ID:152046
 
(Gauntlet is the temporary name for my game.)

I was reading a Gamasutra article (found here) on the topic of "Designing for Motivation", with the premise of the article being that players need to be motivated to play your game, and if the motivation runs out, they'll quit. The rest of the article goes into some hokey formulas and such but the point that I wanted to bring out was on the first page.
The gameplay? Yes, the game design is the essence of the game and it is here that we find the real potential for motivation. This is also the point that I will develop further on.

The motivation depends on the needs. After the first minutes, the needs of the player immersed in the universe are directly linked to the game. These needs are artificially created by the game design according to the tacit agreement with the player.

This silent agreement takes the form of a promise stated by the game design at the time of the presentation of the game’s universe and the game itself. For example, a RPG promises character growth combined with a measure of empowerment. A FPS, on the other hand, promises large weapons and powerful enemies.
Now, applying that to my game Gauntlet, what does my game offer the player that motivates them to continue? Most games seem to go on the idea that the further you progress, the more powerful you become and the more you can dominate the game world. Since my game isn't based on the idea of killing anything, being powerful isn't really meaningful. The game also doesn't have any kind of financial system that'll allow me to reward players with gold for any use. There's really only a handful of items in the game that allow the player to access new areas, and these can't be given out all the time otherwise it'll be a short game.

Gauntlet is primarily about exploring and dodging enemies. What can I put into a game like this that would motivate players to want to continue?
...motivation is the factor that will determine if a player will continue playing after a few minutes, as well as how long he will play and whether he will finish the game.
My game already falls short based on this sentence, as I've never had anyone admit to finishing the game, which tells me that most players quit after the first few minutes. Actually most people tell me that they quit after the first few minutes.
The story? It is, indeed, a considerable source of motivation – considerable, but not sufficient. The narration can keep a spectator in suspense, but cannot in any case compel a player to act.
Based on that, a story isn't the solution, although it would help. There needs to be something in the game that motivates players to want to get to the next point, some kind of reward that they're eager to acquire. I just don't know what.
Beating the top score (I'm not sure if there was score, but it might be interesting to add it)? Finishing as quickly as possible (this is measured by heartbeats, last time I checked)? Winning?
In response to DivineO'peanut
DivineO'peanut wrote:
Beating the top score (I'm not sure if there was score, but it might be interesting to add it)? Finishing as quickly as possible (this is measured by heartbeats, last time I checked)? Winning?

I'd like to consider this game on the same scale as something like Metroid. Getting a high score and finishing as quickly as possible are nice, but they're not enough if the player loses interest within the first half an hour.

In need more short-term forms of motivation.
In response to Foomer
How about some RPG aspects? By completing puzzles, the player can earn pieces of "equipment" that can enchance his abilities, perhaps giving him extra lives (chances) or faster movement speed?

Or maybe each level could have bonus puzzles that make that level easier? Like some puzzle that you can complete to get a map of the level, which while not necessary, is very helpful?

Other than that, you can divide the game into levels and apply the score and time idea to them. Like the amount of time it took you to complete level x, and the score you earned from it.

I guess basically what I'm trying to get at is this:

If you take Metroid, remove the shooting and the jumping, what could you add to make people want to keep playing the game?
In response to Foomer
Zelda would be a better comparison, I'd think.
I believe if a game is challenging enough then it will maintain players. Want proof? A game properly named, The World’s Hardest Game, is pretty pointless. All a player does is try and dodge obstacles while they try and collect dots. Once each dot has been captured you need to advance by entering the colored area. What makes people talk about this game is that it is literally extraordinarily hard. I’m not saying you should make your game extremely hard, but if the challenge is high enough you’ll get players as they most likely won’t stop playing until they beat the game.

Also, what typically grabs players are beautiful graphics but it looks like you got that down already. Sure just a storyline won’t grab a player’s attention if the game play is horrible. But seeming as the game is similar to Chips Challenge the game play is already good. Once a hard enough challenge has been added in I believe if you put a great storyline in which the players can get involved in, will allow people to want to continue playing your game to see what happens.

Players are similar to you; they want something fun that keeps their attention. If I was the one who created Gauntlet would you play it? If so, then you are currently going in the right direction with the game.

World’s Hardest Game:
http://www.addictinggames.com/theworldshardestgame.html
In response to 172.16.0.1
There is so much more to making a good game than creating challenge, that game you linked to is a really bad, actually nonaddictive game. I can easily make a harder game, but there is no point to it. Sure, a game with no challenge will hold less interest; but too much may as well. Difficulty may be a better term here.

If you want players to play your game, you've got to make it fun and comfortable to play, and make it feel worthwhile. It isn't if you've got to absentmindedly try to do something extremely uninteresting 1,000 times in a row until you succeed, and then the same thing the next level.
In response to 172.16.0.1
172.16.0.1 wrote:
if the challenge is high enough you’ll get players as they most likely won’t stop playing until they beat the game.

I wouldn't say most players, but there are definitely some people who love a challenge. On the other hand, there are also people who despise frustrating games. I played a game similar to the one you mentioned and gave up on level 2 because it was more frustrating and obnoxious than anything.

Players are similar to you; they want something fun that keeps their attention. If I was the one who created Gauntlet would you play it? If so, then you are currently going in the right direction with the game.

I would play the game and enjoy it more if someone else created it, because I love to explore and exploration is one of the key ingredients that I was trying to build into this game. Of course, it would help if there was more cool stuff to find out where, too.
In response to Kaioken
Kaioken wrote:
If you want players to play your game, you've got to make it fun and comfortable to play, and make it feel worthwhile.

Which takes us back to the original question. What would make it feel worthwhile to continue playing? If players felt it was worthwhile, they'd be motivated to keep at it.