I could title this little write up, "duh" instead, but that isn’t as useful later when I’m looking back at it. So you guys get the current attempt at funny. Lucky you.
Why the title could be "duh" is because the subject matter concerning a post by one Mr. Ramachandran:
To keep players interested, rewards are required. Depending on the game, rewards can be different: unlockable characters, new levels, or new items. While most action games don’t utilize loot theory to its fullest, RPGs have been doing just that for years.
The Diablo series is a perfect example of the theory in effect. Just as in the story of the donkey and the carrot, a game’s rewards cannot be too frequent, nor can it be too infrequent. If rewards are too frequent, they lose value in the eyes of the player, and they lose interest. If the rewards are too infrequent, the player loses sight of the carrot, and likely loses motivation to keep playing. In the case of Diablo, Blizzard took loot
htheory, and added a twist to it. Enemies almost always drop armor, weapons or items to pick up. The frequently dropped weapons and armor are usually not very good, but each time it does drop, it reminds the player that the next drop might be something special.
He title the post, Loot Theory and goes into a brief description of all of the ways players can be rewarded…and then goes back to loot and says it’s the key to everything. It’s not a horrible article, but it kind of misses the bigger point. And I have no idea why it’s linked on /. Maybe this guy is someone big in the industry…?
Back on topic though…Loot isn’t really the whole story. Yes, loot is very important in multiple different types of games, not just RPGs or rogue type games. No, Blizzard didn’t invent Loot Theory with Diablo, but they did refine it. That’s what Blizzard does with games, they take existing mechanics and tweak/refine them until they are better. It’s their absolute best feature as a company. They did the same with MMOs with WoW that they did with Diablo and the rogue type game.
What did they do? They created a very efficient pellet systems. It’s not just the loot, it’s everything. To go back to Diablo for a minute, they created a nifty loot system for sure. But they also had randomized dungeons, upgrades to skills/attributes on level up and sometimes as quest rewards. Not to mention just the pure exploration aspect of the game. They have four or five different systems working making the pellet system continually drip crack into the player’s vein. That’s another thing Blizzard excels at, the pellet system.
Loot is important, but it’s not everything. Take a look at some other games and other companies. Take Mass Effect for instance. That game was awesome, start to finish. The looting system though? It left something to be desired because of the effed up UI and trying to figure out what you wanted to wear, what you wanted to keep, what you wanted to upgrade and what you wanted to sell. That game had a very different pellet system that only relied on the loot system a bit obviously, so it didn’t hurt the game too much.
Then look at something like the recently released Space Siege. It’s very Diablo in it’s way, but they went ahead and streamlined everything. The loot system is now basically a button that says collect everything. And everything is just metal. That’s it. So looting became so streamlined it lost the fun of it. They were trying to solve the problem if picking up and sorting through a whole bunch of junk, but they went a bit too far and broke the mechanic overall. Then when the rest of the game couldn’t carry it, the looting system became and even more obvious flaw.
Loot Theory is just a part of the entire picture and while very important, it’s not the end all be all for most gamers. It’s should part of a bigger system that is giving rewards to the players without over doing it. That’s the key to the whole thing. Give rewards, but only enough to keep people wanting them, not so much that you crash the system and the game player just starts to wonder why they are even bothering.
What Would Matt Do: Hmm…that is a very good question.