What percent of the experience is the software?

[phart010 | 1,707]

Think about the complete experience of playing a video game. I will explain a few different gaming scenarios and the components of the experience.
 

Scenario 1:
Playing Street Fighter 2 Arcade cabinet at a busy arcade. There’s people surrounding you waiting for their turn. They are watching your match and cheering you on. They have their quarters lined up on the cabinet and the next challenger is standing next to you trying to figure out how you play. The crowd is going wild!

Components of the experience:
1. The Arcade cabinet setup with arcade controls
2. Pay to play forces you to relish every moment
3. Having real competitors that are standing next to you as you play
4. Having an audience to watch and cheer you on
5. Being outside in a public setting. Passers by and maybe even a special someone maybe admiring your mad skillz
6. The game software itself

I would like us to attempt to quantify as a percentage the importance of the game software relative to the overall experience.

 

Scenario 2:
It is a special occasion and you receive a wrapped package as a gift. You unwrap the box and it is an N64 (or PlayStation) and a multiplayer game. You begin playing a 4 player session around the TV with friends or family and have a good ole time. Everyone is screaming at each other and laughing for a good hour before the initial excitement wears down. Whenever two or more people are in the living room together the thought of powering up the system sitting on the tv stand and inviting others over comes up.

Components of the experience:
1. Initial excitement associated with the new console. Even after the initial excitement wears off, it still represents good memories.
2. Multiplayer gives you a reason to socialize with people even when you have no other reasons to socialize with them
3. The joy of playing software on the console it was designed for (as opposed to an emulator with non original video display or controller).
4. The ritual motions of inserting the physical cartridge or cd into the system and powering it up.
5. The game software itself

Again, I would like us to attempt to quantify as a percentage the importance of the game software relative to the overall experience.

[Link | 2,714]

The software is everything. Environment and other players definitely contribute to how you enjoy it, but nobody is doing any of that for a shitty game. 

[phart010 | 1,707]

If the environment and other players contribute anything at all to the experience, then they represent at least some percentage of the overall experience (even if only 1%)

So the remaining percentage of the experience is the software. I want you guys to assign your percentages. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by phart010

[Link | 2,714]

S2•6: Pizza - 87%

[spacepup | 2,405]

I can't really give some exact percentage for something like this - that's kinda specific.

As to the topic, what I can say is that it really depends on the type of game.  For example, there are plenty of games where the main focus is on the game itself (for me), and maybe the environment has an impact but it's mostly about the game and enjoying it.

Then there are a whole batch of games, that are certainly fun, but it's more about doing something social.  For example, when we did game nights here at VGS, I didn't really care all that much about what game was chosen - the point was to engage with the community and do something fun.  It was more about community building, relationships, shared enjoyment of gaming, etc.  So for those, the software wasn't all that important to me.

Finally, what I can say, is that the heavy element of nostalgia for certain games is definitely significantly impacted by external factors at the time.  For example, Goldeneye for N64 was a fun game, but what makes it extra nostalgic and memorable for me, is really all the shared gaming I did with my brothers back when we played it.  I'm confident that it is a huge reason why I enjoyed the game so much, and have such positive memories of it.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,549]

I'm not completely following, but the answer to the question I think you're asking is like 99%.

Do I give a shit about the technical specs and discrepancies between the Xbox Series X and the PS5?  Absolutely not.  The only thing that matters is the games.  One of those systems has Returnal, Horizon, and Ragnarok, and one does not.

If I buy a Sega Saturn, do I care about the hardware?  No.  It's a means to an end so I can play Panzer Dragoon Saga or Shining Force III.

[Ankos | 444]

Depends on the game

Swordquest on Atari was built around a contest, but the game itself isn't that special, so that would have a lot more of the experience being outside of the software

Some games are also really hard to play without a manual or guide, so that goes outside of the software too

In the case of Pokemon the games had a hit TV show, comics, card games, and a mountain of other media. The experience of exploring that world in a video game becomes a lot more appealing if you are already a fan of the other media

Most games are mostly software, but to some extent your experience with every game is going to be influenced by when you played it, and what you experienced before it. If I had to give a percentage I'd say barring weird exceptions like Swordquest the low end would be in the ballpark of 70% software, with most games being over 90% software. That is assuming you don't factor in when a game came out

Imagine if Nintendo never made a Super Mario Bros game but instead Inti Creates came out with Super Mario Bros 3 last year. People probably wouldn't look up to it as much because it wouldn't be ahead of its time, despite the software being unchanged

[Sumez | 2,967]

In those two scenarios, the the software might only be 50% of the experience or less. Depends on what you appreciate I guess, but you already kinda defined that

 

[phart010 | 1,707]

1 hour ago, Sumez said:

In those two scenarios, the the software might only be 50% of the experience or less. Depends on what you appreciate I guess, but you already kinda defined that

I would agree with you that for Arcade games at least, 50% of the experience is playing the game in the Arcade setting. The game software itself only provides you with half of the enjoyment.
 

The other half of the enjoyment is missing if you are not playing it in the Arcade environment 

Edited October 18, 2023 by phart010

[twiztor | 851]

the software is the impetus for the experience. so if the software doesn't exist, the experience doesn't take place. if the game sucks, the experience is vastly lessened.
in both examples you mentioned, the experience requires external factors, so i'd put the software's contribution around 72%. 

for single player games at home, the percentage rises to 95%+

[Link | 2,714]

Come over to my house and let’s drink and play Desert Bus. Will we have a good time? Yes. Will it be because of the game? No. One may say that this means the game is a portion of the experience which is a pie chart of factors. That’s not objectively incorrect. I can see all sides of it. But in my opinion this is a social experience in which the game is a factor, not the other way around. The software has no bearing on it and we would get more enjoyment by playing literally anything else. It’s like a concert. I might end up talking to friends during a band’s set if their sound isn’t my thing. But I’m not experiencing the band that way, I’m interacting with friends. Pacman Battle Royale is a great game and very conducive to socialization, but that’s completely because of the software. 

[GPX | 1,370]

I think it would be impossible to quantify the percentage of the enjoyment in relation to the actual game software. I can think of 3 broad things that affect my enjoyment level with any game that I’ve played and it would be situational at the time of playing.

1. Single player game - I would argue that the experience here lies in 100% with the software, and external factors can be mere distractions to the experience. However, you can also have a friend or a few playing with you, sharing strategies or taking turns in a stage/section. In which case, the software provides the core experience, with the external factors providing a certain percentage.

2. Multiplayer game - I would argue that the experience in which the game provides would be anything between 50-90%, depending on who’s playing with you (how skilled they are, the emotional connections they have with you etc.) 

3. Arcade games or games with special peripherals to play (eg. Rockband, Guitar Hero) - the software experience here would depend on single player vs multiplayer (similar to the above), but the percentage would be lessened due to external factors eg. the special feel of arcade stick/buttons/accessories, the environment of playing against others, the joy of others bothering to watch you game; the special atmosphere an arcade or game parties can provide. 
 

[Link | 2,714]

1 hour ago, GPX said:

3. Arcade games or games with special peripherals to play (eg. Rockband, Guitar Hero

Good point. Hardware is an important factor sometimes. I love how unique the controls are on Defender or Robotron, or StarCastle which I never heard of or played until a couple of weeks ago. Those are not easy to pick up but very rewarding once you do. 

If I wanted to hardline argue my thesis ITT I would say those design decisions are driven by the software. 

[Sumez | 2,967]

10 hours ago, phart010 said:

I would agree with you that for Arcade games at least, 50% of the experience is playing the game in the Arcade setting. The game software itself only provides you with half of the enjoyment.

So this is a generalisation that's easy to misinterpretate I think.

Just saying "for arcade games, 50% of the experience is the arcade setting" isn't something I'd claim at all. Doing so might add to the experience, but it completely depends on the experience you had.

You're describing a scenario where bunch of people gather and back up your game, while other people want to play and put pressure on you, potential opponents want to engage in vs matches, and there are people there you will be able to share strategies with. That's a great experience, and the software itself is only a fraction of that.
If you're in an arcade with no one else there, playing a game you're a big fan of but no one else cares about, the arcade setting adds little to the experience.

If you're playing Tetris at home trying to se a record or improve your consistency, the software is 100% of the experience. If you're going to the world championships, meeting a ton of like minded people, and playing the backets with hundreds of people cheering your on, the software is a very small part of that whole experience.

 

I mean, it goes without saying, but this really just depends on what "the experience" entails.

[Sumez | 2,967]

6 hours ago, Link said:

Good point. Hardware is an important factor sometimes. I love how unique the controls are on Defender or Robotron, or StarCastle which I never heard of or played until a couple of weeks ago.

I'd argue the controls on an original Defender cabinet detracts from the experience 

[Webhead123 | 679]

In truth, it depends on the game. I know that's generally used as a cop-out answer but that's not my intention here. Like the example of Street Fighter II, sure the software is good on its own but it is true that other concerns like quality hardware and social environment can really strongly influence the "experience" of the game itself. Bad games don't (usually) inspire that kind of spirit, so starting with well-designed software is still the foundation but it can absolutely be elevated by other factors. I was never super competitive when it came to arcade games, so, in my case, I'd say games like that were about 80% software and 20% external factors.

For a contrasting example, I play a lot of Civilization VI (and strictly solo/offline against the AI). I don't stream or anything like that and I don't pay particularly close attention to the fan community around the game, so the act of playing Civ is a very quiet, private affair where it's just me and the glow of my computer monitor. That's an example of a game where, in my case, the experience (other than necessarily depending on working hardware) is almost entirely (95%) the result of the software itself. The design and aesthetics of the game and the particular form of interest that design evokes from me.

My two cents, anyway.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Webhead123

[Link | 2,714]

6 hours ago, Sumez said:

I'd argue the controls on an original Defender cabinet detracts from the experience 

You haven’t done enough with it. That cab becomes divine if you master the panel. It’s modeled on actual ship controls. Think of the difference between a joystick + buttons and a steering wheel + pedals on a driving game. 

[T-Pac | 7,560]

I always think external factors play a big role in how much I enjoy something.

Frogger and Pac-Man are always more fun when I play with my family, even though the software is fantastic all on its own.

And playing almost any game on an arcade setup (even console and handheld games) boosts the fun factor for me by at least 20%.

I also think "bad" games where the software itself is garbage can be a blast in the right setting. Like watching a "so bad its good" type of movie. But you just need to be in that frame of mind.

[T-Pac]

[fcgamer | 4,729]

10% software, 90% external factors. Something along this line is the only correct answer here, try to convince me otherwise.

Pokemon, for example, was great due to everything else going on when it first launched - the restaurant promos, people anticipating it and talking about it, the rumors of Mew, the cartoons, the movie, etc. Those who missed out on this due to being younger or what not, they missed a huge part of the experience, even though they can still play the software.

This situation sounds strikingly familiar to the situation with Super Mario Bros. 3 and the NWC. How about the old Atari games? Pong? Again, a HUGE part of the fun was everything that was going on at the time. The same could be said for online games, LAN parties, Mario Kart 64, the original launch of Halo, or even the build up for the next console to release, and finally after months of hype and waiting, being able to play Super Mario World.

And these are just some examples, then there are other things like the arcade situation highlighted initially in the earlier post.

It's the same reason why going to a music concert, baseball game, movie theatre (as long as there aren't rude or noisy people there), or even going out to eat is so much more fun than just the "thing" itself, whether it's software, or food, or the music. I'd LOVE to see a world cup event live, yet I literally don't give a rat's ass about football, err I mean soccer.

Just to prove a point, why is it that as adults we still feel a nostalgia and have a soft spot for mediocre games we had as a child (for me it would be Jaws and Mickey Mousecapade on NES, Mario Teaches Typing for Mac) and cheap / unhealthy staples we grew up enjoying (Chicken McNuggets, Spam, etc)? It's the external factors, something we can't remove from the software, no matter how hard we might like to do so.

 

[GPX | 1,370]

6 hours ago, fcgamer said:

10% software, 90% external factors. Something along this line is the only correct answer here, try to convince me otherwise.

Pokemon, for example, was great due to everything else going on when it first launched - the restaurant promos, people anticipating it and talking about it, the rumors of Mew, the cartoons, the movie, etc. Those who missed out on this due to being younger or what not, they missed a huge part of the experience, even though they can still play the software.

This situation sounds strikingly familiar to the situation with Super Mario Bros. 3 and the NWC. How about the old Atari games? Pong? Again, a HUGE part of the fun was everything that was going on at the time. The same could be said for online games, LAN parties, Mario Kart 64, the original launch of Halo, or even the build up for the next console to release, and finally after months of hype and waiting, being able to play Super Mario World.

And these are just some examples, then there are other things like the arcade situation highlighted initially in the earlier post.

It's the same reason why going to a music concert, baseball game, movie theatre (as long as there aren't rude or noisy people there), or even going out to eat is so much more fun than just the "thing" itself, whether it's software, or food, or the music. I'd LOVE to see a world cup event live, yet I literally don't give a rat's ass about football, err I mean soccer.

Just to prove a point, why is it that as adults we still feel a nostalgia and have a soft spot for mediocre games we had as a child (for me it would be Jaws and Mickey Mousecapade on NES, Mario Teaches Typing for Mac) and cheap / unhealthy staples we grew up enjoying (Chicken McNuggets, Spam, etc)? It's the external factors, something we can't remove from the software, no matter how hard we might like to do so.

 

I think there are 2 separate issues here. One being the amount of joy you get from playing a game, with external factors being an extra element of that enjoyment. The other issue is the nostalgia we get after many years have passed, and we remember the games possibly more on the situation surrounding them rather than purely on the gaming elements.

 

 

[phart010 | 1,707]

1 hour ago, GPX said:

I think there are 2 separate issues here. One being the amount of joy you get from playing a game, with external factors being an extra element of that enjoyment. The other issue is the nostalgia we get after many years have passed, and we remember the games possibly more on the situation surrounding them rather than purely on the gaming elements.

 

 

The nostalgia only exists because of the original joy. And the original joy was only possible because of the external factors. 
 

Without proposing how, I think this is one of the things publishers need to consider when re-releasing old games. The software isolated by itself is only special for the people with nostalgia 

[fcgamer | 4,729]

6 minutes ago, phart010 said:

The nostalgia only exists because of the original joy. And the original joy was only possible because of the external factors. 

Yes!!!

[fcgamer | 4,729]

2 hours ago, GPX said:

I think there are 2 separate issues here. One being the amount of joy you get from playing a game, with external factors being an extra element of that enjoyment. The other issue is the nostalgia we get after many years have passed, and we remember the games possibly more on the situation surrounding them rather than purely on the gaming elements.

 

 

It's impossible to isolate the software from the external elements though.

Even something as simple as rewarding yourself after getting a pay raise by buying a new game (which you had been looking at and desiring for awhile) to sneaking a peak in the game's manual whilst your parents are shopping at Lowes as a kid, these factors will definitely contribute to how you perceive and enjoy the game. Likewise, if your grandmother died the same day you that that recent Mario switch game was released, it's likely that this might impact your perception and enjoyment of the game, even if just on a subconscious level.

edit: I know it's not the popular choice, but it's imo the only correct answer, as it is the reality at hand.

I mean, people wouldn't be purchasing Tiger handheld rereleases, which shouldn't have even been a thing, if it is simply the software's enjoyment factor that's been somehow isolated in a vacuum.

Edited October 29, 2023 by fcgamer

[Reed Rothchild | 9,549]

8 hours ago, fcgamer said:

10% software, 90% external factors. Something along this line is the only correct answer here, try to convince me otherwise.

Depends on the person, depends on the game.

A big part of playing a childhood favorite is nostalgia, no doubt about that.  And playing Duck Game or Stick Fight with 4-7 buddies at my house on a Friday night while we eat food, drink beer, and listen to music is obviously incorporating a lot of social elements.  Playing NBA Jam with @Richardhead and @JamesRobot owes a lot to being on vacation, seeing those guys, being drunk, and being in the retro-style arcade.

But those experiences are the minority.  Most of the time I'm not hosting parties or somewhere far from home.  If I start up Inscryption tonight (which I just bought), there's no nostalgia, no social element, no vacation element.  Just me and the game.

[Gloves | 11,794]

35 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

It's impossible to isolate the software from the external elements though.

Even something as simple as rewarding yourself after getting a pay raise by buying a new game (which you had been looking at and desiring for awhile) to sneaking a peak in the game's manual whilst your parents are shopping at Lowes as a kid, these factors will definitely contribute to how you perceive and enjoy the game. Likewise, if your grandmother died the same day you that that recent Mario switch game was released, it's likely that this might impact your perception and enjoyment of the game, even if just on a subconscious level.

edit: I know it's not the popular choice, but it's imo the only correct answer, as it is the reality at hand.

I mean, people wouldn't be purchasing Tiger handheld rereleases, which shouldn't have even been a thing, if it is simply the software's enjoyment factor that's been somehow isolated in a vacuum.

It's not impossible at all. 

As a kid I'd get taken to a flea market every so often. There were a handful of video game and gaming toy vendors set up, and one in particular wasn't particularly loaded up on stuff, but I recall that what he had was all behind glass, and at the time more modern stuff (PS1 at the time). 

I never purchased anything there, my mother told me it was too expensive. There was one game though which caught my eye every time. It had a 3D rendering of a woman's head on it, and some sort of monster. I saw it was from SquareSoft and having played Final Fantasy since I was a kid I was super interested in playing it. The internet at the time wasn't exactly full of gameplay videos at the time and honestly I never even checked, it wasn't something you did at that time. So I had no clue what the game was, just the above info, not even the back of the case as again it was behind locked glass. 

We never bought the game. 

So for YEARS, up until literally 2019 or so, I never owned the game. I just had vivid memories of this unreachable, but interesting looking game that I never played nor had any idea what it was like or about. I have intense nostalgia for the cover art of Parasite Eve on the PS1. 

I did purchase it in around 2019 or so, and played it within a year of purchase. I consider that purchase and play experience to be completely separate from the nostalgic experience of the external elements surrounding the game in the case at the fleamarket in the 90s.