diff --git a/Garden b/Garden index a4a55bc6..100a0052 160000 --- a/Garden +++ b/Garden @@ -1 +1 @@ -Subproject commit a4a55bc65421bd8f2bd8b889fa4bd4f0560bb60c +Subproject commit 100a0052eecfbbcc6f81cc5a07566f86aa88a944 diff --git a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md index 5bb69e15..37cc7349 100644 --- a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md +++ b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/appeal-to-players/index.md @@ -11,10 +11,10 @@ import { useData } from 'vitepress'; const pageData = useData();

Guide to Incrementals/Appeal to Players

-

2400 words, ~13 minute read.

+

2166 words, ~12 minute read.

-This is something that has been discussed and analyzed by many people, and to some extent, I feel like everything that can be said on the topic already has. However, a lot of these analyses are from the perspective of those with not as much experience and involvement within the genre as I'd argue would be necessary for a fully contextualized answer. I recently watched a video about Vampire Survivors, which has since been taken down due to drawing negative attention, which made me think about some interesting arguments about what games _are_, and what makes them _good_. The video's argument that "Vampire Survivors is not a video game" mirrors a claim by the developer of Cookie Clicker that his games are ["non-games"](https://www.polygon.com/2013/9/30/4786780/the-cult-of-the-cookie-clicker-when-is-a-game-not-a-game). Using Vampire Survivors and the video made on it as a framework, I'll be answering why incremental games appeal to players. Since the video has been taken down, I'll do my best to contextualize and generalize the arguments of the video without requiring the reader to watch it. For what it's worth, while I disagreed with the video I actually liked a lot of the way it went about thinking about games, and I consider this a continuation of that discussion. +This is something that has been discussed and analyzed by many people, and to some extent, I feel like everything that can be said on the topic already has. However, a lot of these analyses are from the perspective of those with not as much experience and involvement within the genre as I'd argue would be necessary for a fully contextualized answer. I'm interested in ludology and part of that includes interpreting games as art, and to that end what constitutes a game, let alone a "good game". Incremental games are oft criticized, unfairly in my biased opinion, of not even constituting games, such as was posited by [this polygon article](https://www.polygon.com/2013/9/30/4786780/the-cult-of-the-cookie-clicker-when-is-a-game-not-a-game). ## Numbers Going Up @@ -22,15 +22,15 @@ This is a very common response to why people enjoy incremental games, although i

Progression

 -Vampire Survivors can be argued to have a comparatively low depth to its combat compared to many other games. I'd argue it has _sufficient_ depth and more than someone might expect who has only played the game for a short while, but it still definitely gets beat out by many other combat-focused games. Instead, a lot of the progression in Vampire Survivors comes from a meta-progression system by which base stats are increased by spending a currency that persists between runs. While it is technically possible to win without this meta-progression system, and indeed in many roguelikes players like to challenge themselves by beating the game without any meta-progression, the criticism can be made that meta-progression de-emphasizes player skill by making it less important to have to beat the game. Certainly, in incremental games, it is often literally impossible to complete a game without taking advantage of the meta-progression systems. I'd argue this does not detract from the game, however, and is actually a part of what makes incremental games, and roguelikes, enjoyable to many players: meta-progression _augments_ the increases in skill the player is naturally gaining as they play. In effect, it's not _replacing_ the skill increase, but _exaggerating_ it to make it feel more real to the player. +I think a strong sense of progression is seen as very enjoyable to many players of all sorts of genres - engine builder board games, RPGs, rogue_lites_, etc. Incremental games tend to have an extremely exaggerated sense of progression, which makes them very appealing. -> Note: There is also a lot of progression from exploring the mechanics and discovering synergies, unlocking new weapons or playable characters, etc. That just isn't as relevant to this discussion, but it does make up a lot of the appeal of the game. +Meta-progression is when games have some sort of progression that persists when other progress gets lost - for example, upgrades that persist between runs of a roguelite game. These are common mechanics in incremental games - in fact, its not uncommon to have multiple of these reset mechanics nested on top of each other, each with their own meta-progression. These are satisfying to players, although they can be a bit controversial. These mechanics can often be seen as an optional crutch, and in roguelite games, players often challenge themselves to win without any meta progression. Essentially these challenges argue that meta-progression de-emphasizes player skill by replacing it with time served. Incremental games, through their exaggerated progression, eschew that possibility though - they make it impossible to beat without the meta progression systems, as the meta-progression becomes an entire chapter of the gameplay. I'd argue this does not detract from the game, however, and is actually a part of what makes incremental games, and roguelikes, enjoyable to many players: meta-progression _augments_ the increases in skill the player is naturally gaining as they play. In effect, it's not _replacing_ the skill increase, but _exaggerating_ it to make it feel more real to the player. ## Effortlessness Incremental games are so easy, a lot of them even have you progress while you're not playing! Part of the appeal is being able to feel like you're making progress while doing something _actually_ productive - [multitasking](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-LziX2HynI), in a way. In this sense, the game is more of a fidget toy - not something to think hard about and play actively, but something to click a few buttons every so often while you're paying attention to a lecture or studying or working. Of course, not _all_ incremental games lend themselves to being played this way - it's specifically "idle" games that work like this. These are games that take an incredibly long amount of time to see all the content, stretching it as thin as possible, but they aren't expecting you to be sitting at your device playing it the entire time. They expect you to leave and come back later to make a bit of progress and repeat the cycle. -If you look at the higher-level play of most games, you'll see them perform difficult feats with ease and speed. They'll achieve a "flow state" that takes all their knowledge and experience of the game and uses it to play the game as instinctively as possible. It's incredible to watch things like Slay the Spire speed runs or competitive DDR-likes. I'd argue the _goal_ of a lot of games with a competitive scene is to get so good that the game _becomes_ effortless. In that sense, a game that allows you to reach that point earlier isn't any less legitimate, but rather lowers the barrier to entry by allowing more people to get "really good" at the game. And to be clear, Vampire Survivors and (most) incremental games aren't _trivially_ easy - they, and to an extent, every game will have _some_ level of learning and improvement over time. +If you look at the higher-level play of most games, you'll see them perform difficult feats with ease and speed. They'll achieve a "flow state" that takes all their knowledge and experience of the game and uses it to play the game as instinctively as possible. It's incredible to watch things like Slay the Spire speed runs or competitive DDR-likes. I'd argue the _goal_ of a lot of games with a competitive scene is to get so good that the game _becomes_ effortless. In that sense, a game that allows you to reach that point earlier isn't any less legitimate, but rather lowers the barrier to entry by allowing more people to get "really good" at the game. And to be clear, (most) incremental games aren't _trivially_ easy - they, and to an extent, every game will have _some_ level of learning and improvement over time.

Addiction

 @@ -42,9 +42,9 @@ Since incremental games are often built on extrinsic motivations in the form of ## Strategy -Incremental games could be considered a subset of [strategy games](/garden/guide-to-incrementals/defining-the-genre/index.md#665cea25-437a-49a4-8445-00422fb9ded1)), and inherit the appeals of strategy games. This includes the appeal of feeling like you've found a good solution to a puzzle, or that you're learning more about the game and are improving at making decisions within it. This applies to Vampire Survivors specifically, where you're learning about evolutions and synergies and what kinds of enemies can spawn under what conditions, and how best to handle them. +Incremental games could be considered a subset of [strategy games](/garden/guide-to-incrementals/defining-the-genre/index.md#665cea25-437a-49a4-8445-00422fb9ded1)), and inherit the appeals of strategy games. This includes the appeal of feeling like you've found a good solution to a puzzle, or that you're learning more about the game and are improving at making decisions within it. -Note that strategy games are not all the same difficulty, as well. Vampire Survivors is still easier to play than Starcraft 2, and Cookie Clicker is probably somewhere in between (once you progress sufficiently). Vampire Survivors being so successful may indicate that "easier" strategies may have their separate appeal to harder strategy games - players like to feel smart and that they figured the game out and have optimized or mastered it, and the game being easier doesn't detract from that sense of accomplishment as much as it allows more and more users to be able to reach the point where they gain that sense. +Note that strategy games are not all the same difficulty, as well. Cookie Clicker is probably easier than Starcraft 2 (although late game may beg to differ). Plenty of incremental games can be used as evidence that "easier" strategies may have their separate appeal to harder strategy games - players like to feel smart and that they figured the game out and have optimized or mastered it, and the game being easier doesn't detract from that sense of accomplishment as much as it allows more and more users to be able to reach the point where they gain that sense. ## Avoiding Staleness @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ To bring the conversation back to incrementals, I'm _incredibly_ opinionated on ## Artistic Merit -The Vampire Survivors video made me think back to the old arguments about whether games are art, and whether they ought to be. The video seems preoccupied with attaching value to games solely based on their mechanics and the depth thereof, to the point of arguing Vampire Survivors is a waste of time due to its lack of depth. However, even setting aside the fact that if players are having fun then it's not time wasted, I think games can have artistic merit that supersedes the necessity of having (any / engaging / "deep") gameplay. I think the consensus online is that games are definitively art, although I could see the argument that some genres, like incremental games, might be a bit in a grey area. Let's talk about Vampire Survivors first though - It has a story to tell, with lore and many characters, that drive the player and encourage them to continue exploring the game and discovering things within it. Like any walking simulator, it is no less legitimate of a game or the "art" label because of any lack perceived lack of depth. For what it's worth, most art can be consumed with more ease than VS - any painting, movie, sculpture, etc. +The discussion of whether video games are art has resulted in a pretty universal "yes, they are", but with some games the argument may still crop up. The reason why Incremental games are sometimes questioned is due to their perceived lack of complexity. However, even setting aside the fact that if players are having fun then it's not time wasted, I think games can have artistic merit that supersedes the necessity of having (any / engaging / "deep") gameplay. Incremental games are no less legitimate of a game or the "art" label because of any lack perceived lack of depth. For what it's worth, most art can be consumed with more ease than any video game - any painting, movie, sculpture, etc. A lot of incrementals have a narrative context that can similarly qualify them as art. Cookie Clicker is, as has been pointed out numerous times before, commenting on excess and increasing production beyond any reasonable limits - devolving into increasing production for its own sake. Indeed, a lot of incremental games are written to comment upon various concepts like capitalism or tropes in games, as discussed when [defining Incrementals](/garden/guide-to-incrementals/defining-the-genre/index.md#665cea25-b1e5-40bc-8c82-2296982ce1d1)). However, I'd like to argue _most_ incremental games are still art, even without any narrative context. "Art" as a concept is pretty nebulous already, but I personally like those who define it as an act of expression more than any physical result. The creator and the context within which they created the art, and any meaning they put into it, are all relevant and a part of the art itself. Most incremental games have artistic merit from things like _why_ the creator made it, why they chose to make it an incremental game, and why they made any particular design decision. Hell, even if you play through an entire incremental game without a single thought or feeling, that very fact it elicited nothing can itself be artistic merit! diff --git a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/index.md b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/index.md index 7961c4d3..619045bb 100644 --- a/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/index.md +++ b/site/garden/guide-to-incrementals/index.md @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ import { useData } from 'vitepress'; const pageData = useData();

Guide to Incrementals

-

251 words, ~1 minute read.

+

230 words, ~1 minute read.

> Referenced by: [My Personal Website](/garden/my-personal-website/index.md) @@ -20,8 +20,6 @@ This is a comprehensive guide to Incremental Games, a genre of video games. It w > Note: This is an incomplete document. I want to keep adding opinions and opposing views from other incremental games developers, and add interactive examples to illustrate various points regarding game design and balancing. Consider this a living document - and see the changelog at the end. -> Note: This was made before my switch to a digital garden, and is written as prose. Hope you don't mind! - ## Why am I making this? That's a good question! What authority do I have to be making this guide? I haven't made the best incremental games, nor the most incremental games, certainly not the most popular ones either. But I do have some formal education in game development, know a lot of incremental game devs (as well as other game devs), and have a passionate interest in ludology, classifying genres, etc. I've also made [a couple of incremental games](/garden/my-projects/index.md)) myself.