"Awesome By Proxy: Addicted to Fake Achievement" - Action games vs RPGs

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Awesome By Proxy: Addicted to Fake Achievement

 

An interesting article on the difference between action games and RPGs and their psychological influence on us. I thought it might make for an interesting discussion.

 

EDIT: Fuck, missing "A" in the thread title. Would someone please fix this?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Dannyboy-the-Dane

[Cube]

RPGs are many things, but they are almost never hard. As I realized in childhood, the vast majority of RPG challenges can be defeated simply by putting in time. RPGs reward patience, not skill. Almost never is the player required to work hard - only the characters need improve. Failing to defeat Zeromus might mean your strategy is flawed, but it also might mean your level is too low. Guess which problem is easier to remedy?

 

I think they've just explained one of the reasons I hate RPGs.

[Happenstance]

My interest in games has never been the difficulty but the experience while playing it so I have no problem with RPGs being easy, I tend to play them for the stories. I rarely play through a game again on a harder difficulty unless it provides something new. A bit like in Batman: Arkham Asylum when it made me actually think before jumping into a fight and work out tactics first.

[MoogleViper]

This is hardly mind-bending stuff. Surely anyone with half a brain (and the relevant xp[lolz]) knows that RPGs are played mainly for their story, whereas Adventure games are played for their challenges. Obviously not exclusively for either, but mores so for one than the other.

 

(Although it may be true that MMO players aren't aware of this, with many WoW players, for example, thinking that their lvl 80 character is a testament to their skill as opposed to their lack of social life.)

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think your last point there is relevant: while it's not a truth that's hard to figure out, I think it can easily forgotten once the game pulls you in.

[Magnus]

Is the author's point that there are two kinds of people and that you can tell what kind of person someone is by the games they play? Because it kind of comes off as "RPGs are inferior because they're easy". :p

 

Or maybe the point is that if you are someone who likes when things come easy to you, you can change. Hmm.

 

All I'm taking away from this article is that the achievement whores are the real winners in the world.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I really think that's misinterpreting the points he's trying to make. He's saying it's a problem when people are performance oriented as opposed to mastery oriented, and that treating succes in an RPG as a testament to actual skill is a mistake (some RPGs require skill to a certain degree, of course, but we're talking in general terms). He's not saying that RPGs are bad, nor does he advocate plowing through games at the highest difficulty and getting all the achievements.

[Magnus]

I really think that's misinterpreting the points he's trying to make. He's saying it's a problem when people are performance oriented as opposed to mastery oriented, and that treating succes in an RPG as a testament to actual skill is a mistake (some RPGs require skill to a certain degree, of course, but we're talking in general terms). He's not saying that RPGs are bad, nor does he advocate plowing through games at the highest difficulty and getting all the achievements.

But he did spend a lot of time getting all of the emblems in Sonic Adventure DX and acted like that was a better way to play the game than just going through the story mode.

 

And as Moogle said, it's not like you usually get people acting like it takes skill to make it through most RPGs. Unless he's really just been playing MMORPGs. I think everyone agrees that you play Baldur's Gate 2 for the story, not because you want a challenge.

 

It's like, you don't read Harry Potter because it's difficult, and that's fine.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

But he did spend a lot of time getting all of the emblems in Sonic Adventure DX and acted like that was a better way to play the game than just going through the story mode.

 

And as Moogle said, it's not like you usually get people acting like it takes skill to make it through most RPGs. Unless he's really just been playing MMORPGs. I think everyone agrees that you play Baldur's Gate 2 for the story, not because you want a challenge.

 

It's like, you don't read Harry Potter because it's difficult, and that's fine.

 

I didn't get the vibe that it was the better way to play the game, just the better way to feel accomplishment. He even says that, optimally, you'd spend your time mastering something more useful, so it's not like he's advocating perfect playthroughs. The Sonic playthrough was a way of trying to change his mindset.

 

Generally I think you're focusing on the wrong aspects of the article and taking them as the main points he's trying to make. In my eyes the games are not the point of the article; rather he's using them as a way to make a point about psychology in our approach to life's challenges.

[EEVILMURRAY]

RPGs are many things, but they are almost never hard. As I realized in childhood, the vast majority of RPG challenges can be defeated simply by putting in time. RPGs reward patience, not skill. Almost never is the player required to work hard - only the characters need improve. Failing to defeat Zeromus might mean your strategy is flawed, but it also might mean your level is too low. Guess which problem is easier to remedy?

If he thinks wandering around in the tall grass/overworld/dungeon battling enemies constantly to gain a few levels is not hard work for the player, he's more full of shit than I thought.

[Yvonne]

I see the argument. I think it's possible to make consistently challenging RPGs but a big problem is resolving rewarding skill vs RPGs future promise of ease.

 

I think probably the best example of a game that required careful thought and skilled play throughout as an RPG was Vagrant Story. Because the lvlup progression is so gradual, and the effectiveness of your play was much more dependent on your set up, there was less grind pressure.

 

The only let down was the occasionally ridiculous route to getting some of the more sought after damascus items which required astronomical levels of grinding...but was entirely skippable.

 

Story was decent too. Probably my favourite game to come out of ps1!

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

If he thinks wandering around in the tall grass/overworld/dungeon battling enemies constantly to gain a few levels is not hard work for the player, he's more full of shit than I thought.

 

Somewhat strenuous, perhaps, but not difficult.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Somewhat strenuous, perhaps, but not difficult.

Technically it is both, you're training strenuously to combat a foe which is in itself difficult. Tis a matter of degree, how many levels you need to gain and the level of the enemies you battle/the level of the enemy you're training to beat.

 

You're using one to circumvent the other. Even though levelling up is inevitable it is sometimes required by players not to go against a difficult enemy but to spend time trying to be of better strength.

[Jonnas]

But he did spend a lot of time getting all of the emblems in Sonic Adventure DX and acted like that was a better way to play the game than just going through the story mode.

 

No, he's saying that becoming better at a game via practice is preferable than becoming better at it via mindless grinding. He also points out that both methods differ little in actual usefulness, but work well as an analogy for more important stuff, for example, getting better at action games is the equivalent of improving your football skills via actual practice, while grinding for xp is the equivalent of training your leg muscles at the gym without training your technique, or learning more about the sport.

 

The way I see it, every RPG he mentioned can be mastered without grinding. JRPGs don't focus as much in grinding as they seem, I mean, it is an option, but you can also make clever use of your many abilities, or simply employ effective tactics. After all, this is the reason the genuinely harder, optional bosses appear near the end, as that's when you have more experience (not xp) with the game, and access to a big variety of options and strategies.

 

Chrono Trigger is actually a good example of this, as most bosses in that game have a "trick" to it, and using brute force is ineffective, most of the time. Hell, I'm not even sure if you even can grind, in that game.

Unfortunately, not all games are made like Chrono Trigger. Grinding is still a viable option in a lot of JRPGs, and it's up to the skill of the designer to mitigate that.

 

I can't speak much about MMOs, as I don't play them, but it does sound like grinding is encouraged and rewarded much more than actual skill.

Yes, it is a problem, but a problem that can only begin to be solved once "videogame addiction" is properly recognized and determined. Mindless grinding should become a massive sign.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Technically it is both, you're training strenuously to combat a foe which is in itself difficult. Tis a matter of degree, how many levels you need to gain and the level of the enemies you battle/the level of the enemy you're training to beat.

 

You're using one to circumvent the other. Even though levelling up is inevitable it is sometimes required by players not to go against a difficult enemy but to spend time trying to be of better strength.

 

But it requires no effort of skill on the player's part, only the patience to spend the necessary time. The foe is not difficult in the sense that it's a matter of the player's skill level, it's difficult in the sense that it requires more preparation. No improvement of player skill is needed. Of course there are tactical elements in most RPGs, but in the end success mostly comes down to level grinding.

 

This is not to criticise RPGs, for the record. I love RPGs.

[Cube]

This is why I love games like Mass Effect - game that merge the storytelling of RPGs with great action. The best of both worlds.

 

There are exceptions for both genres - some RPGs may only need skill, whereas some action games require no skill. One such action game is the brilliant Bioshock. Apart from the very end, zero skill is required - even on the hardest difficulty*.

 

 

*Although they did add a mode which required a lot of skill at a later point.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

No, he's saying that becoming better at a game via practice is preferable than becoming better at it via mindless grinding. He also points out that both methods differ little in actual usefulness, but work well as an analogy for more important stuff, for example, getting better at action games is the equivalent of improving your football skills via actual practice, while grinding for xp is the equivalent of training your leg muscles at the gym without training your technique, or learning more about the sport.

 

I'd even argue training your leg muscles require more effort than level grinding, but otherwise good analogy.

[EEVILMURRAY]

But it requires no effort of skill on the player's part, only the patience to spend the necessary time. The foe is not difficult in the sense that it's a matter of the player's skill level, it's difficult in the sense that it requires more preparation. No improvement of player skill is needed. Of course there are tactical elements in most RPGs, but in the end success mostly comes down to level grinding.

I think the South Park episode World of Warcraft episode is a perfect example of this.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Haven't seen that, I'm afraid. Could you explain it for me?

[EEVILMURRAY]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_love_not_warcraft

 

You really have to see it though to fully appreciate it.

[Grazza]

I agree it's not an achievement to play RPGs, but guess what...? Nor is it to play action games. OK, if you're good at action games you'll have more skill than an RPG gamer, but none of it matters. The only reason to play any genre is fun.

 

Whilst I realise the article doesn't tell people to stop playing RPGs, I am rather surprised that anyone would associate "pride" with them anyway. When I think back to how much I enjoyed Dragon Quest VIII - exploring all the castles, listening to the beautiful score, as well as all the laughs - that's what gaming's about, just as it's also about firing off a diffusion missile in Metroid or fighting Ganon in Zelda.

 

It's how much you enjoy the game that counts, not what type of game it is.

[Ville]

Interesting read. Two points I've noticed in my own gaming:

 

-skill over grinding / endurance: some games just require less reaction skill, and thus do not interest me. Most MMO's are like this, you're just issuing attack and defense actions, which then happen by themselves; no dodging or accuracy needed, just keeping your health up, i.e. endurance rather than skill. Pretty much the same with RPGs that rely heavily on grinding: not so much about skill, but how much time and patience you've got on your hands...Compare with e.g. FPS games, which are all about skill: how well can you actually aim and react? Same with RTS games, you really have to be able to multitask and strategise or you'll get your arse handed to you. Puzzle games like Tetris: all about skill. Also, same with action games like Monster Hunter: if you want to beat the tougher monsters, you have to really focus on the fights and be able to constantly dodge, counter and find the openings for your attacks, i.e. master the controller. It is painfully obvious when people suck at these skills, because they will die and fast , thus messing up the hunt for the whole party...

 

-challenging, but not cruel: Too easy is boring, but too hard is frustrating! This depends much on how the difficulty has been set up: real challenge motivates, but intentionally cruel or lazy game designs just make me pissed off...Also, nowadays I've got much less time for playing games, so there has to be some level of enjoyment, no point in wasting your time on shitty games...

 

The only reason to play any genre is fun.

 

Yep, that's pretty much it. I like stories, but also real gameplay challenges. Endurance games just feel like a giant waste of time, whereas skill games really put you to the test, giving you that awesome feeling of intensity and challenge, i.e. the satisfaction of finally mastering and conquering something. So for me, that seems to be a major part of the fun as well.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_love_not_warcraft

 

You really have to see it though to fully appreciate it.

 

Sounds brilliant!

 

I agree it's not an achievement to play RPGs, but guess what...? Nor is it to play action games. OK, if you're good at action games you'll have more skill than an RPG gamer, but none of it matters. The only reason to play any genre is fun.

 

Whilst I realise the article doesn't tell people to stop playing RPGs, I am rather surprised that anyone would associate "pride" with them anyway. When I think back to how much I enjoyed Dragon Quest VIII - exploring all the castles, listening to the beautiful score, as well as all the laughs - that's what gaming's about, just as it's also about firing off a diffusion missile in Metroid or fighting Ganon in Zelda.

 

It's how much you enjoy the game that counts, not what type of game it is.

 

Yup, I completely agree.

 

I still don't think the games were the actual point of the article, though - it's the psychological aspect that's really interesting. There are definitely performance oriented people out there, and I could imagine some of them associating success in RPGs with pride.

 

-challenging, but not cruel: Too easy is boring, but too hard is frustrating! This depends much on how the difficulty has been set up: real challenge motivates, but intentionally cruel or lazy game designs just make me pissed off...Also, nowadays I've got much less time for playing games, so there has to be some level of enjoyment, no point in wasting your time on shitty games...

 

Yep, that's pretty much it. I like stories, but also real gameplay challenges. Endurance games just feel like a giant waste of time, whereas skill games really put you to the test, giving you that awesome feeling of intensity and challenge, i.e. the satisfaction of finally mastering and conquering something. So for me, that seems to be a major part of the fun as well.

 

True.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Dannyboy-the-Dane

[The Bard]

I actually wanted to write an article about the types of games that involve mastering a skill wherein your inputs have a direct correlation with the output on the screen, where improvement really involves learning the systems of the game, and how these types of games differ from the sort where progress or ability is abstracted into a magic number which increases, meaning that your in game performance is superior without your actual input changing very much at all.

 

Which is what I thought this guy was going for when I read the title, but it seems like a different angle.

[Sheikah]

A turn-based RPG (which I assume he is getting at, while conveniently avoiding action RPGs) is as easy as you want it to be. If you keep getting pummeled by a boss in a cave, you can go off and hunt to increase your level. It's entirely your choice if you want to cop out. It's up to the individual whether they wish to be challenged by a game or not (hence some people going to extremes in RPGs by playing L1 only challenges or gimped equipment run throughs).

 

Not to mention that the article is incredibly sweeping and overlooks the fact that with some RPGs, enemies level as you do. So it's not necessarily true that you will become better than enemies by simply donking them over the head a lot.

 

Most of all, the same thing makes you become better in both genres of games - you die, you learn, and you don't make the same mistake again.