Poll of the Day > I hate grinding.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Its a crappy mechanic.

idk why its so utilized in games and so popular.

blu posted...

Its a crappy mechanic.

idk why its so utilized in games and so popular.

Funny thing is, it wasn't meant as a mechanic... grinding is a solution to bad design.

---

Have you tried using the app?

---

This was a thing in Fire Emblem Heroes early on. It took forever to level characters (that coupled with the stamina system of free to play games). The maps weren't particularly easy to grind either (the map was random, with random characters, and cost a crapload of stamina). There were "premium" skills you could get to double your exp and upgrading your castle gave more exp (but really, those skills were trash).

Now in FEH, none of that matters because after Fire Emblem Warriors came out, Intelligent Systems kinda got the hint that it was dumb because no one is gonna use a level 27 unit in PvP and it'd only be hindering new players. Leveling became way easier with the introduction of special training maps (a fixed map with easy to defeat units for easy leveling) and stamina doesn't matter anymore because most modes you don't use it.

---

I feel the same. It is just a way to try and fill in game time without having to create any meaningful content.

---

I hate random battles more than grinding (looking at you, Pokmon and Final Fantasy)

---

Lokarin posted...

Funny thing is, it wasn't meant as a mechanic... grinding is a solution to bad design.

Basically. Grinds are introduced to make games last longer. People enjoy them when they're reasonably done because they do provide a sense of working toward some sort of desirable reward, but ultimately they exist because coming up with dozens of hours of real, unique content is hard.

I hate rng more, although they often go hand in hand with each other. I don't mind grinding if what you want is guaranteed, doing the same thing over and over just hoping for some item is the most annoying shit.

TyVulpine posted...

I hate random battles more than grinding (looking at you, Pokmon and Final Fantasy)

That's why I always maxed out on Super Repels ASAP.

---

_AdjI_ posted...

Basically. Grinds are introduced to make games last longer. People enjoy them when they're reasonably done because they do provide a sense of working toward some sort of desirable reward, but ultimately they exist because coming up with dozens of hours of real, unique content is hard.

I've done this write up countless times, but it all dates back to Dragon Quest 1. If you are playing the game as intended, exploring and dying, you will be the right level when you get to the end.

BUT, if you've played the game before and are savvy enough to skip all the dead ends, you'll be a good 4~6 levels SHORT of the game being possible.

The game was designed with your failures in mind, which is why you keep all your XP but only half your gold - so that you are appropriately gatekeep'd based on how you explore.

...

Problem is, every started copying Dragon Quest based on their memories of it and not their first RPG experience with it. People only remember farming Metal Slimes, not searching caves for a useless ring.

---

I don't know, I find grinding/farming weirdly relaxing. I put on some music and just turn off my brain for a while.

I don't have a problem with random encounters either, unless the rate is abnormally high then it gets stressful (Digital Devil Saga 1, Skies of Arcadia, Dragon Quest 3 in some dungeons, etc).

Lokarin posted...

I've done this write up countless times, but it all dates back to Dragon Quest 1. If you are playing the game as intended, exploring and dying, you will be the right level when you get to the end.

BUT, if you've played the game before and are savvy enough to skip all the dead ends, you'll be a good 4~6 levels SHORT of the game being possible.

The game was designed with your failures in mind, which is why you keep all your XP but only half your gold - so that you are appropriately gatekeep'd based on how you explore.

I would call this bad design. what makes RPGs so widely popular is that they effectively have dynamic difficulty. you can make the game as easy or hard on yourself as you want, and in the best of these games, that scale will be extremely broad. when that scale is extremely narrow (close to impossible if you're a little under-leveled, and either OPd if you're a little over-leveled, or else it's impossible to be over-leveled), that is bad design. that whole system might almost as well not even be in the game.

---

Sahuagin posted...

I would call this bad design. what makes RPGs so widely popular is that they effectively have dynamic difficulty. you can make the game as easy or hard on yourself as you want, and in the best of these games, that scale will be extremely broad. when that scale is extremely narrow (close to impossible if you're a little under-leveled, and either OPd if you're a little over-leveled, or else it's impossible to be over-leveled), that is bad design. that whole system might almost as well not even be in the game.

It's two forces competing against each other. The exploration and rewards of failure made sure that you were the appropriate level when you beat Dragon Quest. The developers planned the XP and gold curves around an expected level of failure... this is a standard thing in designing RPGs. The problems come when players bypass the system. They'll either refuse to accept failure and never explore, using straight grind instead of natural encounters to level up.

There's a few things DQ1 could have changed to correct this. First would be to give the Healmore spell (the gatekeeping ability in the game) at a lower level, or to award it through a quest. Second would be to add more optional dungeons in the level 12~15 range.

I remember reading a design document for Charnok Castle (or whatever, the final dungeon) and the developers expected players to take 8 dives to get Erdrick's Sword. That means if you use a map to go through, you've effectively only gained 1/8th the expected reward.


---

Lokarin posted...

The exploration and rewards of failure made sure that you were the appropriate level when you beat Dragon Quest. The developers planned the XP and gold curves around an expected level of failure... this is a standard thing in designing RPGs.

truly well-designed RPGs/games should be as little like that as possible. a truly great game is beatable at level 1, and still somewhat challenging at level 100, while nevertheless still giving a full sense of progression in between.

it's not easy to do; dark souls and rogue-likes are what come to mind as examples. the game mechanics have to be rich enough for it to be possible.

games where the difficulty scale is so narrow that 1 level makes the difference between impossible and possible, and another level makes the difference between possible and cake-walk are bad games that have turned the game mechanics into, as you say, gate-keeping systems. the designer is attempting to control the player rather than creating deep and meaningful game systems and then presenting the player with equally rich challenges to overcome.

games like you're describing are reducible to that RPG sim where you're walking on a line fighting battles over and over.

(I wouldn't be complaining about this except that you started off describing grinding as a solution to bad design, and then presented this as "good" design, which it definitely is not to me. grinding is a solution to the player's lack of ability to win a scenario. if the player's skill and knowledge of the game is completely irrelevant to winning the scenario, that is bad design, and then yes, grinding is then transitively a solution to bad design.)

---

I liked grinding in online games, but only for item/money farming. I refuse to grind in single player games.

---

Yeah, I only like grindr if there are unique enemies. And I'm talking unique, not here's the 3rd imp creature you fought but in purple form and more health/strength.

---

Sahuagin posted...

truly well-designed RPGs/games should be as little like that as possible. a truly great game is beatable at level 1, and still somewhat challenging at level 100, while nevertheless still giving a full sense of progression in between.

it's not easy to do; dark souls and rogue-likes are what come to mind as examples. the game mechanics have to be rich enough for it to be possible.

games where the difficulty scale is so narrow that 1 level makes the difference between impossible and possible, and another level makes the difference between possible and cake-walk are bad games that have turned the game mechanics into, as you say, gate-keeping systems. the designer is attempting to control the player rather than creating deep and meaningful game systems and then presenting the player with equally rich challenges to overcome.

games like you're describing are reducible to that RPG sim where you're walking on a line fighting battles over and over.

(I wouldn't be complaining about this except that you started off describing grinding as a solution to bad design, and then presented this as "good" design, which it definitely is not to me. grinding is a solution to the player's lack of ability to win a scenario. if the player's skill and knowledge of the game is completely irrelevant to winning the scenario, that is bad design, and then yes, grinding is then transitively a solution to bad design.)7

Maybe I missed a part.

We can agree/disagree if DQ1 was good/bad design, the takeaway is that they didn't anticipate people playing the game multiple times, so what was good design in naive isolation becomes a glaring flaw on repeated plays.


---

Am I the only one that thought of grinding as "dancing"? I clicked on it to share my fond memories of grinding on my high school girlfriends. I actually almost came in my pants a few times at my prom. I had to keep telling her that I had to use the restroom so I can calm myself down, lol.
---

lihlih posted...

Am I the only one that thought of grinding as "dancing"? I clicked on it to share my fond memories of grinding on my high school girlfriends. I actually almost came in my pants a few times at my prom. I had to keep telling her that I had to use the restroom so I can calm myself down, lol.

That's edgy :j

---

Sahuagin posted...

a truly great game is beatable at level 1, and still somewhat challenging at level 100, while nevertheless still giving a full sense of progression in between.

Eh, I feel like it's unreasonable to set the bar at those extremes, especially where that depends so much on the style of gameplay. With turn-based games in particular, beating the game at level 1 may well be mathematically impossible (i.e. you deal less than 10 damage and the boss has 15 additive defense, or the boss unavoidably deals more damage than level 1 characters have health), and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I agree with your overall point, but I'd instead set the bar at "you should be able to beat the game without making a deliberate effort to level, if you're skilled enough." Being able to make up for a lack of levels with skill means an RPG's leveling system has been well designed, not necessarily that skill can be a complete substitute for having any levels at all. Take it that far, and you risk losing all sense of meaningful progression (which is a bad thing).

Lokarin posted...

That's edgy :j

How is that edgey?
---

lihlih posted...

How is that edgey?

It's a play on words... 'cuz he was edging.

---

_AdjI_ posted...

Eh, I feel like it's unreasonable to set the bar at those extremes, especially where that depends so much on the style of gameplay. With turn-based games in particular, beating the game at level 1 may well be mathematically impossible (i.e. you deal less than 10 damage and the boss has 15 additive defense, or the boss unavoidably deals more damage than level 1 characters have health)

yes, 1 and 100 are just examples.

_AdjI_ posted...

not necessarily that skill can be a complete substitute for having any levels at all. Take it that far, and you risk losing all sense of meaningful progression (which is a bad thing).

yes, take it too far and you risk becoming an action game.

dark souls in particular seems to have somehow captured this better than any other game I can think of. the game is beatable at level 1, you gain very noticeable improvements at every level, yet you can still be killed pretty easily by most enemies, even at high levels.

---

Sahuagin posted...

yes, 1 and 100 are just examples.

yes, take it too far and you risk becoming an action game.

dark souls in particular seems to have somehow captured this better than any other game I can think of. the game is beatable at level 1, you gain very noticeable improvements at every level, yet you can still be killed pretty easily by most enemies, even at high levels.

Zelda 2 is (almost) beatable at level 1 (1-1-8 anyway)

---

I don't mind grinding in action games with fun combat. Grinding in turn based battle games is a total drag. Also ~1% drop rates with no way to increase it needs to die in a fire

---

TyVulpine posted...

Zelda 2 is (almost) beatable at level 1 (1-1-8 anyway)

Can it be done at 1-1-7? I can't remember off hand how much Thunder costs

---

Lokarin posted...

Can it be done at 1-1-7? I can't remember off hand how much Thunder costs

1-1-8 is level 1 Sword, level 1 Magic, level 8 Life. As long as you have all the extra magic containers, Thunder wont be an issue.
You can certainly try 1-1-7.
http://redcandle.us/Zelda_II:_The_Adventure_of_Link/Challenges

---

Oh, I thought it was level 8 Magic... if you don't need Level 8 magic then 1-1-1 should be possible.

Well, ok, 1-1-5 might be the smallest due to forced XP, assuming you soft reset after every temple

---

Did anyone else immediately think TC was referring to how you danced with girls in Middle School?

---

KingHova045 posted...

Did anyone else immediately think TC was referring to how you danced with girls in Middle School?

I posted a whole story about it!
---

I find it to be a pain, too.

---

Random battles, and grinding is old design that needs to go away and never come back.

---

personally, i still enjoy grinding up against strangers on the subway, ok?

---

personally, i enjoy grinding up against strangers, ok?

---