"Necessary Complexity" in Online Games 95
Massively is running a story about Google's short-lived virtual environment, Lively. The article examines why Lively shut down so quickly, and how its simplicity and its attempts at user-friendliness did more harm than good. Quoting:
"The idea here is that any interactive system has a certain amount of complexity, usually involving the number and type of tasks which can be performed. Obviously, it is detrimental if the interaction interface is more complicated than it needs to be. That just makes things harder. What's a little less obvious is that reducing the complexity of the interaction interface too far makes things harder as well. Either it makes it hard to perform the tasks, or it reduces the number of tasks which can be performed. ... ideally the interaction interface needs to be of an order of complexity that is coupled to the order of complexity of the number and type of possible tasks. If it rises above that or falls below that, performing tasks becomes harder. Performing tasks with an oversimplified interaction-interface is like trying to make coffee with one hand tied behind your back. Overcomplicating it is like trying to instruct five people to build a shed, when none of you have any language in common."
Re:Um (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The hey is Lively? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hold on a second... (Score:3, Funny)
From what I hear it's "getting virtually laid".
Which leads me to "it's not just that goals have to be achiveable, you also have to want to achive them to make the whole thing good"...
Re:Screw that. (Score:3, Funny)
There's just no practical way to give players enough original content to satiate their demands, and hold their interest for long periods of time. So, advancement through the game is deliberately slowed.
They should hire Chinese gold farmers to play NPCs.