Carmack on New id Game, Game Theory 484
An anonymous reader writes "CNN/Money interviewed id Software wizard John Carmack at the recently completed QuakeCon. Among the topics discussed is Nintendo's recent announcement that today's games are too complicated and hard for players. Carmack, surprisingly, agrees, saying 'I agree strongly with that point of view, but I'm in the minority in the PC space. I want a game you can sit down with, pick up and play. [Role playing games], for example, got to where they had to have a book ship with the game.'"
What... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fun learning curves (Score:5, Insightful)
Going back to the original Doom, it was almost perfect in this regard. It hooked me with the first impression ("How are they *doing* this 3D perspective...?"--having messed with graphics routines in assembly *way* back, it was striking how impressive this was for the time) and kept me going with it's playability and pretty seamless introduction of the more complex aspects of the game (hidden areas, etc.). The game was fun regardless of how far you were into discovering all there was to it.
I can't really get into most games in this way. It's not that I can't learn what other games require up-front, it's that there's no real motivation for doing so when there are games like Unreal Tournament I can enjoy immediately. And games like Ultima, well... yes, you can advance your character by numerous non-adventuring methods, but it ends up being rather mundane IMHO. I may as well go to work at that point.
Personally, I think Heretic had a good feel for the right approach... there was a fair amount of depth there, but it was introduced as a natural extension of playing the game, rather than a required up-front learning curve. As an example from another game genre, Total Annihilation worked really, really well in this way too.
Surprisingly? (Score:5, Insightful)
This simplicity and accessibility has earned them fans who don't like complicated games - they just want to play.
Progressive complexity in FRPGs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of FRPGs operate on a concept of "levels" of challenge, so it seems like it should be possible to start with low complexity at "level 1", and add in the complexity incrementally as the player enters new levels and gets opportunites to do new things.
Too complicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Nintendo is one of the few companies who watches somebody play and says "What are the common mistakes they are making? What can we do to alleviate them?"
It's all about choices (Score:5, Insightful)
The SNES FF's were less fun: they had static plots that had to be followed, and some battles that always went the same way. Yawn.
I stopped playing them at FF7: you had a bazillion choices on how to equip your character with crystals and things, but no choice on what to do next.
Fallout was fun, Fallout 2 had some corollary problems: So many choices that the character development was tedious.
Games have gotten a bit too complex to be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, mir2 totally flopped in English countries, but mir3 seems to hold promise. Maybe us americans and (the) brits rather complicated games?
Very interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
This is *definitely* not a game you can just pick up and start playing. Sure, you can run around killing others, but in order to help your team complete their objectives, if you run around clueless you might actually be hindering them.
It took me quite a while to figure out where everything was, and also how to use the various player classes and their weapons/tools. Also took a long time to figure out the maps, what to construct and what to blow up. But the game was interesting, and worth learning. It took an investment of time and patience, but it paid off.
I suspect a lot of people aren't willing to make that kind of investment, or aren't able. Heck, I only get a couple of hours per week to play. So I just want to sit and play!
Simple games rule. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are the wildly ambitious ones (Star Control II, Zelda, Ultima Underworld, Alternate Reality, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night... even Dungeons of Daggorath - yeah, I'm 0ld-sk00l!), which are fun to play and revisit... but you wouldn't, y'know, sit down and play them for 20 minutes.
And then there are those simple but ridiculously fun games. Tetris, Bust-a-Move, Dance Dance Revolution, Scorched Earth, Discs of Tron, Minesweeper, Archon... really simple concepts, but you can lose frightening swaths of your life mastering your skills. It's not that they're oversimplified. They've just got a really rewarding learning curve.
One of the modern champions of the latter is PopCap, of course. I've spent ridiculous amounts of time playing Insaniquarium, to name but one.
- David Stein
Games for which group of people? (Score:3, Insightful)
And those who do play both play them for different reasons. The FPS is designed to make you work on instinct, giving your higher-order brain functions a rest, while RPGs do the complete opposite. You want RPGs to be complex and require much thought, but if you make somebody think really hard about a FPS, you've defeated the purpose of that genre.
agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Point and Kill is great if you are teaching zombies to assemble widgets at minimum wage?
Let the market decide (Score:5, Insightful)
Role playing games didn't "get to where you needed a book to play them." The ones he probably had in mind (I'm guessing the Baldur's Gate games) are based on a famous old pen and paper game that required MANY books to play, as far back as back in the day. There are a lot of people who like these sort of games (D&D has been around since the 70s) and sales certainly support their further development. The market for games is hardly monolithic and there is plenty of room for both simple and complex games.
Re:It's all about choices (Score:5, Insightful)
RPGs can sustain complication, Interactive Movies can't.....
I always cringe when someone releases a FF style game and calls it an 'RPG'.
It's an RPG if the player gets to play a role, not push someone else's character through a script, no matter how many experience points you can get.
New genre (Score:2, Insightful)
Dreams are better as dreams than reality.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:3, Insightful)
Now here we have a classic examples of a "the common people are so stupid" post. Its a variation of the often seen bandwagon post. In this instance, a reader sees a condescending remark about the intelligence of the average person and thinks, "You know, he's right, the common people are so stupid. Sigh". The sense of belonging and increased self-esteem are defense mechanisms. The poster posting the message and the reader agreeing with it are exhibiting subconscious methods of bravery in an uncertain world. By creating an artificial bond of perceived intellectual superiority, all involved gain a temporary confidence.
First person shooters (Score:5, Insightful)
So he has been thinking mostly in one box
RPG's are following a layout similar to paper
ADnD that was laid out close to 30 years ago
RPG's are suppose to be somewhat thought prevoking
instead of a simple trigger happy gore fests
Trigger happy gore fests have their place, but the
other genre by no means should be displaced, or
disrespected because it takes grey matter to play it
The eccentricity of alternate worlds, and solving
the social and spatial puzzle is part of the endearing
quality of RPGers
since when were books or PDF's/readme's a bad thing ???
Have we gotten too lazy to read to have fun ???
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
Re:Too complicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct answer is to eliminate long-distance, high penalty jumping puzzles. You know the type: jump at this exact pixel or you plummet to your death, and have to play half an hour to get back to it again (only to fail once more).
The entirely wrong answer is to create a character who loves leaping off of narrow bridges into vast pools of lava when hyper-caffeinated me slightly twitches the joystick to the right.
Good platformer: character runs up to the ledge, teeters, hangs off with his hands. If you wanted to jump, you woulda hit the jump button-- but you're no idiot and that's a giant lake of hot fucking lava.
Bad Zelda: Link runs near the ledge, preps himself, and swan dives into a lake of hot lava because Link's a giant fucking idiot.
If Nintendo wanted to get away from jump "puzzle" frustration, why'd they implement curvy narrow bridge over lava puzzles?
To bring this back OT: simplification can be good, but you always run the hazard of doing it wrong (or pleasing half of your audience, like you, and pissing off the other half).
You are quite simply wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Todays current crop of gamers is largly composed of yester days crop of gamers. People like you, and myself, dont need to be sold on gaming as a viable hobby. The problem is that the games you and I like are not attracting any new gamers. Let me put this more plainly.
Everyone who wants to play complicated games is already doing so.
Further more, your understanding of the idea of simple games is way off. Carmack and Nintendo are not saying that we need to make games for the mentally deficient. They are saying that there is a shortage of games that you can just pick up and play for 5 or 15 minutes at a time.
As an example, take a serious look at Chu-Chu-Rocket (Dreamcast), or Super Monkey Ball (1 or 2, both on Game Cube). You dont need to play a 15 tutorial to figure out everything that you can do in the game. If your not brain damaged, you figure it out in about 3 minutes. Super Monkey Ball is especially good for this. You can literally hand it to any random person on the street and they will know basically what they are doing in 30 seconds. Can you say the same for Quake? Starcraft? Warcraft?
The Old School games that fit this are Donkey Kong, Pac Man, Asteroids, Space Invaders, and the like.
No one is going to pick up a game for the joy of feeling like an idiot.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:I hope his was misquoted (Score:4, Insightful)
Why must a computer RPG require a large manual? While memorizing the importance of "tiltowait" from a book might be nice and satisfying, why can't I simply ask the game for this information? And if a game has a complicated battle system, why not include a basic tutorial so the player can experience how things work and why. Even relatively complicated console titles like "Advance Wars" have these sorts of features, so I don't see why a modern computer game shouldn't.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, the irony of your post
if you like new games, play them. if not, don't (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:5, Insightful)
Simplicity (Score:5, Insightful)
interface design (Score:5, Insightful)
Carmack has replaced the "use" key in Doom 3 by making the targetting reticle "context-sensitive"; when the character is within arm's reach of a switch or door and the reticle is over it, the gun drops and an open hand hovers over the object. The "fire button" does exactly what you would expect.
This is the reason for Linux's failure to reach mainstream desktops, despite a GUI and window manager that is easily as good as Windows (and even in some ways superior to any version of the Mac OS). Rather than striving for intuitive design that doesn't need excess buttons and options, the designers of desktop software throw as much crap into the forms and menus as they can fit. LESS IS MORE
(note that I understand that advanced users should have the options they want access to; bury stuff that doesn't need to be used constantly and by most users in an advanced options dialog somewhere!)
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:3, Insightful)
Concentration, logic, coordination, spatial relations, memory and fast reaction times are some of things I would classify as basic game-playing skills.
Learning control maps and countless details about which weapon/scroll does what don't qualify as amusement for me. Games like that have always left me cold.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:5, Insightful)
Something that is easy to pick up is not inherently shallow. Play a game like Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo, Super Smash Bros Melee, hell even Tetris. Controls are simple to pick up, fun to play, easy to learn, but it is tough to master such games, and there is an extreme amount of depth hidden to be found by the not-so-remedial game players.
Easy to pick up, tough to master - a simple game that's fun to play. That's why today's "current crop" games seem to suck more ass than before.
The difference between a good player and a "remedial" one is not the ability to read a fucking manual to learn all 400 ways to buy an item - it is being able to pick up on all the rules one can "bend" or take advantage of very quickly while playing the game. Parent is stupid, next post please.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. I think that's an apparent effect. We are all just becoming more in contact with the uneducated and ignorance of others, the uneducated have more voice in the media, the ignorant have more ways to discuss their ignorance [/me looks around quick].
-MY- dad an uncle used to have fun by throwing knives at each other.
Now, Video Games... THOSE have been dumbed down.
Overly complicated map design (Score:2, Insightful)
While Quake 1 may have been "easier" to some without the "use" button, at least with DOOM you had a map you could refer to which lets you know where you have been. You could still get lost in DOOM if you accidently missed a switch somewhere, but it wasn't as bad.
Some of the newer multiplayer games further complicate matters, with new maps coming out often. I used to play RTCW and SOF2 regularly, but now if I want to go back just to play I find not only do I have to relearn the old levels, but I have to learn a large number of new, overly complex levels I've never played. That combined with so many servers staying on a level for under half an hour, it's hard to get a chance to even learn these them. I can hold my own very well in the original set of levels and those added in the first couple of patches, but it just gets boring playing level after level of maps I don't know, just running around not knowing WTF to do, and then having the level switch just when I start figuring out a few paths.
Maybe I just suck at FPSes, but I don't find the idea running around aimlessly fun.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:4, Insightful)
-Nature of amusements - compare board games and pencil/paper RPGs to the lowest common denominator video games of today in terms of brainpower required for comprehension.
This seems to imply that board games and RPGs were as highly popular "then" as video games now. I don't know if that's true, as I was too young. In terms of the "geek" crowd, I wouldn't doubt it, but the conclusion is about the general public. One cannot discount that there are many activities you can do outside, like sports, that are still widely done today.
Re:New Games Not Hard! (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not the game... (Score:2, Insightful)
don't be an elitist (Score:2, Insightful)
People 25 years ago didn't have interactive entertainment, they had lemon pies at the sunday fete and the one-way broadcast that is radio and TV. We are smarter, and we are on two-way streets and the potential for moving education into the home in the form of interactive media - rather than monolithic ISAs (Ideological State Apparatus, not those redundant "real big, real ugly" PCI ancestors) - is so vast I just can't describe it. We may well stand on the shoulders of giants, but we have had some of the most innovative philosophy, technology and medicine off all time in the latter half of the 20th century - we are by no means stupid. Sure the "masses" still get cowed by dumb politicians talking up security risks, but how is that different to any other age?
Back to education, In 2050 they may well not be any schools, only community groups based on co-curricular activities (to take over the "babysitting" side of school) and home-based interactive learning on computers. As a former victim of an out-dated school system and someone who aspires to be an educator I can tell you that I will personally be making sure this comes to pass.
in other news.... the Command Line Association Against GUIs (CLAAG) has released a fatwah against Cormack for his recent comments on simplifying games. To mark the date they have released a Cormack skin for their ASCII Quake package for training purposes.
Where are the *FUN* games? (Score:3, Insightful)
END RANT
He's right (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right in a sense, I don't think that PC games are too hard for players to play I think they are too had for players to *WANT* to play.
It's not that people are stupid, it's that they don't want to be frustrated by something that should be fun. Games for the most part should follow the golden rule of "Easy to learn, difficult to master". The mastery should come from learning the game too, not just the UI. Nobody says "Hey, I finally didn't have to look at my cheat sheet/instruction book to remember the 25 key mappings for UT2020." No, they will usually say, "Hey I had my first perfect deathmatch, I won and didn't get killed once." (UT's user interface is fine BTW, I just used them as an example)
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:3, Insightful)
Definition of a good game: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fun learning curves (Score:3, Insightful)
NetHack is a game you can almost pick up and play, as is BattleField 1942. By almost I mean that you can move around and shoot, but annoying things like reloading, people killing you can get in the way of having fun.
NetHack has a really large spike in the learning curve between the first few levels, and surviving past 10 levels. 95% of my games didn't last past the first 6 levels (probably has something to do with playing a tourist all the time).
Quake, Doom, BF1942 have simular spikes, right between getting the controls down and getting a somewhat survivable strategy down.
Contrast that with Tetris, which you can master, and do pretty good at until the pieces come raining out of the sky faster than you can think. Its probably the secret to its addiction.
But back to NetHack, I remember pouring through spoiler docs, guides and howto's only to keep getting killed in that most rooted game. In fact reading the manuals can be half (if not 90% in cases like WarHammer) the fun.
Shipped with books? Getting more complicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern games have more documents included? Riiight...
Although not the first (video game) RPG, Final Fantasy for NES is definately among the early home video game RPG games. For those that didn't have that game or don't remember, it came with a rather thick manual, a couple of large poster charts with all of the weapons/armor/etc. listed on them, and IIRC a map.
Move on to the SNES era and you have game manuals which may have a short reference in the back, occasionally a short walk through of the first little adventure, and if you are lucky a map is included.
Now we are in the era of PS2 and XBOX.. All the RPGs I've played come with a small manual which explains the basic controls in a few pages (ten at most). The only exceptions are when they decide to pack the stradegy guide with the game (usually a while after the release as a marketing ploy..)
If you ask me it looks like RPG's are getting simpler and coming with less documents.
The problem is how RPGs used to be played by "RPG nerds" but are now being played by the "mainstream idiot" who can't figure out how to play a game without a stradegy guide which gives him step by step instructions for beating the game.
Re:This is Carmack we're talking about here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Back then, it was essential to know the machine because otherwise you couldn't get a playable game out of it.
Now, due to the work of Carmack and the other nuts 'n' bolts guys, we can make games like GTA3, KOTOR, etc. and the designers won't really have to worry about whether the computer can keep up. They concentrate on plots, scripts, characters, and progression.
Anyone who thinks video games are going downhill simply isn't paying attention. And they're playing the wrong games.
Re:don't be an elitist (Score:4, Insightful)
Libraries and books have always been available. There's always been wise old men to learn from. People just don't learn. Only a few bother to spend the time to increase understanding, the rest focus in their own little world.
We can find volumes of texts that so many would have loved to read many years ago, but we never touch it. TV penetrates everyone's home, spreading misinformation and half truths. We are not smarter, we're just blind enough to think we are (notice I don't say "they").
Re:Hes right.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh, the first personal computer [cyberstreet.com] (i.e. the first computer that came out that didn't come in a cabinet or as a kit (like the Altair)) came out more than 25 years ago. Sorry.
Hell, I got my first computer when I was friggin 7, and that was Christmas 1982, over 20 years ago.
Re:Bad decisions (Score:2, Insightful)
A few months ago I decided to backup my Doom 2 disks to a cdrom. So I decided to play a game for nostalgia... And I was suprised by how fun it still was. It was far more easier than what I remembered but in a lot of ways it was more fun than modern FPS. No "crouch" but simply more fun.
What's so difficult about crouch? Nothing really but the question is does it add anything to the FPS gaming experience? After playing Doom 2 again, I'm quite positive it doesn't.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Complex *CONTROLS* are bad, not complex *games* (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who thinks the console-game controllers feel like they're designed for left-handed people? It takes much more manual dexterity to correctly move the stick or arrow keys the direction you want than it does to press one of four distinct buttons, so why does it put the task requiring better dexterity on the left-hand side? Why do *ALL* games do this? It makes me suck at them. On a stand-up arcade game, I do much better when I cross my arms and use the buttons with the wrong hands, since I don't need good dexterity to whap buttons but I do to move the stick. But that's not an option on console games.
The left-handedness of console controllers make me hate any console game which contains a dexterity-related challenge.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:2, Insightful)
jesus... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my day, we didn't have the web, or quick installation guides, or any of that. Each and every software package came with a 'manual', which was a book that explained in detail how to use the functions of that software. This is where you get phrases such as 'man pages'--those are online (in the sense that they're on the computer) versions of print documentation, taken from these now defunct 'manuals'.
Fast forward to today: almost no software packages come with what we'd call a 'manual' 15 years ago. Instead, they're more like pamphlets. The alternative if you want printed documentation is to also go out and buy a $50 book from a publishing house like "The Microsoft Press", or possibly print out a 200 page PDF file (if you even get that).
Ok, so software generally doesn't come with 200 page printed manuals anymore... Does that mean that it's gotten cheaper? Well, it hasn't gotten any cheaper for me, but maybe it's cheaper for them to produce. I guess I'm just giving them extra money, or if they publish a separate book on their software, paying them twice if I buy that as well.
So I for one would like to thank the RPGs that still produce actual manuals along with their software for continuing to provide a valuable service to me, the consumer. A service that I still seem to pay for whether or not I get a printed manual. No, I like this much better--I got a pretty, comprehensive manual for every single Ultima game I ever bought, and I got an even bigger manual for NeverWinter Nights! And you know what, the prices haven't changed that much either.
he's wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
sure, as penny arcade so beautifully illustrates, the parachute button may be a bit excessive, but complexity is what makes reality so groovy: countless factors to weigh against each other. present too little complexity and the game becomes routine, provide a sea of options and encourage exploration, the game becomes much more interesting. armored core is my favorite game on this front - presenting both the adaption of mech design and the gameplay itself (although it does have one of the worst learning curves ever). the trick is to keep the challenger trying new things too.
the problem is making these choices seamless enough not to scare the living bejesus out of the player. exploration of options should be encouraged, adaption fostered.
(frankly, this is what sucks about most modern RTS's: there is no adaptation, simply reaction - the mechanics of what to do are fixed for experienced players.)
Myren
The Beautiful Simplicity of Doom (Score:4, Insightful)
Carmack is right. The growing complexity of modern games is what has kept me from buying recently produced games. I don't care if you call me a dumb user, because I have enough accomplishments and qualifications to know I'm not dumb. I work my brain hard enough every day at my job, so when I pick up a game I want to freaking PLAY and have fun and give the higher functions of my brain a rest, not work my brain some more. If I can't play well enough to enjoy the game in the first evening, forget it. A little puzzle here and there like in Tomb Raider is fine, but don't make me have to study some damn book and go through a bunch of skills training. I have better things to do with my time, and my brain doesn't want anything more taxing after it's already been stressed for 50 hours a week.
If they don't want to make games for people who just want to sit down to play for an hour or two a week without much of a learning curve, it's mostly their loss. Give me something fun and simple (with a reasonable challenge) if I'm going to spend $30-$50 for a new game, otherwise I'll continue to pick up old games from eBay and bargain bins for $5-$10.
Re:Hes right.... (Score:4, Insightful)
[no comment needed on my part]
Re:disagree (Score:1, Insightful)
What do you mean by "internet games"? If you simply mean multiplayer using the internet, the the PS2 has a couple of games and Xbox has Xbox Live, where you can actually voice chat with the people you're playing with using a headset.
Oh, and I just downloaded a couple of new game modes and levels for Unreal Championship the other day on the Xbox. In MechAssault I've downloaded new levels, new units and new game modes.
What was your point again?
If I absolutely had to play using a desktop machine, I'd play using a Mac. Much less hassle getting things up and going and the "booohooo no games are coming out for the mac" is just plain [insidemacgames.com] wrong [ign.com].
variety ? (Score:1, Insightful)
RPGs come with a book today? Good morning, McFly - so came simulators 10 years ago, before the dumbing down began.
There is more than one type of player on this planet. Some people happen to like complex games, others are happy with simple ones. What exactly is the problem? Not enough $$$ in the niche you're firing into anymore?
Possibility vs. Simplicity (Score:2, Insightful)
Some gamers may be dying to play something based on a D&D rule book that might take them a week to finally figure out what they're doing. Others may just want to pick it up and know how to play it within the first 5 minutes. Me, I like it when a game is easy to pick up, but gradually gets more complicated and has more possibility.
I don't think complex is necessarily bad. I just think some people want complex possibility made available through simple means.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:1, Insightful)
Your statement is part of the naivety of the US attitude to soccer, but I shouldn't act surprised, mixing up stategy and tactics is common all over the US. That will change, indeed it's already changed somewhat in your national team.
People often focus on the tactical improvisation because they are the glamorous bits, but that's not so different to the focus on the home run and the "Brett Favre scramble left, jiggle around a bit and throw for a touchdown" in US sports.
Re:Simple games rule. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, in the case of Star Control II you can have your cake and eat it to - play the whole game for the big plot and story, and melee mode if you just want to have fun for those spare 20 minutes you've got...
np: Sole - Tokyo (Selling Live Water)
Re:Hes right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge difference in making a complex game and making a game that makes you think; i really enjoy games that make me thing and promotes some sort puzzles and brain activity -- but I really don't want to spend 8 hours reading the manual before playing (even NWN seemed a bit excessive for me
IE; there is no need for a complex game to make you think.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:2, Insightful)
> but it's most practical application is understand
> modern word roots. That we DID do.
mmh... quick then, tell me what's an "oligodendrocyte"?
Anyone with a basic knowledge of ancient greek would answer "a cell with few ramifications", which describes accurately this cell of the human brain. You just can't guess that with 3-4 shallow lessons about "word roots" (a.k.a "etymology", from 'etumos', the origin, and 'logos', the science).
Fact is 90% of native english speakers are now unable to fluently spell any word of latin and greek origin, even the most common.
pseudo/psuedo,
information/informatation,
affec
complement/compliment,
compatible/comp
etc.
This is a great loss, especially when you consider the scientific lexicon, which is mere greek and latin
When you can't properly decompose a word, retaining its meaning requires a huge effort.
So you avoid it.
And eventually comes the fear of every word longer than two syllables...
But who cares, they say, small is beautiful!
Well, no, small is ambiguous.
Re:Hes right.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hes right.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can still have an interesting game that doesn't require something like a driver's ed manual to play.
*shrug*
-B
Re:It's all about choices (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, Terra seriously rocks as an RPG character. Emotionally insecure former mass-murderer who isn't even completely human and has GREEN hair in a ponytail! The good bit is the green ponytail. But I more or less agree that true RPGs aren't available on computers, if you want those you're better of playing AD&D or any other PnP RPG with a bunch of serious friends.
Serious people are important or else you'll end up with something I had, an RPG where 3 out of 5 characters are female (6 players total) with those 3 female characters constantly being raped and all because the DM was 16. The rest was even more silly, though I did like the bit about the vampire with fake teeth. I killed it. :) But I left those idiots as they started to play a DBZ campaign. AD&D is fun but roleplaying a guy covered in fluorescent yellow paint grunting like he's about to have an orgasm for about 20 minutes is not my forte.
Re:Hes right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I own an Xbox, not a Gamecube, I think Nintendo is right here. Some of my favorite games of all time came out of Nintendo, and many of them are "simple". For instance, Mario Kart 64 is a masterpiece of gaming, and it is pretty easy to pick up, but hard to master, which is the hallmark of a good game.
That said, I'm playing Star Wars Galaxies right now, which is supremely complex, and I don't even understand a lot of it, though I've been playing for nearly two months. It's still fun, but I can't hand it over to my wife or my dad for 10 minutes, and expect them to appreciate it at all.
By comparison, my wife was hooked on Bust-A-Move in about 5 minutes, because the controls and rules are simple. My dad loves to play video games, if I play a game that has only a few buttons, he doesn't want to have to remember 40 combinations of buttons to play the game, so this is why he mostly likes racing games. Gas, Brake, Steer, Shift, okay, pretty simple, but the games certainly aren't easy.
On NEEDING to read the manual first... (Score:1, Insightful)
than I care to admit. I collect for over 40
different systems. I have so many games, that
if I played 10 per day, I could go several years
and still not be half way through my stuff.
That said, I agree with Carmack on the manual
situation. If I HAVE TO read the manual before
I can play a game, I'm not interested. I have
always felt that if you can start playing the
game and at least be able to have some fun and
some success right out of the box, that that is
a good thing. Later, after you've had some fun
you can go back and read through the manual to
improve your skills by picking up things you
could not figure out on your own.
I don't want to start the old graphics vs. game
play debate back up, but the thicker the manuals
got (and the more you had to read them first)
the more the graphics improved and the game play
suffered. I really enjoy video games, and I
hope that developers can find a "happy medium".
That is where the fun is!