How depressing is that! That the idea of focusing on the player's enjoyment in an entertainment medium is something James gets laughed at for mentioning :/
ChannelShoreyo Such is our time. I've heard of a sports movie (no idea what it's called) in which a coach proposes the idea that his work should focus in the improvement of player's skills and not the optimization of his organization's results, and immediately gets fired for it. Pretty illustrative of the newest generation's thinking for the most part: mutual respect to them does not matter, and not bothering to keep your own word is somehow normal. And it's not a good thing. This inconsiderate, irresponsible attitude is leading the human species towards crashing into a wall.
Crosby4hyg That is quite a falacy there! A rape accusation is also quite a "delicate subject" but they are not always accurate, so get your beleifs and and actual facts seperated. I think the approach in the video is coloured by a social justice narrative, and social justice warriors are usually teh folks who think video games are immoral, and at least they recognise that when they say that their argument could support the folks who are against gaming, since they have the same mentality in certain regards there. But that is just their view and not an accurate represenation on how gaming really is.
Drudenfusz Actually, I think they've represented both sides of the argument rather well with this one. Don't get me wrong, I love games. I've been a PC gamer for over 15 years. Obviously the EC guys do too, or else they wouldn't even have this channel. That being said, I absolutely feel that there are games out there that are designed to keep the player playing long after they've lost interest. Games like CoD or WoW are perfect examples of this. Addiction shouldn't be something that game designers attempt to create, and anyone who says that there aren't games that already do this is delusional. I should also point out that comparing the sensitivity some gamers feel about discussing the unhealthy aspects of certain games to that of rape victims is completely and utterly asinine.
Crosby4hyg I took deliberatly an extrem example to make my case. And I don't think the skinner box is what made WoW that successful, people just want answers and when they have something to blame issues on, they don't care if that is reality or not, and I think EC has fallen into that trap when they decided to care more about their idea of how gaming should be than how gaming actually is.
Drudenfusz You haven't made a case though, at least not coherently. EC hasn't fallen into a trap at all, what they've done is state their opinion about ways to improve game design to make it less detrimental for the health of their players. It took a lot of courage for them to make a video like this one, because it runs the risk of offending a lot of people. Take yourself for example. An apparent gamer who seems desensitized to the idea that games can absolutely have a negative effect on the people who play them. Of course games can also have a very positive effect, but the focus of this video was on the negative because they've already made plenty of videos about the latter.
Crosby4hyg I am not desensitised to the idea (and note that you are right, this is just an idea, not a fact, glad that you didn't tried to claim it would be one, like it happens so often with the game critics these days) that games can have negative impact, but that goes for every other medium as well! And I don't see the same outrage towards books and films these days that games recieve. Why is that? Maybe because we all accepted that usually people are capable of making their own judgement and doesn't take eveyrthing in any given story as some kind of truth, normal people can distinguish between reality and fiction. So, why is that so hard for you and others to accept that for gamers too?
I think that even players can tell when games are having a negative or positive impact on their life. They will recommend more often games that give value to their lives or provide them with a positive experience and avoid sticking to ones that are just time sinks or cause them to be put into a terrible mental state.
Bomber Jac Yep. It goes as far back as, say, the early 1980s, when game systems like the Atari 5200 started including pause buttons because people had real lives to attend to in the middle of their gaming. Game saves, which came from personal computers, was the next step up from that.
Bomber Jac Maybe. But actually, I think in some games I pause when I'm in a tight spot just to catch my breath and thing through what I'm going to do but that kind of ruins the immersion and some of the excitement in my opinion. So I think there might be a bit of a gameplay benefit to not having a pause button.
Thank you, Extra Credits. This is a difficult topic to talk about properly, it's very delicate, but you managed to do it *perfectly*. You were fair and didn't let anything unadressed. /applause Unfortunately, "humane" and "mega-corporations" are opposites, so this lesson won't be learned by the big players in this industry (your EAs, your Ubisofts...). They *literally* see their players as " a money-generating engine" as you put it. EDIT: Yeah I know some corporations are not totally guilty of this, but they're the minority.
SidheKnight I think Nintendo does a really good job of this as well. They very consistently provide gameplay that doesn't waste anyone's time or punish those who have to stop playing for a while. I mean, sure, there are some spots in their games that feel tedious or boring, but they've proved time and time again that they learn from the criticism those spots get. Such as the triforce collecting in Wind Waker.
Here's the thing: indie startups that are trying to make it as a business are under even more pressure to make a profit because their future depends on it. So we can't focus all of our scorn on huge corporations.
Alexander Roderick I think the proof is in the pudding, though. Look at companies like Ska Studios, Supergiant, Team ICO et al. There's been a consistent output of indie games that try to innovate (or at the very least put out quality product); a significantly higher ratio of good-game-to-shovelware than corporate game makers.
Jake Pillsbury The thing with Nintendo is that they incorporate it into their gimmicky consoles instead of their games. The problem is still there, just in a different format; though I will admit to a far lesser degree.
Whoever at Blizzard who came up with the "play seven competitive Overwatch games per week or else your SR will decay" idea really needs to watch this video.
KittXenn How is that a guilt trip? On the surface, it seems like it can be seen as a reward for people who have less time to play. (I am not a LoL player, though, so maybe I'm not understanding how it works.)
KittXenn Personally I think this system is more of a "reward for playing" rather than a "punishment for not playing." It's such a small amount of currency that you don't miss out on much if you don't get it. I see the element of "dude I gotta play League today or that free 150 IP will go to waste!" tho, but I don't think that this is the issue of guilt tripping. I think that guilt tripping is more like the LP decay system but if it were applied to IP while still keeping the daily IP bonus.
NinjaLobsterStudios I agree that the bonus IP is not a way to punish people by making they regret not playng the game that day, but - speaking as a League player - League really does do every single one of the "not humane" stuff presented on the video: First they speak of exit points, and League has none. It is a game without checkpoints or ending, there is no save and no pause. It is arguable that every game might be an ending point, but even if you consider it being, it is not in the same way they suggest in the video; Second topic is 'habituating players to get them to play on a schedule', and that is part of what league does with its bonus IP (and bonus XP during your first days/weeks or w/e of playing the game - period during which you're more succectible to get habituated) - they get you to play everyday. On the 'guilt as a motivator/having something more important to do' I'd say that League's system to exploit this aspect of our nature are the limited time events - as an anecdotal exemple I have a friend who was REALLY bummed to be travelling for work during the last URF, he got really sad for not being able to play, and hearing us commenting on it - that is some degree of guilt tripping. Third topic is 'making you push the game on your friends' - I guess this sin is the one that they are less guilty - the only system in place is the Refer a Friend, and it changes much since the time I began playing, from an impossible task, to something you didn't remember, to something you complete with some smurfs. Even though the game urged you to push the game to your friends in the years closest to their launch (even making Items for Wriggle and Athene, who brought thousends of players), they stopped it, and the game is best played in groups, so the friends I invited would be invited anyways. Now, the part that is more important to me, in the video they state that '[games like league] rely on making the player wanting to play the game, and not feeling like they have to'; and that '[thhey don't] pressure you into paying money' I feel like I HAVE to play the game OR pay money. I have about 50 champions, that I bought on IP only during my 3+ years of playing the game, I don't play much, but I really like having diverse options, I like having different champions, because playing every time with a different one is fun for me. But I can't, I can't because I don't have the ones that I want to play, once I got home striving for a malphite game, but I didn't have the champion, he wasn't in free week and even though I had the IP, I was saving because I HAD to buy runes, since they were putting me at a real disadvantage every single early game, independant of match-up. This kills fun, and tells you you should have played more, so you already had the IP and the champions and the runes or that you can pay. All in all, I used a lot of anecdotal "evidence" but it was just to illustrate better my point of view, not to prove my point or to convince people that I'm right. People can disagree, I think the only sure thing is that League is NOT a prime exemple of humane design.
KittXenn I'd like to compare it to watching a TV show. It's the same time of the day at the same day of the week every week. Do I feel like my life is vanishing before my eyes because I have succumbed to the shedule of the station? Nope. I've just put 30-60 minutes of the day aside for something I enjoy watching. Same is with the daily IP bonus in LoL. I put aside some time to play it, some private time. And since the daily works on a 22 hour-timer (which, in turn, guarantees that I get the daily reward, unlike a 24 hour-timer which becomes very problematic in the long run), that's fine. If I want to do several games or even an all-nighter, that's completely optional and something I've decided for myself, nothing in the game really rewards me for doing that.
1:27 I was at an amusement park and was upset after getting soaked on a water ride when I got Rickrolled on the speaker system. Ironically, I immediately felt better...
Gaming that improves the gamers is a concept that I hope everyone learns in time. I am a better person every day because of the worlds I get to save, the bosses I get to beat, and the puzzles I get to solve in games and I take that goodness with me into the real world. Thanks for another amazing video!
No. What he ment is that bringing up this topic could be stepping on the toes of big AAA devs such as ea ect ect thus making it hard for him to find work in this industry in the future.
Stephan Stross James consults with game designers on their games, if a development team is trying to make a inhumane game they might not give him a call if they're aware of his opinion on them.
Good example of humane design: Portal. Excellent game, though brief. How many times have you played that 4-5 hour game? How many videos have you watched of that same game? A good movie/game isn't the longest one, but the one you watch/play a hundred times, and still go back to it.
3:03 "It's sometimes easier to start seeing players as a money generating engine rather than people" Case in point: Mortal Kombat X's pre-order Goro and tons of ridiculous microtransactions.
For me, the game that has had the most of what this video is talking about has been Minecraft. I don't play it much now days, but in the past I've enjoyed spending time with my brothers crafting away on our countless projects or thinking about how I would change my castle to fit something else. It was a pretty awesome game. Sadly, these kinds of experiences rarely come for large corporate games, but the smaller indie projects or old titles we enjoy.
this is why i love you people! as for me im a guy who wants to get into this whole game dev shenanigans because i love how emersive enjoyable and simply fun games can be! Findung treasure in a dungeon having a fun chat with that one optional reapearing character you like or traversing the gameworld youre in! world building by the devs even with things like having different customers apearing in a shop because its a shop! or getting visible use out of something you find or defeat like getting a special item(food weaponry etc). and this combined with the visuals and ost is what faczinates me about this subject. i love games and i want to make games. fun games. nothing more nothing less! sincerly Andy from austria! if youre reading this have a great morning day evening or night!
4:53 - Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild's instant pausing. Might not work for other games, definitely wouldn't work for multi-player, but I personally love that system to DEATH, and I have used it for SO MANY mid-battle snacking or wardrobe-changing hijinks. Plus, sometimes I'm in the middle of a fight, but a family member needs me for something, so I just boop the map or inventory button, see what they need, and then get right back to wrecking bokoblins. I LOVE it
This entire video made me think about Destiny, and how it is the quintessential example of inhumane game design. Addicting, scheduled events that punish you for not being able to play...
Ooh god this was an amazing episode! I totally agree on all these points. I am so tired of games that guilt trip me into playing. I hate games that put a TIME LIMIT on using something in game like a buff or a boost and it counts down when I don't even use it! It's mechanics that just make me go: Why?! Why can't I just buy 7 hours when I want to use them insted of 24 hours RIGHT NOW?! You know what I like about most games? I can play them and come back to them later and smile. In MMO's and mostly F2P games. I want to come back and enjoy it still. And mostly I do. It is true I need to be set towards a goal in the game like getting that shiny item or shiny weapons. But I also don't want it to be a chore. Getting that super rare item I don't mind grinding for if the grind is fun. You know what.. you should totally do an episode on that. MAKE THE GRIND FUN! Make me want to work for those levels and ENJOY IT! Don't let me fight 2000 monsters just to get to the level that is needed to progress. As that's boring grind. If this item is rare and hard to get. Then don't put it behind a grind or RNG. Put in different ways to obtain it. TF2 does this exactly: If I want a certain item I can approach it from 4 angles. "Buy it, Trade it, Grind it, Make it" Either I use my wallet to buy said item. Or I trade what I own to get said item. Or I play alot of games and hope it will drop or get more stuff... Or I make it with the junk I have. It's why I think tf2 does the free to play the best way. Unless it comes to lockboxes since that stuff is just horrible. Though for me they don't lessen the expirence since it's just a special version of siad item.
Yeah or games that remind you of how long its been since you last played. Ingress is a big offender on this. If you go to bed or do somthing else and its been 15 hours the game says its starting to worry about you. I honestly dont like that aspect even thought the game is getting me up and walking.
as far as I understand, both LoL & DOTA 2 have Skinner Box mechanics (DOTA 2 less than LoL). still, I think EC would argue that both of these games r examples of tame usage of Skinner's exploits, compared to WoW, or Farmville
Extra Credits did a great two-parter on game addiction (s3:e6 and e7). In that light well I know a couple of people that are pretty knee deep in LoL and DOTA. Some of them are using it correctly but some of them are just...
For those of you that have seen this video from start to finish. Well... You Have Be Effected By Art. Just WOW James and Extra Credits. My Hat Is Off To YOU.
I am so glad you guys talked about this. I've tried to put this forward to others, about how artists and even technologists have a "guiding" social responsibility towards the consumers of their creations. Unfortunately extreme capitalism has become SUCH a norm that it is almost impossible to explain this to people who don't already agree.
Karn Kaul The ironic thing though, is that from a capitalistic point of view, this a dumb thing to do to begin with. The more you treat your customer base like trash, the more they'll move away from you. Shows how short-sighted people can turn when they go on too long without self-examination, I suppose.
Karn Kaul To try to keep players glued to your product regardless of quality. It may work for a while, but as a matter of fact, the longer it lasts, the worse the crash will be for you when it stops. And it WILL stop.
Ghost7856 Yes, I completely agree. It's astonishing how long the big corps have managed to dupe the public into consumerism. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it.
Karn Kaul Ugh. I really dislike how people blame capitalism for these problems. These sorts of things would happen in any society--if they're not happening, you're in a utopia, and if you're in a utopia, you're not in the real world.
LarlemMagic Exactly, even if the industry tried this for an entire decade, most Stupid people who pay for everything would get bored and go get sucked into some other Scummy conflict-addicted entertainment medium instead like they already have with Twitter and Netflix dramas. Good Game designers are REALISTS at heart
That pricing effect has nothing to do with the actual content of the game. The point of the J.C. Penny effect is that people will value something as greater despite its actual quality if it is marked as a higher price. That is not related to the actual content of the product or the game, there's nothing about humanistic game design that makes the perceived value of games decline! Do you look at a modern shooter and think "Ooh, it has a skinner-box design crafted into its systems, that's worth buying!"? No, and removing such exploitative systems does not lower a game's perceived value at all. Get of this apparent "realist" bandwagon and think of what you're saying!
ilr But Netflix has really good TV. That, and there has lately been the rise of the independent game, (usually) dedicated to the innovation they can brong to the genre. Roguelikes, for example, have been brought back solely by the effort of indies.
Preferabubbly NotRealNamearoo no, the skinner box game won't say "skinner box" in big red letters on the cover, it will use any possible trick to make players think it's worth more, like "FREE coins if you log in every day", "BONUS gold if you buy the super awesome pack of awesomeness", the JC penny/humane would give the same stuff, but saying "this is what it's actually worth", both games being sold at the same price, but the other one pretending to actually be more valuable, is exactly what happened to JC penny.
We're a lot more aware of the tricks of the F2P trash than of retailers.That and the JC Penny episode is more concerned with the feel of design decisions, and not necessarily about Skinner Boxes.
As someone who wasted 2 years of their life with the foolish notion that i could somehow make a living by playing Diablo 3 or Entropia or by playing the Forex stock-market (which i'll admit cost me a LOT more money and stress than playing those 2 games combined), i'm going to share this video to every Social Media outlet where i have some kind of presence, in the blind hope that it'll reach someone with even a modicum of power to change things.
neferiusnexus when it comes to making money off of video games I always think about two things. 1: if it's possible to gain money, it's possible to lose money. 2: if the game continues to be in business, more people are losing money than are making it. now there are a few exceptions, but those two reasons are why I avoid potential "money making opportunities" in games.
Is it even possible to divide by zero? If everyone gets together purely for the purpose of solving the equation we could probably do it, however no one is going to get everyone together to do so.
Capitalism isn't inherently unethical. There are only three situations when capitalism grows to immoral. 1) Excessive regulation prevents effective market competition that drives monopolies and allows businesses to exploit both consumers and employees WITHOUT any market consequence. 2) Privatization of industries that are fundamentally humanitarian creates businesses that literally thrive on exploiting people (private prisons). 3) Large businesses are not overseen and conglomerate to create a oligarchic situation. This, combined with bailing out these huge businesses, makes them immune to market competition and allows them to be exploitative. In all other situations, businesses benefit from being ethical in their treatment of consumers and employees because there are, presumably, businesses who do treat them ethically that could serve to take your business from them.
Thank you. But: economics (efficiency, optimalisatio ) and morality oppose each other on some points. It is an ideal. But certainly one worth believing in.
The problem arises when the individual values the money construct over what it can buy. When you mostly view thing's value in dollars rather then the thing's inherent and subjective value, you leave the door open for abuse of the abstract system that is capitalism.
This is a pretty brilliant video. I actually thought of Paper Mario when you were talking about this: unlike most RPGs, there are anti-grind measures so if you plow through the game and skip battles, you will get more experience for being able to beat the characters at a lower level, thus allowing you to progress very quickly. If you grind too much, the game will reward you less experience to encourage you to progress through rather than allow you to become an OP player. You can hit save blocks around the world so you can save, quit the game, and return back to the same exact location. And the story is not about global despair or anguish, nor does it make you believe that the entire world is filled with crooks. The game even makes it a point to give you party members of the same species as your enemies, and even deep in the heart of Bowser's Castle, you'll find friendly NPCs among the enemy horde, as if the game wants to prevent itself from implying racism with the character designs. Paper Mario goes so far out of its way to be humane that gets flak for being too "easy" compared to other RPGs, but these are the qualities that makes it so great. The Thousand Year Door was more difficult, and the world was not as innocent, but it continues many of Paper Mario's humane design choices. If only other games stuck with this mentality.
He thinks he´s people! Jokes, and humaneness aside, I´ve recently read some good advice about writing, and I think it can help with games too: authors sometimes forget they´re creating for the end user, so it´s important to think what kind of experience and/or message you´re trying to communicate with your work. Look at it as a consumer, not a creator - what are you communicating? Is it working - are you producing the experience you aimed to produce when you started working? Would you pay for it, if you were the end consumer? If it wouldn´t, maybe you should cut it, or change it. Think what your aim for this scene/level/whatever is _before_ you start working on it.
For me, the Last of Us was an absolutely incredible experience. It had me near tears in the first ten minutes. It often wasn't fun. It often wasn't joyous but it was definitely time very well spent. While I agree with the need to shift away from getting players to spend as much time as possible within the game, I disagree that it needs to be a shift to letting players enjoy games the most. I believe it need to be a shift to engaging the players the most. Of course, that's just me.
Mokgore I feel that a game is "Humane" if its players want to play it because the game evoked strong feelings in them. You don't watch Bladerunner because it makes you feel happy, you watch it because it makes you think, and feel existential terror. In the same way, you play Amnesia to feel scared, you play Dark Souls to feel achievement & superiority, you play The Last of Us to feel sad, and you play Speedrunners to feel joy. The purpose of art, be it a book, a painting, an article, a movie, a play, or game, is to make you *feel*. What makes a a game inhumane is if it leverages your time and emotional investment in the game to sell you the emotion of power at a ridiculous price (pay to win), turn you into an advertising machine ("Get more energy by inviting your friends to play Farmville"), punish you for not playing it ("loyalty" rewards for signing in every day), or giving rewards that having nothing to do with skill, but rather are given only for playing the game for an insanely long time (Some of the Call of Duty progression systems, or loot grinding in Diablo 3).
Mokgore I think you may be equivocating the ideas of "enjoying" a game, and having a game "make you happy". My favorite book is Tolkien's "The Children of Hurin". There is *nothing* happy about that book. I do, however, enjoy reading it very much. It is satisfying in a different way. Now, I have not played "The Last of Us" myself, but I suspect you are describing a similar experience. A thing one enjoys does not necessarily make one "happy". I believe you and EC may actually be saying the same thing.
You cried at the last of us? I was more annoyed that they pulled the generic evil military shit like everything ever made to care about that girl we spent 5 minutes with.
While the call of duty model is shitty, lets get real here for a moment; No one is forcing you to buy them over and over again, and if you let it get to the point where you wrecked your own economy or ruined your relationship, odds are you have some form of issue, and you would have found another way to do this anyway.
freakymoejoe2 But the system they have set up a compulsion/cycle; if Cod 2 had not superseded Cod 1, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. When Cod 2 came out, enough people bought it that people who kept playing Cod 1 were left in the dust, so every time a new Cod comes out, it's just part of that cycle
AK Misc Ofcourse, my point wasnt that the call of duty model doesnt suck, my point was that call of duty hasnt 'ruined lives', if you have been buying so many Cod games that you actively went bankrupt or pushed away loved ones, then thats a sympton of some greater issue that the person in question already suffers from, and it would find a way to come out regardless. CoD doesnt have the power to induce such problems in its playerbase.
freakymoejoe2 the thing is, a lot of these games do subconsciously force you to buy the next game by making it tug on your dopamine glands to make it a very real addiction. even well past the point of being fun.
freakymoejoe2 It may not be "forcing" as in putting a gun to someone's head, but they're using every tool in the box they have to get you addicted to it. That's the whole skinner box thingy, really. So no, they're not forcing you to, but they'll try the hardest they can to manipulate those chemicals in your brain to get you to do it again. More the methods of a creepy cult than a gangster, but still pretty fucking coercive.
EvilPlagueDoctor That doesn't change the fact that it is still the player's fault for letting things go too far. If someone throws their life away because of a game, you can't blame the game or its creators for that, at least not entirely. I wouldn't, say, blame a drug dealer for a druggie stabbing someone for drug money, but I would say the dealer was facilitating the druggie's problem. Likewise, a game dev isn't to blame for the destructive behavior of a player, but they are facilitating that behavior. Regardless, players who go to those lengths likely have other issues, and a game can't be held responsible for issues outside their control. I agree with EC that games shouldn't do such things, but I wouldn't say that they shouldn't because of factors beyond their control.
Thank You for doing this episode. I agree fully. I hope more people see this. If these news outlets really want to talk about gaming without the usual torches, pitchforks, and parents groups...They should feature this video
When you mentioned about pausing the game, that got me thinking about a mechanic/dynamic idea that I might start to toy around with to see how it works for a game I'm making. This idea is: I'll have a variable called 'can_pause' which would determine if the player can pause the game. It's a sliding scale that if the player is in direct conflict, too close to an enemy while in stealth mode, or asked to make a time critical choice or calculation, then the player can't pause the game. This makes the interactions more life-like in the way that you can't just pause these time-critical moments to search the web for the answer or decide for longer than your character can. This can bring a facet of the real world immersion of decision making to the player, where decisions can hold just as much personal weight. Just like real life, the player doesn't have to engage, if the player's short on time or they get interrupted, the player can usually make a time-strategic move to evade the conflict or the situation. Doing this in certain places at certain times however may cause negative or different effects for their player down the line, but if the player needs to stop, they're always at least 2 minutes away from a 'can_pause' opportunity. Even though this system could be abused for malicious purposes, hopefully this is a means of more enjoyable and immersive play when done with good intent in mind.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I watched. MOBAs are all about incremental progression that you're classically conditioned to complete as an obligation. Daily logins, daily match bonuses, high-cost characters that don't come with the base game, etc. Then there's the issue of scheduling, since they can't just be picked up or put down on a whim. Not to say that they can't be fun. But, they're definitely not even close to the most humanely designed games.
Exactly. I'm playing Dota probably for 7 or 8 years already. Dota started as warcraft 3 custom mod map in 2003. More than 10 years passed and we have Dota 2 now, but it still doesn't have a system to leave a match without consequences for you and your team. If in 2003 it was just limitation of the engine, but now it isn't the thing anymore.. I see no human design in that.
Dean Cutler technically you can leave about 2 times in 20 matches or so without consequences, yes. But as I said - your team is gonna be screwed in most cases for the rest of the game. And the solution is pretty simple - add an option for players to join the match, where someone has left.
Dean Cutler it is always easy to seat on your butt and do nothing. And it is free as well. You can reward people, who is joining the losing team with leaver by giving them a little bit more points after the match if they win. And punish them less, if they lose. And nobody says that you should *switch* from LPO to the new solution. You can combine both things together.
That Lee and Clem Clem picture though... Thank you, Scott. And thank you for this episode, guys. Video games have had both a negative and positive influence on my life. But because they've got me to the milestones, achievements, and dreams I currently have, I hope to spread what the positive things they've taught me to future generations with my games. You always know how to hit things on the nail. People appreciate the work you all do. (Especially you, Soraya)
League of Legends and dota 2 are NOT good examples of humane design! You think being forced into a hour-long match with threat of punishment if you leave is humane? And they have the same addictive leveling and tempting microtransactions that are far too popular these days. Other than that, this is a fantastic video pointing out why the people who hate the free2play microtransaction game model do hate it. Also, who laughed at James for daring to like or want humane game design? Only pro-greed pro-abuse assholes would laugh at these ideas.
+Ryan Bissonnette I don't think it is a BAD design choice, but it certainly is a different way to tackle the way you spend time in a game. On the first hand you've GOT to play at least an hour if you want to fight other champions in this MOBA, but on the other hand, once you've had that one hour of game, nothing forces you to start an other hour again. One thing it forces you to do though, is to tackle your time differently and actually organize yourself so you'll be sure you've got an hour ahead of yourelf to fully enjoy the match.
+Ryan Bissonnette You think that leaving your team in the middle of a game where each person on the team counts is humane? They don't punish you because you stopped playing they punish you because you are ruining 4 other peoples game experience.
Shehryar Ali What if we're forced to leave because of unpredictable circumstances? If somebody called you to say a family member was having a heart attack and you needed to go to the hospital and you'd just started a DOTA 2 match, would you say, 'Okay, just gotta finish this HOUR LONG MATCH!'?
+ToxicPenguin But they do not punish you unless you do this repeatedly. I can leave due to unforeseen circumstances with no issue, but unless you like a ridiculously chaotic or unlucky life, you won't have such circumstances crop up in a gaming session several times in a short span of time.
LaZodiac Only players who look for a challenge buy those games. No one buys them with an expatcation that the game will be easy and nice...sooo....i...guess....there is your answer
LaZodiac The games autosaves at every step, are balanced in a way that you can loose half of your souls without problems, are REALLY satisfatory in the combat and specially level design. And don't handhold you. And at least to me, they really give me a "Zen" state, similar to shmup's
***** I don't feel compelled to keep playing, even if the game takes 1000 hours to beat, I can, at ANY point just put down the controller and come back at any time. There's no "cliff hangers", no "level up and collect" bullshit, there's not even a farm system. It's a progressive straight forward game. oh, IT'S HARD? well, I actually like to ENJOY the game instead of farming or doing menial tasks. I know you enjoy shit like farmville, but I don't.
Good for you EC, that was a very centered and moral decision you made to build and air this segment. Wish there were more like you guys out there in the media.
these are the kind of powerful episodes that I enjoy so much from you guys. I think you are amazing, and I wish you never stop, because the future of games will benefit so much from having you around.
As the video was getting started, I was thinking this was a veiled shot against Hatred (which I am totally going to buy and play), but it took a swerve on me. I agree that designers shouldn't be trying to lock in their players as a way to sustain a revenue stream, as opposed to making the game engaging and players simply wanting to throw their money at you, but that shouldn't me we can't have games that you dedicate yourself to. Online sports titles in particular, but anything with a somewhat fixed match length, like a MOBA, should still be encouraged. Committing yourself to a short section of play is no different than signing up for a sports league or any other hobby, and it would help if the developers or community managers could somehow convince players of and encourage them to make arrangements for their life outside of their game in the same way an adult on an amateur sports league might - don't schedule it too much, hire a babysitter, don't schedule it opposite of your job, etc.
Desirsar Well, one, I disagree completely with your stance on Hatred, that is the worst way to celebrate your mediums artistic freedom, but two, EC is more talking about games that require you to play days on end. Games like Vindictus and Maplestory, the Call of Duty series and the AC games, even games like Bloodborne (even for as great of a game it is, you can't deny the Chalice Dungeons are simply cheap ways to extend playtime) are all slowly starting to suffer from the mentality that in order for you to progress, you have to put the game above all others. They're serioous when they say that games like this have actually ruined peoples lives, and it's because of a widespread, much larger problem in modern cultures idea of "capitalism" - money above all else. EC stepped in some heavy rain here- it's a topic that's already being discussed, but at much larger stakes, mostly having to do with the middle east.
Muhammad Gheith Basically, looking at players as income, not as actual people, is a huge deficit to the industry. You think piracy is widespread simply because people are dicks? No, piracy wouldn't be this problematic if games hadn't built such a reputation of being an entire lifestyle.
Videos like this are why I love Extra Credits: because it isn't just about the games, but about the people who make and play them. If more RUclips gaming channels embraced that philosophy....
I've been wondering, since this has come up a bit. What about making games that cater to the introverted? Plenty of games have mechanics that help extroverted people bring in more friends and make even more friends to help them, but this oftentimes becomes a necessity which can be somewhat painful if you just want to enjoy the game by yourself. Games you /can/ play alone tend to be /just alone/ games too. Why not make something you can do both with?
This is a very powerful message, and one that I could understand right away. The other day, a few friends invited me to go out just as I had begun an important mission (in a game that will be unnamed.) I felt so strange while I turned down the offer right in their face, without even looking away from the game. It wasn't until later that what I really felt hit me. I was ashamed that I felt I had to turn them down, when I knew spending time with them was much more precious. I'm guessing this could have been avoided if the player recruitment mechanics made for more flexible and efficient squad formation.
I have a question for a future episode. Why are so many tutorial/cute sidekick characters in video games so annoying? I'm thinking characters like Navi in Zelda games, Claptrap in Borderlands, or that dragonfly thing in Spiro.
I feel like this is the reason I generally remember and enjoy indie games more. They arn't asking me to play them forever, they are just asking me to experence what they have to offer. I don't know if they have talked about this game before, but A Story About My Uncle sereously affected me emotionally. It kept me up at night wondering about how to feel about the whole experence, how I thought it was going to make me feel, and how it actually made me feel. It helped me cope with the fact that life is not fair sometimes, which really helped me cope with the loss of so many loved ones these past few years. It did all this over the span of about 3 hours! Papers Please is another great example. The constant battle between doing with what you think is right, and what you boss tells you is hard, but whatever you pick you have to roll with and move on with your life in order to take care of your family. You have to forget the small stuff and focus on what is most important, which a sociology professor might tell you is wrong but I digress. These games have made me think differently, and kept me wanting to play, but never made me feel like I have to forever.
Would really bad RNG be the opposite of humane design? Because I have killed thousands of Manacs in warframe... Still have yet to see them to drop a damn thing other than ammo... I want that new claw stance so bad @_@
Kinzuko F*@& Warframes RNG! How many boss runs did I do to get my damned Ghost Warframe? I play Destiny now and I have to laugh when people their complain about RNG. AT least in Destiny there is a nice vendor to stop by and sell random end-game gear. Last time I checked in Warframe all I got was a middle finger and told to go grind more to get a chance at grinding for the frame I wanted.
***** How so? Are marks not a set way of "Working towards" something? They are consistent and have no RNG in the reward. The crucible Pulse Rifle is one of the best PR in the game and you get everything you need by playing any mode of PvP. Has WF added anything remotely as forgiving as the vendors from Destiny for its end game gear? Because Vendor gear allows you to do everything but the hard mode raid.
***** Yea but the RNG can cause that one part part you need from dropping like crazy, unless they have fixed that. I remember needing one part for my frame that you get from a boss and I got 10 and 12 of the other two parts, no counting every time it didn't drop. At leaste in Destiny you can do any activity you want with an equal chance of dropping any item. In Warframe you end up grinding the same stage over and over.
I have nothing to add, but I wanna say thank you. This is a message that needs to be heard. I'm so glad to hear you standing up on this. I hope it helps. I hope to hear more. Thank you.
Pikirii Keling There is a huge difference between make a hooking game and an inviting game. A hooking game tries to make it nice for you to begin playing and once you are sunk in, you are penalized for not playing frequently/all the time. an inviting game CAN take lots of hours, but instead, they let you leave whenever you desire, should you need/want to. Addiction happens to inviting games, sure, but that's already personal responsibility. Hooking games are responsible by guilt tripping people who, may under certain circumstances have a poor personal responsibility, to get addicted and have aspects of their personal life ignored. That's the point of the video.
Pikirii Keling I'm not sure about that, there's been a sense of "wtf, this only lasted 6 hours and I'm already done so not worth my money" not that long ago so it might also be overcompensation on that. Plus this is talking more about getting penalized for not being active in the game, like losing opportunities for not putting x amount of time in a day x days a week or not being able to put it down for 10 minutes to take care of something due to no actual pause in the game.
Pikirii Keling Probably. I mean, after you've completed an RPG, there usually isn't that much replayibility. You can't really play with friends, you can't make your own levels, you can try to make different choices in the storyline, but you will still be hacking and slashing your way through enemies just the same as before. If you make them long, it feels like you are getting more utility from it; honestly though, you could probably get the same amount of satisfaction if the same game only took fifty-to-seventy hours (maybe slightly more, I don't know) or even less than fifty to complete (though I mean 'get to the good, bad, and whatever other ends of the story', not 'Completionist complete').
Pikirii Keling That's the thing about RPGs though. There are exceptions that have worthwhile storylines but don't have grindy combat or lots of pointless backtracking. I was reminded of one such game when I was visiting my younger brother last night, helping him though one of that game's worst dungeons and seeing with critical eyes how well designed it really was. It was confusing and longer than the average dungeon, but it still took less time to get through than most.
There are various reasons for the length of RPGs. 1. The story is just that massive. the writers wrote out a ton of material for the story, and most of it made it into the game. 2. Grinding: The game is designed around a hero (or team) that advances 99 levels instead of just 20. This means each level has a smaller benefit, but the player can "enjoy" gaining more levels this way. 3. The player base expects the game to be worth their money. They're not going to pay $60 for a game that's just 5 hours long. 4. Tons of side-quests: The main story of the game is actually rather brief, but there are so many optional side-quests it just makes the game seem to take forever.
ScarletFame That would only happen, like when you haven't played it for more than a month. Don't cite me on that, by the way, but if you haven't played it for more than a month than that means you're not _interested_ in the game, and that would be your fault for buying a game that you wouldn't be interested in either way.
What you're saying here is something I - and many others - have been saying for a long time, but to hear you say it is significant. You guys are well known, but also, you have a tendency to rationalize away all the problems of videogames. In other words: when Extra Credits is no longer on board, I think it's safe to say that the worm has turned and we ought to start seeing some changes soon.
Humane Design - Like making exiting a game as simple as ESC->Quit. None of this "Exit to Main Menu" shit, or "Are you SURE you want to quit?" Just get me out of the fucking game.
Jahooba And sometimes you do want to exit to menu to load up a different save or edit your options if not possible in game. I mean if you're on the main menu and you press esc it should exit you out but really it should be something like esc 1: pause esc 2: exit to main menu? esc 3: main menu esc 4: exit (esc in any drop down menu: back up one spot) That way you can just spam the esc button but if you accidentally hit the esc button while playing or in the pause options menu you can get back to the game by just pressing enter to resume or "no" to get back to the menu.
Jahooba I played Dungeon Defenders 2 today and saw they added a "Exit to Desktop" button with click OK to confirm in the ESC menu. previously and depending on where you are in the game, there was only "press ESC, click Leave, click OK to confirm, wait for tavern to load, press ESC, click leave, click OK to confirm, click Quit, click OK to confirm, and finally you're back to Desktop!"
This is definitely one of the best EC videos and probably one of the best to start with because this is essentially your philosophy on game design. If you aren't viewing people as people, if you use cynical and/or exploitative designs, and you aren't designing humanely, then you don't deserve to be a game designer.
Excellent points made as always. I've always tried to avoid games that felt like they were forcing me to play rather than games that I've just enjoyed. When a game feels like a chore or forces me into responsibilities, then I don't play. Every time I've played an MMO where I've been made an officer in a guild, I stop playing shortly after because I feel like it's a job now rather than a break from reality.
This episode seems really unfocused to me. Its points jump around all over the place. I agree that games can affect people, but when you say "we've ruined relationships! We've kept people inside instead of on a picnic with their gf!" that's just crap. Yeah, let's take all accountability away from the person and put it all on the evil game/developers that forced him to play the game instead of look at his relationship. Really now?
I think what they're talking about is punishment for not staying inside. Like, it's on the gamers' end, yeah, but not all games are just on the gamers' end. They issue punishments for going on a picnic, and rewards for staying in. That's bad.
You need to stop being extreme, it's what is wrong with the internet. They are not saying they are taking all the blame from the person and assigning it to game company. Both are at fault but only one side is purposely trying to ensure the other. Why can't you (meaning the internet) just ever take something for what it is instead of hearing an idea and assuming everyone is an extremist?
Unahim I think the point they were trying to make is that companies are intentionally trying to make their games addictive so as to make more profit and that doing so is an unethical practice that can ruin lives.Remember that addiction isn't something that is easy for someone to notice until it is too late and it has already taken everything from them. To me this episode was all about trying to make games fun and engaging but not addictive in a manner that they end up running a persons life. And look at the games that they pointed out as good examples of fun games that don't follow those practices, they are all massive time sinks if you get into them but at the same time, they don't expect you to spend all your money on them or spend all of your time chained to your PC waiting for when they allow you to progress.
Unahim They're not saying that. They're saying that some games are DESIGNED to incetivise you to keep playing on a routine, or at least X amount of time, by punishing you for not doing so (or giving rewards to others who do, and compete with you). Yes, it's not like they dictate your choices, but they do have responsibility in taking advantage of human behaviour/psychology for profit, while disregarding their audience.
Unahim It's not so much that games are forcing people to do things, but rather they are knowingly taking advantage of people who are susceptible to those kinds of pressure. The skinner box reference that comes up in these discussions is not tangential - this is an area of behavioral psychology that is well understood. It's like an exploit for the human brain, and like most exploits it doesn't work the same on everyone or in every situation, but it's reliable enough to bank on. Gamers know that glitching their way inside terrain so that they can shoot people and not get shot in return is cheating even if the game itself doesn't stop you from doing it. Game designers should know the same thing about the systems they build. Obviously people will still do both of those things, but neither one should get a free pass on their behavior.
The problem with this is that the entire video downplays the player's agency. Yes, we know Skinner boxes work--but if your kid is crying in the next room and you even consider not putting the game down to take care of them, generally speaking you're a bad person. (I say "generally speaking" because I have three kids, and know that sometimes they cry for ridiculous reasons, like "I was put down for a nap". Common sense, people.) GAMES didn't ruin relationships, nor did game developers. PLAYERS opted to prioritize a game above their relationship. That's on them. Don't get me wrong: Exploitation exists, and can exist in game design. That should be addressed. But players don't get a free pass just because the developers used a lazy technique. Games are inherently more engaging than other media, and therefore players need to be more aware. This ties into game literacy in a way: A literate gamer should know when it's time to put down the controller and walk away. If the game is doing something to subvert that literacy, sure, that's a problem--but it's not the ONLY problem. We as players need to own our actions. We need to recognize Skinner boxes, we need to recognize gaming mechanics designed to exploit our Facebook Friends list. We need to see dangerous design for what it is. And we need to choose whether to play games that use it or not wisely.
James Verhoff They are arguing from the point of view of the industry. Of course people have self responsability. But they can't change who people are they can just change the game to avoid bad influences.
James Verhoff Trying to push for voluntary personal responsability feels noble on paper but rarely works, study after study has show that we are basically monkeys with cell phones with very limited self awareness and self control. Specially if we are doing something addictive.
That was a fantastic episode. Thank you, Extra Credits, for so comprehensively expressing how important it is that game design embrace the human aspect of its field. Compassion is something that appears to be absent in a lot of our modern industries and institutions; with the focus drawn to extrinsic factors like profitability or results, it has simply been forgotten. I believe compassion is one of the most important aspects of any endeavour - especially those that have far-reaching effects on peoples' lives. And I'm glad I'm not alone. Currently, I'm wrestling with the challenge of how to incorporate humane design into my future career as a teacher. From where I stand right now, the road seems long and hard, bound into ceaseless conflict with existing educational practices and institutions. I'm met with challenges every step of the way. But, somehow, knowing that this battle is being fought in other institutions and industries makes me more hopeful in the face of these bleak odds. So thank you, Extra Credits. Thank you for inspiring me to continue striving for what I know is right! :D
When I make games, I don't ever think about how a game would affect how much the player needs to keep playing, but how much he/she wants to keep playing. I don't want to make something like an MMO you see today or a generic online FPS, because those seem like cold profit margins. I like making experiences players won't forget, and on more of a personal level. Video games are amazing because they can provide the player with something that you just can't get with movies or books, because it can be a lot more personal and you can really feel a connection between the designer and the player. That's what you got so right with this video is that it's true that games can change people, and I'm surprised how much companies take advantage of that to be more profitable than instead to create an experience that will be remembered forever. Those are the kind of games you see on top 10 lists because they're something that stays in people's minds unlike countless COD games or the next FIFA's. It's not to say they aren't fun, they're just not as memorable as something like Bioshock Infinite or Journey. I think the problem lies in that more memorable games may get less attention, but the profit is steadier over longer periods of time, unlike the latest Battlefield where a new game is pumped out every year.
Few years ago I saw Jonathan Blow talk about this and it changed, enlightened how I think about games. Here's to hoping that this does the same to many more.
This was an amazing video. You guys have put into words a problem I knew existed, but could not vocalize. With all of the bad things that are being said about games we tend to say that games can't affect players just because that might get us off the hook. That is the wrong thing to do and I am glad you brought this up. I'm an aspiring game designer and I need to keep humane design in mind when working on games, because some day in the future I'd love for my games to affect someone in a positive way.
When I was a kid I was not into books or social activities and I found my escape in video games. The characters quickly became my role models and I made a lot of important decisions based on the though of "what would Selphie from FF8 do?" I got into playing instruments, archery, event management, kendo and much much more just from playing games with strong stories and characters Games can have an incredibly big impact on our lives, I know for a fact that they did have on mine
Ever since I started playing video games when I was a young kid back in 1997, I have always thought about what makes a good game. It has also made me think that video games have been a coping mechanism for me. When I was feeling down and needed to unwind, I would play a video game. Nowadays, I still play video games, but I realize now that I don't have as much time to play them since I have a job and a life to live. Thanks Extra Credits for covering this sensitive topic. This is one of the reasons why I love being subbed to this channel. I always get to learn about a topic from different perspectives.
Thank you guys so much for talking about this. This has been on my mind for a while now and it's an issue that needs to be drilled into not only game designers' minds, but in entrepreneurs and executives around. Social responsibility is far more important than milking your customers for profits just to increase your bottom line.
How can anyone put a dislike on a video like this? You may not agree with the message, but you can't deny that it is a beautifull mindset to develop games and, overall, it's for the better
I've seen this for a while now and its something I've been trying to tell my friends and colleagues for a while now but I just couldn't put it into words. Addiction wasn't the right word, it was more like an obligation, a job, people don't enjoy some games anymore but they still play them for hours on end damaging their social lives and it is just scary.
I really do think this is one of the most important episodes you guys have put out, Thanks again for believing in games and what they can achieve, sometimes I have doubts as to whether games are the right place for me; I see the games we create and the community being exclusionary, or just plain cruel. I think when that happens though I can come back to this episode and be sure we are contributing to something that matters. (also your EA episode from a while back serves that same purpose for me) You guys are the best, peace.
This is my favorite EC episode. "Humane Design" is something that needs to be more prevalent. I love games but sometimes I put them down because they take too much away from me.
I've always felt that a good game should be designed like a good book, while it should hook the viewer and keep them wanting to experience more, it should also be something that you can put down and think about at any time and allow the viewer to experience it at a pace that they are comfortable with.
Thanks for this. EC has always been about taking the high-road, and this is one of the best examples. I know you have implicitly expounded on this topic in many of your previous episodes. But it would be better if you could do a couple of episodes explicitly looking at different facets of humane design.
I loved what this video had to say. Skyrim and games like it took so much of my time because I gained somethings I was not getting in real life. But now, after the compulsion episode, I am applying my view of achieving game goals the same way to achieving real life goals. It helped me get a new job, get a gaming channel started here on youtube, become a better dad, cook better, and more! I'm still growing in this use of game goals in life, but it's starting to work out for me so much better. Thanks James and Extra Credits
Thank you, Extra Credits, for making the effort to share this message. Like you said, it is important to the industry that we acknowledge the need for humane design. If more developers would make the effort to prioritize humane design, the industry would be the better for it.
How depressing is that! That the idea of focusing on the player's enjoyment in an entertainment medium is something James gets laughed at for mentioning :/
ChannelShoreyo Such is our time. I've heard of a sports movie (no idea what it's called) in which a coach proposes the idea that his work should focus in the improvement of player's skills and not the optimization of his organization's results, and immediately gets fired for it. Pretty illustrative of the newest generation's thinking for the most part: mutual respect to them does not matter, and not bothering to keep your own word is somehow normal. And it's not a good thing. This inconsiderate, irresponsible attitude is leading the human species towards crashing into a wall.
You can be end-objective obsessed, or process obsessed. Focusing too much on either of these results in a bad product.
The fact that this video is such a delicate subject for so many people is a testament to just how accurate it is.
Crosby4hyg That is quite a falacy there! A rape accusation is also quite a "delicate subject" but they are not always accurate, so get your beleifs and and actual facts seperated. I think the approach in the video is coloured by a social justice narrative, and social justice warriors are usually teh folks who think video games are immoral, and at least they recognise that when they say that their argument could support the folks who are against gaming, since they have the same mentality in certain regards there. But that is just their view and not an accurate represenation on how gaming really is.
Drudenfusz Actually, I think they've represented both sides of the argument rather well with this one. Don't get me wrong, I love games. I've been a PC gamer for over 15 years. Obviously the EC guys do too, or else they wouldn't even have this channel.
That being said, I absolutely feel that there are games out there that are designed to keep the player playing long after they've lost interest. Games like CoD or WoW are perfect examples of this. Addiction shouldn't be something that game designers attempt to create, and anyone who says that there aren't games that already do this is delusional. I should also point out that comparing the sensitivity some gamers feel about discussing the unhealthy aspects of certain games to that of rape victims is completely and utterly asinine.
Crosby4hyg I took deliberatly an extrem example to make my case. And I don't think the skinner box is what made WoW that successful, people just want answers and when they have something to blame issues on, they don't care if that is reality or not, and I think EC has fallen into that trap when they decided to care more about their idea of how gaming should be than how gaming actually is.
Drudenfusz You haven't made a case though, at least not coherently. EC hasn't fallen into a trap at all, what they've done is state their opinion about ways to improve game design to make it less detrimental for the health of their players. It took a lot of courage for them to make a video like this one, because it runs the risk of offending a lot of people.
Take yourself for example. An apparent gamer who seems desensitized to the idea that games can absolutely have a negative effect on the people who play them. Of course games can also have a very positive effect, but the focus of this video was on the negative because they've already made plenty of videos about the latter.
Crosby4hyg I am not desensitised to the idea (and note that you are right, this is just an idea, not a fact, glad that you didn't tried to claim it would be one, like it happens so often with the game critics these days) that games can have negative impact, but that goes for every other medium as well! And I don't see the same outrage towards books and films these days that games recieve. Why is that? Maybe because we all accepted that usually people are capable of making their own judgement and doesn't take eveyrthing in any given story as some kind of truth, normal people can distinguish between reality and fiction. So, why is that so hard for you and others to accept that for gamers too?
I think that even players can tell when games are having a negative or positive impact on their life. They will recommend more often games that give value to their lives or provide them with a positive experience and avoid sticking to ones that are just time sinks or cause them to be put into a terrible mental state.
Didn’t expect to see you here!
I feel the same way.
"A surprise indeed, but a welcome one."
So does humane design...include a pause button?
Bomber Jac For singleplayer based games, of course. Otherwise we couldn't get up and go to the bathroom without backlash from the game.
Bomber Jac Yep. It goes as far back as, say, the early 1980s, when game systems like the Atari 5200 started including pause buttons because people had real lives to attend to in the middle of their gaming. Game saves, which came from personal computers, was the next step up from that.
Bomber Jac Maybe. But actually, I think in some games I pause when I'm in a tight spot just to catch my breath and thing through what I'm going to do but that kind of ruins the immersion and some of the excitement in my opinion. So I think there might be a bit of a gameplay benefit to not having a pause button.
Bomber Jac your Chef at work wont like that pause button, they will fk you in the a$$
Bomber Jac So I guess that Left 4 Dead had a good humane feature with the "pause the online game and be replaced by an AI" which everyone loved.
Thank you, Extra Credits. This is a difficult topic to talk about properly, it's very delicate, but you managed to do it *perfectly*. You were fair and didn't let anything unadressed. /applause
Unfortunately, "humane" and "mega-corporations" are opposites, so this lesson won't be learned by the big players in this industry (your EAs, your Ubisofts...). They *literally* see their players as " a money-generating engine" as you put it.
EDIT: Yeah I know some corporations are not totally guilty of this, but they're the minority.
SidheKnight Vote with your dollars. Don't buy from companies you don't support.
SidheKnight I think Nintendo does a really good job of this as well. They very consistently provide gameplay that doesn't waste anyone's time or punish those who have to stop playing for a while. I mean, sure, there are some spots in their games that feel tedious or boring, but they've proved time and time again that they learn from the criticism those spots get. Such as the triforce collecting in Wind Waker.
Here's the thing: indie startups that are trying to make it as a business are under even more pressure to make a profit because their future depends on it. So we can't focus all of our scorn on huge corporations.
Alexander Roderick I think the proof is in the pudding, though. Look at companies like Ska Studios, Supergiant, Team ICO et al. There's been a consistent output of indie games that try to innovate (or at the very least put out quality product); a significantly higher ratio of good-game-to-shovelware than corporate game makers.
Jake Pillsbury The thing with Nintendo is that they incorporate it into their gimmicky consoles instead of their games. The problem is still there, just in a different format; though I will admit to a far lesser degree.
Whoever at Blizzard who came up with the "play seven competitive Overwatch games per week or else your SR will decay" idea really needs to watch this video.
'The most profitable games in the world don't try to guilt trip their players'
**cough** Daily IP bonus **cough**
KittXenn How is that a guilt trip? On the surface, it seems like it can be seen as a reward for people who have less time to play. (I am not a LoL player, though, so maybe I'm not understanding how it works.)
KittXenn Personally I think this system is more of a "reward for playing" rather than a "punishment for not playing." It's such a small amount of currency that you don't miss out on much if you don't get it.
I see the element of "dude I gotta play League today or that free 150 IP will go to waste!" tho, but I don't think that this is the issue of guilt tripping. I think that guilt tripping is more like the LP decay system but if it were applied to IP while still keeping the daily IP bonus.
Ugh...
There's a difference between rewarding a player and punishing them
NinjaLobsterStudios I agree that the bonus IP is not a way to punish people by making they regret not playng the game that day, but - speaking as a League player - League really does do every single one of the "not humane" stuff presented on the video:
First they speak of exit points, and League has none. It is a game without checkpoints or ending, there is no save and no pause. It is arguable that every game might be an ending point, but even if you consider it being, it is not in the same way they suggest in the video;
Second topic is 'habituating players to get them to play on a schedule', and that is part of what league does with its bonus IP (and bonus XP during your first days/weeks or w/e of playing the game - period during which you're more succectible to get habituated) - they get you to play everyday.
On the 'guilt as a motivator/having something more important to do' I'd say that League's system to exploit this aspect of our nature are the limited time events - as an anecdotal exemple I have a friend who was REALLY bummed to be travelling for work during the last URF, he got really sad for not being able to play, and hearing us commenting on it - that is some degree of guilt tripping.
Third topic is 'making you push the game on your friends' - I guess this sin is the one that they are less guilty - the only system in place is the Refer a Friend, and it changes much since the time I began playing, from an impossible task, to something you didn't remember, to something you complete with some smurfs. Even though the game urged you to push the game to your friends in the years closest to their launch (even making Items for Wriggle and Athene, who brought thousends of players), they stopped it, and the game is best played in groups, so the friends I invited would be invited anyways.
Now, the part that is more important to me, in the video they state that '[games like league] rely on making the player wanting to play the game, and not feeling like they have to'; and that '[thhey don't] pressure you into paying money' I feel like I HAVE to play the game OR pay money. I have about 50 champions, that I bought on IP only during my 3+ years of playing the game, I don't play much, but I really like having diverse options, I like having different champions, because playing every time with a different one is fun for me. But I can't, I can't because I don't have the ones that I want to play, once I got home striving for a malphite game, but I didn't have the champion, he wasn't in free week and even though I had the IP, I was saving because I HAD to buy runes, since they were putting me at a real disadvantage every single early game, independant of match-up. This kills fun, and tells you you should have played more, so you already had the IP and the champions and the runes or that you can pay.
All in all, I used a lot of anecdotal "evidence" but it was just to illustrate better my point of view, not to prove my point or to convince people that I'm right. People can disagree, I think the only sure thing is that League is NOT a prime exemple of humane design.
KittXenn
I'd like to compare it to watching a TV show. It's the same time of the day at the same day of the week every week. Do I feel like my life is vanishing before my eyes because I have succumbed to the shedule of the station? Nope. I've just put 30-60 minutes of the day aside for something I enjoy watching.
Same is with the daily IP bonus in LoL. I put aside some time to play it, some private time. And since the daily works on a 22 hour-timer (which, in turn, guarantees that I get the daily reward, unlike a 24 hour-timer which becomes very problematic in the long run), that's fine. If I want to do several games or even an all-nighter, that's completely optional and something I've decided for myself, nothing in the game really rewards me for doing that.
1:27 I was at an amusement park and was upset after getting soaked on a water ride when I got Rickrolled on the speaker system. Ironically, I immediately felt better...
It's a really good song, so I can see why.
Luke Raus like a blooper after being blue and red shelled in Mario Kart, the final straw in the series of unfavorable events becomes comical.
Welcome to the Affected By Art Club! : )
Wow that's NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP, NEVER GONNA LET YOU DOWN, NEVER GONNA RUN AROUND AND, DESERT YOU!!!!!!!!!!
Gaming that improves the gamers is a concept that I hope everyone learns in time. I am a better person every day because of the worlds I get to save, the bosses I get to beat, and the puzzles I get to solve in games and I take that goodness with me into the real world. Thanks for another amazing video!
Wait a minute, thinking this would make you LOSE a job? That's messed up.
No. What he ment is that bringing up this topic could be stepping on the toes of big AAA devs such as ea ect ect thus making it hard for him to find work in this industry in the future.
Well, yeah... Fuck EA, and every dev like them.
Stephan Stross James consults with game designers on their games, if a development team is trying to make a inhumane game they might not give him a call if they're aware of his opinion on them.
Yeah, that's the kind of thing I meant, and it's horrible.
Aeiluindae Can I just say I'm not surprised EA bought them?
Good example of humane design: Portal. Excellent game, though brief. How many times have you played that 4-5 hour game? How many videos have you watched of that same game? A good movie/game isn't the longest one, but the one you watch/play a hundred times, and still go back to it.
3:03 "It's sometimes easier to start seeing players as a money generating engine rather than people"
Case in point: Mortal Kombat X's pre-order Goro and tons of ridiculous microtransactions.
illdiewithoutpi still happenin now. Most recently star wars battlefront 2
For me, the game that has had the most of what this video is talking about has been Minecraft. I don't play it much now days, but in the past I've enjoyed spending time with my brothers crafting away on our countless projects or thinking about how I would change my castle to fit something else. It was a pretty awesome game.
Sadly, these kinds of experiences rarely come for large corporate games, but the smaller indie projects or old titles we enjoy.
this is why i love you people! as for me im a guy who wants to get into this whole game dev shenanigans because i love how emersive enjoyable and simply fun games can be! Findung treasure in a dungeon having a fun chat with that one optional reapearing character you like or traversing the gameworld youre in! world building by the devs even with things like having different customers apearing in a shop because its a shop! or getting visible use out of something you find or defeat like getting a special item(food weaponry etc). and this combined with the visuals and ost is what faczinates me about this subject.
i love games and i want to make games. fun games. nothing more nothing less!
sincerly Andy from austria!
if youre reading this have a great morning day evening or night!
4:53 - Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild's instant pausing. Might not work for other games, definitely wouldn't work for multi-player, but I personally love that system to DEATH, and I have used it for SO MANY mid-battle snacking or wardrobe-changing hijinks. Plus, sometimes I'm in the middle of a fight, but a family member needs me for something, so I just boop the map or inventory button, see what they need, and then get right back to wrecking bokoblins. I LOVE it
This entire video made me think about Destiny, and how it is the quintessential example of inhumane game design. Addicting, scheduled events that punish you for not being able to play...
Ooh god this was an amazing episode!
I totally agree on all these points.
I am so tired of games that guilt trip me into playing.
I hate games that put a TIME LIMIT on using something in game like a buff or a boost and it counts down when I don't even use it!
It's mechanics that just make me go: Why?! Why can't I just buy 7 hours when I want to use them insted of 24 hours RIGHT NOW?!
You know what I like about most games?
I can play them and come back to them later and smile.
In MMO's and mostly F2P games. I want to come back and enjoy it still.
And mostly I do.
It is true I need to be set towards a goal in the game like getting that shiny item or shiny weapons. But I also don't want it to be a chore.
Getting that super rare item I don't mind grinding for if the grind is fun.
You know what.. you should totally do an episode on that.
MAKE THE GRIND FUN!
Make me want to work for those levels and ENJOY IT!
Don't let me fight 2000 monsters just to get to the level that is needed to progress.
As that's boring grind.
If this item is rare and hard to get. Then don't put it behind a grind or RNG. Put in different ways to obtain it.
TF2 does this exactly:
If I want a certain item I can approach it from 4 angles.
"Buy it, Trade it, Grind it, Make it"
Either I use my wallet to buy said item.
Or I trade what I own to get said item.
Or I play alot of games and hope it will drop or get more stuff...
Or I make it with the junk I have.
It's why I think tf2 does the free to play the best way.
Unless it comes to lockboxes since that stuff is just horrible. Though for me they don't lessen the expirence since it's just a special version of siad item.
kotlolish Grinding you say? *Cough* Fairy Fencer F *Cough Cough*
Green Sonic No name no shame buddy!
Yeah or games that remind you of how long its been since you last played. Ingress is a big offender on this. If you go to bed or do somthing else and its been 15 hours the game says its starting to worry about you. I honestly dont like that aspect even thought the game is getting me up and walking.
***** Even it's silly at that point I am litterly buying out my grind time. Even if the grind is fun.
Kushaba_Akami That's usually an insta-uninstall for me. I don't tolerate that shit.
It really says something about the industry when this is considered to be a controversial standpoint.
I agree with every single word in this video, but... come on, League and DOTA are the perfect example of how NOT to make humane design
as far as I understand, both LoL & DOTA 2 have Skinner Box mechanics (DOTA 2 less than LoL). still, I think EC would argue that both of these games r examples of tame usage of Skinner's exploits, compared to WoW, or Farmville
Extra Credits did a great two-parter on game addiction (s3:e6 and e7). In that light well I know a couple of people that are pretty knee deep in LoL and DOTA. Some of them are using it correctly but some of them are just...
For those of you that have seen this video from start to finish. Well... You Have Be Effected By Art. Just WOW James and Extra Credits. My Hat Is Off To YOU.
I am so glad you guys talked about this. I've tried to put this forward to others, about how artists and even technologists have a "guiding" social responsibility towards the consumers of their creations. Unfortunately extreme capitalism has become SUCH a norm that it is almost impossible to explain this to people who don't already agree.
Karn Kaul The ironic thing though, is that from a capitalistic point of view, this a dumb thing to do to begin with. The more you treat your customer base like trash, the more they'll move away from you. Shows how short-sighted people can turn when they go on too long without self-examination, I suppose.
Ghost7856 What is a dumb thing to do to begin with - to focus on content or sales?
Karn Kaul To try to keep players glued to your product regardless of quality. It may work for a while, but as a matter of fact, the longer it lasts, the worse the crash will be for you when it stops. And it WILL stop.
Ghost7856 Yes, I completely agree. It's astonishing how long the big corps have managed to dupe the public into consumerism. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it.
Karn Kaul Ugh. I really dislike how people blame capitalism for these problems. These sorts of things would happen in any society--if they're not happening, you're in a utopia, and if you're in a utopia, you're not in the real world.
J.C.Penny's fair and square pricing.
LarlemMagic Exactly, even if the industry tried this for an entire decade, most Stupid people who pay for everything would get bored and go get sucked into some other Scummy conflict-addicted entertainment medium instead like they already have with Twitter and Netflix dramas. Good Game designers are REALISTS at heart
That pricing effect has nothing to do with the actual content of the game. The point of the J.C. Penny effect is that people will value something as greater despite its actual quality if it is marked as a higher price. That is not related to the actual content of the product or the game, there's nothing about humanistic game design that makes the perceived value of games decline! Do you look at a modern shooter and think "Ooh, it has a skinner-box design crafted into its systems, that's worth buying!"? No, and removing such exploitative systems does not lower a game's perceived value at all. Get of this apparent "realist" bandwagon and think of what you're saying!
ilr But Netflix has really good TV. That, and there has lately been the rise of the independent game, (usually) dedicated to the innovation they can brong to the genre. Roguelikes, for example, have been brought back solely by the effort of indies.
Preferabubbly NotRealNamearoo no, the skinner box game won't say "skinner box" in big red letters on the cover, it will use any possible trick to make players think it's worth more, like "FREE coins if you log in every day", "BONUS gold if you buy the super awesome pack of awesomeness", the JC penny/humane would give the same stuff, but saying "this is what it's actually worth", both games being sold at the same price, but the other one pretending to actually be more valuable, is exactly what happened to JC penny.
We're a lot more aware of the tricks of the F2P trash than of retailers.That and the JC Penny episode is more concerned with the feel of design decisions, and not necessarily about Skinner Boxes.
As someone who wasted 2 years of their life with the foolish notion that i could somehow make a living by playing Diablo 3 or Entropia or by playing the Forex stock-market (which i'll admit cost me a LOT more money and stress than playing those 2 games combined), i'm going to share this video to every Social Media outlet where i have some kind of presence, in the blind hope that it'll reach someone with even a modicum of power to change things.
Video games income whether pro-league or other form is always short term income.
neferiusnexus when it comes to making money off of video games I always think about two things.
1: if it's possible to gain money, it's possible to lose money.
2: if the game continues to be in business, more people are losing money than are making it.
now there are a few exceptions, but those two reasons are why I avoid potential "money making opportunities" in games.
The way he pronounces "art" is adorable
I believe the bigger question at hand is "How to make ethical capitalism?"
Is it even possible to make capitalism, ethical?
Is it even possible to divide by zero?
If everyone gets together purely for the purpose of solving the equation we could probably do it, however no one is going to get everyone together to do so.
Capitalism isn't inherently unethical. There are only three situations when capitalism grows to immoral.
1) Excessive regulation prevents effective market competition that drives monopolies and allows businesses to exploit both consumers and employees WITHOUT any market consequence.
2) Privatization of industries that are fundamentally humanitarian creates businesses that literally thrive on exploiting people (private prisons).
3) Large businesses are not overseen and conglomerate to create a oligarchic situation. This, combined with bailing out these huge businesses, makes them immune to market competition and allows them to be exploitative.
In all other situations, businesses benefit from being ethical in their treatment of consumers and employees because there are, presumably, businesses who do treat them ethically that could serve to take your business from them.
Thank you. But: economics (efficiency, optimalisatio ) and morality oppose each other on some points. It is an ideal. But certainly one worth believing in.
The problem arises when the individual values the money construct over what it can buy. When you mostly view thing's value in dollars rather then the thing's inherent and subjective value, you leave the door open for abuse of the abstract system that is capitalism.
This is what made me lose any love I had for the industry when I worked in it. So on point. Thank you.
This is why Extra Credits is easily my favourite channel about gaming, bar none. James just gets it, he just fucking gets it.
This is a pretty brilliant video. I actually thought of Paper Mario when you were talking about this: unlike most RPGs, there are anti-grind measures so if you plow through the game and skip battles, you will get more experience for being able to beat the characters at a lower level, thus allowing you to progress very quickly. If you grind too much, the game will reward you less experience to encourage you to progress through rather than allow you to become an OP player. You can hit save blocks around the world so you can save, quit the game, and return back to the same exact location. And the story is not about global despair or anguish, nor does it make you believe that the entire world is filled with crooks. The game even makes it a point to give you party members of the same species as your enemies, and even deep in the heart of Bowser's Castle, you'll find friendly NPCs among the enemy horde, as if the game wants to prevent itself from implying racism with the character designs.
Paper Mario goes so far out of its way to be humane that gets flak for being too "easy" compared to other RPGs, but these are the qualities that makes it so great. The Thousand Year Door was more difficult, and the world was not as innocent, but it continues many of Paper Mario's humane design choices. If only other games stuck with this mentality.
"consider what our goals are"
Hmm...
Our goals:
#1. Construct memetic weapon...
#2. Deploy that wea... oh, wait, we're talking about ethical goals...
He thinks he´s people!
Jokes, and humaneness aside, I´ve recently read some good advice about writing, and I think it can help with games too: authors sometimes forget they´re creating for the end user, so it´s important to think what kind of experience and/or message you´re trying to communicate with your work. Look at it as a consumer, not a creator - what are you communicating? Is it working - are you producing the experience you aimed to produce when you started working? Would you pay for it, if you were the end consumer? If it wouldn´t, maybe you should cut it, or change it. Think what your aim for this scene/level/whatever is _before_ you start working on it.
For me, the Last of Us was an absolutely incredible experience. It had me near tears in the first ten minutes. It often wasn't fun. It often wasn't joyous but it was definitely time very well spent. While I agree with the need to shift away from getting players to spend as much time as possible within the game, I disagree that it needs to be a shift to letting players enjoy games the most. I believe it need to be a shift to engaging the players the most. Of course, that's just me.
Mokgore I'm pretty sure they meant engagement rather than fun.
Mokgore Dunoid Yeah, they've already talked about "fun" and all the different emotional ways you can have fun in the game.
Mokgore I feel that a game is "Humane" if its players want to play it because the game evoked strong feelings in them. You don't watch Bladerunner because it makes you feel happy, you watch it because it makes you think, and feel existential terror. In the same way, you play Amnesia to feel scared, you play Dark Souls to feel achievement & superiority, you play The Last of Us to feel sad, and you play Speedrunners to feel joy.
The purpose of art, be it a book, a painting, an article, a movie, a play, or game, is to make you *feel*. What makes a a game inhumane is if it leverages your time and emotional investment in the game to sell you the emotion of power at a ridiculous price (pay to win), turn you into an advertising machine ("Get more energy by inviting your friends to play Farmville"), punish you for not playing it ("loyalty" rewards for signing in every day), or giving rewards that having nothing to do with skill, but rather are given only for playing the game for an insanely long time (Some of the Call of Duty progression systems, or loot grinding in Diablo 3).
Mokgore I think you may be equivocating the ideas of "enjoying" a game, and having a game "make you happy". My favorite book is Tolkien's "The Children of Hurin". There is *nothing* happy about that book. I do, however, enjoy reading it very much. It is satisfying in a different way. Now, I have not played "The Last of Us" myself, but I suspect you are describing a similar experience. A thing one enjoys does not necessarily make one "happy". I believe you and EC may actually be saying the same thing.
You cried at the last of us? I was more annoyed that they pulled the generic evil military shit like everything ever made to care about that girl we spent 5 minutes with.
This is something that is so important, but never realized, I sincerely appreciate the folks at extra credits for bringing it to my attention.
While the call of duty model is shitty, lets get real here for a moment; No one is forcing you to buy them over and over again, and if you let it get to the point where you wrecked your own economy or ruined your relationship, odds are you have some form of issue, and you would have found another way to do this anyway.
freakymoejoe2 But the system they have set up a compulsion/cycle; if Cod 2 had not superseded Cod 1, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
When Cod 2 came out, enough people bought it that people who kept playing Cod 1 were left in the dust, so every time a new Cod comes out, it's just part of that cycle
AK Misc
Ofcourse, my point wasnt that the call of duty model doesnt suck, my point was that call of duty hasnt 'ruined lives', if you have been buying so many Cod games that you actively went bankrupt or pushed away loved ones, then thats a sympton of some greater issue that the person in question already suffers from, and it would find a way to come out regardless.
CoD doesnt have the power to induce such problems in its playerbase.
freakymoejoe2 the thing is, a lot of these games do subconsciously force you to buy the next game by making it tug on your dopamine glands to make it a very real addiction. even well past the point of being fun.
freakymoejoe2 It may not be "forcing" as in putting a gun to someone's head, but they're using every tool in the box they have to get you addicted to it. That's the whole skinner box thingy, really.
So no, they're not forcing you to, but they'll try the hardest they can to manipulate those chemicals in your brain to get you to do it again.
More the methods of a creepy cult than a gangster, but still pretty fucking coercive.
EvilPlagueDoctor That doesn't change the fact that it is still the player's fault for letting things go too far. If someone throws their life away because of a game, you can't blame the game or its creators for that, at least not entirely.
I wouldn't, say, blame a drug dealer for a druggie stabbing someone for drug money, but I would say the dealer was facilitating the druggie's problem. Likewise, a game dev isn't to blame for the destructive behavior of a player, but they are facilitating that behavior.
Regardless, players who go to those lengths likely have other issues, and a game can't be held responsible for issues outside their control.
I agree with EC that games shouldn't do such things, but I wouldn't say that they shouldn't because of factors beyond their control.
I love how this channel understands the hearts of gamers and aims to legitimately change how games are made and played. Subbing 4 layf!
Thank You for doing this episode. I agree fully. I hope more people see this. If these news outlets really want to talk about gaming without the usual torches, pitchforks, and parents groups...They should feature this video
When you mentioned about pausing the game, that got me thinking about a mechanic/dynamic idea that I might start to toy around with to see how it works for a game I'm making. This idea is: I'll have a variable called 'can_pause' which would determine if the player can pause the game. It's a sliding scale that if the player is in direct conflict, too close to an enemy while in stealth mode, or asked to make a time critical choice or calculation, then the player can't pause the game. This makes the interactions more life-like in the way that you can't just pause these time-critical moments to search the web for the answer or decide for longer than your character can. This can bring a facet of the real world immersion of decision making to the player, where decisions can hold just as much personal weight. Just like real life, the player doesn't have to engage, if the player's short on time or they get interrupted, the player can usually make a time-strategic move to evade the conflict or the situation. Doing this in certain places at certain times however may cause negative or different effects for their player down the line, but if the player needs to stop, they're always at least 2 minutes away from a 'can_pause' opportunity. Even though this system could be abused for malicious purposes, hopefully this is a means of more enjoyable and immersive play when done with good intent in mind.
lol since when do mobas have humane design?
This is exactly what I was thinking when I watched. MOBAs are all about incremental progression that you're classically conditioned to complete as an obligation. Daily logins, daily match bonuses, high-cost characters that don't come with the base game, etc. Then there's the issue of scheduling, since they can't just be picked up or put down on a whim.
Not to say that they can't be fun. But, they're definitely not even close to the most humanely designed games.
Exactly. I'm playing Dota probably for 7 or 8 years already. Dota started as warcraft 3 custom mod map in 2003. More than 10 years passed and we have Dota 2 now, but it still doesn't have a system to leave a match without consequences for you and your team. If in 2003 it was just limitation of the engine, but now it isn't the thing anymore..
I see no human design in that.
Dean Cutler technically you can leave about 2 times in 20 matches or so without consequences, yes. But as I said - your team is gonna be screwed in most cases for the rest of the game. And the solution is pretty simple - add an option for players to join the match, where someone has left.
Dean Cutler it is always easy to seat on your butt and do nothing. And it is free as well.
You can reward people, who is joining the losing team with leaver by giving them a little bit more points after the match if they win. And punish them less, if they lose.
And nobody says that you should *switch* from LPO to the new solution. You can combine both things together.
+Inviter42 Dots fanboy much?
That Lee and Clem Clem picture though... Thank you, Scott.
And thank you for this episode, guys. Video games have had both a negative and positive influence on my life. But because they've got me to the milestones, achievements, and dreams I currently have, I hope to spread what the positive things they've taught me to future generations with my games. You always know how to hit things on the nail. People appreciate the work you all do. (Especially you, Soraya)
League of Legends and dota 2 are NOT good examples of humane design! You think being forced into a hour-long match with threat of punishment if you leave is humane? And they have the same addictive leveling and tempting microtransactions that are far too popular these days.
Other than that, this is a fantastic video pointing out why the people who hate the free2play microtransaction game model do hate it. Also, who laughed at James for daring to like or want humane game design? Only pro-greed pro-abuse assholes would laugh at these ideas.
I flipped and uninstalled Dota 2 when I got punished for HAVING to leave 2 matches on seperate occasions
+Ryan Bissonnette I don't think it is a BAD design choice, but it certainly is a different way to tackle the way you spend time in a game. On the first hand you've GOT to play at least an hour if you want to fight other champions in this MOBA, but on the other hand, once you've had that one hour of game, nothing forces you to start an other hour again.
One thing it forces you to do though, is to tackle your time differently and actually organize yourself so you'll be sure you've got an hour ahead of yourelf to fully enjoy the match.
+Ryan Bissonnette You think that leaving your team in the middle of a game where each person on the team counts is humane? They don't punish you because you stopped playing they punish you because you are ruining 4 other peoples game experience.
Shehryar Ali What if we're forced to leave because of unpredictable circumstances? If somebody called you to say a family member was having a heart attack and you needed to go to the hospital and you'd just started a DOTA 2 match, would you say, 'Okay, just gotta finish this HOUR LONG MATCH!'?
+ToxicPenguin But they do not punish you unless you do this repeatedly. I can leave due to unforeseen circumstances with no issue, but unless you like a ridiculously chaotic or unlucky life, you won't have such circumstances crop up in a gaming session several times in a short span of time.
This video actually made me rethink the games I've been playing and how much time I've been wasting on chores rather than having fun...
So, stupid question, but where do the Soul's games fit in with this? Demon's, Dark Souls 1 and 2, and Bloodborne?
LaZodiac Only players who look for a challenge buy those games. No one buys them with an expatcation that the game will be easy and nice...sooo....i...guess....there is your answer
LaZodiac well, I guess the souls series fits into the area of "lets make our game so hard that it takes hundreds of hours to beat" sort of thing.
LaZodiac The games autosaves at every step, are balanced in a way that you can loose half of your souls without problems, are REALLY satisfatory in the combat and specially level design. And don't handhold you.
And at least to me, they really give me a "Zen" state, similar to shmup's
***** I don't feel compelled to keep playing, even if the game takes 1000 hours to beat, I can, at ANY point just put down the controller and come back at any time. There's no "cliff hangers", no "level up and collect" bullshit, there's not even a farm system. It's a progressive straight forward game.
oh, IT'S HARD? well, I actually like to ENJOY the game instead of farming or doing menial tasks. I know you enjoy shit like farmville, but I don't.
LaZodiac They highly respect the player
Good for you EC, that was a very centered and moral decision you made to build and air this segment. Wish there were more like you guys out there in the media.
God, the picture in 5:18 is so cute :3
This is one of my favorite episodes you have done so far. Thank you for this.
I guess Destiny is the most inhumane game ever made...
these are the kind of powerful episodes that I enjoy so much from you guys. I think you are amazing, and I wish you never stop, because the future of games will benefit so much from having you around.
As the video was getting started, I was thinking this was a veiled shot against Hatred (which I am totally going to buy and play), but it took a swerve on me. I agree that designers shouldn't be trying to lock in their players as a way to sustain a revenue stream, as opposed to making the game engaging and players simply wanting to throw their money at you, but that shouldn't me we can't have games that you dedicate yourself to.
Online sports titles in particular, but anything with a somewhat fixed match length, like a MOBA, should still be encouraged. Committing yourself to a short section of play is no different than signing up for a sports league or any other hobby, and it would help if the developers or community managers could somehow convince players of and encourage them to make arrangements for their life outside of their game in the same way an adult on an amateur sports league might - don't schedule it too much, hire a babysitter, don't schedule it opposite of your job, etc.
Desirsar Well, one, I disagree completely with your stance on Hatred, that is the worst way to celebrate your mediums artistic freedom, but two, EC is more talking about games that require you to play days on end. Games like Vindictus and Maplestory, the Call of Duty series and the AC games, even games like Bloodborne (even for as great of a game it is, you can't deny the Chalice Dungeons are simply cheap ways to extend playtime) are all slowly starting to suffer from the mentality that in order for you to progress, you have to put the game above all others.
They're serioous when they say that games like this have actually ruined peoples lives, and it's because of a widespread, much larger problem in modern cultures idea of "capitalism" - money above all else.
EC stepped in some heavy rain here- it's a topic that's already being discussed, but at much larger stakes, mostly having to do with the middle east.
Muhammad Gheith Basically, looking at players as income, not as actual people, is a huge deficit to the industry. You think piracy is widespread simply because people are dicks? No, piracy wouldn't be this problematic if games hadn't built such a reputation of being an entire lifestyle.
Videos like this are why I love Extra Credits: because it isn't just about the games, but about the people who make and play them.
If more RUclips gaming channels embraced that philosophy....
I've been wondering, since this has come up a bit. What about making games that cater to the introverted?
Plenty of games have mechanics that help extroverted people bring in more friends and make even more friends to help them, but this oftentimes becomes a necessity which can be somewhat painful if you just want to enjoy the game by yourself.
Games you /can/ play alone tend to be /just alone/ games too. Why not make something you can do both with?
This is a very powerful message, and one that I could understand right away.
The other day, a few friends invited me to go out just as I had begun an important mission (in a game that will be unnamed.) I felt so strange while I turned down the offer right in their face, without even looking away from the game. It wasn't until later that what I really felt hit me. I was ashamed that I felt I had to turn them down, when I knew spending time with them was much more precious.
I'm guessing this could have been avoided if the player recruitment mechanics made for more flexible and efficient squad formation.
Wow, what a mind blowing topic
We shouldn't be dicks to our customers
Can't believe that this was actually addressed.... good for you guys.
100% agreed with this.
I have a lot of respect for extra credits for going through a very touchy topic but still being fair and just. Well done!!!
I have a question for a future episode. Why are so many tutorial/cute sidekick characters in video games so annoying? I'm thinking characters like Navi in Zelda games, Claptrap in Borderlands, or that dragonfly thing in Spiro.
+Ettina Kitten HEY, LISTEN! It's me, your fairy. Let's go bowling!
+CheeseCoatedChopper =] I get it
Claptrap is awesome :(
+Ettina Kitten the dragonfly is named sparks in the spyro games from insomniac at least.
+Ettina Kitten the dragonfly is named sparks in the spyro games from insomniac at least.
I feel like this is the reason I generally remember and enjoy indie games more. They arn't asking me to play them forever, they are just asking me to experence what they have to offer. I don't know if they have talked about this game before, but A Story About My Uncle sereously affected me emotionally. It kept me up at night wondering about how to feel about the whole experence, how I thought it was going to make me feel, and how it actually made me feel. It helped me cope with the fact that life is not fair sometimes, which really helped me cope with the loss of so many loved ones these past few years. It did all this over the span of about 3 hours! Papers Please is another great example. The constant battle between doing with what you think is right, and what you boss tells you is hard, but whatever you pick you have to roll with and move on with your life in order to take care of your family. You have to forget the small stuff and focus on what is most important, which a sociology professor might tell you is wrong but I digress. These games have made me think differently, and kept me wanting to play, but never made me feel like I have to forever.
Would really bad RNG be the opposite of humane design? Because I have killed thousands of Manacs in warframe... Still have yet to see them to drop a damn thing other than ammo... I want that new claw stance so bad @_@
Kinzuko F*@& Warframes RNG! How many boss runs did I do to get my damned Ghost Warframe?
I play Destiny now and I have to laugh when people their complain about RNG. AT least in Destiny there is a nice vendor to stop by and sell random end-game gear. Last time I checked in Warframe all I got was a middle finger and told to go grind more to get a chance at grinding for the frame I wanted.
Destiny has much worse grinding, at least in warframe you can work toward something to a point.
***** How so? Are marks not a set way of "Working towards" something? They are consistent and have no RNG in the reward. The crucible Pulse Rifle is one of the best PR in the game and you get everything you need by playing any mode of PvP.
Has WF added anything remotely as forgiving as the vendors from Destiny for its end game gear? Because Vendor gear allows you to do everything but the hard mode raid.
Travis Bewley You buy blueprints from markets, you go to worlds that you know will give you those things and those things only.
***** Yea but the RNG can cause that one part part you need from dropping like crazy, unless they have fixed that. I remember needing one part for my frame that you get from a boss and I got 10 and 12 of the other two parts, no counting every time it didn't drop.
At leaste in Destiny you can do any activity you want with an equal chance of dropping any item. In Warframe you end up grinding the same stage over and over.
I have nothing to add, but I wanna say thank you. This is a message that needs to be heard. I'm so glad to hear you standing up on this. I hope it helps. I hope to hear more. Thank you.
This resonates so well with this Kotaku article: www.kotaku.com.au/2016/12/why-i-regret-beating-dooms-ultra-nightmare-mode/
2:43 Why was he laughed at? That makes so much sense.
So is this desire to capture time why major RPGs are hundreds of hours long?
Pikirii Keling There is a huge difference between make a hooking game and an inviting game. A hooking game tries to make it nice for you to begin playing and once you are sunk in, you are penalized for not playing frequently/all the time. an inviting game CAN take lots of hours, but instead, they let you leave whenever you desire, should you need/want to. Addiction happens to inviting games, sure, but that's already personal responsibility. Hooking games are responsible by guilt tripping people who, may under certain circumstances have a poor personal responsibility, to get addicted and have aspects of their personal life ignored. That's the point of the video.
Pikirii Keling I'm not sure about that, there's been a sense of "wtf, this only lasted 6 hours and I'm already done so not worth my money" not that long ago so it might also be overcompensation on that. Plus this is talking more about getting penalized for not being active in the game, like losing opportunities for not putting x amount of time in a day x days a week or not being able to put it down for 10 minutes to take care of something due to no actual pause in the game.
Pikirii Keling Probably. I mean, after you've completed an RPG, there usually isn't that much replayibility. You can't really play with friends, you can't make your own levels, you can try to make different choices in the storyline, but you will still be hacking and slashing your way through enemies just the same as before. If you make them long, it feels like you are getting more utility from it; honestly though, you could probably get the same amount of satisfaction if the same game only took fifty-to-seventy hours (maybe slightly more, I don't know) or even less than fifty to complete (though I mean 'get to the good, bad, and whatever other ends of the story', not 'Completionist complete').
Pikirii Keling That's the thing about RPGs though. There are exceptions that have worthwhile storylines but don't have grindy combat or lots of pointless backtracking. I was reminded of one such game when I was visiting my younger brother last night, helping him though one of that game's worst dungeons and seeing with critical eyes how well designed it really was. It was confusing and longer than the average dungeon, but it still took less time to get through than most.
There are various reasons for the length of RPGs.
1. The story is just that massive. the writers wrote out a ton of material for the story, and most of it made it into the game.
2. Grinding: The game is designed around a hero (or team) that advances 99 levels instead of just 20. This means each level has a smaller benefit, but the player can "enjoy" gaining more levels this way.
3. The player base expects the game to be worth their money. They're not going to pay $60 for a game that's just 5 hours long.
4. Tons of side-quests: The main story of the game is actually rather brief, but there are so many optional side-quests it just makes the game seem to take forever.
It's episodes like this that are the reason I keep watching you guys. Thank you for this.
Animal Crossing punishes you HEAVILY for not playing it religiously.
ScarletFame That would only happen, like when you haven't played it for more than a month. Don't cite me on that, by the way, but if you haven't played it for more than a month than that means you're not _interested_ in the game, and that would be your fault for buying a game that you wouldn't be interested in either way.
What you're saying here is something I - and many others - have been saying for a long time, but to hear you say it is significant. You guys are well known, but also, you have a tendency to rationalize away all the problems of videogames.
In other words: when Extra Credits is no longer on board, I think it's safe to say that the worm has turned and we ought to start seeing some changes soon.
Awww, It was really sweet at the end.
Yes I'm male and I called it "sweet". Sue me. :P
+DBZHGWgamer So we have to use a public domain adjective like "unsalty" then?
+DBZHGWgamer Aww, that was really Umami.
Doesn't have the same ring to it, I'll just pay the royalties.
Well aren't you a special snowflake. Do you want a medal?
zzuxon yes I do gimme that medal.
Man, as a programmer, this hit hard. This further just inspires me to make moving experiences. Real ones. With meaning. Thanks extra credits.
Add a pause button, Dark Souls!
This episode really put to words an issue that I have been having with gaming recently. Thank you.
Humane Design - Like making exiting a game as simple as ESC->Quit. None of this "Exit to Main Menu" shit, or "Are you SURE you want to quit?" Just get me out of the fucking game.
Some people may accidentally hit the esc key though.
Jahooba And sometimes you do want to exit to menu to load up a different save or edit your options if not possible in game. I mean if you're on the main menu and you press esc it should exit you out but really it should be something like
esc 1: pause
esc 2: exit to main menu?
esc 3: main menu
esc 4: exit
(esc in any drop down menu: back up one spot)
That way you can just spam the esc button but if you accidentally hit the esc button while playing or in the pause options menu you can get back to the game by just pressing enter to resume or "no" to get back to the menu.
Jahooba Not to mention the knowledge that the next time you start it up you will sit through 30+ seconds of licensing bullshit wank
Jahooba I played Dungeon Defenders 2 today and saw they added a "Exit to Desktop" button with click OK to confirm in the ESC menu. previously and depending on where you are in the game, there was only "press ESC, click Leave, click OK to confirm, wait for tavern to load, press ESC, click leave, click OK to confirm, click Quit, click OK to confirm, and finally you're back to Desktop!"
This is definitely one of the best EC videos and probably one of the best to start with because this is essentially your philosophy on game design. If you aren't viewing people as people, if you use cynical and/or exploitative designs, and you aren't designing humanely, then you don't deserve to be a game designer.
*cough* *cough* GTA online *cough* *cough*
Excellent points made as always. I've always tried to avoid games that felt like they were forcing me to play rather than games that I've just enjoyed. When a game feels like a chore or forces me into responsibilities, then I don't play. Every time I've played an MMO where I've been made an officer in a guild, I stop playing shortly after because I feel like it's a job now rather than a break from reality.
This episode seems really unfocused to me. Its points jump around all over the place. I agree that games can affect people, but when you say "we've ruined relationships! We've kept people inside instead of on a picnic with their gf!" that's just crap. Yeah, let's take all accountability away from the person and put it all on the evil game/developers that forced him to play the game instead of look at his relationship. Really now?
I think what they're talking about is punishment for not staying inside. Like, it's on the gamers' end, yeah, but not all games are just on the gamers' end. They issue punishments for going on a picnic, and rewards for staying in. That's bad.
You need to stop being extreme, it's what is wrong with the internet. They are not saying they are taking all the blame from the person and assigning it to game company. Both are at fault but only one side is purposely trying to ensure the other. Why can't you (meaning the internet) just ever take something for what it is instead of hearing an idea and assuming everyone is an extremist?
Unahim I think the point they were trying to make is that companies are intentionally trying to make their games addictive so as to make more profit and that doing so is an unethical practice that can ruin lives.Remember that addiction isn't something that is easy for someone to notice until it is too late and it has already taken everything from them.
To me this episode was all about trying to make games fun and engaging but not addictive in a manner that they end up running a persons life.
And look at the games that they pointed out as good examples of fun games that don't follow those practices, they are all massive time sinks if you get into them but at the same time, they don't expect you to spend all your money on them or spend all of your time chained to your PC waiting for when they allow you to progress.
Unahim They're not saying that. They're saying that some games are DESIGNED to incetivise you to keep playing on a routine, or at least X amount of time, by punishing you for not doing so (or giving rewards to others who do, and compete with you). Yes, it's not like they dictate your choices, but they do have responsibility in taking advantage of human behaviour/psychology for profit, while disregarding their audience.
Unahim It's not so much that games are forcing people to do things, but rather they are knowingly taking advantage of people who are susceptible to those kinds of pressure. The skinner box reference that comes up in these discussions is not tangential - this is an area of behavioral psychology that is well understood. It's like an exploit for the human brain, and like most exploits it doesn't work the same on everyone or in every situation, but it's reliable enough to bank on.
Gamers know that glitching their way inside terrain so that they can shoot people and not get shot in return is cheating even if the game itself doesn't stop you from doing it. Game designers should know the same thing about the systems they build. Obviously people will still do both of those things, but neither one should get a free pass on their behavior.
Possibly the best episode so far. I'm so proud of you guys for saying this. Thank you.
The problem with this is that the entire video downplays the player's agency. Yes, we know Skinner boxes work--but if your kid is crying in the next room and you even consider not putting the game down to take care of them, generally speaking you're a bad person. (I say "generally speaking" because I have three kids, and know that sometimes they cry for ridiculous reasons, like "I was put down for a nap". Common sense, people.)
GAMES didn't ruin relationships, nor did game developers. PLAYERS opted to prioritize a game above their relationship. That's on them.
Don't get me wrong: Exploitation exists, and can exist in game design. That should be addressed. But players don't get a free pass just because the developers used a lazy technique. Games are inherently more engaging than other media, and therefore players need to be more aware.
This ties into game literacy in a way: A literate gamer should know when it's time to put down the controller and walk away. If the game is doing something to subvert that literacy, sure, that's a problem--but it's not the ONLY problem. We as players need to own our actions. We need to recognize Skinner boxes, we need to recognize gaming mechanics designed to exploit our Facebook Friends list. We need to see dangerous design for what it is. And we need to choose whether to play games that use it or not wisely.
James Verhoff They are arguing from the point of view of the industry. Of course people have self responsability. But they can't change who people are they can just change the game to avoid bad influences.
James Verhoff Trying to push for voluntary personal responsability feels noble on paper but rarely works, study after study has show that we are basically monkeys with cell phones with very limited self awareness and self control. Specially if we are doing something addictive.
That was a fantastic episode. Thank you, Extra Credits, for so comprehensively expressing how important it is that game design embrace the human aspect of its field. Compassion is something that appears to be absent in a lot of our modern industries and institutions; with the focus drawn to extrinsic factors like profitability or results, it has simply been forgotten. I believe compassion is one of the most important aspects of any endeavour - especially those that have far-reaching effects on peoples' lives. And I'm glad I'm not alone.
Currently, I'm wrestling with the challenge of how to incorporate humane design into my future career as a teacher. From where I stand right now, the road seems long and hard, bound into ceaseless conflict with existing educational practices and institutions. I'm met with challenges every step of the way. But, somehow, knowing that this battle is being fought in other institutions and industries makes me more hopeful in the face of these bleak odds.
So thank you, Extra Credits. Thank you for inspiring me to continue striving for what I know is right! :D
This is an episode we all needed to hear out loud. Thank you.
When I make games, I don't ever think about how a game would affect how much the player needs to keep playing, but how much he/she wants to keep playing. I don't want to make something like an MMO you see today or a generic online FPS, because those seem like cold profit margins. I like making experiences players won't forget, and on more of a personal level. Video games are amazing because they can provide the player with something that you just can't get with movies or books, because it can be a lot more personal and you can really feel a connection between the designer and the player. That's what you got so right with this video is that it's true that games can change people, and I'm surprised how much companies take advantage of that to be more profitable than instead to create an experience that will be remembered forever. Those are the kind of games you see on top 10 lists because they're something that stays in people's minds unlike countless COD games or the next FIFA's. It's not to say they aren't fun, they're just not as memorable as something like Bioshock Infinite or Journey. I think the problem lies in that more memorable games may get less attention, but the profit is steadier over longer periods of time, unlike the latest Battlefield where a new game is pumped out every year.
I'm glad you guys were able to talk about this! ^_^
Few years ago I saw Jonathan Blow talk about this and it changed, enlightened how I think about games. Here's to hoping that this does the same to many more.
I gotta say, this is one of my favorite episodes so far. Way to go guys.
This was an amazing video. You guys have put into words a problem I knew existed, but could not vocalize. With all of the bad things that are being said about games we tend to say that games can't affect players just because that might get us off the hook. That is the wrong thing to do and I am glad you brought this up. I'm an aspiring game designer and I need to keep humane design in mind when working on games, because some day in the future I'd love for my games to affect someone in a positive way.
When I was a kid I was not into books or social activities and I found my escape in video games.
The characters quickly became my role models and I made a lot of important decisions based on the though of "what would Selphie from FF8 do?"
I got into playing instruments, archery, event management, kendo and much much more just from playing games with strong stories and characters
Games can have an incredibly big impact on our lives, I know for a fact that they did have on mine
If I ever make a game, I'm going to marathon this channel. Keep up the great work guys!
Ever since I started playing video games when I was a young kid back in 1997, I have always thought about what makes a good game. It has also made me think that video games have been a coping mechanism for me. When I was feeling down and needed to unwind, I would play a video game. Nowadays, I still play video games, but I realize now that I don't have as much time to play them since I have a job and a life to live. Thanks Extra Credits for covering this sensitive topic. This is one of the reasons why I love being subbed to this channel. I always get to learn about a topic from different perspectives.
Thank you guys so much for talking about this. This has been on my mind for a while now and it's an issue that needs to be drilled into not only game designers' minds, but in entrepreneurs and executives around. Social responsibility is far more important than milking your customers for profits just to increase your bottom line.
How can anyone put a dislike on a video like this? You may not agree with the message, but you can't deny that it is a beautifull mindset to develop games and, overall, it's for the better
Some people just hate games that much, some are too fanatic to handle a single
bad comment about video games, and some are just for your attention.
I've seen this for a while now and its something I've been trying to tell my friends and colleagues for a while now but I just couldn't put it into words. Addiction wasn't the right word, it was more like an obligation, a job, people don't enjoy some games anymore but they still play them for hours on end damaging their social lives and it is just scary.
This deserves more likes. And players need to know about skinnerbox mechanics in games to becomes resistant to them.
I really do think this is one of the most important episodes you guys have put out, Thanks again for believing in games and what they can achieve, sometimes I have doubts as to whether games are the right place for me; I see the games we create and the community being exclusionary, or just plain cruel. I think when that happens though I can come back to this episode and be sure we are contributing to something that matters. (also your EA episode from a while back serves that same purpose for me) You guys are the best, peace.
This is my favorite EC episode. "Humane Design" is something that needs to be more prevalent. I love games but sometimes I put them down because they take too much away from me.
This episode quietly blew me away, it rang so true.
Dang. You guys nailed it so perfectly. I'm in awe. This resonated with me and it's been part of the questions I asked myself when working on a game.
*When talking about call of duty*
"...until it's time to buy the next game."
*shows the exact same game*
I see what you did there.
I've always felt that a good game should be designed like a good book, while it should hook the viewer and keep them wanting to experience more, it should also be something that you can put down and think about at any time and allow the viewer to experience it at a pace that they are comfortable with.
"listening to your favorite song on a bad day makes you feel better"
nah it makes me worse *sobs*
Thanks for this. EC has always been about taking the high-road, and this is one of the best examples. I know you have implicitly expounded on this topic in many of your previous episodes. But it would be better if you could do a couple of episodes explicitly looking at different facets of humane design.
This is why I love you guys. If the rest of the industry took your words to heart, it'd truly be wroth believing in again.
I loved what this video had to say.
Skyrim and games like it took so much of my time because I gained somethings I was not getting in real life.
But now, after the compulsion episode, I am applying my view of achieving game goals the same way to achieving real life goals.
It helped me get a new job, get a gaming channel started here on youtube, become a better dad, cook better, and more!
I'm still growing in this use of game goals in life, but it's starting to work out for me so much better.
Thanks James and Extra Credits
Thank you, Extra Credits, for making the effort to share this message. Like you said, it is important to the industry that we acknowledge the need for humane design. If more developers would make the effort to prioritize humane design, the industry would be the better for it.