Slashdot Mirror
Designing Videogames For The Wage Slave
Thanks to Ron Gilbert's weblog for pointing out a GameDev.net article discussing the topic of "Designing Games for the Wage Slave" . The author explains: "We balance on the knife's edge between our glorious time-squandered youth, and the commitments of inevitable middle age... If games can adapt to the needs of the working gamer, they can find a lucrative niche." He goes on suggest practical tips for game developers, including 'Don't Waste My Time' ("Make every moment count. I don't play games to punish myself. I play them to be entertained, rewarded, and challenged"), 'Curiosity Killed The Cat...' ("Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... Now, in the comfort of our lounges or offices, what reason is there to keep dumping us out of the game we bought with our hard earned cash?"), and 'I Need Help' ("Make any necessary information available from within the game.")
I find this very interesting.. people who work 40-60 hours a week dont have time to be playing EQ for 10 hours a day everyday, or likewise, any game that wastes my time (and doesnt allow me to skip past the bullshit to the actual game). I noticed when I was on spring break or winter break back in college, I had all this free time to sit and play video games. Now I come home from work, cook/eat, pay bills, etc. And then maybe I have time for a video game.
Growing up sucks...
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Please, please stop this. Thief 3: Deadly Shadows is a great game, but half the time I can't skip the logo crap on startup. Why do you do this? For godsakes, show them all the first time the game is started if you really want to, then GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET ME PLAY THE GAME. Thank you. It would be one thing if the game was loading while the videos are playing, but nope. Morons.
Sure you *could* develop games geared more towards middle-aged adults, I don't think it will be very lucrative though. When you start hitting that middle-age lifestyle especially that mid-life crisis you don't want to spend all your time inside on a computer after spending 40+ hours inside an office cubicle. Leave the video games for your kids and enjoy the stuff that you can do now that you're older and hopefully a little richer.
When targeting consumers with less free time, develop games with lower time requirements.
sustained gratification => instant gratification
This is what passes for insightful?
Sports games give you nicely self-contained packages of gameplay. You can play a football game for a half-hour, and enjoy yourself. You don't have to string together hours of playtime at once to enjoy yourself. ESPN and Madden are always ready when you have a few minutes to kill.
Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... This is why I love MAME, the archade game emulator. You got unlimited funds.. just press a key, and play on. Instant death can also be avoided by saving games. It's all the 4500+ games you played as a child, only on your PC.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
As a corollary to the 'don't waste my time' item, is the issue in some games that only allow you to save at fixed save points - then put those points more than 20 minutes of game play apart. There's nothing worse than picking up a game to play for a while and find that you've solved/succeeded a complex section of the game but can't find a save point and have to go.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
My biggest issue with time drainers like EverQuest is the notion of risk vs reward coupled with lack of player/player interactivity. Post-Ultima Online, the notion of player killing, as well as certain notions of freedom to operate within a gaming environment, have disappeared. I have always thought the greatest risk and rewards took place in that kind of combat. There was no difference in EverQuest for me, new monsters sure, but everything remained the same, I found that bots could have taken the place of the other players. It was the world's most boring single player game, except I paid for the privellege of having an IRC window tacked onto it.
This also brings about ideas of "death" in games, like in games like SWG where you would get warped back to the nearest city, or lose stats/skills upon death, or even those ever-elusive "permenant death" games. I always thought that games that encouraged cowardice never captured my interest, you could lose all this WORK (because on the MMORPG treadmill, you are working) that you did if you attack a monster that is above your level.
Sadly, I don't quite have a solution. But the second year of Ultima Online is pretty much the perfect game of that type, as the treadmill wasn't as emphasised, death wasn't that important, but the rewards weren't out of proportion either. There was a freedom in that game, it wasn't just whacking monsters like a single player game, there was true player interaction. Early Ultima Online was a fine gaming social experiment.
Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... Now, in the comfort of our lounges or offices, what reason is there to keep dumping us out of the game we bought with our hard earned cash?
This is the reason Lucasarts adventure games are so fondly remembered. Nothing was funnier than falling off the cliff in monkey island and seeing the Kings-Quest-esque death screen, only to have your character bounce back onto the screen, make a face, and say "Rubber Tree".
Not having a fear of death lets you try all kinds of crazy shit in games. That's what makes them fun.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The problem with MMORPG's, no matter how good the game play is, no matter how great it is for the casual player - there's always going to be groups of people that will play 10 hours a day and advance further along in the game then you ever could. And eventually, the game developers tailor to this group because they keep paying the bills.
So, probably your best bet is to find a non MMORPG type game to get your fill of games if you can't devote enough time to it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
This article was one guys opinion on whats wrong with games today. And no slashdotters have been giving him any shit for his views? Whats going on?
Ill tells ya whats going on - he only pointed out and praised games that did things right, without spouting on about why Halo gives him the shits (for example).
It really made this article a good read. Maybe a good tip for you journos out there!
Since all of today's games seem to require a story I have one additional request... All cut scenes need to offer Pause, Replay, and Skip.
The most annoying thing about MGS and MGS2 was when the phone rang during a 10 minute cut scene.
There were no middle-aged computer gamers in the last generation. We're the first big generation of kids that's grown up on video games.
Some people get tired of video games, but I'm 26, and I don't think I will ever stop playing them. It's good entertainment. I enjoy playing them, so why would I stop? I'll naturally gravitate away from games saturated with younger kids that I can't relate to, but as we grow older so will the theme of a lot of games.
So.. we're older now. We have money to burn. We like playing video games and we'll pay for them and the hardware to play them on. What's not lucrative about it?
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I'm a working gamer myself, before I go next fall to the real-life Doom 3 that is Caltech. In the time I get to play games, I want to receive varied, enriching experiences: I recently bought a Geforce 6800, quite an upgrade from the 5200 I had earlier (pretty much 10x draw rate). The card came with Far Cry, so I checked it out.
Damn, what a drag. Far Cry's checkpoint system is a Console Evil, designed for 5 year olds with literally too much time on their hands. I spent 30 minutes sneaking through a level, making sure to pay every place a visit, when right near the end I am ungloriously gunned down and forced to replay that entire 30 minutes. I ended up playing the thing over Rambo style, taking a jeep and making a beeline for the place I last died, which took 10 minutes and was 1/10 as engaging as my last play. I've pretty much summed up the gameplay in Far Cry:
n = 1;
1. Walk.
2. Turn on nightvision.
3. Walk.
4. Turn on nightvision. See heat signature.
5. Go prone.
6. Unload all munitions at heat signature.
7. ???
8. Profit!
9. Find out you didn't really profit because 1 second later, one of those giant mutated bullet (and rocket propelled grenade) tampons walked up behind you and blasted you to hell.
10. n++; GOTO 1;
There you have it, the design document for the ULTIMATE FAR CRY SINGLEPLAYER BOT. Yes, that's who you and I are when we're playing games like that: bots. I have a hunch that it would work just as well in multiplayer.
Yes, I know developers and publishers want you to spend time on their games. But stuff like checkpoints and repetitive gameplay like in Far Cry destroy goodwill and create dollars for other, more creative developers. Sure, I know they implemented a quicksave--but that was after the entire populace, awash with rage, found the emperor naked, so to speak. This stuff doesn't have to be taught by hard PR lessons; it should be in the basic rulebook of game design, where it belongs.
All games should have:
An autosave that activates when you quit.
A restore in case of a computer crash.
Robust netcode.
Programmers that have more than the customary two-neuron-one-of-which-is-inhibitory brain.
Simply put, the PC game industry would be so much better if there wasn't as much sexing between the PC and console developers.
Taking the time to build even simple games results in a massive reduction in sleeping hours.
What?!? You're just now finding out that user simplicity is inversely proportional to programming complexity?
A 10 minute simple utility takes 4 hours to make idiot proof.
Did you try Super Mario Sunshine? Again, you have complete camera control. Very challenging game when you get into it.
Tactical RPGs are usually good, too, for the working gamer. You can fight a single battle and save.
--- Ban humanity.
I had a conversation with a friend about this topic and we thought there might be a market for a gaming community based around it. something only for casual gamers. We didn't figure out exactly how it might work but it should be able to exclude people that become too good at a particular game, or spend over a certain number of hours per month or something. I really enjoy playing games online against other people, but it sucks if you have to invest x amount of hours to either get good enough, or build up a certain character to a decent level. I realize that some mechanisms are in place for this sort of thing, like ranking, etc, but i think that they are often inadequate.
The only two games that can keep my attention these are Nethack and Go.
This guy has preconceived some game in his mind. What he's saying makes little sense to me.
If you're so busy you can't dedicate one daily hour to a game, you shouldn't even try playing adventures. Instead of playing stupidly simple games, one would rather go to a web design company sitemap and start pointing and clicking while watching the multimedia. The whole point of adventure games is the challenge.
I've been quite busy myself for some years now and I only play adventures when I'm on vacation. Best games for busy people are multiplayer games with short rounds. I don't really need the latest and greatest. There are many oldies that never get really old. Tekken 3 for instance allows for several rounds in 30 minutes. SNES Mario Kart, or N64 Diddy Kong Racing in multiplayer mode are also great options if you have someone around. You can also look for adversaries online: Bomberman Online for DC is just great, so is soldat for PC (give it a download). Crazy Taxi or Jet Set Radio allow for short sessions. Short deadmatches of your FPS of choice are also very adequate.
This guy probably doesn't know what he's talking about by experience. I don't need a stupidly simple adventure game babysitting me to the end. If you want that, just try the lowest difficulty level and for many games you're set.
Trial and error is just fine. R-type and Ikaruga come to mind. There should be enough save points so you don't have to repeat the same level a ridiculous number of times. In other words: arcades so easy you don't even need to retry are silly (this only applies to arcades).
I agree in a couple of things, though: being lost is not fun (busy or not) and stupid long animations you need to see must die. Busy or not, I don't like wasting my time watching long animations. Most Final Fantasies are excessive, but FF X is just unbearable. Games are not movies, and Square sucks at making movies anyway. Let me play. Shenmues are much better in this respect. They don't bore the shit out of you every minute with a long animation: animations are short, to the point, instructive and often interactive. It also takes you notes so you can easily retake the game after long breaks.
This isn't as much of a problem with the game as it is your perception of the game. Raven Shield is not Quake or Doom. It is not Half-Life. The *point* of Raven Shield is the tactical setup of your assault--assigning members, gear, waypoints, and having everyone work synchronously towards the same goal. The missions themselves are simply where you get to see whether or not your plan worked.
No comment.
"Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... Now, in the comfort of our lounges or offices, what reason is there to keep dumping us out of the game we bought with our hard earned cash?"
Riding a bicycle down-hill is enjoyable for most people. If you never had to ride a bike up-hill in the first place though, it'd get pretty boring pretty fast. You need to know what up-hill means for down-hill to have any value.
If you want, wait a week or so after just about any game is released, search the web and find the God Mode cheats. Frequent deaths are instantly solved. Sure, you get to take a quick tour of all of the games set pieces and pretty graphics but it will barely be a fraction as rewarding as it would have been had you actually had to work for it. My guess is you'll resent the $50 you had to spend far more than if you'd actually earned your way through it.
The lazy option is there. My experience has been that when I've taken it, I've got far less out of the games than when my achievements have actually meant something.
Going back to the bike analogy... Imagine having an engine that powers you up and down hills regardless. Oh, wait, I have one... I call it my car. Yet I've never had a fraction of the fun driving down a hill that I used to get after working to get my bike to the top of a hill and feeling the exhilaration on the way down the far side. Sure, I see more hills now, in less time - which suits my busier adult lifestyle - but each hill means a fraction of what they used to. That's why grown men take time out to go mountain biking and why others find the time to play games without cheating.
Multiplayer FPS was mentionned briefly in the article (Unreal Tournament in particular). However, for me at least, this kind of game really does the job well. When I want brief periods of intense fun, I join a Quake3 Deathmatch or Capture The Flag server, and with matches set with timelimits of 20 min, fraglimits of 30 and capturelimits of 10, they're over in 10 to 20 minutes. Didn't get enough? Stay in for the next match.
I don't worry about savegames, mazes, game over, etc. Got killed? Respawn instantly. Lost your weapons? Get the rocket launcher next to you. Really it's perfect.
However, as Q3 is now dying in favor of more recent offerings (which is a shame since in my opinion, no other game has the pace, precision and fluidity of Q3), the servers which are still active are now either empty or filled with very skilled players. Not a good time to learn multiplayer deathmatch! Also, finding a copy of Q3 is almost impossible nowadays.
Executive summary:
I'm 23, and I have pretty much stopped gaming. I still play a few games now and then.
Things that seem to make a game enjoyable for me:
- Good for parties/friends
- fun to watch someone play
- fun to play together
- small time commitment (15 minute session vs several hours)
- Smooth flow
- Very little searching for items, large travel times - things that make me feel like I'm wasting time
For example: Max Payne 2 and Metroid Prime. Both are excellent games, but Max just didn't keep my attention well enough for me to finish it, or took too long. Metroid was too much of "oh I forgot this item, I have to go look for it over there -- a 15 minute travel. Ooops, I need this to get over there, which is back where I came from"
a couple games I DO enjoy and why:
Super Monkey Ball (and #2) - packed full of fun mini games. You can play for 15 minutes and quit -- no huge time commitment. Great for mini parties.
Mario Kart 64 - same as SMB.
no comment
Given a choice of easy, medium, hard in most video games I used to choose hard to start with. Of course now that I work, I no longer have the patience to replay a level dozens of times just for the challenge of beating a game on the hardest level. Heck, I even beat Quake 3 on nightmare mode (seriously, it's possible but very difficult), but I probably won't consider doing that when Doom 3 comes out. To me, video games now are more like a substitute for going to a movie. If I'm frustrating because I'm reloading a save every minute, it's no longer enjoyable anymore.
("Make every moment count. I don't play games to punish myself. I play them to be entertained, rewarded, and challenged"), 'Curiosity Killed The Cat...' ("Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... Now, in the comfort of our lounges or offices, what reason is there to keep dumping us out of the game we bought with our hard earned cash?") Difficulty and death are in games for a reason. A game just isnt fun if "every moment counts". Without a little punishment from a videogame it doesnt really feel like youre even accomplishing anything - because anyone else would be able to accomplish the same thing easily. No one wants to sit down and play http://www.progressquest.com/ Challenges and a little "S&M" often make a game more interesting.
But the author himself points out how certain styles of games, like RTS and FPS, are great for when you don't have a lot of time. They make it easy to find a game (either against the computer or against real players online), play, and then go do something else. This line of reasoning seems to defeat the original premise of the article. The funny thing is, I was thinking the same thing. When I don't have a lot of time, I might load up Age of Mythology, or UT2004. On the other hand, when I have the time to really get involved in a game, I'll turn to something like Morrowind.
My point is that there is already a huge variety of games, some that you can jump right in and play a few quick games, and some that are much more involved and require some time to really get into and discover everything. Both niches are already filled. Then again, when the guy is saying, "I recently moved into a new apartment. This has literally left me with only a few minutes of gaming per day," I don't know what he expects anyone to tell him. Wait until you have settled in to your new place, I guess. For most, gaming is a hobby like any other. If you can only spare a few minutes out of your day for a hobby, then you're either seriously overworked, mismanaging your time, or have way too many hobbies in the first place.
For those that like to spit on ideas such as those presented in the article; take a look at the world around you!
;)
The most often played game is probably Freecell or Minesweeper? Why? Because you can play it for a few minutes whilst waiting for something else or just to while away half an hour or so. Puzzle games answer all the needs the author describes in the article, now if only other types of games would.
I agree with the article in many ways. Especially the part about having to restart. I cheat. Yes. I confess I cheat in games.
I don't like it when a racing game requires me to study it's mechanisms for multiple hours only to require me many hours of training more just to have a minuscule chance at unlocking a new car or course. I don't like to have to play a single course a hundred times just to enable an even more difficult course. I just want to switch on the machine and race a few laps with my extremely customized ultimate racing car in whatever landscape I feel like driving in that day. And perhaps even knock a few other cars around.
I don't like being kicked the crap out of by weirdo muscular freaks and freakettes, I experienced that enough in school! I want to take revenge; slaughter that big guy with the suit who looks just like my boss, kick the crap out of the that irritating muscleboy and I want to do it with the panache of Bruce Lee. And god knows I just want to see those cute girls wrestle it out on the beach!
I really (really, really) liked Jak & Dexter until one challenge which I just couldn't figure out. Since I had to do this particular challenge to continue I just gave up on the game.
Same goes for LOTR2 where somewhere in level 10 or so I couldn't even cheat through due to an enemy which would kill you with one touch if you were distracted for just a second.
Most games have such problems, please, please, PLEASE allow us casual gamers the ability to skip the parts of your games we don't like or just can't get past. Sure, it's cheating, but so what if it makes our experience better?
What the author is saying is that he just wants to have fun gameplay, not to wade through levels designed to be nearly unbeatable or challenge some artificial intelligence who knows more special combos than I'm willing to learn or worse; a hardcore gamer who's just intend on satisfying his ego.
This isn't just about older people though. The casual gaming market has been mostly neglected in favour of the "quick-and-easy-profit" hardcore market. Some noticeable exceptions such as Sims and (my own favourite) Roller Coaster Tycoon prove it can be different though.
Currently I'm putting all my hope on that new Playboy game, looks like Sims for men.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I guess I'm the demographic the article's about. I spent a lot of time playing games during my youth and while I was a student, but since starting a 9-to-5 job last year (with a 90 minute journey at either end of the day), I've had to be a bit more careful in how I use my gaming time.
That said, I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of the article. I don't particularly mind time-sinks. I play a MMORPG (FFXI) and, despite the fact that you spend a fair bit of time grinding, I don't mind that, because much of the fun in a MMORPG comes from the social interactions and from the thrills you do get when you explore a new area or fight a major boss. I also play a lot of offline RPGs, both console and PC, where levelling up your characters is a major factor in the game.
Making all of the necessary information available within the game isn't a bad idea, but I'd hardly consider it a vital factor. I don't mind referring to a manual. My normal practice when playing a new game is to read any "plot" sections of the manual and check how the controls work before I play. I'll then refer to the manual as I go along, whenever I bump into something I don't understand. I recently started playing Disgaea (superb game, play if it you haven't already) and this worked well there; reading the entire manual before I started wouldn't have helped, as many of the concepts would have seemed bizarre if I hadn't already played the game, but going into it with no grounding at all would have been hard.
For me, far and away the biggest issue relates to saving progress. One thing I absolutely loathe and despise is having to go back and do something I've already done. I'm not talking about grinding in FFXI here; that changes as you level up, so there's a sense of progress. I'm talking about having to replay a 15 minute game section because I died right at the end and had no option to save my game. In my mind, there is *no* excuse for not implementing a quicksave function in PC (and perhaps Xbox) games or not having ample opportunities to save in a console game. I own and use all three of the current-generation consoles, but I've a particular dislike for the Gamecube, because so many of its games have ridiculous save policies. I'm drawn to games which let me feel I've made progress at the end of each session; MMORPGs are obviously a good example here, as are RPGs such as Disgaea or KOTOR. Conversely, I'm much less likely now to play "simple" shoot-em-ups. I recently bought R-Type Final in a fit of nostalgia. However, despite the fact that it was a good shooter, I found the fact that I was expected to go back to level 1 every time I loaded up to be far too dispiriting.
If I'm playing a game, and someone walks into the room to talk to me, I don't have to scrabble for the pause button, or whatever, I just drop the joystick, release the mouse, hands off the keyboard, whatever, turn and talk to them.
I guess I can't see how 'scrabling' for the pause button is a big deal. On most PC games it's 'pause', you just reach out and hit it. It takes a second. No scrabling involved, very quick and easy.
Those may be your terms, but frankly I think they are pretty unworkable for most games, and unreasonably too. I suppose you could have a dead man's switch on the mouse, but really it's total overkill (and will probably hurt you hand afer a while) for a total non-issue to the vast majority of gamers.
The idea of logging off to do tradeskills is sketchy at best. You're basically just saying "Okay, everyone is now a master at " because everyone would just set it and forget it.
Making tradeskills more fun then EQ would definately be nice (SWG is better with this to varying degrees) but to allow it to be automated takes absolutely *all* the prestige and reward for it.
The rare spawn thing does suck sometimes - but, think about it. If everyone could just walk up to the cave, say a magic word, and pop here's the monster, what's the challenge? What's the reward?
As far as "essential character development quests and battles" well, I am not sure how you really classify this. All the quests in EQ end up with some sort of item. Nothing really more then that. Although a character's epic weapon is (okay.. was) really sweet, it wasn't exactly essential to your gameplay - and they used to be so good that if everyone could just bang them out with single groups, then *again* - what's the challenge? What's the real reward there if everyone's got 'em no problem?
EQ is not perfect but it's the imperfections that people bitch about that actully keep people playing. Sure, it could be better. How? I don't really have an answer for that. When you finally get that mob to spawn, or you finally get that drop, isn't it a great feeling? You have a feeling of accomplishment, a feeling that you've done something that a lot of people have not been able to.
If you can get that feeling of accomplishment without having to work for it, then bless you. But I can't.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
PlanetSide did do it - kinda. The problem with PlanetSide is that it ignores the MMORPG element almost all together. It is not much different then a big version of tribes. Just because the meat of a game is based around skill instead of the old time = power equation doesn't mean that you have to cut out all role playing elements like PlanetSide does. Things like houses, clothing, an economy, and in general the entire social scene of an MMORPG do not need to be cut in order to make the game player skill based and attractive to a casual gamer. PlanetSide doesn't have much more of a social scene then any other FPS. People might bullshit during a fight, but really there is little beyond that. The appeal of an MMORPG is a vast world to play AND socialize in. I am not putting down PlanetSide, but it isn't a new breed of MMORPG, just a sophisticated large scale FPS.
I personally find the utter lack of imagination in MMORPG developers to be disappointing. They tout features that are just refinements on a bad formula. World of WarCraft is not going to be any sort of holy grail. It is going to be the same old MMORPG done in the refined manner that Blizzard is famous for. Certainly it will be a great MMORPG compared to the rest, but they are not changing the formula. It is still a game where your character's skill means the most, and your character's skill is based purely on the time you can throw at the game.
I foresee an MMORPG some time in the next five years that is going to break all the rules. Alls it takes is a gutsy developer and some designers who can convince the money men that the casual gamer is the target. They are going to build a world based upon player skill, and it is going to be big. Imagine if you will a world with the size and exploration potentials of any current MMORPG, along with solid role playing and socializing features that we expect in an MMORPG, but with a combat system like that of a FPS. Such a game would be big. It would attract those into FPS, those who like the socialization aspects of MMORPGs, and those who can only play a limited amount each day. Hell, you might even bring in the people who like to play the Sims if you make your socialization features robust enough. The only people getting the shaft in such a system are the people who blow 10 hours a day on a computer game to be the best... but who really gives a shit about them? If you are spending 10 hours a day on a game, chances are you don't have a credit card, and you certainly fall into a very small minority. Attract the people who play Unreal 2004 and/or the people who like the socialization aspect of MMORPGs and you have a massive audience that dwarfs the crazy 15 year olds who can blow half of their day on a video game.
Hell, just imagine collecting a monthly fee from just the people who play Unreal 2004. Believe me, that number make what MMORPGs bring in now look like pocket change.
I agree for the most part. Some games I don't even bother starting up unless I have a few free hours at least. I may grab a quick multiplayer round of RTCW or Far Cry or play games on MAME for a short while, but I'm not going to play Silent Hill or something for only 30 minutes. Certain games are not very well suited to very short infrequent playing periods. I find that games with prominent stories and games with strong atmosphere don't work well very short sessions, because by the time you're getting into the mood fo the game, it's time to go to bed or work or school or wherever.
Why are you people taking this so personally anyway? The original poster made no personal attacks, but you are making plenty against him.
Play whatever you want, but realize that most adventure or RPG games are generally designed to be played for a little while at a time.
And for the record, I'm 24, working and going to school and I don't have that much free time either. I just realize that some games need more time than others and plan accordingly. But then, I'm also one of those weirdos that reads manuals in their entirety before playing a new game.
"Here's another benefit - anyone who's been a kid (or dealt with kids) and trying to distract their attention away from a game, the excuse is always "I can't pause now" or "hang on, just a minute". If you have a game that you can literally drop and walk away from, it changes the way you interact with it."
Good to see I'm not the only one who's been wondering if game companies are shooting themselves in the foot with that.
There's a lot of anti-gaming resentment among some parents, and a lot of it doesn't come from "it'll teach them to be violent" ideas. Probably most of it is along the lines of "but he cares about that console more than about me! Every time I tell him to come do something, he's like 'can't pause now'! And half an hour later he's still at it! He's addicted!"
And I've been playing games myself where I have to replay a whole huge map from the beginning, if I quit in the wrong place. Or even one which made me play 10 hours straight before I found a save point.
Now adult or kid, noone wants to lose half an hour of their work. Tell some non-gamer to turn the computer off _now_ without saving, when they're writing a long email or post. No, no touching that "save" or "send" button. Turn it off _now_! They won't be happy. They won't want to.
So I'm guessing that a lot of the "addiction" that some parents see, is actually just idiotic game design.
Just for the record, I do think that games are mildly addictive. But there's mild addiction and there's major addiction. Even an alcohol addict can take a 5 minute break from drinking. Even a chain-smoker can take a short break from smoking.
When they can't, that's when you get worried. And that's what those parents mistakenly think they see there: someone who absolutely can't take a break from playing with that console. No matter how often you tell him to come here, that damn kid is like glued there to the controller, and seemingly can't take a break. When in reality, the poor bugger is just feverishly looking for a save point, 'cause he'd rather not have to redo the whole last hour.
Makes it look like a far worse addiction than it really is. In some cases, it makes it look bad enough that a stupid parent and a luddite physician put that kid on drugs, to "save" him from those evil games.
I'm thinking that if designers stopped doing that, they'd have a lot less bad press and a lot less worried parents on their case.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.