Slashdot Mirror
Sega Boss Stresses Fun Factor, Simpler Games
Thanks to Video-Fenky for their translation of an interview with Hisao Oguchi, the new boss of Sega. In it, Oguchi argues that less "grandiose games" are the way to rejuvenate the games market, referencing titles such as The Sims, Animal Crossing and Namco's Taiko no Tatsujin as good models for doing this, and saying: "Developers can't force their game worlds and huge stories on users. We can't have people balk at sitting in front of the TV and playing games because it's too tiring. All games are made to be fun for the people playing them, so in the next generation especially, making content that doesn't feel tiring to gamers will be very important."
Now someone pass this on to squaresoft...Why they won't allow you to skip the 5 minute spell-casting screens...How many times do I need to see Knights of the Round??? Once!
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
pppppppffffffffffhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt!
So why not fire everyone who didn't understand this in the first place, so they aren't allowed to devolve games to this point ever again?
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
The guy understands the secret to enjoyable games. Right now, games are super-elaborate to please the under-20 crowd, who have lots of time to spend on such things. However, the older, more wealthy segment of the population just doesn't care to learn the 400 odd special moves in Tekken Tag Tournament, they have better things to do with their lives.
Enter simple games.
The problem with this is, grandiose games are easy to market. "It will blow your mind!!!" etcetera. If another tetris-like breakthrough came out today, it wouldn't be marketable to sell for $60, and so would slip through the EB and Babbage's crowd unnoticed.
Enter the PC.
Shareware is a distribution model that supports less-than-grandiose titles. After all, if you've already tried the game and like it, you'll be more likely to buy it than another, more expensive game that promises "pulse-pounding action!!!". Can Smega make games with this model? I doubt it will.
And of course, Linux is the ultimate distribution model for games that are actually fun. Since its relatively easy to get put in a distro, millions will see your game. I know the first thing I checked when upgrading to Debian Sarge was the games menu. Circus Linux or Copter Commander will not "blow you away!!!" but they are fun and pass the time. : )
We're actively developing our business overseas, of course. The North American marketplace, especially, is twice the size of Japan's. The first fundamental of our overseas strategy is: if the title's meant for North America, then it's Americans that make it. There will always be a culture barrier that we can't completely bury. For example, Japanese people wouldn't understand what a player should say when he's tackled in a football game.
OMFG! Someone over there gets it. I'd expect no less from the Japanese company founded by an American.
See, all joking about Nintendo aside, they don't make things with Americans in mind. They make products, then decide what the Americans are likely to buy. And that is why they are increasingly niche in this country. (Ok fanboys, please notice increasingly, compare the NES to today...) See, when they made the NES, it was designed largely by Nintendo of America. It was significantly different from the Famicom because the markets are significantly different. Today there is no difference between a Japanese and an American Gamecube outside of region encoding. The result? The Gamecube is a non-standard size and does not fit in the standard American entertainment unit slot. And thats just one example, but it isn't my main point in this post...
I'm concerned because he ackowledges the differences and explains Sega's solution (different developers for different regions as appropriate), but goes back on it when talking about simpler gameplay. The thing is, the numbers indicate Americans want more complex gameplay. A sampling from the PS2 SCEA greatest hits list:
THPS3
Metal Gear Solid 2
WWE Smackdown
SOCOM
Max Payne
NBA 2k2
NFL 2k2
Grand Theft Auto 3
Not a dance title in the bunch. Sure there are a few examples of Japanese style games in the whole list, but these are really the exception that proves the rule. The fact is, that as the American mainstream embraces gaming more and more, the Japanese and American markets are becoming more different than ever. And thats ok. I just hope Sega and Nintendo and the others can learn to embrace it like Konami has (they make MGS even though it only ever does well Stateside) and target completely different games for the two completely different audiences.
One wouldn't expect the games on the list above to do well in Japan, why does one expect that their games will go over well with the US mainstream? Sure Nintendo will always have its fans. And thats ok. But if they want to hit the mainstream, they might want to consider thinking different.
Games should be.... fun?
HERESY!!
Complicated games mean a stable audience, however this is not what game companies want. It's important to keep this article in context.
Sega is in quite a precarious position at the moment. The road to becoming a strictly software company has been rough, and stems from the fundamental problem that no one is playing their games. Quite logically, a company with a small market share wants to expand its audience. The simplest way to do this is to create simple games that have mass appeal. Now, this is not some geek-elitist opinion of mine; I am not calling the masses "simple." However, it's much easier to capture a customer by giving them a simple challenge that doesn't take much learning.
Despite Sega's new "design philosophy," there will always, always be a place for complicated and difficult games. Despite the fact that the population-at-large will statistically prefer the "easy" game to the "hard" one, there will always be a sect of hardcore gamers: people with experience on many consoles that enjoy controller-busting challenges. Just as the game industry needs to grow, it also needs its zealots, too. These are the people that are more open to trying new concepts, and will eventually show companies which direction they ought to follow. While a new gamer may be scared by difficult controls, or a non-standard interface, a more mature gamer can look past the learning phase into the real meat of the game, seeing the experience for what it's really worth. This is evolution at work within the game industry, and natural selection has given us analog controls, lock-on targeting in 3d games, and even standard mouse and keyboard controls for first-person shooters.
Really, it is not the games themselves that are complicated, but rather their interfaces. This is something Nintendo understands quite well, and they've taken a lot of flack for it. The Gamecube's controller design oozes simplicity. (Simplicity in that your fingers know precisely where to go.) Certain buttons makes themselves very clear that they are important, and to what degree that importance is. While this works well when all your games follow this standard, third party titles can (unintentionally) muck this whole system up. When playing a Gamecube game, it's very clear whether the game was designed with Nintendo's system in mind, or simply as a cross-platform port. A perfect example is Madden, or any football game, for that matter. When your quarterback goes to pass on your PS2 or X-Box, the buttons for each receiver are very obvious and equally important. A quick glance at either system's controller shows that, clearly, all of the face buttons are just as important as one another, just as each receiver is equally important on the field. Nintendo's pad, however, while perfect for Metroid Prime or Super Smash Bros., simply sucks as a football controller.
Now, the paradox has become apparent. At what point does game simplicity break down from lack of control? When does complicated become too complicated? Who, exactly, is to blame for shoddy control? Is Sony responsible for making a pad that's very open-ended as to which buttons are considered important to a game? Is Nintendo responsible for not giving developers enough freedom in their controls? Is Electronic Arts responsible for not using the Gamecube controller to its fullest extent?
"Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
"Developers can't force their game worlds and huge stories on users."
Say that you like to play games, say that you would like to play online because playing with/against other human being is more fun/challenging/whateveryouwant... say that maybe you also have a life... would you really log once in a while in some ultima online or diablo server and hang around as the very weak guy that could be crushed anytime by any hardcore semipro online gaming addicted who can and usually do stay in the game 24/7?
Donthinkso, just let people log in and start having fun as fast as a coin slips in an arcade machine... call me old fashioned
All games are made to be fun for the people playing them
He's not the only guy in japan who gets it. If I'm not mistaken, Mssr Miyamoto has been saying the above for a while, and has been derided by industry types for saying so.
My brother in law has been salivating over the advertisements for John Madden 200X for a while now, and I've sat him down with (NFL2k3). As much as he loves the graphics, and the idea of a realistic video football game, he invariably gives up in about 10 minutes. "It's too much work".
Initially I balked over the gamecube controller (and still do to some extent), but I'm beginning to see the wisdom in less buttons, and less complex controls.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Years ago I would have plenty of time for epics like Civilization or SimCity. But no more...
Now, I'm quite content with the simple games. More often than not, the online games over at Yahoo. Simple way to burn 10 minutes.
That's not to say that complex games are bad or no longer going to sell though! It's just a realization that the "gaming" market is big and diverse. Not everyone has the time or interest to "learn a game".
The deeper you look into the past, the more you see the game industry as a niche. Game developers were catering to that niche, by making more and more complex games in order to ensure the die hard gamer (their target) keeps seeing something new.
These days with 13 year old girls and the like entering the console market, Sega is just doing the logical thing and retargetting a broader audience. Hopefully this wont mean those of us that have propped the industry up for the past 20 years are sacrificed on the alter of profit margins.
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
We are going the way of TV, when we almost got away from it.
When people watch TV, they just sit there, and vegetate. They dont really think. They dont have to think hard, strategize, manipulate, orientate. They just sit there and be amused by what is on the television.
Computer games should be different. I hate it when I come home for a week and my sister, a dumb blonde with probably no future (I'm nothing if not honest), sitting there playing mindless arcade games like you'd find on neopets.com.
Compare to my brother, who even though he spends a lot of time on the computer instead of reading, is smart for his age, figures things out, likes to build things, etcetera. He played games like Starcraft, Homeworld, and now Rise of Nations. He is only 11 years old, anbd he plays games some of my 20 year oldd friends say are too complex for their liking.
We have enough things to distract us from thinking, we dont need to turn the computer into another brainless pastime.
I realize consoles are not PC games, but I'd really hate to see PC games follow the lead of people like this guy.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Surely we need both? I play "simple" games (such as "Wario Ware"), or games with a good save-function for those spare ten minutes waiting for the bus, or for a break from work. When I happen to have a spare weekend, I like something more complex that will draw me in Friday evening and not spit me out until Monday morning. Yes, the "just one more go" type game could do that, but something slightly less repetetive is more fun in the long run. I *like* a good story and a huge and strange world to explore (and/or conquer). Then again, my game-tastes and I don't fit into any demographic aimed for by games-producers. :-) I can understand that the majority may cherish simplicity as a feature. Most people probably don't play games to be challenged, thus it is more profitable to make that sort of game. I just hope that enough game-makers find the time and the finances to produce the occasional quirky and fun game.
I do agree that the controls shouldn't be the complex bit, they don't have to be easy to master, but need some sort of logic.
I personally don't feel that complexity it an issue with games today. A bit of a challange is a good thing. The problem I am seeing with games is that they are no longer about playing a game and having fun, and more about the producer trying to tell some story. Now, storylines are fine, and good, we need them to hold the violence together, but I start having a problem when I am spending more time watching cut-scenes than I am actually playing the game. A great example of this is the Final Fantasy series, I loved the first one in the US on the NES, in fact, I still go back and play it occasionally (working on getting a party to 30th level before beating Garland, innane but fun). The second one (US based again) just didn't capture my interest as much, too much emphasis on the cut-scenes, and the incredibally pathetic story, not to mention the sub-desert castle kinda turned me off to it. The third one, I beat once and never touched again, dealing with the cut-scenes the first time was painful enough, and the story was pretty much the exact same story as the second one, and still just as insulting to the intellegence of the player. I'm afraid I can only take so much of the "choose your lover; oh, and we need to save that world thingy" type story before I retch and I dislike the whole steampunk genre to boot. I never did play FF7 myself, I saw a friend playing it, and realized that it hadn't gotten any better. FF8 feel into the same boat, saw it, and just didn't bother. Not had a chance to see FF9 or FF10 yet, but from everything I have heard, they sound to be the same, "look at our graphics" fests with more trite dialogue, and the hero who is caught between potential lovers.
Can we please get more games where the story doesn't get in the way of good gameplay? It should be there to tie all of the action together, not make me feel like I am watching a damn movie with frantic button mashing in between scenes. And you can keep the dating sim to yourself, I just want to pick up my sword, go out into the world and cut down a few thousand baddies, and maybe save the world while I'm at it.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
When you take a look at say, any 10 or 50 games, and take a look at how those games are played, you will notice that for the vast majority of those games, you are using one or two buttons much more often then the others. In a shooter, your mostly shooting. In a platformer, your mostly jumping. Also, in the games menu system you are tyically using one button to confirm and another to cancel / back out.
Having a controller where all the buttons are equal in size only makes sense when all the buttons are going to see equal use. This really only happens in typical Fighter games (Hard punch, hard kick, light punch, light kick.
To get an idea of which controller is really the best designed, just pick up the controller and do the following:
1) Press every analog stick / directional pad in every direction. Are any of them in a bad position to reach quickly without changing your grip? Can you comfortably hold each in any direction for any amount of time? How likely are you to cause the wrong direction to be entered on the directionl pad on a quick press?
2) Press every button 10 times as fast as you can. Which buttons are hard to reach without altering your grip? Which buttons cause you to miss and hit the wrong button most often?
On the Game Cube, the directional pad is too small to easily press the direction if you just want a quick tap. The Z button is awkward to reach, and the X button is a bit awkward for your thumb. Any other problems with the arrangement are most likely due to the controller just fitting in your hand badly (If you like the big X-box controller, you tend to hate the game cube controller).
On the PS2, the R2 and L2 buttons are likley to have you hit R1 and R2 if you need to use them in a hurry. And the primary buttons arent perfect either. When you grab the controller, your thumb naturally rests on Square. Being able to easily reach Triangle or X means you have to shift your grip a little. If you need to hit circle quickly, you need to shift your grip alot more. If you rest your thumb on circle instead, the reverse is true. And the left analog and directional pad are not in ideal positions, because most games assume analog input now, not the directional pad.
The X-Box controller is worse. Most of the primary buttons are not only hard to reach, but they are shaped in a way that makes it very easy to hit the wrong button. And the origional controller (not the S type) only had two of the 4 primary buttons positioned for easy rapid access.
END COMMUNICATION