[throw4847285]

The fact that this article does not mention the word "roguelike" once is quite telling. The argument that gameplay loops are a relic of arcades falls flat when you realize that Rogue came out in 1980, the same year as Pac-man. The entire argument falls flat when you realize that a gameplay loop is simply another way of explaining the means of interactivity, and interactivity is core to the idea of video games. Even the shortest narrative game has a "loop" of some kind.

Honestly, when I read essays like this I always have to ask: have games changed, or have you? I had what felt like infinite time as a kid to devote to gaming, and as I've aged, my relationship to video games has changed substantially. I can relate to wanting more bite sized experiences, but then again, a single run of a roguelike, the ultimate "gameplay loop" can feel just as satisfying as a short narrative game.

There are plenty of valid complaints to lodge against modern game design, but I think the author's framing is flawed.

[StilesCrisis]

I completely agree with your analysis. Gameplay loops are fine. The author is just in a different stage of life and appreciates different things now.

[watwut]

> have games changed, or have you?

Yes the games changed. I think that the claim the games did not changed would be absurd to anyone who looked at games in the past and is looking at games now.

We changed too, sure. But kids dont finish games, typically either. And I dont even think pac-man is a good example here, very few people finished pac-man - but the game itself was not meant to be finished. It was meant to be too difficult at some point.

[StilesCrisis]

World of Warcraft is twenty-two years old and perfectly exemplifies all of the author's complaints about game loops. It's not a new phenomenon.

[s_trumpet]

The way the author defines loops is so broad that every single 90s game I can think of has them.

[sparkie]

The difference is that 90s games had novelty at the time - many introduced new gameplay ideas.

A lot of today's AAA games have converged into a small number of genres like the open world action RPG games which all have the same "side quests" repeated ad-nauseam.

* Talk to NPC

* Go kill 5 monsters

* Talk to another NPC

* Collect 3 of some item.

* Talk to another (or original) NPC.

* Get some pocket change, EXP and an item as reward.

Repeated several hundred times throughout the game with minor variations and some uninteresting dialogue that doesn't develop your the story or character besides unlocking a new skill. Every skill is acquired the same way - through "skill points" that are acquired with EXP - but there's no novelty in acquiring EXP - just the same quests which increase the game's "content".

But this content is boring an uninspired. It's almost like it's done to keep people employed - or at least, to pay fewer programmer's high salaries and replace them with lower salaries of employees who can use a pre-packaged scripting system to increase the gameplay duration without adding any new gameplay. Or maybe it's the sunk cost fallacy - they feel like they've put some time and effort into implementing some mechanic, so it would be a waste to only use it once or twice, so they have to use it 50 times to justify the budget spent on developing it.

[throw4847285]

You missed my point. The author argued that gameplay loops are a holdover from quarter munching arcade machines. I used Rogue as proof that this is at best an incomplete account. I simply mentioned Pac-Man as the beginning of the arcade boom, which happened to come out the same year as Rogue, a computer game with a much more addicting gameplay loop (in my opinion).

[pwillia7]

I almost never finished games even back in the 90s/2000s. I think it's because of how long they are compared to movies and even tv shows. You also (especially back in the day) had to 'rewatch' the same part over and over until you could beat it

[chaps]

I play roguelikes tons and agree with the article's analysis.

A lot of these games feel like the "game loop" only exists as a project management tool to refine the game's release rather than to refine enjoyment. It's made so much worse with games that are in early development where EA feels like just a refinement of the loop rather than refinement of enjoyment .

It's hard to explain, but it feels like a symptom of loop focus over gameplay is that the game peaks suddenly and hard but expects you to keep going.

A game that illustrates how to break past that point is noita -- there's definitely a gameplay loop.. but it's made in a way where the loop is eventually recognizable as not actually the full game. It then goes from being a gameplay loop to a stream of play that doesn't need to loop on itself.

Really, I wish game devs, both indie and otherwise, would try to break out of these loops more readily.

[karmakaze]

The whole time reading this I was thinking, there's more than one kind of game. Even in the space of single player games there are many kinds. Maybe they should try playing a different one. Or maybe Dwarf Fortress will have enough depth.

The point of distilling a story into a loop does resonate though. Think of games made from blockbuster movies which succeed or fail based on the sliver that made it into the loop. I on the other hand love games that I can play for 10-20 mins, then do it again or not. These tend to be PvP games though.