Topic

"Does This Make The Game More Fun?"

When evaluating the things Tiny Speck does, I think this question is of paramount importance.

"Slowing Down The Game" isn't innately fun. it may be more profitable for TS in that more time spent in game equals more opportunity for clothing use and a greater need for teleportation token purchase to fight the slow-down .. but if the end result isn't more fun for you, i'm not sure that is a good reason to like a change.

"Balance" and "Fairness" isn't innately fun. Balance for its own sake should not be a criteria for evaluating whether a decision is good. If the game becomes less fun for Gardeners relative to Miners, for example, making the game more tedious and less fun for Miners does not address the problem.

"Profit for Tiny Speck" isn't innately fun. There are many ways to convince people to give you money that does not then translate into fun for those people.

"Slowing Down the Game, "Balance/Fairness" and "Profit for Tiny Speck" *may or may not* lead to increased fun for players, but i think that as players evaluating the game and changes within it, the concept "Fun" should be used far more than the above concepts. Like recently the Gardening changes were framed in terms of "reasonableness" rather than "fun-ness". Sometimes we [and i include myself in this] get so wrapped up in the meta that we convince ourselves that something should be Fun or help support 'Fun Having' because we think the right ingredients are present, when in fact the specific ingredients don't innately lead to fun.

which is to say that if we as players focus primarily on "Fun related issues" first, and issues of fairness or speed or meta-business stuff only as they relate to the having of Fun, then that might be a good thing and a better way to frame our discussions.

Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • The thing is, "fun" is so subjective. And though I agree that reducing mining rewards to bring them down to par with gardening isn't ideal, balance and fairness does seem like a rather comfortable concept to me, and I would hope that gardening could be brought up to par with mining... because otherwise then it seems like doing other things, like harvesting from animals or whatnot, may be advantageous over other "trades." I think gardening has been brought to a level where it's not just lower than mining but it seems out of balance with many different things in the game.

    EDIT: I'm hoping that, in the future, our subscriber "votes" can go towards influencing things like this, and not just the general things that the team is focusing on.
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Mister Cake thinks that immediate gratification is "Fun", but that sometimes its better to spread the "Fun" out over time so that one can have more "Fun" overall as opposed to having lots of "Fun" right now and then not having any "Fun" later.

    -M.C.
    Posted 17 months ago by Mister Cake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • An interesting point.

    I'd suggest that balance & fairness are fun because they allow me to play the game according to my own preferences (do I enjoy mining? Do I enjoy gardening? Cooking? etc) rather than "in order to progress through the game, I must mine/cook regardless of what gives me the greatest enjoyment"

    I'd also suggest that "profit for TS" is fun cos if that isn't met then there won't be any more Glitch!
    Posted 17 months ago by Snazzlefrazz Subscriber! | Permalink
  • balance and fairness can certainly lead to fun.

    but those concepts are not, in themselves, innately fun. many, many games make this mistake.

    "I'm hoping that, in the future, our subscriber "votes" can go towards influencing things like this, and not just the general things that the team is focusing on."

    human beings are weird creatures. i can totally see people who just got nerfed voting to nerf some other group of players they are jealous of, rather than voting to increase their own fun.

    Would that be Fair? Hey, majority rules and if that's the only way to 'equalize' that is put up for vote i can certainly see it happening.

    Would that be Fun? A much more difficult question.

    btw .. yes Fun is subjective but that's why it is important to clearly articulate why and how we are having fun, so that other people can understand and appreciate it better.
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Snazzlefrazz, profit usually means money/income SUPPLEMENTAL to what's already needed just to keep the game running. Usually that baseline even includes the salaries/benefits/costs of staff, etc.

    EDIT: "human beings are weird creatures." SOML.
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If slow downs reduce the "fun" people may leave the game.  However, new players will not notice and so it will not impact them.  They will either enjoy the game or not based on how it works when they enter.  Older players may reach a level of frustration/dissatisfaction that causes them to leave the game.  If more come in than go (I'm sure that will be the case) then TS is seeing profit.  It is good for them and ultimately good for Glitch.  If more leave than enter then TS will make changes to increase the "fun" and thus increase the subscriptions.  I suspect that there will be a "balance" of sorts and that Glitch will profit at least in the short run (but hopefully for a very long time).
    Posted 17 months ago by Brib Annie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Slowing down the game is IMHO great. There will be more "specialized" player not that everyone is doing everything - more trading and auctions + more co-operation between players etc.
    Posted 17 months ago by Iskie Bae Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I'd also suggest that "profit for TS" is fun cos if that isn't met then there won't be any more Glitch!"

    see .. but that's not correct! one might say that "profit for TS is in the service of fun" tho. i think that is a critical distinction.

    if TS crashes and burns, but we had fun, then that's Fun.

    if TS survives forever, but relies on .. i dunno .. advertising and member churn or something, that is not fun.

    profit for TS can and should be a good thing, yes, but only if it is in the service of fun.

    balance can and should be a good thing, yes, but only in the service of fun.

    game speed/indefinite play length can be a good thing, but only in the service of fun.

    one can imagine many scenarios where these are not in the service of fun.

    even if it was impossible for profit for tiny speck or balance or game duration to be  anything other than fun, it still makes sense to start the discussion with the Fun and then explain how those indirect things relate to it, instead of the other way around.
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Brib Annie, re: "If more leave than enter then TS will make changes to increase the "fun" and thus increase the subscriptions" — we don't have to be losing customers in order to have an incentive to increase the fun: we want the game to be fun because we spend a lot of time working on it and are trying to make something great that we can be proud of. And, even if we are very successful, we'll still want to make it more fun because fun is good and play is good and it is satisfying to make something fun :)

    Over the next few months there are some big changes coming which should increase both the moment-to-moment kind of fun and the longer term/strategic/"significant choices" kind of fun. But, at the same time we'll still do all kinds of things (like debug networking problems or improve load balancing routines or test and streamline the signup process or add tutorial videos or any one of a thousand other things that we need to do in order to Make Everything Work.)
    Posted 17 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "If more leave than enter then TS will make changes to increase the "fun" and thus increase the subscriptions."

    fun level increase as a reaction to declining membership? i would hope that decreased memberships wouldn't have to be necessary in order for TS to make the game more fun. i would hope that TS would just continually make the game be more fun no matter what.

    i'm not sure that TS's sole purpose for existence is to make money, with fun being only in the service of money.

    i have a feeling than the money is simply a metric by which TS determines if they are kicking ass or not, as well as a means of supporting the act of kicking ass .. but ultimately the point is kicking ass [creating fun] rather than accumulating wealth. the wealth is important to support the ass kicking and fun having, rather than the other way around. and yes there is a difference : ]

    EDIT - what stoot said.
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. And then there is fun.
    Posted 17 months ago by Dura Den Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In talking about "fun" and it's subjective nature, it's important to recognize that fun also might be what people expect or are used to. Nerfing is never fun for the people who have been affected. But among the unknown knowns are that which I have known but you will never know.
    Posted 17 months ago by Mac Rapalicious Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "it's important to recognize that fun also might be what people expect or are used to."

    sure. they might be.

    but things that people expect or are used to are not innately fun.

    "Nerfing is never fun for the people who have been affected."

    and that's a problem, period.

    unless the nerfing causes other players to have increased fun to the point where a fun surplus is created by the nerfing, there's little reason for it.

    in this situation, as someone who primarily mines, i can say that nerfing gardening will not significantly improve my fun levels, if at all. it doesn't decrease my fun levels, but it doesn't increase them either. since it decreases the fun levels of the players getting nerfed, one can say that there has been a net loss of in-game fun.

    now of course, if the players getting nerfed are submissive or masochistic types, then they might get off [sexually?] on having the developers nerf them as punishment for having fun. i have yet to see any indication of this attitude, but the developers may possess some demographic information that we do not.
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "things that people expect or are used to are not innately fun"

    Where'd you get that?  I repeat things that I have found to be fun in the past.  I expect them to be repeatable.  Are you saying I don't know when I'm having fun, since if I'm used to it, it's not fun any more? 
    Posted 17 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • no i am not saying that, windborn.

    you did see the inclusion of the word "innately", did you not?

    it can be fun to repeat things.

    but it can also be un-fun to repeat things.

    therefore it is not *innately* fun to repeat things.

    ultimately the focus should not be on the process [repeating things, balance, fairness, play duration, profit] but on the outcome [having fun].
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • interestingly, by focusing on outcome i think you end up having a better understanding of process.

    like by asking yourself if repeating something is actually fun, instead of assuming it is fun, you can start getting into what specific *kinds* of repetition are fun, what kinds of repetition are not fun, and to whom.
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • this is a repeat of my post about gardening changes but is specifically focused on fun factor. i believe its relevant here:

    after working hard for months, i was finally exploring the game outside of the grind, the new changes threw me right back in but forgot the fun. the changes are too extreme and the bat thing is definitely not working for me yet. the community cool we all shared at the herb gardens is gone, so sad. where is my fun? what am i aspiring to? so what if we all make money, have houses, grow stuff fast, use the auctions and have a great time as we have been so far. why not? i don't get it.

    exploring new territories has been cool, the free range sand box play has been entertaining and learning/questing has been a great way to grow as a glitch within the game system. but why only give me great landscape, cool housing and the grinds?  -  the potential here is enormous but only if somebody understands what i want to do here. yes, the devs made this world (thank you) but i have to want to be here. i want more fun things similar to a zelda ocarina of time type mini games - store fronts (or locked doors) that lead to gnome bowling for example, or fishing, or digging for fossils, mario sunshine type mini games and riven/myst style puzzles.

    i hesitate to name other games and have avoided using any other game as comparison but why stop there? let me buy movies at my house and invite friends over to watch. why not have my mail box be my email box too? instead of craigslist give me stootslist.com. make a community building available for classes or seminars. let us video chat with each other from home. etc. etc. etc. we love the social potential of this game. i think the end of game parties are a perfect example of how much fun can be had when the players get together. we need more things to support that - festivals, races, group ice skating in the wintery place or the cool hippie music friday night concert (IxÆoN's idea).  the changes i have been experiencing have been more ways to grind away my time without giving me more fun in return.
    Posted 17 months ago by coolbettycakes Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ps. the game is open, why am i on the forums?
    Posted 17 months ago by coolbettycakes Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm here cos the game just aint fun right now...very sad face...
    Posted 17 months ago by Teena Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've been reading and rereading this for the last couple of hours and I'm not sure if I get it.

    Seems pretty no brainer that when a element in introduced or changed that it is evaluated on "Am I having fun doing that thing?" Of course. It's a game (game being defined as "a form of play").

    But it is also more complex at times because we aren't getting completed elements. For example, herbs/flowers. Right now there aren't much to them. Working with them is not that different from crop planting. And they should be similar. It is hard to judge long term dun of herbs since they seem to be relatively unconnected to the rest of the game. You don't use them in anything and their buffs are mild at best. But if they are integrated with other elements, then the act may become something else.

    It is the same way I look at the expanded growing times. In a void, sure, it may appear less fun. Long term, I think it begins to hold my interest in a different way than it did before.

    As to balance... no, right. In amongst itself is neither fun, nor not fun. Except something that feels UNbalanced will always lead me (long term) to having less fun. (I also know that as the game gets more complex with more elements, there will always be unbalanced elements.)

    As to the profit statement... well, that is a bit trickier. Would it be MORE fun to have free access to all clothes and access to tins of tokens. Maybe, maybe not. But somethings I think you have to look at and say "Does this this take fun AWAY from me in a significant way?" Like tokens, for example. Do other players having tokens remove my fun? I would say probably not... although I am still a bit wary. (Right now, it feels like there are TOO many parts to teleportation: saved locations, limited map teleporting, tokens, scripts, summoning... oh, also following. Transportation feels like it needs some finesse to create more of a sense of exploration and discovery at higher levels.)

    I think the follow up question to changes/elements after "Does it enhance fun?" is "Can I envision how the change has the potential for fun enhancement?"
    Posted 17 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @stri you misconstrue what I am saying by creating absolutes. As you noted, I said, might. I was not calling repetition fun. I was pointing out that there is a contentment--which I will align with fun for purposes of this case--in familiarity. Familiarity is not the same as repetition, or even repeating. Comfort and contentment--rather than struggle--can be part of fun. 

    [please note, I am not imbuing any value to any specific components of "fun."]
    Posted 17 months ago by Mac Rapalicious Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I was pointing out that there is a contentment--which I will align with fun for purposes of this case--in familiarity."

    there CAN BE a contentment in familiarity.

    this is an important distinction. it gets you focused on WHAT KIND of familiarity is fun, and WHAT KIND of familiarity is not fun, and to whom.

    assuming that familiarity brings contentment is a recipe for making mistakes.

    true, familiarity is not the same thing as repetition, but surely you are aware of the saying "Familiarity breeds contempt".

    there's a reason that saying is so well known.
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • you're losing the strength of your logic with that familiarty/contempt "truism."
     :-)
    Posted 17 months ago by Mac Rapalicious Subscriber! | Permalink
  • except i don't think it is a truism.

    i do not believe that familiarity breeds contempt, only that it can breed it.

    but the saying does speak to familiarity not always being a good thing.

    the nature of the familiarity, and/or the amount of it, and the context, matters.

    now - you might get bogged down in analysis trying to ascertain wether or not familiarity is good in any given situation.

    you need to have a cognitive shortcut somewhere.

    the proposed shortcut in this case is that Fun is good, and that it is much easier to figure out if something is mostly fun than to figure out if it is mostly "good".
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink