There are numerous ways in which video games set up their progression systems, but which of those ways would most people consider fun, and which others would be considered manipulative?
Progression systems
First, we should talk about what a progression system is. Progression systems are a somewhat modern addition to video games. They change gameplay and reward players as they play the game more. One example of the oldest type of progression system is the unlocking of levels after beating other levels.
How do games captivate players?
In my experience, there are 3 big reasons for which people return to a game after having played it: because they find the game fun, because they are afraid of missing out, and because of pressure from friends. These reasons all contribute to addiction, but in different ways (both positive and negative).
Enjoyability
Probably the most important factor for which people buy a game is its enjoyability. A good game will have gameplay that is enjoyable and varied to prevent boredom. A fun game will be typically played for the gameplay itself, and not for the awards associated with progression. The more ways a game allows a player to play it, the longer it can keep players engaged. Challenges (usually with rewards) mix up gameplay and encourage users to discover new ways to play the game, but can also feel like chores. A game with a few, recurring challenge types will start to feel boring, whereas a game having many varied challenges seems to be much more refreshing and fun. I find that games which rely solely on challenges for progression make the challenges less enjoyable – especially if the challenges are too hard and if I can’t do another challenge instead. In many games, you can only have a few (often 3) active challenges at once, leading to tedious challenges clogging progression. A solution to this problem would be to let players skip challenges, preferably at no cost (allowing alternative paths to challenge rewards).
Timers
Challenges and gameplay are tied to real-world time in some games. While this isn’t inherently bad, it can lead to problems, especially if the challenges come with rewards for completing them. First of all, limited-time challenges or events lead to a sense of urgency. Imagine that you play such a game, and that there’s a challenge whose reward you really want. Say that this challenge lasts only for the duration of a weekend. It’s Sunday evening, and you have some homework left. Depending on how responsible you are, this could go multiple ways:
- You do your homework and then have to go to bed, and regret not finishing the challenge to get the item.
- You finish your homework and then try the challenge, only to be exhausted and fail the challenge multiple times before succeeding, taking you way past your regular bedtime.
- You do the challenge first, and then panic that it’s past your bedtime and rush through your homework.
Notice that in such a situation, there is always an extra opportunity cost compared to a game in which challenges would not be limited by time – if such was the case, you would do your homework and then finish the challenge another day. These situations would also increase players’ resentment towards the game, and may ultimately result in them quitting.
Friends and teammates
With the rise of the internet in the last few decades, fully online multiplayer games have risen in popularity. Since these games are often played in teams, there is a stronger appeal for a player to get their friends to play games with them. In some persistent online multiplayer games, this can even mount up to other players needing your presence. This usually only becomes a problem when you lose interest in those games’ gameplay and start to go inactive. Sometimes the fear of being kicked out of a team for inactivity can keep players playing.
The types of addiction
Each of the 3 ways games captivate players can generate addiction. I would argue that the worst types of addiction are those in which a game is no longer fun to you. If a game is addictive because it is fun, then good for you – your spent time is at least somewhat worthwhile. You will probably, however, burn through all the gameplay faster than developers can provide updates, and then you may take a break from the game. This is why many games have progression systems restricted with time – to artificially slow you down from progressing through the entire game “too quickly” and burning out. While these time restrictions may seem good, as you won’t keep playing too much in a single session, they just encourage you to come back. You will want to be the most efficient you can be with the time spent waiting for timers to finish, having as many timers ticking down as you can at once, and quickly grabbing every opportunity you can when a timer is finished – ultimately making the game more addicting than another game without such timers. The previously described social (as in games with persistent teams that rely on your presence) and timer elements of games are often addicting in a bad sense – instead of you being the one who wants to go back and play the game, the game is set up in a way that wants you to come back and play it, even when you don’t find the gameplay particularly fun. Nevertheless, if used reasonably, tying in gameplay to time in a relatively natural way (such as having additional weekly challenges) can provide more benefits than drawbacks.
The game models which manipulate you into playing more are used much more in games with secondary purchases (those that you make after purchasing the game itself) than in those without secondary purchases – because developers of a game of the latter type can’t make any more money from you with that game. Additionally, skipping the timers placed by developers is an effective selling point for secondary purchases.
The progression curve
With all this out of the way, let’s talk about game progression more directly. Progression systems need to be interesting for both beginners and advanced players, while dealing with limited content. For almost all games, this can be seen through how progression seemingly slows for more advanced players in comparison to new players – for example, if there is an overall experience-level system in a game in which new players begin at level 1, the pattern of levels at which players would receive rewards for reaching would likely look more like 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 70, 100 than 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 – in other words, the higher the level, the greater the distance (in levels) between rewards would be. This same idea comes into play in almost every progression-wise aspect of a game such as: upgrade/shop prices, length of timers, and the ability to gain multiplayer ranking points. This pattern which we discussed often makes the game more stale for advanced players. However, this makes sense since having a slow progression for beginners would demotivate them. The real limit here is how much content there is in a game: developers should aim to have enough content to make the game’s progression not seem like a grind. The progression curve’s specifics are up to debate.
Currencies
Modern video games seem to be adopting more currencies. In the past, more games directly required players to complete specific challenges to unlock new items, whereas today these challenges more often reward some form of coins, which are used to purchase new items. This isn’t necessarily good or bad. “Coins” allow for more flexibility in shops – it would be easier to buy consumable necessity items over and over if you could use coins. However, coins also introduce opportunity costs, because having more freedom to purchase various items comes with regrets of buying one item over another. Also, coin prices can be made unreasonably high more often than challenge tasks, because it is easier for people to see how much work must be done for an item if it is earned through a challenge rather than bought with coins. Do you think currencies are good in games?
Conclusion
Normally, game companies’ main goal is to make money. They often do this by manipulating people psychologically to buy their game. However, the way I “prefer to be manipulated” is by being addicted to a game because of its quality and enjoyability, not because of its timers. Please tell me what you think.
Aehmttw 