So I had a response written out before I listened to the video and then TB ended up saying a lot of what I was going to. Eh. Amending...
Ok yeah I think TB is right you have to distinguish between grind and progression. Progression mechanics (e.g. character levels) are an important tool in game design for adding reward and purpose to the players actions. Call it a carrot-on-a-stick if you like, but it's a tried and tested reward mechanism and it works. They also allow for interactions (like combat) to be more complex in the late game while still being intuitive for the player; different actions are unlocked for the player in a gradual fashion allowing them to learn and practice the strategic benefit of each in turn, rather than being swamped with an overly complex game from the beginning. For RPGs the progression mechanics are obviously a defining feature, but in every other genre there are good examples of how similar ideas in small amounts can add that little bit of extra depth and complexity when attached to an otherwise already decent game. If you're being condescending about progression mechanics generally (which is what most people are doing when they're talking about the grind), then you're denying one of the most successful and generally agreed upon mechanics in gaming. And that's all of gaming; every genre, not just RPGs.
What I would call the grind is when progression alone is used as the sole purpose for playing a game. In other words when progression is used to carry otherwise poor gameplay. If you were to take the progression away from something like Deus Ex, then you would still have a worthwhile game. You would have a legitimate system of combat, and you would have the story to keep you playing. In the past, RPGs and particularly MMORPGs have relied too much on progression to keep them interesting. But again like TB says, the grind is more of a thing of the past. Developers have taken a lot more care recently to put other gameplay features in their games. In particular, the more modern MMORPGs like GW2 have superior combat to the games that came before them. When your game is fundamentally fun to play, then this carrot-on-a-stick thing isn't going to suddenly make the game boring when it is added in over the top.
In GW2, you have three basic game modes as you know: PvE, SPvP and WvW(vW). Now here's a simple observation: the SPvP doesn't have any progression. You start at max level, you have every skill unlocked, and you have the best gear immediately available to you. People play SPvP and they enjoy it. Therefore, GW2's system of combat (at least as far as PvP is concerned) is a legitimate game even when you take away the progression. That right there means that the term grind is not applicable.
To the topic question at hand: the reason people have started to call non-grindy and perfectly legitimate things "the grind" is because games aren't as grindy as they used to be. RPGs have better combat systems now, and that's a great thing. But I find that a worthy reason to keep the term. Developers need to know that the grind, the real grind, is unacceptable. We're in a better place today only because players have complained about the grind (and rightly so) in the past. It's potentially an important term when used right. Erase the term completely and you're in danger of letting that style of game return. So keep it, but just tell people off when they use it wrongly
Ok yeah I think TB is right you have to distinguish between grind and progression. Progression mechanics (e.g. character levels) are an important tool in game design for adding reward and purpose to the players actions. Call it a carrot-on-a-stick if you like, but it's a tried and tested reward mechanism and it works. They also allow for interactions (like combat) to be more complex in the late game while still being intuitive for the player; different actions are unlocked for the player in a gradual fashion allowing them to learn and practice the strategic benefit of each in turn, rather than being swamped with an overly complex game from the beginning. For RPGs the progression mechanics are obviously a defining feature, but in every other genre there are good examples of how similar ideas in small amounts can add that little bit of extra depth and complexity when attached to an otherwise already decent game. If you're being condescending about progression mechanics generally (which is what most people are doing when they're talking about the grind), then you're denying one of the most successful and generally agreed upon mechanics in gaming. And that's all of gaming; every genre, not just RPGs.
What I would call the grind is when progression alone is used as the sole purpose for playing a game. In other words when progression is used to carry otherwise poor gameplay. If you were to take the progression away from something like Deus Ex, then you would still have a worthwhile game. You would have a legitimate system of combat, and you would have the story to keep you playing. In the past, RPGs and particularly MMORPGs have relied too much on progression to keep them interesting. But again like TB says, the grind is more of a thing of the past. Developers have taken a lot more care recently to put other gameplay features in their games. In particular, the more modern MMORPGs like GW2 have superior combat to the games that came before them. When your game is fundamentally fun to play, then this carrot-on-a-stick thing isn't going to suddenly make the game boring when it is added in over the top.
In GW2, you have three basic game modes as you know: PvE, SPvP and WvW(vW). Now here's a simple observation: the SPvP doesn't have any progression. You start at max level, you have every skill unlocked, and you have the best gear immediately available to you. People play SPvP and they enjoy it. Therefore, GW2's system of combat (at least as far as PvP is concerned) is a legitimate game even when you take away the progression. That right there means that the term grind is not applicable.
To the topic question at hand: the reason people have started to call non-grindy and perfectly legitimate things "the grind" is because games aren't as grindy as they used to be. RPGs have better combat systems now, and that's a great thing. But I find that a worthy reason to keep the term. Developers need to know that the grind, the real grind, is unacceptable. We're in a better place today only because players have complained about the grind (and rightly so) in the past. It's potentially an important term when used right. Erase the term completely and you're in danger of letting that style of game return. So keep it, but just tell people off when they use it wrongly
