Psychochild's Blog

In last weekend's design challenge, I asked about time commitment. How much time is appropriate for a game to require?

The consensus was "it depends". And, that's true. But, what does it depend on?

These thoughts were spurred on by a post by Chris Bateman entitled "Time & Games". He attempts to explain time commitment in terms of algebraic equations.

Since I'm most familiar with online RPGs, let's take a look at those. Now, obviously, the total gameplay of the game is going to be much greater than a single gameplay session; in general, the developer's goal is to keep the player playing the game as long as possible to earn the most income from each individual.

What about tutorial time? Looking at WoW, you can see that it matches the definition of a "casual" game as proposed by Mr. Bateman in his post: the tutorial time is less than the length of a session. Most players learn the basics of how to play WoW in the first session: look for the yellow !, follow the instructions, get reward, repeat. The game has a core mechanic of doing quests and players get that quickly. Now, the player keeps learning, but the core of the game is understood in that first session.

Yet, online games are more than just gameplay. What about socialization? This is a complex topic: it's generally accepted that players who make friends in the game are more likely to stick around. On the other hand, echoing Jonathan Baron's wonderful Glory and Shame discussion, people don't want to be thrust into the spotlight too early for fear of looking like a total newbie. So, in terms of the linked article:

t_social after t_tutorial

This is so that the player has at least basic competence with the game before having to swim with the other sharks. But, on the other hand, some people don't enjoy the social aspect of games as much as others do. So, you can't make a universal pronouncement about how how long t_social should be.

However, let's look the Bartle archetypes. We've touched on socializers, but what about Achievers? Well, they want to be rewarded on a regular basis. Their ultimate goal is to reach the upper levels eventually, and they want to know that they are on the right path. Looking at WoW again, we see that for the early levels:

t_reward << t_play

An experienced player can gain a half dozen levels in his or her first play session, and even the most clueless newbie gets a bunch of gear upgrades. Also note that this pattern repeats at other important points: one thing people commented on in the WoW expansion was how you got a bunch of upgrades to your equipment quickly after reaching outland. This rapid upgrade cycle was especially interesting given how slowly upgrades had been previously.

Yet, in the later parts of the game, you start to see that:

t_reward >= t_play

It's often the case that you have to participate in multiple activities before you get a single upgrade. At the highest levels, you have to go on several raids before you get that coveted upgrade to your gear. (Of course, as mentioned above, you'll probably upgrade rapidly with the next expansions in WoW, but this might be a one-trick pony that already has some people jaded about upgrades.) This is important for two reasons: it helps the hard-core achievers separate themselves out from others, and it also keeps the game more manageable for developers since the power increases start to flatten out. The most competitive achievers want this:

t_{reward (mine)} < t_{reward (others)}

Note that you still have enlightened self-interest for achievers, though. A direct-damage (DPS) raider fails to get the maximum amount of awards even if he wins all the upgrades but the tank doesn't get enough rewards to keep aggro off the oft squishy damage machine. Likewise, the main tank still needs the damagers and healers to do their jobs well, too.

But, let's look at Killers and PvPers. The problem is that for most PvPers, the following always has to be true:

t_reward < t_play

A killer that has a play session without a single victory (a "reward" for a PvPer) usually becomes frustrated. This is one reason why achiever-focused games tend to grow larger and more stable: all but the most casual achiever is willing to accept that a major reward may take longer than a single play session. PvPers tend to need more rewards, and these victories often means that someone else has to lose. Eventually the losers get fed up and leave if they can't achieve any victories.

Of course, few players have a single motivation under Bartle's system, even one at a time. An Achiever/Killer is going to need a lot of rewards to keep him happy, since Killers already want fast rewards and the achiever wants more rewards than others have.

So, here's more fuel for thought. What do you think? Does time work this way in games? Is it too simplistic? Or too complex? Does it describe how players act in games?