Wounded Ronin
Jan 17 2008, 02:55 AM
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=721Nowadays, 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.
pbangarth
Jan 17 2008, 03:24 AM
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.
Blade
Jan 17 2008, 11:41 AM
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.
Critias
Jan 17 2008, 12:45 PM
| QUOTE |
| Nowadays, video gaming is more casual, so you want your games to be more accessible so that everyone can enjoy them. |
This one hit the nail on the head. It's not just "video gamers" that play video games any more. Almost everyone does. Hell, with the Wii on the market, everyone does (people that would never be interested in gaming before are merrily playing tennis and golf and bowling with their kids and grandkids, all while decrying the evils of "those other games").
So: the exclusivity of gaming is gone. Big companies know this, and try to make games that will appeal to as many people as possible (instead of aiming their illicit wares only at "gamers"). Never forget that almost half of all humanity are of below average intelligence -- as such, for the most games to appeal to the most people, they need to be simple enough in their gameplay and plot that any retard with $50 can buy it, be blown away by how much fun he has mashing the vaguely right button at the vaguely right time, and tell his retarded friends how awesome it is (so they'll go buy it to).
And then pen and paper games had to follow suit, to stay alive. Compared to the awesome graphics and fast gameplay and all that zany junk that even "RPG" video games offer (nevermind how stuff like Halo or Gears of War and the Clancy games might cut into the run-and-gun "I love Street Sams and Adepts" gunbunny crowd of RPG gamers)...well, yeah. If you want to keep your dice-slinging customers slinging dice and buying your products, sadly, dumbing down your game to make it "more accessible" is the answer. Wargames have done the same, so it's not like video games and table-top RPGs are the exceptions...
It's a dumb bastard's world. And they're inheriting it right in front of our eyes.
HellHound
Jan 17 2008, 02:28 PM
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.
Wounded Ronin
Jan 18 2008, 01:16 AM
| 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. |
Just ordered Die By The Sword from amazon.com! Hopefully I can get it to work OK on my new system.
Cthulhudreams
Jan 18 2008, 01:20 AM
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.
Kyoto Kid
Jan 18 2008, 01:40 AM
...used to love playing Flying Buffalo's
Nuclear War and the expansions
Nuclear Escalation and
Nuclear Proliferation. Not complex by any means but a hell of a lot of fun.
In 2005 the game celebrated it's 40th anniversary with the release of a signed and numbered limited edition set.
Linky:
FB's Nuclear War"
It's the end of the world as we know it. and I feel fine..."
--R.E.M.
Adarael
Jan 18 2008, 11:33 PM
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. |
Discounting D&D3rd, each of the games you listed has a different reason for simplifying the game experience, and none of them was because they thought the game experience would be “better� – or at least not in the way you mean. Invisible War and Oblivion were both simplified so that they could be played on a console without resorting to insane navigation techniques. Oblivion specifically was a result of the complaints levied against the Xbox Morrowind. Interestingly, they dumbed it down too much and are now developing Fallout 3 independently for both 360 and PC, so that less people will be upset by the simplified UI of the 360 version. In terms of Rogue Spear, the shift in Rainbow Six occurred when Ubisoft bought Red Storm Entertainment. RSE didn’t develop R6: Vegas, Ubisoft Montreal did, and the game definitely shows their design philosophy. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, I’m saying an entirely new team of people made the game. I think if we handed Shadowrun over to, say, John Tynes and the Unknown Armies people we’d also have a similar but different-in-the-details game. I really don’t like the idea of simplifying games so that they are more for the console crowd, but that’s just a facet of modern game development.
For the record, Ding Chavez was able to Rambo all but about 3 missions in Rogue Spear. As long as you don’t have to flash bang multiple rooms at once, he’s good to go.
As for D&D 1st… I don’t know what you’re smoking. AD&D was a lot more complex than 3rd, yes. But that’s because it was organized like crap, made no sense, had little internal consistency, and relied on totally counterintuitive mathematics. What makes Priests better at resisting rods, staves, or wands than a mage? 3rd was a gross improvement over both AD&D sets, because you could actually made character decisions. 3rd is defined by a ruleset that tells you what you can do. AD&D was very, very defined by telling you what you couldn’t – and often, the rules seemed completely arbitrary. Granted, you could ignore those rules, but if you do that, why have the argument at all?
| 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. |
Fundamentally, I do agree with this. But recognize there are limits. Just because you can include a gameplay feature doesn’t mean you should. Would your enjoyment of XCom have been improved if the game had included romantic interactions between squadmembers? The ability to engage the enemy in flight-sim style combat? Infected wounds, PTSD, arrests of XCom units for killing civilians? I don’t think mine would have. Likewise, I don’t think my enjoyment of Mass Effect would have been increased in any way by making the game’s combat more like a traditional RPG’s. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it would have decreased, because the style of the game would have been radically altered if combat was designed to be stop and start.
| 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. |
Have you tried Company of Heroes? World in Conflict? Supreme Commander? Or any of the Close Combat games, for that matter? None of these games play like what you’re describing, and I think a that’s a large part of why they’ve been so successful. I don’t dispute what you’re saying about a lot of modern RTS games, but I think that’s more a factor of games like Starcraft and Warcraft 2 being so successful – what you’re describing is “Blizzard Syndrome�, because that’s one of the major failings of their RTSes. I’ve heard really good things about those games from people who don’t like Blizzard style RTSes.
| 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. |
Critias has the right of it here – video games aren’t just for gamers any more. They’re for everybody. And an everyman probably isn’t willing to put in the time figuring out the precisely best way to optimize my team in Xcom the way I am. If you’re trying to expand your market, you think of ways to make things more fun for the average joe, and a lot of the time that means ‘less technical’. Sometimes that works, like Mass Effect. Sometimes it doesn’t and people demand you change it back, like Oblivion. It’s only a ‘cop out’ if you regard allowing players transparent view of the game mechanics to be the goal, and that’s honestly not a goal for most designers or players. Just because you can’t see the mechanics doesn’t mean the designers didn’t put just as much work (or more) in doing things like improving AI, fine-tuning the backend math, stuff like that.
A fine example of that kind of design esthetic is Master of Orion III. People hated MoO 3 because it was ‘dumbed down’ and it wasn’t as ‘technical’ as MoO 2. But they’re wrong, actually. It’s much more complex and much more technical than MoO 2, but 90% of players never saw that because it wasn’t what they were expecting and consequently, they hated it. The factors you can tweak to affect races, diplomacy, population growth, et cetera are about 3-4 times more numerous than MoO2, but since the game designed for macromanagement rather than micromanagement, you never directly see the raw numbers. Similarly, people bitched that you had no control over planetary growth and construction when the opposite was true – you had much finer control providing you learned the macromanagement tools. The number of contingencies and event-adaptive plans you can enact in MoO 3 is truly staggering. Shame it was buggy as hell. I still love it best, tho.
So I see where you’re coming from, WR, but I don’t agree with you. I understand your complaints and empathise with them, but the ‘problem’ isn’t as widespread as you’d think.