Player Convenience VS Game Depth

While XIV's servers are down to implement the upcoming patch, I thought it would be nice to start a discussion of sorts:

Which is more important to you and why - Player Convenience or Game Depth?

I would like to preface this by saying these two things are not mutually exclusive ideas, but for the discussion, I'd like to talk about your personal preferences for design decisions regarding those two concepts.

So, here are a few example of this sort of give and take scenario (Some of which have been stolen from other threads):

A piece of equipment is released that is desirable, something that people would actively try to obtain. The crafting of this weapon requires Frog Skin, a material that can only be found one way; by killing Mud Frogs. However, there's a catch: Mud Frogs don't spawn unless it's raining

How do you feel about that scenario? Would you be annoyed that you can't farm these creatures when you choose, feeling that it's a mechanic that wastes your time or holds you back, or do you like the idea that there are creatures that have environmental habits, giving them a small touch of personality?

Another example:

In some corner in the world map is a unique crystal cavern, an area that is visually unique from other caves found in the game. Here, a specific mineral can be mined that is useful for crafting a series of high level equipment. However, this cave is also home to very powerful mobs that simply can't be killed, forcing you to stealth by them to get a chance at this valuable ore. If you're seen and killed, you'd be sent back to your previous home point, forced to have to make the journey again

So how about this one? Do you find that having to sneak like that, something that is a little reliant on luck, is an aggravating concept that shouldn't get in the way of you obtaining materials, and that the walk back is nothing more than a waste of time? Or do you find the high risk - high reward idea thrilling, and the potential nuisance of having to walk back an extra thrill to traversing the cave?

These are just a few example, of which I'm sure many others could come up with better ones, but I feel they get the point across. And as I said before, they are not mutually exclusive ideas, and could be implemented in ways that incorporate both mindsets, but I'm wondering which side most of the playerbase here leans towards.

How about "they are both of equal importance". The end.

Game depth all the way, all this handheld stuff is terrrible.

Game depth. I've put up with XIV long enough to work around any inconvenience.

Not only are the two concepts not mutually exclusive, like you've said, you also can't judge them on a superficial level based on only one or two criteria. Using your mud frogs example, how often does it rain? What is the drop rate on the skins? How many mud frogs spawn? In how many areas do the mud frogs spawn? Is there a similar item I could get elsewhere? Does it actually take skill to kill these monsters, or do you just have to wait until you get lucky with weather patterns?

The level of 'accessibility' and 'convenience' is a little arbitrary, but a good bottom line should be "if player X wants to do activity Y, he should be able to put in the effort to do it at any time and walk away with at least some semblance of progress by the time he stops playing."

I was purposefully trying to not go to deeply into each scenario, we could talk and plan all day on rates and semantics (And I would probably enjoy that). The core idea I wanted to bring up with the frog example was how players felt about content that was limited in various ways for the sole purpose of immersion, character, flare, and world design. Of course I'd like to assume that the developers would be able to implement that kind of content with optimal enjoyment, but I want to know if anyone wants that type of content at all.

Perhaps a better example would be the airships. Right now they're simple cutscenes, but what if they were actual rides? In that case, it takes longer for a character to get from point A to point B, but it creates a more natural sense of time and progression.

I guess the reason I brought this up is because, from what I've noticed on these boards, a lot here have little interest in trivialities such as mob behavior, exploration and the like, and instead seem to only want complexity in the battle system, everything else made to get them from battle encounter to encounter as simple and quickly as possible. I'd argue, though, that knowing the little intricacies of the game world, collecting that knowledge, and using it to your advantage (In the case of the mud frog example, learning weather patterns and planning around them) is just as much a 'skill' as knowing when to get off a specific WS, and comes with it's own sort of enjoyment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roj

How about "they are both of equal importance". The end.

---

Agree. Thread over?

I mean its a weird question; as you said depth and convenience are not mutually exclusive so why the either/or question? Lulz? Curiosity? Sociology homework?

I think you needs to define "game depth". Inconvenience =/= game depth imo. If you want a perfect example I'll use Pokemon Gold/Silver/HGSS. They came up with the awesome of idea of a day/night cycle. Cool. They came up with the not-so-awesome-still debated idea of having morning pokemon, daytime pokemon, and nighttime pokemon. Now here is the question: depth or not depth? Its surely inconvenient, but does it really add game depth? IMO, no.

I say no because the system is still the same, catch pokemon. These pokemon are obtained the same way, Game freak just made it more inconvenient to get to them. Ppl call it depth because of "zomg realism," but I contend that realism does not translate automatically into depth. The system is the exact same except they split the pokemon between daytime and nighttime. How does that make the game any "deeper" than before? It just means now instead of going to that next gym, you wait around and not play all day so you can catch a pokemon you want/need. How is that depth?

Now let me give you an example of what I consider game depth: the old FFXIV crafting system (thats making a comeback now). This is what you'd call true game depth. It changes the gameplay rather than change what the player can or can't do. To craft a weapon you need to craft parts. To craft parts you need different materials. To get different materials, you need access to different classes/tools/ppl with those resources. The result is a vast market of potential goods and services, and an encouragement by the game for players to interact or dabble in different areas. Adding this system back in for the new gear is what i would call depth. It really *adds* something to the game, and doesn't just inconvenience the player for no good reason.

So really, we need to define depth in your OP. Imo, your example isn't depth but closer to the pokemon example. It adds content, but does so in a way that artificially restricts the player, rather than actually add something to the game experience. My question to you is how you would define depth.

While I'm not particularly opposed to the scenarios presented, to me they don't say depth so much as they say tedium for tedium's sake. When I think of depth, I think of numerous choices and robust systems. Waiting for a specific environmental condition to do something is neither and gives me not so pleasant flashbacks of trying to unlock summoner in XI. Just my opinion.

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I seem to be getting answers to my question. Some of you seem to look at the frogs example as nothing but a time sink, and I'm not saying that's wrong. I, personally, look at that as something that gives that particular piece of the game a memorable characteristic. In the pokemon example given above, I look at it like this: The pokemon you can catch change depending on the time of day. You say you don't like this because it prevents you from catching a specific pokemon the second you want it, and that is a valid complaint, but on the other hand, players will have a different experience depending on what time they first get to that part of the game, or perhaps when they traverse that area once more at a different time, they're pleasantly surprised to find a number of new pokemon they hadn't seen before. Mechanically, it can be aggravating for someone such as yourself, but aesthetically (Is that the correct word?), someone such as me finds it a novel idea. So, which of those concepts is more important to you? That's really what my question is.

I have found that the majority of people on these forums are far more inclined to sacrifice the depth of the world for the convenience of travel. Beyond that specific circumstance I have always found people begging for a more in depth and thought provoking experience.

People do not want to travel long distances and they do not want to stand around waiting, but while they are on the move and while they are participating in some activity they want it to be as in depth as possible. The community has even said they want simple things like wandering NPCs and mob behavioral characteristics. These are the little things that make a world feel alive. Your example of the Mobs that spawn in the middle of the rain is a good example. The community has come together to ask for more situations like that. Specifically, more enemies that only spawn at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jocko

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

---

I think you're talking about world dynamics, anything that makes the world feel more alive and feel ever-changing. Pokemon and your examples are examples of world dynamics. I like world dynamics, but I find that it really depends on how and why certain dynamics are implemented. In the pokemon example, a better decision would have been to make all pokemon available at all times of day. The only difference is that some would be rarer depending on the time, and when found they would be asleep until attacked. That adds dynamics in its true form, without taking inconvenience beyond conceivable limits.

I don't mind inconvenience, but i want it to be tasteful and logical. Mud frogs come out in the rain? Fine that sounds awesome. But *only* found in the rain? No way. Mud Frogs don't just disappear from the face of the planet when it isn't raining. They come out in the open when its raining, but where are they when its not raining? They have to be somewhere. That means SE has to make them available; otherwise its just a needlessly inconvenient mechanic.

I prefer world dynamics, but only when it isn't done purely at the player's expense.

"Depth."
I really hate easy mode. Things get done way too quickly and I end up unsatisfied.

I like the examples you gave. so i'll try and give an answer by the examples you gave.

The forggies. I personally don't have much issue wiith the rain = Frogspawn. The question becomes what is the timetable for rain. if its in Gridania, its raining alot there. Ul'dah, not so much. If it rains enough the people have some chance to nab a frog more then once a while in forever, i find it a fine mechanic.

How many frogs we spawning? I think you'd have to be careful about how many "limiting" mechanics you pile ontop of each other. If you have to wait for rain, there should be a TON of frogs spawning, likely in a few areas. So if people do have to wait for it to rain. they will have a likelyhood of actually finding and killing a frog. Droprate is another pile on.

My point. You probably don't want people waiting for rain that happens once a week, for a chance to kill 1 of 3 frogs Frog camping fest), that have a 1% drop rate for frog skin.

You probably want, wait for rain that falls every few hours. Frog fest. Reasonable chance of Frog skin. (little need to camp frog spawns)

For the sneaky example:

I also have no problem with the base mechanics but i'd tune them a bit: Instead of being booted to your return point. Have the guards rough you up and throw you outside the door. Since you've already failed to get to your goal. and will have to go through the same part you got to last time i see little reason to make you chocobo a travel distance all over again.

You'd likely want Sneaky, Sucsess = You are sneaky, goal meet. Failure = Start from the beginning and did not meet goal.

You probably wouldn't want: Sucsess = You are sneaky, goal meet. Failure = Goal not meet, have to start over, have to travel distance from home town/rez spot.

If you see the theme i'm pointing to. Often failure and having to go through from the begining is a fine penalty for failure itself. anything added to the top is generally time sink and exactly what people with limited time do not have the time to do. I know very few people who even with limited time have issues with having to "try again" if they fail. What they have issue with is the extra crap added onto the price of failure for little reason beside taking time.

And the point i'm pointing to with the frog example is if your looking for an interesting mechanic dealing wirt timeing. that should be the interesting mechanic. You likely shouldn't be asking people no matter how much time they can put in to wait for the stars and planets to align. Design your interesting mechanic, and make that the roadblock. If that is overcome (waited for rain) the rest should be effort of skill.

Summary: If part of your design involves Time used or timing, do your best to make that the only Time used or waited for mechanic in that "quest" or activity. Piling a bunch of time related mechanics onto a single activity hardly helps (And in my opinion is bad design anyway)

There is no reason game depth has to mean sacrificing convenience. There are different ways to add depth, different areas that can be expanded on, allowing for complexity for those who choose to look for it, without being a burden for everyone else.

Not getting into semantics or anything I think I am understanding what you are asking. I would much prefer depth. I would definitely prefer the longer airship ride. To me it is more of a "living world" type thing as is the frog skin example.

Bonus points if there were random occurrences on the airship you could be involved in if you wanted.

While the word convenience is often sounds like "EZ button" to me but things shouldn't be inconvenient for the sake of being time consuming.

Viritess, I completely agree. I'm all for the opposition of pointless time sinks, but I'm also for adding an element of "chance", so to say. Nothing like the claim wars of XI, but enough to make a player go "oh!" as they're traveling towards a certain objective, stop, and take advantage of a situation that may not always be available to them. Going back to the frog example, I liked how you brought up that the amount of rain is dependent on the area that you're in. If you're going around Uldah for a large amount of time, you'll rarely see the mud frogs spawn, but when you travel to Gridania, there's a decent chance it will start raining on the way and you'd think "Oh, hey! I should stop and farm some mud frogs while I'm here and try to get 5 or 6 skins". That's sort of what I envision when I talk about mechanics such as these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jocko

[...]but I'm also for adding an element of "chance", so to say. Nothing like the claim wars of XI, but enough to make a player go "oh!" as they're traveling towards a certain objective, stop, and take advantage of a situation that may not always be available to them. [...]

---

I was not sure if I was agreeing with OP, but this part is really well said.

Reminds me of the random NPC that popped regarding imperial attacks recently. I thought it was quite exciting and added a little something when it popped as you passed by, but people got frustrated because of the unpredictable nature of the pops and unsuccessful farming for hours.

So yeah, if you want to take part in said content at any time just because, it gets frustrating, but if you see it as yet an additional, rare content, it effectively adds a lot of life and depth to the game. It's not a question of easy vs hard

Player Convenience VS Game Depth

Player Convenience = short game life people will just move on since they win the game faster.

Game Depth = and actual game with checks and balences, not a here you go this epic armor for 50gil.

Game depth includes the world around you, that even means waiting for an airship ride....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rokien

Game depth includes the world around you, that even means waiting for an airship ride....

---

That even means riding on the airship even for 5 minutes and seeing the world pass below you, even if it is a low-poly model of the continent, it still feels breathtaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rokien

Game depth includes the world around you, that even means waiting for an airship ride....

---

Except when the airship ride isn't a ride, but a half-assed cutscene of a ship taking off. Then its just inconvenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zyph

That even means riding on the airship even for 5 minutes and seeing the world pass below you, even if it is a low-poly model of the continent, it still feels breathtaking.

---

Yep, it adds to the game depth. HECK THEY CAN EVEN DO WHAT TERA DID. Ride around a bit then go through a teleporter deal. Something other than HEY YOUR HERE!

Hard to say I like both, can't I have my cake and eat it too ?

When you can just teleport anywhere, why bother with 5 minute airship rides?

Few people even bother with the ship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinko

Hard to say I like both, can't I have my cake and eat it too ?

---

It's more of an either or situation. More referring to the time and commitment required.
You can have different situations favoring different levels of commitment, but the question is focused on which you prefer more.

I always use the airships, Anima is worth more than anything in Erozea, although Hamlet may have changed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jinko

I always use the airships, Anima is worth more than anything in Erozea, although Hamlet may have changed that.

---

But would you bother with a 5 minute cut-scene?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramul

But would you bother with a 5 minute cut-scene?

---

Oh I misread your post .. as you were :D

But to answer your question, yea I probably would if it meant saving anima, I would just go make a drink or come on here and read the forums whilst I travelled, which is what I do whilst waiting for the airship to turn up anyway.

Could we possibly skip the airship "discussion" in at least one thread with the word "time" in it. I realize its a hot topic butthe Op posed a fair and civil question. Would be nice not to discuss Airship travel time .... again

I will agree i like world effects to produce rarities then just time, chance and random locations.

Sometimes its even cooler to know of a cave (or series of caves), off the beaten path, that at midnight a bunch of wrights take over.

Opposed to every x hours, there is a chance 1 critter wills spawn "somewhere" in the range of 10x10 map grid blocks.

It can help anchor your adventures and help players make note of map features when your looking for caves or passages as opposed to just spawns. I'd rather search the map for places and find things then to search for things and miss out on places that might have had things in them.

When i started i was searching nearly every cave i walked by. Now i've realized unless it has a big icon on it in the map view, theres almost nothing to look at in there. Its generally 1 room, maybe a pool fo water annnd done. I take a peek still. but any sense of adventure is pretty much gone. Most caves are the same and it seems completely rare or non exsistant to find a cave that isnt a carbon copy of all the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jocko

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I seem to be getting answers to my question. Some of you seem to look at the frogs example as nothing but a time sink, and I'm not saying that's wrong. I, personally, look at that as something that gives that particular piece of the game a memorable characteristic. In the pokemon example given above, I look at it like this: The pokemon you can catch change depending on the time of day. You say you don't like this because it prevents you from catching a specific pokemon the second you want it, and that is a valid complaint, but on the other hand, players will have a different experience depending on what time they first get to that part of the game, or perhaps when they traverse that area once more at a different time, they're pleasantly surprised to find a number of new pokemon they hadn't seen before. Mechanically, it can be aggravating for someone such as yourself, but aesthetically (Is that the correct word?), someone such as me finds it a novel idea. So, which of those concepts is more important to you? That's really what my question is.

---

I would love a scenario such as what you describe in your OP. Though your choice of words were maybe not "ideal", I got the gist of what you were asking just fine. I suspect others did as well, despite the nit-picking and fussing over specific details from some; forest for the trees and all that. You were offering up examples to convey a general idea, not a specific implementation of it. I got it loud and clear.

Anyway...

I am all for anything that gives the game world more depth and variety. To see different mobs appear at different times or have certain areas with a rare and precious mineral or resource that's also heavily guarded by dangerous, higher-level mobs would be fantastic. As long as the mainline of the gameplay is straightforward enough for people to get done what they need to get done, I have absolutely no problem with other aspects of it being driven or influenced by things like time of day, weather, etc.

FFXI did this quite a lot actually, and I always found it intriguing.

I do agree that there needn't be an "either/or" dichotomy at play. You can achieve both. The only issue would/might be that those who want those rare minerals, or want to go after that elusive mob but are set in the more "casual/convenient only" mode of play would probably raise a ruckus about it on the forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wynn

While I'm not particularly opposed to the scenarios presented, to me they don't say depth so much as they say tedium for tedium's sake. When I think of depth, I think of numerous choices and robust systems. Waiting for a specific environmental condition to do something is neither and gives me not so pleasant flashbacks of trying to unlock summoner in XI. Just my opinion.

---

Dodore made you wait for specific times, and so does Ureaus. I don't see a problem with them, and there are PLENTY of activites for you to do while waiting, you don't have to just focus on that one thing.

I like that specific mobs only come out for certain conditions. It adds to the immersion, omg I said immersion xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeadRiser

Dodore made you wait for specific times, and so does Ureaus. I don't see a problem with them, and there are PLENTY of activites for you to do while waiting, you don't have to just focus on that one thing.

I like that specific mobs only come out for certain conditions. It adds to the immersion, omg I said immersion xD

---

Personally, I think anything that makes you wait/camp instead of actually playing is the exact opposite of immersion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wynn

Personally, I think anything that makes you wait/camp instead of actually playing is the exact opposite of immersion.

---

So let's have all these skeletons walking around in the daylight when the lore clearly states they only in caves/night time?

I mean it's not STOPPING you from playing, there is OTHER content to do. Dodore and Ureaus make you wait, I don't b**** to my linkshell because we have to wait, I go do something else and we gather at the right time.

I don't get why people don't want a very in depth game..... Oh wait... this is FFXIV crowed we are talking to...