(old man Kona sits in a rocking chair next to a fireplace)
Ya see kids, back in my day, you knew what a game was when you blew into it a few times and plugged it in. Platformers were platformers, beat-em-ups were beat-em-ups, shooters were shooters, and RPG�s were RPG�s. Nowadays, you don�t know what you�re getting! Played this one game called CAD: Modern Warfight and guys were leveling up like Final Fantasy! This is all too much for an old veteran like myself. Did I ever tell ya the time I was in the great console wars of �92? Barely made it out with my thumbs. Best friend wasn�t so lucky, and he�s got two wooden ones to show for it�
(but seriously folks�)
After Role Playing Games struggled so hard to garner a large playerbase in the past, games with RPG elements seem to be everywhere today. Experience, hit-points, skill trees, sub-quests, loot drops, chances are more than one of these is in the game spinning in your xbox right now. What�s up with the ubiquity of RPG elements all of the sudden? More importantly, do these elements enhance or hurt the games they appear in?
This is how you do it, guys.
So if its so difficult to integrate RPG elements into games properly, why does everyone keep trying to shoehorn it into everything? There are a couple reasons for this. First of all, games like every other form of entertainment is a monkey see, monkey do industry. If one successful game has a specific feature, you can bet your ass that you�re going to be seeing it in EVERYTHING for the next few years�regardless of how well it actually fits. Second, there seems to be this tendency this generation to take those little addictive elements from MMO�s and apply them to anything within arms reach. Achievements and trophies are structured specifically to give the player micro-highs like one gets from ding�ing in WoW. Adding experience points in every game just reveals the bullshit for what it really is: videogames as a virtual skinner box
. Just like the experiments psychologist B.F. Skinner ran on his rats, game developers desire to trap gamers within a constant behavior-reward cycle. This steady stream of instant gratification mixed with more long term rewards is the exact same bottomless pit that MMO�s and social networking games trap their players within. Click, treat. Click, treat. Click, click, treat. Click, click, click, click, treat.
The question is, does anyone really like being jerked around like this? Weren't games already fun enough in and of themselves without needing to be tricked into playing? All I�m saying is, how about using RPG elements where they fit, instead of freaking everywhere. Hell, if you guys really want to keep ripping off RPG�s how about starting at the story? Far too often when games are almost finished the writers are wheeled in to tie together the firefights and minecart rides into something faintly
resembling a story. You want to keep a gamer engaged? Give us captivating adventures with interesting characters. I mean, that is why people play RPG�s isn�t it?
I'll leave you with this quote by Jonathan Blow, creator of Braid:
"That kind of reward system is very easily turned into a Pavlovian or Skinnerian scheme. It's considered best practice: schedule rewards for your player so that they don't get bored and give up on your game. That's actually exploitation...Developers should provide activities that interest players rather than stringing them along with little pieces of candy so that they'll suffer through terrible game play, but keep playing because they gain levels or new items...a lot of modern game design is actually unethical. They are predicated on player exploitation...developers should design innovative, ethical and personal art because players are hungry for inspiring new games."
LOOK WHO CAME: