Motivating and rewarding players (designing beyond the core play mechanic)

[James C. Smith]

I see a lot of games that have a basically good concept (a fun core play mechanic) but don’t fallow though with a complete game. I am not talking about a lack of polished artwork or user interfaces. I am not concerned here with features like save game or volume controls or customizing the look of your character. All that stuff is nice but first you need to build the gameplay beyond the core play mechanic. Too many games are fun for 5 minutes and then get repetitive and boring. Some players are so competitive that they enjoy playing just to get higher scores. Also, some play mechanics are so good and so entrancing that players just can’t stop. But most of the time, a player needs proper motivation and rewards to make them want to play more. I am going to quote myself from other topics that you may have missed or may not have replied to for fear of taking the other thread off topic.

I wrote this in response to a feedback request for a match 3 game (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?p=15135#post15135):
…Overall, there just wasn’t anything driving me forward. Points alone are not a strong enough motivator to make me want to play more. In most games, I want to keep playing to see what happens next. I want to see what the next level is like or unlock the next goodies. After 10 minutes of play I was convinced I had seen it all and there was nothing to look forward to. Ranks can be another way to motivate players. Bookworm is a great example of a game that gives the player more reasons to go on. Each level ends by telling you what level you achieved and giving you a “rank” such a “librarian” complete with a cute little picture. That silly name and picture is a huge motivator because it makes me wonder what all the rest of the ranks are and challenges me to get a higher rank than my competitors. Ranks are much more interesting than points. Bookworm also introduced a few twist (such as burning letters) as you advanced to higher levels. That made me want to get to the next level to see what was added next. Jewel Quest is an example of a match 3 game which great motivation to continue player. Each level is different and I want to beat the level to see what the next one is like.

I am not saying you specifically should add ranks or level design or add new goodies as the game progresses. But you have to do SOMETHING to make me want to play the next level….

[James C. Smith]

More recently a responded to a feedback request for Invadazoid (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=1998) (a breakout / space invaders game):
…I found it hard to see how much progress I was making toward my final goal. I was on Invasion mode “Wave 1-12” with no indication of how many waves there are or when I will reach the next milestone (if there even are any). It would be nice to see a “world map” or some kind of progress screen between waves that shows how far I have come and how far there is left to go to reach the next milestone and to reach the end of the game.

…There doesn’t seem to be any intermediate goals within each level. The 3 minute goal is to finish the level. The 3 second goal is to kill one more bad guy. There should be a 30 second goal to reach some kind of help that makes more than incidental progress. For example, a bad guy who blows up and kills 8 bad guys around him. That would give me something to aim at. Or a bad guy who always drops a power-up would also be a good goal to aim at. In Ricochet there are always exploding bricks, trigger bricks, changer bricks, or power-up bricks to aim at. Hitting these brick does more than just break one brick. They make major progress toward ending the level. They are what the player is always aiming for. They give the player hope and avoid having to finish the level one brick at a time. In Invadavoid my only hope is that a power-up will randomly appear but I don’t seem to have any control over that so it don’t have the same goal oriented appeal.

Overall I would say that the biggest problem with the game is that it doesn’t do a good job of setting goals for the player, tracking progress toward those goals, and rewarding the player for achieving these goals. A game should always have a 3 second goal, a 30 second goal, a 3 minute goal, a 30 minute goal, and a 10 hour goal. The exact length of each goal varies from game to game but the point is the same. Some examples would be:

3 Second goal: Kill another bad guy (you already do this)
30 second goal: Reach a milestone within the level. (described above) Your game is missing this goal.
3 minute goal: Finish the level (you already do this and your game design inherently does a good job of showing progress towards this goal)
30 minute goal: Reach the next check point or unlock the next weapon upgrade, or discover the next species of fish (Kahuna). Your game is missing this goal or not doing a good enough job of telling me what it is.
10 hour goal: Finish the game. I assume your game has this but it does a poor job of showing me my progress towards this goal since I don’t even know where the end is.

Without all these different levels of goals, a player isn’t properly motivated to play the game. “Why should I bother to finish another level. I am just going to get more of the same.”

[James C. Smith]

Here is a snippet of what I wrote for a soon to be published whitepaper. In this section I am talking about a game demo motivating a player to purchase the full version of the game but it is still the same basic concept:
Pacing of new content
Many games introduce new content as the game progresses. Background, environments or tile sets may change as the player progresses though the game. An action game may have basic weapons and enemies on the first few levels and more advanced weapons and enemies as the player reach higher levels. This is a very effective way of keeping the player interested in the game and moving forward to see what is next. It is important that the introduction of new content does not plateau during the trial period. Just before the trial period ends, the player should have recently reached new contents and be looking forward to even more new content if he continues on past the end of the trial period.

Visibility of games size/scope
Another effective way to help convince the player to purchase the full version is to visually display how far she has progressed in the game. It is one thing for the up-sell screen to boast “over 100 levels in the full version”, it is even better if the player visually tracks his progress though the game and can see he is only 10% of the way to the final goal. You can help a player visualize his progress by showing a “world map” between levels where the play’s avatar travels from one area to the next. It is import to not only show where the player is and how far she has come, but more importantly, how far he have left to go. Depending on the theme of the game, a grid of level thumbnails, a progress bar, or a rank chart may be more appropriate that a world map. However it is accomplished, it is powerful to show the play how much more there is left to explore in the game in a more meaningful way than just a number on the up-sell screen.

[James C. Smith]

Examples of goals in successful games

Ricochet Lost Words
3 seconds goal: Break another brick
30 seconds goal: Make your way to the special brick that will explode, or drop a power up or trigger a change in the level - Reward: give you a leap forward towards you 3 minute goal below
3 minute goal: Finish the level – Reward: See new level
30 minute goal: Unlock the next checkpoint – Reward: change to new environment (background/tile set) and ability to start future games from a new point
10 hour goal: Finish the game – Reward: Silver trophy
Option goal: Collect 5 tings on each level – Reward: Gold trophy

Bug Kahuna Reef
3 second goal: Match 3 in a row – Reward: break open boxes to release fish
30 second goal: (many but not all levels) Unlock bottleneck chained pieces – Reward: New chamber of board fills up with gems
Optional 30 second goal: Make enough consecutive matched to get tiki totem poll all the way to the top – Reward: Points and dramatic sound effects
5 minute goal: Break all the boxes to finish the level – Reward: See new level
30 minute goal: Finish 6 levels – Reward: unlock new species of fish
10 hour goal: Finish all 100 level – reward: Congratulations screen and bonus 50 levels unlocked

It is also very important to show the user is progress towards each goal. Ricochet and Kahuna make it easy to see the progress you are making towards finishing the level because every pieces of the level is visible. You can easily see how many bricks or boxes are left to break. Ricochet shows you to “world map” of all the checkpoints there are to unlock but only at the beginning of the game. It would be better if it also showed them each time a checkpoint is unlocked or maybe even each time you make progress towards a checkpoint (after each level). Kahuna does this much better. After every level you see the equivalent of a “world map” screen where all the locked fish are displayed. You can clearly see you progress towards your 30 minute and 10 hour goals each time you finish a level.


Feeding Frenzy
3 second goal: Eat a fish
30 second goal: Grow to the next size – progress clearly show in HUD – reward: turn the tables and starting eating the guys who were trying to eat you
5 minute goal finish the level to see a new one – world map is shown after each level to track progress to bigger goals mentioned below
30 minute goal: make it to checkpoint where background theme changes and new screen saver is unlocked
10 hour goal finish the game.

Not only does Feeding Frenzy have multiple levels of goals, but is also does a great job of tracking progress towards each goal and rewarding you when the goal is achieved. What could be more rewarding than eating the guys who were trying to eat you?!

[James C. Smith]

Okay. That’s enough from me. Assuming you skimmed through at least 10% of that, what is your take on how to set goals and reward players? The examples I gave all used a similar model. I am sure many other games use a completely different system that is also good. Or you may just have more examples of the model I described.

[svero]

For me as a player you've touched on the central most important motivating factor in my decision to keep playing and my decision to buy. Content and mid/long term goals are *crucial*. I think it's one of the big problems that puppygames stuff has. Lack of content, focus on score. There are maybe other problems, but the games could sell better than they do. What's funny to me about games is that the content and goals need not be anythint too special! It's not always a question of speding months implementing 30 new levels. The example of bookworm's ranks is a good one because its such a minor thing to add, but from a player perspective it can be very very powerful.

It's something that Hamsterball could have used to much better effect. It has ranks when you finish levels, which I believe is correct, but if the ranks made more sense (is it better to be owlbait or sewer rat? I have no idea) and were displayed in a way that they could be used as goals the game would be more compelling.

Most of the popular logic games that use to sell pretty well a few years ago, including Aargon, used simple thumbnail mechanism to show levels solved and unsolved. This wasn't purely an interface design decision. It sets goals, it shows people considering a purchase how much more there is to solve, etc... It was both a marketing and gameplay decision.

I think that's partly why games like Jewel Quest and Mahjongg quest did so well. They took a solid proven gameplay concept and added long and mid term goals in place of a pure scoring/level approach. And of course this stuff has been used to great effect in console games for years now. Ghosts and Goblins has a little map showing you how far you've progressed as you play.

I also think mini goals can be used very effectively in terms of replay. Mario3D and Tony Hawk are great examples of games that reuse the same content with minor changes and award the player stars. Its just a little gold star but as a player I find collecting all those tiny things very very compelling. Furthermore the stars are used to unlock more content. So it's all used very effectively. It gives you short, mid and longterm goals as well as a nice integrated system for gaining more content. As well the player is teased with doors and star counts. You can't help but wonder.. what's behind the door with 5 stars? or in big kahuna? what will be the next fish I earn. Similar sorts of teases at the most basic level.

[Diodor Bitan]

Original post by svero
What's funny to me about games is that the content and goals need not be anythint too special!

Merely the time invested towards a goal makes the goal special and gives it weight. That's how I often end up torturing myself with games I grow to hate just to solve that one elusive quest.

Also, if the longer terms goals don't overlap and there is any one moment in the game where I have finished all the bigger goals - that's a very likely point for the me to quit the game for good - especially if that point coincides with the free demo's end.

[mahlzeit]

Don't know how relevant it is, but: I usually like to invent additional goals for myself when playing a game. In most FPS's, I want to get through a sequence unharmed. When I lose too much health -- usually it's nowhere near fatal yet -- I reload that sequence and play it again. In Splinter Cell, I would even retry a sequence if I was detected or when I wasted more than one bullet. This goes for many other games too: I always want my play to be perfect. Maybe I'm crazy, but that is what makes games fun for me. :)

[svero]

I've done the inventing goals things as well!

@James - why not back this up with something concrete. How about an analysis of how these ideas are in place in Big Kahuna. I'd be interested to read what you were thinking of as you designed the game.

[Hamumu]

If you as the designer can beat the player to inventing goals (like getting through a sequence unharmed, avoiding wasted bullets, making big combos), you will have a guaranteed more compelling game. Imagine if each sequence you got through unharmed popped up "Smmooooooth" on the screen (okay, so it's apparently a remake of Moonwalker I'm talking about), and at the end of the level it said that you got 7/9 Smoooooth (or what it would do in a Japanese game is not tell you that, but give you a letter grade, which would be higher had you gotten all the smooths, and biggest combos, and killed everyone, and done it all fast). That's pretty darn compelling, for very very little effort on the developer's part. Sure, the player can invent these things himself, but if you can beat him to it, you've created something to drive the player that is both present whether he comes up with the goal himself or not, and that has a built-in reward, so he doesn't have to mentally reward himself. Plus there's the little "cool, there IS a reward for that!" thing.

You gotta keep stuff like that optional though. If you can't progress until you've gotten at least 50% smooth or something, that's just going to be frustrating to lesser players. Allow lesser players to progress, and if they get 1 or 2 smooths, they're excited because they have that little reward. That's the problem I have with letter grades, it's so depressing to get a C or D (in Viewtiful Joe it even says Crappy!). I think it's better to do it all in entirely positive fashion. In fact, forget the "7/9" display. Just say "7 Smooth +7000 Points!" or whatever. Make the optional things purely positive. And then you can slip in another bonus that they never see unless they get it - "SMOOOOOOOTH CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!" for getting every single one. I told you it was Moonwalker.

There's a really cool example of this in one of the recent James Bond games. I haven't played it, but saw the review and they showed some examples. It's when you go out of your way to do something in over-the-top or totally unnecessary fashion (and they kind of rig up scenes to have obvious or semi-hidden things you can rely on), it gives you something like a "007 Moment", rewarding you for having acted like James Bond. An example would be something like a badguy coming at you and instead of shooting him, you shoot the chandelier above him so it lands on him. These obviously had to be hand-crafted, but they sound awfully rewarding!

Though it kind of disagrees with the purely positive aspect, I'm also with Svero on this - if you have stuff that CAN be collected, and is tallied up ("75/120 Gems Found"), there is no stopping me until I have them all. That is compelling, maybe only for a certain subset, but I'm in that subset. Any goal that's in a game, required or not, I'm all over it. I must have 100%. And it doesn't matter how pointless it is, as long as it's there, you're adding something that will appeal to someone. Just throw a pile of shiny things all over your level and count how many the player gets, easy as pie.

For me in designing, I always start with a game, and then on top of that I layer a huge huge pile of meta-game. Examples include the badges you can earn in Loonyland (for doing strange things like smashing all the tombstones in the cemetery - each badge is a sort of cheat that can be toggled on or off, though some make the game much harder instead of easier), the stuff you can buy in the shops in Supreme, and in Kid Mystic, Loonyland, Stockboy and probably others, new game modes you can unlock. You know, it's like the player has these goals James talks about, but those are all IN the game - get the next key, find all the presents, beat the boss. What I like to do is layer more goals ABOVE that, outside the 'game' itself. James had some of them too, the fish in Big Kahuna for example, but that's not quite so meta since those fish are an inevitable part of progressing forward. Metagaming is more about making a game out of playing the game. In Loonyland, you play the game to level up and beat the monsters, but you can also play the metagame of "what can I do that is likely to be rewarded by a badge?".

All I'm saying with that, and the sum total of what I bring to this discussion, is don't stop looking for rewards in the game. Step outside a notch and look for ways to add more to it there. So very many games these days just have Play/Options/Exit, when it would be really simple to add a set of medals to earn and a medal gallery to view them, a quickie survival game mode (perhaps unlocked by said medals), or something. That's value added, and it gets customers excited. Give them things to unlock, things to collect, trophy rooms to admire their collection, surprises and secrets, multiple modes. Oops, now I'm talking marketing instead of game design. Don't listen, I'm terrible at marketing.

[svero]

In a conversation I had with An Flack about my latest game we were discussing scoring and how I should take anything a player can do and reward them more the harder it is. Targets near the top of the screen are harder to hit, so reward the player with a "height" bonus. It's harder to hit two targets in a row. Reward the player with a "speed" bonus. Then take the scoring and add a medium goal to it.. a free ship say. So goals and score can be intertwined.

Incidentally Hamumu is the master of the inconsequential little mini goals. His games are layered chock full of mini goals. There are so many that for the most part I can't find them all. If it's possible to have too many mini goals Hamumu is the guy that will do it first.

[luggage]

I agree with Hammu. A retail game I worked on not long ago was a driving game aimed at kids. There was feature where you could cycle through pre-defined screenshots and print them out. The code I wrote just catalogued the directory as they weren't sure how many there'd be. Having done that, went to the producer and suggested having the screenshot key (which was already there) write the screenshots to the print feature directory. I was told no as it's not worth it. A bit dissappointing as everything was in place and it would have taken 2 minutes to put in.

I like things that add a good feature cheaply. That's why in Party Bowling we have unlockable pins\balls as knocking up another texture was worth it for the extra reward players get. Same as the challenge mode, it was trivial to implement so we did it twice and offered the difficult one as a reward for completing the easy version.

[James C. Smith]

Mike makes great point about optional goals and rewarding the player for going out of his way to do it perfect. Ricochet Lost Worlds has one example of that. Collecting all the rings on all the levels is totally optional. But the game has several different spots where it helps you keep track of your progress towards this optional goal and reward you when you achieve it. But you can finish the game without a single ring. Well, you can beat the last level anyway. It isn’t exactly finessed if you didn’t finish the optional goal(s).

[Martoon]

I also think mini goals can be used very effectively in terms of replay. Mario3D and Tony Hawk are great examples of games that reuse the same content with minor changes and award the player stars. Its just a little gold star but as a player I find collecting all those tiny things very very compelling.
and

...a bunch of really good stuff about hidden things, merit badges, optional goals, etc. added to existing levels...

These are very good points, and I think they are especially relevant to indie development. Indie developers have very limited resources with which to create content. That's one of the biggest challenges an indie faces when competing with well-funded studios. We really have to squeeze everything we can out of the resources we have. Putting multiple challenges or goals into each level or environment gets a lot more mileage out of that environment. I think it's unfortunate that more indie games don't do this.

If it's done right, it adds a lot for the player. I enjoyed Mario 64 more than the kinds of games where you're constantly consuming new content. I got to feel more comfortable and familiar with each level (instead of always feeling a little lost and unsure), and yet I was always doing something new.

[James C. Smith]

Luggage’s mention of screen shots reminds me of one other minor thing. Ricochet Lost Worlds has a screen shot key. But it also takes an automatic screen shot any time you earn a trophy. Your game folder has a bunch of JPG files of you progress. You can use these as desktop wallpaper, print them our, or post them on a web site. The trophy screen has lots of stats on it and our forums are filled with people posting their trophies / stats for others to see. I look my personally trophy screen shot and uploaded it to a photo printing web site as if it was a photo from my digital camera. I had them print an 8 X 10 glossy “photo” of my trophy. ;-)

[Sparks]

All very true and important.
Nothings worse than not having the player know what to achieve.
Thats part of the old rule that a game needs to grab the player within minutes to be successful.
Bubble Bobble was kinda advanced in that area, because of the "BONUS" stuff You could collect.
Indeed thats where some games fail, they often try to pack too much into the gameplay and leave the player a bit overwhelmed.
Short term goals, midterm goals, longterm goals, and of course, reward, reward, reward.
Sounds and graphics can be rewards, new characters (aka "Lord of the Rings:Return of the king"), new weapons, levels, mini games (anyone remembers pinball games like "Slamtilt" etc).
Some games indeed make this part of the gameplay and give it a life of its own, namely RPGs like Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Diablo etc.
As a designer You merely invent, balance and place the items in the world, and from the on, You don't control anything anymore, the player gathers items (instant reward), checks them in fight against previous weapons (mace vs short sword) (midterm goal), puts them back to sell em (longterm reward) or even needs them for the boss fight (longterm goal).
That's so cool that by using just a "few" items, You can depend on the player to make much more of it than the sum of its parts :)
Thats why RPGs often immerse the player much more than other games, because each player can develop his unique way of playing the game and using weapons or equip his character, although the base from which to start is given at the beginning of the game.

[Chris Evans]

One thing that's worked pretty well for our new puzzle game is our Trophy Cabinet and Trophy Webpage.

In the game, there's a section where players can view all the trophies they've earned. But in addition to that, players have their own Trophy webpage, which they can actually show other players. I believe because of this, our World Rankings are very active, especially compared to other puzzle games.

You can view the Online Rankings table here:
http://www.outsidetheboxsoftware.com/otb_puzzlescoreboard.html?type=overall&mode=action

You can view one of the Trophy Webpages here:
http://www.outsidetheboxsoftware.com/puzzle/trophy_cabinet.html?pid=645

[Anthony Flack]

Hamumu is my hero when it comes to adding extra goals outside the scope of the main game. I'm going that way myself, now - the idea being that there is a basic way to play the game and succeed, but also all kinds of extra optional layers of gameplay you can tap into. And yes, a large part of this is to maximise the amount of gameplay you get from your limited content. But also because I think these extra goals and challenges are really cool, but many simply aren't appropriate for inclusion in the "base" game (they may be too difficult for many people; they may require a different skill set to the base game, etc).

On the flipside, I have to mention Best Friends - this is a game that I found charming and fun. However, the entire game is laid out for you from the beginning; there is nothing to unlock, and no particular goals to reach. Which made the whole thing totally non-compelling to me. If there were rewards to work towards for completing all the stages, and extra rewards for getting all the hearts, then I would not have rested until I'd had them all.

[oNyx]

The side effect of additional goals is that there isn't a need for difficulty settings anymore. As a player you can take it easy (like 65 stars in mario64), you can do it the hard way (120 stars) or anything in between.

A variation of that is for example that there are several ways to beat a level: just finish it, do it fast, do it without getting hit or both. For summoning the collector in the player you can display the current state with various shiny icons: not finished, finished, fast, no hit and perfect. The first one could be gray (low contrast etc), the next one a bit colorfull, fast/no hit could be silver and perfect could be a golden star.

A bad player will be satisfied with just beating the level... whereas a good player will get about half of them "by accident". If that happens it gets rather hard to resist the urge to get all of those medals/stars.

I think that works very well. It gives the game a nice touch, too. And it also adds a reason for playing the game/level again. Well, that alone is not really like replay value, but it clearly helps getting closer to that goal.

[Kai Backman]

In simulation games I see the weight shifting more to voluntary goals set out by the players themselves. Simulators are by nature open ended, so devising a predefined set of goals as a designer is pretty hard. What I think ShortHike, for example, needs is a mechanism for players to be able to set their own goals and track the progress towards them. A system using predefined building block would probably be the best. Like some core campaigns that can be augmented with different details from the player.

One interesting set of voluntary challenges comes from NetHack (http://www.nethack.org). There you can track your "conduct" like this:


Voluntary challenges:

You have gone without food.
You have been an atheist.
You have never hit with a wielded weapon.
You have been a pacifist.
You have been illiterate.
You have never genocided any monsters.
You have never polymorphed an object.
You have never changed form.
You have used no wishes.


Some of these change with conduct. You can be a vegetarian, never have eaten raw meat etc. Very interesting design element.

[svero]

There's something weird about building games. They do indeed seem to be more player-goal focused. Build a nice ride for your park in roller coaster tycoon, or organize your city well in simcity.I'm not sure if that's an inherent weakness in those games or not. I've found for myself as a player that the wide-open-goalless element of these kind of games leaves me a little dissatisfied.

[Kai Backman]

I've found for myself as a player that the wide-open-goalless element of these kind of games leaves me a little dissatisfied.

I think that is a design flaw. Most humans are goal oriented, even simulation players. You might play Flight Simulator (or X-Plane) to brush up your Cessna 172 skills. Just going round and round. But then again you have created yourself an external goal. The VATSIM network with large gatherings of pilots and air controllers is an external way of creating these goals. Now your goal is the fly this 727 from Stockholm - Arlanda to London - Heathrow. And keep within the boundaries of the accepted reality. I think that is a reason why many combat flight simulators are more popular, they provide a way to keep score.

I think many simulation games could benefit from letting the player set explicit goals for themselves and track those goals. The goals might still be player dependent but the tools should come from the developer. I see a technological shift like the one from hand drawn maps to automapping in games .. :)

[Hamumu]

There's something weird about building games. They do indeed seem to be more player-goal focused. Build a nice ride for your park in roller coaster tycoon, or organize your city well in simcity.I'm not sure if that's an inherent weakness in those games or not. I've found for myself as a player that the wide-open-goalless element of these kind of games leaves me a little dissatisfied.

Me too. I think "Cool, simcity" and start laying out a city (always with monsters off, because it's just annoying to have your city randomly trashed), then if I can get it up and running well.... I walk away, bored. There's nothing to accomplish, and I didn't even get a reward for making my city run well, my 'goalishness' just kind of faded slowly away the better the city was doing. Give me things to shoot for! The more the better.

With regard to optional goals and Nethack, I think of Zangband, which I played a lot. When I first started, there were a lot of people who attempted Ironman mode, which meant they'd never come back to the surface, always continuing downward, completely clearing each level (I think those were the rules). It was not a healthy plan, but it was a challenge they liked. Later on, this mode was actually incorporated into the game and the highscore list - you could set your character to Ironman mode, and there would be no up-stairs or town portal scrolls (whatever they were called... I play Diablo now!), and you'd have a separate high score list. It's the same exact thing, but now the game is recognizing it, and that's better.

So the more optional goals you can incorporate and recognize in your game, the better your game is - sure, people can try for them themselves, but they are happier when they get recognition for their deeds! Plus it helps the less creative ones come up with more things to do with your game when the normal play is no longer interesting to them. Nethack recognizing all those 'statistics' is a cool example.

[cliffski]

This is a very interesting discussion, and a topic I must admit I have let slide in my own games. Sim City is a great game, but its lack of real goals can let the game fizzle out. I'm making lots of mental notes now to address this stuff in my next game. I have a tendency to make games that get repetitive very quickly which probably kills my conversion rate :(

[dan]

Our new game is strongly based around the reward hooks. The central one is that you begin with little choice of Delvers, but you earn fame points to "unlock" new Delvers for subsequent quests. Each Delver has unique abilities and the more expensive ones are better, of course.

There is also a very complete scoring system with all sorts of fun ratings in addition to "normal" ratings. The better the overall score, the more fame points you've earned.

And this is a good topic. Hooks are important.

[Promaginy]

Sim City is a great game, but its lack of real goals can let the game fizzle out.

Great topic! This topic has inspired me to write down the rewards that the player should expect in our game from 5 seconds and on. Thanks for bringing this up.

I feel like many others that the "software toys" that Maxis claims its games to be are not as attractive to me because there is no overarching goal. Yet these games are very popular and many developers feel compelled to add a sandbox mode their games so that players can just play around.

I would argue that sim games like SimCity and the Sims have rewards built into the game by the simple fact that everything works. You don't need to worry about your Sim's house being successfully built. You click - it is built. It is instant gratification. After creating these virtual sandboxes, you can destroy them by messing around with monsters or screwing up your Sims. It is the ultimate in amusement.

At least, that is what I think is what appeals to players who like those games. I know I still prefer the Civilization type games where there is an ultimate goal. Maxis games are for those player's who like to set their own rewards. That is why you cannot compete in a game of SimCity or the Sims. But you will sure find lots of people talking about what happened to their virtual cities and families. That word of mouth talk is wonderful advertising.

[James C. Smith]

This topic has inspired me to write down the rewards that the player should expect in our game from 5 seconds and on.

Remember that having many goals, or multiple tears of goals, is only part of the equation. The other part is you must clearly define the goal to the player, track the player’s progress towards the goal, and reward the player when the goal is achieved. Some games fail to have the groper levels of goals. Other games fail to tell you user about the goals and/or track their progress. For example, if you don’t tell the player how many levels are in the game then they have no idea how close they are to the goal of finishing the game. Sometimes the suspense may be a good thing, or sowing them know how small your game is could be bad, but usually it is best to define the goal and show the progress towards the goal. This also applies to all the intermediate goals. It is usually best to clearly communicate the goal to the user and track the progress.

[Promaginy]

Remember that having many goals, or multiple tears of goals, is only part of the equation. The other part is you must clearly define the goal to the player, track the player’s progress towards the goal, and reward the player when the goal is achieved.

That makes sense. There is no point in having goals/rewards if the player does not understand what to do or what they are aiming for.

James, in thinking about our game in this fashion, it has allowed me to think more concretely about what is expected of the player at any given time. The player can make choices, but these choices should be pretty obvious. So in our game a player can choose to attack with a spell, repel an incoming spell, or cast a defensive spell. The challenge will be for the player to master when to do what. Easy to play but hard to master. The correct choices will allow the player to reach their goals. Does this make sense?

[Curiosoft]

Hey James,

I really like this model.

My question is...are there other reward models that you know of that work equally well? Or even better?

The reason I ask is because I am making a "creative sandbox"-like game and am not sure if this reward model really works well within the context of sandbox-like game

[DanMarshall]

I'm playing through San Andreas at the moment, and I think it's an important title with regards to goals.

The thing is, that I can go anywhere, do anything. Go to the gym, start a fight, thieve, rob etc. But there are always the plot-progressing missions. Sitting there. Tempting me.

Although I know it'll bring the end sequence about all too quickly, I can't help but jump in and do a mission. It's about progression -- seeing what the reward is. Seeing where it takes me. Seeing what the plot is.

It's stuff like this that's missing in many games.

[James C. Smith]

This is a shameless BUMP of my old topic in honor of the new design section of the forum. :o

[Christian]

Interesting topic.

I didnt read all those posts, and i dont know if what i am going to say was said before, so im going to be brief.

The best rewards a game can have an affect in the play of the game.

Un-locking a new texture can be a good reward, but a better reward will give new posibilites to the play, making it richer (actually, it can become more complex, but that depends on the choices of the designer).

Think about Diablo, that games is a good example of good rewards: kill a big monster, get a super weapon; spend the morning killing zombies, get a lot of money to buy weapons and armor and so be more powerfull to kill even more monsters, and get more money, and more weapons and become even more powerfull and so on, and so on to the infinite. And what is an armor or weapon? just an array of numbers, more simple than that, impossible.

[soniCron]

Think about Diablo, that games is a good example of good rewards: kill a big monster, get a super weapon; spend the morning killing zombies, get a lot of money to buy weapons and armor and so be more powerful to kill even more monsters, and get more money, and more weapons and become even more powerful and so on, and so on to the infinite. And what is an armor or weapon? just an array of numbers, more simple than that, impossible. Unfortunately (fortunately?), gamers are becoming increasingly tired of the "upgrade loop" that's commonly found in RPGs and RPG influenced games, like Diablo. I'd say a far better example of player rewards can be found in the Zelda series. Instead of giving you more powerful weapons to kill only more powerful enemies (hell, you may as well be starting over each time) you're rewarded with new abilities through these weapons and upgrades. By adding new elements to the gameplay, the method of solving the meta-puzzles is greatly varied and creates a richer gaming experience.

In addition, there are many short term rewards like the rupees enemies leave behind, or the hearts found in hacking tall grass. This serves to make every action you do a rewarding one. In a game like Diablo, you kill a monster knowing that your experience is increasing and they may drop money to add to your cache, thus putting you closer to the end of this loop iteration. In Zelda, there is no obligation to kill any enemies, so the motivation to do so is still rewarding and not just "yet another rat to kill."

Anyone who hasn't ever played any of the Zelda series beyond the original NES (Zelda I and II) or just haven't played in a long time, I strongly urge you to jack in your SNES or start up your favorite emulator and check out Zelda III: A Link to the Past. It is one of the most well constructed gaming experiences, no matter your genre preference, and will surely provide insight to more fulfilling game design.

[Christian]

Yes, yes, that whas just an example to demostrate the "give rewards that affect the play" statement, im not a fan of Diablo, but it is well known i supose.
Another good example of good rewards, is jedi outcast game, where you are rewarded with fun "powers of the force", wich give you more kinds of attacks, like graving people from the throat and throwing them :D, or giving you superspeed, slowing things around you, or the superjump that allows you to almost fly :O

[papillon]

The problem with RPG advancement is making sure it doesn't just feel like more of the same.

"Great, I've leveled up and am doing more damage! ... And am immediately faced with proportionally-harder monsters who have just enough hit points to make my advancement, with its 'extra' damage, just as slow - or SLOWER - than it was before."

Continuing to present a challenge while allowing the player to noticeably improve and feel more powerful can be tricky.

[svero]

I hate the upgrade loop in RPGS. I'm also sick of the dressing doll section. I don't want to sit there trying to figure out if the sword of flame +5 or the sword of slicing +4 I just collected is more advantageous. It's particularly horrible in multi character RPG's like Icewind Dale where you can swap items around between players. I lot of that complexity just has to be dealt away with. The same rewards and evolved complexity could be attained without forcing the player to mico manage all the details. It's not rewarding, it's tedious.

[Savant]

I'm guessing you're not the target audience then.

[svero]

Well I'd disagree with that. I like RPG's and have been playing them for years. I liked diablo and icewind dale and baldurs gate etc... But what was ok 10 yrs ago in a game doesnt have to be the standard today. Interface need not be tied directly to gameplay. You can reward players without forcing them to micromanage. It use to be ok to load a game off a tape drive and wait 40 minutes to play. If that's not ok with me now, am I just not the target audience for that game? Course not.. it has little to do with the game. If players really enjoy micro managing their player's posessions in rpgs then why havent we seen any games which are just dress up doll micro management. I'll tell you why. It's because that part isn't rewarding or fun. You do all that stuff just so you can finally get everything squared away and move on to the real player rewards. Discovering the next dungeon or whatever...

[Hamumu]

I totally disagree. Fate is 98.5% this very micromanagement. And I enjoy it! I think Savant is right that you're not the target audience. I love that kind of stuff myself.

My gamelet NPC Quest is literally ONLY that part of RPGs (rather than removing the weapon choosing, it removes the adventuring and fighting, leaving you only to choose and shop for weapons and items!), and it's one of the games my customers really clamor for a sequel to or bigger version of, so they like it too. A sequel has been on my mind for a while...

Spiderweb games too are heavy on this stuff. Not as much as some though, the rate at which you get new usable items is quite low. But you do spend a lot of time deciding where to put your level-up points.

I think pulling that out of the game and focusing more on the other stuff IS a very good idea, and is definitely the road towards more casual play (I totally say Fate isn't remotely casual in any sense). But that doesn't mean hardcore item management games are bad, they're just something different. Just like intense strategy games or massive bullet spewing shooters. They belong to a certain niche.

[soniCron]

But that doesn't mean hardcore item management games are bad, they're just something different. Just like intense strategy games... They belong to a certain niche. I couldn't disagree more. It would be one thing if there was some element of strategy or problem solving involved, but you're always reduced to finding the most powerful item that you can afford. It's not like there's any matter of choice in the whole matter anyway. You're not stuck between an item with +10 HP, -10 MP and an item with -10 HP, +10 MP. Your class usually has one kind of weapon you can use, and one is always better than another. There's no tradeoff, no strategy, no amount of real influence over the outcome. Get the best you can afford. Period. Game over.

[Hamumu]

Sounds like you've never played these kinds of games... try Diablo 2. You'll be juggling items endlessly because they have so many features to them that there is no "one best". I've struggled back and forth in Fate many times as well. Further, there's more depth than just what the items do - there's whether to save up for a much better one or buy a slight improvement; there's whether to scum around hoping to find one; there's what skills and attributes to develop. It all combines to make a very interesting problem which has no single solution. I'm sorry you don't like the type of game, but that does NOT make it a universally bad thing (nor does it make your pronouncements about the amount of strategy contained within any more accurate).

People have different tastes, it's an amazing phenomenon that could stand to be learned about.

[merovingian]

One of the ways we rewarded players was revealing Easter Egg codes within the game at various random points or for achieving reasonably intuitive personal games (i.e. complete a game without getting hit, on the highest skill level, or destroy all of your allies).

Some of the Easter Eggs were silly, others were quite cool.

Along those lines, the best one we revealed was an entire console development system built within our cartridge. Sadly, no one has really complete a game with it, but a lot of people were able to run homebrew demos no one else could.

Good thread guys...

[James C. Smith]

It can be important to make the reward useful. But I think it is even more important to set a goal, track the progress towards the goal, and give a reward when the goal is met. Even good rewards are not as effective if they are given at unknown times. Intermittent rewards can be good and powerful for other reasons, but my main point was about showing the player what the scope of the game is and tracking their progress towards the end goal as well as intermediate goals.

[James C. Smith]

Most games have some kind of reward when you finish the game. But many games do not to do good job of showing you where that goal is and how close you are to it.

[merovingian]

Most games have some kind of reward when you finish the game. But many games do not to do good job of showing you where that goal is and how close you are to it.

And that's an interesting point. Some games don't need to point the way while others need to hold your hand to get you to do the right thing. And that's an entirely different thread...

[James C. Smith]

That is not what I mean at all. I am not saying you need to show which way you need to go to get to the goal. I am not taking about giving them hints to solve the quest. I am talking about making it clear how big the game is and how close you are to finishing it. Image you are making a pac man game with 20 mazes. If you finish maze 1 you go to maze 2. If you finish maze 20 you “win the game” and get some kind of movie or trophy or story.

You don’t need to show them the way through the maze to win level 1. But you should tell the player that there are 20 levels. When they finish level 4 you should say “good job. You finish level 4 of 20. There are 16 more level to get to get to the end. (and 1 more level to go to get to the next bonus level or some other intermediate goal.

This can be done with a “world map” that show a path leading through 20 levels and 4 of them checked off as being completed. In Big Kahuna Reef it is done by showing how many fish you have “discovered” (unlocked) and how many more there are left to go.

[svero]

But thats just it. I am in fact exactly the target audience. I've been playing exactly those kinds of games for years and I've bought many of them. I bought and played diablo. The problem with you guys is, that you think what passed for ok 5 yrs ago is still ok today. Games should evolve and so should genres. Baldur's Gate plays a hell of a lot better than might and magic 1 and thats how it should be. What was acceptable in terms of interface then is not today. Just because these sorts of games have been micro management heavy in the past doesnt mean thats the "right" way to go. That sort of thinking is why the game genre and the entire pc market is stuck in a horrible rut. How many times can we play exactly diablo or starcraft over and over again? It's time to move these games forward not just keep repeating the same old tedious crap. I'm convinced you can get the same fun without the micromanagement and improve on these sorts of titles without hurting them.

[soniCron]

The problem with you guys is, that you think what passed for ok 5 yrs ago is still ok today. Games should evolve and so should genres. For what it's worth, I was hugely into RPGing of all sorts (Diablo, Final Fantasy, etc.) when I was younger. For about 6-7 years I gave it up and didn't play many games. (Primarily because of finances.) Come last Christmas, I bought myself Knights of the Old Republic after hearing all the amazing stuff; the great reviews. I was excited as hell as I popped that mother in the Xbox and began my quest. It had been 7 years since my last trek! Oh, boy was I excited!

Oh, man was I pissed! "WTF is this? This is the same damn game I'd played a million times in the past... in 3D! Sure, there were little tweaks and changes here and there, neat real-time RPG "experience", but it was basically the same! Sixty seven point one million bytes of RAM... seven hundred and thirty three million clock cycles per second... a graphics card more powerful than all the supercomputers that existed pre '90s, combined... and NPC's can't say anything more than, "I'm too busy now! Go away!"?!?!

Subpar graphics, a storyline that rivals your daytime TV soap, and the same, "Hi! I haven't seen you in a while!" "Hi! I haven't seen you in a while!" "Hi! I haven't seen you in a while!" conversations I had on my 8-bit!

This doesn't say much for the gaming industry, one iota.

[merovingian]

That is not what I mean at all. I am not saying you need to show which way you need to go to get to the goal. I am not taking about giving them hints to solve the quest. I am talking about making it clear how big the game is and how close you are to finishing it. Image you are making a pac man game with 20 mazes. If you finish maze 1 you go to maze 2. If you finish maze 20 you “win the game” and get some kind of movie or trophy or story.

You don’t need to show them the way through the maze to win level 1. But you should tell the player that there are 20 levels. When they finish level 4 you should say “good job. You finish level 4 of 20. There are 16 more level to get to get to the end. (and 1 more level to go to get to the next bonus level or some other intermediate goal.

This can be done with a “world map” that show a path leading through 20 levels and 4 of them checked off as being completed. In Big Kahuna Reef it is done by showing how many fish you have “discovered” (unlocked) and how many more there are left to go.


Honestly, we see things differently because we develop different sorts of games. Mine are more open-ended where the player is rewarded for exploration - it's not everyone's cup of tea - but it is mine. For what you're doing - action/puzzle games - that sort of choreography is perfect. For what I do, it would kill the spontaneity.

Completion in my kind of game is generally self-evident. How one gets there is not.

[soniCron]

Honestly, we see things differently because we develop different sorts of games. Mine are more open-ended where the player is rewarded for exploration - it's not everyone's cup of tea - but it is mine. For what you're doing - action/puzzle games - that sort of choreography is perfect. For what I do, it would kill the spontaneity. I think, generally, what James is trying to say is that the player should never have a feeling of being lost. Whether through blatant cuing as a fish's silhouette, or more suggestive as a blanket of snow growing thicker as the player traverses up a mountain, it doesn't matter the method as long as the player never thinks there's no end in sight.

[svero]

Just FYI - this has gotten a little too off topic so I started a new thread called "The State Of RPGs" if anyone cares to discuss that specifically.

[James C. Smith]

Even in an exploration game I still say it to good to let a player track their progress towards a goal. I am not talking about the smallest sub goals. If they are exploring the map looking for a hidden item you don’t want to give them a range finder showing how close they are to the goal (a hidden item). That is silly. But if you give them a goal of “find all the hidden items on this map,” it is nice to tell them how many hidden items there are and how many they have found so far. “So far you have found 7 of the 10 hidden items.” Or a map could have several goals with one of them being “find the 5 ancient stones of Foo Bar to unleash the power of the Iterator.” You don’t show them how close they are to finding each stone. But you do show them how close they are to the goal of getting all 5. You tell them they have 3 out of 5 stones needed to meat the goal. Another RPG example would be how many experience points they need to get to the next level up.

The game doesn’t have to be on rails for this to work. The player could choose from many different goals to peruse. And you don’t have to state ALL the goals ahead of time. There can be surprises along the way. But it is nice to have some measure of how far you have come and how far you have to go. Players like to be able to track their progress.

[merovingian]

I think, generally, what James is trying to say is that the player should never have a feeling of being lost. Whether through blatant cuing as a fish's silhouette, or more suggestive as a blanket of snow growing thicker as the player traverses up a mountain, it doesn't matter the method as long as the player never thinks there's no end in sight.

Can you think of a game that implies that there's no end in sight? Other than of course shooters and puzzle games intended to go on forever that is...

[James C. Smith]

Many games imply there is an end, but give you no clue how big the game is or how far though it you are. Invadazoid did exactly that until I pointed it out and the author fixed the problem. Swarm has that problem. Ricochet has the problem to a lesser extent. You only see the scope of the game when you start a new game. But as you are playing the game and progressing through the levels it never reminds you where the end is and how close to it you are. I thing Ricochet could do this much better.

[merovingian]

Many games imply there is an end, but give you no clue how big the game is or how far though it you are. Invadazoid did exactly that until I pointed it out and the author fixed the problem. Swarm has that problem. Ricochet has the problem to a lesser extent. You only see the scope of the game when you start a new game. But as you are playing the game and progressing through the levels it never reminds you where the end is and how close to it you are. I thing Ricochet could do this much better.

What's funny about the Ricochet games is that, um, I don't *want* them to end. I just want to keep on playing levels - even the same levels with the knobs cranked up after I've conquered them once, twice, etc. I'm not looking for victory with a game like that. I'm looking to zen out. So one man's quagmire is another's meditation I guess.

[papillon]

(which is why it's nice for casual games to have both advancement modes and endless modes. :) )

[soniCron]

Can you think of a game that implies that there's no end in sight? Other than of course shooters and puzzle games intended to go on forever that is... Sure: Diablo 2. Diablo 2 Expansion. Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate 2. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. I could go on... ;) (Ironically, the original Diablo was excellent at providing progress feedback.)

[merovingian]

Sure: Diablo 2. Diablo 2 Expansion. Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate 2. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. I could go on... ;) (Ironically, the original Diablo was excellent at providing progress feedback.)

But there *is* no end to Diablo 2. So that would be the correct implication.

I don't know about the other two as FRPG mostly isn't my bag.

[soniCron]

But there *is* no end to Diablo 2. So that would be the correct implication. The overarching goal is not the only one that needs indication of its completion. In fact, I was referring to each "quest" you went on for each game. Some "quests" made it clear that "You've killed x out of 20 monsters", but certainly not all.

[Savant]

Diablo 2. Diablo 2 Expansion. Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate 2. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel
Unless I'm mistaken, all of those games have story lines (complete with cut scenes) that you're following as you play. How is there no end in sight?

[soniCron]

Unless I'm mistaken, all of those games have story lines (complete with cut scenes) that you're following as you play. How is there no end in sight? Again, it's not the entire game, it's each subsection, or quest, that can last upwards of an hour that need better indications of completion. No end in sight doesn't necessarily mean ever, but when you've been playing for 83 minutes trying to get to the dark goddess, and you've still got no clue how long until you get to her, feelings of "lost" usually come into the picture. Maybe it's just me.

[cheese_phantom]

... what is your take on how to set goals and reward players? The examples I gave all used a similar model. I am sure many other games use a completely different system that is also good. Or you may just have more examples of the model I described.

This depends on the game I design. If you create a game closely tied to the basics of a genre, some "formulas" or proven "rythms" would be useful, but still I think, you have to decide the rythm of your game based on its own internal conflict, structure and mechanism.

Counting seconds between the goals is something I do after I have the initial mechanism down on paper and have a prototype. It's rather the case that many of the rewards and little easter-eggs I thought of at the beginning they'd be cool, seem to be just blocking the game flow or give the game a synthetic feel. So I prefer to keep many of the mini-goal out of the prototype at the beginning. I prefer to build upon the plain mechanism and gradually integrate mini-goals and rewards. I think it's a bit like testing a new algorithm that you've integrated into the program. You gradually reach a point where the game flow is really good balanced and fun: not too plain, not too loaded.

Usually the prototype gives me an idea about "repetitive/boring/goalless" parts in the game or certain "bottlenecks", where it seems like the enemy-mechanism dominates the player too much and she would get really stuck without help (e.g. goal to difficult). If its boring, I integrate the sub-goals I kept aside and see how they work out. If there are bottlenecks, I first try to find out if they are caused by the general game stucture or if they are temporary (caused by some inbalance within a particular level).

If the bottlenecks seem to be structural problems, I try to balance the overall mechanism mostly by downsizing enemy power or upsizing player power. Or I look for an additional tool or feature in favor of the player that suits the constraints of the game world. To solve the problem with some arbitrary rewards or power-ups is a bad way to go. You will tend to use them each time you got stuck and suddenly there will be dozens of them everywhere. This will cause them to lose their quality of being "rewards". Rewards are not make-ups for design weaknesses. They are game elements and have to function like "essential" elements and not like patches. Hence I prefer to look for a "general" feature that balances the overall mechanism and still looks "natural". If the bottlenecks are rather temporary than structural, then I still have two options: 1. I review features of the particular level/mission. If I find out that a change in the level needs a change in the whole game and I can't risk doing this, then I consider a patch-like power-up or easter-egg to be placed in there. But still I'd care to make it look natural. It should be a "possible impossible" as Aristhoteles would describe it.

Also while I am playing with the prototype, I check out if I need to remind the player of the goals or if I have to prompt her to action. It's a good thing if the gameplay or the basic mechanism is self-instructive in this regard. Prompts or goal reminders are "unnatural"; I feel that I did a great job if the gameflow itself does the prompting and reminding in "natural" ways.

One thing I consider as important is that the player gets ASAP a clear idea that she has a goal and that there is something "out there" that works against this goal. The best way to remind her of the overall goal and which gives meaning to following sub-goals is to confront the player with the action (behavioral pattern) of the enemy ASAP. Enemy action is the best kick in the ass. The player himself is now keen to find information how to take measures. If a rival in Railroad Tycoon starts a company, connects to the first city or buys shares for the first time (all this happens in the first few minutes of the game), you don't need further explanation. You immediately get it: The competition doesn't sleep. If you don't connect to cities or buy shares, they will do it. It also creates a simple desire to imitate the actions of the rival. (If one shoots at you, you shoot back). It's the best way to naturally get the player into certain actions (discovering the features of the UI, the functions and tools provided to him).

Enemy action and the problems they create are also the basis to design power-ups and to decide on when to introduce them. Once the player had an encounter with the enemy (one that he survived, but that gave him a clear idea that he might lose the game) he has an idea of what his weakness or need is. Players "feel" that somewhere in the game world must be an "antidote" and they will search for it. This gives the designer a good basis to decide on the nature and the sort of aid that the power-up will provide the player. Also timing and ways of intoducing the antidote can be worked out better. Almost 90 % of the power up ideas I had at the beginning seem to be not really the answer that the player desires in the given game situation. Or they are just bad in timing. I avoid to design a power-up before I don't know clearly when and what for the player will exactly look for.

My approach to timing is why I also think that in many games the help offers come to early: It's not a good idea to offer help right at the start of the game, at a moment where the player has yet no idea why he would need the help and where he most probably would just reject it to "get into the game ASAP". Better is to offer help the first time a problem is faced: Now he begs for it and he would appraciate to have help. What makes players appreciate help and explanations is not the designers goodwill towards the player: it's timing. I think it's the same with power-ups or rewards. There is nothing better than a power-up that comes in the last second. The more dramatic the situation, the more valuable it is. When you give it at a moment where everything seems hopeless, the player will not ask questions, she will just jump on it. Everything (help, power-ups, rewards..) that is taken by the player "naturally" (where she not really cares about how and why the help came) is in my opinion a successful design implementation.

I hate it when power-ups just rain from the sky. Everything that lays around and has no use is just a spike in the eye and creates questions and confusion. There are so many games where you just run after thousands of power-ups that don't really contribute to your status in that particular moment. Especially in too pacey games, the chase for power-ups makes you forget the goal you were after. You just loose yourself in a rage of colletioning. Worse, at the end of the level you don't really understand what made you win or lose the game. That's a sure killer of the game experience.

Its great to have several dimension of conflict integrated into the game: Multiple but related goals. It adds variety to a game. In Sim Golf or Railroad Tycoon you work on many things at once: Be a good company manager and broker. Be a good golf club manager and golf player. I also care about that subgoals are related to the basic goal. This means that everything is attached to the conflict that has to be solved. I think that goals or rewards that are not grounded in and justified through their essential connection to the basic structure of the game, create an "unnatural", synthetic feel.

Marx says that the human race only poses problems on itself that it has a solutions for. I think this is a highly valid phrase for games. It does not just say that each problem should have a solution, but that both problem and solution should be rooted in the game world that you suggest the player to experience as a "reality of its own". The problem and solution should originate from the designed world itself, should not be a arbitrary or merciful gestus of the designer-as-god. If the designer screws me for an hour and at the end gives me a gift that solves the problem easily with "external" help, I would just say that this is unfair and ridicolous. It gives the feel that all this is just invented (The realism problem ;-) It kills the "realism" of the game, since the game itself doesn't stick to the rules it has limited me to.