This post might be a bit blunt and it could be considered disrespectful towards gamers, but that’s not the point, so sorry in advance to those offended. It’s really sort of an observation, something I’m not entirely certain of, but that I have an hunch about.
Players often end up tellingl themselves “I just realized that I’m wasting my time playing these games!”, a sort of hamster’s wheel effect where they realize that their not actually getting anywhere. In other games, such as World of Warcraft, the players actually have the impression that they’ve accomplished something. The fact that the progress they’ve made is not erased when the game is turned off, that they can continued to expand on it week after week, and month after month, allows them to experience a never ending sense of accomplishment, one that feeds this need at a faster pace than other forms of gratification such as getting a promotion at their job, or passing an exam at school. The feedback is relatively immediate, and the game ends up being perceived as a source of worth.
Now I’m not interested in creating the ultimate slot-machine that would allow us to empty the wallets of anyone who would set their sights on it, but I am interested in figuring out how we can help ourselves as developers to provide the player with what he is seeking from our games.
I’ve thought of a simple trick that is probably applicable to a whole lot of games being developed. It’s the simple addition of witnesses to the player’s actions. I believe that by making the player feel like his actions are being witnessed, an increased sense of accomplishment will result. For example, if you’re making a fighting game, instead of having two characters fighting each other in the middle of nowhere, add a crowd watching the brawl. Street Fighter II had crowds in almost all of its stages and it was a big commercial success. Street Fighter III did not and the game’s reception was rather poor. Def Jam Fight for NY had fully interactive crowds and it was quite a success. Def Jam: Icon did not put emphasis on crowds, there were barely any, and it was a flop.
Street Fighter 2 has crowds in almost every stages.
Def Jam Fight for NY has interactive crowds, the game lives.
Def Jam Icon has in general no audience, it's visually life-less, no matter how dynamic the actual scenery is.
Alright, I can’t say those games were successes thanks to the presence of a crowd, but I think there’s a positive in having a crowd cheer while the player pummels his opponent.
In the same way, in open-world games like Grand Theft Auto or Assassin’s Creed, I think the interaction between the crowds and the player again gives him the impression that he isn’t playing by himself; everything he does is witnessed. It has an impact of sort, there’s a reaction. Of course if all possible reactions occur within a short time frame and then repeat continuously, the illusion of life disappears.
Assassin's Creed and its interactive crowds may have been efficient, but the game's repetitive nature was a reminder of the hamster's wheel effect.
In a game like World of Warcraft or other MMOs, the sense of worth, recognition, and accomplishment felt by so many players who must have spent hundreds of dollars each just in monthly fees since the game’s release, is directly tied to the fact the world is full of other living players who can see how awesome they are for having acquired an elite armor or mount only available to those who would have succeeded at killing some elite boss, having a lot of money, or spent a whole lot of time farming.
World of Warcraft and its look-at-me effect, with thousands of players per server
There’s really all sorts of ways to make the player feel a sense of accomplishment, such as visual progression notifiers (new armor or sword, new power of which you can see the impact of on your character, etc.), but I think the idea of adding witnesses, artificial or real, to the player’s actions might be one that is often overlooked. I believe that once again this is part of the reason why sci-fi is often a difficult sell; more often than not it is set in sterile, lifeless worlds. In general, the player secludes himself to play a game. If we put emphasis secluded form of play, we might be pushing the player toward a feeling of loneliness. Some players will enjoy such secluded and potentially immersive experiences, but I am certain that many would instinctively feel a certain sense of guilt.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the next big-hit first-person shooter to stand out among all others would turn out to be one where cities will be filled with massive amounts of lively civilians instead of being evacuated ones populated by a handful of abandoned cars.
Hi M.Ringuette-Angrignon,
What about the fact that Animated Crowd means Movement and by extent that Movement means Life (as an allegory).
Might be insects, dust spinning around, changing weather etc…
Isn’t it for the most part the gratification of playing in a world submitted by others strengths than the one we put into the controller or resulting immediately from our actions?
This sort of ethereal presence is also an overwhelming sensation.
In a video game Crowd means Power (console, computer) and tends to give the game carrying so much people at the same time an AAA game style:
- it’s the most justified reproducible element. People wouldn’t care seeing 100 or 1000 or 10000 people on the screen. Actually, the more the better.
- it’s one of the easiest way for a player to judge of the AAA-ness of a game as any character in a video game (crowd or main character) has to be as well-crafted as possible.
My contribution to the debate (despite XP, online community, the type of game etc…), my answer to “giving the impression that games are not a waste of time” is the cloth the main character wears:
Be distressed - make your character tramp look-alike, be happy - color your clothes, be exulted - make it wear something shiny etc…
In accordance with the game artists, clothing/appereances should be created fitting different states of mind the player could have.
From that you should give him/her the ability to choose, with all the respect due to the general atmosphere of the game.
It’s not that much work (less engineers more artists) and every game has his mechanics, fairly limited in the end.
Allow the player to be as much himself as possible the moment he puts his hands on the controller or an opportunity for him to re-interpret where he stands in the world you created (through the clothing) and cause he won’t deny himself or his vision, he won’t that easily deny your game.
Beautiful blog anyway.
P.S: Excuse my English; French is my Mother tongue. Thanks!
rabesandratan: Thank you for reading and for your comment!
There are indeed many ways to give our games more “worth”, and what you suggest is one of them; establishing a closer link between the player and the character or world.
And it’s a good point that seeing a lot of characters in a game gives the impression that it is of higher budget, especially if rendered realistically.
Good article!
How would it look like to add the witnessing crowds to multiplayer strategy games?
I agree that the player needs to feel that what he does matters.
Good question zproxy.
A lot of strategy games have only the player and his opponent. We rarely have bystanders, civilians, etc. It often is nothing more than an empty landscapes fought over by factions.
I think if a multiplayer strategy game had believable NPCs like civilians caught in the conflict, even if they are only reactionary and not part of the actual gameplay, would make the game feel less stagnant, would add a bit of randomness, and might help increase the impression that the stakes are high for the factions fighting one another, or put emphasis on the impact or power of their actions.
This could be done without actually shoehorning a gameplay mechanic related to the crowds, and instead just use them for the sake of the experience.