"If a player's not having fun, that might mean there's something wrong with the game. But it also might mean the player's simply playing the wrong game. Let's use design innovation to make them the right games, instead of trying to fix what ain't broke.As we look to the future, let's refine the traditions of our past, not regret them as design flaws just because they're frustrating to more moderate audiences. Those big babies should just go play Wii Fit or something."
Yeah. Yeah!! Go read my new Gamasutra editorial today, ya big babies. Because I'm kidding. Kinda.
Agree? See also Can Nintendo Take 'Accessibility' Too Far? and In Defense Of The Classic Controller.
24 comments:
I wasn't aware this was a point of contention. :/
I guess that means I agree.
Well, I'm not kidding! See all this recent stuff about games needing to provide open access to content because some people aren't good enough to access it through traditional means? This even includes bits of what Blow said recently too. Go play something else!
I like games that challenge me, and I know other people do too. When I receive a reward for doing well, I am pleased. When I can continue a story by completing challenges, I am pleased. I don't want hand-holding, I don't want easy-access; I want intuitive and I want enjoyable.
If I'm good at tiddly-winks, I don't expect to go to a chess tournament and a) kick ass or b) enjoy myself. Especially if Ifind that I'm crap at chess.
Should I stop playing chess or tell people that chess should be easier?
I love a challenge ( I am a bullet hell fanatic, even though I suck at those games ), but I am really tired of the elitist attitude of the so-called "hardcore" contingent. The existence of a "casual" market is in no way a threat to "hardcore" games or gamers. Peggle is not going to stop me from purchasing, and enjoying, Mushihimesama Futari.
Oftentimes, the presence of an "easy" mode allows devs to up the challenge on the core game mode. The new Contra titles are still a beastly challenge. Stephen Totlio's recent piece regarding New Super Mario Bros. Wii hinted at the title being significantly more difficult than the DS entry ( so much for the "kind code" defeating the purpose ). The "kind code", or any other similar device, is really no different than the Gameshark. This is nothing new, it is not killing gaming, the sky is not falling.
I liken the whole controversy to people who like to complain about movie remakes: does the existence of a remake prevent you from enjoying the original? No? Then why waste time complaining about it when you can be having a good time?
I will admit that I sometimes worry about too many concessions being made in game design to skew toward a more casual audience, but I maintain that the challenge will always be there for people who seek it out.
@Del - Yes, but you're not trying to feed your family by selling as many copies of chess as possible.
Ack! Get out of my brain!
You hit the nail right on with this article, just like every other article. It's getting creepy, almost.
It's like watching someone play a game without making a mistake. At first you're impressed, then you become mesmerized. Then you get baffled. Next you claim that such a feat is impossible!
I guess that's a compliment.
Bravo! I've been saying this (much less eloquently) for months.
I guess a good test of whether hardcore games are really becoming a niche or not is the new Demon's Souls. Critically acclaimed by everybody, and admittedly a controller breaker. Atlus' TOS indicated that the online servers are only promised for 6 months, so if the game's a flop, they're switching it off. Interesting to see if it catches on.
The current word on the Internet is that Demon's Souls is selling well.
@L
Well, actually, I'm a Games Designer! =)
All games have a target market; they won't make it past pitch without that. If you make a nice, easy game that anyone can easily play and complete, great! If you make a "hardcore" game (challenging, with the need for skill and determination) you are aiming for a different market. If someone from market A drops in for a game of title B, yes, he's probably not going to enjoy himself because he's playing the wrong type of game!
Compromises can be made, of course! Make an easy mode that anyone can get through. Make a hardcore mode that only the slickest can complete. I don't want my Ninja Gaiden or Demon Souls going the way of Alone in the Dark but I don't think that's ever going to be the case.
What I don't like is people new to gaming (or worse, people who "don't really play games") hopping into a game of reasonable difficulty and complaining when they aren't pushed to the finish-line in a pram. If an unfit, untrained man entered the triathlon, then complained that he couldn't get to the end, people would laugh and mock him.
I'm not even doing that. I'm just stating, to be clear, that they should attempt something more suited to them.
Me? I'm off to put a T-Rex in a stranglehold.
P.s. Good article, Leigh. As I direct comment on that rather than just the quote you've left here, I'm a firm proponent of design for a specific market. Sure, Facebook, Wii and Google are great because they're accessible to everyone. And, fair play to them, they make a packet! Good job!
But I am just as happy making games to fit particular interest groups. Without them, we are without Forza and Gran Turismo, FIFA and PES, DonPachi and Radiant Silvergun, Broken Sword and Sam & Max, Puzzle Quest and Plants vs Zombies. Making games of any kind is partly the desire to make something you're interested in into an enjoyable experience. If this only translates to other enthusiasts, well, I don't think it's a bad thing at all.
I suppose that, as a designer, sales aren't everything to me. Sure, I try to make games that loads of people can enjoy but, as you rightly pointed out, you can't cater for everyone. If you try, you can end up not appealing to anyone.
PS.
I'd just like to add that my previous post was in no way intended to be critical of the article, which I quite enjoyed.
@Del
As a fellow game designer I must admit I'm impressed by your commitment to catering to your target audience, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to (metaphorically) hold up a hand to anyone and say "Sorry, but you're just not committed enough to enjoy what I have to offer." It's truly a personal ethos, but one thing I do wonder... industry-types get beseiged by the hardcore all the time when their new game is perceived as "too casual" because the hardcore typically know how to get in touch with the developers and aren't shy about expressing their tastes. How would you go about explaining yourself to a casual gamer who's spent $40 on your game and is now thoroughly pissed off because it's just too far past their innate skill level? How would you look him/her in the eye and say 'sorry, but you're not good enough for this right now'? (I'm not being aggressive, I'm genuinely curious!)
@Del - Also having re-read your previous comment I get the impression you may have thought "L" stood for "Leigh". If that's the case let me assure you that it doesn't, I'm just too lazy to sign up!
"Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia."
- Kurt Vonnegut, "Bagombo Snuff Box"
@L
Don't worry, didn't mistake you for Leigh. The second post was directed at her, the first was all you!
In answer to your question, honestly? I like designing games that are accessible, to a point. If I design something that I consider to be of a reasonable difficulty and a casual (yes, let's use the word casual) gamer struggles with it to the point where they give up one of three things have happened:
A) I've messed up somehow
B) They are truly awful at the game
C0 They are not trying hard enough
If it's A, I'd apologise and talk about how they think I could go about changing things to make it better. This is possible but I've gotta hope I'm a good designer or I wouldn't be doing the job and selling games.
If it's B, I'd try to offer some simple pointers and tell them where they were going wrong. This is the most unlikely of the three options.
If it's C, I'd ask them if they've actually learnt HOW to play the game.
Now, if I make a "hardcore" game and a casual gamer comes up to me and asks me why it was so far beyond them, I'd tell them about some games that might be more their style. I will not apologise for a good game that is difficult, that other people can play and enjoy but some can't. That's like being too politically correct.
Same thing if I made a casual game that some hardcore fans complained was too easy.
Anything in between and the difficulty is a conscious choice.
To end, I'd like to say that even if you don't think of games as an art form, being devoted to making them the best they can be is at the very least a passion. If you're not willing to hold your hands up to your detractors and say "Hey, that's the way I meant it, why aren't you enjoying it?", how can you be proud of your game? If someone doesn't have the skill to play your game but loads of people do, and love it, why on earth would you consider it a failure?
The article reminds me of something you hear in almost any class lecture on writing or presentation: Know your audience. If you're not clear who your audience is, then it's really hard to craft a speach that doesn't either bore your audience to tears with information they already know or go right over there by presuming they know to much. This is the same dilemma of the gaming tutorial. I don't need a first person shooter to tell me how AWSD is for moving, mouse is for looking and shooting. I've played games my whole life and I pick up the new ones easy. A new gamer may need that extra help though. And you're right, they probably won't be motivated to learn unless it's built into the gameplay so they don't know they are learning.
Perhaps with more marketing research it will be possible to do some cluster analyses or something that identify the major groups of gamers and then design games where every element caters to that kind of gamer. The population of gamers is too diverse now for one game to please everyone. But if game designers try to do a little of what they want, a little mass appeal pandering, a little hardcore pandering, etc. then the games just get too inconsistent and don't really please anyone. Know your audience.
a little frustration—not too much—is essential... and not just because I'm old school... but because that's usually what works best. you get me thinking about active vs. passive entertainment... there is a definite shift towards 'easy, but really really long'... but make the games too easy and it turns into a spectator sport. hmm... *twirls non-existent mustache*
So, different strokes for different folks, huh?
Moving on to the quote:
"If a player's not having fun, that might mean there's something wrong with the game. But it also might mean the player's simply playing the wrong game."
Another interesting possibility is that the player may be playing the right game but in the wrong way, or with the wrong mentality. As a developer, though, how do you get the player to understand what the right mindset is? Tricky, very tricky.
Yea this is basically how it works, nice article
A well made point... Nice article too...
Ultimately this seems to be to be a marketing/business issue rather than a game design one. As someone above said, know your audience. Target the right style of game at the right people, and you don't need to worry about "compromising" on your design.
I couldn't agree more with this post. I think you were very articulate about it, even though this should be common sense, it really isn't.
I've seen game companies scouring forums and hustling to quickly re-vamp their upcoming title because someone doesn't like a feature. But it's usually a stupid move resulting in bugs, delays, and often splinter's the game's entire purpose.
Well said.
As Christopher Braithwaite pointed out in the ensuing discussion at Gamasutra, users of many interests and abilities will be drawn to the same game for different reasons. Given this truth, I air on the side of variety in the marketplace.
Why shouldn't there be a catering to some consumers who want AAA production epics that anyone can play from start to finish? What's wrong with that?
Are you seriously in favor of telling such consumers that their "proper spheres" lie in other genres and that they have no right to be able to complete AAA production epics?
I cannot even begin to explain why such an attitude is so spectacularly wrongheaded.
When the economic structure of the industry is rectified and costs come down, this will all be moot anyway. Some developers of traditional games will include the option of easier difficulty settings, others won't. Some developers will adhere to the idea that their traditional offerings are meant for the enthusiast consumer, others will put out accessible experiences wrapped in the trappings of traditional genres.
Everyone will get what they want, so let's stop trying to dictate to others how they should enjoy game experiences or what they are supposed to appreciate about them.
is this sexy? http://www.sexy-bitch.nl
Post a Comment