"Harder levels and tougher challenges can keep the feeling of “hard fun” alive for a while. But if we keep playing, we keep getting better—and so it’s inevitable: the unnecessary obstacle becomes less of an obstacle over time. That’s why, Koster says, “the destiny of games is to become boring, not to be fun. Those of us who want games to be fun are fighting a losing battle against the human brain.” Fun will always morph into boredom, once we pass the critical point of being reliably successful. This is what makes games consumable : players wring all the learning (and fun) out of them."
I did not know this.
It makes sense though. This is why replay value is such a big deal. Some games you can go back and play over again and still enjoy them. But they are usually the exceptions to the rule. Especially puzzle and mystery games.
Of course, this is why the games record time. So you can compete with your friends. I know my copy Mario Kart 64 would have been played a lot less if my friend didn't keep pushing his Frappe Snowland time trial result lower and lower. I did make several attempts to get close to his time, it was a vain attempt.
I used to get pissed off at video games when I came to a section I couldn't beat. It made me hate the game. I accused the console of cheating. I *%$#&$@ SHOT FIRST! I accused the level of being bullshit and everything about it being stupid. Then, I'd sit down and promise myself, "I'll focus this time." And then I would die, again.
This pattern would usually result in the game being abandoned for quite some time.
That all changed.
I changed my perspective on those areas of games. I realized they were the best parts of the game because they were challenging. (This doesn't apply to games where hours of grinding is required. Final Fantasy, I'm looking at you. Or games where it's a crappy mechanic getting in the. Sarge's Hero's this is all you)
Portal is quite possibly the most perfect game I've ever played. And it was maddening. I'd crawl into bed and my brain would be testing solutions, other options, ways to solve the puzzle. As I drew closer and closer to sleep they would start to break the rules of the game.
There have been a few times where I launch from my bed knowing how to advance in a game only to realize my solution was imaginary. God that was annoying.
Back to Portal. Those maddening levels were the bees knees because they were a challenge. They were the point of the game.
Halo (and countless other games) have a major flaw. Death doesn't matter. In fact, this is a huge discussion in the video game world. Gone are the days of limited health bars, lives and game overs. Inconsequential death takes the joy of the challenge from the game. In Halo and Bioshock and however many other games all you need to do is fling yourself at the wall repeatedly and it will eventually fall. It's endurance vs. skill.
(The Bioshock series is phenomenal but the inconsequential death is still an issue.)
I'm not sure how I feel about all of this. Do games where actions matter have more replay value than ones that prize efficient play? I suppose both are equal. The goal is to play as perfectly as possible.
However, the true king is an interactive, compelling story. That is what brings people back. I haven't replayed Portal but I can't imagine it holding any new power over me. The only draw would be solving puzzles faster and more effectively.
Replay value, challenge and consequential actions are huge questions every game designer has to try and answer. Fun times.
Side Note: The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening for Gameboy was a nightmare for me. It was my first exposure to the Zelda series and I didn't know about moving blocks. So my sister and I couldn't get past the very first baby dungeon. I quit for years. Then I looked up how to beat that dungeon. I was shocked at the simplicity. I went on to finish the game soon after.
No comments:
Post a Comment