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'.
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
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
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
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 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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
Are you sure? Perhaps you want something more complicated than a pure shoot-em-up, but I'd wager there's a large number of gamers that do want something simple to get into, which is the whole point of the article.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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.
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...
Now here we have a classic examples of a "the common people are so stupid" post. Its a variation of the often seen bandwagon post. In this instance, a reader sees a condescending remark about the intelligence of the average person and thinks, "You know, he's right, the common people are so stupid. Sigh". The sense of belonging and increased self-esteem are defense mechanisms. The poster posting the message and the reader agreeing with it are exhibiting subconscious methods of bravery in an uncertain world. By creating an artificial bond of perceived intellectual superiority, all involved gain a temporary confidence.
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.
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
Why must a computer RPG require a large manual? While memorizing the importance of "tiltowait" from a book might be nice and satisfying, why can't I simply ask the game for this information? And if a game has a complicated battle system, why not include a basic tutorial so the player can experience how things work and why. Even relatively complicated console titles like "Advance Wars" have these sorts of features, so I don't see why a modern computer game shouldn't.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Or maybe we do not like to waste time on those games. I was in to RPGs for a long time and there was a very steep learning curve compared to most games. Even if you read the manual, there is still more things that just keep gobbling up your time and without learning them, you will not have a good character. I for one enjoy a mindless game like doom or racing where almost everyone has an equal playing field without spending hours each day playing it.
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
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.
Now here we have a classic examples of a "the common people are so stupid" post. Its a variation of the often seen bandwagon post. In this instance, a reader sees a condescending remark about the intelligence of the average person and thinks, "You know, he's right, the common people are so stupid. Sigh". The sense of belonging and increased self-esteem are defense mechanisms. The poster posting the message and the reader agreeing with it are exhibiting subconscious methods of bravery in an uncertain world. By creating an artificial bond of perceived intellectual superiority, all involved gain a temporary confidence.
All true, but that does not negate the truthfulness of the parent poster's statement. The population is dumbed down. How it happened is more complex than just video games - the educational system played its part as well, but people are less well educated today than 25 years ago and it shows in their amusements.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Oh, the irony of your post
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 parent is an example of the cynical self-aware post, in which nihilistic criticism is preferred over subjective reasoning. In such a mindset, there are no ideals or beliefs, because all is exposed as a neverending pattern.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
Very hard to say. 25 years ago the personal computer didn't exist. The game console was in its infancy. It's practically impossible to compare entertainment of 25 years ago to today, and come out with a rational conclusion on the intelligence of the people.
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.
Yeah, I was about to post about Half-Life myself. It does have relatively complex controls. But everything is brought in so smoothly that it never overwhelms.
:).
And teleporters and the "long jump" only came in about 2/3 of the way through the game. Weapons were spread out perfectly... that game was good
Lots of games seem to throw in the Tutorial and intro levels as an afterthought. It's easy to spot the difference between, say, Return to Castle Wolfenstein (a typical shooter) and Max Payne (an original shooter with a great tutorial).
Now a totally different topic: Anybody else notice KDE/GNOME comparisons? Complex games compared to simple ones?
Just for kicks, check the latest Gamespy Grudge: Strategy vs. Blowing Stuff Up
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.
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/
"basic game-playing skills"
Concentration, logic, coordination, spatial relations, memory and fast reaction times are some of things I would classify as basic game-playing skills.
Learning control maps and countless details about which weapon/scroll does what don't qualify as amusement for me. Games like that have always left me cold.
Very hard to say. 25 years ago the personal computer didn't exist. The game console was in its infancy. It's practically impossible to compare entertainment of 25 years ago to today, and come out with a rational conclusion on the intelligence of the people.
I suppose my own personal experience would be far too unscientific for your purposes, but perhaps a full study will someday be conducted to validate this.
I have a few data points.
-Recalibration of SAT
-Nature of textbooks, then and now
-Trivial facts retained by those schooled in the 1960-75 period versus now - the word inertia comes to mind. Try that on a smattering of people schooled today and see how many correct responses you get.
-Geographical knowledge demonstrated by age group
-Nature of amusements - compare board games and pencil/paper RPGs to the lowest common denominator video games of today in terms of brainpower required for comprehension.
We could go on, but maybe my view is skewed because I was alive then, as now, and see the differences clearly.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Something that is easy to pick up is not inherently shallow. Play a game like Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo, Super Smash Bros Melee, hell even Tetris. Controls are simple to pick up, fun to play, easy to learn, but it is tough to master such games, and there is an extreme amount of depth hidden to be found by the not-so-remedial game players.
Easy to pick up, tough to master - a simple game that's fun to play. That's why today's "current crop" games seem to suck more ass than before.
The difference between a good player and a "remedial" one is not the ability to read a fucking manual to learn all 400 ways to buy an item - it is being able to pick up on all the rules one can "bend" or take advantage of very quickly while playing the game. Parent is stupid, next post please.
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.
>All true, but that does not negate the truthfulness of the parent poster's statement. The population is dumbed down. How it happened is more complex than just video games - the educational system played its part as well, but people are less well educated today than 25 years ago and it shows in their amusements.
I don't think so. I think that's an apparent effect. We are all just becoming more in contact with the uneducated and ignorance of others, the uneducated have more voice in the media, the ignorant have more ways to discuss their ignorance [/me looks around quick].
-MY- dad an uncle used to have fun by throwing knives at each other.
Now, Video Games... THOSE have been dumbed down.
-pyrrho
If you haven't played Ikaruga for the Cube Or Dreamcast you should really try it out. Great game, but I doubt it's humanly possible to beat.
Vote for global prefs bug
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.
I'm not saying that your conclusion is incorrect, merely questioning how you got there.
-Nature of amusements - compare board games and pencil/paper RPGs to the lowest common denominator video games of today in terms of brainpower required for comprehension.
This seems to imply that board games and RPGs were as highly popular "then" as video games now. I don't know if that's true, as I was too young. In terms of the "geek" crowd, I wouldn't doubt it, but the conclusion is about the general public. One cannot discount that there are many activities you can do outside, like sports, that are still widely done today.
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
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.
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
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"
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)
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
I don't think playing kick-the-can and stickball are indications of greater intellect. I have to say, I keep hearing this "the bar keeps being lowered" argument... but I know my parents never had to learn how to translate genetic code in high school. It's possible that my spelling and grammer aren't as clean (yay spellcheck), but I can recite more about genetics or modern computer technology than they ever will. It's my humble opinion that the focuses have changed, that's all.
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.
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!
Uhh, the first personal computer (i.e. the first computer that came out that didn't come in a cabinet or as a kit (like the Altair)) came out more than 25 years ago. Sorry.
Hell, I got my first computer when I was friggin 7, and that was Christmas 1982, over 20 years ago.
Is being able to "crouch" really important in a single player FPS? Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to crouch, to lean, to climb... when I play Thief or Deus Ex. But in a single player FPS? Sure it's nice in multiplayer to separate kids from men, but in a single player FPS?
A few months ago I decided to backup my Doom 2 disks to a cdrom. So I decided to play a game for nostalgia... And I was suprised by how fun it still was. It was far more easier than what I remembered but in a lot of ways it was more fun than modern FPS. No "crouch" but simply more fun.
What's so difficult about crouch? Nothing really but the question is does it add anything to the FPS gaming experience? After playing Doom 2 again, I'm quite positive it doesn't.
"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...
I don't think playing kick-the-can and stickball are indications of greater intellect. I have to say, I keep hearing this "the bar keeps being lowered" argument... but I know my parents never had to learn how to translate genetic code in high school. It's possible that my spelling and grammer aren't as clean (yay spellcheck), but I can recite more about genetics or modern computer technology than they ever will. It's my humble opinion that the focuses have changed, that's all.
I disagree strongly. I think I got a better, more well-rounded education than you did. I had to memorize spelling lists. I learned some geography. I learned how to do long division the hard way - by repetitive exercise. My parents got a better education than I did, for that matter. My dad learned Greek and Latin in high school*.
You may consider this kind of knowledge irrelevant ("I can get it on the web" or your statement above about spellcheckers) but I have to tell you - these things have saved my bacon in the business world more times than I can count. The fact that students today lack these skills can only be to their detriment. To put it quite simply - people who do not have these skills work for me. People who do have these skills, I work for.
There is also the argument that hard study of rote topics tends to discipline the mind. I agree with this.
* This is not totally favoring the schools of the 50s and 60s, however. My father didn't have the benefit of phonics education which did in fact improve my reading comprehension at an early age.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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.
It's not that I think we SHOULD rely on spellcheck, or have to look everything up on the internet. I just think that focuses are different. I didn't have to learn Greek or Latin fluently, but it's most practical application is understand modern word roots. That we DID do. I think we should still emphasize spelling and grammer, but I think schools are trying to get more and more information in in the same timeframes. It just can't work. You can teach spelling AND c++ in the same time it takes to teach spelling. I think you know what I'm trying to say here, right?
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.
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/
Let me guess... you were educated 25+ years ago? Seriously though, if you are going to make that kind of statement, at least back it up with some facts. If people educated 25 years ago are smarter or better educated, then why? Is it in comparison to those who are educated now, or in the relative quality of education between the U.S. (which I assume you are speaking of) and other countries? If what you say is true, then why hasn't technological inovation slowed down?
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
I bet if you told me your sex and hair color I could draw a perfect picture of what you look like. Heck, don't even tell me the gender. ;)
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
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 didn't have to learn Greek or Latin fluently,
t /effect,a table
:-/
> but it's most practical application is understand
> modern word roots. That we DID do.
mmh... quick then, tell me what's an "oligodendrocyte"?
Anyone with a basic knowledge of ancient greek would answer "a cell with few ramifications", which describes accurately this cell of the human brain. You just can't guess that with 3-4 shallow lessons about "word roots" (a.k.a "etymology", from 'etumos', the origin, and 'logos', the science).
Fact is 90% of native english speakers are now unable to fluently spell any word of latin and greek origin, even the most common.
pseudo/psuedo,
information/informatation,
affec
complement/compliment,
compatible/comp
etc.
This is a great loss, especially when you consider the scientific lexicon, which is mere greek and latin
When you can't properly decompose a word, retaining its meaning requires a huge effort.
So you avoid it.
And eventually comes the fear of every word longer than two syllables...
But who cares, they say, small is beautiful!
Well, no, small is ambiguous.
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.
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.
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?