Well, I got to looking at replayability due to their mention of differences in kind in multiplayer games. And it got me to thinking that unless you're say Portal 2 co-op and only focused on a single playthrough and/or tap into an infinite level design well, what's going to keep your multiplayer game successful is how many times a player can come back, play and not be bored completely braindead from the repetition.
Differences in kind is what prevents this boredom in all its forms. But for replayability you have to look at the types which don't require infinite game assets to prolong player attention indefinitely.
In my opinion another great example of a combination of those two, differences in Scale and Kind would be the Deckers.die mission in Saints Row 3. It looks, feels, handles completely different from all other parts of the game. It throws in clever puzzles and complete idiocy at the same time and still feels completely awesome and unique.
The only ones that face reality are the ones too stupid to duck when they see it coming!
id say half life 2 is an even better example of difference in kind. the thing that makes hl2 one of the greatest games ever is the different tones in the game.
you start out as a confused outsider in a strange world.
now you've been discovered, you're on the run and it feels like you're watching a jason bourne movie.
you get to ravenholme and suddenly its a resident evil style horror
driving a wire frame car on a beach where walking on the sand causes alien ants to burst out of the ground feels like something out of mad max.
breaking into a prison
breaking out of a prison
the revolution
etc. etc.
So to make everything concise:
The only difference in kinds that drive the replayability of any game are
1) Randomness (random map gen, random enemy gen, random resource gen, etc.).
2) Competition against yourself or other people, as different strategies and different circumstances force you to change the way you play. "
i would say something like minecraft does it a little differently. (sure there are random elements that help, but aren't core to the game) The player-driven element of construction and the cooperation/trolling with your friends, while similar to what you said, are not the same thing but are definitely integral to minecraft being enjoyable.
I also agree that games that don't require infinite new levels etc to maintain interest are the ones that i enjoy the most. something like LoL or DotA gives not only the element of the enemy player, but also the shifting momentum of the gameplay, from farming to ganking to going to the shop, etc.
I agree with your Minecraft stance, although to me what makes multiplayer fun is the diverse range of projects that get built on the same server. It's sort of a human implemented randomness, in that you don't know what you'll see, but there is the social aspect too which I must admit I overlooked in my focus upon competition. A social environment doesn't have to be competitive to drive differences in kind.
In Single player Minecraft, it is the random maps and features that draws you back though IMO. I can't be the only one who digs until they find a chasm where lava flows out spectacularly into a pool of water below.
The beauty of League of Legends is that the differences in kind were not originally designed inherently into the game, the laning phase, the mid game roaming and the late game team fighting are all player structures come about because players, not developers, have decided this is the best way to play.
This is SO important. I actually had to deal with this personally when I helped admin a RunUO Server. The people who ran the game didn't know how to program very much, so their only option was to make enemies stronger than before. Unfortunately the followers players could own allowed for custom armor, and players quickly learned that armor sets that reflect physical damage back to enemies would immediately grant them 100% success rate... no matter what.
So when I came aboard, the first enemy I made would do a little chant, that would make the followers stop attacking him, and attack their own masters instead. I also gave him a weapon that did not do physical damage. It wasn't very powerful, but it allowed him to hurt people without getting hurt himself. So even though he was SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than the super-bosses that dominated the game beforehand, he was still harder to defeat because I used differences in kind instead of simply scaling up again.
Trying to rationalize this might just be too much. Also, I think "power creep" is a more accurate way to describe differences in scale, even if it does not contrast well with differences in kind (which I would term variety). But yeah, point taken.
Frankly though, I don't think MW was that good with it. They sort of got it by sheer luck because they were following the 3 Acts within each chapter much more so than intentionally trying to design a good level. When they actually tried to incorporate this (consciously) into a game, you get BlackOps, which the video justfiably called Call of Warioware.
In Video Games, you press buttons in order to Verb the Adjective Noun. Every time the Verb changes, it's a Difference in Kind. Every time the Noun changes, it's a somewhat less extreme Difference in Kind.
When the Adjective changes, it's usually a Difference in Scale.
Randomness and Competition can both trigger Emergent Behaviors, if the developer got lucky, but most of the time you need to put Differences in Kind into the game on purpose. That's the point of this video.
A random number generator won't give you Differences in Kind if it's just picking between the same three options throughout the game. Likewise, adding competition to your game won't automatically give you Differences in Kind if each player's options are always the same.
Posts
Differences in kind is what prevents this boredom in all its forms. But for replayability you have to look at the types which don't require infinite game assets to prolong player attention indefinitely.
So I feel there's been deceit
I helped sell a ton of copies
Yet all I'm known for is a RECEIPT
Which forumer am I?
you start out as a confused outsider in a strange world.
now you've been discovered, you're on the run and it feels like you're watching a jason bourne movie.
you get to ravenholme and suddenly its a resident evil style horror
driving a wire frame car on a beach where walking on the sand causes alien ants to burst out of the ground feels like something out of mad max.
breaking into a prison
breaking out of a prison
the revolution
etc. etc.
"Yeah, I think I use too many words sometimes.
So to make everything concise:
The only difference in kinds that drive the replayability of any game are
1) Randomness (random map gen, random enemy gen, random resource gen, etc.).
2) Competition against yourself or other people, as different strategies and different circumstances force you to change the way you play. "
i would say something like minecraft does it a little differently. (sure there are random elements that help, but aren't core to the game) The player-driven element of construction and the cooperation/trolling with your friends, while similar to what you said, are not the same thing but are definitely integral to minecraft being enjoyable.
I also agree that games that don't require infinite new levels etc to maintain interest are the ones that i enjoy the most. something like LoL or DotA gives not only the element of the enemy player, but also the shifting momentum of the gameplay, from farming to ganking to going to the shop, etc.
I agree with your Minecraft stance, although to me what makes multiplayer fun is the diverse range of projects that get built on the same server. It's sort of a human implemented randomness, in that you don't know what you'll see, but there is the social aspect too which I must admit I overlooked in my focus upon competition. A social environment doesn't have to be competitive to drive differences in kind.
In Single player Minecraft, it is the random maps and features that draws you back though IMO. I can't be the only one who digs until they find a chasm where lava flows out spectacularly into a pool of water below.
So when I came aboard, the first enemy I made would do a little chant, that would make the followers stop attacking him, and attack their own masters instead. I also gave him a weapon that did not do physical damage. It wasn't very powerful, but it allowed him to hurt people without getting hurt himself. So even though he was SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than the super-bosses that dominated the game beforehand, he was still harder to defeat because I used differences in kind instead of simply scaling up again.
Frankly though, I don't think MW was that good with it. They sort of got it by sheer luck because they were following the 3 Acts within each chapter much more so than intentionally trying to design a good level. When they actually tried to incorporate this (consciously) into a game, you get BlackOps, which the video justfiably called Call of Warioware.
When the Adjective changes, it's usually a Difference in Scale.
Randomness and Competition can both trigger Emergent Behaviors, if the developer got lucky, but most of the time you need to put Differences in Kind into the game on purpose. That's the point of this video.
A random number generator won't give you Differences in Kind if it's just picking between the same three options throughout the game. Likewise, adding competition to your game won't automatically give you Differences in Kind if each player's options are always the same.