I'm annoyed that everyone who puts out a game of some kind nowadays seems to think that simplifying things makes it better. Deus Ex 2 was a simplified version of Deus Ex 1. Daggerfall > Morrowind > Oblivion. 1st edition D&D with all the trimmings > 2nd edition D&D > 3rd edition D&D. Rogue Spear > FPS style Rainbow Six where it's both very possible and expected for Ding Chavez to Rambo the whole level himself.
The way I see it if you simplify a game you're providing less stuff for the player to explore and work with...you're providing less game. There's less to think about, there's less replay value, and the game world seems less real.
There are some games from the 80s and 90s which I can go back and play even today because they're really complex. There's lots of ways to win, lots of ways to lose, lots to think about. Midwinter is one example. That game had lots of world-level strategy with military units, supply lines, and logistical problems the player would have to overcome. It also had arcade-style combat which needed to be engaged in only when strategically sensible. Finally, it had role playing elements where certain characters could only recruit other characters with whom they had good relations and where individual characters needed to deal with food, rest, morale, and injury levels. Go and read up on it at Underdogs if you're not familiar: http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=721
Nowadays, most prominent strategy games are Dune 2 style with the emphasis on clicking really fast to mass produce the most units and you have a lot of attention paid to graphics and sound effects. In effect, the strategy is simplified. When you're playing Warcraft you don't sit around scratching your head wondering *what* to do. That's obvious; instead it's about your ability to just make it happen through your gameplay ability.
When I look back and see just how glorious earlier titles were in all their complexity I really wonder why the paradigm today seems to be towards simplification and dumbing down. I hear the word "accessible" thrown around a lot. To me, that just sounds like a cop out. It seems like it lets a game designer put less work into the planning the product by making the excuse that a game with less meat is automatically going to sell more copies because most peoples' brains explode if they try to think.
But.... thinking does hurt some brains. Gaming is a business. Selling more games is 'good'. Easier games sell to more people than hard games. So easier games are more attractive to the grey-suited accountants who run the businesses.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15660_ultimate-war-simulation-game.html.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| http://www.cracked.com/article_15660_ultimate-war-simulation-game.html. |
About video games, I think it's because too complex games require to spend a lot of time learning how it works (maybe even forcing the player to read the user manual).
This would lead to bad reviews ("The interface is far too complex") from reviewers who didn't spend enough time to master the game and so couldn't enjoy it.
Reminds me of 'Die by The Sword', a medieval beat them all where the player had full control over the sword-holding hand. The problem was that it took a lot of time to master it, and most players would get frustrated before that.
A few years later came 'Severance : Blade of Darkness' which had just one attack button, and some combos/special attacks which the player unlocked as he gained levels. The player could start playing right away and learn how to play better during the course of the game instead of having to learn everything from the beginning.
And in the end, even if Die by The Sword gave more control to the player, I'm not sure the gameplay was any better.
Accessibility is a reason, though. Several years ago, the video gaming market was made of hardcore gamers and geeks who had as much fun freeing 640k conventional memory without using EMS as playing the actual game. People who loved complex systems and could play for hours.
Nowadays, video gaming is more casual, so you want your games to be more accessible so that everyone can enjoy them.
Sure, some games suffer from that. Today, you can't do a turn-based game without it being qualified as "backward", "old-style" or "boring"... But it's still the best way for a real strategy/tactical game.
As for PnP RPG, there was a trend in the 70s/80s when game systems were designed to be as realistic as possible. This led to terribly complex rule systems, where you needed a scientific calculator to play and each and every action had you roll on 3 different tables. One combat turn took 1 hour (or even more, "After 2 hours spent computing and drawing on a whiteboard the location of each and every missile in game, the GM turned back to us and said 'ok, let's start combat turn 2'.")...
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that complex PnP RPG rules are bad (I'd say it depends on the game itself), but that more complex rules don't necessarily mean better rules.
| QUOTE |
| Nowadays, video gaming is more casual, so you want your games to be more accessible so that everyone can enjoy them. |
See, I disagree with the initial statement that simplified means less.
A simplified game system reduces the learning curve, making the game easier for everyone to learn, and making it so you can focus on the setting, characters, and role-playing instead of learning rules.
I'm not saying that that's all I want, but I KEENLY enjoy running Lacuna Part 1 currently, an RPG with 3 stats, 9 skills, and about 20 abilities for characters. The entire system uses the same difficulty for all rolls. It's simple. When I run a game, I can sit down with a player, have a character written for them in 3 minutes, and then a basic description of the game and setting in 7. Ten minutes later he's in the game and it all makes sense (well, as much sense as any game set in the Jungian subconscious should make).
That said, there's more material for 3e D&D than there ever was for 1eAD&D - the game is far from 'simpler', it's just easier.
| QUOTE (Blade) |
| About video games, I think it's because too complex games require to spend a lot of time learning how it works (maybe even forcing the player to read the user manual). This would lead to bad reviews ("The interface is far too complex") from reviewers who didn't spend enough time to master the game and so couldn't enjoy it. Reminds me of 'Die by The Sword', a medieval beat them all where the player had full control over the sword-holding hand. The problem was that it took a lot of time to master it, and most players would get frustrated before that. A few years later came 'Severance : Blade of Darkness' which had just one attack button, and some combos/special attacks which the player unlocked as he gained levels. The player could start playing right away and learn how to play better during the course of the game instead of having to learn everything from the beginning. And in the end, even if Die by The Sword gave more control to the player, I'm not sure the gameplay was any better. Accessibility is a reason, though. Several years ago, the video gaming market was made of hardcore gamers and geeks who had as much fun freeing 640k conventional memory without using EMS as playing the actual game. People who loved complex systems and could play for hours. Nowadays, video gaming is more casual, so you want your games to be more accessible so that everyone can enjoy them. Sure, some games suffer from that. Today, you can't do a turn-based game without it being qualified as "backward", "old-style" or "boring"... But it's still the best way for a real strategy/tactical game. As for PnP RPG, there was a trend in the 70s/80s when game systems were designed to be as realistic as possible. This led to terribly complex rule systems, where you needed a scientific calculator to play and each and every action had you roll on 3 different tables. One combat turn took 1 hour (or even more, "After 2 hours spent computing and drawing on a whiteboard the location of each and every missile in game, the GM turned back to us and said 'ok, let's start combat turn 2'.")... Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that complex PnP RPG rules are bad (I'd say it depends on the game itself), but that more complex rules don't necessarily mean better rules. |
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
And that's a really good quote to be honest. Simple doesn't mean *bad*, one of my favorite 'boardgames' has simple, uncomplicated mechanics, but its fun, fast to play, has a depth of tactics and is in every way better than panzerblitz.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| http://www.cracked.com/article_15660_ultimate-war-simulation-game.html. |
While I understand Ronin’s frustration with certain genres of games seeming to have become massively dumbed-down over time, I think I’m going to have to disagree with both the extent and specific content of his complaints. There are a lot of pressure factors being brought to bear on gaming, so I think I’ll try and refute the assumptions of WR’s post, as well as shed some light on why it is that things seem to be getting more simplified, dumbed down, or whatever you wanna call it.
| QUOTE |
| I'm annoyed that everyone who puts out a game of some kind nowadays seems to think that simplifying things makes it better. Deus Ex 2 was a simplified version of Deus Ex 1. Daggerfall > Morrowind > Oblivion. 1st edition D&D with all the trimmings > 2nd edition D&D > 3rd edition D&D. Rogue Spear > FPS style Rainbow Six where it's both very possible and expected for Ding Chavez to Rambo the whole level himself. |
| QUOTE |
| The way I see it if you simplify a game you're providing less stuff for the player to explore and work with...you're providing less game. There's less to think about, there's less replay value, and the game world seems less real. |
| QUOTE |
| Nowadays, most prominent strategy games are Dune 2 style with the emphasis on clicking really fast to mass produce the most units and you have a lot of attention paid to graphics and sound effects. In effect, the strategy is simplified. When you're playing Warcraft you don't sit around scratching your head wondering *what* to do. |
| QUOTE |
| When I look back and see just how glorious earlier titles were in all their complexity I really wonder why the paradigm today seems to be towards simplification and dumbing down. I hear the word "accessible" thrown around a lot. To me, that just sounds like a cop out. It seems like it lets a game designer put less work into the planning the product by making the excuse that a game with less meat is automatically going to sell more copies because most peoples' brains explode if they try to think. |
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)