Gameplay "Loops"

[WhiteShark]

It's time to figure this out.

What is a gameplay loop?
Does it differ from loopless gameplay?
If so, how?
Is gameplay inherently loopy?

I have a feeling that pretty much anything can be framed as a loop. If a man did something new every day of his life but still woke up, ate, and slept, it could be framed as a 'life loop'. With that in mind, what does it actually mean to say a game lacks a gameplay 'loop'? I'm struggling to think of a game that couldn't be interpreted as loopy in some fashion.

[logincrash]

Kill enemies - loot enemies - get gear - kill stronger enemies - loot stronger enemies - get better gear - etc.

[logincrash]

With that in mind, what does it actually mean to say a game lacks a gameplay 'loop'? I'm struggling to think of a game that couldn't be interpreted as loopy in some fashion.

Do people actually say that? I don't think the question is whether the loop is there or not, it's about the quality of the loop.

[rusty_shackleford]

Most good games don't have one loop but a series of loops (a chain)

[WhiteShark]

With that in mind, what does it actually mean to say a game lacks a gameplay 'loop'? I'm struggling to think of a game that couldn't be interpreted as loopy in some fashion.

Do people actually say that? I don't think the question is whether the loop is there or not, it's about the quality of the loop.

There was some discussion about it in the Crimson Desert thread. Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video @Vaako posted. Perhaps the point was explained therein.

Notably, @Acrux voiced his opposition to loops, which was part of what got me thinking about it.

[WhiteShark]

Most good games don't have one loop but a series of loops (a chain)

Give an example that you think well represents a gameplay chain.

[WhiteShark]

If you gain abilities over the course of the game that substantially expand the viable approaches to problem solving, does that transform the loop into a chain? or do the types of problems being solved need to be fundamentally different in order to qualify? For example, the puzzle game I was playing over the last couple of days steadily introduced new mechanics throughout the game, but each level was still fundamentally a puzzle to be solved.

[Vaako]

Enough systems in place which also make unrewarding and repeative tasks feel like character or account progression. Diablo2/3 had very good ones. But even those would get boring really fast after 100-200hours if you dont have different classes or builds you can try.

Other example is botw. The most meaningful progression there where shrine riddles after 4 you could upgrade stamina or your hearts. Shrines usually dont take that long to do and the riddles werent too hard or frustrating either even without guides. Sometimes you fought enemies too in shrines.
(good loop and not too repeative) Also you need to explore to find shrines, good progression in an openworld game.

There were also the fairy quests to unlock armor upgrades but the end level gameplay loop of waiting for dragons to spawn and then glide to them via a high tower or mountain and shoot parts off was rather unrewarding. Just get a few points defense more. Game could have used another passive type of skill system progression you also level like for example dragonslaying where you get more drops from dragon or a chance on a rare armor drop. To make these tasks more meaningful.

[WhiteShark]

Enough systems in place which also make unrewarding and repeative tasks feel like character or account progression. Diablo2/3 had very good ones. But even those would get boring really fast after 100-200hours if you dont have different classes or builds you can try.

I've got a better idea: don't design a game with unrewarding, repetitive tasks.

Other example is botw. The most meaningful progression there where shrine riddles after 4 you could upgrade stamina or your hearts. Shrines usually dont take that long to do and the riddles werent too hard or frustrating either even without guides. Sometimes you fought enemies too in shrines.
(good loop and not too repeative) Also you need to explore to find shrines, good progression in an openworld game.

I'm sorry Vaako, but this is one of the most opinion: discarded posts I've ever read. Shrines are the epitome of repetitive, uninspired design, and the progression gained from them is largely meaningless.

[Sinfield]

That's a term that has a lot of story behind it, I think you'd be surprised.
From what I can gather it was a very specific term used within videogame companies. Large game devs are obsessed with doing things in certain assbackwards ways and a "gameplay loop" was just another very restrictive idea on what a game should be if it wants to be successful. If you wonder why every AAA game is so heavily aping every other AAA game, that's why.

The way people use the term in public however is different, It just means more or less the flow of the game.
"Oh you kill things, then you use the crafting materials you got from killing things to craft better gear, then you go kill things.". That's a valid gameplay loop. And yeah, its basically useless to say gameplay loop because just saying gameplay already covers it.

Both usages of the term are pure decline.

[wndrbr]

With that in mind, what does it actually mean to say a game lacks a gameplay 'loop'?

Resident Evil 6 comes to mind. That games had so many cutscenes, scripted sequences, QTEs and stupid gimmick moments, that the actual gameplay became 'the interruption'. You watch a very lengthy cutscene, then you must slowly walk through empty linear corridor while listening to a dialogue, then there's gonna be a short gameplay section. Then another lengthy cutscene, a scripted sequence, some gimmicky sequence that's technically 'gameplay' but doesn't feel like it, some QTE moment, another cutscene... Then you realize that you don't even know what's the actual gameplay loop of Resident Evil 6.

There are turret sections, on-rails shooting gallery sections, scripted bossfights, run away from the invincible monster sections, a literal Ace Combat mission where you fly around on a jet for ten minutes, etc.

I don't remember a single moment in the entire game where I felt like the game was finally allowing me to play it normally.


Note that this isn't a dig at the modern cinematic games. Even **** like The Last of Us 2 has a clear gameplay loop.

[Atlantico]

It's time to figure this out.

What is a gameplay loop?
Does it differ from loopless gameplay?
If so, how?
Is gameplay inherently loopy?

I have a feeling that pretty much anything can be framed as a loop. If a man did something new every day of his life but still woke up, ate, and slept, it could be framed as a 'life loop'. With that in mind, what does it actually mean to say a game lacks a gameplay 'loop'? I'm struggling to think of a game that couldn't be interpreted as loopy in some fashion.

If there is no such thing as gameplay without a "gameplay loop" then the term is redundant and stupid and only used by mouthbreathing morons.

"yea bruh this shmup has a really addictive gameplay loop. pass me the fart bottle plz."

Which reminds me. People who use the term "schmup" are schmucks.

[Vaako]

Enough systems in place which also make unrewarding and repeative tasks feel like character or account progression. Diablo2/3 had very good ones. But even those would get boring really fast after 100-200hours if you dont have different classes or builds you can try.

I've got a better idea: don't design a game with unrewarding, repetitive tasks.

Other example is botw. The most meaningful progression there where shrine riddles after 4 you could upgrade stamina or your hearts. Shrines usually dont take that long to do and the riddles werent too hard or frustrating either even without guides. Sometimes you fought enemies too in shrines.
(good loop and not too repeative) Also you need to explore to find shrines, good progression in an openworld game.

I'm sorry Vaako, but this is one of the most opinion: discarded posts I've ever read. Shrines are the epitome of repetitive, uninspired design, and the progression gained from them is largely meaningless.

Dont **** on my examples and give your own then. Shrines were the only meaningful progression in Breaht of the Wild, except armor upgrades. Since weapons broke anyway and even the Mastersword had to recharge... few armors had some ok bonis but those 4 parts were collected fast.

[Tweed]

Capcom was one of the first to start doing games with limited loops with their arcade games.

[WhiteShark]

Dont **** on my examples and give your own then.

I already said that basically any game can be framed as a loop, which raised the questions given in the OP.

Shrines were the only meaningful progression in Breaht of the Wild, except armor upgrades. Since weapons broke anyway and even the Mastersword had to recharge...

Yes, that's true. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority were awful, empty, or duplicates, which you called a 'good loop'. The extra life didn't matter in the face of consumables since nothing will one-shot you from full health (you'll always survive with a quarter of a heart); extra stamina was a little more useful, but still, again, easily brute forced with consumables.

Perhaps it was the obsession with loops that made Nintendo throw shrine-darts at the BotW map and call it a day instead of doing some real design work. Someone in a meeting probably said, "Explore -> Shrine -> Repeat will be the game loop."

[WhiteShark]

Capcom was one of the first to start doing games with limited loops with their arcade games.

I would be pleased if you elaborated on that. Which games do you mean, and, in concrete terms, how did they differ from what came before?

[Tweed]

Capcom was one of the first to start doing games with limited loops with their arcade games.

I would be pleased if you elaborated on that. Which games do you mean, and, in concrete terms, how did they differ from what came before?

Most arcade games from the era had endless looping where you played until it got too hard or you kept going until you got bored or pushed it to a kill screen.

Capcom started making games that ended, usually after one or two loops. Ghosts and Goblins being an infamous example I.E. "This Room is an Illusion" now go do it all again harder, *****. Bionic Commando also made you do a single loop before the game ended. Commando made you play like, three loops before the game ended.

Although Marble Madness also ended and that was earlier than those examples.

[Vaako]

Dont **** on my examples and give your own then.

I already said that basically any game can be framed as a loop, which raised the questions given in the OP.

Shrines were the only meaningful progression in Breaht of the Wild, except armor upgrades. Since weapons broke anyway and even the Mastersword had to recharge...

Yes, that's true. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority were awful, empty, or duplicates, which you called a 'good loop'. The extra life didn't matter in the face of consumables since nothing will one-shot you from full health (you'll always survive with a quarter of a heart); extra stamina was a little more useful, but still, again, easily brute forced with consumables.

Perhaps it was the obsession with loops that made Nintendo throw shrine-darts at the BotW map and call it a day instead of doing some real design work. Someone in a meeting probably said, "Explore -> Shrine -> Repeat will be the game loop."

Every game has gameplay loops but I give examples of good ones. Some games like dungeon crawlers have hour long ones and action/platformer games have shorter ones.

The worst example is work in real life you work for 23+ days a month just to get a pay check at the end to be able to live. No short term dopamin anywhere unless you do a job you like, where you for example build something and be happy about that.

Dungeon crawlers like TES give you chests in regular intervals so you dont feel unrewarded for too long. Other games like Diablo give you elite mobs which have a higher chance on droping good loot. You can have gameplay loops in a gameplay loop. And I would say once you are done with a dungeon and sell your **** at the npc and maybe used up the crafting mats you aquired the loop is over and your start over.

[Sinfield]

Capcom was one of the first to start doing games with limited loops with their arcade games.

I would be pleased if you elaborated on that. Which games do you mean, and, in concrete terms, how did they differ from what came before?

Most arcade games from the era had endless looping where you played until it got too hard or you kept going until you got bored or pushed it to a kill screen.

Capcom started making games that ended, usually after one or two loops. Ghosts and Goblins being an infamous example I.E. "This Room is an Illusion" now go do it all again harder, *****. Bionic Commando also made you do a single loop before the game ended. Commando made you play like, three loops before the game ended.

Although Marble Madness also ended and that was earlier than those examples.

I don't think redoing the entire game is what people mean here.

Perhaps it was the obsession with loops that made Nintendo throw shrine-darts at the BotW map and call it a day instead of doing some real design work. Someone in a meeting probably said, "Explore -> Shrine -> Repeat will be the game loop."

You're honing in quickly on the main problem
The very idea that a game should have a gameplay loop makes devs act in stupid ways
It is going to have one unless you go out of your way to not include one, anyways

[asf]

play sonic, do the loops

[DemoGraph]

Is gameplay inherently loopy?

Of course it is. Even Checkers-Bowling-Minesweeper have loops in form of move-evaluate.
If a game lacks loop, it probably lacks rules, so it's not a game.
A game by definition is an iterative activity, it needs some way to "save" progress of the game and so could be divided into turns (between that saving).
You can say that one "loop" is one "turn" even though in, e.g., Diablo "one turn" might mean "one run before returning to city with loot".

[Tweed]

Oh, we're talking about that kind of gameplay loop, not that it's so different from a repeating arcade game loop. Do thing, advance to next level, do it again, advance, game end. Modern games just have you doing different things and usually entering different phases before the game ends instead of traditional stages.

A loopless "game" is junk like a walking simulator or one of those gay games where you write letters telling people not to kill themselves to chiptunes.

EDIT: I suppose a truly innovative game would be one that could drastically alter the gameplay in a way that keeps it interesting without alienating the player. In fact there's been several of those even though they aren't to my liking. I.E. games like Inscryption.

[methoxetamine]

EDIT: I suppose a truly innovative game would be one that could drastically alter the gameplay in a way that keeps it interesting without alienating the player. In fact there's been several of those even though they aren't to my liking. I.E. games like Inscryption.

Sounds like they did in fact alienate the player in this case?

[Tweed]

EDIT: I suppose a truly innovative game would be one that could drastically alter the gameplay in a way that keeps it interesting without alienating the player. In fact there's been several of those even though they aren't to my liking. I.E. games like Inscryption.

Sounds like they did in fact alienate the player in this case?

If the player didn't quit, then I don't think so.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I would advise not fixating on "gameplay loops". Yes, most RPGs boil down to "kill loot, get better gear, kill harder enemies, get even better gear, etc". But that disregards everything else that can make or break the game.

Technically, both Skyrim and Elder Scrolls Blade have the same gameplay loop of kill bandits, get loot. But Skyrim has a world to travel to on the way to the bandit location, books to read, auroras in the sky, random stuff happening along the road, etc. While Blades removed that and is just focused on combat. Guess which game people find more fun?

Likewise, take old MMOs vs new. Old MMOs have all of this friction like having to walk across the world on foot, some stakes because you have to sink money into buying sneak powders or food or repair bills and maybe even the threat of EXP loss (not to mention time wasted if you die and respawn far away). The game is hard and you have to communicate with other people to exchange information or group up, which then leads to you making friends to party together in the future. Etc. Fast forward to the second generation of MMOs which have dungeon finders or portals that remove all of that friction to teleport you straight to the combat, reduce the stakes, etc. The new generation of MMOs are still popular and very successful, but not 12 million subscribers popular.

[Vaako]

I would advise not fixating on "gameplay loops". Yes, most RPGs boil down to "kill loot, get better gear, kill harder enemies, get even better gear, etc". But that disregards everything else that can make or break the game.

Technically, both Skyrim and Elder Scrolls Blade have the same gameplay loop of kill bandits, get loot. But Skyrim has a world to travel to on the way to the bandit location, books to read, auroras in the sky, random stuff happening along the road, etc. While Blades removed that and is just focused on combat. Guess which game people find more fun?

Likewise, take old MMOs vs new. Old MMOs have all of this friction like having to walk across the world on foot, some stakes because you have to sink money into buying sneak powders or food or repair bills and maybe even the threat of EXP loss (not to mention time wasted if you die and respawn far away). The game is hard and you have to communicate with other people to exchange information or group up, which then leads to you making friends to party together in the future. Etc. Fast forward to the second generation of MMOs which have dungeon finders or portals that remove all of that friction to teleport you straight to the combat, reduce the stakes, etc. The new generation of MMOs are still popular and very successful, but not 12 million subscribers popular.

Yes you should not fixate only on that immersion is also important in big open world games. But platformers or action games need to get the core gameplay loop right and make it rewarding while also being fun. Like having good finishers, backstabs, nice headshot animations, nice glowy effect and sound when some rare loot pops up. Games like Destiny1 and the Robocop game had a good core gameplay loop. Everything else is a bonus and in most cases these days writing/story is just so bad that I rather just skip it. And not many are capable of doing it through world design like bethesda used to do it before Fallout 76 and Starfield.

[Stack of Turtles]

I would advise not fixating on "gameplay loops". Yes, most RPGs boil down to "kill loot, get better gear, kill harder enemies, get even better gear, etc". But that disregards everything else that can make or break the game.

Technically, both Skyrim and Elder Scrolls Blade have the same gameplay loop of kill bandits, get loot. But Skyrim has a world to travel to on the way to the bandit location, books to read, auroras in the sky, random stuff happening along the road, etc. While Blades removed that and is just focused on combat. Guess which game people find more fun?

Likewise, take old MMOs vs new. Old MMOs have all of this friction like having to walk across the world on foot, some stakes because you have to sink money into buying sneak powders or food or repair bills and maybe even the threat of EXP loss (not to mention time wasted if you die and respawn far away). The game is hard and you have to communicate with other people to exchange information or group up, which then leads to you making friends to party together in the future. Etc. Fast forward to the second generation of MMOs which have dungeon finders or portals that remove all of that friction to teleport you straight to the combat, reduce the stakes, etc. The new generation of MMOs are still popular and very successful, but not 12 million subscribers popular.

Yes you should not fixate only on that immersion is also important in big open world games. But platformers or action games need to get the core gameplay loop right and make it rewarding while also being fun. Like having good finishers, backstabs, nice headshot animations, nice glowy effect and sound when some rare loot pops up. Games like Destiny1 and the Robocop game had a good core gameplay loop. Everything else is a bonus and in most cases these days writing/story is just so bad that I rather just skip it. And not many are capable of doing it through world design like bethesda used to do it before Fallout 76 and Starfield.

no offense but every time you explain what you like in a game I keep getting this weird red haze and the sun appears black

[Vaako]

I would advise not fixating on "gameplay loops". Yes, most RPGs boil down to "kill loot, get better gear, kill harder enemies, get even better gear, etc". But that disregards everything else that can make or break the game.

Technically, both Skyrim and Elder Scrolls Blade have the same gameplay loop of kill bandits, get loot. But Skyrim has a world to travel to on the way to the bandit location, books to read, auroras in the sky, random stuff happening along the road, etc. While Blades removed that and is just focused on combat. Guess which game people find more fun?

Likewise, take old MMOs vs new. Old MMOs have all of this friction like having to walk across the world on foot, some stakes because you have to sink money into buying sneak powders or food or repair bills and maybe even the threat of EXP loss (not to mention time wasted if you die and respawn far away). The game is hard and you have to communicate with other people to exchange information or group up, which then leads to you making friends to party together in the future. Etc. Fast forward to the second generation of MMOs which have dungeon finders or portals that remove all of that friction to teleport you straight to the combat, reduce the stakes, etc. The new generation of MMOs are still popular and very successful, but not 12 million subscribers popular.

Yes you should not fixate only on that immersion is also important in big open world games. But platformers or action games need to get the core gameplay loop right and make it rewarding while also being fun. Like having good finishers, backstabs, nice headshot animations, nice glowy effect and sound when some rare loot pops up. Games like Destiny1 and the Robocop game had a good core gameplay loop. Everything else is a bonus and in most cases these days writing/story is just so bad that I rather just skip it. And not many are capable of doing it through world design like bethesda used to do it before Fallout 76 and Starfield.

no offense but every time you explain what you like in a game I keep getting this weird red haze and the sun appears black

I also did like the pop confetti sound in Halo when you shoot grunts in the head. Think it was only in reach or 3 tho.

[aimlesshealer]

I think it's an overly reductive buzzword among "game design" majors that isn't actually useful. Yes every good game has something that could be called a "loop" by default, but if you think in those terms going in, you're probably going to make a bad game.

The problem is that just having a gameplay loop doesn't produce fun if there's no iteration on it. This is a common flaw in open world games. There are many things to do, but they all feel the same. There are many activities, but they are predictable. By contrast, take a game built on a single, extremely simple "gameplay loop", Shadow of the Colossus. In that game, you receive a target, travel to the target, gain access to the weak point, stab, and repeat. There's essentially nothing else going on in the entire game. Yet there's a ton of variety in how that simple activity plays out. If the fight with every colossus played out more or less the same, then you'd still have a "loop", even a satisfying one in the moment, but the game would quickly get boring. So setting the bar for game design as "gotta implement a solid loop" just doesn't cut it. Over time you have to either alter the player's activity, the environment in which it's occurring, or both. And it's not enough to change how something LOOKS: it has to feel different in terms of gameplay (that should go without saying, but...)

[DemoGraph]

So setting the bar for game design as "gotta implement a solid loop" just doesn't cut it.

Literally in the next sentence you suggest the way to make the loop solid.

Over time you have to either alter the player's activity, the environment in which it's occurring, or both.

Srsly, arguing against the loop is like arguing against chapter-based book structure.