Games Are Supposed To Be Fun, Right?

The Game Chair has up an editorial examining the increasing complexity and learning curve that pervade todays games. He examines the reality that, for many people, games are becoming simply unfun. From the article: "As a Gamer, I am amazed and delighted that games have advanced as far as they have. I'm still blown away everytime a new Final Fantasy or Legend of Zelda game comes out, and I look forward to spending hundreds of hours with them exploring all of their intricacies. That being said, the same things that attract me to these games might repel others who are casual gamers or non-Gamers. The importance of the 'pick-up and play' style of games, for me, lies not only in the nostalgia that I feel for them, but also in the importance of having games that are accessible to everyone."

Comments

Games should be easy to start

[CrazyJim1]

As a rule, games should be easy to learn, but difficult to master. This is accomplished by making the basic game play not require many various button presses at the start. Hense the easy levels. But as the player goes on in levels, more special equipment is picked up, and the game play becomes more challenging.

Board games

[Godeke]

There is a similar dichotomy in board games at the moment. The casual board gamers (i.e., the typical American family) continue to buy "classic" games (Monopoly, Risk, Yahtzee, etc). Anyone can put these things on the table and play them (albeit, frequently not as the rules actually are spelled out...)

Meanwhile, there are several "hard core" gaming communities (Eurogamers, Grognards, etc) that demand games that fail to generate any interest at the Toys 'R Us level. The *interesting* thing is that (at least in America) the mass market controls board games (i.e., war-games are not sold at toy stores, nor are eurogames). In the computer game community, the Hard Core gamers seem to still control the gaming direction. Which seems a little weird to me, but enjoy it while you can, because once the development houses figure out they can sell 50 million "generic-easy-to-play" vs 5 million (if you are lucky) hard core games, the game industry will be nothing but forgettable tripe like the American board games available in the average store. I guess the only thing that keeps this unusual situation possible is the larger free time pool that the "hard core" can expend and the fact that $50 x 5 million looks acceptible compared to $10 x 50 million (especially with cost of shelf space, etc). If casual gamers continue to gain marketshare, expect that calculation to change.

Re:Board games

[Godeke]

Having a collection of over 400 board games, I'm well aware of Settlers. I'm also aware that it isn't available in major toy stores to this day, *despite* selling millions. I would consider it a fluke more than a trend.

My point was that board games are dominated by games that don't *have* to be taught at all, because families play the game by memory and hand the games down through generations (thus Free Parking causing Monopoly to last even longer than the design merits). Soon, computer games will be dominated the same way. Not that there are not good casual games (TFA uses several Nintendo games as examples of that).

However, as an example, Grognards (war-gamers) have been reduced to *promising to buy games ahead of time* to convince publishers to expend the resources on a game. The publisher says "if we can get 500 orders, we will finish the game". The Grognards pledge to purchase those games (by submitting credit card info via a website) in the hopes that they can scrape together *499* other orders. That borders on the pathetic.

Now, why is it that the Hard Core gamers manage to convince companies to produce product that only they will buy while in the more mature board game world they have to pledge money up front to publishers to make something they might enjoy? I think it is because the mass market appeal of games is a fairly recent event and things haven't matured to the same point. Which means, as you say, the Hard Core "had better get over themselves quickly". Because once the suits realize they can make more serving the general public, you will see a similar stagnation that has produced 75 Monopoly editions, 10 Risk editions and one Settlers of Catan (which isn't even available to the "mainstream"... you might be a closet Eurogamer :) )

Kind of a complex issue actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an amateur/hobbyist game developer and game student, I spend a lot of time examining interfaces and trying to put myself in the shoes of a non-gamer. I think the poster is both correct and quite wrong. Some thoughts:

1 - Games, as a whole, take too much time to learn how to play and enjoy, ESPECIALLY for non-gamers. Too often, "learning how to play" means learning how to avoid pitfalls and problems that are due to sloppy execution or short-sighted production, rather than genuine "rules" of the game.

2 - Counterpoint: All games should not be Katamari Damacy. All games should not be Steel Battalion either. It is OK to have complex games, simple games, long games, short games, etc. VARIETY IS GOOD. IF we demand that the industry make everything accessible, that is just as bad as making every game inaccessible. Choice is king! (is that a burger king thing?)

3 - TFA uses the Zelda and FF series as examples of nice, easy to learn games. I don't think the author is stepping back quite far enough; these games, to non-gamers, are incomprehensible and confusing. Do your parents play Zelda? Do your parents play FF7? Games like Bejeweled or Rocket Mania are much closer to the point.

4 - In response to many of the posts that have already been put up, Pick Up And Play does not mean Simple and Boring. Super Smash Bros (both iterations) was a pick up and play title that offered successively deeper levels of gameplay and strategy the more you played. It required zero to little instruction and was instantly fun. I admit that most current Pick Up And Play titles ARE simplistic and get boring more quickly than complex games. However, I hope that the example of Super Smash Bros sheds a little light on the possibility of avoiding those problems in the future.

5 - I think that fixing this problem is easier in multiplayer games than in single player. Most of the examples listed previously (starcraft, etc) are still interesting not because of their complexity (or at least not wholly) but because they are a way of competing with friends or strangers, something people love to do anyways. Multiplayer gaming has a chance to really "lead the charge" here, as it were. Super Smash Bros is an almost invisible interface that allows you to fight your friends; Starcraft is the same, though with a steeper learning curve.

6 - Here are some things non-gamers don't understand:
A - If there is a blue key, then there is a blue door.
B - The big key is the boss key.
C - Red bad guys are harder than blue bad guys.
D - In all likelihood, your avatar is nearly invincible by real world standards.
E - Invisible walls are commonplace and accepted.
F - Animation isn't a real reflection of your interaction with the game world (is changing though - compare Prince of Persia: Sands of Time to Onimusha: Moonwalking In Place).

7 - I call at that stuff in #6 "game grammar." It's something that everyone who reads Slashdot has schema for, its hardwired in after 1000s of hours of Nintendo and Sega Genesis. It is a much larger stumbling block for non-gamers than many people realize. That's why the Sims was such a HUGE hit (and also a good candidate for pick up and play with complexity).

This is a lot of unorganized crap. But I hope it speaks to some of the concerns related to the topic at hand.

Tedium is also a factor

[DoctaWatson]

Steep learning curves and complexity add a richness to many games, maybe at the price of "pick up and play" qualities.

Tedium, however, sucks the fun out of games and adds no great stimulation to make up for it. Sometimes it's unintentional tedium, like bad inventory management systems or lack of non-repetitive content.

Oftentimes though, the tedium is artificially added. The best examples of this are in MMORPG's where "timesinks" can literally account for DAYS of gameplay over a long enough period. In WoW, for example, you can expect 15-20% of your gaming time being spent travelling.

If you want to make games fun, don't bother with the learning curve- just get rid of the tedium.

I'll say!

[furry_marmot]

My first game on my PS/2 (late bloomer a few years ago) was GTA3. There was a learning curve, and then I had many hours of fun with it. GTA Vice City was larger, harder, had some annoying bugs, and I never did finish it. It just got to be a task to figure out what to do next. My wife bought me GTA San Andreas for Christmas, and I'm still barely into it. I originally thought the hugeness of the game would be great, but it's just boring. Get an assignment, drive for five minutes, blow it, start again. That's not fun. It's a huge waste of time, while hoping some fun happens eventually, when you're not eating, working out, and trying to earn respect points.

It reminds me of when I tried my wife's copy of The Sims once. I friggin' live my life already. I don't have time to help a bunch of digital homunculi work, sleep, pay bills, and indulge their neuroses. Despite the popularity of it, I lasted three days with it and was done forever.

My favorite PS/2 game in the past year was Simpson's Hit & Run. Just silly mindless fun. I'm old (old enough anyway) and I like to play games to unwind a bit, not to get wound up. If I want to engage my mind in something deep and complex, I look for a game of Go or a good book.

It's NOT about length

[Moraelin]

The problem isn't the length of the game, but about interface complexity and learning curve. If you put it in terms of time, it's the length of the time needed to learn even the basic controls or interface, i.e., time _not_ actually spent enjoying the game.

I figure I might count as a die-hard gamer, having played computer games since 1983 and currently totalling some 60+ hours of gaming a week. (Ok, so I don't have a life.) But even for me a lot of games are basically non-fun because they expect me to devote a few days just learning what my options are, wtf I can do and how.

I can think of games that were long and yet had a gentle learning curve, and which basically you could play right away. E.g., Diablo is the classic example.

E.g., I once nagged mom into trying Tropico. The game isn't short and isn't simplistic. For that time it was IMHO _the_ most complex city-building simulation. And yet lemme tell you after the tutorial and a few hits from me, mom was playing like a pro and enjoying it. Sure, didn't yet know _all_ the options and subtleties, but knew enough to build a city and learn more gently along the way.

E.g., I decided to one-up that experiment by introducing grandma to Sierra's "Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom". We're talking an 80 year old woman who is completely computer-illiterate and doesn't even own a computer. Ok, so it took a bit more tutoring, and every once in a while she'd hold her fingers wrong and use the left mouse button instead of right or viceversa. (Ok, Apple fans can feel vindicated.) Well, it was the first time she ever held a mouse, so can't blame her. But still, she did get the general idea, was doing an adequate job of building farms and roads, and most importantly was having fun with it.

That's basically the point: a game can be complex and it can be long (mom got about 2 months of playing out of Tropico) without having a vertical learning curve. It just takes good design, you know.

The trick Sierra's city building games did, for example, was to flatten the learning curve along the whole campaign. You start with just needing to build a well and houses in the first mission, and every subsequent mission gives you just a little more complexity, and a little bit more to learn. You can start to enjoy your game long before you know half the possibilities.

Re:It's NOT about length

[Cornflake917]

I am brkello's little brother. If anyone out there is listening to this...HELP ME! Everytime I sit down to play a game, he comes by and beats the hell out of me for no reason. I think he is delusional. He keeps asking me "See!? Isn't this more realistic!? Aren't you immersed!?!?" All I can do is just scream in pain has he pounds me into the ground. If there is anyone merciful enough out there, PLEASE call the authorities. Oh damn! I think he's comi l;akdfa;

What games need more of...

[Digital Vomit]

Here's a list of things that software developers should continue putting in games. Thankfully they haven't steered away from these features for decades:

• When you die, you should always start back at the beginning of the level. This builds perserverance, which is a good character trait.
• If a game is really good, gamers won't mind excessive backtracking. Getting the key at area A, inserting it into the slot back at area B, heading back to area A to move the now unlocked lever, and running back to area B before the door closes gives the player a lot of time to look at the beautiful backgrounds and maybe learn new and better techniques to defeat the monsters along the way.
• Have every neat thing in the game become available after completing a certain task. In fact, don't make the regular game available until you've successfully completed a few training levels. This gives the player goals to achieve. Oh, and don't make multiplayer available until you finish a few single player levels. This just gives the players a chance to practice before playing against each other. To be fair, never put in any code to make all "unlockables" available. If someone can't put in the forty hours of gameplay to unlock the cool stuff featured on the back of the box, they shouldn't be playing the game.
• Nothing says "fun" like a big maze!
• A great way to introduce variety in a game is to use the same bad guys, but make them different colors. This surprises the player because he thinks "Hey, I've fought this guy before, but he was a different color. Something's up! I'd better be on my guard"
• Include as few options as possible. Too many options may overwhelm the player.
• Never re-use gameplay from previous games, even if thoes games did well. You can always improve the control scheme on the First Person Shooter genre.
• Players should not be allowed to save their games "whenever". This makes them too easy. Have save points strategically placed throughout the game (but not too close to bosses).

I'm sure there's more, but these are the ones I could rattle off at the top of my head. So, stand tall, video game developers, and continue providing the level of excellence that has stood the test of time in the video gaming world!