Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

blog.joeyschutz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#21

Post by watwut »

throw4847285 wrote: post #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 t…

> have games changed, or have you?

Yes the games changed. I think that the claim the games did not changed would be absurd to anyone who looked at games in the past and is looking at games now.

We changed too, sure. But kids dont finish games, typically either. And I dont even think pac-man is a good example here, very few people finished pac-man - but the game itself was not meant to be finished. It was meant to be too difficult at some point.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#22

Post by pwillia7 »

throw4847285 wrote: post #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 t…

I almost never finished games even back in the 90s/2000s. I think it's because of how long they are compared to movies and even tv shows. You also (especially back in the day) had to 'rewatch' the same part over and over until you could beat it

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#24

Post by order-matters »

everdrive wrote: post #10

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…

compeltely agree, i feel like more and more games are forgetting to find an actual game. they combine some mix of achievement/gameplay loop and story or account progression and keep you busy feeling like youre still figuring the game out. But i think it is riding on the coattails of great games of the apst that ultimately rewarded players with "end game" experiences after they invest all the time in figuring the game out. Now they only need to be jsut convincing enough that the end game might exist and then never deliver on it, and they get paid and get users but ultimately no one remembers their experience with the game that well, and attitude towards gaming overall takes a hit.

the solution is to get back to identifying what the mechanic (or set of mechanics) actually is that is fun. It should be fun without the loop and then the loop gives you something to optimize and showcase skill. I think of Golf, where the fundamental game is hitting a ball into a cup in the ground. thats a fun way to kill time at the fundamental level for a lot of people. then the gameplay loop comes in for scoring, different courses with obstacles, specific things to hit the ball with, all sorts of things that let you capture the feeling of just hitting the ball with a stick into a cup and add more and more nuance to it which motivates replayability.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#25

Post by throwanem »

nottorp wrote: post #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 acceptab…

World of Warcraft damaged lots of people. My own circle saw a couple of casualties - jobs lost, marriages failed, promising professional careers left by the wayside, all for the sake of more time with that grind.

The fellow I knew who hit it huge in EVE Online was a casualty of another kind. But then, I did know him before, and he really was always pretty much that way.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#26

Post by StilesCrisis »

throw4847285 wrote: post #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 t…

I completely agree with your analysis. Gameplay loops are fine. The author is just in a different stage of life and appreciates different things now.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#27

Post by StilesCrisis »

watwut wrote: post #21
throw4847285 wrote: post #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 t…

> have games changed, or have you? Yes the games changed. I think that the claim the games did not changed would be absurd to anyone who looked at games in the past and is looking at games now. We changed too, sure. But kids dont finish games, typically either. And I dont even think pac-man is a good example here, very few people finished pac-man - but the game itself was not meant to be finished. It was meant to be…

World of Warcraft is twenty-two years old and perfectly exemplifies all of the author's complaints about game loops. It's not a new phenomenon.

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#28

Post by ramesh31 »

Dave the Diver is the best game I've played in years, and its a new kind of game that I think really solves this. You focus on atmosphere, characters, and discrete game mechanics that work together as a system, rather than relying on any single gameplay loop. Mechanics are contextual, and introduced in a way that makes sense to the story and setting, leaving the player with that feeling of "I wonder what's next".

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#29

Post by tayo42 »

nottorp wrote: post #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 acceptab…

Pokémon was a slow grind and popular. Diablo was a grind too

Re: The Case Against Gameplay Loops (2024)

#30

Post by ecshafer »

everdrive wrote: post #10

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…

> In this way, it feels a lot like modern movies: in a lot of cases, cinematography seems to be some sort of objective science which has mostly just improved. And nowadays even a fairly bad movie will have great cinematography. It's just that the writing / plot / acting / etc. are quite poor.

I vehemently disagree with this. Cinematography has gotten substantially worse in the last 15 years or so. Your run of the mill direct to vhs type movie in the 90s had better cinematography than your massive block buster of today. Hollywood totally forgot how to do everything. Go compare a garbage movie like "The Parent Trap" with Marvel/Star Wars anything, and see how bad its gotten.

Post reply on HN