Designing Videogames For The Wage Slave 514
Thanks to Ron Gilbert's weblog for pointing out a GameDev.net article discussing the topic of "Designing Games for the Wage Slave" . The author explains: "We balance on the knife's edge between our glorious time-squandered youth, and the commitments of inevitable middle age... If games can adapt to the needs of the working gamer, they can find a lucrative niche." He goes on suggest practical tips for game developers, including 'Don't Waste My Time' ("Make every moment count. I don't play games to punish myself. I play them to be entertained, rewarded, and challenged"), 'Curiosity Killed The Cat...' ("Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... Now, in the comfort of our lounges or offices, what reason is there to keep dumping us out of the game we bought with our hard earned cash?"), and 'I Need Help' ("Make any necessary information available from within the game.")
Good insight (Score:5, Insightful)
Growing up sucks...
Amen (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, please stop this. Thief 3: Deadly Shadows is a great game, but half the time I can't skip the logo crap on startup. Why do you do this? For godsakes, show them all the first time the game is started if you really want to, then GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET ME PLAY THE GAME. Thank you. It would be one thing if the game was loading while the videos are playing, but nope. Morons.
Call me crazy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure you *could* develop games geared more towards middle-aged adults, I don't think it will be very lucrative though. When you start hitting that middle-age lifestyle especially that mid-life crisis you don't want to spend all your time inside on a computer after spending 40+ hours inside an office cubicle. Leave the video games for your kids and enjoy the stuff that you can do now that you're older and hopefully a little richer.
Article Text [Summarized] (Score:1, Insightful)
sustained gratification => instant gratification
This is what passes for insightful?
They're called "sports games" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sports games give you nicely self-contained packages of gameplay. You can play a football game for a half-hour, and enjoy yourself. You don't have to string together hours of playtime at once to enjoy yourself. ESPN and Madden are always ready when you have a few minutes to kill.
Constant Death can be great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Call me crazy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not leave the slashdot posts and play with your kids? I think anything can become an addiction and that can be bad for an adult, but how is golf any different than a video game (the only possible way I could see is that golf can be more social)? I'd much rather play a TRPG than guy on a motorcycle or a boat.
Instead of dictating what is right for a person in his middle age, why not live your life as you feel and let others do the same? I don't think video games are that constructive (then again, is reading novels for fun that contructive?) but in moderation, if a person likes playing video games, why should they stop because they turn 35 or 40 or whatever? Video games are just another hobby, like golf, boating, or keeping tropical fish.
Re:Call me crazy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
What if you don't have kids or they go to bed at 7-8pm?
What happens when you work during daylight hours and your free time occurs at night? Playing golf at night is nigh on impossible (glow balls are ok but don't fly well) and riding a motorbike at night isn't a great way to make sure you live a long and fruitful life.
Time is Short... (Score:2, Insightful)
As a corollary to the 'don't waste my time' item, is the issue in some games that only allow you to save at fixed save points - then put those points more than 20 minutes of game play apart. There's nothing worse than picking up a game to play for a while and find that you've solved/succeeded a complex section of the game but can't find a save point and have to go.
Risk vs Reward (Score:5, Insightful)
This also brings about ideas of "death" in games, like in games like SWG where you would get warped back to the nearest city, or lose stats/skills upon death, or even those ever-elusive "permenant death" games. I always thought that games that encouraged cowardice never captured my interest, you could lose all this WORK (because on the MMORPG treadmill, you are working) that you did if you attack a monster that is above your level.
Sadly, I don't quite have a solution. But the second year of Ultima Online is pretty much the perfect game of that type, as the treadmill wasn't as emphasised, death wasn't that important, but the rewards weren't out of proportion either. There was a freedom in that game, it wasn't just whacking monsters like a single player game, there was true player interaction. Early Ultima Online was a fine gaming social experiment.
this is the reason (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the reason Lucasarts adventure games are so fondly remembered. Nothing was funnier than falling off the cliff in monkey island and seeing the Kings-Quest-esque death screen, only to have your character bounce back onto the screen, make a face, and say "Rubber Tree".
Not having a fear of death lets you try all kinds of crazy shit in games. That's what makes them fun.
Re:Call me crazy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the point of middle age is to do things you enjoy, without idiotic classification of leisure activities as "kiddie" or "adult".
MMORPG's not a good example (Score:5, Insightful)
So, probably your best bet is to find a non MMORPG type game to get your fill of games if you can't devote enough time to it.
How to get people to RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Ill tells ya whats going on - he only pointed out and praised games that did things right, without spouting on about why Halo gives him the shits (for example).
It really made this article a good read. Maybe a good tip for you journos out there!
Cut Scenes (Score:5, Insightful)
The most annoying thing about MGS and MGS2 was when the phone rang during a 10 minute cut scene.
Re:MMORPG's not a good example (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they don't. MMORPG fees are flat rate. The casual gamer pays just as much per month, regardless of how many hours they play. If your game has nothing to offer the casual gamer, and they all drop out, you can point to the die hards -- but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, not an immutable fact of MMORPGs.
It's even likely that there are more casual gamers than hardcore. If you could come up with a concept that kept more players paying per month, you'd make even more money than you would catering solely to the hardcore gamer. As a bonus, those casual gamers will consume less network and processor resources, so there's less of a bill to pay.
You're crazy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people get tired of video games, but I'm 26, and I don't think I will ever stop playing them. It's good entertainment. I enjoy playing them, so why would I stop? I'll naturally gravitate away from games saturated with younger kids that I can't relate to, but as we grow older so will the theme of a lot of games.
So.. we're older now. We have money to burn. We like playing video games and we'll pay for them and the hardware to play them on. What's not lucrative about it?
Design is out, repetition is in (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn, what a drag. Far Cry's checkpoint system is a Console Evil, designed for 5 year olds with literally too much time on their hands. I spent 30 minutes sneaking through a level, making sure to pay every place a visit, when right near the end I am ungloriously gunned down and forced to replay that entire 30 minutes. I ended up playing the thing over Rambo style, taking a jeep and making a beeline for the place I last died, which took 10 minutes and was 1/10 as engaging as my last play. I've pretty much summed up the gameplay in Far Cry:
n = 1;
1. Walk.
2. Turn on nightvision.
3. Walk.
4. Turn on nightvision. See heat signature.
5. Go prone.
6. Unload all munitions at heat signature.
7. ???
8. Profit!
9. Find out you didn't really profit because 1 second later, one of those giant mutated bullet (and rocket propelled grenade) tampons walked up behind you and blasted you to hell.
10. n++; GOTO 1;
There you have it, the design document for the ULTIMATE FAR CRY SINGLEPLAYER BOT. Yes, that's who you and I are when we're playing games like that: bots. I have a hunch that it would work just as well in multiplayer.
Yes, I know developers and publishers want you to spend time on their games. But stuff like checkpoints and repetitive gameplay like in Far Cry destroy goodwill and create dollars for other, more creative developers. Sure, I know they implemented a quicksave--but that was after the entire populace, awash with rage, found the emperor naked, so to speak. This stuff doesn't have to be taught by hard PR lessons; it should be in the basic rulebook of game design, where it belongs.
All games should have:
An autosave that activates when you quit.
A restore in case of a computer crash.
Robust netcode.
Programmers that have more than the customary two-neuron-one-of-which-is-inhibitory brain.
Simply put, the PC game industry would be so much better if there wasn't as much sexing between the PC and console developers.
Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)
What?!? You're just now finding out that user simplicity is inversely proportional to programming complexity?
A 10 minute simple utility takes 4 hours to make idiot proof.
There's some good ones (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you try Super Mario Sunshine? Again, you have complete camera control. Very challenging game when you get into it.
Tactical RPGs are usually good, too, for the working gamer. You can fight a single battle and save.
Re:Call me crazy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
No!
KFG
Re:MMORPG's not a good example (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Call me crazy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
But isn't the point of middle age to replace things such as video games with more adult activities. You want fun, go buy a motorcycle or a boat.
Well speaking as someone who owns a motorcycle and a GameCube, (and will be buying a sea kayak in the not too distant future) I don't see why I can't enjoy both.
I'll go out and hoon around (responsibly of course!) on my bike on days when I feel like doing so and have a couple of hours free to get away from the house. I'll sit back and play Super Monky Ball for 45 minutes on a Wednesday night before turning in for the day, while my wife is writing letters to her friends.
One of the advantages of getting older is that you can have a much wider range of tastes and activities than you had open to you as a child. One of those opportunities includes games.
I firmly agree with all the "Don't Waste My Time", and the "Make it Accessible" comments. But by far the most important note in the article, in my opinion is :
Don't demand a huge time commitment from the player or dictate the length of his sessions; let him take it at his own pace
Which basically says it all...
a casual gamer community - if you're good, go away (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I'm Growing Old (Score:3, Insightful)
The only two games that can keep my attention these are Nethack [nethack.org] and Go [kiseido.com].
not very convincing (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're so busy you can't dedicate one daily hour to a game, you shouldn't even try playing adventures. Instead of playing stupidly simple games, one would rather go to a web design company sitemap and start pointing and clicking while watching the multimedia. The whole point of adventure games is the challenge.
I've been quite busy myself for some years now and I only play adventures when I'm on vacation. Best games for busy people are multiplayer games with short rounds. I don't really need the latest and greatest. There are many oldies that never get really old. Tekken 3 for instance allows for several rounds in 30 minutes. SNES Mario Kart, or N64 Diddy Kong Racing in multiplayer mode are also great options if you have someone around. You can also look for adversaries online: Bomberman Online for DC is just great, so is soldat [soldat.pl] for PC (give it a download). Crazy Taxi or Jet Set Radio allow for short sessions. Short deadmatches of your FPS of choice are also very adequate.
This guy probably doesn't know what he's talking about by experience. I don't need a stupidly simple adventure game babysitting me to the end. If you want that, just try the lowest difficulty level and for many games you're set.
Trial and error is just fine. R-type and Ikaruga come to mind. There should be enough save points so you don't have to repeat the same level a ridiculous number of times. In other words: arcades so easy you don't even need to retry are silly (this only applies to arcades).
I agree in a couple of things, though: being lost is not fun (busy or not) and stupid long animations you need to see must die. Busy or not, I don't like wasting my time watching long animations. Most Final Fantasies are excessive, but FF X is just unbearable. Games are not movies, and Square sucks at making movies anyway. Let me play. Shenmues are much better in this respect. They don't bore the shit out of you every minute with a long animation: animations are short, to the point, instructive and often interactive. It also takes you notes so you can easily retake the game after long breaks.
Re:Why do some games NOT allow in-game saves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrast (Score:5, Insightful)
Riding a bicycle down-hill is enjoyable for most people. If you never had to ride a bike up-hill in the first place though, it'd get pretty boring pretty fast. You need to know what up-hill means for down-hill to have any value.
If you want, wait a week or so after just about any game is released, search the web and find the God Mode cheats. Frequent deaths are instantly solved. Sure, you get to take a quick tour of all of the games set pieces and pretty graphics but it will barely be a fraction as rewarding as it would have been had you actually had to work for it. My guess is you'll resent the $50 you had to spend far more than if you'd actually earned your way through it.
The lazy option is there. My experience has been that when I've taken it, I've got far less out of the games than when my achievements have actually meant something.
Going back to the bike analogy... Imagine having an engine that powers you up and down hills regardless. Oh, wait, I have one... I call it my car. Yet I've never had a fraction of the fun driving down a hill that I used to get after working to get my bike to the top of a hill and feeling the exhilaration on the way down the far side. Sure, I see more hills now, in less time - which suits my busier adult lifestyle - but each hill means a fraction of what they used to. That's why grown men take time out to go mountain biking and why others find the time to play games without cheating.
Muliplayer FPS... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't worry about savegames, mazes, game over, etc. Got killed? Respawn instantly. Lost your weapons? Get the rocket launcher next to you. Really it's perfect.
However, as Q3 is now dying in favor of more recent offerings (which is a shame since in my opinion, no other game has the pace, precision and fluidity of Q3), the servers which are still active are now either empty or filled with very skilled players. Not a good time to learn multiplayer deathmatch! Also, finding a copy of Q3 is almost impossible nowadays.
My personal favorites (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm 23, and I have pretty much stopped gaming. I still play a few games now and then.
Things that seem to make a game enjoyable for me:
- Good for parties/friends
- fun to watch someone play
- fun to play together
- small time commitment (15 minute session vs several hours)
- Smooth flow
- Very little searching for items, large travel times - things that make me feel like I'm wasting time
For example: Max Payne 2 and Metroid Prime. Both are excellent games, but Max just didn't keep my attention well enough for me to finish it, or took too long. Metroid was too much of "oh I forgot this item, I have to go look for it over there -- a 15 minute travel. Ooops, I need this to get over there, which is back where I came from"
a couple games I DO enjoy and why:
Super Monkey Ball (and #2) - packed full of fun mini games. You can play for 15 minutes and quit -- no huge time commitment. Great for mini parties.
Mario Kart 64 - same as SMB.
Re:not very convincing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, fuck you. If I want to play an adventure game with little time on my hands, I'll do just that. What the author is saying is that there's a very addressable market of people like him (and myself, a recently out of college investment banker with an interest but a short attention span and erratic schedule) who want to spend money on the right product. For you to say "don't bother" is idiotic; we're telling you "we enjoy this, so consider making it and you can make good money if you do it right."
I don't select "hard" mode anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just make it so everyones a winner? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:MMORPG's not a good example (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it. You pay by the month. The cost is fixed no matter how much you play. The more time players spend online, the higher the overhead for the company providing the game, in extra servers, bandwidth, content, etc, etc... If someone has maintained a character on your server for two years, there should be reward for sticking with it, even if they didn't have much time to play.
Why don't MMORPG's allow people to log intentions, which are resolved the next time they log back on. Instead of spending 30 hours clicking the mouse to make chain mail gloves to boost your armoring skill, why not let the player just go the armory and click on the forge, say he's going to practice his skill, and log off. When he logs back on, he's raised his skill, or made some money, or a bit of both. And he really only has to log on for a few minutes a week if he's busy.
This could be done for crafting, selling goods, training skills, and so on, all the stuff that MMORPG's use for trial by boredom. If I want to spend my time making chain mail gloves, I'll buy some wire and metal working tools. I don't need a game for this. And make travel powers and items common, like they do in CoH, so that I don't have to spend hours running across the landscape to fulfill a quest. This is just another form of Trial by Boredom.
Another problem is the rare spawn, rare drop syndrome. EQ used this to death, and I recently quit DAOC when they introduced it in Trials of Atlantis. This is where you sit at your PC for 5 hours waiting for that rare named NPC to pop, or kill the same creature 500 times to get that rare treasure. I could never be bothered, so my equipment was always sub-par.
One more thing: essential character development quests and battles should never involve more than a single full group. I don't know how much time people in MMORPG's wait around for enough people to show up to fight the next Boss in the quest, but at later levels, it probably accounts for half the playing time. Everything that can be gained doing these mass battles should be obtainable in another way. You may need to fight more things, and it may take longer, but at least you would be doing something, instead of standing around waiting.
Re:Call me crazy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was about not having time for gaming. (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is that there is already a huge variety of games, some that you can jump right in and play a few quick games, and some that are much more involved and require some time to really get into and discover everything. Both niches are already filled. Then again, when the guy is saying, "I recently moved into a new apartment. This has literally left me with only a few minutes of gaming per day," I don't know what he expects anyone to tell him. Wait until you have settled in to your new place, I guess. For most, gaming is a hobby like any other. If you can only spare a few minutes out of your day for a hobby, then you're either seriously overworked, mismanaging your time, or have way too many hobbies in the first place.
Re:Call me crazy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Becasue there were no video gamers over forty in 1973? I think the reason is obvious.
Do you seriously think that afer playing video games for 25 years, someone is supposed to go "oop, thats it, I'm going to get me a boat."?
" Leave the video games for your kids and enjoy the stuff that you can do now that you're older and hopefully a little richer.?
HAHAHAHAHA what are you? 16?
Richer? Make more money? yes, not richer.
I had a lot more money in the bank when I was single, and mage 6 bucks an hour, then I ewver had being married with two kids making 65K a year.
See, expenses go up...way up.
I suppose I could try to rais my kids in a so-so neighbor hood, and in a 1 bedroom apartment.
Please don't tell those of us who have been gaming since fucking PONG what to do with our middle-age.
punk.
Now get the Hell off my grass.
Re:not very convincing (Score:5, Insightful)
Try eating shit, asshole. My gaming dollar is worth just as much as yours, but I'm not some pasty-faced little loser with an inordinate amount of time to waste. The article writer had it spot-on; there are plenty of people like him (and me) who'd jump at a game that isn't made for little geeks with no social lives and no full-time jobs.
If they want our money, they'll have to build the games to our specifications. The vast majority of dollars spent on games come from people OVER the age of 25, not kiddies with little in the way of real-life responsibilities. It's time for the gaming industry to wake up and smell the coffee.
Max
Puzzle games (Score:4, Insightful)
The most often played game is probably Freecell or Minesweeper? Why? Because you can play it for a few minutes whilst waiting for something else or just to while away half an hour or so. Puzzle games answer all the needs the author describes in the article, now if only other types of games would.
I agree with the article in many ways. Especially the part about having to restart. I cheat. Yes. I confess I cheat in games.
I don't like it when a racing game requires me to study it's mechanisms for multiple hours only to require me many hours of training more just to have a minuscule chance at unlocking a new car or course. I don't like to have to play a single course a hundred times just to enable an even more difficult course. I just want to switch on the machine and race a few laps with my extremely customized ultimate racing car in whatever landscape I feel like driving in that day. And perhaps even knock a few other cars around.
I don't like being kicked the crap out of by weirdo muscular freaks and freakettes, I experienced that enough in school! I want to take revenge; slaughter that big guy with the suit who looks just like my boss, kick the crap out of the that irritating muscleboy and I want to do it with the panache of Bruce Lee. And god knows I just want to see those cute girls wrestle it out on the beach!
I really (really, really) liked Jak & Dexter until one challenge which I just couldn't figure out. Since I had to do this particular challenge to continue I just gave up on the game.
Same goes for LOTR2 where somewhere in level 10 or so I couldn't even cheat through due to an enemy which would kill you with one touch if you were distracted for just a second.
Most games have such problems, please, please, PLEASE allow us casual gamers the ability to skip the parts of your games we don't like or just can't get past. Sure, it's cheating, but so what if it makes our experience better?
What the author is saying is that he just wants to have fun gameplay, not to wade through levels designed to be nearly unbeatable or challenge some artificial intelligence who knows more special combos than I'm willing to learn or worse; a hardcore gamer who's just intend on satisfying his ego.
This isn't just about older people though. The casual gaming market has been mostly neglected in favour of the "quick-and-easy-profit" hardcore market. Some noticeable exceptions such as Sims and (my own favourite) Roller Coaster Tycoon prove it can be different though.
Currently I'm putting all my hope on that new Playboy game, looks like Sims for men.
Thoughts from a "wage slave" (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of the article. I don't particularly mind time-sinks. I play a MMORPG (FFXI) and, despite the fact that you spend a fair bit of time grinding, I don't mind that, because much of the fun in a MMORPG comes from the social interactions and from the thrills you do get when you explore a new area or fight a major boss. I also play a lot of offline RPGs, both console and PC, where levelling up your characters is a major factor in the game.
Making all of the necessary information available within the game isn't a bad idea, but I'd hardly consider it a vital factor. I don't mind referring to a manual. My normal practice when playing a new game is to read any "plot" sections of the manual and check how the controls work before I play. I'll then refer to the manual as I go along, whenever I bump into something I don't understand. I recently started playing Disgaea (superb game, play if it you haven't already) and this worked well there; reading the entire manual before I started wouldn't have helped, as many of the concepts would have seemed bizarre if I hadn't already played the game, but going into it with no grounding at all would have been hard.
For me, far and away the biggest issue relates to saving progress. One thing I absolutely loathe and despise is having to go back and do something I've already done. I'm not talking about grinding in FFXI here; that changes as you level up, so there's a sense of progress. I'm talking about having to replay a 15 minute game section because I died right at the end and had no option to save my game. In my mind, there is *no* excuse for not implementing a quicksave function in PC (and perhaps Xbox) games or not having ample opportunities to save in a console game. I own and use all three of the current-generation consoles, but I've a particular dislike for the Gamecube, because so many of its games have ridiculous save policies. I'm drawn to games which let me feel I've made progress at the end of each session; MMORPGs are obviously a good example here, as are RPGs such as Disgaea or KOTOR. Conversely, I'm much less likely now to play "simple" shoot-em-ups. I recently bought R-Type Final in a fit of nostalgia. However, despite the fact that it was a good shooter, I found the fact that I was expected to go back to level 1 every time I loaded up to be far too dispiriting.
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:3, Insightful)
In Lineage II I've found a certain sort of freedom much different from EQ or SWG. You can do anything you like, there are consequences, but you can do it anyway. The leveling is straightforward and the combat at least at my low level has enough variability to keep me going back. Almost invariably however the "red names" or PKers are griefers. Instead of testing their mettle against similarly skilled or powerful opponents they would rather utterly decimate a lower leveled player oftentimes even visiting the newbie areas for the express purpose of making life hell for someone who can't fight back.
I played, briefly, on a PvP server in EQ and the situation was the same. I played The Realm and PvP was easily 90% of the griefing variety.
A friend of mine reported how he quit UO when someone got it in their head that it would be fun to steal everything they possibly could from him and destroy the rest. It was simply too much time and energy invested to have it all taken away by someone who could not be gotten back. There was no point in going back because recovering his stuff and status was not going to be any fun the second time around.
The fact that it takes time to build up a character or fortune is what gives you a sense of accomplishment. It also makes it that much more painful to lose it all. Thus far no design has been discovered to allow full PvP but to disallow the griefing so prevalent in gaming.
Re:My gamer-friendly idea (Score:2, Insightful)
If I'm playing a game, and someone walks into the room to talk to me, I don't have to scrabble for the pause button, or whatever, I just drop the joystick, release the mouse, hands off the keyboard, whatever, turn and talk to them.
I guess I can't see how 'scrabling' for the pause button is a big deal. On most PC games it's 'pause', you just reach out and hit it. It takes a second. No scrabling involved, very quick and easy.
Those may be your terms, but frankly I think they are pretty unworkable for most games, and unreasonably too. I suppose you could have a dead man's switch on the mouse, but really it's total overkill (and will probably hurt you hand afer a while) for a total non-issue to the vast majority of gamers.
Yikes man, think about this a little.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Making tradeskills more fun then EQ would definately be nice (SWG is better with this to varying degrees) but to allow it to be automated takes absolutely *all* the prestige and reward for it.
The rare spawn thing does suck sometimes - but, think about it. If everyone could just walk up to the cave, say a magic word, and pop here's the monster, what's the challenge? What's the reward?
As far as "essential character development quests and battles" well, I am not sure how you really classify this. All the quests in EQ end up with some sort of item. Nothing really more then that. Although a character's epic weapon is (okay.. was) really sweet, it wasn't exactly essential to your gameplay - and they used to be so good that if everyone could just bang them out with single groups, then *again* - what's the challenge? What's the real reward there if everyone's got 'em no problem?
EQ is not perfect but it's the imperfections that people bitch about that actully keep people playing. Sure, it could be better. How? I don't really have an answer for that. When you finally get that mob to spawn, or you finally get that drop, isn't it a great feeling? You have a feeling of accomplishment, a feeling that you've done something that a lot of people have not been able to.
If you can get that feeling of accomplishment without having to work for it, then bless you. But I can't.
PlanetSide - Close, but not really (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally find the utter lack of imagination in MMORPG developers to be disappointing. They tout features that are just refinements on a bad formula. World of WarCraft is not going to be any sort of holy grail. It is going to be the same old MMORPG done in the refined manner that Blizzard is famous for. Certainly it will be a great MMORPG compared to the rest, but they are not changing the formula. It is still a game where your character's skill means the most, and your character's skill is based purely on the time you can throw at the game.
I foresee an MMORPG some time in the next five years that is going to break all the rules. Alls it takes is a gutsy developer and some designers who can convince the money men that the casual gamer is the target. They are going to build a world based upon player skill, and it is going to be big. Imagine if you will a world with the size and exploration potentials of any current MMORPG, along with solid role playing and socializing features that we expect in an MMORPG, but with a combat system like that of a FPS. Such a game would be big. It would attract those into FPS, those who like the socialization aspects of MMORPGs, and those who can only play a limited amount each day. Hell, you might even bring in the people who like to play the Sims if you make your socialization features robust enough. The only people getting the shaft in such a system are the people who blow 10 hours a day on a computer game to be the best... but who really gives a shit about them? If you are spending 10 hours a day on a game, chances are you don't have a credit card, and you certainly fall into a very small minority. Attract the people who play Unreal 2004 and/or the people who like the socialization aspect of MMORPGs and you have a massive audience that dwarfs the crazy 15 year olds who can blow half of their day on a video game.
Hell, just imagine collecting a monthly fee from just the people who play Unreal 2004. Believe me, that number make what MMORPGs bring in now look like pocket change.
Re:hey loser (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are you people taking this so personally anyway? The original poster made no personal attacks, but you are making plenty against him.
Play whatever you want, but realize that most adventure or RPG games are generally designed to be played for a little while at a time.
And for the record, I'm 24, working and going to school and I don't have that much free time either. I just realize that some games need more time than others and plan accordingly. But then, I'm also one of those weirdos that reads manuals in their entirety before playing a new game.
Re:Risk vs Reward (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good insight (Score:3, Insightful)
Three or four weeks ago I got hold of several top-100 games lists (you know the kind of thing), picked out a bunch of 'must-have' games from the recent past, and got the lot off ebay one by one. There's some interesting stuff there, but three weeks later I'm back with the writing & coding again. Too many of the games take too long to start. e.g. You can leap right into Wolfenstein and start blasting, but Splinter Cell or Ghost Recon take an age to pick up again because of the complexity of keyboard commands.
I'm not asking companies to dumb games down, I'm immersed in Morrowind at the moment and that's hardly simplistic. It's just the age-old problem of standardising the controls. E.g. F5 to quicksave, F9 to quickload would be a good start. WASD plus mouse has been standardised for movement, but what about fixing the action key? Inventory? I know it's possible to reconfigure settings, but when I set E for action, whatever was using E is now unbound. So you bind that to something else, and this chain reaction goes on until you end up having to redefine just about everything. Then you discover the game's crap, and you just wasted 1/2 hour setting up sound, video and controls...
Re:MMORPG's not a good example (Score:5, Insightful)
> the game play is, no matter how great it is
> for the casual player - there's always going
> to be groups of people that will play 10 hours
> a day and advance further along in the game
> then you ever could. And eventually, the game
> developers tailor to this group because they
> keep paying the bills.
Simple solution: lifespan.
You create your character, they have a lifespan measured in real-time hours of play (quite a high value, though). As this runs out, they get slower and slower, their stats start to drop, they get a beard and walk around with a cane, and when time runs out, they die. Irrecoverably.
Now the game is no longer about how much time you can put in. It's about using that time as productively as possible - in other words, it encourages the "fun now" design theory that working gamers want. Wanna sit on your ass camping that dragon spawn for 3 hours? See you in the pensions office, munchkin boy.
Re:My gamer-friendly idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Good to see I'm not the only one who's been wondering if game companies are shooting themselves in the foot with that.
There's a lot of anti-gaming resentment among some parents, and a lot of it doesn't come from "it'll teach them to be violent" ideas. Probably most of it is along the lines of "but he cares about that console more than about me! Every time I tell him to come do something, he's like 'can't pause now'! And half an hour later he's still at it! He's addicted!"
And I've been playing games myself where I have to replay a whole huge map from the beginning, if I quit in the wrong place. Or even one which made me play 10 hours straight before I found a save point.
Now adult or kid, noone wants to lose half an hour of their work. Tell some non-gamer to turn the computer off _now_ without saving, when they're writing a long email or post. No, no touching that "save" or "send" button. Turn it off _now_! They won't be happy. They won't want to.
So I'm guessing that a lot of the "addiction" that some parents see, is actually just idiotic game design.
Just for the record, I do think that games are mildly addictive. But there's mild addiction and there's major addiction. Even an alcohol addict can take a 5 minute break from drinking. Even a chain-smoker can take a short break from smoking.
When they can't, that's when you get worried. And that's what those parents mistakenly think they see there: someone who absolutely can't take a break from playing with that console. No matter how often you tell him to come here, that damn kid is like glued there to the controller, and seemingly can't take a break. When in reality, the poor bugger is just feverishly looking for a save point, 'cause he'd rather not have to redo the whole last hour.
Makes it look like a far worse addiction than it really is. In some cases, it makes it look bad enough that a stupid parent and a luddite physician put that kid on drugs, to "save" him from those evil games.
I'm thinking that if designers stopped doing that, they'd have a lot less bad press and a lot less worried parents on their case.
Re:MMORPG's not a good example (Score:4, Insightful)
I was playing DAOC for a while but likewise all my buddies were level 30+ in the time it took me to get to 19.
Both my wife and went back to playing Diablo2.
As a wageslave, here's a nugget of goodness that a game designer can take to their design meeting.
I should be able to save ANYWHERE. I should be able to hit F2 on the keyboard and save my spot or hit "select" on the controller and choose save and just get up and walk away. Then I should be able to come back at anytime in the future and continue on like nothing happened.
As a person who lives by a very rigid 8am to 5pm schedule I can't sit up all night working through some level because if I quit the game it'll send me back and I'll have todo 25 minutes worth of work over. Likewise, this shouldn't be answered with "well you can always pause". Since my PS2 is also my DVD player that's not viable and since I do work on my computer as well as play games, I will have to quit.
With that said, I'd even be okay with some sorta of checkpoint system that would only put me back a few minutes.
Re:not very convincing (Score:3, Insightful)
We're kinda pissed right now that we have to farm money for ~100 hours to be able to buy our high level equipment, and that levelling past the point we're at will take us dozens and dozens of hours (killing the monsters ourselves is impossible at the level you can use the equipment). If they made a server where you couldn't play more then 20 hours a week but everything was way faster (money, experience, downtimes), I'd be on there in a second and never look back.
Never mind that having 10 000 guys like me that will play 1-2 nights and hopefully one day on the weekend makes your server much easier to maintain then having 5000 people that play 60 hours a week, so my money is actually worth more.