The Borderlands Gun Collector's Club
steve-yegge.blogspot.com
steve-yegge.blogspot.com
* I had no idea that there was a special benefit to playing the game through a second or third time. That's because the game doesn't tell you that. So the only people who will ever discover this are the hardest of hard-core OCD types.
* Even if it did tell you that, it's ridiculous that it would push the "good stuff" out to the second or third playthrough. Old Man Murray said it best, more than a decade ago (http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/63.html):
> Here's a note to developers regarding what we hope will become an industry-wide policy: if your game has some good parts, try to put them at the fucking beginning. It takes us ten hours of dismal labor to earn enough money to buy your game, so please commence the entertainment early on. If possible, pack something fun right into the box, for instance a balloon...
> Developers have one goddamn job: entertain us. And we mean now, goddamnit, not in six hours.
* The huge number of randomly generated guns may create a token economy, but it also forces the player to spend way too much time trying to figure out whether Gun # 712,924 is better than Gun # 712,925. Sid Meier is supposed to have said that "a game is a series of interesting choices," and the problem with Borderlands' guns is that choosing between them is usually not interesting, because the differences between most weapons you encounter contemporaneously are so tiny.
This wouldn't be so bad if you could carry an unlimited number of weapons, but you can't, so you're constantly having to compare weapons to decide which ones to discard and which to keep; which means you're constantly being forced to make uninteresting choices. It's the opposite of fun.
And on and on. Don't get me wrong, I liked Borderlands; as a shooter it was OK, and its unique aesthetic was fun. But all the things that Steve is raving about here are things that I experienced as reasons not to like it.
Borderlands balancing itself to only being interesting after 50 hours (assuming the author is correct) is odd and does not help it sell copies or win mindshare. It sounds like the author actually liked Playthrough 2.5 because it didn't have any of the MMORPG trappings, but was actually a balanced first-person shooter.
I've been researching "retention" mechanics (dark patterns/addiction patterns) in games from the POV of behavioral economics for my PhD thesis for a while now. My intuition (no data yet) is that what people seem to miss is that the tricks work for a while, but then they stop working. I'm reaching a conclusion that the tricks work just long enough to keep people playing until their social network joins, and then they're locked in until the game gets boring, and then they jump to the next game, where it seems the retention patterns work again.
What these patterns don't do is make a game enjoyable. The Borderlands gun mechanic, in particular, is not a very good retention mechanic. It'll work... for a time, until players see the inevitable archetypes of variation, and then it won't. The guns are not really valuable, because Borderlands will always give you another one in five minutes. If the player isn't being given something of value, it's not a very good mechanic. The value in the guns isn't the gun itself, but the surprise from the variation, and when that dries up, I'd expect it stops working.
It seems to me the author just really liked Borderlands, which is fine, but is confusing some of the trappings of Borderlands with why she likes it. I think some deeper introspection through the MMORPG smoke and mirrors will find that she just likes the gameplay.
This is not to say MMORPG stuff doesn't work, just that it tapers off. And I think for most people, it tapered off way before Playthrough 2.5.
This inevitably leads to burnout and it usually happens in one of two ways:
1-they run out of content or master the learning curve, therefore they run out of stuff to be addicted to; this usually causes a general tapering off of play time
2-the stress overcomes the addiction and they flat out quit, even though they are still addicted
It would be interesting to examine the play patters of various games that have different variations on addiction vs stress vs fun.
LoL -high fun, high stress, low addiction
WoW -med fun, med stress, med addiction
farmville -low fun, high stress, high addiction
edit: the stress of a game like LoL is very different from a game like FV. LoL is high because you must play perfectly in order not to be ridiculed by your teammates. FV is high because you are given a dozen new things to do every time you just want to do the basic stuff, but your compelled to do everything, which generally requires you to keep a large mental queue of everything it throws at you every time you log in.
I looked at your site and noticed you don't make your email address available (which I am sure is by design), so could you ping me at chris {{{at}}} chris.to ?
I don't see the fun in playing Diablo 2 to level 99 as well, but there seems to be a huge group of players that do. There is a lesson for us developers in that :).
If this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_g...) is accurate, for instance, Diablo and Diablo 2 sold about 6.5 million copies together, which ain't hay; but The Sims, Sims 2 and Sims 3 together sold 39 million copies, making it a completely different magnitude of hit. (Not even counting all the expansions, either.) And how many hundreds of millions of copies of Angry Birds have been sold?
Count in other grinding games that are on facebook (Farmville, etc.) and you will see that the number of players that are entertained by grinding is actually a substantial part of the playing community as a whole. It doesn't matter whether the game is "hardcore" or not.
Seeing the rather extreme case that these many years after release, there are still that many people playing Borderlands (and Diablo) just for the grind is an interesting thing.
If you could get your sims characters to craft items with a probalistic quality curve based on their personality, skills, and some luck, and also have an internet-facing display chest, it'd probably give even more legs to the franchise.
See also Animal Crossing, which gives people plenty of collecting and display opportunities. There are fossils, furniture, fruit, paintings, songs, haircuts, fish, bugs, etc etc. AC appeals to casual gamers because you can do 10 minutes a day and get enjoyment from it. It also appeals to hardcore collectors because there's so much to collect, and some of it is "rare".
Or people who go read a little tiny bit about the game online, like me.
Not that I would play Borderlands through again, I didn't enjoy it at all.
But it's not that hard to find out about regardless.
Going on fetch quests and fighting the same few enemies? Boring.
Driving around in a weirdly physic'd car that didn't have at least proper driving sound effects and damage models fighting enemies that weren't even a token match? Boring.
Slaying skags by the thousands? Boring.
etc. etc. etc.
Eventually I just gave up. I had "beaten" the game only insomuch as having leveled up a character to the point that he had achieved virtual godhood in the game. Nigh-impervious to damage, wielding weapons Zeus would have feared, there was no progression anymore, I had beaten the difficulty curve simply by grinding my way ahead of it.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that you have to trudge through the game 2+ times for it to really shine, but I absolutely HATE grinding and gave up MMO's because of it... and I can't even begin to guess how many hours I have spent grinding this game because it's so damn fun.
I mean I enjoyed Diablo, but not quite as much as some people did. I think whole system of grinding for better gear definitely appeals to a certain audience of gamers.
I also noticed that in the article he nags on Mass Effect 3, stating that the writing was juvenile, yet I really didn't think this article was written with maturity in mind :P.
It reminds me of tech trees in 4x strategy games. They're fun until you've maxed out the tree.
Some games make you choose a particular path that you have to commit to, making you replay the game to see different parts of the progression tree, but I've always hated those.
A big problem, and this is where Borderlands lost me, was that the enemies simply became too easy/boring. I ended up just driving across the world ignoring the enemies as they weren't challenging to fight and I had no need for loot.
Some games make the opposite mistake, like Oblivion. You level up, but so do your enemies. So there really doesn't "feel" like a reason to level up. You don't really get anything for it.
So the hard part is finding the right balance where your weapons and stats improve, but so do your enemies. But at just the right ratio to make you want to grind for stuff, but to keep it from getting boring.
It's a problem as old a the first Dragon Warrior (which incidentally solved it by having the player enter new parts of the world with harder enemies, leaving the easier enemies in already explored areas).
To answer your question, I thought Diablo's environment and atmospherics were fun. I got bored with it eventually about halfway through the game. I think I found a gold cheat someplace and just loaded up with gear and finished the game off.
I wonder if I'm the only one with such problems.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/arachnophobes-rej...
I also have two friends that have more or less severe problems with spiders, digital or not.
Have you thought of maybe using the game as a therapeutic means for trying to alleviate the problem? I've heard of treatment where they try to get the patients used to their phobia, until it goes away. So I'd suppose the game would be a good opportunity to do that virtually. Would that even make sense?
Your example (Let's call him Bob, scared of spiders, and Ann, a therapist).
Ann would explain that Bob is in a safe space, and there are no spiders, and that she's not going to bring any out. Then she'd ask him to think about a spider. She'd ask him what his "hot thought" was; what his "emotion" was; and she'd ask how strongly he felt those.
Bob might say Fear, 50%; "I might get bitten".
Ann would then ask him why he thought that. Is it a reasonable thought? There's some discussion about the probability of being bitten, and so what if you are, and etc. She then asks Bob how he feels, and if it's as strong. Hopefully it's not as strong.
This continues each week; next week she draws a scribble (not even a spider) on a piece of paper; then a spider; then a picture of a spider; then a dead spider; then a live spider but in a sealed box; then a live spider in a box with the lid off; eventually building up to Bob being able to touch a live spider.
Note that all the time Bob is in control of how much exposure to spiders he gets, and it's all very gently progressing. CBT is a very effective treatment for phobias.
Compare this to "FACE YOUR FEARS" - Charles hates elevators, but he decides to face his fears. He goes to the mall. His palms start to get sweaty, his breathing gets faster, his heart beats harder. He's having an adrenaline reaction. He walks up to the elevator. He's really stressed now. He pushes the button to call the elevator. He waits. His stress and fear levels are pretty high now. The elevator arrives, and he gets in. It's small, and he's really panicked. The door closes, and the elevator starts moving with that little jerky clunky move they make. It goes up one floor. Charles is on the verge of a full blown panic attack, and is very uncomfortable. The doors open, and charles leaves the elevator.
As he leaves relief -endorphins- flood through him. He sits, head in his hands, so pleased to be out of the elevator.
All Charles has achieved is to strengthen his fear of elevators - now they're more scary because he's had a really unpleasant experience in one, and he was rewarded when he "escaped" the situation.
Your idea of a virtual computer driven way to introduce people to something they fear is excellent, but only if done carefully.
>Bob might say Fear, 50%; "I might get bitten".
That's the weird (or is it common?) thing - I'm not afraid that they will hurt me or bite me - I realize that they are mostly harmless (at least where I live.).I just find them... repulsive. I don't know how to put it differently, I just think they're ugly and unpleasant.
But, if you wanted to work on it you'd be able to get to point where you wouldn't freak out every time you saw a bug and it would only take a few weeks. There's probably something online to help guide you through it.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201202/burning-ma...
It's weird, because it's different for pretty much every game, and I can't put my finger on what makes me impossible to finish the game, and what in appearance of monsters makes it bearable.
I think it might be that in Doom, those were (more or less) human heads with spiderlegs, and I was able to convince my brain that it's ok, those are just deformed humans I'm fighting.
What might made Borderlands worse, was that those worms and spiders came out of nowhere. Five minutes earlier, I was shooting bandits and wolves (skags, or whatever they were called), then I go to new location, and BANG!, completely different enemies. And they looked totally different than what I fought before, whereas Doom spiders felt like they belong in the same world.
"Gamification works - give people things to find / build / collect / modify; then count those things; then allow them to display those things; and display your counts too."
I do like games with "completion mechanics", but not open ended token counters. But the only reason I'd play Borderlands is for the story -- it looks like a horrible game from a mechanics standpoint.
That aside, I've beaten Crawmerax probably nearly fifty times by now, so everything she says about addiction, I'll agree with. Multiple pearlescents and armory abuses for the win! :D
And yes, all the rest about addcition, token economies etc... he' right, too! ^
What a read!
P.S.: Nicely written, completely in line with the game, I almost pissed myself Chaz... mina!! :-))))) And typing errors, well who cares!
If you like jumping have a look at Cobalt. Quake had rocket jumps and good grenades and you could hack the physics and was way more fun than quake2, which dumbed them down.
As for the maturity of the article, it's an article about Borderlands. It's kind of to be expected. And expecting someone to read through that who doesn't care for that style of humor is a lot to ask. Cherry pick the info if you want to get straight to the message, but the bulk of the article's entertainment value is not the message, but the delivery.
If she's 12 years old, I agree. Otherwise, she's a big girl and doesn't need your paternalistic coddling.
http://www.nickyee.com/hub/addiction/addiction.pdf
It's a decade old now, but IMO it does an even better job explaining the dynamics of game addiction.
Hmmm. I notice that the iPad3 pre-orders are sold out. Hmmm.