Not long after I turned 4, I had a really nasty allergic reaction to some medicine, and I wound up breaking out in hives and had to sleep with my feet on bags of frozen peas. No, I don’t remember why. I was 4. What I do remember is my grandma getting an Atari 2600 and playing Pitfall. Games back then weren’t complex – much less so than many “mini-games” today. Dodge this. Jump over this. Collect these. Shoot that. Get points. Any given game on the Atari didn’t typically last all that long unless you were really good at it. But despite the lack of depth, when I go back and play a lot of these old games, I find myself having fun. Sure, some of it is nostalgia, but these games aren’t aspiring to be anything more than what they are. Like any system, some games were better than others, but the vast majority of titles had rock-solid and addictive gameplay or they just simply didn’t make it to market. Take Activision’s Laser Blast. Dodge lasers. Shoot back. I can’t tell you how many hours I spent doing only those two things, and loving it.
As videogaming and I got older, games got better features and more personality. My family got a TRS-80 Color Computer, and I got introduced to games that weren’t quite as simple. I’m not exactly sure what my first videogame RPG was, but it was after I’d been exposed to D&D. That made the whole concept of getting experience points easy to digest. I’ll never forget the day I figured out during a game of Dragon Warrior that I could just wander around in a field all day and kill slimes and eventually I’d level up and be able to fight stronger monsters than I normally would. It was my first taste of grinding, and it was delicious. After that, grinding for levels/gold/etc. became de rigeur for RPGs. After all, who wants to walk into a fight unprepared?
The first time I ever got any inkling something was wrong was when a friend of mine was playing Asheron’s Call 2, and he was telling me about making arrows and selling them to people for in-game gold. The act itself didn’t strike me as odd so much as the time comittment. I was going to school and working 3 minimum-wage jobs at the time to pay the rent and tuition, and I couldn’t fathom wasting that much time on a fake job.
As I got older, and eventually married with kids, I discovered something about my gaming habits. The less free time I have available to me, the less I am apt to do things that I don’t find fun. Actually, let me amend that slightly. The less free time I have available to me, the more likely a game needlessly wasting my time is apt to send me into a berserker rage.
This finds me doing things that would shock and disgust me 15 years ago. If I spend more than 20-30 minutes on part of a game now, I’m likely to go look up the solution in a walkthrough. The cutoff for me is when I stop having fun and start getting frustrated. Can I figure it out eventually? Sure. But between working, hanging out with my wife, and playing with my son, I only get an hour or two at night to play videogames – if I’m lucky. I’m not going to waste it being pissed off. I no longer value the title of Hardcore Gamer at the cost of having a good time.
That is why I am going to address this next part to whomever it was that decided to change the planet-scanning mechanic in Mass Effect from a one-click “Scan For Minerals” in ME1 to the giant boring tedious time-suck that it is in ME2: You’re needlessly wasting my time, and you’re making me really mad. If you’re going to have a mini-game for this, at least have the common decency to make it fun. Star Control 2 made you run around the galaxy collecting minerals too, but at least you got to fly around and run from monsters while you collected the minerals. Your scanning “game” consists of seeing how long you can depress the left trigger before you develop tendonitis – if you don’t go insane from boredom first. The excitement from finding a big cache of Iridium wears off pretty fast after the first 75 times you do it. It is a black mark on an otherwise fantastic game. It is two scoops of plump, juicy Elcor turds in an otherwise delicious bowl of Space Bran. Issue a patch to get rid of it, and we will never speak of this again. We can all deny anything happened.
I’m glad we could come to this understanding.
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/702109/Sesslers-Soapbox-Mass-Effect-2-Making-January-Awesome.html
Adam Sessler has something to say about the annoying mining, and why it’s there.
I have similar concerns about tabletop gaming now. I am no longer willing to wait to enjoy myself in a game. My free/entertainment time is now worth more than my average salary. That’s why I grow annoyed rapidly in RPGs when a GM is being oblivious to his player’s fun or in boardgames (usually pre 2000) that require most players to sit around doing nothing while one player does fiendishly complicated (and most likely fun) stuff (Axis and Allies being the perfect example of late ‘long’ games).
.-= ChattyDM´s last blog ..Gears of Ruin: The Ruiner’s Gambit’, Session 1, Part 1 =-.
If you thought ME1’s mining game was ‘one-click’ you clearly played a different version of the game than I did. It was only one click between Phase 1 (drive around the entire map hoping the resources would ping on your radar) and Phase 2 (perform the mining mini-game, which was the hacking minigame on the PC version, only you couldn’t use omnigel).
The scanning game is the worst part of ME2, but I can’t believe it’s actually worse than the ME1 system.
Oy vay, I can’t stand it. The worst thing was I wasted a bunch of time massing some big pile of some mineral only to buy a gun that didn’t work.
The rest of the game is great so far though.
For anyone thinking about getting this game, I recommend the PC version. There is a vault of character saves from the first Mass Effect which allow you to play the game using whichever decision tree you want.
http://www.masseffectsaves.com/
Ahahah, I had to laugh at this, as a woman and as a wife. My husband who was a hardcore gamer when we were dating, now unbelievably resorts to walkthroughs on the internet. Before, I learned from him that that was taboo for gamers. But he does it now and having little time for doing fun stuff has to do a lot with it.
While I haven’t had the chance to get ME2 yet, one (minor) issue I’m having with ME1 (and a lot of other games I’ve been playing lately: Dragon Age, Fable 2, Overlord) is the general un-inventiveness on the mini-games. While I highly celebrate the gaming evolution of using basic mini-games as a way of handling all sorts of secondary activities from training to forging to hacking to gambling, these games need to broaden the nature of their mini-games. First off (per this articles note) the game needs to be fun and/or challenging. While I understand that not every little game is going to be zany, madcap fun, they should at least strive to make it a challenging test of skill. Touched on in that first one is my second note: These should be tests of skill, at least mostly. Aside from mini-games representing tasks with major elements of chance (like gambling), you should stay away from any mini-game that can create a “no-win” situation. And third: Keep them varied. Playing through Fable II, I have become deeply annoyed that so many of the mini-games are just slight variations of the same basic mechanic. If you want me to be entertained and enthused with your game, you have to keep the novelty factor high, even after 40 hrs on some RPGs. So far, ME1 is also kind of failing on this one, since the only mini-game I encounter on a regular basis is the default hacking one.
Anyone out there agree with me on these points?
The dune-buggy planet-hopping of the first ME1 is what prevented me from ever finishing it. It was absolutely horrible. People tell me now that its “fixed” in ME2 but it doesn’t sound like it. Instead, it sounds “broken in a new way”.
I’ve never been a fan of mini-games… unless they somehow compliment or support the main game in a meaningful and intuitive way.
Let’s face it – crafting, running, hacking, etc are needless fluff in games. I sometimes think developers put these things into games just to extend the “play time” attribute on the box for the PR guys. I understand why some of these things exist in MMOs (the social aspect of trading for example) but why not automate the entire process?
For example:
If you want to craft, you have to invest to enter the business. Whenever you adventure and collect materials, these materials are automatically sent off to your fabrication plant, goods are automatically made, and then automatically made available on the auction house. Of course, you’d have to pay a price for each of these things to take place, pay for upgrades to your shop, manufacturing process, etc… but you don’t have to sit around and play meaningless mini-games to make goods.
People play certain games for certain experiences. If I wanted to play a word search, I’d do that instead of buying Fallout 3 to “hack” doors and computers. There are Puzzle games that excel at being puzzle games – I mean, that is why they were designed, developed, play-tested, and released. I don’t want Connect 4 in my Bioshock or World of Warcraft. They are separate games for separate experiences.
As a wannabe game developer, I think there are some very simple rules to stand by. If it isn’t fun, don’t include it. And, if you have something meaningful you want to include in your game, include it in a meaningful way.
Is the process of finding artifacts, technology, and materials a meaningful component of Mass Effect? If so, then include it in a meaningful way. If you can’t include it in a meaningful way or it isn’t fun, then maybe it isn’t as meaningful as you made it out to be. In short, it sounds like this stuff is a sort of currency in Mass Effect 2. They want to somehow limit the amount of technology and upgrades a player has access to. I get this but they can’t do it in a more meaningful and fun way?
@Tonester: I have to partially disagree with you on one basic point to your concept – In many of these games the mini-game portions (for things like crafting, research, etc) are specifically in place as ways for the character to GAIN in game currency. Going back to Fable II, the profession mini-games exist as a simple (though time consuming and some times nerve wracking) way of gaining more gold. They also include a system very similar to what you propose in the form of allowing you to purchase buildings that then simply generate a consistent flow of gold (which can be improved by buying furniture based upgrades for the locations). Now I think that aside from their banal similarities, that game had an even mixture, since the professions were entirely voluntary as were the real estate deals. If either or both of these were not what you wanted to do you could skip them entirely with little decline in your overall game play.
@HartThorn: I see what you’re saying sort of… but…
” In many of these games the mini-game portions (for things like crafting, research, etc) are specifically in place as ways for the character to GAIN in game currency.”
I guess it all depends on what the game is about. If it is a Crafting Simulation where the goal is to craft things to make money, then I’m all for mini-games where you do just that.
If the game is an RPG where the goal is to explore new lands, fight evil monsters with a slew of powers and abilities, level up, and do it some more, then I don’t care what purpose the mini-games serve (ala “GAIN in game currency”), it just means the developers didn’t design a game that stuck to its core components and instead of balancing character progression, they threw in check-boxes like “crafting” to fill the gap.
I haven’t played Fable II so I’m not sure of the context. But an action-like RPG is no place for crafting mini-games. Sorry. If they can’t find a better way to incorporate those channels of income in a way that is conducive to the game’s already existing core components, they just don’t belong.
Now that I think of it – these mini games seem to only appear in RPG titles (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Fallout, Oblivion, Fable, Mass Effect, World of Warcraft, etc.
I understand how RPGs are often about the choices a player makes and having the freedom to do certain things in a semi-open world. But do these mini-games somehow help make a more believable world? Do they enhance gameplay? Are they somehow tricking some non-demographic person to buy their game because they heard this RPG has some compelling mini-games?
Take Torchlight for example. Its essentially a Diablo clone. Its a 3rd person isometric hack-n-slash. One of the advertised features of the game is the concept of a pet. Your pet fights for you, can collect loot for you, and can even run to town and sell unwanted loot for you. All of that sounds absolutely brilliant. It can be a pack mule that sells unwanted crap so you don’t have to waste time running back and forth to town to do it.
In addition, players can feed fish to their pet that temporarily transforms them into a monster of sorts (depending on the type of fish). The problem with this is: A) The interface for feeding fish (or healing them with potions) is dreadfully flawed and B) The only way to get fish is by playing a mini fishing game… which is essentially a waiting game that requires no skill other than waiting for something to happen and then clicking a button quickly enough after it does (in this case, waiting for a bobber to go under water).
This doesn’t add anything to the core of the gameplay (a hack-n-slash RPG). You can’t fish for rare loot or treasure chests. There aren’t any items that make fishing more fun or challenging or rewarding. There is no combat involved, no leveling system involved for fishing, there aren’t “rare” fishing holes that are found in side quests or in secret parts of the dungeon. Nothing. And, I hardly think there is someone out there that will pick up Torchlight JUST BECAUSE it has this mini-game.
They could accomplish all of the same game-related mechanics (transforming your pet into some temporary monster) using other mechanics that are conducive to the game type. For example: Why not allow your pet to feed on carcasses of monsters after fights (automatically of course), which fills up a transformation meter. And then, when you need a little extra power from your pet, have them transform, drain the meter, and then start over. Maybe the type of monster they turn into is dependent on the type of “collar” they are wearing and you can get rare, unique, artifact collars, etc.
It gets rid of the mini-game, adds another type of collectible item to a game essentially built on exploring, killing, and collecting loot. As it stands, I’d wager almost NO ONE sits around fishing in Torchlight and then actually uses the fish to help their pet. When you need it most (in combat), you have to open 2 inventories, manually click on something, and then drag it over to another inventory…. which will get you killed. Of course, you could hotbar the fish, but there are so many fish and so many skills, you’d have to give up important slots to do so.
So while I’m not completely disagreeing with you, I’m saying there are probably much better ways to accomplish the same things mini-games accomplish while still being true to your core gaming experience. I’m sure Mass Effect could still use the balancing mechanic of resources without having an awful planet-scanning mini-game.
@Tonester: Well, to quickly clarify one good point with Fable II, the profession mini-games are pretty much 100% superfluous. You earn enough money through hacking, slashing, and doing good (or evil) that you can afford decent gear and would probably never find yourself in a situation in the game where you say “Well damn, I’d be able to beat this part if I’d just sat around for four hours playing the bartender mini-game”. In general, that’s how I want these types of things to work. If you like, if you do find them fun, have at it. If not, the largest cost is stuff your not going to get. It’s fair and it’s fun.
As for the Torchlight example (a game I haven’t played), first it does seem quite annoying and exceptionally bogus that it takes quite so much effort to both acquire and use the fish. I’ve seen plenty of fishing mini-games that were entertaining, at least partially, that just having you sit there is no excuse. You are definitely right that they could have handled that mechanic a great deal better. But at the same time, how much do you really lose from not participating? It sounds like the rest of the pets capabilities are working well and damn useful. I would understand more if these monster transformations were critical to combat or required to advance at certain points in the story, but if it’s just about extra awards for participation, i think that’s fair play.