Image Designer Archive

---

Syzygy-Gorath wrote:

Dev Fred: Hey Bob, doesn't look like anyone's using these junk vendors.

Dev Bob: Think we should call it a wrap and yank 'em?

Dev Fred: Nah, we'll just revamp 'em.

Dev Bob: Hey Fred, those junk vendors still aren't getting used.

Dev Fred: Hm. I know! We'll add new loot that can only be assembled by visiting a junk vendor! That's force those uncooperative players to use 'em!

Dev Bob: Uh…Fred? Isn't the loot you're adding better suited for inclusion in the Architect skill trees?

Dev Fred: Shut up.

---

After laughing I remembered this snippet from Raph Koster's website. The added emphasis is mine...

Playing as intended
I think "playing as intended" is overvalued--except insofar as it means that players play
longer or get more enjoyment out of the game or do not ruin the enjoyment of others.

The first one has obvious basis for commercial ventures, and the latter is likewise
obvious. The middle one--a good example is Motor City Online. Because of how the game
is designed, there's more advantage to running the oval tracks over and over again for
points and cash than there is from actually playing the full range of offerings the
game has. This makes the game less fun for everyone, IMHO. I don't think there's anything
wrong with trying to rectify that, and even applaud the effort, even if it is definable
as "fixing it so they play as intended."

I guess my key point is this:

Players will do things that are not fun, because we the designers reward them for doing
it. And then they **edit** mightily. But if we reward them enough, they keep doing it. Even
when we tell them to stop and go *have fun* they won't, by and large.

So if people aren't playing as intended, it's because your game mechanics are broken.
You'll just have to assess whether the way they are playing is more or less fun than
what you had hoped. Often, it's MORE, in which case you should embrace it. I think that
The Sims is practically a poster child for this.