Live data from Hacker News

The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

blog.joeyschutz.com

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#11
Interesting read. Nowadays, for most games, I do a few game loops and intentionally don't finish them. As a dad with two kids, I simply don't have that much time.

So I don't like games that have replay value or "endgame". I don't mind game loops but I want a game that finishes in 2-12 hours. 2 games that came to mind are Inscryption and Chants of Sennaar, both took around 12 hours and gave me a mindblowing experience.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#12
post #2

> For indies, the pressure to clear the 2 hour mark was hung ominously overhead when Valve updated their policy to allow refunds up to that threshold. If the game is good, I doubt most people would return it. “The Dark Queen of Mortholme”¹ comes to mind. I didn’t really find it enjoyable (good idea, boring execution) but the reviews praise it and I do get why. The game takes 30 minutes from beginning to end. Maybe yo…

A bunch of folks on social media used to crow about refunding the indie games they beat in under 2 hours. No idea how widespread a phenomenon it really was, but it certainly got airtime in gamedev circles

There's plenty of sociopaths and people with not a lot of disposable money, but my theory is that as we (gamers) get older, richer, and with less available time, we will prefer the short and sweet experience over the 100+ hour game loop.

I know that's the case for me, and one of my favourite pastimes is install the little games from itch.io, which average at 10 minutes long, and just enjoy the naivety and craft that never overstays its welcome no matter how uncooked it is. You can have too much of a good thing; once I really cared about getting enough enjoyment/dollar, these days I'd rather spend $20 dollars for a good 2 hour experience, than find myself bored after 15 hours of the same.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#13
> For books, I track my reading habits and I finish around 85% of the books I start. For games (which I do not track diligently…) there is no way I am even hitting 33%. I do not finish games. But it doesn’t seem to be something about my media habits at large,

Here I spontaneously wondered how many of his meals Joey finishes, that feels like it would be about as relevant information as the two numbers he gives here: there's just not obvious how one helpfully compares the Lord of the Rings book with the video game Celeste.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#14

> For books, I track my reading habits and I finish around 85% of the books I start. For games (which I do not track diligently…) there is no way I am even hitting 33%. I do not finish games. But it doesn’t seem to be something about my media habits at large, Here I spontaneously wondered how many of his meals Joey finishes, that feels like it would be about as relevant information as the two numbers he gives here: t…

[deleted]

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#15

> For books, I track my reading habits and I finish around 85% of the books I start. For games (which I do not track diligently…) there is no way I am even hitting 33%. I do not finish games. But it doesn’t seem to be something about my media habits at large, Here I spontaneously wondered how many of his meals Joey finishes, that feels like it would be about as relevant information as the two numbers he gives here: t…

Ironically they leave out a real comparison to television shows, or episodic content like comic books. Are these forms of media broken if you don't watch every episode of every season of a show? Doubtful.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#16
It really depends on the loop, but modern games try their damnedest to ruin the experience.

Number one is of course "free" games, where the loop is infinite and designed for you to give in and get IAPs to accelerate it.

But the problem is older than that. I kind of blame it on a generation of designers that spent a lot of time in world of warcraft and its successors and somehow decided having a slow grind is acceptable in single player games as well.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#17

A lot of modern games have put a lot of time into their gameplay loop, and in part, this is why a lot of modern games feel like work. Focusing on this too much really can crowd out spontaneous fun. A gameplay loop also does not guarantee that a game is fun. Your loop might be: deploy --> shoot bad guys --> loot things --> come home --> process loot. None of this guarantees that the game is actually fun. Maybe the ene…

I hate having endless options of what to do in a game. It feels somewhat similar to a day at work. Flow state is impossible when I constantly feel opportunity cost.

I think modern games focus mostly on content rather than figuring out what is an enjoyable feeling.

These days I mainly only play arcade racers from the 90s as they feel mindful somehow, instant flow.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#18
I've been playing Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth, trying to clear my game backlog as it were.

I think what the series does is to have multiple gameplay loops. Like a Dragon is the rebranding of the Yakuza series, of which Infinite Wealth is the 9 mainline entry in the series.

Yakuza 0-6 were effectively role playing games where the conflict resolution mechanism was a beat-em-up/fighting game. Seven represented a rebranding of the series and 8 is Infinite Wealth. These games change the core conflict resolution to a straight up Japanese RPG system.

However, in every game, there are minigames and sidestories to complete. They include racing circuit cars, Pokemon style battles, darts, pool, bowling, batting cages, management sims, mahjongg, poker, blackjack, koi-koi, dating sims, etc.

So I think they've addressed the problem by just giving you a lot of different gameplay loops, with the main story just a vehicle to allow you to get from loop to loop.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#19
The fact that this article does not mention the word "roguelike" once is quite telling. The argument that gameplay loops are a relic of arcades falls flat when you realize that Rogue came out in 1980, the same year as Pac-man. The entire argument falls flat when you realize that a gameplay loop is simply another way of explaining the means of interactivity, and interactivity is core to the idea of video games. Even the shortest narrative game has a "loop" of some kind.

Honestly, when I read essays like this I always have to ask: have games changed, or have you? I had what felt like infinite time as a kid to devote to gaming, and as I've aged, my relationship to video games has changed substantially. I can relate to wanting more bite sized experiences, but then again, a single run of a roguelike, the ultimate "gameplay loop" can feel just as satisfying as a short narrative game.

There are plenty of valid complaints to lodge against modern game design, but I think the author's framing is flawed.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#20

> For books, I track my reading habits and I finish around 85% of the books I start. For games (which I do not track diligently…) there is no way I am even hitting 33%. I do not finish games. But it doesn’t seem to be something about my media habits at large, Here I spontaneously wondered how many of his meals Joey finishes, that feels like it would be about as relevant information as the two numbers he gives here: t…

A person who says that Celeste did not need all of its levels to tell its story did not pay any attention to the story, or is not able to empathize with the character. Also if this person bounced off Celeste then they probably saw 5% of the content, not the 33% they suspected.
Post reply on HN