The role of busywork in game design

Here's a trend I've noticed in the last few years... many games (especially mobile games) give the players busywork to do. Lots of it. These are actions which involve no decisions; the game could do them itself, but instead the player is required to do them to advance in the game.

I'm thinking in particular of the tap-to-collect mechanic that has become so common. Lots of development games (FarmVille-style games, tower games, etc.) have things that pop up, and you have to tap to collect them. Even Plants vs. Zombies — my favorite lane-defense game — has this; you have to tap sun when it appears to collect it, as well as coins (unless you add a special plant to collect them for you, which I always do).

<oldcodgervoice>In my day, game input was about making important decisions or controlling some onscreen avatar in real time. Anything that the game could do for you, it would do; there was none of this silly clicking or tapping around the screen just to collect things.</oldcodgervoice>

Even the venerable SimCity franchise is exploring this trend; the latest mobile version, SimCity Builder, uses this same mechanic. Buildings produces resources, which you have to tap to collect (and can then spend on more buildings).

So, enough preamble. My questions are:

1. WTF?
2. Under what conditions is this a good addition to a game? Does it depend on platform, for example? (I haven't seen this nearly so much in desktop games; why do you think that is?)
   
3. Some classic simulation games suffered from not enough to do (SimEarth leaps to mind). Would the addition of busywork clicking have improved these games? Or would it be better to put more real decision points into the design?

Any thoughts very much appreciated. I'm making a simulation game now, and trying hard to make sure there is a steady stream of real, actual things to do, so I don't need to keep the user busy with pointless clicking. But keeping the user engaged is always a challenge for any sim game. So, if you think busywork adds to the fun, please convince me!

 

Clicking just to have something to do? Boring!! Don't add it to your game.

 

Plants vs. Zombies is as much about manual dexterity as it is making strategic decisions quickly. In fact, manual dexterity is a factor in the strategy. If I'm building defenses at the front of the lane, I have to make a snap decision whether I'm fast enough to reach the sun before it disappears and without falling behind in building up front.

In a turn-based game, on the other hand, suns would just be annoying busywork.

 

My younger son Zach pointed out a case where tap-to-collect actually makes some strategic sense: in the latest Farmville on iPad, apparently, you can only hold so much stuff at once (which depends on the size of your barn). That limit is easily reached, so you actually do need to decide what to harvest and what to leave on the vine in order to achieve whatever goals you have in mind (selling them or crafting them into more valuable items).

However, in the PvZ case, and most other tap-to-collect developmental games, it really is busywork as far as I can tell. And while I find it annoying, I don't want to assume that everyone does — I think it may feed into that feeling of "doing something productive" which is a driver for casual games in particular.

And there is that example of SimEarth which continually haunts me... I thought it was a good game, but it was a relative failure in the market, and I believe this is because when your game is going well, you literally have nothing to do but watch. SimLife had similar problems (and similar poor sales). I don't want to believe that busywork clicking is the answer, but I don't know... maybe.

And what about the apparent difference here between mobile and desktop games? Is it just that busywork suits casual games, and there are more casual games on mobile? Or is there something more fundamental about tapping with the finger vs. clicking with the mouse?

 

There's something casually fun about frenetically tapping a screen. Heck, as a game jam-style exercise to get back into game development a few years ago, I made a little lane defense game myself (my sister-in-law did the art) that gets pretty frenetic. (It's no gem of design or polish, but it was a quickie project.)

Maybe the problem with SimEarth is that there should never be a time when all's well with the world. In tap-to-collect games, you're bombarded nonstop with "to tap or not" decisions. Something's always happening. I may be remembering the old game Balance of Power wrong, but it seemed like everything was always on the verge of falling apart -- if it wasn't Ukraine vs. Russia, it was unaccompanied minors at the border, or fighting in Syria, or ebola. So maybe the game design challenge is to find a way to replicate the constant demand of busywork with a continual barrage of meaningful decisions instead.

 

I have been thinking about these modern game design "advances" quite a bit lately too. I think the requirement for the player to do such mundane tasks is because (1) it makes it so a lot more people (casual gaming market) can accomplish these very no brainer tasks easily gaining instant feedback. They click hear a sound watch an animation and gain a sense of accomplishment. And (2) it creates an opportunity down the road to offer "Auto Harvester only 500 gems" for the people who have played so much they are burnt out on the clicking.

I can't really say if it is good or bad design. I wouldn't do it because I think the game should take care of that stuff automatically. But I am not interested in creating games for the casual gaming market to play. If I was I would need to approach it differently.

 

I can tell you that clicking or tapping frenetically isn't fun for everyone. Some of, and probably a sizable number, have issues with repetitive motion.

 

In the context of a mindless mobile activity to clear ones head or pass a few minutes it makes sense. Those games focus so much on things like this so the player can accomplish something (no matter how trivial) in seconds. Contrast that to games for normal gamers where you may spend a few minutes just getting your head into the game maybe 5 to 10 minutes before feeling any sense of progress. I think the overall principle of providing great feedback and accelerating the rate at which players gain a sense of accomlishment and progress apply to all games. But overall scope and design goals must be kept in mind. I do think the interface makes a lot of difference too as someone previously stated. The mouse or other controllers as good as they are still provide an indirect interface to the game. A sort of abstraction layer. Whereas mobile is direct interaction with the screen. That almost certainly comes into play with making each click a better experience.

 

Is timing relevant? Imagine that in PvZ, the sun would pickup automatically, after 10 seconds. We would all agree that in 10 seconds, you could lose the game, and therefore, the timing and the pickup is a part of the game. PvZ would be less fun without it.

"Clear Goals" is the first requirement for Flow. Most actions in most games could be replaced by a computer - even many of the decision points. It doesn't matter that bots can play games from Hearthstone to an MMO to Bejeweled. As long as your player is engaged and you aren't attempting to control their behavior, then it hardly matters.

Gigi

 

I was thinking about Christmas Crush while reading this thread. It's nothing but tap-to-collect, and it's fun, though in a very different way from, say, Civilization.

 

It won't be big news, but I think that busy work's role in games is situational. As @Gigiwoo says - there's many casual games where the busy work isn't just filler, it's actually a key part of shaping the game experience. However, as @TonyLi hints - not all games are created equal, there are setups where busy work will actually impede the player.

 

Thanks, everyone, you've raised a lot of good points and given me a much more nuanced and complete view of this design element.

(This community rocks.)

- Joe

 

There do seem to be too many times when these mechanics are really just being used to keep the players busy, more than likely so that players don't think about how boring the game is. It's a last ditch effort to prevent the player from twiddling their thumbs while they wait for something to do.

 

Tap-to-collect seems to have two advantages:

1. It can prevent periods of non-interactivity in a strategy-type game where you would otherwise just be waiting for something to do.
2. It makes it more obvious what resources you are collecting. Example: Imagine an RPG where your kills' drops are automatically added to your inventory, vs having to go and loot the corpse. The latter example is basically tap-to-collect, but I think it's much more satisfying and rewarding.

 

Well, that latter example doesn't really count, because whether to loot the corpse is a significant decision in most RPGs, either because (A) you can only carry so much junk, or (B) there may be multiple people in the party, and you need to decide who gets what. So this is more like my son's example of FarmVille on iOS, where you need to manage your inventory space by deciding what to collect and what to leave.

I certainly agree with point 1, but I also think this is kind of a cop-out for when the designers failed to provide enough real things to do (i.e., actual decision points) in the game design.

The latest (desktop) version of SimCity uses this mechanic just a little bit: abandoned buildings are not automatically razed and rebuilt as something else; instead they sit there, ugly and abandoned, until you manually bulldoze them. But this doesn't happen all that often, and you certainly don't have to click to collect taxes, trash, electricity, etc. So it doesn't seem too onerous. I may (ahem) borrow this same mechanic in High Frontier, but if I do, I'll try to be sure there is some good reason why, on occasion, you might want to actually leave an abandoned building rather than bulldoze it, so this is a real decision and not just busywork.

 

What's wrong with busywork? You could argue that 90% of WoW is busywork. Until late game heroic dungeons, most of the game is extremely easy - it's a matter of time invested. And, 10 million people LOVE IT! This holds true for clicker games, time-management games, and dozens of other genres.

I suppose, much of life works this way too. Habits, routines, and putting in the time - with a 1000 inconsequential, nearly-automatic, micro-decisions with the occasional HARD decision - "love her or leave her?!"

Gigi

 

A game can continuously engage the player with important decisions instead of busywork -- for example, micromanagement of resources and units in RTSes like StarCraft. Micromanagement is part of the challenge. The player that can out-micromanage his opponent while still maintaining a big picture strategy usually wins.

 

Most RPGs I played feel like mainly busy work to me. Talk to NPC. Get quest. Run here and there complete quest. Get another quest. Run here and there. On and on. I often have felt like I am just "spinning my wheels". I find it boring after a bit so randomly head out to find battles. But since quests drive the games I need to return to them. Still it works overall. Keeps players busy although I find it monotonous as hell.

 

Quests are not just clicking buttons. Sorry, but the example given originally was not fun. Maybe it is really the only thing one can do in a mobile game. I don't play many of those so don't know.

 

Not clicking but the thread title says busy work. To me all of that running around talking to this person going there talking to that person, collecting 3 herbs here delivering them there... that feels like busy work to me. Like I am spending my time performing meaningless tasks.

 

I rather like that sort of thing as long as it is earning me money in game to buy stuff or do stuff. I find killing monsters over and over again to level up very boring and busy work just to get XP and level up, which is not rewarding to me. Both questing and leveling up by killing stuff is part of the game and leads to achievement, either in XP, in-game money, or skill advancement.

I think the point is that if the work is meaningful, whether it is a click or running around killing or talking to NPCs, then it is not pointless, and therefore not busy work. Busy work, as defined by teachers at least, is that little bit of work you give someone because you need to keep them busy while they grade papers. It really does nothing to advance you in the game or in life, but might make the game seem longer or it feel like you are learning stuff.

bus·y·work
ˈbizēˌwərk/
noun
NORTH AMERICAN
noun: busy-work

1. work that keeps a person busy but has little value in itself.

 

I get that but that is how that stuff feels to me. I mean it seems like the game is just spitting out little nonsense tasks to keep me occupied. A lot of it has to do with player preferences for sure. See I enjoy the grinding along killing monsters over and over. Not so much the grunts but the elites. Like in D3 I enjoy heading through an area running past all of the lesser minions until I find an elite pack. Then engage in battle. Of course sometimes I end up surrounded by so many lesser minions I need to stop and mow them down to be able to move again. That is worth it though because the sheer numbers of them make it somewhat challenging.

And it really depends on my mood too. But basically after spending all day in software engineering and solving problems I do not want to think much at all for entertainment. I think that is why I have always enjoyed mindless shootemups and such. Lol

 

The original StarCraft, or StarCraft II? I hold those games up side-by-side as examples of how busy work can or cannot contribute to a game.

In StarCraft I, due to how the metagame is setup, I feel that good micro is practically a game-breaker that confers a serious advantage. Because the gap between units isn't as horrible as it is in StarCraft II (in StarCraft II there is a single right way of playing one faction against any other), you can pull off some crazy battles that technically shouldn't be winnable.

In StarCraft II, even though the top-level players in the world exhibit excellent macro, I don't feel it adds quite as much, due to the game's balance. SCII is all about the hard-counters in its unit design; there is never a case where scissors breaks rocks, ever; if you're scissors, you get smashed by rock every time, no matter how skillfully you dodge that Force Field, or whatever.

I think that's another important lesson about having mechanical busywork - it's a part of your design, and can be turned into an anti-fun feature because of other poorly-considered features of the design, or poorly-considered interactions between features (again, not news, but the mere mention of SCII by a thing that is an object is enough to get me in full-on critical mode.)

 

Either. I never quite got to the skill level where it made a difference. I'd get my ass handed to me tidily in either one on Battle.net. But I see your point.

 

Asvarduil's comments aside (because I'm not good enough for that kind of thing to matter either)...

Actually, I personally always saw SC2 as an example of where busywork is what makes some decisions important. The game is relatively simple, but the input is set up so that you don't have time to do everything. You can't queue up 20 marines and have them built as the resources become available, you have to manually go and do just a couple at a time, which means you have to keep clicking/keying back to your barracks while you could be giving input elsewhere. (Even if you had the resources there's a short maximum queue length.) Your units don't move or attack optimally on their own, you have to manually handle them yourself... at which point you're not micro-managing whatever is going on at your base. Your early game scouts will just walk into a base and get massacred if you're not watching, so they need your attention to avoid losing half of your scouting run. So on and so forth. The constant need for input in different places to optimise whatever is going on, despite the fact that the computer could easily do it for you, is a key part of the game. It's an important mechanic because it means everyone's under time pressure. (Personally, I think that the very concept of making data input skills a key part of the game makes it less strategic.)

 

Seems like you're not a fan of either Starcraft... I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one!

The particular implementation of "busywork" in Starcraft means that you're playing against your own human limitations, perhaps that even more so than against your opponent. I guess some players enjoy that, but to me, it makes the game feel stressful and, at times, hopeless.

 

Avatar aside, of course. Marine kitty for the win!

It's less that I'm not a fan of StarCraft, and more that I feel that the SC franchise is a poor example of a Real Time Strategy, particularly StarCraft II. SCI is actually a decent game that I merely suck at. I said it.

SCII on the other hand I have serious ideological problems with, specifically due to the "one correct way to play" problem. Oh, sure, you can try to do clever things, but you're going to lose if you do. In a game that's supposedly about strategy, I think a setup that is fine tuned to prevent any strategy that's not the "right" strategy as dictated by the designers to be a load of crap.

That said, that's getting farther away from the role of busywork in game design, and more towards the role of alternate viable strategies in game design. So, if I go any farther I'll take us way off topic, which isn't good or responsible. So, I'll chill.

 

But it's a very interesting topic. I'd love to hear more. Personally, I always felt that WarCraft was a better game than StarCraft, and better than most of the RTS games I've played ever, except for a couple of points (like the weak pathfinding). I liked SC1 too, but don't recall whether I played SCII... I probably did, but in all of those, never got into playing on Battle.Net much.

Anyway, why not start a new thread on this topic? I'd love to dig deeper on that.

 

Done. Now we can continue with the topic on the role of busywork.

 

In plants vs zombies its not just about having to tap the sun to collect it. Not only does the sun not always appear but after a certain time limit, this causes you to wait with baited breathe as your anticipation and slight impatience mounts waiting for the next one to appear. As the advancing zombie hoards approach, your fear mounts and your need for the next tidbit increases, so you focus and pay more attention, which makes you more addicted to the game. This is also why most of the resources you can apply in the game (things you can plant etc) typically occur on a timer, so that you know you need it but in the period of time where you can't get access (carrot on a stick) you feel exposed and lacking defenses, then you finally get that resource at the last second and apply it as quickly as you can to restore your defense and return to a sense of temporary safety. There is a constant ping-pong back and forth between that anxiety and its resolution, which makes you very intently focussed on waiting for the earliest opportunity to take the next step. All that constant attention to the screen, and getting ready to click, is what makes the game keep your attention - which is really what keeps you playing.

Additionally, you'll notice that games which are more addictive also tend to involve a lot of interactions, and interactions can be interpreted as clicks or user inputs... so the more frequently you have to click the more you have to be poised and pay attention. A click is kind of like a commitment. There are many games on the iOS app store which require you to touch the screen, in areas where it's not even really necessary for you to have to do anything, but the psychological payoff is that it's kind of like you `checking in`, sort of saying, yes, I'm still here, I'm still committed, I'm still engaged. It's to stop you falling asleep and leaving the game. It's a stimulant. So I notice games more and more doing this, prompting the user to be engaged, getting them to DO SOMETHING, often, so that their attention isn't lost. This is largely I think why tower defense games are very addictive in general, there is so much going on and it requires a lot of user input and there is a pressure or threat of the advancing hordes which drives up the anxiety about needing to build even more quickly. It makes you rush, and heightens your reactions, and thus increases the INTENSITY, which makes the game seem to have more of an impression on you, and to grab your attention better. Intensity is also what keeps people focussed on the big AAA games... more explosions, more action, more big things happening, etc.

So it's not really busy work, and it's not there for no reason, it's there to affect your MIND.

When you ask yourself e.g. why flappy bird was popular, it is partly because of the above dynamic... the user has to constantly pay attention, and very frequently tap the screen, which means they are staying engaged, and if they stop tapping for even a short moment they will fail at the game. Having to keep giving user input ties you to the game, even if its not a very good game, and even if the game doesn't require much thinking, there's still this pulsing rhythm alternating between 'i have control' and 'i don't have control', between anxiety/fear of failing, and 'what you can do about it to succeed'. You have to keep waiting for the next opportunity to tap, but there is an urgent need for it, and then you have to tap really quickly. Thats a recipe for addiction, no matter what is happening on the screen. It's what the game can manipulate your MIND to do, and what experiences you're having in your emotions, that is the real `experience` of the game, and what will determine whether you stick with it or not. It has much less to do with what is actually happening on the screen. The real game is in your head, the screen is just a feedback device.

 

Hmm. Your arguments are eloquent and I know there's an element of truth to them, but I'm not completely convinced.

There are taps that are essentially reaction-time tests, where the faster you hit the target, the better you'll do. A simple and classic example of this is the bug-squish game. I would agree that this isn't busywork; it's a reaction and aim test, no different from what hunters do when shooting at ducks that are suddenly fleeing for their lives.

But then there are taps that have no associated challenge, because reaction time doesn't matter and aim is trivial. For example, the resources in SimCity Builder (or most other mobile building games these days), or the coins in PvZ, or the bulldozing of abandoned buildings in SimCity (desktop). Yes, I get that the point is to make the user DO SOMETHING — but what the user's doing involves no decision, no test of skill. It's making them do something only for the sake of doing something.

So, that's what I'm calling busywork. Your action has no point, you can't do it better or worse than somebody else, and until recent times, it would have been done for you automatically by the computer.

Here's another example from the world of board games: games for very young children, like Chutes and Ladders, have no decisions at all; you roll the die, move the number of spots indicated, and do whatever the square you land on says to do. You can play a game against three fictitious opponents, and it's exactly the same as playing against three real people, because it doesn't matter if there's a mind behind the actions or not; they're completely scripted. Your movement around the board is completely determined and the winner is random. Every move is busywork — but at least it's slightly more interesting busywork than tapping to collect a resource.

If I completely abandon any attempt to hide my own feelings on the subject, I'd argue that tap-to-collect mechanics are similar to preschool-board-game mechanics: it's likely to appeal to very young players, for whom just going through the motions is still interesting, but unlikely to hold the attention of big kids or adults very long.

I'd also argue that if this is the best way to keep someone engaged in your game, then you haven't designed a very interesting game. Maybe all the important decisions happen in the early phase, and in the late game there is nothing to do, or vice versa. Filling in this idle time with busywork seems like just a band-aid trying to cover up a fundamental design flaw.

On the other hand... maybe I'm being too jaded. It really is magical that you can touch a little piece of glass and plastic, and make something happen. I've certainly spent some time poking at the koi pond app, which doesn't even attempt to be a game, but is nonetheless fun for a while. So, I guess there's no harm in putting that same kind of fun as an additional layer on top of an actual game.

 

Yeah no, I am not sure if you totally got what I said... what you're calling busy work, like clicking on a coin to have to pick it up, isn't JUST you clicking on a coin. It isn't just there for no reason. There are other things happening which might be less obvious. What about, how people feel a certain sense of gratification, if there is a coin sitting there and they themselves, of their own choice, can do something to `get` the coin, i.e. to touch it, which feels good... versus if the computer simply awarded the coin, there is no real emotional benefit there.

 

I never said it was there for no reason; I said it was there to keep the player busy, in order to hide the design flaw of not having any meaningful action for the player to do.

But I hear you saying: it's not just to cover a design flaw; people get enjoyment out of it. Fair enough.

I guess we can agree that a modern computer game isn't just about making decisions. There's an awful lot of art there just for art's sake: pretty graphics, rich sound, etc., and all this adds to the enjoyment of the game, even though to me (with my game-design hat on) it would be the same game without all those trappings.

Perhaps tap-to-collect, manual-bulldoze, and other such mechanics are in a similar vein: they are additional art (in this case, interactivity) which isn't necessary, but nonetheless adds to the game and provides a richer experience for the player.

(Though personally, I'm still going to upgrade to any auto-collect widget I can as soon as possible!)

 

@Asvarduil, @JoeStrout - What about the full-bucket effect? Many games limit the amount of resources that can be acrued before a player action must occur. This compels players to return to collect them and 'empty' the bucket. Looked at more broadly, this applies to 'Can only run 1 heroic a day', daily quests, and 'energy' timers. I suppose I've strayed a bit from the busy-work concept, and yet, it feels related to Asvarduil's argument, (paraphrasing) "They are there to affect your mind."

Engagement over time.

Gigi

 

@imaginaryhuman actually said exactly that in his post. That said, he's imaginary (as the name implies)

 

Again to defend PvZ, I think the tap-to-collect mechanic serves a very important purpose: to communicate that you have gained resources! There's a lot going on in the game, and you could easily miss the fact that your sun or coins are increasing - especially since it's technically a casual game, appealing somewhat to a non-gamer audience. (In my own experience, I've noticed that casual gamers react poorly to changing HUD. The first example that comes to mind is Star Wars: Battlefront II; I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone completely miss the "you can be a Jedi" prompt, despite it being bright yellow and taking up a lot of space)

 

I'd suggest a different approach to the question.

All games are busy work. There is no action a user can take that enhances any aspect of the users 'real world' life (If it can, then its no longer a game). Given this premise the question is less about 'do you include busy work' and more about 'which type of busy work do you include'. Like it or not, the entire video game industry is dedicated to finding interesting ways for players to do nothing.

There is a certain appeal to mindless interaction. I spend all day making critical decisions that have potentially life altering consequences for dozens of people. There is a lot of high level analytical thinking that goes into this. At the end of the day I just want to occupy my myself with something mindless as part of my shut down process. This is the basis for a lot of casual games.

 

While there's great truth in the first part of that, and is a way of looking at the problem with value, the field of "Serious Games" disagrees with this statement. In the interest of the conversation, though, I'd like to submit that this is not the correct place to say "what is/is not a game" - there's another thread earlier in this subforum's history for that. It's also a significantly harder, and broader, question than, "what's the role of busywork in a game?"

Nasty second part out of the way, you're right, though. Games themselves are a form of busywork, which means an alternate question might be, "what should be the objective of in-game busywork?" As @Gigiwoo has noted, busywork isn't necessarily bad, it's a tool, but it doesn't work for everything.

 

Totally true. Knew I was going to get called out on that. Lets leave the definition of game for another thread.

One interesting thing is the definition of busy work. Some people on this thread have considered picking up resources as busy work. On the other hand you can say picking up resources is a fundamental part of the game, allowing you to progress by buying more stuff.

I find grinding in an RPG to be busy work. The game designers messed up on the balance and story progression with experience level, so I have to go back and do the same area multiple times in order to progress to the next part of the story. You could also argue that grinding is a fundamental, enjoyable part of the game, and allows you to progress by increasing your level, thus enabling further story content.

At some level every task the user does in a game can be automated, and typically better by the PC then by the computer. So the question is what should the user do, and what should the game do for them.

Another unrelated but interesting point is the recent trend in idle games. These games are nothing but busy work. There is no progression, no actual gameplay (my opinion, not going to fight definitions here), just clicking on buttons. Despite there nature these games can be incredibly addictive. There is a significant demographic of game players that like busy work.

 

I think there are a few ways we can try to define busywork:

A player is expected to make a decision with only one optimal option, and the optimal option is obvious to the designer and the player (so a "solved" competitive game doesn't qualify here, because it does take some brainpower to discover the optimal strategy. It's still not good design, but that's another thread). Example: Tap-to-collect.
The main benefit here is not so much adding "choice" to the game as much as communicating an important event (like gaining resources) by forcing the player to participate. A side-benefit is that it can keep the player interacting with the game where they would otherwise be watching it and waiting for something to happen - a particular danger in strategy games.

Or, a player is expected to repeat content they've already experienced without offering much of anything new. Example: Grinding; backtracking; the last half of Zelda: Wind Waker.
A possible benefit is that this helps players form a connection with the content they are repeating (like the location). The Metroid series makes an art out of backtracking, and I am certain the games would be worse if they had fast travel.
A more cynical benefit (and regrettably, the more common one) is that it extends playtime without extending development time.

Any others?

 

First, I think you may be misinterpreting the so-called busy work in the Metroidvania genre. The thing that Metroidvania games are built on is exploration, first. However, the mindset of a Metroidvania title is to initially limit the player's abilities to get around while they're learning the game, but to give the players powers and then interesting ways to use those powers to find cool things. In other words, exploration and choice.

Early in a Metroidvania game, you'll see stuff that is obviously interactable (somehow), but you won't be able to get to. Long before you get your first 'new' power, you'll see a few of these things. When you get that new power, you are provided a choice - keep on stumbling forward, or backtrack and explore what you can.

As for the more cynical benefit, I don't think it's cynical at all, it's good design. A game is a software package. You have finite resources for creating this software, and every single one needs to be used in the most efficient way possible. Related, is a very useful concept - The Law of Conservation of Detail. Given infinite resources, we could make an infinitely detailed work, but sadly we have no such abundance of resources.

I urge you to abandon the opinion that cleverly used resources are somehow a bad thing, otherwise you stand no chance of finishing anything; in avoiding reuse, you'll easily burn your resources long before you've even got a vertical thin-slice to work with.

 

You might be misinterpreting my post - I'm not starting with the assumption that busywork is inherently bad. I used Metroid as a positive example of "busywork" done right. You're not really experiencing any new content as you trek through areas you've already explored, but for some reason, it's still fun, and that's probably worth some discussion as to why. Maybe it's a newfound drive - you can remember the door you intend to open, and exactly where it is, and you feel clever because that's your goal, not the game's. (even though it's actually the level designer's intention for you to go exactly there! They're just brilliantly subtle about it) Maybe it's because of your curiosity - you start to imagine what's behind the door. Maybe it's a feeling of empowerment - you can navigate through these now-familiar environments like a ninja, yet you remember struggling to get through the last time you were there. In any case, it works.

Certainly, though, there are games where backtracking and repeating content feels like a chore, and it's obvious that the developers are trying to extend the time you spend playing without any regard to the time you spend actually enjoying the game. And that's an important distinction!

 

Generally I dont like busywork, but I guess if you want the player to feel constantly stressed and in a rush to do everything, it could be an interesting mechanic

 

I think that might be where you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not a design flaw, it is the purpose of the design.

I believe the average session of a mobile game goes like this:
"Alright, 10 minutes until the meeting. I don't have anything to present, I'm just here to listen. What should I do now? Guess I'll play [popular mobile game here]."

10 minutes of screen tapping later

"Meeting is starting, time to put away the phone. Guess those plants will be ready when I wait for the bus."

Understand that these mechanics are popular because they scratch an itch present in our culture. We often find ourselves in situations where we don't have enough time to get invested in anything, but too much time to sit patiently without some kind of engagement.

Busywork games are the Thumb-Twiddling of the electronic era. Almost literally. And everyone needs to twiddle their thumbs at some point in their life. The mechanic isn't bad, it just isn't intended for the kind of engagement we, as enthusiasts, typically expect out of video juegos. Er... games.

So no. I wouldn't suggest putting it in your simulator. Simulators assume the player is already dedicating time to playing. Busywork games assume the player needs to be ready to put it down at a moment's notice.