Comments on: Achiever games: Legends of Zork and Progress Quest

By: Tipa

Tipa — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:57:40 +0000

After a certain point, you no longer can lose battles unless you play at several levels past your level, so it is exactly like progress quest — you hit the button until you are full of loot, then you sell and return.

By: Callan S.

Callan S. — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:04:17 +0000

I wouldn’t agree it’s the same as progress quest – you have 20 explorations, and banking your loot costs one exploration point. Losing all your hitpoints means losing all the loot you’ve found. So your hit with a classic question of how far do you press on, risking it all, or do you bank it, giving up one of your opportunities for finding more loot. You can judge it on how much hitpoints you have left, what sort of monsters the area seems to pitch at you and how handily you have beaten them, and how much the items you’ve found might be worth from their name (it doesn’t say till you bank ‘em).

Beyond that, it’s not that complicated. However I would say that in terms of risk for reward management, legends of zork is more complex than world of warcraft. Maybe that’s not a huge accolade, but that’s comparing it to a game that does sell a hell of alot of copies/subscriptions.

By: West Karana » Web Log 4/23 — Too Much News edition

West Karana » Web Log 4/23 — Too Much News edition — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:12:00 +0000

[...] by the way, is slowly realizing that the achievements in Achiever games are empty fun as he reconsiders the World of Warcraft end game. Cheer up. We all eventually move on [...]

By: foolsage

foolsage — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:23:29 +0000

I think Tesh has hit the nail on the proverbial head. Static games in today’s information-heavy world are basically all about Achieving/Killing, or very very rarely Socializing. In order to base a game around Exploring, you either need content that’s kept secret from players (nigh-impossible today) or you need dynamic content. I don’t see another good solution to this problem.

By: /AFK - April 19 « Bio Break

/AFK - April 19 « Bio Break — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:43:47 +0000

[...] Tipa worries that we’re stuck in an endless stream of achiever games. [...]

By: Spinks

Spinks — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:57:00 +0000

I think Bartlett misses out one type, and that’s the story oriented player. It can come out as social in a RP environment or as explorer if the story is the thing you explore, but I think there’s a type of player who isn’t really interested in the gameplay (or even the socialising) so much as telling (or being told) a story. And some of these gameless narrative type games could also play to that, it’s more like generating your characters story in terms of what it fights and what it wins, without having to actually achieve or explore or socialise.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:43:01 +0000

James, you can still explore WoW, the flightpaths are just shortcuts. I see that as the best of both worlds; people can jump in and get somewhere fairly quickly (as Saylah rightly notes, short session gaming is important), but those who want to take the scenic route may easily do so. As I wrote earlier, it just means self control on the part of the Explorer, and putting exploration at a higher priority than running the Achievement treadmill or taking shortcuts.

By: James

James — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:53:49 +0000

Nice post. I hadn’t considered the Bartle Test but “we’re in an Achiever world” precisely speaks to what I’ve been feeling for a long time. Being an Explorer first and foremost I died a little when EQ introduced PoP and effectively reduced the size of the world to nothing. Flightpaths in WoW meant there was never a reason to be an explorer there. I keep hoping to find some (updated) analogue to what I was doing in UO 12 (12!) years ago: aimlessly roaming the continent or sailing the seas and enjoying every minute of it.

By: Saylah

Saylah — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:38:38 +0000

P.S. I’m also becoming more open to less than full-featured MMOs for the very same reason – convenient entertainment. I can pop into something and have some fun, then drift back to working or whatever else needs my attention. In a perfect world, both the time consuming pursuits and the casual could live along side each other in the same game – dynamic world. However, I’m seeing that is problematic. The casuals vs. hardcore rewards debate center around this problem. Players will always compare themselves against others and want equal fame, glory and phat loots. Free Realms as an example. I’m “thinking” it’s more disjointed theme park of mini games and socializing than a real MMO which is sad. I’d hoped for a combining of the casual and not-so-casual in a setting that felt like the typical MMO virtual world versus the chat lobby of something like GuildWars.

By: Saylah

Saylah — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:32:14 +0000

Great post. I see a different angle though. Perhaps it’s not so much that they are catering to achievers as much as exploration takes time and ticking of things in a list, not so much. I’ve been thinking about casual gaming more lately and I think this is the wave that we are seeing. Achievement type games are more straight forward in the goals and objectives and it’s probably easier to pin the carrots along the trail to keep people going. It’s also something you can do casually – log in and get something done and then log off. Exploration and more creative pursuits take time and the amount of time is unknown – I think that’s the rub we’re up against.

Using EVE’s new exploration feature as an example. I’m getting back into EVE and have zero interest in that part of the game. You don’t know how long it might take you to find a wormhole. You don’t know what you’re going to find on the other side. If it closes up behind you, you have to find your way out. For my playing hours, that present too much variability that for me at least, lessens the appeal.

There’s no lie I could tell myself that would place the amount of time I game into a casual amount. However, I prefer settings where I can come and go as I need to during a session. I’m an explorer type but I do like getting things done. I think it’s hard to fit that into a reliable time frame. Over the years, I’ve gone from wanderer to “list checker” because it’s move convenient as a goal. My thoughts anyway.