PAYING FOR PATIENCE

Well, addressing sort of thing may seem easy for linear-type RPGs (i.e. no backtracking allowed can seem like a second nature design choice), it becomes a mess doing it in a more open-ended/semi-linear semi-linear open type RPGs.

Well hi Craze

I mean bye Craze

Having diversity in a game to make it fresh/exciting/otherbuzzword is a good idea, but there is such a thing as making a player overwhelmed. In the (thankfully few) instances I've played a game which threw me into the deep-end, throwing me a shit-ton of skills to work with (with little explanation) and a range of monsters to fight whose weaknesses I had no clue about lest I spend a couple of hours experimenting (sorry long sentence), I just abandoned it completely. Admittedly I'm not the most patient person in the world but I play games to be entertained as opposed to wanting to study.

The Internet: Pointing out flaws from 30 years ago. 80s action movies. RPGs. Nintendo games.

Perhaps trolls should think of a way to fix them or go match on Wallstreet.

Yes absolutely. No I'm suggesting they are there complaining about things decades old instead of saying how they can fix it.

author=LockeZ

author=tpasmall
Only commenting because I don't really see the point either side is making.

My point is basically summed up as: I don't want to ever be bored while playing video games. Other people have argued that boredom in some cases is an acceptable cost when it results in some other benefit. And I disagree: I don't think boredom is ever acceptable in a game no matter what, even as a punishment for failing. Boredom is one of the worst feelings a game can evoke.

To the first point, one could say things like "let's give the player the choice to skip cutscenes". But it's like you said. Putting a lot of content, and the player will choose which he wants? One could do a little of it, like, the sidequests maybe, or exploration extras ("hidden" stuff, etc). But if the main content itself is going to be "oh, skip it if you want", then WHY is it there? If it's boring as hell, why did you put that effort making it? If the player can be without it, not giving any difference at all... etc etc.

Also I would like to mention something else. It's not about making "fun times" and "slow-boring parts". It's about "the better part" and "the not that better". Why do you want to make a boring filler? If you can, just try to make a connection between one and another scene pleasant. If not, it's same as grinding and 2-step battles. Fillers.

What I say, it's that fillers are annoying.

I don't want to seem like a kindergarten teacher, but there will be no name calling for differences in opinion on my watch. Try not to be a dick on this site if you can help it. Do debate intensely with logic and reason - and certainly call out anyone's poorly constructed arguments, as long as you're civil about it and attack the points and not the person. Carry on :)

With that said, both sides have some good points here. It boils down to instant gratification vs. delayed gratification. Cultures change; we live in a society that wants things now and does not want to work for it. What a 35-year-old gamer enjoys may be quite different from what a 20-year-old wants. I like grinding because it makes the reward that much sweeter. But sometimes I like to just go out and shoot things up. It really depends on my mood, simply put. RPGs in general are more of a "delayed gratification" genre; those who want instant gratification will probably enjoys FPSes, action RPGs, and adventure games more.

Some games have balanced the two concepts quite well, such as Mass Effect. You get to shoot stuff up and do things quickly, but you also get to develop your character, grind a bit, and anticipate the conclusion to a story.

To address the initial idea of "paying" for patience, I think I agree with Craze on one level. I enjoy delayed gratification, but if I'm giving up money for a game, I want the game to be enjoyable right away. Why? Because I already busted my ass to make that money. An orgy of violence and stuff is my reward, whereas in other games like old school RPGs, the reward doesn't come until well into the playthrough. But I don't want to pay for those games...get my drift?

Sometimes I actually enjoy grinding and the more work-oriented aspects of games, because it gives me a chance to sharpen my efficiency skills.

I like the idea of enjoyment curves, with peaks of intense fun and valleys of less intense moments. Designers should try their best to make every single moment of their game enjoyable, with intensity of enjoyment being in a wave pattern:

During intense moments, players focus a bigger part of their mind into the game to make sure they experience it as fully as possible. These peaks typically correspond to battles or plot twists. These high intensity moments will make the stronger impression and be what the player will most likely remember of the game. If these are enjoyable, good mouth-to-ear advertising will follow. If these moments last for too long, players will get mentally exhausted, find the game too difficult or have a hard time keeping up the pace.

Whilst in the quieter moments, players have the opportunity to "digest" the previous more intense moment, mentally prepare for the next one, and take a step back to think about strategies, the storyline and other aspects that were momentarily put aside in the player's mind during the more intense moments. These valleys typically correspond to exploration, planification or dialog scenes. If these moments last for too long, players might become bored.

I think the key is to balance these curves so that players will neither get exhausted nor bored.

Regarding gratification, the players should seek it in the "journey" and not in the "end". Whether the gratification is instant or delayed the road has to be enjoyable, as LockeZ pointed out...

If gratification is delayed during a high intensity moment, players will see this moment as a skill-testing challenge to overcome in order to receive a reward. Here, designers should have the players focus on strategy and overcome difficult situations rather than spend large amounts of time repeating a sequence of actions.

If gratification is delayed during a low intensity moment, players will see this moment as a more relaxing challenge that will most likely require planification, puzzle solving and patience in order to get the reward. Here, designers should have the players test their knowledge of the game (observation of the surroundings, memory of hints in dialogs, etc.) and allow them to find new things (equipment, abilities, etc.) to diversify the gameplay experience.

The rewards themselves must not contribute to the boredom either.
For instance, getting an overpowered weapon that breaks all strategy for the remaining of the game is a no-no. It will only make the game unchallenging and boring, unless you don't use or sell the weapon, which would make the challenge near useless afterall.
Grinding and raising abilities so you can beat the next boss to a pulp is a player's deliberate choice of making a potential "peak" a "valley". Thankfully, players usually have the choice here, so everyone can enjoy such a moment the way they want.

As an interesting example, think about the older NES's and newer systems' Ninja Gaiden games. In the older titles, every second of gameplay was a "peak", moving forward in the stage avoiding and beating enemies. These stages were relatively short and very challenging. The "valleys" were the cutscenes between stages. These moments could seem long but where so good looking that no player ever got bored during these cutscenes. To me, the NES Ninja Gaiden games are a great example of perfectly balanced enjoyment curves.

On the newer Ninja Gaiden games, to the fighting moments and cutscenes were added exploration moments, where you wandered through the stage in search of the next path and could find items. These are "valleys" and should be short and challenging: getting the items should require good observation of the surroundings and some skill with the controller.

I've had exhausted eyes from flashing lights in a game before. Does that count?

Yeah, I guess. I stop playing games for the day when I get to that point. It takes the better part of the day for me. I know for some people it only takes an hour or so, though.

I think if you're going to design peaks and valleys of excitement, it's extremely important to make sure the valleys aren't big enough that someone can turn on the game, play for an hour, turn the game off, and have been in a valley of non-excitement for the entire time. That's a pretty good way for the player to mentally start thinking of your game as a "boring game." And also a pretty good way to get them to never turn the game back on.