23 Aralık 2020 Çarşamba

Grinding

 

I define grinding as “repetitious combat whose primary goal is to increase various statistics about a character ”. It is most commonly associated with RPGs; Players grinding for character levels, items or currency is a natural part of these games. Here, I will discuss some bad and good examples, with various other aspects of a game related to grinding, like experience systems, side bosses, combat systems and so on. Spoilers for Undertale, Persona 3/4, Trails, Withcher 3 ahead, only discussed as minimally as possible.

Definition

Dragon Quest(1986) has set the basic template for console RPGs. Games made of same cloth are somewhat simplistic in terms of mechanics and presentation. The main activity in those games is to get through various dungeons and grind a lot to defeat the next set of enemies. The games not only require grinding, but it is the bread and butter of these games. On the discussion of games, “grinding” is sometimes used to refer any amount of dungeon exploration, or exclusively in a derisive way. In contrast, my definition of grinding is more useful, as when I say a game “requires grinding” or “grindy”, it means the game asks or heavily incentives the player to spend a non-trivial amount of time to engage in repetitious encounters for a certain reward, and for some games, this is part of the appeal.

Emphasizing the appeal of grinding helps us to distinguish it from “padding”, where the game slows down player’s progress arbitrarily. Certainly, badly implemented grinding might feel like padding but the earnestness is the key distinction: Grinding Magikarp or Abra in Pokémon Red(1995) might be rather monotonous, but it clearly is designed to foster a “training hard to get strong” mentality. More cynical designs grind the game to halt to compensate for lack of content, likely because of troubled development. Or something far worse, strong arm them into buying microtransactions. I have nothing but contempt for this kind of design. Some say “Oh it’s not a big deal. Actually it’s kind of nice to get some experience boost”. No! The game is designed to require the boost! It is the worst gaming design trend alongside with making the players gamble with real money. Ever. I will never entertain it as an artistic decision. Stuff like this doesn’t require much discussion, moving on...

Also, while grinding is no doubt an important part of MMOs, everything here pertains to single player only, because I don’t play multi-player RPGs. My brief experience with them is not very good and many of them also guilty of “skip grinding for money” nonsense, but they feel like a whole separate realm on their own and deserve more than my limited viewpoint.

Avoiding Grinding

As games became more sophisticated, they began to reduce or outright minimize grinding, instead moving towards rewarding player’s ingenuity or softening the gameplay to put the rich story or presentation in the center stage. Final Fantasy 7(1997) is an example of both; there are lots of items, spells, special moves that turns the game into a joke; but even without going all out to become god-like powerful, the game is quite gentle, as it is very focused on telling a grand cinematic story, filled with lots of set pieces and mini game. (In other words, it is the prestige game of it’s time) Some games tightly control how much player can progress. In a character-oriented RPG like Fallout: New Vegas(2008), overwhelmingly large portion of experience points and valuable items are gained from quests, combat exhausts non-trivial resources and the player can make a character that can get out of situations without (much) combat. Witcher 3: Wild Hunt(2015) is constructed very similar sans having non-combat builds, but in this case the approach fails and renders the game bereft of any sense of progression. There is a skill tree, but it mostly offers minor stat bonuses: Geralt(the player character) can make their force shield slightly bigger and start to breathe fire at thirty hours in, not exactly the most exciting thing in a fantasy game. In F:NV, leveling up gives cool perks and gimmicks like: getting stronger with radiation, being able to carry a lot, splattering enemies into guts or unlocking gay energy. In contrast, Witcher 3 feels like it is an RPG only to justify its huge open-world, Geralt starts an ace monster hunter and remains an ace monster hunter; what do levels even convey to the player?

Some games use intuitive leveling systems to nudge the player away from grinding too much. Trails/Kiseki series are quite great at this. The amount of experience earned in a battle is much higher if the characters are at lower levels. Conversely, after passing a certain threshold, fighting similar enemies will start to yield a much lower amount of experience. This is quite easy to follow because the experience gained may drop to half just after going up one level for example. Players are spared from worrying about being under or overleveled both.

Some games even turn into a mini-game of its own. It’s fairly common to have special enemies which are tricky to find or defeat but will yield a lot of experience points if done so. Dragon Quest has the famed “metal slime”, Trails in the Sky: FC(2004) has a creature named “pom”. A different and more energetic approach can be found in Trails of Cold Steel(2013). During a battle the game rewards certain actions with experience point multipliers: Doing combos, hitting multiple enemies at once, being first one to hit, using weaknesses etc. This is a really great way to making players seriously pay attention to regular battles without making them excruciatingly difficult.

Some games employ a set of measures to dissuade or outright prevent the player from grinding. In Persona 3(2007), players get through a singular, humongous dungeon. However, it is not open to exploration in its entirety from the start, instead it is gradually opened as the story progresses. Spending too much time in the dungeon will literally make the characters tired and insisting to continue on will make them sick, making them unable to come to dungeons for a few in-game days entirely. At times, they will refuse to come along for personal reasons. Also, in-game days have limited time slots and there are often other activities to do instead of going to dungeons. Ideally, the player should go to dungeon only when it’s necessary. This makes sense narratively too, as the dungeons are not exactly pleasant to be in, conveyed both by it’s visual design and characters talking of it’s oppressive, sickening atmosphere. To ensure that players won’t feel pressured to grind too much, before the day of mandatory story fights, the characters will not complain about being tired; so that players have always a last-minute chance of grinding as they want. Also, the mandatory fights will be always easier than their counterparts in the dungeon. Therefore, being able to reach the limit imposed by the story will ensure that players are more than capable for the story fights.

Level-scaling is a common anti-grinding feature: Instead of enemies becoming stronger as the game progresses, they become stronger as the player gain levels. In theory, it allows a consistent level of challenge without players being too strong or needing to grind. Unfortunately, this method is often implemented in rather problematic ways:

  • A common issue is that games do not tell that they have level-scaling. Players can often divine it only when it becomes too late. Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion(2006) is quite egregious because of this. The game has a overly complicated (or insufficiently explained) class/skill system. It’s quite possible to end up with a underpowered character because of this. It doesn’t help that there are a lot of at-best-situationally-useful non-combat skills, even basic activities like running might cause the player to level-up depending on the build. [1]

  • When the level-scaling makes the game more difficult on higher levels, some players avoid leveling. In Oblivion, there is a somewhat counter-intuitive[1] way to make a low-level build. In Final Fantasy 8(1998), mandatory fights do not yield experience points, so the method is to avoid non-mandatory fights as much as possible. Doing this makes the player unable to access certain content; in Oblivion some quests and powerful items are locked behind levels, in FF8, the player will only have access to basic spells. Ironically, level-scaling doesn’t even reduce grinding. In fact, it might even cause more grinding in Oblivion. [1] And in FF8, the time spent in battles do not really decrease because the player still needs to farm magic [2] from enemies, which is, quite frankly, much more monotonous than simply defeating monsters in battle.

  • Fundamentally, level-scaling dampens the sense of becoming powerful. Things like turning a previously annoying adversary into a joke, seeing a previous boss demoted to a regular enemy, realizing that I am able to make just a little more damage are what makes RPGs so satisfying. Level-scaling also makes the game world feel more artificial, as it is quite obvious when random bandits start to wear golden armor just to match up with the player.

Level-scaling can be successful however. It works in Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim(2011) quite nicely as it is subtle enough to be not noticed by many people, I have learned its existence only after reading about it as well. First, instead of continuously growing stronger, enemies and dungeons have their own unique level ranges where the player can still be too weak(bears) or strong(basic undead) for them. Second, there is some degree of randomness so that occasionally the player might get weaker or stronger enemies. Third and perhaps most importantly, the game’s skill system is intuitive and the game is forgiving enough that players are unlikely to find themselves in a considerably disadvantageousbuild. (It also helps that Skyrim doesn’t really pretend that skills like “speech matters” at all). This results in a game truly beautiful in it’s simplicity. It’s kind of wonderful to just walk around the world without ever worrying about being prepared for a fight: If something is big and scary-looking or throws lightning bolts, all needs to be done is to go away and come back later. There are only a few end-game bosses that warrant any kind of planning, everything else just blends into one seamless adventure, it’s very likely that when player arrives somewhere they will be already strong enough to take whatever they encounter. The game can do this while also still being able to make the player that they are actually getting more powerful. This is a not a trivial achievement for such an open-ended game.

Harsher anti-grinding measures can be effective if the fantasy of becoming stronger can be achieved in other ways. Demon’s Souls(2009) and its sequels are among the few Action RPGs series where “action” and “RPG” parts are both important. While grinding is a long process with diminishing returns due to level-scaling, one way to beat any kind of enemy is just responding to their attack patterns. So, the game dilutes the more traditional, statistical progression of RPGs and puts the player’s gradual mastery of combat in its place. The game also features lots of different weapons and equipment, there are a lot of hidden ways to get really powerful. It’s also possible to summon NPCs or other players to help out with to deal with bosses. The game never outright forbids grinding but takes great lengths to make sure that the player adopts a mindset which rejects grinding and accepts challenges head on. Which would be absolutely dreadful to play personally, but it is quite interesting to watch how it affects other players’ behavior nonetheless.

As I discussed in previous posts, when a game has unconventional or counter-intuitive mechanisms it’s very important to seed the correct mentality in the player. Undertale(2015) is famously very anti-grind and this is woven into the very core of the game. Amazingly this doesn’t actually trivialize the combat in the game, player is merely guided against trying to gain experience and can only get the happiest ending if they avoid gaining experience entirely. If the player goes the opposite way however, they will find the that that they have rendered the area they are in completely devoid of life. If they choose to do this from very beginning and continue on the path of sin, the game will enter to a state of constant, dreary, bleak tone. Most encounters will be total pushovers, expect for exactly two. The first one, while isn’t that difficult, catches the players off-guard and more importantly makes it clear that player brought this upon themselves. The second, more famous,difficult encounter takes this up to eleven. While reportedly not being exceptionally tough for a regular of bullet hell games, it is still not only quite difficult for anyone who isn’t accustomed to, it is difficult in the most player-unfriendly ways. The game will begin the fight in the middle of a conversation, feign mercy, mock the player for dying and after a long fight abruptly stop to trick them into quitting. Moreover, every hit only causes 1 damage but they also drain all hit points until only 1 left, so health and armor is useless. The enemy has only 1 hit point, but they will evade all attacks until the very end, so attacks and weapons are useless. In other words, all grinding is utterly meaningless. And, if players persevere through this fight and reach to end of the game, all they are rewarded with is a blank space to stare into, have game crashing to desktop indefinitely or an offer to start the game anew (which by one interpretation, will not even cleanse the evil) The entire game is an elaborate joke on the very concept of grinding. However, it’s important that the game does not tut-tut the player for playing an undesired way but rather it challenges them to question their motivations: Did they reach to the end just because they could? Is that worth it? Perhaps grinding is actually a waste of time sometimes, perhaps not every game needs to be “completed”.

Side Content Grinding

Save for a niche section of games, RPGs of the 2000s and 2010s tend to allow players to get through the “main story” without too much hassle. They will rather put more time-wasting things on the side, such as things to collect; quests to finish, and of course, optional enemies to defeat. “The legendary epic sword of coolness” isn’t for defeating the final boss, that would be an overkill no, it is for the ultimate secret boss. Unfortunately, despite how I can enjoy long RPGs and grinding, Undertale is right about this kind of content: I am often unable to muster enough motivation to care about these extra bosses. They seem to only exist for the sake of completion with hardly any larger context. What does defeating “Emerald Weapon” mean in FF7, that problem fixes itself in the end anyway. Or “Dark Valefor” in Final Fantasy 10(2000) for that matter, it literally comes out of nowhere? Why bother with “Satan” in LİSA: The Painful(2014), he is just some dude whom the players will not even see unless they go out of their way to find him? Such extra bosses often drop remarkable loot but why would someone who already defeated the toughest enemy ever need that? They further serve to highlight how much this kind of content only exist to be bragged about; both for advertising “hours of extra content” and to satiate the drive of completionism alike.

In theory, if something is fun then it’s just fun but even modest embellishments can really make things quite interesting. “Death” from Persona 3 is a fun extra boss because of this: “Death” essentially serves to make sure that people won’t linger on the same floor for too long. It is not only visually striking with its imposing body and over-sized revolvers, but hearing its approach with growlings and rattlings of the chains on its body is appropriately eerie for a creature that will crush the player party easily for a long, long time. Towards the end of the game the player finally becomes barely strong enough to turn the tables on it. Sure, defeating it won’t change anything narratively but it is actually more thematic that way; after all “Death” is a manifestation of the fear of mortality, obviously it won’t go away completely. And, it just feels nice to get some personal revenge and have an opportunity to realize how far I have come. Facing death is what all characters do in P3, so it puts a neat bow on that theme too. More importantly, defeating it doesn’t require shouldering mountains, it only demands the correct strategy and some luck. It is also an interesting inversion of most extra bosses. Instead of being there to justify grinding, it rewards the ability to grind more when defeated. It unlocks extra floors of the dungeon. While it isn’t necessary for finishing the game, it’s still quite neat: It gives the player something to do in the last stretch[3] of the game, allows them to easily reach the level cap(addressing a pet peeve of mine) and gives the opportunity to access and use absurdly powerful end-game Personae[4]. This system both actively enables completionist players by rewarding their efforts by making the game easier to complete and can guide the usually-not-so-completionist- players(me) into completing the game just by just having fun naturally. In contrast, in Persona 4(2008), Death is just a hidden boss in the “new game plus”. It just exists, with no relevance to anything else in the game. Players can get a strong item by defeating it, I guess. Whatever. At least it makes a good showcase for the argument that, difference between a great and an alright game indeed lies in the details.

Another obstacle to create meaningful motivation to grind is that games tend to have narratives in conflict with the idea of grinding. Combat is often something that just happens to the characters, no matter how many is slain by character’s hands. Characters tend to be either against or indifferent to combat; and if the game has a serious narrative concerning loss of lives, explores non-violent solutions in its role-play or has a degree of urgency in regards to “saving the world”, it then feels quite dissonant to ask the player to take time to gather a hundred monster toes for the perfect armor. This is one reason why some RPGs feature eager, fledgling adventurers as their protagonist. Fighting repeatedly makes a lot of sense when the player’s party also enjoys doing them. In Trails In The Sky, fighting monsters is a part of main cast’s job and in Trails of Cold Steel, basic battles are an important piece in worldbuilding, showing that the authorities are neglectful in their promises of defense. A lot of characters in both series have a deep relationship with combat, everything from the weapons they use, why they fight, their strengths and weaknesses are all part of their character. When a character is able to jump in the air and do a cool sword move, that’s just part of the world. While it is obviously unrealistic, the series has mostly consistent and subtle rules on whether a battle will be deadly or not. Slaying gods is not uncommon in video games but they don’t usually explore as to what it means that main character is able to slay a god or single-handedly prevent an apocalypse. This actually weakens the power fantasy somewhat. It makes just a little more difficult to care about min-maxing stats, much less about actually taking on some random overpowered boss. In contrast,feats of main casts in Trails games feels much more impressive precisely because it's made clear that they are not even among the strongest warriors, they are just bunch of brave young people.

Combat

While motivation to grind is certainly important, it’s secondary to the quality of combat itself. The combat should avoid banality and hair-splitting difficulty both at the same time. Even a basic damage multiplier or rock-paper-scissor weakness system goes a long way to stop battles from being sleep-inducing. The stat gains by combat should be at a reasonable pace. Increasing levels or advancement in skills trees should give a palpable sense of improvement but also the overall time spent in combat loops should not be too long. Navigation in menus, the time it takes to execute commands (being able to automate them or turning off animations), the rate where the player needs to re-stock resources to continue grinding. Of course, as I discussed earlier, allowing player to be smart at leveling up certainly helps even when grinding is inevitable.

Let’s analyze Pokemon series from this viewpoint then. Motivation for grinding is implicit in the series: Whether the player desiring to just having a full team in the final story mon, training a late-found or new-born mons or preparing for competitive battling, one thing to be sure is that there is no convenient way to level up fast, some games allow to battle with same trainers more than once(which gives more experience than wild pokemon), there are some items which helps, traded mons also get experience faster but… overall, it’s quite slow. [5] It’s certain that if the player wants battle-ready mons, they will have to spend quite amount of time, defeating same mons over and over. The one alternative is to leave it them to day care and let them level up automatically as the player walks around the world but not only it’s quite limited and slow, it requires constant checks if the player doesn’t want to lose certain moves. [6] However, what makes grinding in Pokemon so dreadful is that not only the battles are so mindless, they also require frequent backtracking to recharge their moves. There isn’t even an auto-battle system. And sure, player can just watch or play something else when they are doing it but… why? Like I play Pokémon because, I want to battle with fun pocket monsters. Why I need to put hours and hours on this, why I can’t just catch something and have it be active member of my team without having nonsensical concerns? And people actually train mons for competitive battles, lots of ones, without using some sort of emulator turbo? This is probably my primary psychological block to play a Pokemon game. I just want to play with various different mons and have fun for couple of hours, that’s often impossible to do without using some kind of generator.[7]

Thankfully, newer generations made some improvements on this issue. The most important of them is that battles finally grant team-wide experience. Wow. On the one hand, it still has grinding, especially one is serious about competitive play. On the other hand, being able to grind six mons at once is still massive and more importantly, the player is now wholly free to experiment with different mons as they like.I am forever baffled at the people who whine about this. Oh, it is too easy, they say. Too easy. Tackling this aspect of the series is outside of this post’s scope, but for now, if I may, allow me to say this: I am still in utmost sadness and pain that Gayme Freak dumbed down this hardcore series for the peasants but having to level up a Beldum was never quite peak gameplay, so it’s not all that bad, dear gamers.

Conclusion

We have examined different approaches to tackle the question of grinding. Classic RPGs are very openly grindy, but they are understandably primitive in their design and this might make sheer monotonousness of such games rather hard to swallow. As the depth of mechanical, textual and audio visual elements have increased, games began to favor livelier and crunchier designs over long-term, gradual satisfaction. Some games have extensive side content, but they tend to be lacking in appeal. There are games with excellent combat mechanics, addictive game-loops or a narrative that strongly contextualizes gameplay but there really doesn’t seem to be any game that tries to strike at the very heart of grinding. There are repetitive games with astounding quality, but never a game has been astounding because of it’s repetition…

Well… no…

There is one….


[1] On character creation, players picks certain skills as “major”, the other becoming “minor”. Skills are developed by using them, growing enough causes a level up and grants boots to the stats which are related to the skill player has developed. To prevent leveling, it’s possible to pick irrelevant skills as major, this way player can grind their skills while also keeping enemies weaker and don’t have to deal with keeping track of their skill growth. This might actually end up increase grinding because players will miss the starting boost to major skills, which can be rather problematic to magic-using characters.

[2] In Final Fantasy 8, the main method to obtain magic is to literally absorb them from enemies using “draw” command. Having magic is also the main way to boost the character stats, so having them maxed out is optimal for every character. Only a small amount can be drawn at a time so this process is quite long, especially if the player also uses the magic for attacking and needs to re-fill every so often.

[3] In last month of Persona 3, the only grand story event left is to wait for the last confrontation. The player is likely reach to end of the dungeon long before the month ends and has already completed most of the other side activities; often, only thing to do with free time is to skip to the next day. Given the rather melancholic tone in the game, having more dungeon to explore is a genuinely refreshing alternative.

[4] In the game, “persona” refers to the physical manifestation of one’s emotions, in the form of various mythological figures. Characters fight by summoning their personae

[5] For a detailed look: https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Experience

[6] Mons learn new moves on leveling up and can learn only four at a time. Normally, the game asks you to whether swap the new move with an old one, however; in day care, new moves are automatically sapped with older ones top to bottom. Recovering forgotten moves is not trivial, actually impossible in some cases, particularly in the older games.

[7] Aside from regular cheating devices, there is software called Pokegen which can create Pokémon, items and other stuff inside an existing save file. It’s rather fun to use, and especially useful to facilitate unusual playthroughs.

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Morgan, Otakundead , Sasha and Spencer Gill.



13 Aralık 2020 Pazar

Games Can Be Fun From The Start

 

With the influence RPGs had on game design, many games prefer to keep things simple in the beginning and open up gradually as the player progresses. This ensures that player can learn how to play without getting overwhelmed and that the game doesn’t run out of new gimmicks early on. However, it can also make the early game somewhat dull, making it feel like playing a lesser game. I believe most developers do this out of a sense of unspoken tradition, as it’s often not a large enough problem to get a lot of complaint or attention. Still, rocking the boat can be worth it, and games can be the most exciting as they can be right from the beginning. Moreover, more fulfilling early games can greatly help to make games respect player’s time more. Here, I will discuss the ways games drag themselves down when it comes to early gameplay and how developers try to shake things up.

One effect this type of design might have is to make the game disproportionately difficult in the early hours. Bomberman(1985, Famicom) provides an excellent case study. At the each level of the game, the player needs to explode monsters and destroy walls to find the exit gate in a limited amount of time. The player can also find a permanent power-up in a similar way. In the first level, given that the player can use a single bomb at a time, a bomb has only one tile of explosion range and takes a couple of seconds to detonate; there is definitely a large amount of luck involved. The second level is barely any better, hopefully player has picked-up range power-up last level. The third level however is where the game drastically changes, as the player can get the power-up that enables them to make bobs explode as they place. All of a sudden, a dimension of tactics has opened and by gaining more, stronger bombs in each level, the gameplay turns into a race of creating the most effective and flashiest explosion chains. In comparison, the first two levels always feel like a chore. The game should have really started with the ability to detonate and perhaps with a couple of bombs at disposal. It is hard to understate how much of a bad first impression the game leaves by giving player almost nothing instead.

I have mentioned RPGs at the start, because the graduality is at the heart of these games and anyone who has ever played more than one of those games can attest to a situation like this: The game is filled with all these unique spells, guns, abilities, quests and so on; the player can build parties/characters and can make unique tactical decisions, but not in the beginning, no, they must first slaughter a hundred rats with a stick, so that they can bring a mystical herb to someone or whatever. However common this cliche might be, few games can claim to be close to Pokémon games(began in 1995) might be among the worst at introducing it’s fun contents. The series (I have played up to Gen 5) is famously shy about it’s mechanics, but even with the stuff it wants the player to use is locked away for an arbitrary amount of time. The impetus behind putting very strong mons to later sections of the game is clear, but some placements feel random nevertheless. The game gives the player little drips of new mons for most of the game,and upon arriving to somewhere like Safari Zone, they encounter a dozen new mons at once. Utilities like Move Deleter, Move Tutors and many useful items is locked away at least a few hours away. Is there any reason to not have bikes from the start? This is a game series filled with some of the most creative and intricate mechanics out there, but unless players go out of their way to dig deeper they will be conditioned to play an extremely simplistic game for a long time. At the very least, developers acknowledge this problem to a certain degree. In newer games, Pokémon tend to learn not only a lot of different moves, they will learn them very quickly as well. In Sword&Shield(2020, Switch), mons get experience quite fast, it seems like players can easily try the new mon they caught without worrying about being under-leveled. Starting with Black&White(2010, DS), TMs are re-usable, players can try them out without fear. There are certainly steps to get the game out of “common bugs and birds slam each other for a minute” slump, however timid they might be.

One way to make the early game more interesting is to turn it into a miniature of the whole game. Basically, if first 10, 30 or 90 minutes of a game can be reliably used as a demo for the game, then the game has a well-made beginning. Fallout: New Vegas(2008, PC) is an excellent example. The starting town, Goodsprings, is a just a recreation of the game in a smaller map. There is a way to use all skills, players can use conversations to persuade people, and they take part in a conflict that will have lasting effects. In fact it’s a little too good, as the game doesn’t reach to that level of robust design for a while after Goodsprings. This isn’t really a big deal to me thankfully, it’s much easier to deal with a slightly underwhelming mid-game than getting a bad taste right when the game begins.

Giving player a taste of what’s to come can create a strong first impression. Trails of Cold Steel(2013, PS3) begins in media res, the player is given a mid-level party with a sizable inventory and is thrown right into a dungeon. It is neither too difficult nor too easy. This opening speaks volumes about how strong the design of the game is ,as it can communicate its mechanics and warm the player up so effortlessly without any tutorial or over-simplification. When the story properly begins, the gameplay doesn’t feel any duller; it is just a smaller scope of the gameplay in the opening dungeon, and working up to that power level gives the player a clear direction. Tutorials themselves are not in the scope of this blog post but the fairly common design aim across big titles that is to please the hypothetical, easily-frustrated, impatient person who has never used any software before sometimes greatly hinder games’ openings.

If nothing else, players can just be provided with exciting stuff early on. Disgaea PC(2016, remake of 2003 title Disgaea: Hour of Darkness) is strategy-RPG where the player builds a squad of various people. The new game plus in the original game gifts a character named Pleinair, but the remake just gives her away right from the start. She’s slightly highly leveled for the first couple of maps, comes with strong items, has a attack spell with a 5-tile effect area (unmatched for a starter character), is the best gun user in the entire game, and has a stupendously cool visual design, also her idle animation floats in the air. Naturally she makes the game a breeze for a while. This is more than fine for me, I don’t really care about challenge when the challenges aren’t interesting. I much rather would get to the part where I can actually build characters as I want and be able to make actual tactics in battle as quickly as possible. Honestly, it took me a little while to get my head around the fine details of the game, being able to get through early maps without trouble probably prevented a great deal of frustration and some amount of early grinding. Also, the game doesn’t really have amazing gun using classes early on, I would probably not have a useful gunner in my first save file, which would be a shame because gun skills are quite cool. Furthermore, Disgaea is truly about overpowering the enemy as much as possible, and having a slightly overpowered character is a much more fitting than fighting early bosses tooth and nail. Pleinair isn’t thoughtlessly overpowered either. Her power level becomes balanced around after a while, her low defense starts to become an actual flaw but she is still the strongest gun user by a significant margin, being able to catch up to mages in terms of damage. The second best option is not only considerably less powerful but also requires quite bit of grinding, the kind of grinding I would rather spend on getting strongest classes, frankly. She makes the game more interesting by merely existing, and also she looks so gosh darn cute! Some stuff is just too good to lock behind a dozens of hours.

Early impressions matter. Just because a game can offer a hundred hours of content, that doesn’t mean the first ten hours should be expected to be merely passable. In this post, I only discussed a single angle of this issue. Tutorials, story presentation, even the loading screens and host of other topics are relevant on the beginning of the games. It’s not easy by any means, but games can show notable improvements by challenging conventions ever so slightly. For some players, those first few hours is the only thing they will see and remember, subjecting them to a lesser game is disrespectful to the craft, if nothing else.

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Morgan, Otakundead , Sasha and Spencer Gill.



1 Aralık 2020 Salı

Game Difficulty

“Challenge” is not a inherent part of video games. Games can be toy-like, relaxing, simple, casual. Target demographic matters: It’s weird to complain that a game for children is child’s play. The hardware matters: It’s unfair to demand mouse-like precision when playing a console game. The design goals matter: Developers often rather have the players see end of a game. Challenge also cannot be separated from rest of the game design.: Some games are open-ended, focus on giving the player a lot of options. These games fundamentally rely on player agency, and have a hard time creating controlled environments for challenges, they are often more suited for self-imposed challenges. Nevertheless, a well-considered, tasteful level of difficulty can embolden core strengths of the gameplay, push the player out of their shell, and make them approach the game with a more sensitive eye that appreciates little nuances. It’s still good to have options however, because there is never a one-size-fits-all level of difficulty for everyone. There are also certain methods of difficulty that cause frustration more than not, and should best be left optional.

Medieval 2: Total War(2006) is dreadful to play on higher difficulties. All of your neighbors attack me on first opportunity, usually ignoring any other neighbors. When I try to play defensively and expand slowly, they will send armies over and over, there are times I have fought more than a dozen battles. It’s a most unwise way to play. The game isn’t unbeatable however, one just needs to play aggressively. The more aggressive, the better. The faster I conquer provinces, the more enemy becomes deprived from resources. I gain loot by capturing them and I get more taxes from new cities every turn, thus having even more armies to crush anything on my path. AI is completely helpless against this snowball effect. However, this isn’t too much fun either. This makes me too strong too early, and there is no time or need to use any sophisticated units. No guns, no heavy infantry, no elite archers. Just mercenaries, basic town units and general’s bodyguard can conquer the world. No need to any fun diversions like assassins, I can steamroll anyone before I can train one useful enough to kill a general. No need to care about religious mechanics or happiness in cities, I can just exterminate the population. No need to merchants, general traits, or most other mechanics. Even if I play recklessly and lose couple of cities, I can easily conquer more faster. The first time I did this, it was mildly enjoyable but the fact that I had to play like this every time made me soured any interest to play more in the future. Then, one day, I asked myself: “Why don’t I lower the difficulty?”. And I did. This made me finally remember why I liked the game so much once. I could play slow; develop large, bursting, happy cities and. build armies of elite soldiers. AI wasn’t obnoxiously aggressive and didn’t back-stab me in every chance. The game was pleasant, not stressful. I could play the way I wanted. I did not started any wars, merely retaliated, I released any prisoner I captured, never resorted the cruelty in conquered provinces. nurtured honorable and heroic generals. Diplomacy is bare bones in the game, but I still tried to keep my reputation as high as possible, because I could. I had so much fun when the game didn’t force me to optimize my behavior.

A common complaint about Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim(2011) is that the game is too easy, but such remarks hides the true grievances. There is a difficulty slider in the game, but the only thing it does is to punish the player for playing a magic-oriented build and make even the simplest encounter last 5 minutes. The game has difficult bosses, but the only real difference from easier ones is the amount of time they take to be defeated. As I have stated before, Skyrim is truly beautiful as a stroll in the forest. Whenever it tries to challenge however, it can only become a facsimile of better games. People don’t really complain that Skyrim is easy, they complain that it is a game that detests being hard. The fact that players and modders need to alter the gameplay so drastically to make the game even slightly challenging in the way most expect from similar games is a testament to the game’s inherent allergy towards difficulty.

In Trails of Cold Steel (began in 2013) series, the hardest difficulty "Nightmare" gives enemies more health and makes their attacks considerably more powerful. Protective abilities are costly and slow. Many bosses can heal themselves to full or make devastating attacks that pierce through any protective spell. If the characters are not fast enough, the enemies will get more turns and attack more. The only way to defeat the bosses is to be fast and strike hard as much as possible. Thankfully, the player can achieve really big combo attacks with correct builds. And, it works so well! The exhilarating rush of overwhelming the enemies with a well-planned chained of moves is superb, the game is able to create feeling of a flashy, bombastic arcade game within a turn-based combat system. Sure, it restricts the player options; as in one can’t approach the battles in the manner of classic RPG boss fights where the player slowly dwindles the enemy while trying to survive. This is perfectly fine, because the play style the game is pushing me is much more interesting. There are countless RPGs with “war of attrition” bosses. By punishing slow play, the game is able to guide the player into its unique and interesting features. And the beauty of difficulty options is such that, a player can always play on lower difficulties if it is too much for them. When it comes to linear gameplay, merely tweaking some numbers might be enough to make a game that’s just right for everyone.

A couple of difficulty modes can really enhance the game. I am bad at action games and when I saw Bioshock Infinite(2013)’s fast-paced, frantic gameplay, I knew I had to play the game on easy. And thankfully I did, it made the game quite tolerable overall, otherwise I cannot ever imagine tackling those sloppy gun-fights seriously. I like Starcraft(1998) quite a bit but, it’s Brood War expansion was way too brutal. There are no easy options, I am simply not good enough. And this is a inherent weakness of the games with unforgiving difficulty. A game won’t lose anything with having some cheats or a story mode. It will only win people who would otherwise give up on the game. Moreover, there is no reason to have the game resent the player for playing on easy. No locking main content behind harder difficulties, no fake endings, no mockery or passive-aggressiveness. Instead, it is much better to acknowledge and reward skillful play instead; with harder levels, enabling different ways of restrictions and so on. A game can’t and does not need to cater to everyone, but even a little seasoning can make it much more approachable to lots of people.

Beyond just different game modes, there are couple of noteworthy and, notorious patterns of difficulty I encounter in games:

Undoing huge amount of progress:

This is quite nasty. Old games did this a lot with limited lives, but the thing is, they were outdated even in Super Mario Brothers(1985). And that game was aware about this, it gave lots of extra lives and short-cuts so that players wouldn’t be too bothered by dying. I really like when games allow me to build to grow and be stronger, and don’t like when it demands me of re-take the challenges over and over to satisfy an arbitrary level of excellence. There is a case to be made about games with permanent death mechanic however. I am not too sure, because I have never played a game like that, but perhaps, because the game sets the player up for the end from the very beginning, it fosters a different kind of mentality than simply forcing them to making no mistakes. Otherwise, perfect runs can be offered as an optional mechanic.

Locking the ability to save:

I hate it, I really do. I should be able to save as much as I like, full stop. I don’t like checkpoints too, but I can tolerate them if they are numerous enough. This is the worst way to mess up with the player’s progress without openly trolling them. There is one fairly ubiquitous reason tampering with saves: To prevent “save-scumming”, in other words, loading old saves over and over to get a favorable outcome, as it usually bypasses the challenge to a certain degree. Here is my answer to this: Save-scumming is a response to faulty game design. It is usually not that fun. I would rather not do it, and I feel a lot of people wouldn’t too, but players don’t want to lose progress. Save-scumming happens either when something crucial is dependent on luck or the challenge is too demanding to take on at once. If the player is expected to embrace randomness, the feeling should be instilled very early on and the cost of failure shouldn’t be unbearable.

Europa Universalis 4(2013) is a game whose gameplay is heavily in the hands of fate. Battles, sieges and quite a few actions are influenced by dice, there are random events having positive or negative outcomes, there is at least a little randomness in almost every part of the game. Some of these random elements can be mitigated, a stronger country can weather more bad outcomes and, but even playing as a super-power, player is still sailing a boat on a raging ocean. And I get it, while it is frustrating sometimes, trying to recover from bad luck has its own charm. However, this completely turns on its head when trying to get difficult achievements. Now, not only I am only interested in optimal behavior, because of higher requirements or weaker starts I need to deal with, there is little room for failure. Obviously, for a “true challenge”, you are not allowed to load older saves during gameplay. Also obviously, I save-scum by quitting the game from desktop before it auto-saves. I am not going to risk hours of gameplay because of something random, ( or I misread the game’s not-ideal UI or it gave me wrong information or a glitch occurred or…) Randomness and perfection do not mix together.

Most games often do not have a graceful difficulty curve, there is usually that one place players fail again and again. And, it’s very understandable not to want to overtake a difficult challenge repeatedly just because of a single mistake. As I said before, demanding perfection can make players optimize themselves to boredom, and this is perhaps the most common way this happens. Again, having options help here. More tips, easier modes, cheats, perhaps allowing to skip levels are all better solutions than limiting saves. Besides the specifics of game design, the other solution is to avoid pushing players into perfection all together. Some games evaluate player’s performance at the end of the level. Missing a good score might be thing that pushes players into save-scumming. To prevent this, players shouldn’t feel like the game is screwed out of feeling complete. Giving player’s opportunities to recover from mistakes or dividing the challenge with checkpoints might convince players to keep going instead.

However tedious save-scumming might be, it’s always preferable to the anxiety of spending long stretches of time not being able to save. Some games try to be more experimental about save points, treating them as resources. for example. LISA: The Painful(2014) has one-time consumable save points, thankfully as an optional difficulty mode. Ori and the Blind Forest(2015) has limited saves, but the game is generous enough about them, and they actually serve to choose the re-spawn location. In most other cases, I don’t like deviations from convenience. This might seem narrow-minded, but I feel this is an issue beyond any issue in gameplay, it is a matter of fundamental user-friendly software design. Games are already time-consuming as they are, frankly they have no right to be so callous about player’s progress. There might be a troublesome glitch, a power outage, some sort of emergency, or player simply just wants to quit and continue later. I cannot ever see a justification of such entitlement to force players to play for an arbitrary about of time other than “People have adjusted themselves to a bad tradition.”. And as I said, I truly believe if save-scumming alone actually ruins the challenge of a game, that game’s design is truly flawed. Look at Trails in the Sky(2004), does it restrict saving and loading at all? No! Because, it’s a good game that is confident in it’s design.

Hiding Necessary Information

A boss turns out to be immune to the attack. The useless item from the beginning is maybe vital to get the best ending. Sometimes there is no map and there is no clue about what to do next. The intention is to give to player a sense of uncertainty and mystery. This can be used to great effect to make the player feel more adventurous, or heighten the sense of horror, but usually it just makes me to look up a guide. Game guides are fun, I love to learn about a game I enjoy as much as possible. and I even enjoy stumbling into secrets as much as anyone, but at the very least the game mechanics should be transparent as possible. Doing A yields B, getting X needs Y. I am not really sure what makes game devs so hesitant about this. Perhaps they are scared of their game looking too complex or maybe it’s assumed showing too many numbers break immersion in “cinematic experiences”? If the enemies in the game has level scaling for example, isn’t it much better to know that from the start? And surely it would be nice if player could make educated guesses about how their builds fare in the late game. Thankfully, at least as far as contemporary games are concerned, lack of information is never severe enough to stop players from soft-locking their game, but it’s still perplexing and occasionally frustrating that games are reluctant to explain themselves.

I love games which are honest about their challenges , rewards me for the progress I make and appreciate when they try to accommodate different levels of skill. I am also well aware that media is not produced tailor-made for me and respect games aiming for niche experiences, but I never look highly to games which are openly disregard user-convenience or accessibility to create challenges. Moreover, a game aiming for being difficult does not give it a blanket protection from criticism on it’s difficulty. One can desire a good challenge and can still find what’s offered overwhelming, tedious, or unfair. It’s always better to have an honest discussion on design instead of mocking people for playing badly. No one has to be good at the games and super majority of games are intended to be beaten, most anyone can beat a game if they put the work on it, but sometimes people just don’t feel it’s worth their time.

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Laura Watson, , Makkovar, MasterofCubes, Morgan, Otakundead and Spencer Gill.

9 Eylül 2020 Çarşamba

Chapter 0: Introduction

 

Üyarimi!

Here, I will present a fictional constructed language named Limidu. I intend to convey its features in parts between articles. Since I have been working on it for a while, I have actually enough material to put out regular updates and remain ahead of the project. I am not very well when comes to linguistic terminology, and intend to present this language as a naturalistic one, so you shouldn't be intimidated if you are unfamiliar with conlanging. In any case, this video series is a great place if you want more info on conlanging itself. Also, I am just a hobbyist and do not have much experience, so if it feels sloppy I apologise in advance. Anyway, I hope you enjoy this presentation!

In this chapter, we will explore this langugae's background, sounds and will look at some example words and sentences:

Limidu

Limidu is the language of Moon Fairies. Moon Fairies are the group of clans of humanoid people with colorful, strong wings spanning several times their size. They fly freely on great heights, between one mountain to another, and travel across great seas and forests. This allowed them to escape being subjugated or subjugate anyone, and for much of their history, they lived without great deadly conflicts. They fly under the moon and sleep under the sun. The cultural ideals of a typical Moon Fairy clan is inspired by the moon: shining beautifully, chaotic but subtle, living in harmony.  However, the language is not limited to original Moon Fairy clans, other fairies and non-fairies who live together or friendly with Moon Fairy clans, people who revere the moon and anyone who studies Moon Magic also speak Limidu as a native or secondary language.

Phonology: Sound System

Limidu has 18 consonants and 6 wovels. The consonant and vowel tables below are built according to International Phonetic Alphabet, this allows us to make sure that we can have a shared understanding on what sounds of a language are without being constrained to how individual people understand the sounds or how a language uses them.

The language is Latinized in a way to be able to be written easily with a common keyboard, and read without confusion. So, even if you don't exactly get what "alveolar" is, you can probably imagine how "n" sounds like. Still, some clarifications might be helpful:

  • [0] "r" being "flap" meaning you don't roll the tounge when saying "rrrrrrrrrr", it's like a weak r, close to how it often sounds. in Japanese.

  • [1] "c", the "post alveolar affricate " sound is like "ch" in "chair" or "check" in English

  • [2] "x", the "post alveolar voiceless fricative", sounds like "should" or "shark" in English

  • [3] "l" is always a clear "l", which means it's not like "let" in English, more like "alles" in German

  • (*) These sounds are always palatalized, pressing the tounge on the soft palate when you articulate the sound, giving a "y" like sound. For example "k" sounds like "key" rather than "cut"

All vowels are monothongs, which means when two vowels come together they do not blend, are spelled seperately. Also, no wovel is articulated as a long sound, if a wovel is long, it will be just written twice.

  • [1] "ü" sound can be found in "über" in German and "güneş" in Türkish

  • [2] This sound is allophones with "open central unrounded wovel". Allophones are pairs of sounds that can be used interchangebly without causing a change in meaning. This means "a" can both sound slightly colder or warmer, but they are somewhat similar sounds anyways.

  • Other sounds should be clear but, to provide examples, "e" sounds somewhat like how it sounds in "ayyy lmao", very fronted. "i" sounds similar to how it does in "bin", "o" sounds like how it does in "yo!"

Examples

I am planning to explore the phonotactics, the way sounds are arranged and organized, as it becomes relevant in the topic, because words are more exicting. So let's get a taste of language first by analyzing some sentences:

Tibelisam üyürümün! = I love you all

ti-be-li-sam ü-yi-ri-mi(n)

  • ti: Root word for "count"

  • be: Galaxy Complement Mirror form, this gives the meaning "to be all"

  • li: Brings the primary object out, giving the meaning "all"

  • sam: Second person topic marker, giving the meaning "all of you"

  • ü: Root word for "love"

  • yi: Void Base form, "i" assimilates into "ü", gives the meaning "to love"

  • ri: General Present Tense, again "i" assimilates into "ü"

  • mi(n): Happiness emotion marker, the speaker is happy about the situation, once again "i" is assimilated into ü"

Onnakurini? = Are you free/available?

o-nna-ku-ri-ni(m)

  • o: Root word for "craft, exchange"

  • nna: Earth Complement Inverse Comes from "nano", gives the meaning "to be idle, without work or plan"

  • ku: Question suffix

  • ri: General present tense

  • ni: Curiosity emotion marker

I think these examples provide some ideas. Limidu is a very synthetic/aggulinative language, it uses lots of suffixes to provide critical meanings. What does "Void Base Form" mean? How did we get the pronouns of the sentence?

Next week, we will go deeper and talk about how to construct basic sentences.

Üyobirimu!

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Otakundead and Spencer Gill.

23 Temmuz 2020 Perşembe

Seperae the Artist from the Art

What does it mean to seperate the art from the artist? It seems to have two meanings which are used as one and the same:
  • "Am I allowed to enjoy media from bad artists?" Yes, I have made peace with the facts that most creators probably disdain me in one way or another, and abusive behavior is not exclusive to a small group of evil people. Worrying about making good customer choices is an endless pit of misery that helps nothing. One should also keep in mind that for every despicable artist out there, there are many marginalized creators deserving more support; but I think this is a seperate issue which shouldn't be conflated with customer activism.
  • "The critique of art should be seperated from the artist." Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Audience has a deeply personal relationship with art, and art critique should always prioritize this relationship over the artist.  I have discussed this on detail before(click here), so won't do so here again.
Thus, my answer to the regularly re-heated debate : We should seperate the art from the artist. There is a more interesting question however: What happens when we can't?
Sometimes we reach our personal limits. Everyone can understand creating good art doesn't make a creator morally uptight. Yet still, creators leave a part of themselves in art, so when they cross the line, their mere association might feel to much. Sometimes it's just not the same anymore.
Sometimes, the artist and a fanbase works hard to make sure the art from its artist inseperable. Perhaps the most salient example of this is Harry Potter.
If you have observed how people tend to talk about Harry Potter in media, you would certainly caught the weird tone the discussions have. HP discussions often has. Characters are mentioned as if they are real, the plot is discussed as it is a piece of world history. This is not exclusive to HP, and its wish-fulfillment aspect might make people to indulge in its world and lore a little too much, but what's unique about HP is how this behavior is enabled and endorsed to the staggering degree by the author. The author drops lore bits, celebrates characters' birthdays and muses about events in the story. This is actually nothing too absurd in itself, it could be even cute and tounge-in-cheek. However, the author and fans constantly do this, frequently referencing HP when talk about real politics. To someone lacking any context, it would actually seem like these people are in a very involved role-play, or worse, believe Harry Potter is non-fiction.
No, what's happening here is not that simple. Harry Potter fandom and the author denies the series' from existing as fictional novels, or literature at all. It is treated as a documentary, a reality TV show, and a political manifesto. This attitude is so widespread that even the critics sometimes do this. They say: "The author is no doubt such a reactionary, look at Harry Potter, it is filled with so much of this!" Such critiques fail on two fronts:
  • Harry Potter as a whole is not a series with a consistent world-building. It takes many assumptions as granted. For example, for a series so much focused on death, most related concepts left blank. The series only make sense if you already know and agree with Christianity, which is notable bacuse series never once discuss religion. Harry Potter is a magic-decorated world from the view of a cis-straight middle-class-turned-rich Brit. What "political themes" present in the book are mostly a cluster of truisms flowing from it. Of course all characters would end up being married at the end of the book, what else are "normal healthy adults" supposed to do?
  • Harry Potter, or any other art piece, is completely irrelevant to the author's behavior. If the series were just uplifting children's tales, this wouldn't change anything about author being a raging transphobe. Conversely, if the author was the truly vagely progressive person a lot of people thought as, that should have no relevance to HP as piece with neoliberal-misogynst themes.
This shows how truly difficult is to seperate HP from its author. If you have read any Harry Potter content in English, the author's shadow seem inescepable.
Still, it is not impossible. When I read the series when I was a kid, I didn't know anything about the author. As much as knowing about the beliefs of the transphobic author makes me see some parts in the series in different light, I never really needed that knowledge.  No one really does. People merely has a habit of thinking literary criticism as something mostly applies to art from the artists they don't like.
I wish people stopped talking about that transphobic millionare when there are much more important issues even in the scope of trans struggles. However if they want to talk about that person so much, they should leave Harry Potter, Fantastic Beast or whatever fiction the author have involved in. Not as a respect to sancity of nostalgia or anything of the sort, but because personal criticism and art critique are entirely different matters. If you are unwilling to seperate art from the artist, then at least try to seperate the artist from the art.
This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Otakundead and Spencer Gill.

2 Temmuz 2020 Perşembe

Witcher 3: A Long Game That Fell Short

 

 


Complaining about game-length feels weird, as my favorite games often have play-times surpassing one-hundred hours. I've played at least two games which lasted three-hundred hours. A good part of my childhood has been spent replaying a couple of games over and over. Even when I am busy, spending time on them isn't an an issue in and of itself. However, games like Trails In the Sky (2004), Europa Universalis 4 (2013) or even The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011) simply feel good to play, whereas something like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015), is not, to me, good enough of a play experience to justify its 200-hour length. I feel, this is often the heart of the issue in most video game critique around length. (The other being people literally not having enough time.) Witcher 3 would be quite amazing if it was a couple dozen or even around sixty hours. The game is good, it can be even considered excellent on all the broad strokes. Taking the role of an expert monster hunter in both action and words is rather promising. Its world isn't a stock medieval-fantasy setting, it often feels right out of a fairy tale. Its dialouge is enjoyable to witness and participate in. The game can present true morally-grey questions and wacky adventures alike with the same grounded, tasteful writing, backed by the might of its top-level production. However as a bridge collapsing under excess weight, it simply does not have the fundamental structures to support hundreds and hundreds hours of fun play. The game isn't lacking in any easily noticable or quantifiable terms, the devil is in the details.

Inventory Mismanagement

What is the purpose of an inventory management system? Usually it's one of the two: Either resource managing is central to the game, as it is most survival games or it acts like a brake in games built on hoarding a lot of stuff, like Bethesda games. In Witcher 3, the inventory is way to small to do hoarding but the resources are so easy to replenish that it is not limiting in a tactical sense. The only thing inventory really achieves is to make you selective in what to take and drop your load regularly. It makes you spend more time in the menu, without being actually engaging in the slightest. A lot of RPGs do not have inventory management at all, and they can just do fine at preventing the player from being too powerful too early. In theory, Witcher 3 also supports such a system. You will not get rich easily by loot, nor there are too many things obtained by gold. And most importantly, critical resources like potions and materials are already either stockable or easily replenishable. Limited inventory feels like it is there mostly because that's what a "western-RPG" typically does.

A Big World You Shouldn't Explore

Witcher 3's game world is huge.  And it often feels picturesque as well. However, there isn't too much to do in the world itself. Despite how large it might look from above, the points of interests are actually rather distinct and clear. There isn't much point to wonder around. Quests are neatly structured around your level, which itself is gained mainly by doing quests. As stated previously, there isn't much looting to do, actual important treasures are also tied to levels, and as Witcher 3 is not a game about outlandish armors and weapons, what you will find is mostly similar besides the numbers they number. Random encounters don't give much experience, they worsen the quality of your gear and cost food. Fast travel is quite limited and only useful when you start a destination, but not when you return to towns, which is arguably where fast travel is actually neccesary. A lot of time is spent on foot or horseback, going from point A  to point. Skyrim is sometimes criticised for having fast travel because it is said to discourage exploration but it has been always the opposite for me. I feel very different when I want to explore vs when I simply want to get things done, Skyrim respects this difference and supports both approaches. Witcher 3 does neither, the world is mainly consists of story segments but you have to spend a lot of time between those segments. It has many things to collect, many places to arrive, many enemies to fight; but they add up to so little in the end.

Little Room for Growth

Most important things in the game is gated away with levels, but grinding on your own pace is not very doable, and leveling up doesn't feel important. What it mostly does is to make numbers larger, adding slight improvements to your combat skills and opens some dialouge options in minor scenarios. Witcher 3 is not a game about wacky magic or wild combos. This is a game where you are encouraged to fight like Geralt the Rivia, with his tools, his skills and his methods. It actually makes complete sense that he doesn't change much with leveling, by the time the game starts, he is already at the top of his game. Then why leveling exists at all? Why Geralt needs to arbitrarily wait before he is strong enough to hunt some of the monsters, in the trailer he is triumphant against an extremely dangereous monster. Why does he always get bothered with hordes of wolves, bandits and random lake monsters?  In a typical RPG, leveling often symbolises ia young adventurer's growth. It doesn't say meaningful about Geralt. I truly feel the game would be infinitely more interesting if you were just restricted by your toolbox instead. It would certainly beat obtaining a simple spreading-flame magic after twenty hours or so.

Conclusion

In truth, Witcher 3 is two games mashed together: One is the story of Geralt, his encounters, his hunting, his choices. And the other is an "triple A huge map game". These two games are fundementally at odds with each other Most of the play exist mainly as a chore to you have to get through in order to emjoy the juicy parts. There is too much downtime in the game to properly maintain a consistent sense of excitement, but also too little that actually feels impactful. What broke the deal for me was not the amount of time spent, it was the feel of accomplishing so little. It was quite disheartning to see clocking at thirty hours and just having finished the first chapter.  I strongly believe, if the game was entirely designed in the spirit of Ciri segments; mainly focusing on planned combat sequences, scenery and dialouge, it would reach its true potential. Unfortunately, no matter how creative or impactful they might be otherwise, Witcher series as a whole are weighed down by the conventions of their times; needlessly complex combat, weird quest systems or, in our case, a huge open world map.
This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Otakundead and Spencer Gill.