Comments on: A Necessary Evil: Grinding in Games

By: Asaf

Asaf — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:25:23 +0000

Regarding Damien’s first post:
The point in introducing a new enemy after the 40th bore is killed is to break the current grinding and introduce a new one, thus keeping player interest with shorter ‘grind periods’.
The same technique I believe could be applied in order to control player advancement and how soon they reach the new mechanic or P&R. Basically using grinding to control the pace of a game.

By: Why I hate level up systems « Agoners

Why I hate level up systems « Agoners — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:46:36 +0000

[...] about in videogames? Probably the best take on this I’ve read is at The Game Prodigy with A Necessary Evil: Grinding in Games. You’ll notice that all the pros of grinding are there only for the developers, not players. [...]

By: Damien

Damien — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:48:18 +0000

Thank you Brice, I agree with your response.

Talking about “Using a Grind Responsibly” I was lately casually discussing the issue of grinding in MMORPG.
In my opinion, reaching the end game level shouldn’t be stretched beyond the necessary time for players to master their character. However I have a very difficult time understanding the real advantage of not doing this, instead of creating less content and more boring experience.

Looking at Old Republic and Guild Wars 2, they seem to have understood how boring leveling is and invest a lot of efforts building a strong narrative content. I hope they will start a new era of no grinding MMORPG.
I believe that creating a seamless experience from solo RPG to multi-player RPG is a great idea.

By: Brice

Brice — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:15:28 +0000

Damien, great points. Grinding is really a player perception, when the same Base Mechanics have been stretched too far and they get frustrated. Perhaps “Using a Grind Responsibly” could be better phrased as using designs that tend to lead to a grind without pushing the player over the edge. If the game can be extended without the player becoming bored, then it’s a win for everyone.

By: Damien

Damien — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:01:55 +0000

You make a point about grinding as a cheap make up for stretching a game duration.
Anyway I think that a game choosing this solution has no confidence in his quality. In fact, many short games has as many success as the lengthy one. Moreover I find that grinding often give game a tedious difficulty, learning & rhythm curves.

You also define grinding as “the player must be performing the same actions over and over, actions that they have already mastered” and “a powerful Long Term Incentive”.
However in your last paragraph you say that grinding could be use to “make sure that the player is reaching new Base Mechanics or P&R Systems at a pace enough to keep them interested”. Then you add if the player is “bored after they kill their 50th boar, then consider adding in a new enemy that appears after they kill their 40th”.
But if I refer to your definition -which I’m agree with- the ideas quoted in my previous paragraph are not about grinding. “New Base Mechanics or P&R Systems” are mechanics and system not yet mastered, so there’s no grinding there. And adding “a new enemy” still isn’t grinding because a new enemy implies a new strategy not yet mastered too.

Do I misinterpret your thoughts or your conclusion points clearly that the careful use of grinding is in fact not using grinding at all ?