Slashdot Mirror
Carmack on New id Game, Game Theory
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.'"
I can't ever beat this new game I have, called 'pong'.
It has to be said.
After years of learning to use only four neurons, today's game players can't even pickup the basics of the current crop of games.
There should be special remedial classes for game players, so that they can find their basic game-playing skills again. Perhaps we can get Federal funding for this programme, after all it is of vital national intere...
Oh, games. Right.
Next article, please.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
But that may be because I refuse to get rid of my rocking Voodoo3 3500!!! I install new game, it crashes... I swear a bit, then go back to coding. These new games are really improving my coding skills.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Having the controls explained to you, etc. before hand can really eat up a lot of practice time. For example, how many of us stuffed quarter after quarter into Defender before we figured out how to move and shoot at the same time?
Is it called Duke Nukem For-Never?
---
Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
I now play video games on my chainsaw XL+ Special Edition! I take the chainsaw, put it on top of the game, turn it on, and just start playing. In fact, the experience is similar with all games, so buy the cheap ones.
This is why I still play tetris.
Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
For me, the main question isn't whether the game is "simple", or "deep", it's how the learning curve is implemented in the game.
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.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I don't see how this is surprising. Simplicity has always been key in the id games. When everyone else was doing "action" buttons, id still had you bumping into buttons to open doors.
This simplicity and accessibility has earned them fans who don't like complicated games - they just want to play.
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.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
not been too hard for players? Especially those Gradius type games.
Less intelligent? I'm sick of every game they make being point and shoot. Compare HL to Quake 3, or even RTCW. People don't want pure shoot-em-ups.
Hmm I dunno if complicated is the word I'd use. I do feel, though, that not enough attention is paid to the UI in many cases. I remember when Zelda 64 came out, I was shocked that Link would jump automatically just by walking to the edge. No more jump button. *Whew* I was happy about that. No more worrying about hitting the button at the right time.
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?"
"Derp de derp."
to spending hours trying to beat ET for the atari 2600, only to keep falling back into the pits.
stuff
To continue the RPG complexity discussion: Final Fantasy I, on NES, was a blast: you chose characters, picked from a small selection of spells, and in general wandered wherever you wanted.
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.
Design for Use, not Construction!
I am in. Sometimes I just need to load up a quick game where I can blast anything that moves; and other times I want a game with a bit more depth. I think the industry defenitely has both genres right now...so I fail to see what he is really griping about.
I agree. I play a MMORPG called "Legend of Mir". MIR2 was coded in delphi and operates at 800x600@8bit. Ironically, even after Mir3, which uses 3d acceleration and 16bit graphics, mir2 still holds as the top game in china. The reason really is because of the complexity. They added a large number of additions to mir3 take made the game much more difficult to play, much more to do simple tasks.. Its why only about 300,000 players in china play mir3 over the 700,000 on mir2.
:) Personally I rather MIR2, but mostly because i'm lazy ;) (MIR2: http://www.mir2.co.kr (korean) - http://www.legendofmir.net (english) MIR3: http://www.mir3.co.kr (korean) http://www.legendofmir3.co.kr (no (official) english sites (though the server software has been leaked for months now)))
Then again, mir2 totally flopped in English countries, but mir3 seems to hold promise. Maybe us americans and (the) brits rather complicated games?
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
The last game I actually 'beat' - without cheat codes - was Final Fantasy... 1... I feel old and/or stupid.
---
Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
Reminds me of my recent experience learning (with everyone else) how to play Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
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!
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Hahahahah, it's funny, because the game hasn't come out in a long time! That's HALARIOUS! Because I've never heard a joke like that before, never!
Banaaaana!
Just my opinion.. I am not a game fanatic..
With the growing trend of the more advanced game playing age groups spending more time online and less time watching tv (I am one of this group) I have yet to see much online advertisment that would even incline me to click to a games website.
If I watch less TV these days, and don't see any advertisments online that are complelling - then I am left in the dark. I kid you not that I am almost 100% out of the loop these days with games.
Perhaps they should target the more advanced games to the online majority more and they will get the attention of the more tech savy people who only play good games and not Mario Kart.
Maybe some more advertisments in theaters on the big screen? I thought I saw some of them a while ago but they stopped...
I think the main problem I see is the lack of new methods of games being shown to users. TV commercials are great for some, but what percentage skips commercials - and what percentage is just online? Much Music (canadian) is good for advertisments afaik.. but I think there is a *lost* generation of gamers out there...
What happened to all those gamers TV shows that used to air weekly? I don't get any with basic cable?
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
You know, when I look back at the thousands of games I've played, two distinct groups stand out.
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
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
The people who play FPS games are usually not the same group of people who play RPGs (the pen and paper type) and people often forget that.
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.
-twb
The most popular computer game is, of course, Solitaire. It grates me to no end that so many games have come & gone, but people keep going back to Solitaire. It's a simple game.
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)
I agree it just needs a good learning curve. Or just an optional training program. Half life's was especially well done. Special extra's should be introduced after basics are mastered though.
Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
I wonder how many levels there will be, and what they will be called, when virtual sex games hit the shelves?
Level One - Virgin, Level Fifty - Mega Galaxia Nightstrobe
i don't think including a use key would be too much.
while i don't like to "use" a door, i found it useful in HL because it immersed me in the puzzles. it's nice when one feels a part of the game world, not just a passer by.
i know that doom3 is not supposed to be a game to rule all games, but more of the engine promo, it would still be nice if it was immersive as well as fun.
on the sidenote, this is the first time i heard of quake4. will it be using the doom3 engine, and would anyone like to bet if it would come out before DNF?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Point and Kill is great if you are teaching zombies to assemble widgets at minimum wage?
Why the need for all the pseudo-intellectual debates on "whither gaming?" If Carmack and whoever else think that there's a demand for simple games, then they should build them. If there really is a strong demand for such games, he/they will make a lot of money (or even more money, in the case of Mr. Carmack). Meanwhile, other developers will make more complex games that appeal to other segments of the market, and make money that way. It's really quite simple.
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.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
"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.'"
How about a choose your own adventure book? Then they just ship you the book, no cumbersome games to deal with.
You might say "But that's the whole point with a city simulation; chaos. Maybe. But once you realize that no one player could possibly micromanage so many details it gets frustrating and boring. Simcity 4 should be played by a computer. I remember being a kid and picking up Simcity for the SNES and I got right into it. It was easy but that didn't mean it wasn't interesting.
Shite. Look at any game on the NES. When you were a kid you threw the manual and the box away. You didn't need a manual to figure out how to play Excitebike or Balloon Fight. Now I have to keep a library of game manuals and a separate library of strategy manuals just to play a game like Civilization III.
The only genre that hasn't been affected by this is the FPS. Once you've learned WASD you're all set. I love that feeling of loading a brand new game and just knowing how to play it. The last time I felt that way I was playing Medal of Honor.
Then of course there's the in game tutorial which has become standard. Except for the tutorial in Black and White (which doubled as an introduction) which was really well done I get so bored listening to and reading the instructions. I just want to play.
It's still not so bad on the consoles. I have a Cube and I love it. Games like Pikmin and Animal Cracker have short little manuals on the interface; the rest of the game is up to you. Miyamoto is a genius like that. One or two buttons and that's all you need to know to interface with the game. F-Zero is out Tuesday. Will I have to read the manual? No. I'll even bet I know what the manual will say: A: Accelerator. B: Boost. L/R: Hard Steer. Simple. Will I be hooked on it for months? Yes.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
What ever happened to platform games or scrolling shooters like Raiden? Maybe they've turned into 3D world games but scrolling shooters have completely died. I never got into the first person shooters or street fighter copy cat games. Other than that the only good games coming out are car racing games and sports... but that's just me.
--
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
[Role playing games], for example, got to where they had to have a book ship with the game.
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?
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
I'll be the first to say I love John's work and I've got a lot of friends at id Software. But I have to say this is *the* stupidest thing that I have heard him say. I hope that it was taken out of context or something, because it takes a real meathead to say this.
I mean, c'mon. For 25 years RPGs have always been about the books, the manuals, the spellbooks, the monster compendiums. If my RPG didn't come with a book, I'd be a little worried. In fact, when I purchased a used Wizardry 8 without the manual, I nearly lost it.
John, tell me that we're just misunderstanding you. Tell me that CNN is pulling a NYT stunt. You can't be serious. Can you?
Guys, don't get me wrong, I love FPS and can sit there for hours, but its time for something new. What ever happened to creativity in games? Marble Madness. Tempest. Hell even Pacman was original. It's time for a new genre. I'd even be happier if the word genre was never used in terms of video games today. Make something new and interesting, I'll buy it. I'm sure there are plenty of others that feel the same way.
Dreams are better as dreams than reality.
but i always liked games where you were actually led through the game. obviously, there are games that offer virtually unlimited complexity like chess and go, but computer games are quite different. obviously, it is harder to guide a player instead of just creating a bunch of levels he has to get through (which isn't easy either), and arguing about controls is not the right way to go, here.
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.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Carmack has traditionally taken the stance of environment and fast-paced action over character development and gameplay. This is nothing new.
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.
Robotron is hard and yet an addicting experience that keeps you pushing wave to wave... you die... and you continue... and you progressively get better... FPS multiplayer games are frustrating to me because I don't have six hours a day at work to spend honing my mouse aiming skills against a human opponent that logs more man hours than it takes to fly a commercial plane in one week. I play games to relieve stress... not to be beat into submission at entry level... thats why I find the multiplayer experience to be more and more what I can't deal with. I don't mind leisurely putting an hour or two in a week on something like Neverwinter Nights. Because I use it as an escape from the real world. Playing online you have to deal with the exact same attitudes you deal in the real world... if not worse because of the fourth wall and the ids gone wild. at least with a complicated single player experience you can save face.
Well AFAIK , Carmack just makes first person shooters .
.
.
.
.
.
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
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Your comment is so painfully wrong that I cannot post my initial thoughts if I dont want to be labeled flamebait.
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
I always liked the first one the best. The more complicated it got, the more I seemed distracted from the ultimate goal of conquering the universe. I seen got tired of having to micromanage all the colonies in the second game, especially towards the end when I had dozens of colonies. It was tedious, and seemed pointless. The original just had little sliders to adjust, it took seconds to do and did not even take me away from the main screen. Other good things included limiting the ship designs to six, and stacking the same ships together to simplify battles. It also kept me from having to constantly redesign ships, because with the 6 design limit, once you hit 6 you couldn't create a new design without scrapping an old one. And with a maximum of 6 possible stacks ships you'd have to command in battle, battles went a lot more quicker than the 80+ ship battles of MOO2 that would take a half hour it seemed.
Also, in general, computers are stupid. The simplier the game is, the easier it is to program a good AI for it. Programming a computer to play you in checkers is far easier than chess, for example. The original Master of Orion's AI did have some huge faults, but it was pretty decent. The second game's AI was just a moron, and cheated massively in order to stay competitive beyond the easiest setting. I didn't get a good feel for the third game's AI however. With internet gaming this is not as much of an issue, but when I do have to play a computer, the computer is generally much better at playing simpler games. And it is much more enjoyable to play an AI that has some skill, instead of one that cheats to make up for it's massive stupidity.
...is when as the strongest points of the game they mention:
"There are many expansion packs expected"...
In short that means you get bare bones, a game engine with barely playable content and unless you pay more for selected "expansion pack", playablity is just enough to encourage you to pay for more.
More and more newly released games are more "demo products" than real games.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Carmack's games aren't exactly known for their intricate plots or gameplay.
You don't need a book to play RPG games! It's lame to count lines and words on given page anyway! Just get a crack instead!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Scrolling shooters -> FPP shooters
Text adventures -> Adventure (Sierra) -> cRPG
Labyrinth -> 3PP adventures (Tomb Rider)
Any other examples?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
one of these interviews with will be worth reading
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I totally agree with John in some of what he says. Games these days are too complex at times. The average MMORPG takes a few weeks, at the least, to really get the hang of. Some RPGs are even rather complex in terms of play mechanics, character advancement, UI manipulation, etc. However, while games may have a steep learning curve, they REALLY are lacking in the depth and difficulty of the games of yester-year.
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?!
Trent Polack
www.polycat.net
There are several games that allow you play online. The PS2 with the network addon, and the XBox all have sports games (Madden, et.al) and FPS games (SOCOM) that allow multiplay online. You can even replace the control pad with a keyboard and mouse. The graphics resolution on the PC is still better than the on the TV
Like pi? Try 10,000 digits.
OK, yeah, Nethack is becoming the "Beowulf cluster of these" and the "BSD is dying" of role playing games on Slashdot. But it definitely has the best learning curve, especially if you use vi (which came first, anyway?). It's easily the most complex of any game I've ever played. Things like:
1) Stepping on a water trap turns some of your scrolls into blank paper.
2) Dipping a rusty sword in oil can remove some of the rust.
3) Scratching rocks on gems can help you determine the gem type.
That's complexity.
There's no graphics to speak of, but it's almost eerie how a '&' on the other side of a wall can make you nervous.
System Shock 1/2
Morrowind
Deus EX
Freespace 1/2
to name a few
One of the biggest most effective things they have done with complex games, is include in-game training manual missions. Those training missions are fragging invaluable.
Morrowind would have been an even better game with more trainer mission build-up (especially for alchemy).
An especially complex game does well by having training missions that come in stages, as the game gets progressively harder and you need to access the more complex features. See: Freespace 2.
I cannot overemphasize this enough: proper training missions can make any complex game very enjoyable.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I really miss the days of side scrolling games such as Super Mario Bros, Sonic, EWJ, etc. That's the main reason why I bought a Gameboy Advance, because it's the only real source of those games left.
I like playing games, but I do have a life. I can't spend too much time getting into it. Just point, shoot, kill. Let me find new stuff to kill for 15-20 hours and I will feel I've had my money's worth.
Then I go online and play the same game I just learned against others and it doesn't matter that it doens't stay new. If it is a good game, live people as opponents will keep it interesting.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The funny part is not in the idea, it's in the playing on words... forget about becoming an humorist, btw...
Of course. How else does one know the rules?
;)
To date, I have yet to see a computerized roleplaying game released by a commercial entity.
Roleplaying has nothing to do with levels, hit points, experience points, what have you. Roleplaying is about the story - specifically, what you choose to do with your specific character with regard to that story. (And if your character is killed, well, that sucks - but the story, like the world, continues on without you.)
Almost everything under the label 'RPG' to date, on console or computer, has been nothing more than a linear plot with hyped up mini-games. Your choices do not affect the story whatsoever. Oh, sure, some games have dialogue options, some have a 'good ending' and a 'bad ending', but in the end, you're stuck fighting Bob the Good Guy Boss or Fred the Bad Guy Boss, and then watching the credits roll.
That ain't roleplaying. Playing an interactive novel, sure.
There's two exceptions I've seen so far, and one isn't under the genre of RPG.
The first? Grand Theft Auto 3. Yes, that's right. GTA3, you can say, "Screw the plotline.", and simply murder, steal, et cetera until your heart's content. Yet even that isn't open ended. (Can't kill Asuka, after all.)
The second? Neverwinter Nights. I'd say that it's possible to achieve actual roleplaying with that game - however, you'd need one hell of a DM. And still, NWN even has its limits..
I don't really think it's feasible for a true roleplaying game to be released on a console/PC right now. Hardware is still quite insufficient to provide the open-endedness that roleplaying requires. NWN is a step in the right direction... And I do hope Bioware is still around in say, twenty or so years.
I paid like $10 for Morrowind on eBay, but I then found out why it was so cheap -- the bundle had no map or manuals. I had to print out a map from the web and I was fine however.
I like games like that -- in real life you'd want to have a nice map of a huge island to really get around on it.
I think Morrowind is the best RPG since Arena: The Elder Scrolls so I may be a litte bias. =)
You know a game is good when it requires Windows or WineX, and crashes from time to time you still keep loading it up. Btw, I was playing with all the patches -- it's just a mem leak or something from playing 2hrs at a time.
I play console-style games like Madden, Spider-Man, and Tony Hawk. I play first-person shooters, like Half-Life and Unreal Tournament. I love hopping into Grand Theft Auto 3 for a taxi mission, but please don't take away the games that make the PC gaming experience so much richer than a console. I would be very sad without Falcon 4.0, Grand Prix Legends, Morrowind, and Civilization 3. These are truly escapist games that exercise more than your thumbs.
I started writing code in the 80's because I wanted to write games. These days, I don't even play them. I'd love to go out right now and drop $50 on some state of the art game -- if I could pick it up and start playing it and have fun within a few minutes.
The last game I really enjoyed was "Wolfenstein 3D" -- I guess that marks my age -- played with a damn mouse. It was simple, it was amazingly fast (for its time) and any idiot could figure it out pretty quickly. I have no time to invest hours learning the games just to have fun.
I have work to do, code to write -- and any minute the Motorola Minitor IV could beep and I might just have a fire to put out! (And that's WAY more fun than any game).
When you're talking about computer games, you must understand that the new generation of games is being directed towards the new generation of gamers. Being one of them, and going to school with many other hard-core gamers, I can tell you that today's generation is looking for something they can get into, something they can talk about with there friends for hours. Personally, I have heard more about the new Star Wars Galaxies, in the last several months, than I have any other game, (and I don't even own the game). This is because SWG is offering, literally, a whole universe of options. In this game, role playing is a very key concept in creating the best player you can, and this is what is keeping people interest. Role playing even takes place outside of the game itself, trust me, I've seen it. There always talking about where the best place to buy what is and things like that, but that's all beside the point. If you're looking for a PC game you can sit down and play with out having to think too much, just play Half-Live Counterstrike. I have several games that are newer, have better graphics, and whatever else, but CS is the game I frequently find myself coming back to. Its interactive action game and the only thing you have to "think" about, is what gun to buy at the start of every round.
>> People don't want pure shoot-em-ups.
Neither do I.
But most want just to snipe. Fuck the game, they say...
Gandalf the Grey vs. John Carmack
:p
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 speedy tricked out ferrari.
Oh, come on, I haven't slept in over twenty hours.
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. Having a printed manual let's you study away from the game (like in the bathroom, the best place for study) and nothing beats paper for quick reference.
I mean, is Carmack going to start bashing tech-trees in strategy games next? Hey, he's good at making game engines, but I'm taking the word (and work) of masters like Brian Reynolds, Sid Meier and Bruce Shelley. Never mind that Warcraft and Starcraft use them as well. There's something to be said for simplicity, but there is something else called depth in game design, something that has been lacking in id Software releases of late. (Sorry guys! We're still on for lunch right?)
One last thing that I didn't cover but mentioned above. It's just cool to have the books. I shelled out the extra money to get the Ultima IX Dragon edition. Yes, I wanted to smell the cheap fake plastic leather covers of the spell books. I remember pouring over the details of all my 2nd Edition AD&D manuals. It added to the history of the game. There was a whole world to conquer and these books showed the way. The wealth of the material made me realize that the world was my burrito. So what if some games have a lot of controls. Does it prohibit the average gamer from playing an RPG? Not really because he/she is more apt to not play because it isn't their type of game. It does add to the experience though. It's okay to innovate, but not at the expense of gameplay.
Note: Major props for usage of tiltowait. Werdna forever.
There is a much longer and more in-depth interview with the Carmack over at Gamespy. Basically the source for the CNN article.
I have to say for quite a while now I have been disappointed that games were getting to easy to beat. For example Crash Bandicoot 1 was a pretty hard game to get through. But in comparision all the sequels were really easy. Vice City did away with some of the more tedious challenges to 100% the game. And Enter the Matrix. Come on! I beat that in less time than it took to watch the movie.
In respect to easy to pick up and play all those games fall under that criteria. But the longevity of the games and the overall challenge of winning is certainly lacking.
Generally speaking, unless the game is extremely compelling and fun to me, I will not touch any game that requires an unreasonable number of keys on the keyboard to play. This is one of the reasons I did not get into Tribes, or played any of the Mechwarrior games. Deus Ex is one of the rare and few exceptions to my rule, because you can mostly play it like a standard FPS, with only infrequent adjustments to other things like inventory and augs.
To that end, the simpler the controls, the better. I've never for any reason whatsoever used the lean left/right keys in any game but AA:O, and similarly options like prone or roll or whatever in other recent FPSes.
Jedi Knight 2 had a great balance of control. You didn't have to learn new keys or combinations for specific, weird, and esoteric moves (this is another reason I don't like fighting games much ... it's all about arbitrary combinations), Jedi Knight 2 has fairly logical motions with the movement/direction keys to direct the lightsaber.
Simple toys for simple minds.
There's simplicity and there's simplicity. A Gradius type game can have only one button for shoot and the navigation keys and still be more complicated than a game that has one button for picking up stuff, another button for opening treasure chests and another button for opening doors. There's interface complexity and then there's gameplay complexity. Both can make a game too difficult for the player.
Uplink is a great game to jump into. It's one of those games you can leave off and then pick up later on. Unlike these huge epic massive games, where if you don't play for a couple of months and come back, you have no idea where you are or where you left off.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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 like not allowing mouse inversion. Idiots!)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
3D engines aside, Carmack's real genius might be for interface design. His comments about about the game interface perfectly mirror those of people like usability guru Jakob Nielsen, the developers of the classic Mac OS, and even industrial designer Jonathan Ives: good design is made by simplifying and removing elements; less is more!
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!)
// I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
But he's no rocket scienti--
Oh, wait.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I barely mastered 3D deathchase
Yeah, way to go Carmack. MAYBE WHEN YOU MAKE A GAME THAT INS'T A "Update your PC now so you can play the 45th rendition Wolfenstein 3d again with more polygons Nyahahaha" 3D RENDERER TECH DEMO YOU CAN COMMENT ON VIDEO GAMES...
Now If you'll excuse me, I'm going back to playing Morrowind.... OH NO! LOOK! IT CAME WITH A BOOK! IT HAS DEPTH! OMG IT REQUIRES ME TO THINK AND HAVE AN ATTENTION SPAN! IT MUST BE TOO HARD! Quick! Someone hand me PONG!
*plays Pong... SCORES!* Hahaha! I jwned ur n00b a$$! I AM 'teh' l33t guy! Hehe.. Look, this simple game even impr0ved my voucabulary.
Which goes to show you that even smart people make really stupid decisions. What's so difficult about crouch? If you can't handle that concept, feel free the play the game without it (and die a lot). No use? Does your avatar have any limbs? If not, then that's a good decision.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The fact that people tend to stay in a certain gaming ghetto is probably the main problem. FPS people end up reinventing RPGs, RPG people end up reinventing TBSes, and TBS people end up reinventing FPS.
That's probably not the best way to crosspolinate ideas between the genres.;)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Of course he would want games that are less involving--he's a VERY busy man.
I'm sure many of us react the same way -- jumping on a CS server or turning on Wario Ware when our lives are busy, unable to justify the hours/weeks required to play through an RPG.
More and more of us are becoming fully involved with (Real) life. The nostalgia is warming, but unfortunately I can no longer afford to spend the time on full-length games.
I want a game I can just pick up and play.
Because I don't have much free time to play a game.
This doesnt mean difficult to me, a game can have a simple control scheme and style of play but still be extremely challenging.
I just never went in for the type of thing where every key does something different and blah blah, like Mechwarrior and such.
But, I think doom/quake/rtcw are boring and old and I dont find them fun.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Carmack mentions things like "use" buttons and "crouch" needless complicated. However, something about nearly all id games since Wolfenstein 3D, and most games within the FPS genre, is how complicated the levels themselves are. Now in some cases an open-ended level may make sense, but in most of these games what happens is you just get lost trying to find something, wanderring aimlessly till you finally find that pathway you missed. This is not helped by the fact that the same texture is often used throughout a level, leaving very little in the way of a visual reference to tell you where you are.
While Quake 1 may have been "easier" to some without the "use" button, at least with DOOM you had a map you could refer to which lets you know where you have been. You could still get lost in DOOM if you accidently missed a switch somewhere, but it wasn't as bad.
Some of the newer multiplayer games further complicate matters, with new maps coming out often. I used to play RTCW and SOF2 regularly, but now if I want to go back just to play I find not only do I have to relearn the old levels, but I have to learn a large number of new, overly complex levels I've never played. That combined with so many servers staying on a level for under half an hour, it's hard to get a chance to even learn these them. I can hold my own very well in the original set of levels and those added in the first couple of patches, but it just gets boring playing level after level of maps I don't know, just running around not knowing WTF to do, and then having the level switch just when I start figuring out a few paths.
Maybe I just suck at FPSes, but I don't find the idea running around aimlessly fun.
Games are certainly not more complex nor harder now than 15 years ago. Sure there was pac-man and donkey kong but there was also more serious games. Can someone tell me where I can find a REAL wargame nowadays? Even "simpler" games like "Balance of Power" or "Annals of Rome" were certainly not easy to master. Or action games like "The Last V8" or "Green Beret". Come on... Most people would now give up after a few hours on a game like this.
I agree there's not enough "5 minutes" games but saying games in general are too difficult is plain wrong. I want difficult games! Please, someone, tell me I'm not the only one!
Typical for Carmack to agree; it's not as if depth of experience is something in which id has ever excelled. Just point and shoot, people.
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.
but the interface that we interact with the game that is too complicated. Think about it, when we actually crouch down in real life, we dont have to worry about an awkward key to push to do the action, but instead we have done it many times before and thus dont even have to think about anymore. Granted, after awhile of practicing, pressing a crouch key on a keyboard may very well take the same amount (or even less) of thought as crouching the human body while in the game. For a user to have no trouble picking up on all these features, primitive devices like keyboard and mice must be replaced by devices that more closely utilize actions the human body is already used to. In other words, a device that responds to actual human movements that represent the actions of a character within the game would probably be the only way for your average joe to pick up a game for the first time and be an expert. The idea of crouching itself is not complicated. I guess what I'm trying to say is that virtual reality is where games must eventually go. Hey, this way I could actually get exercise playing doom3...
defc0n
Although arguably not the best game out there, Banjo Kazooie, IMO, had an interesting way of handling the learning curve. You couldn't DO any of the advanced moves until your character learned them! You started off with the basic jump and swim, so easy that everyone can do them, and as you go along, you learn a new move, then do a simple quest or game that utilizes it. This way players are introduced to new moves, all of the depth is there, and no initial learning curve of any sort. Brilliant!
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you
Yes just like in Doom, where there was no action button... oh... wait...
John Susek
People 25 years ago didn't have interactive entertainment, they had lemon pies at the sunday fete and the one-way broadcast that is radio and TV. We are smarter, and we are on two-way streets and the potential for moving education into the home in the form of interactive media - rather than monolithic ISAs (Ideological State Apparatus, not those redundant "real big, real ugly" PCI ancestors) - is so vast I just can't describe it. We may well stand on the shoulders of giants, but we have had some of the most innovative philosophy, technology and medicine off all time in the latter half of the 20th century - we are by no means stupid. Sure the "masses" still get cowed by dumb politicians talking up security risks, but how is that different to any other age?
Back to education, In 2050 they may well not be any schools, only community groups based on co-curricular activities (to take over the "babysitting" side of school) and home-based interactive learning on computers. As a former victim of an out-dated school system and someone who aspires to be an educator I can tell you that I will personally be making sure this comes to pass.
in other news.... the Command Line Association Against GUIs (CLAAG) has released a fatwah against Cormack for his recent comments on simplifying games. To mark the date they have released a Cormack skin for their ASCII Quake package for training purposes.
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
too bad your post got modded as Flamebait, when it really wasn't.
The duke nuke'em joke just wasn't funny.
I bought an XBox a year ago. Some of the games are good. But I'm still waiting for FUN games I can sit down with and play with friends who aren't regular gamers. Friends who I normally have beers with who want to do something different. Well no, most of the XBox games focus on maximising technology. Solo games, perhaps made multiplayer by using XBox Live. Where are the games like Dynablaster (Super Bomberman???), or even Micro Machines that was released in Europe before last Christmas? Everybody raved about Splinter Cell, but it turned out to be a fancy graphics engine and no longevity. It wasn't *FUN*... unless you're a sad spotty teenager who gets a hard-on having more technology than the next guy. Maybe my real mistake was moving to N. America where the culture seems to focus more on less fun things, but who knows.
END RANT
Both Trent and John are right, but it is important to see this trend in almost every aspect of technology!
/. readers actually even know EVERYTHING our cell phones can do???
Think about almost everything you consider revolutionary in technology in the last, say, 50 years:
The FAX machine was revolutionary, not the multi-function fax-printer-copier...
The cell phone was revolutionary, not the downloadable ring tones...
The Palm Pilot was revolutionary (OK, maybe the Apple Newton...), not the WinCE machine that can run excel...
Everything in technology seems to start very simple (and these are the true revolutionaries) and then grow complicated to the point where we cannot use them anymore! How many among us
With all this said, I love all this gizmos, and I am totally adicted to them... The more intricacies and complexities a device/game/application/book/etc. has, the more I want to use it! But we have to see that true change only comes from simple and basic concepts, and that games and other products could, and should, be designed with enough complexity to keep many minds busy, but also in a way to allow somebody who does not want to go through the complexities (or cannot) to have a very enjoyable experience!
In short, technologist should be working to make games, SW, devices, books, etc. simpler and better, and therefore accessible to more people.
There a quote out there about some game that goes something like "an hour to learn, years to master." This is what game developers should be striving for.
Quake3 has done this. It is possible to get better and better at the game which takes only a few hours to get the basics down. That is what hooks people. Complex RPG games I find boring for the most part. They generally require reading the manual which sucks, and there is usually very little skill involved, just knowledge of how to do stuff.
I have an official Ikaruga DVD published by Treasure (ikaruga's developers) showing the three best players in Japan beating Ikaruga on 1 life.
With near perfect chains.
34 million points or so.
1 replay on easy, 1 on normal, 1 on hard. No lost lives.
Myself, after 70+ hours, I'm down to 3 credits on easy mode. ^_^
.
about the games that many of my "general population" (read: not-geek friends) play alot and they consist mainly of shockwave games on the net. You can pick them up in five minutes and actually they are pretty amusing.
...
That and well snood (frozen-bubble for the geekites) but people either play that for about 3 seconds or 3 hours depending on their preference. Personally I'm looking for a cross platform Dr. Mario-esq game I can play for hours
What kind of slashdoter want a game that doesn't require distributed computing knowledge and can't be scriptable in perl?
"I think this line is mostly filler"
All I want is a game where I pick up health
and weapons, and blow stuff up. Like the
original DOOM. Nothing fancy. Turn right/left
go forward/back. Blow stuff Up. Gimma
a double barrel sawed-off and infinite demons.
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.'"
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)
Some points:
- A dozen or hundred psycho countries try to take over the world. No holds barred. Tech race sorta like Civilization since tanks beat spearmen any day of the week, and nukes are fun if you get them first.
- Serious strategy involved. Mostly as an observer, I've seen all sorts of wild strategies performed (not always successfully). A classic was capturing an entire underdefended island with paratroops. Though a decent player can beat a great player who stays offline too long. And for large countries it turns into micromanagement hell.
- Variety of ways in which to communicate (with words or weapons) with your friends and enemies. Private messages, public messages, news stories (khallow bombs Anonymous Coward 239 times), and even the occasional anonymous nuke from unidentified subs (called affectionately "peekaboo nukes").
- The game is easy to modify, and usually is. This means games aren't all alike (unlike say some Freeciv games I played a while ago).
- The Internet presence was well-synched with the games. Ie, games advertised on the rec.games.empire newsgroup. After play, bunch of people would post their results/war stories to the newsgroup as well.
- The game had a long, long history of open source development. The only other game category I can think of with this sort of rich development history are the Muds.
So despite the complexity and terrible interface of the game, it had a top notch following. You got to consider other factors as well than just ease of use. If the game maker is selling a simple light game (or a timekiller) that he expects people to play for maybe a few hours, then simplicity of the interface is important. But a game that will draw people in and keep them around for a long time needs complexity. The player always needs to discover or experience something new. I agree that making the game hard to play is very counterproductive. But maybe that book is necessary after all.Yeah... I have this game called "Chess". It's just far too complicated. It will never catch on.
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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The pure definition of any GREAT game: Easy to learn, difficult to master. Pong, Tetris, Mario Bros, Quake, etc. Think about it. If only every game designer stuck to this maxim.
FF1, Dragon Warrior I-IV, Zelda, Link (I know, they're not RPG's, but they're close) and a lot of the old games gave the illusion of non-linearity. There were areas you could get to, but it was a little too tough to really manage. You could wander pretty far across mountains, woods, plains, various encounter types, and it felt like you had freedom.
It usually got a little narrower feeling as the game progressed: you knew exactly where you had to go next, because there was that locked door, blocked mountain, etc. You might have to backtrack to near the beginning where something suddenly opened up, but you could go all over the place in the meantime.
With FF7 and other 'modern' games, you traverse a limited number of pretty rooms, and it feels claustrophobic. Then, you fight the big fight, and you're somewhere else! No wandering allowed, thank you.
And yes, I insulted Fallout 2. In Fallout 1, I could select a couple of skills, and probably make it. If you select poorly in Fallout 2, or specialize in something interesting but not critical, you may find yourself just plain stuck. I lost interest about midway through, when I realized I needed a guidebook/cheatsheet to find the guy who would get me to the next place in each encounter. The world got big, and that important encounter is sometimes just too hard to find. When the easter eggs got to be more fun than the plot, I knew it wasn't a great game.
Design for Use, not Construction!
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.
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
The turning point for me began with the fighting games like street fighter, where in order to do some special move you had to enter in some insane key combo. I was never good at those kinds of games. Soon after that, the controllers started coming with tons of buttons, multiple joysticks. I guess this is why I've played more PC strategy type games that aren't so trigger happy. Like Warcraft, Diablo, The Sims ... all have a much kinder learning curve. You don't get plowed under in the first few seconds because you don't know some crazy key combo or can't figure out what button does what.
The games today require more keyboard controls (I personally cannot remember more than 5-6 keys when playing) and newer hardware, but the feeling at the end of the game is probably never any better than it was for Duke or Doom. The games on the handhelds are a lot simpler and more addictive. Even tetris is still popular and all I have to do is remember 3 keys at max :)
Unix, Computers and science fiction... What else can one want in life ?
I can't believe no one has mentioned NetHack yet one of the most popular and complicated games of its time. I have yet to see any RPG game that gets as much obsessive playtime or has as many crazy features. This ID weenie is just trying to pump his own boring games.
The killer bee hits! The killer bee hits!
You die...
"Story in a game, is like a story in a porn movie; it's expected to be there, but it's not that important."
yes, from <Masters of DOOM>
To me, even Quake series is too complicated.
the weapon system is OK, that's where the fun is
but why armor? why can't just increase the health limit to 300, or 400.
and I hate items which can be hold and used later. I always forgot that I have such things...
Those games weren't always that complicated. Before TV, people went to the ballpark, and all they saw were the players and the field. Occasionally, a public address system might announce "Strike two". The scoreboard showed the score, and not much else. It was like Little League, but with bigger grandstands.
I disagree, very personally however. That games have become too difficult to play. Speaking for myself alone and just myself alone. I judge this on how many games for each system I've beaten.
Nintendo: 1 (The Legend Of Zelda)
Super Nintendo: 2 (Super Mario World and Magic Sword)
Sega Genesis: 0
Nintendo 64: (Cruisin World, Cruisin USA, Super Mario Kart, Zelda 64, Star Fox 64)
Playstation 2: Metal Gear Solid, Metal Gear Solid 2, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
With the last two advances in Video Game systems that I've owned, the games for me have definately become alot easier.
"He Who Laughs Last, Is Just A Hand In The Bush" - Ozzy Osbourne
I started out, like most people my age, infront of a NES at home playing games like mario, megaman, ninja gaiden, etc. All simple games by todays compairison even though I will say when I replay these games right now, they have a certain nostalgic value and I look at them in a far more strategic light.
Then, I got a SNES and Genesis, and I proceeded to play games like sonic (aka, mario on speed), just about every game from squaresoft I could get my greedy little hands on (FF, SOM, SOE, etc)and eventually got a computer around the same time, at which I started playing doom, blake stone, tetris games, etc.
I was around for the "big move" into 3d. I played mario 64 (mario on speed doing lsd), and some other games. I eventually got a PSX as well and played the FF series on that (couldn't resist when it got cheap). Around the same time my tastes with computers evolved as well; I got Total Annihilation, one of the best RTS games around, as well as starcraft, and all sorts of other games.
After I got the computer going, I finally built myself a gaming rig and stopped playing console games. Now I'm at the point of playing really complicated games like Tribes2, Morrowind (if you can get past the horrid engine, it's pretty good), gothic 2, UT2k3 (gameplay sucks, but the graphics are awesome). Give a game like tribes2 to, say, my father, who hasn't had all those years of conditioning, and he'll get frusterated after a few minuts of playing. He says "I make it look easy" or "I make him dizzy"
So Nintendo is very very right, games have evolved a lot. So much so that, even though our society is used to, and even dependant on digital tech we are creating more and more complicated games for everyone to play that frusterates the hell out of normal, non-gaming people. Now this isn't to say that games like Metal of Honor, Serious sam, Dungeon Siege, etc are difficult games, on the contrary I can give those to my father and he'll have a blast and I'll even admit I had fun playing them too. But I enjoy games like Tribes2 and Total annihilation so much more than DS or MOH simply becuase of the difficulty. Combat in Tribes2 resembles something out of Dragonball Z, accept it's more UT style, you've got skiing and actual strategy. TA is great as well. A proper compairison I think would be as starcraft or warcraft is to chess, is as TA is to Othello. TA is way more complicated but that is what makes it fun.
You'll also notice gamers who play complicated games are usually smarter than those who don't. Sure, they may not have the same vocabulary, education, etc as others but generally their intellegence level is at least double that of a normal sheeple. You'll also notice that studies of the effects of gaming are notoriously absent; nobody has been doing studies on it to see the effects of it, partially because of satanic groups of people masquerading as christian groups threatening anyone who does research they don't like.
So I think nintendo is absolutely correct. I also think they screwed themselves by making it a "family oriented company" and with the N64 by going with carts. Mark your games with age stickers and leave it at that, caving in hand over fist to christian religous groups who are obviously lead by satan is a bad idea.
And for those of you who think I can't paint all of the activist christian groups with a satanic evil glow; watch me, I use a roller! (in the words of SK)
Candy-Coated Knowledge
What's so bad about that?
I think Carmack (and Nintendo) have a point about the need for "simple" games that are trivial to pick up for casual gamers. Particularly as the "gaming market" grows and it's own "mainstream" (average gamers) merges with what other, bigger markets are used to call "mainstream" (average consumers of random toys).
However, most specialized genres are bound to be complex games, because they're aimed at consumers who WANT depth of gameplay, which implies complexity.
These genres have historically been a big part of the market, and although one would expect this to decrease as 10-minute Flash games become more popular than 50+ hours RPGs, they'll never disappear.
The reason is that not only were those more appealing to the market that was able to buy games before (computer-hobbyst => people who like complex toys | geeks). The people buying those games are still a big part of the market, are more willing to spend insane amounts on money on games and hardware than casual gamers, and are vocal enough to influence the philistines.
So there will always be sim fanatics who will demand accurate simulations, which will need a book just as a real car, airplane, or whatever is simulated requires one (at least).
Most RPG gamers will be glad to get a book with their game. It's easy to understand, considering they often buy BOOKS to play RPGs without their computer. Books that are mostly not about rules, but about background, fictional history, world-description, etc. I mean, what's the point of playing an RPG if the character and the world do not have the depth to merit that? Or are they going to show it all through FMVs with all the subtlety of an Asimov novel?
Simple is good where it makes sense. But complaining about RPGs shipping with documentation is like complaining that the keyboard has too many buttons. You may think you'd do just fine with less in Quake, but that's because what you want is not a keyboard.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
I had to go and forget to turn off the karma bonus on that one, too =/
;)
Oh well, it's a shame there isn't a +1 "Documenting young-male gamer forum posting behavior".
From what I recall, it is a fairly accurate portrayl of not a few "gamerz" sites a few years back
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
With Nintendo's main age group focus, they are probably right concerning the complexity level for titles they release. On PC, there are a range of titles that are as much mindless-shooting, deep story-based roleplay or complex stragtizing as you want, and everything in between. When a complex game is done in a manner that makes sense, and all complexities are well-thought out enhancements to the gameplay experience, I think that nobody would argue that the game should be dumbed down. It just may not appeal to some people.
God with the statement nintendo made we should be expecting people coming out stating that they found quake to be a "difficult" game that requires too much "thinking"
ABAB up down AB left right AB Select Sart
Microsoft Windows runs on stress and frustration.
If the game *rules* are complex, there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. That makes the game better. I'll take a good strategy game like Civilization any day over some console button-masher. And I don't just mean strategy either. I'll take a good game of Thief 1 or 2 or Deus Ex any day over a speedy button mashing fest like most other 3d shooters are, because for them (Theif/Deus Ex) the complexity was inside the gameworld, not out on your keyboard. What makes games suck are on consoles when you have to know that A+B+down will let you win, but A+B+diagonally down/left will kill you. That's not fun. I don't want a dexterity challenge. I want a tactical challenge.
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.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I think that game designers lost the plot years ago. Somewhere in the chase for ever better graphics, they forgot that gameplay, and story are the true keys to entertainment. Instead of developing novel game concepts, degsigners are now chasing reality, with blood curdling graphics, and horific images. If people want to be entertained by stuff like that, they will usually watch the nightly news, or the latest blockbuster release from Hollywood.
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.
i cant be sure, but quite possibly, he means simple to play, not simple game design. there are a lot of people now saying that games with story are better than games without. OF COURSE! but games with a story that are intuitive to play are better than ones where ctrl-alt-shift-f7-x-end is a necessary keystroke. my 2cents. (btw, if there is actually a game that uses the aformentioned keystroke and you play it, my apologies)
Skill is successfully walking a tightrope over Niagara Falls. Intelligence is not trying. -- Anonymous
I miss the days when all software actually came with a book. For those who haven't been using computers for 15+ years, let me give you a little back story.
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.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
:-]
sure, as penny arcade so beautifully illustrates, the parachute button may be a bit excessive, but complexity is what makes reality so groovy: countless factors to weigh against each other. present too little complexity and the game becomes routine, provide a sea of options and encourage exploration, the game becomes much more interesting. armored core is my favorite game on this front - presenting both the adaption of mech design and the gameplay itself (although it does have one of the worst learning curves ever). the trick is to keep the challenger trying new things too.
the problem is making these choices seamless enough not to scare the living bejesus out of the player. exploration of options should be encouraged, adaption fostered.
(frankly, this is what sucks about most modern RTS's: there is no adaptation, simply reaction - the mechanics of what to do are fixed for experienced players.)
Myren
Doom's simplicity is a major part of the reasons why it maintained high popularity for so long after it was released. Almost anybody familiar with video games could sit down and start playing it within 2 minutes; they didn't have to spend 20 hours training to learn the various controls and complexities. I loved that all I had to do is run and shoot in Doom. Having to learn crazy controls and manuevers in Unreal like jump-and-crouch-in-midair-and-shoot-while-doing-a- triple-somersault-with-a-half-twist turned me off of that game immediately.
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.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Game complexity itself isn't necessarily a problem; it's where the complexity lies.
Ever played a modern fighting game? They're WAY too complicated, just to have some simple combat.
Comparitively, a "complex" game like Morrowind or Neverwinter Nights is actually pretty easy to play.
Civilizations is a very complex game, but it's complex in an appealing way. But some RTS games are overly complex these days, for something that's supposedly point-and-click.
The point is that complexity can be a boon, depending on where it lies. It can also be a game-killer. Who would have enjoyed Impossible Creatures, if it hadn't involved complex strategy and gameplay? On the other hand, no one would have played Diablo or Dungeon Siege if they'd made you spend hours designing and levelling your avatar.
And you call my post "condescending?" Bejesus. You should write reviews for gaming magazines, your attitude is just right.
Back to my post: games too hard or too easy is missing the entire point. Games should be fun and while learning can be fun, more basic things can be much more fun. Four neurons are all it should take to enjoy oneself.
But I'm sure writing stuff like "perceived intellectual superiority" makes you feel much better than actually thinking.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Hmmm...
Everything is relative I guess.
He claims space flight to be simple plumbing,
whereas doom with a crouch key is too difficult?
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
There are more games out there than you can run away screaming from, (cuz you'll just run into another hoard of them around the corner.)
The article is a masturbation piece, and Carmack, despite his coding skills, is a pasty doof who has been turning a nation of kids into tomorrow's pre-programmed soldiers, war supporters and violent-solutionists.
The Mario franchise was cool, because it proved that non-violent games could be successful. Its creator was a true genius, infinitely more productive and brilliant than Quake-boy.
Show me a Quake fan, and 9 times out of 10, I'll show you a guy who truly believed invading Iraq was not just a good idea, but more importantly, a workable idea.
Interesting, that.
People argue that media has no effect on their actions, and then go out and buy Nike shoes, drink Coke, and quote 'educational' programming, thinking they actually know how the world works. Amazing.
I also find it interesting that for nearly 7 years leading up to the war in Iraq, some of the most popular games on PC were 'resource-management' war games. Oil and Opium. I also find it interesting that the Command and Conquer games were so starkly reflective of current trends. --Resources which are poisoning the world. War against global terrorists. Alien manipulation.
My educated guess is that virtually ALL popular media is designed to send messages into the subconscious of the public, whether or not the front-line writers, coders and film-makers realize that they are channeling from the dark or light side.
There are forces working both for and against the fate of humanity. They are about equal in power, but their methods differ. Carmack is part of the goon squad.
Let me [heavily] paraphrase Star Wars. .
"The path to the dark side is always easier and faster and more seductive, but it also destroys the practitioner."
-FL
If I get too close to an edge in Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Link won't fly off into the lava unless I'm running right at the ledge.
If I happen to merely walk up to it, and press into it by accident, he ".. hangs off (sic) with his hands." much like you say it's supposed to bed.
You can complain about the jump button thing, but I find that it simplifies the more frustrating aspect of 3D action games (jumping), since they are not designed to be hardcore platformers (see Mario Sunshine for an example of one of those). I've not gone into lava accidently because of it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I love first person shooters as much as the next guy, but the genre is inherently simplistic on some levels. Hand-eye coordination is the deciding factor in most FPS (and other action games) and in any other genre it's hard to make intelligence the determining factor without creating complexity (exception: Tetris).
But why do I think FPS are complex? Our generation has grown up on them. My girlfriend can't play Quake to save her life (looking with a mouse is really hard to get used to for some people), but she'll come to LAN parties to play Warcraft (which, is a relatively simple RTS compared to Rise of Nations).
I challenge anyone to create a simple game that doesn't require coordination to win (checkers is about the only one I can think of).
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Oh yes, I do... and it's the truth.
Whatever happened to variety?
RPGs come with a book today? Good morning, McFly - so came simulators 10 years ago, before the dumbing down began.
There is more than one type of player on this planet. Some people happen to like complex games, others are happy with simple ones. What exactly is the problem? Not enough $$$ in the niche you're firing into anymore?
I think the biggest factor in games that makes them fun for everyone is possibility. In Tetris, for example, there are hundreds of different combinations to fit the shapes together. Games like Grand Theft Auto and the upcoming Fable for X-Box take this to the extreme by giving you more possibilities than you know what to do with. Whether this is good or bad isn't the issue -- it depends on what learning curve you prefer.
Some gamers may be dying to play something based on a D&D rule book that might take them a week to finally figure out what they're doing. Others may just want to pick it up and know how to play it within the first 5 minutes. Me, I like it when a game is easy to pick up, but gradually gets more complicated and has more possibility.
I don't think complex is necessarily bad. I just think some people want complex possibility made available through simple means.
This guy. This $#!%^ guy.
Bah. Elite had that in 1984. Two books, in fact!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
While I respect his coding skills greatly, Carmack's games are frightfully dull and unimaginative. They are always the same - run around and shoot everything in sight. Depth is what makes games worth playing.
My favorite game is nethack.
I still think some of the greatest games where the old point and click RPG/Adventure games made by Lucas Arts. Sam & Max was hilarious, Maniac Mansion was great, Full Throttle was excellent. And I still think that the best video game title of all time is "Day of the Tentacle." It totally sounds like a hentai game, but isn't.
I play in comfort: I have a laptop and a la-z-boy. I have not sat upright in front of a desk for years.
I wouldn't call MDK2 simplistic, while it might look that way many of the challenges were actually quite interesting, and in designing alien landscapes the game is really second to none. Actually one of the best game trips ever.
Morrowind has one of the best game starts, it will suck you in effortlessly and teach you everything you need without it really even feeling like being taught. In a way, it feels as great as beginning to play Half-Life back then. Something totally new yet strangely compelling.
I begun playing Morrowing half a year ago and still play it. It feels much more than a game, it's another world. And when you get bored, take up the very easy to use editor and make up what you want to, add it to the existing world.
There's really nothing else like Morrowind on the market right now. But do purchase the add-ons too, as they add some much needed technical improvements to the game. (Warning: the Tribunal expansion pack sucks for its gameplay in the "Clockwork City", kind of a low point of the whole Morrowind really, but the improvements it adds to the game interface are much needed.)
The best games have a small set of simple rules from which complex behavior emerges. I think the most classic example of this is Boulder Dash which in it's original form features only a handful different blocks yet the variation between the levels was astounding. I've always thought that the best way to create a game is to start with the basic laws of physics which may or may not be modelled after our universe, then add a few different entities with some clearly defined rules of behavior including the interaction with other entities.
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.
A witty
I'm playing computer games (mind you! computer not video games) since the early eighties. And I seriously doubt that Complex Games(TM) are a recent development. I played and loved Ultima IV on my C64. And if that was not complex, what is it then? Think of the first Microsoft Flight Simulator for instance.
That said, I'm not an exclusive player of these games. I like playing both types. And I think there are games that are both, simple and complex in one.
I wondered about the debate over 'use' and 'crouch' keys. In my opinion that does not divide games in simple, as in easy to pickup and just play for a while, and complex (we need at least an hour to get into that one). Complexity of interface and functions is not a good indicator for this. If this was the case then a game like Paradroid would be a simple game. Which is it not. Because you have to invest some time and strategic thinking even to get somewhere in this game, let alone beat one level.
Just my two Eurocents.
Keyboards were designed many many years ago as very low bandwidth devices. To save bandwith, many keys reuse the same codes, so that only one key signal can be sent to the computer at one time. The special keys (CTRL, ALT, SHIFT) are given special codes so they can be used in combination with the regular keys.
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.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
dumbass
a true rpg can be anything you want it to be
This is all about controls. A good, fun racing game has an acceleration button, a brake button, and left-right steering (ex: Rad Racer from the NES). Maybe one button to shoot something if guns are involved. But nowadays companies compete not by the quality of the games, but by having more active buttons in the game than the competition. It's quite stupid and it really ruins the games. Ever notice that each new generation video game system's controller has about 2-4 more buttons on it than the last generation system? Is it because technology allows for more buttons to be crammed on the joypad? No. A racing game that has one button for shift-up, one button for shift-down, one button for windshield wipers, one button for emergency brake, one button for regular brake, one button to change the brake pads, one button... well you get the idea, it's not fun. It ruins the fun. The inner workings of a video game should be complex (40,000,000 polygons per second) but the controls should be as simple as possible. Just because the controller has 12 buttons on it doesn't mean all of them have to be used for the game to be "realistic" or "have good play control" (quite the opposite). Games on the PC are even worse than console games... stuff like Wing Commander, Mech Warrior, all use practically every button on the qwerty keyboard to do something different during gameplay, and each sequel uses even more buttons. Sorry but I agree with nintendo, when I have to memorize an entire keyboard layout, the programmers have done a shitty job at making this game. It's not that i'm not smart enough to memorize what 40+ buttons do. I don't have the time and I don't care. up down left right a, b. That's all I feel like learning to play a fucking video game. No game should need more than 6 buttons, EVER (and Street Fighter 2 is the ONLY one).
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
"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."
Replayed by who? You only have evidence of you yourself replaying them. And the "genre" is arguable. I would not put Deus Ex or Thief into the same first person shooter genre as Quake 3 or System Shock 2. Thief was much more about sneaking around rather than shooting (in fact the hardest difficulty required that you killed no one). Gameplay was totally different in Thief. Deus Ex was more of a shooter-RPG hybrid-- it wasn't about combat and puzzles as much as an involved story with a focus on character interaction and player stats development. System Shock 2 was a "true" first person shooter in my opinion (it did not try to merge multiple genres too much), but it was very much a sleeper hit due to its complexity and release during the multiplayer boom (and throughout SS2 I always felt this intense loneliness that multiplayer gaming was the polar opposite of). The 4 player coop patch didn't do much to change that. SS2 was unique for its RPG elements but at its heart was a plain "survival" type shooter with simple AI, annoying maze-like levels and tedious objective-based gameplay (how much did you have to do before activating those ship generators?). I loved SS2 for the fear one felt and the story, but not for the crux of its gameplay which was as simple as Quake I.
The only masterpiece of the "true" single player shooter was in my opinion Half-Life, and for multiplayer it is Tribes 2. Both took what was the essence of each genre and brought it to the next level. For Half-Life as a single player game it was a cool premise, good map puzzles, awesome AI, creative weapons and an overall immersive environment. For Tribes 2 as an excellent multiplayer game it was the value of teamwork, integration of different combat types and strategies, and efficient netcode. Neither tried to merge genres, as Deus Ex did with the rpg elements, and both were at their hearts first person shooters, unlike Thief which was a first person sneaker if you had to give the genre a name.
P.S. I doubt you'll find as many people replaying those games as Quake 3 which constantly has thousands of players online.
Hence, it's easy to characterize me as a gamer that enjoys simple games with plenty of replayability as opposed to long, epic games with no replayability whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if many gamers from the NES generation felt the same way. There weren't many lengthy NES games that took 40 hours to beat. Most were relatively short and could be beaten in a couple hours, but were fun enough to revisit over and over again. That brand of game feels lost today amidst new gamers that seem to feel the number of hours is everything, no matter how many contrieved or lame "filler" subquests are needed to bloat the game.
(n/t)
Jumping in here because Deus Ex and System Shock 2 happen to be 2 of my favorite games...
:)
I honestly don't see how you can consider DE and SS2 to be so different. The UIs in the two games are, in many ways, almost identical. (I can't comment on thief as I never actually played it). Deus Ex was no more of a hybrid shooter-RPG than SS2, and I honestly don't understand how you missed this. The "level-up" system of cybernetic enchancements is rather similar in the two. All I can figure is you played through the Marine (ie: shoot shoot shoot, kill) track, and thought that was all there was to the game. The psionic powers and hacking elements made for MUCH more than your "typical shooter."
Both are great games, but in all reality, I'd almost have to argue that SS2 is the superior of the two due to the elements you missed. Believe it or not, SS2 was actually less linear than DE was. Just something to keep in mind. Maybe it'd be worth going back and giving it another chance?
There are different kinds of games. Some people like dexterity challenges
I think the problem is the complexity of games isn't managed well. Games should have logical controls. Any complexity should be learnable, logical and introduced as the game progresses.
Also, making games that require you to buy a cheat book to do well is an indication of a bad game.
It's too bad because games are so complex now that it is near impossible to get a game completely right. So people are used to games with serious flaws being given high awards (like Halo).
Anyway, for an example of what can be done, see Metroid Prime for the Gamecube. The game has depth, complexity and secrets, yet is easy to pick up and play an difficult to get stuck in. It is an absolute joy. It is the best game in many years and should be a template for games for many years to come.
" [Role playing games], for example, got to where they had to have a book ship with the game."
i remember when games used to come with manuals. Ultima IV for example came with at least 3 books, a map & some other goodies as well.
i havent bought a game that came with a paper manual in probably 10 years, whats so bad about printed manuals?
MSFS 2 came with a printed manual over 200 pages, MSFS 2004? you get a quick ref sheet, and a PDF on the CD, yay.
id did "action" buttons to begin with. They were the first to just have you bump into stuff though, IIRC
Mad props for being one of the few to have played Philip Price's excellent game.
... 'ARO.COM' is still held by Monolith (lith.com) for it, but it never came together. There were some screenshots too.
A few years back there was a big hubbub about making an Alternate Reality Online
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Because it takes too much risk! Game companies would rather go with the majority and with opinions of pseudo-intellectual "gurus" because it is a low risk, low reward approach.
Game companies are simply terrified to take risks. So how can they ever let the market decide when they refuse to innovate and take risks? Part of letting the market to decide is having a large number of innovative and failed games.
SotN? Ambitious? More like blatantly ripped off Metroid 3.
SotN was a great game, and Konami polished the hell out of it by including *so much stuff*, but it was not a great innovator by any means.
Get a graphics card with S-Video output!
One problem with buying a cheap Radeon with TV output and then connecting the PC to the TV is that the text in many PC games is too small to come through readably at 480p.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Quake 3 was pretty good on the Dreamcast AND you could add a keyboard and mouse if you really wanted to. It also had both a modem and an ethernet adapter for multiplayer mayhem...
Can you point me in the direction of a Dreamcast Ethernet adapter for sale?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Games should posses complex gameplay, through simple controls. If I have to look at the instructions more than once before I know how to play the game, its more complicated than it needs to be. This isn't to say that the gameplay should be simple, no of course not, but when the controls are intuitive, when i don't have to think about what my hands need to be doing, then I am once step closer to being in the game.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
In Wind Waker. I'm more concered about the puzzles and the boss fights than actual jumping. Plus, actually falling into the lava doesn't penalize you in Zelda like in does in Mario.
:)
Except for the Legend of Zelda: Links Adventure on the NES, no Zelda game has ever not auto-jumped. People only started to whine about it when the game went 3D, because it wasn't like the other 3D games people had played in the past.
I say TS, Zelda is not other games
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Just because Half-life 2 is a sequel does not mean it will be repetitive.
A repetitive game sets you doing the same task over and over. I'm sure Half-Life 2 will have varied maps, with unexpected surprises. I'm sure that enemy AI will add a large amount of replayability. I'm sure it won't ever be a chore to play.
You could reply that Half-Life 2 will consist of shooting objects, but killing enemies is the goal of the vast majority of video games, it's how you do it that makes it interesting or boring.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
For my birthday maybe 10 years ago, my parents purchased me a game featuring the Tasmanian Devil for the SNES. I don't remember the exact name of the game, it doesn't matter.
The game featured the Tasmanian Devil running around in Mode 7 graphics, chasing little yellow birds. You had to catch a certain amount before the timer ran out. Each map was short, and looped. Each map really was just a highway in the desert with a different landmark. The only goal of the game was catching the birds, which all acted the same. The game was actively boring to play. I only played it for a single day.
That's my definition of repetitive gameplay. So long as I am not bored, the game is not repetitive.
Your definition differs. If the basic model of a game is the same as previous games, you label the game as repetitive.
Saden clearly subscribed to my definition, and you served him a low blow by implying an alternative definition, and making him seem self-contradictory.
Being Petty: I'd posit that Half-Life's AI was a very worthy inovation, more important then much of the eye candy you mentioned. I'd rather play Half-Life enemies with Wolfenstein type graphics, then play Wolfenstein enemies with Half-Life type graphics.
You could say that AI was only a change in degree, and not revolutionary, but I'd disagree. The underlying premise of the FPS was changed. I'd categorize Doom et al as a "Serious Sam" type game, whereas games with serious AI like No One Lives Forever and Deus Ex are a completely different experience.
Being More Petty: Since I haven't played Half-Life 2 yet, I don't know, but it's certainly possible that the super-realistic physics engine may be another major innovation. It could be a gimmick, I don't know, but anyways innovation is by no means dead.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
Clarification: Given HMI's later statement that "My complaint is at a more elementary (meaning grades 1-8) level" I should also note that my own rough-and-ready data points referred to high school or equivalent education.
Moreover, I should probably point out that unlike my coworkers I was educated in England, and had to walk five miles in the July snow uphill both ways after a fifteen hour shift down the coal mines... so I'm probably skewing the profile a bit. (Just kidding! ;)
I've been a video game player for, well, longer
than I care to admit. I collect for over 40
different systems. I have so many games, that
if I played 10 per day, I could go several years
and still not be half way through my stuff.
That said, I agree with Carmack on the manual
situation. If I HAVE TO read the manual before
I can play a game, I'm not interested. I have
always felt that if you can start playing the
game and at least be able to have some fun and
some success right out of the box, that that is
a good thing. Later, after you've had some fun
you can go back and read through the manual to
improve your skills by picking up things you
could not figure out on your own.
I don't want to start the old graphics vs. game
play debate back up, but the thicker the manuals
got (and the more you had to read them first)
the more the graphics improved and the game play
suffered. I really enjoy video games, and I
hope that developers can find a "happy medium".
That is where the fun is!
It's just how Zelda games are designed. There are some special boots you can get in Link's Awakening and Link to the Past that let you have one controlled jump of 1 block, but this is there so you can get past one of the overworld obstacles.
;)
The chain-arrow grabber thingy (can't remember name) is what's used for larger areas.
A great game series can still have parts that annoy you; I just don't think it's that big of a deal because I'm not one of those newbies who started with Ocarina of Time
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
As it is immediate playabillity, or "hookability" (i.e. the ability of the game to get somebody to pick up a controller, play, and not toss it away in disgust immediately).
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?
If you design 8 levels, place them in an overworld, and have various puzzles laid out such that you need to use the thing aquired in dungeon 4 to access the part of the map that has 5 and 6, it's not a cop out. It's just another item to expand the game play. Would Zelda be better with fewer dungeons? No, it's a nice length as is. You can spend 20 hours going around, or you can motor through it in a couple of hours (SNES version, anyway).
It's all a matter of game balance and design.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.