Why You Can't Put Your Favorite Games Down
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/extracr...
How do you break down the player goals in video games? Does each game need every subset from instant goals to long-term goals? As it turns out, goals aren't just for adventuring through dungeons and defeating bosses but can be used to direct the player's experiences. They should be scaled or even omitted for comfort and each genre of game you play. Creating the ultimate gaming experience for your players.
Watch us ad-free & 24-hour early access on NEBULA go.nebula.tv/e... *
Get exclusive content & 24-hour early access on PATREON bit.ly/EHPatreon *
Show off your fandom with MERCH from our store! extracredits.st... *
TWITCH: bit.ly/ECtwitch I TWITTER: bit.ly/ECTweet
TIKTOK: bit.ly/ECtiktokz I INSTAGRAM: bit.ly/ECisonIn...
FACEBOOK: bit.ly/ECFBPage I HISTORY/MYTHOLOGY: / extrahistory
*Thanks for the high-quality conversations & for following our community guidelines here: bit.ly/ECFansR...
Interested in sponsoring an episode? Email us: extracredits@standard.tv
♪ "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM - bit.ly/1eIHTDS I "Extra Extra Life" by Tiffany Roman
Artist: David Hueso I Writer: James Portnow I Showrunner & Narrator: Matthew Krol I Editor: Aidan Strite & Mac Owens
#ExtraCredits #Gaming #gamedesign
Level up your skills today with Skillshare! skl.sh/extracredits07239 - Clicking on the link gets you started and helps out our show in the process.
Thanks for watching!
Love all your hard work and passion guys!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤
I swear, more than half of these videos end up helping me in my non-gaming software development. Thank you so much!
Indeed! The way I see, the instant goal of an end-user: a field in the ui. Short term: one screen. Medium term: a full action in a sequence of screens. Long term: a series of actions performed by multiple users or over multiple days. Ultra-long term: customize and automate the process to optimize the shorter goals. Only end-game goal seems to be specific for game desing, and even that you could say mirrors somethings like quarterly reports or management approvals.
The best teaching will help the student, regardless of the discipline.
You know it's good teaching when your mentor can cross those lines. :)
Civilization 6 has this in spades with the "just one more turn" phenomenon.
The goals perfectly overlap, from huge campaigns to individual builds. And because there are so many in parallel, almost always there is a goal completing in just a turn or two. So you stick around to finish that wonder, or crush that city, or drop that district, etc. etc. etc.
And this is how I end up playing Civ for six hours straight until I can't keep my eyes open anymore...
I think the "one more turn" games in general are the kings for that, be it Civ or Xcom or Heroes of might and magic or presumably all the paradox titles (I've yet to play any myself)
@@safaiaryu12 Only six hours? That's noob length.
@@henryward5457 Some people have full time jobs...
There's a flip-side to the chicken rescue example: Your players might set their own shorter-term goals and take a different approach to your game than intended, and open world design should take care not to alienate such players. The fact that you can just kinda blow off the main storyline in Elder Scrolls is a feature, not a bug. For contrast, see how much people complain about being pestered to help their settlements in Fallout 4. (Of course, it helps when the writing allows for the player goofing off, maybe needing just a little suspension of disbelief.)
A key example of "let me rescue your chickens" for me, is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Marketing told me I was "just a normal person" but then I got a big, dramatic opening and was instantly ingratiated with the major political players of the setting. And worst: they wanted me to do stuff. That had time limits. I wanted to explore. I wanted to do oddjobs. I wanted to master alchemy. I wanted to roam around the forest looking for fights! But the story really liked to funnel you down the critical path as soon as you stepped on it.
Many open world games don't really do it for me (I get overwhelmed by too much choice and not enough guidance), but I have SO MUCH respect for games that handle this well. My roommate has a file in Skyrim where they are an orc alchemist whose entire goal is to wander the forests and taste everything they find to figure out its properties. Like, that's freaking awesome, that a game lets you do that.
There's also the games where a quest SEEMS to have an immediate impact or time limit, like, "Quick! My village is burning down and I need your help! I'll meet you there!" And you can totally ignore it, wander off and do other things for days, and when you do finally make your way over there, you can rescue the burning village as if you arrived immediately. Kinda breaks suspension of disbelief, but also relieves some pressure if you're on your way over and spot something else interesting that you want to check out now so you don't forget.
We are men. manly man. we´re man in tights.
These are good examples where goal for player run opposite to goal being setup inside the game and can produce frustration. This is why freedom or restrictions are more important than the goal itself.
My dude put a Fear and Hunger reference in this video. Awesome.
*A terrible presence has entered the room*
Something of note is that ultra-long term goals will often be achieved after end game goals
I actually started to notice this way of designing when I started to dissect Kingdom Rush and how each stage felt different;
Figuring out mechanics = holding off generic orcs/goblins, tactical efficiency = holding off an army, earning as many upgrades early as possible to maximize play = hearing an evil overlord is responsible for the armies, dealing with super-bosses as mere minions = closing in on the evil overlord’s dark fortress.
This video is applicable to everyday life, too.
All the time, people will give the following advice to (neurodivergent) folks: "Have you tried breaking [task] into smaller bits?"
If you're like me, you found this advice useless. It isn't useless because it's bad, though; it's useless because it's incomplete.
The correct version is, "Break [task] up into bits that are so small you can not possibly fail." In other words, convert intermediate- and long-term goals into short-term ones.
oh my that's brill mate.
Wow. As an autistic man, I wasn't expecting getting solid life advice like this today. Thank you.
@@spencerleifeld7517 As an autistic man you shouldn't expect to ever get real, honest advice from the internet. This whole video is more disjointed from reality than any autistic person I've ever met, could ever be.
This episode just made me keep thinking about Stardew Valley. I think it's very good at goals because almost all of them are created by the player organically
And they're broken up like in the video! Immediate goals like watering or harvesting, medium term goals like gathering resources and planning for the changing of seasons, long term goals like organizing and decorating your farm, building relationships with the villagers, etc etc... and you can do NONE of that if you feel like it!
Dungeons Dragons and Space Shuttles is a Minecraft mod pack. In stark constrast to other Minecraft mods or mod packs, DDSS has a massive quest book which guides the player through all the mods in a progression system. Instead of the player being overwhelmed by choice or missing out on content, they are guided through a tutorial on each mod mechanic. It's crazy good fun.
That's just every pack since Agrarian Skies 1 which was the first major pack that used a quest book.
Best example of this I can think of is, "A Dark Room". It's a text/web/app game where it begins by having you throw wood on the fire. Not much more you can do until a stranger arrives in your cabin. The stranger turns out to be an engineer and builds traps. With enough stuff, you can build huts and get more visitors. This turns into a workforce... and I could go on for a while!
The game is really good at slowly unfolding mechanics and story at the same time. The characters all know what's going on, but you do not. No amnesia required. By the end of the game, you've completely unfolded what happened and have mixed feelings about everything. It's a truly fantastic game.
Fear and Hunger reference nice.
Something related to this that games of all stripes seem to have trouble with is not communicating the designer intent to the players. Its easiest to explain with an example:
Lets say you've got three weapons in your game. You have a sword, a knife, and an axe.
The sword is a balanced weapon. Normal speed, normal damage. Normal reach.
The knife is short ranged, lower damage per hit, but much faster. This makes it a higher dps weapon but is riskier due to the shorter reach.
The axe meanwhile has longer reach, much higher damage, but is much slower. Like the knife, its a more effective but less safe weapon than the sword, but the risk comes from requiring timing and positioning rather than reaction times.
You've got three weapons, clear ideas of why you'd pick one weapon over another, and even a pretty concrete idea of how each is supposed to be used in gameplay... and games never, ever tell the player any of this. The weapons might have a tooltip telling you the stats, but the stats can be misleading. The knife in this example will look like it's lower damage than the sword if you just see the stats. You could show dps instead of just the damage value, but then the axe will seem to be lower damage than the sword.
Then throw in more mechanics. What happens when the weapons also have an elemental stat? What about stun? Combos? RPG stat bonuses? Pretty soon the tooltip becomes basically useless for telling the player what the point of the weapon is. Actively misleading even.
But you know what wouldn't be misleading? A single paragraph in the weapon description telling you what the point of it is. You just write that the knife is a riskier but more rewarding weapon than the sword, requiring good reflexes. If there are elemental stats and the fast hitting weapons are better for applying them, just include that in the description as well. You could even fit in a sentence explaining how its meant to be used. Telling the player that to get the most out of the knife, they want to try and stick to the enemy as much as possible to maximise their dps.
-------
Games never do this, and I cannot figure out why. Its so universally absent. Big gear focused RPG's don't do it. Shooters don't do it. Smaller action games don't do it. Even strategy games don't do it, which is especially bad because the whole point of a strategy game is using the units you have to solve problems and the game not telling you what units you have is very detrimental.
Even worse than strategy games, tabletop RPG's don't even do it, and this is where it becomes a massive problem, because a tabletop rpg requires the player to know the point behind things in order to actually run. The most obvious example of this is DnD, which is a game built around attrition and resource management, the players having to decide when to use their limited resources between rests. The entire system is built around the adventuring day and having those multiple encounters between rests is mandatory for the game to function properly. And the vast majority of tables don't do it, leading to crippling balance issues. Because despite the entire game being fundamentally built around this adventuring day, the game doesn't tell the players this, it doesn't even really go out of its way to tell the GM this, so the overwhelming majority of DnD players aren't playing the game as intended.
Now DnD was lucky that playing the game completely wrong still cooncidentally ends up being fun, but thats all it is. Luck. How many tabletop rpgs fail because they made a great game but didn't tell the players how to play it? There's one type of game that doesn't have this problem, for the most part anyway, and that's board games. Board games will do the bare minimum of telling the players how to actually play the game. The basic rules. They still notably don't explain anything more than that (i.e. in Catan there are basically three ways to win the game, and if you aren't trying to do one of them, you're basically not a contender, so they should really tell the players this), but they do a little bit.
This phenomenon of never explaining anything, meaning the players don't know what to do, and cannot set useful goals, is so universal in games that its shocking. I'm struggling to think of any examples of games that actually just tell you what the designers intended.
Hear, hear!
In a MMO I'm playing, one class can use both sword and a shield and two-handed weapons. The two-handed weapons are of course higher dps. But in the end, the sword and shield is the better choice because of several reasons - it has higher speed, but you can also enchant both the shield and the weapon, which in the end causes it to outperform the two-handed choice. Which the game doesn't tell you. It's the players who have done the maths and discovered it.
I like how the game Runescape poked fun at the chicken killing to boss battle progression by adding an Evil Chicken boss.
Thanks for the tips guys! This makes me want to reevaluate my game design to see if I've made the goals clear in my games.
2:09 terrifying presence spotted
WooooooOOOOOOOOoooooooo
OMG 2:12 is FEAR AND HUNGER
2:10 IS THAT A MOTHERFRICKING FUNGER REFERENCE!?!?!?
2:10 Was not expecting Fear and Hunger was going to be used as an example on this channle. The Crow Mauler looks appropriatly goofy
I have been using game loops as an explanation up till now, but just general goals is a bunch more flexible and will definitely replace how i analyze and make my own games in the future.
There's a type of goal that poisons the whole experience: "getting high on the rank ladder".
People want to see the rank go up so much, they pursue it at the expense of... everything, really, including fun.
Any other goal a player *could* choose in a game without the ladder, e.g. learning a new character, gets invalidated if the ladder is present.
And if you willingly decide to not pursue it, your randomly selected teammates will not approve your making that choice.
And for most people their personal skill ceiling is quite below what's considered "high MMR" just because of how statistics work. Basically, most people will fail at this goal, and their winrate will forever be at around 50% in team-based games, and even less in FFA games.
This is one of the worst things about being human. We'll persue a goal just because it's there, without really checking in to see whether it meets our actual needs
And I guess that's the whole point of the well-crafted goals in a good game? The designer can choose the lower level goals, and deliberately set them up so that they _do_ lead into higher level goals that are actually satisfying
Good episode but it didn't actually answer the question in the title. I really wanted to know why I spent so much time on the games that I have over 100 hours in. I was hoping for a deep psychological explanation as to what kept me playing for such a long time. I actually anticipated a reason why I had to forcefully uninstall the games I love the most for me to stop playing them. Instead, I received a lesson about player goals and how one transitions from one to the other. That's not a bad thing to learn but I still feel click baited.
Worst case, just Skinner Boxes.
Well, the video stated that you (probably) kept playing for hundreds of hours because the games had done a good job at defining their end game goals. You were looking forward to a goal and didn't drop the game because the smaller goals lead organically to the next category, and, by achieving things at different levels, you felt engaged even 100 hours in. Thats the answer I found in the video, at least.
Agreed. This is a good lesson in general, but it’s all of the “what” with very little of the “why.” I’ve been feeling for a pretty long time now that EC, which once felt like this incredible resource of deep game design knowledge, has been getting a little more shallow. Maybe it’s just how much I’ve been spoiled by the rise of other great game design and analysis channels over the years that makes it feel that way though.
@@SteveJubs Honestly, I think they might've just run out of topics. They already covered so much in their earlier videos that it seems like most of the rich and fertile ground for discussion has been covered. I would watch a "we did this video 10 years ago, here's our updated version that's three times as long" series though.
@@RorikH 100%, and that sounds amazing honestly
2:10 OK WHOS THE IDEA WAS IT TO DRAW /ADD FEAR AND HUNGER. I NEED ANSWERS NOW! (And i’m loving it!)
for me games like pillars of eternity are very addictive i love that genre
@2:01
The Barbenhiemer of the gaming world!
And best friends! I love them so much. ;_;
As someone who played 1,600 hours of monster hunter rise pretty much EVERYTHING is a goal, not only getting armor, hunting specific monsters for parts, master your main weapon, learn new weapons, learn all monsters, all the way back to killing all monsters X times and seeking for crowns for the biggest and smallest size
Purah has no business being that adorable in the extra credits style
This is really helpful.
I have been advocating for neurodivergent students for 10 years and I used gaming as a rapport building method in helping autistic students understand better social behaviours. I am going to use this as a plan with my role working for an autism and adhd related college in Vermont!
I feel like Minish Cap in particular was getting a chicken callout there. I just did my first and probably only run of it recently, and despite being a completionist, gathering the Cuccos (chickens) for Anju was the one thing I absolutely refused to do after trying it out. The learning curve for it was too steep to be meaningful, the skills involved had no bearing on the game outside of possibly speedrunning practice, and after a couple of repetitions it just flat out wasn't fun even before it got hard.
what i learned as a player is if i'm introducing someone new to a game that i love, i should be guiding them through the progression. If I jump straight to the bigger goals, because that's how I'm thinking, it will just confuse someone who is still working through the immediate goals.
Ooo, ooo! Great idea coming up! Lock the only way to achieve any goal behind microtransaction surprise mechanics! Cha-Ching! Instant profit without reducing game time.
For example:
$0.99 for 10 rolls, with a 95% chance to get 1 step of movement, 4.99% chance to get 5 steps, and 0.01% chance to get 100 steps! With the goal being “find the hidden treasure in a massive and complex maze-like area with clues that requires a ton of backtracking”!
You guys are the best! Love your content!🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
This is why it's so hard to take a break from a civilization game. Just that one little thing needs to get finished - and then the next thing is almost completed already
Fear & Hunger mentioned!!!!!!
Actually I've been finding all video game's main quests really outdated, like I'm just doing them because that's what the game wanted of me. It's not like other forms of media where I'm asking what will happen next. If give the choice to save chickens or save the world, then I naturally gravitate to save the chicken, I've beaten the big bad so many times it's meaning less.
The recent Zelda TotK was really bad for this, I wants to run around making my own fun, not follow the games directions just to knowingly find that the princess in another castle.
Check out the pikmin series, granted 4 is the only one that would count as modern. (All are currently on switch, 4 just came out, 10 years after 3)
The basic premise is you are 2in tall on earth trying to collect various McGuffins (the parts of your ship, treasure, fruit, ect), amd depending on the game you may be limited on days. (Even without the limit the games are all relatively short so you don't burn out, pikmin 1 has a linit of 30 day which is just over 6hrs before you lose the game)
Part of what really helps the games is that all of your short term goals helps advance the long term goal of collecting everything. Growing more pikmin, opening shortcuts, killing enemies, fighting bosses, and carrying stuff back will all advance the core "quest" of collect everything.
Admittedly Pikmin also isn't trying to be an RPG so the concept of quests barely applies, although they do exist in pikmin 4.
TOTK is so good at this it is almost exhausting at the beginning because there is SO MUCH TO DO.
In contrast to BOTW, you lack a single clear cut goal (the twin peaks) when exiting your first area and even though both games start you out in what is pretty much center of the map, in TOTK you probably know the are and will want to check so many locations that going off the beaten path is almost too good. I headed out of town without realisign i still "needed" to get the upgrade for the camera right there.
personally, I felt it wasn't good at this because it was exhausting in the beginning and then got boring halfway through the game. Sure, that's personal preference but I really didn't like how long term, end game and ultra long game goals were repetitive (as they often are in open world games).
Exploring 3 different areas (sky, ground, underground) was exceptionally frustrating and boring to me since the core game loop was the same with one being more about the puzzles and one being more about fighting. But in the end, both non-main areas were unsatisfying in my opinion and didn't add enough to the game to justify the amount of time needed to complete them.
At some point I felt a strong loss of place and purpose and it broke the immersion. I then realized I'm wasting my time doing fetch quests, looking for seeds, placing billboards - just to name a few.
The only thing that kept me playing until the halfway point was the way it triggers addictiveness by constantly rewarding you with (mostly meaningless) things like chests or seeds or that horrible system of taking pictures of your gear to complete an in-game wiki. It offers a ton of "content" which seems to mean collectibles at this point in time.
By not giving you so many long term, end game and ultra long game goals immediately I would have liked it more.
Unpopular opinion, I know. And again, this is heavily influenced by me not liking how Open World Games work most of the time. There are a few games out there that I'd describe as open worldish (!) that do things differently and reward you with story, vistas, experiences, a sense of truly achieving something, but they are rare and mostly way, way smaller in scale (e.g. Tunic).
@@maxmustermann9036I kinda agree
For such a huge game it truly feels silly and meaningless oftentimes
A good way to handle the epic goal/petty quest thing is cascaded character knowledge. They do this in books all the time. Start of the game, you're a farm boy journeying to the regional market. Wolves and fetching rat asses. While you're away your [insert family/friend] is killed, and you investigate that. Orcs and local fetch/fix/fight quests. Follow this pattern until the character finds out they're Neo.
I don't know why every damn game has to make you the chosen one in the first five minutes.
Thanks Austin
the order u did "kinda" is possible but in most cases u got the order wrong imo
"short term -> mid term -> ultra longterm -> endgame" is what u did - usually the ultra longterm goals stretch past the gameworld itself on a meta plain...like some achievement to farm or something of that sort
All of the most satisfying games for me have ultra long term exist after end game. Minecraft, league of legends, Warframe, mtg, StarCraft 2's coop system. The ultra-long term goals exist to provide playability beyond the original scope of the game and while you might start to look into them before "beating" the game, you will very rarely finish them anywhere close to when you officially beat the game.
Yup! That did confuse me about what "endgame" really meant. I'd have used the word endgame to describe completing the game. Then I'd have called "mastering every different character class and completely the game with each of them" an ultra-long-term goal,
Damn. Now I want to see an rpg that runs a bit like skyrim in how it oganizes side quests, and the major side quests tend to fundamentally alter how you play the game once you have the reward for completing them. Stuff like You have rounded up all the farm animals, here is a staff that lets you summon a swarm of a random farm animal to fight for you in battle. You have found all the hidden gems, please accept this lightsaber as a reward. You have read all the lore books related to magic you may now use this game breaking magical ultra skill in to do something awsome.
The long term goals example was super vague
This sounds suspiciously like primary secondary and tertiary gameplay loop
The lack of obvious ingame goals for me is what kind of keeps me turning away from minecraft. I've enjoyed other sandbox games that have some more obvious feel of progression and final goal but can't seem to get minecraft to click for me.
I've been waiting for a new Extra Credits game design video.
PANR has tuned in.
this is good not just for development but critiquing as well, we have to demand better so designers make better games
I do not care about how mady side quests because in the end, I can still fight the main boss and the world will not be obliterated in the interim.
Interesting! Thanks!
I am not convinced designing the goal the way you described is that important for a game.
As you already have given example, some game like tetris does not have much of goal especially long term. Or game like zelda botw/totk where side quest and exploration are pretty much the main content not a goal. Or game like endless sims where players are not necessarily following goals (e.g. city building or something like scrap mechanics). I think it is actually more important to think about what rewards, freedom, or restriction to give to players instead of goal, players can invent their own goal like when doing speed run or even simply wasting time. Rewards here is not always necessarily a goal or given when a player reaches a goal or even need to be always given. Some players do not even necessarily like to be told to do something to reach a goal set by the game.
Goal is simply just another tool to drive your gameplay and give the player some fun, it may be important for some type of gameplay and less important in other or only important for a portion of the game. It is of course oftentimes easier to design a game if you set up goals, however it does not necessarily be essential, and in some cases it is better for the players to find their own goal, at least, after you past tutorial, if you have any.
I think you are losing the forrest for the trees.
The goal of Tetris is to get a high score, this is achieved by clearing rows and not letting the any blocks stop in the top row, which is done through smaller goals of lining up blocks or nailing a perfectly timed side move or rotation.
The point is that in any game players will have goals that exist on a spectrum of importance amd timeframes. Knowing what these goals generally are for your game is important in the way that understanding your core gameplay loops is important. At the end of the day its a tool, but to completely disregard it is like cooking without considering who is going to be eating your meal.
@@jasonreed7522 I still disagree, Tetris does not have much goal, and the point is there is no goal for long term too, and some custom Tetris adds a lot of goal by making stages but people still play "endless" version.
I am not sure what the cooking analogy works here. To begin with in many cases cooking is being done without considering who actually eats it, and only consider available utensils or raw food or simply pass regulations. Sometimes cooking is just another intermediate step where the final product is done by someone else so there is no point to consider who actually eats it. Is it good? It depends, and that is the key here. Goal "inside" the game is not analogous to the goal in cooking, instead it is closer to goal outside the game , e.g making good sellable game/food. The video defines the "inside" goal as important, which is not always the case.
Trees can be part of forest, jungle, swamp or even desert. Tree probably important in a forest but probably less important for desert, what you need to consider is there are other biomes, just like there are many genres for the games, where goals are not or less important.
West of loathing achieve this perfectly.
The instant and immediate goals, are they what Yahtzeee keeps describing when he refers to the "primary gameplay loop"?
to be fair I wouldn't mind sending a massive herd of cuccos at ganondorf whenever I get the chance, be funny to send the demon king to his grave via a horde of murderous chicken
I'm convinced that Demise's curse wasn't Ganondorf, but the Cuccos. Each attacking Cucco is a piece of Demise, set out into the world to get revenge.
@@Merennulli lol
Indy's representing with the Extra Credit's gang sign 😄
When you’re working on a simulation or immersive sim like a tycoon or a city builder I imagine it would be different? You’re trying to make mechanics that allow the player to just use them in different ways that allow them to imagine their own goals
Immersive sims have thousands of goals.
Take Cities Skylines where high level goals are to make a beautiful city and make money to keep building.
And then its super short term goals are things like build a roundabout, check if services are satisfied, look for traffic jams, expand the metro.
A medium term goal might be solving a traffic problem, trying to unlock the next land tile, or building a new subdivision to satisfy housing demand.
Ultimately every game will result in the player having goals, just like every game will have a core gameplay loop. Figuring out as many of these as possible makes it easier to ensure that going through those loops, and achieving your goals feels right. (Loops are made by having and achieving short term goals, you go through the loops to achieve you long term goals. Therefore if you have a gameplay loop you have a goal.)
@@jasonreed7522 this is a good point! Thanks for the insight.
I get about 45 minutes in a game and then never touch it again. In the last 40 years I have liked a game enough to finish it exactly 5 times
a bit disappointed that I could not see any Factorio references...
WHERE ARE ALL THE NECKS?!?!?
Nice
Goals are great but I refuse to play "wander around until you figure out where to go/ what to do next" I dont have limitless time to play anymore. 😅 I also hate games with a lot of back tracking 😂
Reminders me off Terraria
Once you get basic survival down you move onto the main loop
Gather items and/or materials > fight a boss
This loop works because alot of bosses gate off areas even if the world is open... Either by unlocking it straight forward. Upgrading your pickaxe to break in or straight up changing the spawn logic and does a soft regeneration of the world
There are a few times you have choices, and can do bosses in different orders for ease or challenge...
Calamity mod turns this up to 12/10. By adding more early and mid game bosses giving you more options and choices. But also ending content beyond the base game's final boss. Balanced around the OP gear you'd get from the final boss
Funger shoutout cool
but acording to this line of thinking Minecraft would be terrible, as it has no goals beyond the immidiate. players make their goals on their own. Nowhere does it say: "go beat the dragon!" or "your goal is to build an awesome house".
AKA = Water is wet
Someone should put TotK under the scope of this analysis.
It would probably fall apart as a poorly designed game.
4:30 this is the reason many dropped FF16, you just killed Titan and the next quest is go buy some garlic, jfc
My disappointment at not seeing Monster Hunter...
This just feels like very generic definitions for promoting a paid course
Ultra meh
2:10 yooo is that some funger I see
Add to game: find 100 escaped chickens. If you do, ypu get a secret ending where big bad is eaten by giant chicken