomfortable making it not fun. Dialogue will keep a game fun if its a slower game, theres a lot of these in the RPG world.
Just an added note, as far as MP FPS is concerned, theres no such thing as cheat free servers, if you ever log onto some steam games and see certain tags i can nearly guarantee these guys have the ability to cheat without being detected. I was using wallhacks and headshot hacks on steam protected servers for a long time, but then i guess thats what you get when you combine Steam cafe with a University games lab :)
Anyway the point is, there always a chance that you are getting killed cheaply in online FPS games, there is no such thing as a gamer that is 'so good they call you a cheat' player, they are either cheating or exploiting, i guarantee it :p
#9
Getting bigger guns to kill new players faster as a reward for playing longer just seems like some sort of bully-fest.
Unreal Tournament 2k4 is still my favorite. Everyone starts and STAYS on a level playing field of equipment. The only thing that experience gains you is familiarity with the maps and skill. I was fairly good, but when I got my butt handed to me it was just as much fun as dishing it out because I knew that guy was good, not just persistent enough to get the UltraMamba 90MM Heatseaking Death Missile Submachinegun.
10/07/2011 (12:42 pm)
I always felt that, as you got better in an FPS you should be TAKING things from the player, not GIVING. If you're so danged good, you can kill noobs with a pistol while they're shooting at you with machine guns. Now THAT'S a badge of honor and skill....Getting bigger guns to kill new players faster as a reward for playing longer just seems like some sort of bully-fest.
Unreal Tournament 2k4 is still my favorite. Everyone starts and STAYS on a level playing field of equipment. The only thing that experience gains you is familiarity with the maps and skill. I was fairly good, but when I got my butt handed to me it was just as much fun as dishing it out because I knew that guy was good, not just persistent enough to get the UltraMamba 90MM Heatseaking Death Missile Submachinegun.
#10
10/18/2011 (11:20 am)
Although it would be difficult, I always thought it'd be cool to dynamically create new maps on the fly for MP. I mean, just changing up the layouts. Has any game tried to do this? 
#11
11/21/2011 (4:54 am)
It's a game. It should be fun, end of discussion. Not fun after a week, not fun if you're good. The player should be smiling while at the main menu. 
#12
As others spoke of you need to have a good balance...Good enough to keep the youngens wanting more...and the old timers often go for better long term advancement.
Its become the in thing now to MMORPG, you used to be ridiculed still are a bit. Now with the graphics greatly improved MMORPG,FPS, vehicle, particles,etc games can give a lot to player.
It simply gets down to the game... does it keep a player busy with out putting out like a broken soda machine. does it have enough graphics to get the ideas across, with out effecting game play...LAG..LD..ETC..
and as always depending on what type of soda a player likes will determine if they return...
so if your game is a soda machine it better have colas, dews, fruit, h20, teas, etc[game play, graphics etc]... not cost a lot of coin[cost of game] and always stays stocked [0 to little; download update time, Lag, Link death]
tryn to figure out the best game to keep the people is truely hard. You wont please everyone. You have to hope they like it and stay to the finish if there is one.
12/08/2011 (11:14 pm)
The issue you speak of comes from D&D older players for the most part don't mind the time it takes...we would spend moths on a adventure because you only had so much time we could all get to geather...Computers changed that. But the younger gen wants it now and if they don't get it in a short amount of time they move on. As others spoke of you need to have a good balance...Good enough to keep the youngens wanting more...and the old timers often go for better long term advancement.
Its become the in thing now to MMORPG, you used to be ridiculed still are a bit. Now with the graphics greatly improved MMORPG,FPS, vehicle, particles,etc games can give a lot to player.
It simply gets down to the game... does it keep a player busy with out putting out like a broken soda machine. does it have enough graphics to get the ideas across, with out effecting game play...LAG..LD..ETC..
and as always depending on what type of soda a player likes will determine if they return...
so if your game is a soda machine it better have colas, dews, fruit, h20, teas, etc[game play, graphics etc]... not cost a lot of coin[cost of game] and always stays stocked [0 to little; download update time, Lag, Link death]
tryn to figure out the best game to keep the people is truely hard. You wont please everyone. You have to hope they like it and stay to the finish if there is one.
#13
They kept it fun all the way through. Not many games do that.
12/18/2011 (10:03 pm)
Halo was good at this. They have you think you are going to win and stuff. You feel like you are kicking butt. Then all of a sudden you have these evil alien body snatchers killing your buddies, your enemies, and all you want is to get off the darn ring! It went from I am a bad dude to something is gonna eat my unmentionables!They kept it fun all the way through. Not many games do that.
#14
12/21/2011 (9:14 pm)
Another note on this. My kids are getting into DDR. One of my kids has been very frustrated by this process. It has taken some time and a lot of patience for it to go from "Damn Damn Revolution" to "Dance Dance Revolution". 
Associate David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake
You need to provide perks to your existing audience as well. They are the people that keep playing your game day after day. But you had to hook them at some point as well, and if your game wasn't fun to begin with, why did they stick with it?