Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
July 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
July 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Just Make My Numbers Go Up: Breaking Our Addiction to Points
by Ben Serviss on 07/04/13 09:10:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 
This article originally appeared on dashjump.com.

Donkey Kong
Donkey Kong champion Steve Wiebe plays his favorite game. Photo: Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images

The great thing about numbers is that they go up. For the most part, people love it when their own numbers start to rise: the amount of money in your bank account, the number of possessions you own, the number of reps you can do at the gym or miles you can run; even when the numbers have no inherent value themselves, like with points in a video game.

 Of course, there are exceptions.Of course, there are exceptions. Increases in age are eagerly looked forward to until the ramifications change from gaining functionality (the ability to drive, to drink, to be taken seriously as an adult) to imposing limitations on your experience (the loss of a youthful appearance, of stamina, of wide-eyed optimism).

Where age is concerned, the older one gets, the more likely one is to join the cohort of elder citizens desperate to reclaim their lost youth at all costs, whether through compensatory purchases, refusing to acknowledge their age, or cosmetic surgery. Where this number system is concerned, the desired state is a happy medium. Unlike points in video games, however, this number scale doesn’t go up infinitely. There is a terminus at the upper end.

Color Zen
Large Animal Games' Color Zen initially had a point system, but it was scrapped in order to focus on the experience.

Oddly enough, this kind of number scale is rarely modeled in games. Most games either let you increase your numbers (score) up to a theoretically infinite amount, or have a hard cap at which there is no downside, with the possible exception of boredom because you’ve simply seen and done all the game has to offer.

In this case, having your numbers reflect your performance in a given game can subtly affect your sense of self-worth (as far as the game is concerned, if not in other areas of your life). It’s an obvious side effect of games with point systems, but it’s pervasive throughout life – it happens with the salary you earn, the number of reps you do at the gym, number of miles you run, and even the number of downloads your latest game earns.

Games that use infinite-scaling point systems to indicate progress are trading on this sense of self-worth reflected in one’s score, which is why it feels so good to gradually improve at a game as evidenced by higher and higher record scores. The feedback couldn’t be clearer – everybody understands numbers, right?

At the same time, this kind of system can be reductive of the human experience. Having your progress and capabilities to date boiled down to a simple number – how your abilities performed at that specific instant – can similarly impact your self-worth in an adverse way if you’re just having an off day.

Because infinite-scaling point systems are so prevalent in games that use scoring mechanics, it’s easy to dismiss arcade-y games that use them as childish things of little consequence, which prompts all sorts of discussion about the validity of games among more established adult pursuits.

Mario and Mega Man point systems
Both the original Mega Man and Super Maro Bros. games had infinite-scaling point systems that were removed in subsequent games.

But what if more games included terminuses with their point structures, as opposed to infinite-scaling systems? What if increasing your number too high brought undesired ramifications, prompting more moderate strategies in order to win?

How could games utilize such a system? Here are some possibilities:

Rank players on multiple axes. Plenty of games incorporate more than one kind of criterion to encourage different styles of play. The Devil May Cry series in particular rewards players for stylish moves, finishing a level quickly and finding orbs in addition to a raw score for the amount of damage inflicted. With this in mind, the player is empowered to make strategic decisions about engaging enemies, rushing to the end or exploring, instead of simply stomping around causing as much damage as possible.

In this way, it is rendered foolish to pursue as high a score as possible in one area since doing so would neglect the others required to earn the final score, resulting in a deceptively thoughtful experience for players looking to hit the higher ranks.

Devil May Cry 3 Results Screen
Devil May Cry 3 rewards players on multiple criteria.

Remove the stigma from penalties and use them. If players have a limited amount of points they can acquire, then point-reducing penalties suddenly become a very compelling game mechanic. By removing the stigma that comes from lowering the player’s score and encouraging a more moderate, thoughtful approach to gameplay, the game becomes less of a test of one’s self-worth and more about making optimal choices.

For example, say in a business simulation game you earn revenue, but then have to distribute it to pay employees and expenses. While this doesn’t seem like a traditional penalty, the outcome is the same – the reduction of the player’s points – but without the stigma since having employees and expenses is a sign of success. In a point structure like this, the player must seek a sense of equilibrium between growth and stability instead of striving for an immediate metric of success.

Introduce terminuses for point value systems. Take a hypothetical action RPG ala the upcoming Massive Chalice, where your characters frequently age and die over generations. Since each character is guaranteed to die as you play, you’d have a limited opportunity to gain levels for any individual character, prompting you to place a greater emphasis on the game as a whole – rearing the next generation of characters, strategically conquering territory, etc.

Suddenly, instead of mindlessly grinding to boost your characters’ levels, you’re looking at the game from a holistic point of view. Only by capping the value system for your characters with a terminus – in this case, the value is the amount of time you get to use each character – does the game as a whole transform into something resembling a complex ecosystem instead of a more simplistic race to a high score. 

Score Ain’t Nothin’ but a Number

There’s a reason infinite-scaling point systems are so popular in arcade-style games. Numbers are an immediately understandable feedback mechanism, they map well to the player’s sense of self-worth, and the clear path to mastery (“beat your high score!”) prompts repeat play.

However, there is still plenty of uncharted territory when it comes to reward structures and player motivation. If you’re in search of a way to elicit a more subtle, balanced gameplay experience, it’s worthwhile to investigate other ways of leveraging this innate human response to numbers.

Ben Serviss is a freelance game designer working in commercial, social, educational and indie games. Follow him on Twitter at @benserviss.


Related Jobs

Firaxis Games
Firaxis Games — Sparks, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
[07.30.14]

Senior Visual Effects Artist
Nordeus
Nordeus — Belgrade, Serbia
[07.30.14]

Senior Game Designer
2K
2K — Novato, California, United States
[07.29.14]

Level Architect
Respawn Entertainment
Respawn Entertainment — San Fernando Valley, California, United States
[07.29.14]

Senior Systems Designer






Comments


Christian Nutt
profile image
It's worth mentioning that some Mario games still do have score, though. The New Super Mario Bros. series games follow in the footsteps of the original. On the other hand the 3D games generally do not have scores.

Using a number for something meaningful in the context of a 2D Mario is totally possible: the Coin Rush mode in New Super Mario Bros. 2 (3DS) keeps track of a fairly simple value: the number of coins you've grabbed on your current 3-level run. Trading the scores back and forth via StreetPass and besting others' records gave that number intrinsic value the more basic score-tracking doesn't have.

Ben Serviss
profile image
Good point, thanks for mentioning that. Score certainly isn't a bad thing in itself, but it's interesting to see how some games experiment with other implementations of it or doing away with it completely.

Ara Shirinian
profile image
It is seductively appealing to equate a simplistic metric with a "simplistic race to a high score" but this is not the case at all in many applications. Just because the metric is simple, does not mean that the means to achieve high score are simple. Just look at any deep performance game - Gran Turismo, Donkey Kong, etc.

If you design numerical systems of feedback to resemble a complex ecosystem, you run the risk of challenging the player with difficult-to-apprehend systematic relationships, which will compromise accessibility.

It appears as though you are conflating several numerical metric applications together, which really isn't fair. For example, experience points, currency, and traditional score like in donkey kong are all very different things, but it doesn't seem like you are distinguishing between them. If traditional score metrics had an achieveable terminus, then many/all skilled players would end up with the same score, thereby defeating the purpose of the metric in the first place.

The difference between the skill game and the grind game is monumental and can't be understated. In the latter, because there is minimal skill involved in grinding, there is an enormous focus on metric that overshadows almost everything else about the game, and the player is left without having learned much of anything. It is easy for the game to become overshadowed by the metric, because the gameplay does not demand much from the player and does not give players enough avenues to improve their performance. This metric measures nothing other than perhaps how much time (or money) has been invested into the game.

In the skill game, when developed properly the score is the de facto and best way to encapsulate and compare a player's level of ability. Here, score is not just a number, it is the representation of what a player knows and what they can do. It is a bona fide metric that is measuring something of great value. In fact, it is the very necessary element that enables the depth of a skill game to be apprehendable to us players. Ironically, with the simplest of such metrics, it's only players who operate mindfully and holistically that can achieve the highest scores. In these games, we care about the score, not because we like bigger numbers, but because the number means something real - knowledge and ability - and this is something intrinsically valuable.

Ben Serviss
profile image
Thanks for your thoughts Ara, you make some great points. I'd say that your skill game example, where a player's number/ranking/etc is a representation of the player's ability, matches up with the "Rank players on multiple axes" point in the article. What I'm truly getting at however is investigating the idea of the direct experience being the metric that players use to measure their skill as opposed to a numerical metric.

For example, I'm a huge Tetris Attack fan. In that game and all its derivative versions, you can make successive block matches to send garbage blocks (attack pieces) to the other player. With each garbage block you send over, there's a multiplier that indicates how many chains you've completed, which can be used a shorthand for how good you are.

The wrinkle here is that after sending 9 blocks in a row (I believe), the system stops counting and just displays "??", so it becomes almost impossible to keep track of the number as you rack more and more up. And at this point, the outcome of the match depends on the defending player's ability to counter the garbage blocks and send over his own attacking blocks, which is a skill that doesn't map directly to how good the attacking player is at chaining. In this case, the outcome doesn't depend on any metric, but on how each player plays the game, resulting in a more organic-feeling contest that can't easily be reduced to a metric.

My point being, there is virtue in creating game dynamics that have to be evaluated on their own experimental outcomes outside of any kind of point system.


none
 
Comment: