Poll: What's the maximum effort a game should ask of you?

[Shifty Geezer]

Inspired from my MAG experience and discussions with friends, I want a picture of the gaming landscape, at least as it is here. Games will inevitably have a learning curve, and to some degree the long learning curve of a complex game can lead to a more involving and rewarding experience. however, at some point people are going to decided the effort just isn't worth it and give up. What are your thresholds that developers should be aiming for to attract your custom?

Edit: Some options aren't clear-cut. eg. I'll be more willing to spend time learning an RTS than an action game. But in such cases I say split the difference, so for me it's option 2.

 

[liolio]

I voted an hour or three but that's for a game touted as really good.

 

[Florin]

It depends, even within a genre. Just to pick some recent examples, there are shooters like Just Cause 2 that you can pick up and play effortlessly, but you can still find interesting mechanics after a while. That's great.

Others like Stalker and AvP require a lot more investment before they start to become rewarding. But I also consider them great games.

I also enjoy Flight Sim a lot, but when it comes to games that have a really steep learning curve lately it doesn't happen often that I bother to get into them. I just can't see myself having the time for something like Eve Online right now, for instance.

 

[homerdog]

I picked I'm happy to spend hours learning before it all clicks and I get to really play because that's what I did with X3: Reunion and it turned out to be the most rewarding gaming experience I've ever had.

If a game doesn't grab me from the outset like that one did I couldn't give it more than a couple hours before I start playing TF2 again.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I picked the third option as a worst case scenario, but I would also add it depends on the game, and there should always be some base level of control that is very simple and makes it easy to pick up the game. If you are completely unsuccessful in playing after more than an hour, I'd say something is wrong. Having a controls scheme that is difficult to master can be very rewarding.

 

[dskneo]

Well I don't seek a challenge, I seek a ride.


I have to repeat levels or sections.

 

[Squilliam]

It generally depends on how much im going to play a game. The issue for me in a complicated control scheme is not in learning it but forgetting it and then relearning it when the incentives for doing so aren't as high. Its in re playability which I find a complicated control scheme to be a snag. The funny thing is im much more comfortable with a unique control scheme on the PC than I am with a console, so for a console title I have very little patience whereas on the PC I was playing games like Civilization, Xcom etc since I was 6 or 7.

Somehow I get the feeling im in the presence of the one who branded me with my own scarlet letter.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It depends, even within a genre. Just to pick some recent examples, there are shooters like Just Cause 2 that you can pick up and play effortlessly, but you can still find interesting mechanics after a while. That's great.

That was an option I considered, with regards my own experience of FIFA. Some games require a great deal of experience and learning to master. But in order to play and enjoy, you don't have to spend the time learning. Thus in my case, even if over time I'd become a more profficient FIFA play with skills moves etc. (which I don't!), I was able to just jump in and enjoy teamwork gameplay with only a little fumbling of controls.

I consider this a success by the devs, targeting immediate satisfaction for all abilities with plenty of room to grow.

Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear if people's expectations have changed. I imagine most current gamers were gaming from a young age when they had all the time in the world. Do you feel your free time is now a rarer commodity, more precious, and thus you want easier games (didn't Jaffe say this is how his gaming has changed over the years)?

 

[Scott_Arm]

That was an option I considered, with regards my own experience of FIFA. Some games require a great deal of experience and learning to master. But in order to play and enjoy, you don't have to spend the time learning. Thus in my case, even if over time I'd become a more profficient FIFA play with skills moves etc. (which I don't!), I was able to just jump in and enjoy teamwork gameplay with only a little fumbling of controls.

I consider this a success by the devs, targeting immediate satisfaction for all abilities with plenty of room to grow.

Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear if people's expectations have changed. I imagine most current gamers were gaming from a young age when they had all the time in the world. Do you feel your free time is now a rarer commodity, more precious, and thus you want easier games (didn't Jaffe say this is how his gaming has changed over the years)?

Yeah, I was going to use NHL as an example of my ideal game, where the basic controls are simple and easy to pick up, but using all of the advanced moves adds a great deal of depth to the controls, which is difficult to master. FIFA is similarly incredibly well designed, despite complaints (as with NHL) that the series doesn't change enough year to year.

 

[BadTB25]

I picked the third option as a worst case scenario, but I would also add it depends on the game, and there should always be some base level of control that is very simple and makes it easy to pick up the game. If you are completely unsuccessful in playing after more than an hour, I'd say something is wrong. Having a controls scheme that is difficult to master can be very rewarding.

Scott sums up my stance fairly well. It has to be fairly easy to get into to start and maybe build complexity as it goes. Bayonetta is a game that comes to mind that adds more and more complexity as you play - well worth it too.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Depends on the game type obviously. I'll be quite happy to spend weeks and months learning the ins and outs of an RPG. In MMO's I would go so far as to work out mathmatical models that simulate how the game calculates certain things and then applying those into maximizing raid group configuration and effectiveness. And then whenever difficult encounters would come out be quite happy to spend more weeks/months analyzing and learning the encounter attempting to work out how to take it down. That's what I loved about the challenging MMORPGs, sitting there for days and weeks trying to be the first to take down a new Raid Mob. Compounded by having to work out the best way to do it as a team.

Turn based strategy is just a step down from that. RTS another step down.

When we get to platformers and shooters I don't have as much patience. But then again, now days almost all FPS games don't require learning anything. You don't even have to learn the map in most cases. So I have a lower tolerance for learning things there.

Likewise since I've gotten out of Flight Sims and Racing, I don't have the desire to put in the time to properly relearn those systems and then learn each ones idiosyncrasys.

Regards,
SB

 

[RobertR1]

Scott sums up my stance fairly well. It has to be fairly easy to get into to start and maybe build complexity as it goes. Bayonetta is a game that comes to mind that adds more and more complexity as you play - well worth it too.

Bayonetta is the best example I've seen of difficulty scaling in a game, period.

 

[BadTB25]

Bayonetta is the best example I've seen of difficulty scaling in a game, period.

Yup, How you play really changes in the difficulty setting and what you have equipped. Each weapons also plays a lot differently with tons of combinations on what you equip to your hands and feet.

When a game gets the pacing of adding complexity to controls, I don't really mind.

Another game that comes to mind, although not a favorite of mine, is the Zelda series. Each weapon or item can really change how you approach the game. Too bad IMO, that each new Zelda just appears to be the same old game in a different skin (the wife loves them though).

 

[AntShaw]

I'm really lacking in 2 areas at this point in my life, patience and free time. Because of the latter, I even have less of the first. It's a vicious cycle. I find myself playing many more PSN/XBL games due to their shorter nature. I rarely play full priced games through to completion.

I have no problem learning new controls or game mechanics, but they sure better do it over the first hour instead of the next few hours.

There has been one exception to the rule so far for me, and that was Heavy Rain. Had any other game started out like this, I would of easily lost my patience and would of glanced right over the game. Does this prevent me from playing some truly great and deep games? YES! My time is much more valuable to me nowadays. Had it been when I was playing games 20-25 years ago and I would of easily wasted hours figuring something out.

 

[joker454]

I'm really lacking in 2 areas at this point in my life, patience and free time.

Ditto. I picked "very little effort" because I just don't have the patience and the time anymore to muck about. Plus there are so many good games available nowadays that it doesn't make sense to suffer through gaming anymore. Die and have to repeat entire levels over and over again? No thanks. Impossible boss? I'll pass. Level grind? Nah. I just want to be entertained, and if a game aggravates me it gets tossed aside quick and I move onto the next. Games like Fallout 3 that have quick saves are my favorite because I never lose any progress.

 

[Rolf N]

I can't really pick an option, with the question being asked so broad.

My ideal view of a game is that of a meticulous didactic experience. The satisfaction comes from the [strike]challenge[/strike] excercises you go through, excercises that get gradually more complex with new elements introduced every now and then. When a game stays the same for too long, I usually start wondering why I should go on (and lately I've gained the ability to actually bail out and move on). So in a way when you're asking about learning new things, you're asking about the very essence of what makes gaming worthwhile as entertainment. Of course it needs to have that, and lots!

But that's a single-player answer, and lies more in the domain of fundamental mechanics, encounter design and such.

My answer for multiplayer games is more similar to what I guess to be your own. I want a level playing field, where I can keep up with way more dedicated players as long as I understand what to do and do it, even without 100s of hours of training.
In a competition you have to maintain fairness, but to keep players interested you also have to build in incentives and rewards for their dedication. This is a balancing act that has no clear optimum. As a gamer, you can only try to choose the games that, hopefully, lie around your personal spot in the spectrum.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can't really pick an option, with the question being asked so broad.

My ideal view of a game is that of a meticulous didactic experience. The satisfaction comes from the [strike]challenge[/strike] excercises you go through, excercises that get gradually more complex with new elements introduced every now and then.

Okay, I can follow that. However, there's going to be a point where the learning requirement isn't fun though. That is, the ideal game will presented things for you to learn at the rate you can learn them. If too much is asked from the beginning, you'll get turned off, no? Or will you see that as an entertainment in itself?

I suppose the question is actually how long will you persevere without actually having fun in the hopes of finally getting a fun experience!

 

[RobertR1]

I'm going to go with the 2nd option. Controller layouts can vary and I completely understand stand so I'm willing to give it a little bit of time for a controller layout to become 2nd nature. However, with limited time and a lot of good games flowing, I don't have the time or inclination to sit there and wrestle with poor control schemes or uneven difficulties for the sake of some hidden gem.

 

[corduroygt]

It's hard to say really, for example I didn't mind BC2's learning curve and memorizing the map layouts, didn't mind Borderlands and max leveled in that game, but Dragon Age was too much and I'm selling it.

 

[homerdog]

I found Dragon Age to be rather simple as far as RPGs go.