Anyone Else Tired of Progression Systems

[ethansito]

Good point you bring up here. Here's a link to a short article about social interaction in games, which you might find interesting:
https://onlinealchemy.wordpress.com/...-social-games/

A few highlights:

• Solitary play: just playing by yourself, ignoring others around you
• Onlooker play: noticing others around you, but not doing anything with them
• Parallel play: implicitly recognizing the play of others around you, doing some of the same things and playing in the same cognitive space, without overt social interaction. Think of two kids building sand castles near each other that resemble each other, even though they never said a word or joined together at all.
• Associative play: light social interaction with others nearby, but without involving play as a topic or structure
• Cooperative play: socially interacting and organizing using play as a structure on which to build these interactions. Note that this implicitly includes competitive play, as the social structures involved necessarily require in-group (our team) and out-group (the other team) interactions.

Generally most competitive MMOs are designed for cooperative play, but I think more and more these days we only see truly cooperative play from pro and hardcore players. As you get towards the more casual end of the scale, we slide backwards down the social ladder to parallel play (average), onlooker play (casual) and even solitary play (super casual).

With games becoming more mainstream, the percentage of casual players is increasing, leading to less social interaction.

Anyways....just an observation, I could be completely off the mark.

So what you're saying is that I can blame all of my problems on casual gamers?

You don't know how much I appreciate this post.

[Saskia]

I totally agree, there are more online games and players than ever and it seems as if though you are playing by yourself most of the time. Lobbies are dead and no one talks, in most games. This is my opinion and experience but it also feels as if the average player has also gotten worse over time with online games. It feels like I'm being alienated by the games I used to love playing. Its very weird.

Good point you bring up here. Here's a link to a short article about social interaction in games, which you might find interesting:
https://onlinealchemy.wordpress.com/...-social-games/

A few highlights:

• Solitary play: just playing by yourself, ignoring others around you
• Onlooker play: noticing others around you, but not doing anything with them
• Parallel play: implicitly recognizing the play of others around you, doing some of the same things and playing in the same cognitive space, without overt social interaction. Think of two kids building sand castles near each other that resemble each other, even though they never said a word or joined together at all.
• Associative play: light social interaction with others nearby, but without involving play as a topic or structure
• Cooperative play: socially interacting and organizing using play as a structure on which to build these interactions. Note that this implicitly includes competitive play, as the social structures involved necessarily require in-group (our team) and out-group (the other team) interactions.

Generally most competitive MMOs are designed for cooperative play, but I think more and more these days we only see truly cooperative play from pro and hardcore players. As you get towards the more casual end of the scale, we slide backwards down the social ladder to parallel play (average), onlooker play (casual) and even solitary play (super casual).

With games becoming more mainstream, the percentage of casual players is increasing, leading to less social interaction.

Anyways....just an observation, I could be completely off the mark.

[skywalker0957]

I'm not an absolutist about it, but Far Cry 3 is probably the first time I realized I hate a certain approach to skill trees. By the time I'd fully unlocked all the abilities that really opened up the gameplay, I'd already cleared out the bases on the map and there was nowhere to utilize any of it. I feel like mastery the depth of an existing set of mechanics is a progression system in itself... you level up. I think it even works on a narrative level the first time through to not possess the skills you need to take on everything you encounter, and then makes replays more interesting, or more open to pushing the envelope, sequence breaking etc in fun ways.

I prefer MGSV in that sense. Crawl, crouch, run, dive.... you have all that at the onset, and if you want to ledge hang and pull an enemy over the edge for a stealth kill, you can do that from the onset or as soon as you learn you can, not 25 hours in when the game "learns" to do it.

I wish more games were like that where it gave you all the tools and stuff outright and gave you the freedom to use those tools to succeed. Often it feels that you are only given tools and "level ups" when the game wants you to have them and then the game from that point is designed for you to use the new tool etc. I just find that design so boring now, let me think and figure out how to use what I have to succeed without having a clear cut use this to do it.

[skywalker0957]

You would probably share my sentiment, that new games have more people than ever online, but the experience is lonelier than ever. Everyone is online, but nobody is on mic, or they're using another program for VOIP and disabled in-game chat. Best case scenario in a 15v15 match is one other player with their mic on, if you queue solo. In the older games, where you had battlefield roles, communication was necessary if you wanted to win. These modern games are so simple, its like hoarding sheep. You don't need to think that hard to win. I wonder if kids these days could handle a game where they had to rely on other players for healing, ammo, and heavy fire support. We have games like Destiny, COD and BF where it basically doesn't matter what role you play, or there are no roles.

I totally agree, there are more online games and players than ever and it seems as if though you are playing by yourself most of the time. Lobbies are dead and no one talks, in most games. Siege and Insurgency and CSGO tend to have people who talk because you have to if you want a chance to win but few other games do. This is my opinion and experience but it also feels as if the average player has also gotten worse over time with online games. It feels like I'm being alienated by the games I used to love playing. Its very weird.

[Valkenr]

I was on PC back then, always on clan voip servers with dozens of people, way different experience. The communication in that commercial is spot on for how my clans used to communicate in serious situations. No rose tint, just looking in a different direction.

[PriestTroit]

You would probably share my sentiment, that new games have more people than ever online, but the experience is lonelier than ever. Everyone is online, but nobody is on mic, or they're using another program for VOIP and disabled in-game chat. Best case scenario in a 15v15 match is one other player with their mic on, if you queue solo. In the older games, where you had battlefield roles, communication was necessary if you wanted to win. These modern games are so simple, its like hoarding sheep. You don't need to think that hard to win. I wonder if kids these days could handle a game where they had to rely on other players for healing, ammo, and heavy fire support. We have games like Destiny, COD and BF where it basically doesn't matter what role you play, or there are no roles.

Take off your rose-tinted glasses. Multiplayer FPS games before the PS3/360 days had almost nobody using their microphone online. I used to play Halo 2 and Splinter Cell on Xbox live... almost nobody had microphones back then. Remember this commercial? Biggest lie ever lmao!

[PriestTroit]

Progression is perfectly fine if players aren't gimped from the start. The FPS games which do it right always make sure beginners have access to competitive weapons from the get go, but save the extra cool stuff for later. Often, you'll see that even experienced players will still gravitate towards the first guns available because they're usually the most balanced ones in the game instead of using the more specialized guns. In my experience as an avid FPS player COD and Battlefield almost always gets it right, but COD tends to make the starting weapons a little on the OP side and the highest level weapons usually suck. My favorite progression systems are from Battlefield 3 & 4 because of how many different weapons and unlocks you could get.

Rainbow Six Siege used to be kinda shitty because you had to unlock all the attachments for each operator, so that meant you'd sometimes be forced to run iron sights with no muzzle or grip attachments up against people with recoil-dampening attachments and optical or magnified sights. However, all attachments are unlocked for everyone now.

[Dub-Z]

I'm not an absolutist about it, but Far Cry 3 is probably the first time I realized I hate a certain approach to skill trees. By the time I'd fully unlocked all the abilities that really opened up the gameplay, I'd already cleared out the bases on the map and there was nowhere to utilize any of it. I feel like mastery the depth of an existing set of mechanics is a progression system in itself... you level up. I think it even works on a narrative level the first time through to not possess the skills you need to take on everything you encounter, and then makes replays more interesting, or more open to pushing the envelope, sequence breaking etc in fun ways.

I prefer MGSV in that sense. Crawl, crouch, run, dive.... you have all that at the onset, and if you want to ledge hang and pull an enemy over the edge for a stealth kill, you can do that from the onset or as soon as you learn you can, not 25 hours in when the game "learns" to do it.

[Valkenr]

I used to like working towards things when I was younger and had less to play now I am the opposite. CoD I am finally burnt out on because I am just tired of level all the way up and then repeat. Not enjoyable anymore, for me at least. I think why I enjoy Insurgency is there are rented servers with players that talk and for the most part the matchmaking has people that talk and banter while playing the game. Makes it much more enjoyable to talk with others while working towards an objective. I feel so many shooters particularly CoD and BF as of recently have lost any aspect of communication and teamwork and it just feels like I am one guy doing that same thing over and over again with no real goal or point except to progress. Getting older has definitely influenced the games I like now and I am playing stuff I never thought I would enjoy and am disliking stuff I used to enjoy. Time is weird.

You would probably share my sentiment, that new games have more people than ever online, but the experience is lonelier than ever. Everyone is online, but nobody is on mic, or they're using another program for VOIP and disabled in-game chat. Best case scenario in a 15v15 match is one other player with their mic on, if you queue solo. In the older games, where you had battlefield roles, communication was necessary if you wanted to win. These modern games are so simple, its like hoarding sheep. You don't need to think that hard to win. I wonder if kids these days could handle a game where they had to rely on other players for healing, ammo, and heavy fire support. We have games like Destiny, COD and BF where it basically doesn't matter what role you play, or there are no roles.

[skywalker0957]

BO4 kinda addressed this, by making starting loadouts with some of the later-unlocks. You just couldn't customize them.

But its CoD so... yeah..

Other than that, as others said, BR games is the only place you'll find a lot of people playing, and no progressive unlocks.

The hard reality is, the vast majority of the market will get bored if there is nothing to work towards. FPSs aren't about clan-owned servers anymore, those were the golden years of FPS gaming. Now its been commercialized. It doesn't matter if people are playing for less time if the cost is still the same. Now everything is P2P matchmaking, so its 90% gameplay focused, instead of 90% banter. "Its fun with friends" was what made the older FPS server-based games so enjoyable.

We need a game like RTCW:ET again, Quake Wars and Brink just didn't hit the mark and had their own balance and stability issues. If you're going to pull progression out of the game, the gameplay has to be where the reward lives. I'd love to see Splash Damage partner with Id and Bethesda to revive Enemy Territory under the new Wolfenstein setting. Narrative-Objective PVP in 10-30 minute matches is so much better than these CoD/BF KotH/TDM 5-minute-repeat circle-jerks.

I used to like working towards things when I was younger and had less to play now I am the opposite. CoD I am finally burnt out on because I am just tired of level all the way up and then repeat. Not enjoyable anymore, for me at least. I think why I enjoy Insurgency is there are rented servers with players that talk and for the most part the matchmaking has people that talk and banter while playing the game. Makes it much more enjoyable to talk with others while working towards an objective. I feel so many shooters particularly CoD and BF as of recently have lost any aspect of communication and teamwork and it just feels like I am one guy doing that same thing over and over again with no real goal or point except to progress. Getting older has definitely influenced the games I like now and I am playing stuff I never thought I would enjoy and am disliking stuff I used to enjoy. Time is weird.

[Valkenr]

BO4 kinda addressed this, by making starting loadouts with some of the later-unlocks. You just couldn't customize them.

But its CoD so... yeah..

Other than that, as others said, BR games is the only place you'll find a lot of people playing, and no progressive unlocks.

The hard reality is, the vast majority of the market will get bored if there is nothing to work towards. FPSs aren't about clan-owned servers anymore, those were the golden years of FPS gaming. Now its been commercialized. It doesn't matter if people are playing for less time if the cost is still the same. Now everything is P2P matchmaking, so its 90% gameplay focused, instead of 90% banter. "Its fun with friends" was what made the older FPS server-based games so enjoyable.

We need a game like RTCW:ET again, Quake Wars and Brink just didn't hit the mark and had their own balance and stability issues. If you're going to pull progression out of the game, the gameplay has to be where the reward lives. I'd love to see Splash Damage partner with Id and Bethesda to revive Enemy Territory under the new Wolfenstein setting. Narrative-Objective PVP in 10-30 minute matches is so much better than these CoD/BF KotH/TDM 5-minute-repeat circle-jerks.

[Nella_Bolt]

Sounds like you should try the Roblox FPS section. I haven't played it myself because I shudder at the thought of Roblox but I've seen a decent number of videos concerning the multiplayer shooter bit and its shockingly competent.

[PaXXXman]

Havn't read the whole thread but I feel like there is space for both. Personnaly I prefer when there is progression to it but my most play FPS game is PUBG where there is no progression besides skins. Same for League of legends, mostly the only progression here is skins to. Maybe you are trying to play games which make progression super grindy so you can buy some kind of currency to help you progress? One game I play once in a while which is an ultimate grind is World of Tanks. Don't get me wrong, I love the game but I've played at least 3000 matches over the last five year and still dont have a single Tier 10 tank (which is the top tier or end game as you could call it) I have a total of 44 tanks and not one is more than Tier 8. WoT is an extreme but i feel you when you say we don't have time for the grind, but I feel progression makes people come back more to the games they play even if it's only skins which is not really "progression" but still you feel like you are working for something

If you like FPS games may I suggest Post Scriptum and Squad if you don't play them already. If you like insurgency, you'll feel at home in those two games. I have yet to try squad though both I've played Post Scriptum and they are both on the same engine

[skywalker0957]

It's all for the investors.

Two metrics which AAA gaming companies love to boast about are player engagement (how many minutes per day you stay in the game), and player investment (how much money you spend in the game).

Adding grindy time sinks and time gating content keeps you playing longer and increases both of these player metrics. This gives investors a warm, fuzzy feeling and keeps them happy.

Definitely feels that way to me. So few games with a multiplayer focus come out allowing you to play with all the stuff at the start. I don't wanna grind for hours and hours I just wanna play.

[Saskia]

It's all for the investors.

Two metrics which AAA gaming companies love to boast about are player engagement (how many minutes per day you stay in the game), and player investment (how much money you spend in the game).

Adding grindy time sinks and time gating content keeps you playing longer and increases both of these player metrics. This gives investors a warm, fuzzy feeling and keeps them happy.