There should be a reason skill is almost never involved in success.
In my understanding, this reason is network latency. I think you need low latency to make an action game where achievement is dependent on skill.
In World of Warcraft, you can have slow players on slow network connections separated by large distance from the server make progress and have fun. In 3D shooters, you can’t.
Blizzard’s own Starcraft is competitive and very fast-paced, and yet it has continent-wide servers all the same.
A better reason for the perverse nature of MMOs is that the promise of guaranteed progress, especially combined with social obligations, is much more effective at keeping people paying their monthly fees than the hope of personal improvement.
You see it slowly being integrated with other, more skill-based genres in the form of Achievements, little badges you can display and a progress bar/counter that marks how many you’ve gotten. Many of these are skill based, but just as many are presence based (ie: complete 1000 multiplayer matches).
Their widespread adoption into nearly every sort of game leads me to believe they’re VERY effective for keeping people around.
There should be a reason skill is almost never involved in success.
In my understanding, this reason is network latency. I think you need low latency to make an action game where achievement is dependent on skill.
Skill isn’t particularly related to success in most single-player games that allow leveling/improving equipment. The developers want to please their paying customers, so they will do their best to prevent a situation where someone isn’t skilled enough to complete the game. Since there are usually only a few game endings, everyone gets to see the same result, and so their playing skills don’t ultimately matter. Adjustable game difficulty serves the same end.
Sure, some games are hard enough that not everyone can beat them, but these are the exceptions and they can even become famous for that quality. (Anecdotally, I remember reading claims that Japanese games are much more likely to be unbeatably difficult than are Western ones.)
I remember reading claims that Japanese games are much more likely to be unbeatably difficult than are Western ones
Hm, was that judged over the number of games made or the number of game copies sold? Or to put it anther way, did it show that Japanese developers like making hard games or that Japanese gamers like playing hard games?
As I said, it’s completely anecdotal—I don’t remember the source, but it was someone commenting from his own (extensive) experience, not a controlled study. That said, I expect the comparison was between percentages of well-selling games.
I think you need low latency to make an action game where achievement is dependent on skill.
It doesn’t have to be an action game to be dependent on skill. Consider Puzzle Pirates. Almost everything you can accomplish is skill-based, and most of it’s even single-player (but cooperative by way of many people puzzling towards the same goal). Avoids most issues with latency (as do, I imagine, the relatively simple graphics), and ties advancement to skill.
There should be a reason skill is almost never involved in success.
In my understanding, this reason is network latency. I think you need low latency to make an action game where achievement is dependent on skill.
In World of Warcraft, you can have slow players on slow network connections separated by large distance from the server make progress and have fun. In 3D shooters, you can’t.
Blizzard’s own Starcraft is competitive and very fast-paced, and yet it has continent-wide servers all the same.
A better reason for the perverse nature of MMOs is that the promise of guaranteed progress, especially combined with social obligations, is much more effective at keeping people paying their monthly fees than the hope of personal improvement.
You see it slowly being integrated with other, more skill-based genres in the form of Achievements, little badges you can display and a progress bar/counter that marks how many you’ve gotten. Many of these are skill based, but just as many are presence based (ie: complete 1000 multiplayer matches).
Their widespread adoption into nearly every sort of game leads me to believe they’re VERY effective for keeping people around.
Skill isn’t particularly related to success in most single-player games that allow leveling/improving equipment. The developers want to please their paying customers, so they will do their best to prevent a situation where someone isn’t skilled enough to complete the game. Since there are usually only a few game endings, everyone gets to see the same result, and so their playing skills don’t ultimately matter. Adjustable game difficulty serves the same end.
Sure, some games are hard enough that not everyone can beat them, but these are the exceptions and they can even become famous for that quality. (Anecdotally, I remember reading claims that Japanese games are much more likely to be unbeatably difficult than are Western ones.)
Hm, was that judged over the number of games made or the number of game copies sold? Or to put it anther way, did it show that Japanese developers like making hard games or that Japanese gamers like playing hard games?
As I said, it’s completely anecdotal—I don’t remember the source, but it was someone commenting from his own (extensive) experience, not a controlled study. That said, I expect the comparison was between percentages of well-selling games.
It doesn’t have to be an action game to be dependent on skill. Consider Puzzle Pirates. Almost everything you can accomplish is skill-based, and most of it’s even single-player (but cooperative by way of many people puzzling towards the same goal). Avoids most issues with latency (as do, I imagine, the relatively simple graphics), and ties advancement to skill.