Fun and Rewards in Games

[Morbus]

And besides that, there's another big disadvantage to not abstracting time - you generally only get to see daytime action.

And that pretty much sums it all up. It's eyecandy, doesn't matter. Age of Decadence has no time table, at least not real time. There's no day/night cycle, but there are night maps. I like that, and I find that a LOT more functional than sped up day/night cycles.

Of course, this is less of a problem in single-player games, but it still is somewhat silly. Especially when viewed in the context of almost perpetually abstracted distances where towns are very close together and walking inside a town takes nowhere near the amount of time it would in a real game (try walking from one end of a big city to another in real life, and then compare it to the time it takes to walk from one end of a city to another in Arcanum, for instance).

Man, don't get me started on that...

 

[Sander]

Man, don't get me started on that...

If you believe that walking from one end of a city to another should really take you hours you're missing the entire point of games: fun.

 

[Morbus]

Man, don't get me started on that...

If you believe that walking from one end of a city to another should really take you hours you're missing the entire point of games: fun.

If you believe I want games to have real time clocks because I want to wait hours till the sun sets you're MY entire point...

:EDIT:
Besides, games aren't meant to be fun on principle. They are meant to be rewarding on principle. Read my opinion about that here if you care

 

[Sander]

If you believe I want games to have real time clocks because I want to wait hours till the sun sets you're MY entire point...

That's not what I said.

:EDIT:
Besides, games aren't meant to be fun on principle.

Yes they are. That's been the entire point of games ever since they were invented thousands of years ago. Games are meant to provide entertainment in a lot of ways.

They are meant to be rewarding on principle. Read my opinion about that here if you care

Games are most definitely not about rewarding people (and rewarding them for what, anyway?). Most games do live by this rule - rewarding people frequently and commonly, but that is a form of creating an addiction. Diablo was so succesful because it provided constant, very frequent and very obvious rewards. Similarly, TES games have incorporated a leveling system in a system where it doesn't make that much sense, but they do that so that there is still some sense of reward.

Similarly, there are dozens of very ancient games without a reward (a lot of children's games have that principle). There's no reward to diabolo, for instance, but it's still a game (ignoring the people who do it to entertain others). Similarly, many people enjoy playing the mind-game of chess and find it fun to be challenged by good players they'll usually lose to, but this doesn't mean they're being rewarded for anything in the act of playing, they could get completely slaughtered and not accomplish a thing they might have wanted to accomplish in that particular game, but they still enjoyed playing - for the sake of playing. Your point of 'own objectives' doesn't work here, though, because the only objective for these players is often to just play the game, and nothing else.

Similarly, yesterday I was over at a friend's house and I was playing Halo 3. I absolutely suck at this game and frequently caused our team to inadvertently lose - I wasn't rewarded at all by the game, but it was *still* fun to play.

The fact that you can only see a game in terms of goals instead of seeing it as a pastime with an inherent quality of fun to it shows that you really are missing a lot of the point of a lot of games.

Actually, the best case for this that I can make is very simply a family game of monopoly: if you have a bunch of people you enjoy playing with then it often doesn't matter whether you win or lose - you can still enjoy yourself. However, if you're winning the game and doing great - but there's someone at the table who is angry, sad or otherwise no fun to play with - the game stops being entertaining. It still rewards you, but it's not in any way good to play anymore.

Another example is the compulsive gambler - enjoyment for someone like that comes from risking money, the act of playing, - not from being rewarded with winnings.

 

[Morbus]

That's not what I said.

You implied I wanted to travel for hours and hours, realistically. I don't want that. I like what Fallout did. Or Vampire for that matter. I don't like what Morrowind does. The Witcher is fine in my book, though-

Yes they are. That's been the entire point of games ever since they were invented thousands of years ago. Games are meant to provide entertainment in a lot of ways.

The concept of "games" isn't an invention, it's a definition of lots of things. One thing can be a game to me and not to you and viceversa. War may be a game and it may not be. I know there's a better way to explain this, but a game is not something you do as in "I want to make a game", is something you create as in "this is a game".

That said, the fun factor present in most games is, as I state in my article, merely a side effect of the real point of all games: reward. If you are rewarded, you have fun. If not, you don't. I know this is not the be-all and-all argument, but saying "games are about" fun isn't for sure. Still, WAY offtopic, I'll gladly discuss this somewhere else. Please give me a link though.

Games are most definitely not about rewarding people (and rewarding them for what, anyway?).

I think I explained it in the text... And it's not only games, but all entertainment in general. Books also reward you. They reward you (or not) for spending time reading them. In the most basic of examples, games reward you for spending time playing them. This is more convoluted, and I explained it, I think. You did read the whole argument, right?

Similarly, there are dozens of very ancient games without a reward (a lot of children's games have that principle). There's no reward to diabolo, for instance

I kindly disagree, and I think most people who ever played a diabolo will do too. If nothing else, there's the reward of managing to keep the damn little thing on the rope.

Your point of 'own objectives' doesn't work here, though, because the only objective for these players is often to just play the game, and nothing else.

Although this is certainly a moot point, you still get reward for "just playing chess". As I showed in my text. There are temporary objectives, multiple temporary objectives inside each game session that you complete and get rewarded for when "just playing a game". In CS it's killing your opponent? In chess is eating (?) your opponent's pieces or succeeding tactically, or succeeding in creating a strategy? Those are all temporary objectives. And you get rewarded, and it's fun if you complete them.

The fact that you can only see a game in terms of goals instead of seeing it as a pastime with an inherent quality of fun to it shows that you really are missing a lot of the point of a lot of games.

Maybe I'm simplifying the whole issue a bit too much. Or maybe I'm rational thinking in a not so common way. I know very little of psychology so my reasoning in this matter is limited, but I think there's no fun EVER if you have no objectives. Unless the game is simply funny, where it's a different kind of fun. But games are not meant to be funny by definition.

It still rewards you, but it's not in any way good to play anymore.

As I said in the text, it doesn't reward you enough. It doesn't compensate.

Another example is the compulsive gambler - enjoyment for someone like that comes from risking money, the act of playing, - not from being rewarded with winnings.

All cases I contemplated in my text, I believe...

 

[Sander]

You implied I wanted to travel for hours and hours, realistically.

No. I implied that you wanted realism, but failed to realise that realism often conflicts with fun.

The concept of "games" isn't an invention, it's a definition of lots of things. One thing can be a game to me and not to you and viceversa. War may be a game and it may not be. I know there's a better way to explain this, but a game is not something you do as in "I want to make a game", is something you create as in "this is a game".

If 'games' isn't something you can just define, why the hell are you pinning down rewards as the basis of games?

Also, this is just silly word games.

I think I explained it in the text... And it's not only games, but all entertainment in general. Books also reward you. They reward you (or not) for spending time reading them. In the most basic of examples, games reward you for spending time playing them. This is more convoluted, and I explained it, I think. You did read the whole argument, right?

Now this is just silly.
Books do *not* reward you for reading them. What books do is provide entertainment while reading them, and part of that entertainment is the ending. But it's the process of reading and the telling of the story what it's about, not the ending itself.

See the ancient Greeks. They had a very rich tradition of theater, but one that always performed the same plays over and over again. That's because the plays and stories weren't about the pay-off, they were about the process of getting there.

Similarly music - people listen to music over and over and over again - and it isn't to get to that 'reward' of the final note.

The same goes for books - good books, anyway.

I kindly disagree, and I think most people who ever played a diabolo will do too. If nothing else, there's the reward of managing to keep the damn little thing on the rope.

You are confusing the process for the reward. You just defined the entirety of the game itself as the reward.

Similarly, you could say that moving a step forward in Doom is a reward. It isn't.

Although this is certainly a moot point, you still get reward for "just playing chess". As I showed in my text. There are temporary objectives, multiple temporary objectives inside each game session that you complete and get rewarded for when "just playing a game". In CS it's killing your opponent? In chess is eating (?) your opponent's pieces or succeeding tactically, or succeeding in creating a strategy? Those are all temporary objectives. And you get rewarded, and it's fun if you complete them.

Did you even read what I wrote?
I specifically wrote that even people who get completely slaughtered, who fail to accomplish any of their objectives often *still* have fun playing chess. Why are you skipping over this and claiming it is a moot point? It is an *essential* point. The fact that you do not see this still just illustrates that you fail to see a game for what it really is about: entertainment, not being rewarded for accomplishing something.

Maybe I'm simplifying the whole issue a bit too much. Or maybe I'm rational thinking in a not so common way. I know very little of psychology so my reasoning in this matter is limited, but I think there's no fun EVER if you have no objectives.

The mind boggles.

I think this just shows that you are a competitive person and that you should learn to just relax and have fun for the sake of having fun.
It also shows in your Puzzle Bobble example. You think the pay-off is purely in achieving a certain goal you set for yourself. For a lot of people, the pay-off isn't anywhere near that and it's just purely about playing the game.

As I said in the text, it doesn't reward you enough. It doesn't compensate.

No. Because the game in that context isn't *about* being rewarded (in other contexts monopoly can be about beating other people, though), the game at that point ceases to be about attaining a goal, it becomes a pastime - a way to entertain yourself without the need for goals and even though the goals are accomplished (you're killing the game) it's still no fun because of other factors.

Another example is the compulsive gambler - enjoyment for someone like that comes from risking money, the act of playing, - not from being rewarded with winnings.

All cases I contemplated in my text, I believe...

Ehm, no you didn't, you did not anywhere contemplate the compulsive gambler who gambles for the process of gambling, for whom the fun is in the playing of the game, the risking of the money itself.

 

[Morbus]

No. I implied that you wanted realism, but failed to realise that realism often conflicts with fun.

And that's where one's personal "objectives" come to play. In other words, that's the relativism of fun. Sure, it's not fun driving for hours in the barren wasteland. But maybe it is for somebody else. No matter, that's not what you meant.

What I mean with this is that it's fun for ME that time goes by realistically, and that I have to wait, or sleep, or abstractedly do something to spend time. I like that. I understand others may not like it, but I do, and I find it rewarding that my choices rather than my speed going through the swamps are important in the outcome of my actions.

If 'games' isn't something you can just define, why the hell are you pinning down rewards as the basis of games?

Good question... I don't know. But it doesn't feel wrong, somehow...

Also, this is just silly word games.

I think I explained it in the text... And it's not only games, but all entertainment in general. Books also reward you. They reward you (or not) for spending time reading them. In the most basic of examples, games reward you for spending time playing them. This is more convoluted, and I explained it, I think. You did read the whole argument, right?

Now this is just silly.
Books do *not* reward you for reading them. What books do is provide entertainment while reading them, and part of that entertainment is the ending. But it's the process of reading and the telling of the story what it's about, not the ending itself.

I don't think I understand what you mean. Can you develop a bit? I mean, sure, books are not actively rewarding nor entertaining the reader, and you can't say they reward you for reading them, even if they're good. A better choice of words would be to say they are worth the time spent on them, but I think it's basically the same thing. I don't think, I don't know, Hemingway's books are worth MY type, and they're not fun to read for ME, they don't reward me. Is it just my choice of words that is wrong or is it my whole thinking?

See the ancient Greeks. They had a very rich tradition of theater, but one that always performed the same plays over and over again. That's because the plays and stories weren't about the pay-off, they were about the process of getting there.

Actually only comedies wore about the process. Dramas were mainly about the plot. And dramas are about 75% of Greek theater. Three dramas (tragedies) and a comedy to lighten the mood up. That's the thing if I remember correctly.

Similarly music - people listen to music over and over and over again - and it isn't to get to that 'reward' of the final note.

The same goes for books - good books, anyway.

Yeah, you're right. My example was silly. Books have no objectives, they can't reward the "player"... Sorry for the confusion.

You are confusing the process for the reward. You just defined the entirety of the game itself as the reward.

So what? Isn't that what it's all about? Finishing the game? Or, in other words, doing the game. There's more to it, like doing tricks, or letting it fall less times that you did yesterday, but that goes without saying.

Similarly, you could say that moving a step forward in Doom is a reward. It isn't.

It could be...

To a 3 year old... To an average player (11 year old?) it's so common and accepted that its reward, even if present, doesn't mean anything in the light of the whole objectives and rewards thing, what with finishing the game and killing that boss and stuff.

Did you even read what I wrote?
I specifically wrote that even people who get completely slaughtered, who fail to accomplish any of their objectives often *still* have fun playing chess. Why are you skipping over this and claiming it is a moot point? It is an *essential* point. The fact that you do not see this still just illustrates that you fail to see a game for what it really is about: entertainment, not being rewarded for accomplishing something.

My logic is flawed here. What I'd naturally say in reply to your argument is "so, what you're saying is, they don't manage to complete ANY of their objectives, temporary or otherwise, and they still manage to have fun? Well then, there are other "hidden" objectives there, like being there with the opponent, and they value them so much that its simple reward is fun enough for them to have fun". My logic is flawed. I get your point though, and I agree with it. At least now, at the present time.

Ehm, no you didn't, you did not anywhere contemplate the compulsive gambler who gambles for the process of gambling, for whom the fun is in the playing of the game, the risking of the money itself.

I haven't read the text in a while, so I'm possibly mistaken there. My bad.

Still, and even though I admit my flaws, at least explain to me the very basic issue that originally led me to write the article: what about games like silent hill, or the lost siren? What are they about? Is it fun? Because I don't get much joy after getting all scared and stuff... Not that silent hill scares me though (I find it crappy and overrated)... But still, what about those games?

 

[Sander]

And that's where one's personal "objectives" come to play. In other words, that's the relativism of fun. Sure, it's not fun driving for hours in the barren wasteland. But maybe it is for somebody else. No matter, that's not what you meant.

What I mean with this is that it's fun for ME that time goes by realistically, and that I have to wait, or sleep, or abstractedly do something to spend time. I like that. I understand others may not like it, but I do, and I find it rewarding that my choices rather than my speed going through the swamps are important in the outcome of my actions.

Wait, where'd the choices and speed comparison come from?

I don't think I understand what you mean. Can you develop a bit? I mean, sure, books are not actively rewarding nor entertaining the reader, and you can't say they reward you for reading them, even if they're good. A better choice of words would be to say they are worth the time spent on them, but I think it's basically the same thing. I don't think, I don't know, Hemingway's books are worth MY type, and they're not fun to read for ME, they don't reward me. Is it just my choice of words that is wrong or is it my whole thinking?

Not everyone enjoys the same things and it'd be a damned dull world if they did.
But the fact that Hemingway's books aren't fun for you doesn't imply that the rewards aren't there for you. It means you simply don't find that type of book fun.

For instance, a lot of people don't like reading poetry, but for a lot of other people it's still fun - and not because of the types of rewards, but because they can enjoy the beauty or the metaphores in poetry.

Actually only comedies wore about the process. Dramas were mainly about the plot. And dramas are about 75% of Greek theater. Three dramas (tragedies) and a comedy to lighten the mood up. That's the thing if I remember correctly.

This just refers to the Athenian annual contests.

You might be right, I remember this mainly from my Greek lessons in high school and I'm too lazy to look up any sources.

So what? Isn't that what it's all about? Finishing the game? Or, in other words, doing the game.

Finishing a game and playing a game are very distinct actions that should not be confused.

But, you're really missing the point. There's nothing more to the game of diabolo - it consists entirely of keeping the diabolo on the rope. But that doesn't mean that that's any reward of playing the game, it *is* the game.

It could be...

To a 3 year old... To an average player (11 year old?) it's so common and accepted that its reward, even if present, doesn't mean anything in the light of the whole objectives and rewards thing, what with finishing the game and killing that boss and stuff.

Ehm, yeah, by extention you now defined any action in any kind of game as a reward unto itself, making your use of the term 'reward' completely useless.

I haven't read the text in a while, so I'm possibly mistaken there. My bad.

Still, and even though I admit my flaws, at least explain to me the very basic issue that originally led me to write the article: what about games like silent hill, or the lost siren? What are they about? Is it fun? Because I don't get much joy after getting all scared and stuff... Not that silent hill scares me though (I find it crappy and overrated)... But still, what about those games?

Actually being scared is a form of fun for a lot of people - they claim it makes you feel alive (I never got it though, I don't particularly like rollercoasters either) and it's a thrill they rarely get in real life. Which is also part of why 'fun' is so hard to define, because a lot of people get 'fun' out of a lot of different things.

 

[Morbus]

Wait, where'd the choices and speed comparison come from?

Hold idea of mine. If I have time to make something I have control over it, if not I don't... Maybe it's far fetched, bu I choose to spend the night on the swamp killing drowners till I get to the druids, I'd LIKE to spend the night on the swamp... If you know what I mean.

Ehm, yeah, by extention you now defined any action in any kind of game as a reward unto itself, making your use of the term 'reward' completely useless.

what about games like silent hill, or the lost siren? What are they about? Is it fun? Because I don't get much joy after getting all scared and stuff... Not that silent hill scares me though (I find it crappy and overrated)... But still, what about those games?

Actually being scared is a form of fun for a lot of people - they claim it makes you feel alive (I never got it though, I don't particularly like rollercoasters either) and it's a thrill they rarely get in real life. Which is also part of why 'fun' is so hard to define, because a lot of people get 'fun' out of a lot of different things.

Huh... Didn't you just do the same exact thing I did?

 

[Sander]

Not really. I've yet to find someone who thought moving one step in Doom would be fun, for instance.

 

[Morbus]

But "by extention you now defined any action in any kind of game as possibly fun, making your use of the term 'fun' completely useless" I know you haven't found anyone that has fun with walking in doom, but that's where your logic crumbles: if "a lot of people get 'fun' out of a lot of different things", it's logically possible that someone get 'fun' out of walking in doom, even if you don't know of anyone like that (me neither, maybe a 3 year old?). That said, your definition of 'fun' is just as broad and subjective as my definition of 'reward', which leads us to the very premise of my text, that what makes you have fun is the reward you get.

However, it's always possible that none of us is right in this matter.

:EDIT:
And, now that I think about it, I have shown I'm open to other opinions, and you haven't. Not that this means anything, I'm just saying.

:EDIT:
At least I don't feel like you are open to my opinion, but that may just be because you disagree with it.

 

[Sander]

But "by extention you now defined any action in any kind of game as possibly fun, making your use of the term 'fun' completely useless" I know you haven't found anyone that has fun with walking in doom, but that's where your logic crumbles: if "a lot of people get 'fun' out of a lot of different things", it's logically possible that someone get 'fun' out of walking in doom, even if you don't know of anyone like that (me neither, maybe a 3 year old?). That said, your definition of 'fun' is just as broad and subjective as my definition of 'reward'

Actually, no. You defined any action as a reward unto itself. 'Fun' as I use it very subjective and personal, and hence much more restrictive on a case-by-case basis.

, which leads us to the very premise of my text, that what makes you have fun is the reward you get.

No.
I'm pretty sure I went over this already in this thread. Fun is often very much seperate from rewards. Whether or not you have a broad definition of fun is pretty much irrelevant for this.

 

[Morbus]

Actually, no. You defined any action as a reward unto itself. 'Fun' as I use it very subjective and personal, and hence much more restrictive on a case-by-case basis.

The way I see it, rewards and what they mean to us is very subjective and personal as well. I'm still not trying to make an argument here, though, I'm just trying to understand the difference.

No.
I'm pretty sure I went over this already in this thread. Fun is often very much seperate from rewards. Whether or not you have a broad definition of fun is pretty much irrelevant for this.

You used practical examples to justify your opinion, just as I did. It turns out your examples were stronger than mine, so I accepted them, and it leaves us with very little more to work with...

 

[Sander]

The way I see it, rewards and what they mean to us is very subjective and personal as well.

Ehmz, you defined walking forward as a reward, only qualifying it by saying that it isn't enough of a reward for most people.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Can I get you two a room?

 

[patriot_41]

A very interesting topic. Sometimes 'fun' and 'reward' are one and the same thing. What I mean is, that you derive personal gratification from setting and completing certain goals. In that case, Morbus is right. Sometimes, however, fun can actually be derived by doing something, you suck at. No goals were set and you derive your gratification from something, which has nothing to do with rewarding, increasing of skill or any active involvement whatsoever. You can have fun just by walking around the world, as I did in Morrowind. That was one of the most awesome videogame experiences I've ever had, even though this has to be one of the worst games ever. I also loved driving the Porsche in the Alps, back when NFS: Porsche Unleashed was . . . well, unleashed. I also had tons of fun in Team Fortress lately, where I was dominated by every single enemy player on the list. That's how much I suck. Still, I had fun. I played the games. If I had set a goal, it would have been 'to have fun'. Sander is absolutely right. No matter the rewards, if there is no fun factor, the game sucks.
And since fun is subjective . . . well . . . yeah.

 

[MrBumble]

That was one of the most awesome videogame experiences I've ever had, even though this has to be one of the worst games ever.

Come on...I know that there is this general NMA consensus according to which Bethesda sucks and I kinda agree with it but I wouldn't call Morrowind one of the worst game ever. Well, you are entitled to your opinion anyway but I still believe that there are far worse games than Morrowind out there.

 

[patriot_41]

That was one of the most awesome videogame experiences I've ever had, even though this has to be one of the worst games ever.

Come on...I know that there is this general NMA consensus according to which Bethesda sucks and I kinda agree with it but I wouldn't call Morrowind one of the worst game ever. Well, you are entitled to your opinion anyway but I still believe that there are far worse games than Morrowind out there.

The game was totally broken. It had awesome graphics, I loved the different armors and weapons, but that's all. Dialogues were tedious, quests were stupid as hell. My heart still aches for what this game had a potential to be. Nothing personal against Bethesda. At least, it's been that way till now.