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.'"
Hes right.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hes right.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hes right.... (Score:4, Insightful)
[no comment needed on my part]
Re:Hes right.... (Score:3, Funny)
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: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: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.
Re:Hes right.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, any good RPG has at least a little system to drive it. Text Adventure games are quite complex, you can't guess how to play one of them but you can guess how to play point-n-click rpgs.
New Games Not Hard! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Games Not Hard! (Score:2)
"QuakeWorld/Quake2 under Linux with Glide - Quake the way God meant it to be..." - some anonymous person
Re:New Games Not Hard! (Score:2)
It takes a lot of disciplin to be a productive gamer, and I don't think I have it.
Re:New Games Not Hard! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:New Games Not Hard! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:New Games Not Hard! (Score:3, Funny)
it will be a cold day in hell before I buy any of that NVidia shit
3Dfx is a company that is committed to hard core gamerz and not those OEM mommy-buy-me-a-pc pussies at NVIDIA what pansies. screw their market share
hey dude have you heard??? 3Dfx is coming out with the Voodoo4 line this fall.
rumor at voodooextreme has it that it will include SLI support.
wicked ass!!!
studip nvid0t whores i'll take my 4-way Voodoo4 Dual-SLI aany day so SUCK IT
sincerely,
l33t mofo'n mast'a cira. summer '99
A New Game... (Score:3, Funny)
---
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.
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
Surprisingly? (Score:5, Insightful)
This simplicity and accessibility has earned them fans who don't like complicated games - they just want to play.
Re:Surprisingly? (Score:3, Informative)
Why use CTRL for shooting (Score:5, Interesting)
You can think of it as having 7 bits (allowing 128 keys) plus 3 bits for the special keys. So each time a key is pressed or released, a 10 bit signal is sent to the computer. The computer remembers the last signal, and assumes that if no signal is received, then the keys from the last signal are being held down.
This was important to game writers, because some combinations would not work. If "P" is "move left", and "O" is "shoot", then moving left and shooting would not be possible.
1. Hold "O". Computer sees that "O" was pressed.
2. Hit "P". Computer sees "P" was pressed. It assumes that the "O" must be released.
The special keys did not have this "feature", so they were used for actions, such as shooting, that might be done simultaneously with another action. Moving "shoot" to "CTRL":
1. Hold "O". Computer sees that "O" was pressed.
2. Hit "CTRL". Computer sees "CTRL+O" was pressed.
Keyboard technology may have advanced since the 80s, so these issues may have been solved.
Re:Why use CTRL for shooting (Score:4, Informative)
Try setting up a MAME cabinet using keyboard-based input only, and a game such as one of the later Street Fighters. You'll have a field day with all of the multi-button combinations - keyboard simply cannot distinguish all of those individual keys being pressed at the same time.
In fact, it's actually a bit worse than you describe. Because of how input signals are pulled from a keyboard (think of a big matrix of crossed wires), if you mash enough keys together, you can end up with keypresses detected that you never actually hit at all, a phenomenon known as 'ghosting'.
Simplicity (Score:5, Insightful)
disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
Pc games are better for things like complex role playing games, internet cames, and even action because the keyboard and mouse is alot more flexible then a controller pad. I can move staffe left and right quicker and create my own macro's. Try staffing left, firing a weapon, and then change to the next weapon on a controll pad at the same time? You can do it but it will take longer and your aim will not be as good when doing it.
Quake3 is pretty easy but it would suck on any other platform. For example even if it was an xbox lan enabled release, I could not download mods or new maps. Are there any and I mean any internet games for consoles?
I am sick of the arguement that pc's are for work only and a console is for real games. I consider the pc a rolls royce of gaming and I am fustrated that most game developers now only concentrate on consoles. This is why dukeNukem continues on the ps/2 and why it was killed on the pc. I think executives who only look at installed units per platform and tell the developers to use only x instead of seeing that a particular game is more suited for the pc platform.
Re:disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
Though I'm certain that if it were possible to put console players against PC players in a multiplayer game, that the PC ones would win, since keyboard and mouse is definitely more accurate than a console controller. But that doesn't mean that the console version can't be fun too. There's a lot less black and white, one or the other things in the world than people like to think. Not everything that is a positive for one thing is a negative for another.
The whole PC vs Console thing is stupid anyway.....
Playing at a desk in front of a computer is an entirely differnt experience to sitting in your lounge room in front of your TV.
One isn't inherently better than the other....they're just different.
FWIW, the game I've spent the most time in front of in recent history is Morrowind, on XBox, and all things being equal, (which they more or less are between the PC and XBox versions of Morrowind), I'd much rather play a game I'm going to spend a long time on, sitting in comfort.
agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Point and Kill is great if you are teaching zombies to assemble widgets at minimum wage?
Re:agree (Score:4, Funny)
Re:disagree (Score:3, Informative)
If you really want a game where you see how fast you can press buttons, you should try WarioWare, Inc. [nintendo.com].
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.
Re:Progressive complexity in FRPGs. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would much rather play the game at 'medium' or 'hard' to begin
Re:Progressive complexity in FRPGs. (Score:3, Interesting)
I can play it through on Masterful, losing the first few (well, OK, in the case of the final deathmatch, the first 20 or so) matches before finally winning one and moving up
Shoot-em-ups (Score:2)
Re:Shoot-em-ups (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you sure? Perhaps you want something more complicated than a pure shoot-em-up, but I'd wager there's a large number of gamers that do want something simple to get into, which is the whole point of the article.
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?"
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).
Re:Too complicated? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Too complicated? (Score:4, Informative)
Part of this was exacerbated by the fact that the camera was "active" so "straight forward across the bridge" kept on moving slightly. The solution was to repeatedly "Z-target" or whatever to bring the camera back behind you so that forward remained up on the joystick and you didn't accidently find your "move forward" joystick position become "move slightly to the right and off the bridge."
I can't recall being quite as frusterated with the Wind Waker controls, so I think they improved it for that game. But in Zelda 64, Link just loved to jump off ledges into bad places.
In any cases, I wish game designers would remember that jumping puzzles suck. They're just frusterating, especially in third-person games when the camera likes to move and change your "run straight across the bridge" to "run straight for a bit then veer right and into the lava." In the case of the Wind Waker, this means no more stupid rope swinging puzzles. Nintendo: I'm glad you think manipulating the camera is an important skill, I find it to be a big nuisance!
(Also annoying are FPS games where it's hard to judge when you're at the ledge so you can make your best leap across the gap, instead of falling into the lava below.)
Any, the basic point I want to make, besides that jumping puzzles suck, is that the control in Zelda 64 and some of the puzzles were such that even moving the stick very little could accidently cause Link to jump off a cliff into the raging river below - mainly due to the camera having this annoying tendency to pan when you're moving slowly.
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.
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.
Re:It's all about choices (Score:5, Interesting)
Japanese and Western RPGs have taken different routes, and neither is inherently better or worse. In Icewind Dale, I loved writing really long, descriptive histories for the characters. The thing that annoyed me was that, in the end, these histories meant bugger all throughout the game. Even if I made my character a morose, introspective type, the game would still popup conversation options totally counter to the characters personality. Even though my little fighter was raised by orcs from childhood, he is still forced to react to an encounter with orcs the same way any other character would.
In the opposite way, Japanese-style RPGs weave the character's background into the story very tightly. Because they do this, they limit the gamers choice. It means in Final Fantasy VI, I can't make the protagonist a 6-foot, muscled black guy. I'm stuck with Terra. On the other hand, it means that at all times, Terra acts like Terra, reacts in ways Terra would, and is generally consistent with her own character.
Personally, I prefer the tightly woven character-plots of the Final Fantasy series. But all of these type of games offer this trade off. Consider Baldur's Gate; All your NPCs were pre-generated, your own character had much of his background specified, and, as a result, the story of the Baldur's Gate series can be more tightly woven around the protagonist.
Until someone in AI solves the natural language problem, we're going to be stuck with this tradeoff.
Re:It's all about choices (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's all about choices (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, Terra seriously rocks as an RPG character. Emotionally insecure former mass-mu
It depends on what mood.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The Great Walls of Gaming (Score:3, Interesting)
That's probably not the best way to crosspolinate ideas between the genres.;)
And the most popular computer game is... (Score:2, Interesting)
I have given up on many games -- maybe because something didn't get me involved, but a good part of the reason was the game was too complicated. I didn't want to think that much, and left it for later. (still waiting, btw)
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.
It's true. (Score:2, Interesting)
You might say "But that's the whole point with a city simulation; chaos. Maybe. But once you realize that n
platform games and scrolling shooters (Score:2)
--
The game of Life (Score:2)
And a good role playing game should emulate life in some aspect. If you are a General, then you should know something about being a General.
I can proudly state that after being alive for a number of years, I am actually good at being myself.
Now a game to play my role, would NEED to be shipped with a book. How else would you know how to play my role?
maybe just me (Score:5, Interesting)
although a lot of games *do* include tuturials and training missions, etc, it can be difficult to pick up a game because of it. arguably, what a game needs is that each mission/level require a limited subset of skills, and as the game progresses, combine those learned skills, instead of just throwing more monsters at you.
probably my favorite computer game of all time was freespace 2. sure, i like simulations better than FPS and many other genres, but at the same time, it really gave you the feeling of being a part of a "war", mission by mission. the only thing it lacked was cooperative campaigns.
anywho, a lot of modern games lack fantasy: innovation in game play. RPGs have lots of spells, FPSs get you to shoot lots of people, etc. if someone has been playing FPSs or RPGs for a long time, they can get into a new game of the same genre easily. however, when i see a new FPS, i think of it as just that: a new FPS. i want something original!
look at it another way: you are marketting to tech geeks a lot of the time. tech geeks like to build things (like carmack and his rockets) why not translate this kind of interest into a game? mindrover was great for this reason. you actually had to think a little to be good at this new type of game.
This is Carmack we're talking about here. (Score:5, Interesting)
id has long followed the idea that a game should be build around the technology and not the other way around which is simply not the way to create a game, it's the way you create a technology demo or benchmarking software. At one point in time games had plots, scripts, characters, and progression laid out before the engine was written (or incorporated in the case of licensed code). At that point in time it was simply unrealistic to try and write a game completely for the "wow" factor because graphics technology was simply to primitive to impress anyone enough in that regard to buy 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.
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
You don't need a book! (Score:4, Funny)
The Rare Gem (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember playing a game called Star Tropics back on my NES when I was 5-6. That game made me absolutely stretch the limits of my fresh-out-of-the-oven mind. Some of the puzzles in the game were so difficult that, at times, the game became a family affair, with both of my parents trying to help me figure out the puzzles necessary to advance in the game. Speed ahead a couple years to Land Stalker on the Genesis. A game in a very similar vein to the previously mentioned Star Tropics. Only 3 buttons were required to play, the menus were, at most, 1 level deep, and the gameplay was fueled by a sword, a jump button, and a special item. There were some puzzles in that game that, literally, took me WEEKS to figure out.
These games weren't difficult in the "cheap" sense that a lot of today's games are. Land Stalker and Star Tropics both presented the answer to a puzzle, but it really took some brainpower. Recent RPGs (final fantasy, Baldur's Gate, NWN, etc.) just don't give that complexity. THey give you hard enemies that take a high level to beat. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. I don't want to spend hours leveling up in mind-numbingly simple battles! I WANT TO USE MY BRAIN!
Every now and then (maybe twice a year, if we're lucky), a game is released that really dwells in the roots of gaming. My recent favorite games that are hard in the sense that they require brainpower are Big Huge Games' Rise of Nations (which is complex in that it has a HELL of a lot of stuff to do) and the recently released Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (Bioware), both of which greatly surprised me with their depth and challenge. KOTOR really surprised me, in that it was an RPG... And it was based on the D&D ruleset... But the game was totally open-ended (left things up to the player), had some tough little puzzles, was action-packed while still staying true to RPG roots, didn't take weeks to get over the learning curve (it didn't even take a day, just a mere hour or two until you really knew what was going on) and didn't try to take up 100+ hours of the player's life.
Games designers really need to quit trying to make "sure bets", and try to innovate genres (like KOTOR and Rise of Nations)! I've had my fill of games like Unreal 2k3, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, and other cookie-cutter games. Let's see some INNOVATION AND CHALLENGE! Challenge and depth can, very easily in fact, be presented in a simple and easy-to-pick up manner. If an 8-bit NES game, that had a two-button controller, can make a game that stretches the minds of its players, then why can't a PC or an XBox game?!
I agree too (Score:3, Interesting)
Wizard (Score:5, Funny)
Compare and Contrast! (Score:3, Funny)
Gandalf:
Came out of the West and dwelt in Middle Earth.
Carmack:
Born in the West and dwelt on Earth.
Gandalf:
Produced wonderful fireworks and exploding rockets.
Carmack:
Produces rockets which may or may not explode.
Gandalf:
Wields Glamdring quite handily.
Carmack:
Wields a C compiler quite handily.
Gandalf:
Fell in battle to a Balrog, Daemon of Morgoth.
Carmack:
Fragged a few cacodaemons in his time.
Gandalf:
Rides around on a speedy tricked out horse.
Carmack:
Rides around in a
Better interview (Score:5, Informative)
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!)
Sure, Carmack is a smart game designer. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait.
Complexity = Richness = Replayability (Score:5, Interesting)
System Shock 2, Thief, Deus Ex-- these are the games that are consistently lauded as the masterpieces of the genre, and are as consistently re-played as id's mindless mousekillers. Yes, they were complex. Heretic? Please-- when did you last launch that dog?
And yes, I do *still* play System Shock 2 and Thief.
Game complexity, when done right, enriches and intensifies the experience without making you feel guilty for playing. id never really figured that out, even when handed to them (witness their internal schism over Doom 3 -vs- their first complex RPG). They'd rather someone else do it with their tools. id isn't gunning for the literate gamer. They're looking for the quick buck: they're the Spielberg of game design.
Whatever makes you money, John.
Game theory? (Score:3, Funny)
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)
My peeve: hoopsterism (Score:4, Interesting)
Enter the Matrix has fixed save points, and they aren't particularly well chosen. Too often you have to walk through meaninglessly easy -- but time-consuming -- parts of the game to get to the more challenging stuff. Then, if you fail at the challenging stuff, you die and have to walk through the boring stuff again. I personally believe that games should allow you to save whenever you want.
A racing game called "HSX: Hypersonic Extreme". It is a so-so racing game but comes with (what looks like) a nifty Track Editor so that you can build your own physics-defying tracks. Unfortunately all of the cool track features begin "locked" and must be unlocked by playing the standard tracks and coming in third or higher. I think the game designers erred tremendously, as the editor is not linearly connected to your prowess on the standard tracks and should not have been tied to it. It's just a case of the designers insisting I pay homage to their creativity, rather than allowing me free rein to explore my own.
Anyway, that's my two millisovereigns and I'm sticking by 'em.
Definition of a good game: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Imagination is paramount (Score:3, Interesting)
I only need to look at my own children as a way of highlighting this point. My eldest is child is 14, and the youngest is 8. The kids have a PlayStation, and their own PC's, which they play games on occasionally. I have built a MAME cabinet, which has a good cross section of games in it. The kids actually enjoy playing the older MAME games, more than the newer PS games, and are forever asking me to pull out my old Atari 2600. The key to the older games was that they focused more on game-play than whizz-bang realisim. In a way the chunky graphics are more realistic though, because they exist where the sun doesn't shine, the colours are always bright, and the perspective is perfect; inside your head.
Another trend I have noticed over the years, is that the machine ends up playing more than you do. I have often watch people playing what I call the newer style games, as on the Playstation, and X-Box. If you watch them, the character always seems to do more than the input from the player would seem to warrant. With many games, it seems that once you set a sequence in motion, the game takes over and completes the move, or sequence. There is nothing entertaining about that. In a similar way, a lot of games seem to be over sensitive in the area of user-input, and take ages to get a feel for the controls. This becomes very frustrating, very quickly.
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.
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.
Complex games not new (Score:3, Informative)
Bah. Elite had that in 1984. Two books, in fact!
The best games are complex and simple. (Score:4, Interesting)
The beauty of this is that the game becomes predictable of the player. He/she will not be frustrated by seemingly arbitrary rules, like in the old Sierra On-Line adventure games where standing on the wrong pixel would get you killed, but instead will understand the action and reaction that lead to the players demise and will learn to avoid it. You want the gamer to go "aah, of course!" instead of "what the fsck?!".
Also, since the game's complexity springs forth from the interactions between the rules rather than the rules themselves, you get what's called "emergent gaming", where the game mechanics appear between the lines through the complex interactions of those rules. This means that although the rules are simple and predictable, you have created a breeding ground for complex behavior goes beyond what the game designer himself may have envisioned.
It's a sad fact that games were more like this before the 3D-card revolution.
I understand why the industry want simpler games as they are trying to expand their customer base which today consist of mostly hard core gamers. Especially on the PC. There are plenty of examples of mainstream hits, but a hardcore gamer will often spend 10 times or more on games than a "causal gamer".
Since games are usually created by gamers who invariably create games that they would like to play themselves I remain confident that there will still be games I'll want to play in 10 years from now.
Simple, instantly playable games is the domain of handheld devices. Complex games fit better on the PC-platform. Consoles are somewhere in the middle. This is linked not only to how we use handhelds/consoles/PCs differently, but also to the technical limitations of the device.
complicated doesn't mean requires intelligence (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not really so much about difficulty (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, in this aspect games have been getting both more complex and more simple. Instruction manuals have often been replaced by increasingly fancy "walkthrough" or "tutorial" modes. At one point we had training missions, now you have a training mission wherein it pretty much points out (and often even dictates audibly) what you are supposed to do.
In games like Starcraft, Warcraft, etc each level was was not only often a ramp-up of skill, but of what you could do. By not overwhelming the player with too many things at once, you allow them to advance along and learn things level-by-level.
This isn't quite the same for FPS games, although it could be. Start with basic pistol shooting, add later levels with neato weapons, items etc, until the player gets used to the controls and past the babysitting stage. In RPG's, it runs both ways: FFX as an examplew with its "Sphere Grid" being a bit complicated, but giving you a step-through example at first that can be onerous to the experienced gamer.
Really, back in the day you'd get kids who player "Street Fighter" and just knew how to jump, punch, and kick. Eventually they graduated to special moves, maybe combos. Quite often people would read the manual looking up moves. How many people do read the manual nowadays? Perhaps the whole idea of just playing a game out-of-the-box is because of a laziness that has perpetrated on the part of the player, or is it because gaming has been infiltrated by a different crowd than the geeks that used to dominate it?
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
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:3, Funny)
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: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.
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, the irony of your post
Re:Today's players are too simple for the games (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Shareware fills that bill nicely (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're after arcade shooters, there are some good ones in shareware-land. Some are even worth the $5-10 contribution asked for, and have received mine.
There are also the occasional simplified arcade-style shooters like MDK2 or Tsunami 2265 that come out. Unfortunately, they get roasted royally in the reviews for their simplistic play style, plummet down the sales charts, and are lucky to break even on the development costs. (OTOH, some like Tsunami 2265 deserve a good roasting for stupid things lik
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.
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: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:I hope he was misquoted (Score:3, Interesting)
Any good game designer knows however that anytime that you have the player flip over to the in-game reference, it jolts you back to reality.
Re:Games (Score:3, Interesting)
And teleporters and the "long jump" only came in about 2/3 of the way through the game. Weapons were spread out perfectly... that game was good
Lots of games seem to throw in the Tutorial and intro levels as an afterthought. It's easy to spot the difference between, say, Return to Castle Wolfenstein (a typical shooter) and Max Payne (an original s