Slashdot Mirror
Sid Meier On Industry State
Gamespy had a talk with Sid Meier and Soren Johnson at the DICE event last month, and they've got some interesting commentary on the current state of the gaming industry. From the article: "I think the thing is, if you're going to make a multiplayer game, the days of trying to 'shoehorn' in multiplayer are over. As an aside, I think we're almost reaching a point where single-player games are getting under-served. One reason I really enjoy World of Warcraft is that there's so few good single-player RPGs for the PC right now. I mean, I play with my friends, but I also like to solo -- I have separate characters for each -- because there aren't really any good single-player RPGs out there to play! But anyways, if you're going to make a good multiplayer game, you need to make that a priority from the beginning."
I think the game industry is pretty healthy. I think it's changing rapidly, but there are a lot of good examples as to what's good about gaming. Zonk's comment about ww2 games in the "department" shows one problem, however... a lack of creative ideas. World War 2 games are great, I'm a big-time Call of Duty player. But we do need some inventive ideas. However, if ww2 games were all made like CoD and CoD2, I'll play 'em just the same. Those are awesome.
Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
He echoed exactly what I've been completely frustrated with for YEARS. He is absolutely right that there are few, quality single-player games out there of recent release. Yes, I can always go "back" to games like NeverWinter Nights, the Splinter Cell or Thief series for first-player immersion, but there have not been a lot of games as of late that are single-player and provide the depth of games like the single-player games of the past.
If I may somewhat add to his statements, however, I am particularly frustrated by the notion that somehow it has become impossible to allow human team vs. bots in multiplayer. I really was frustrated by this with Return to Castle Wolfenstein and more recently Battlefield 2. The notion that multiplayer in a LAN environment where it's just you and friends on a team versus a number of bots seems to be an anathema in gaming circles any more. Apparently, the rest of the gaming community wants deathmatch or team deathmatch against other humans, and that's all - or so the developers seem to think.
It's ridiculous to me that a game like Battlefield 2 will allow me to go single player, which is made of me and my team bots vs. enemy bots; but God forbid that anyone would have thought to allow me and my human team against enemy bots in a BF2 LAN session*. No, no! No one ever does that any more! And don't tell me that programming the AI is an issue. Games have been allowing team LAN for over a decade. If the enemy AI can go after one person (me) and my team bots, I can't believe that it's so difficult to add another human target for the enemy to go after.
* Actually, you can get limited LAN play in BF2 by starting a single-player game and having other LAN members connect directly to the "server" via the Connect to IP function. Works fairly well. That doesn't explain why such a feature was never officially supported by EA.
So, he really hit two critical points with me: the lack of immersive, single-player games and half-thought-out multiplayer games that do not provide the full options that multipler games should have. It's so nice to hear a heavy-hitter in the industry say what I've been saying for years. Maybe that will give the issues some credibility with game designers.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
As an aside, I think we're almost reaching a point where single-player games are getting under-served.
Amen! What the world today really needs is more Guybrush Threepwood! Which is to say, more adventure games chock full of puzzles, humor, and living environments to explore. The recent fan game Stargate Adventure really reminded me of how much fun those old games were. Sure, they didn't have "Three-Dee", but that was okay. They had distinctively attractive artwork that gave a much more organic feel to the game than today's 3D-based games. They also provided the perfect viewpoint for playing out a television or movie in a game.
In fact, many of the more serious adventure games were spinoffs of movies or television. Star Trek 25th anniversay is an example that comes to mind, as is Star Trek: A Final Unity. Another good example is Indiana Jones. The Dig even had a book version of the story!
Today, all that creativity has been shunned in favor of more action and 3D graphics. (Not to mention "adult" themes.) Can we have back a few games that are actually games rather than "entertainment products?" Please?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The new Ghost Recon has on-line co-op modes where it's the human players versus bots. That's one of the reasons I bought it. I'm tired of running around shooting my friends (we've been doing it since doom). I'd like to play with my friends instead of against them.
I *do* mind playing when the competition level isn't even remotely even. I can't practice ten hours a day, and someone who does is going to be vastly better than I am, even if I'm smarter. (Hardly a given- hard core players know every advantage, every strategy, etc) When the final score is 150-0 what's the point of even playing, especially when I know that I can't improve enough given my limited play time to eventually even things out? Perhaps if I devote all my spare time I might be able to make it 149-1. What's worse is that the guy on the other end isn't having any fun either- it's damn boring to win 150-0.
So I play different sorts of games, most which rely less on twitch and more on strategy/skill. Back when I played Guild Wars I was a pretty good Monk- not top competition level, but enough to keep a team alive even at the highest PvE levels provided Leeeroy wasn't playing. I like Puzzle Pirates a lot- the games involve enough strategy that I can keep up with most folks. (Even if I can't seem to get a handle on Bilging.)
Games should be fun. If it's not fun, why play?
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Does Civ IV include tech trees that the player can know before hand?
That, for me, is one of the big flaws of Civ, AoE, and all that ilk.
Much of the fun of research is that it's hard to predict what you're going to get. Knowing in advance that investing X resources will result in Y improvement turns too much of such games into bookkeeping exercises.
At the least, it would be more fun to make tech advancement based on probability, so that investing X resources gives you a Y% chance of discovering gunpowder. Better would to make research into a topic have a % chance of leading to a variety of technologies, e.g. chem research could lead to the discovery of nylon, or it could lead to the discovery of LSD. It'd raise the amount of thinking and gaming to a new level.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
The ideal is not to have a simple or a complex game...The ideal is having a game that is simple to play and enjoy, but with depth and complexity to keep it from getting stale.
Not to jump on the current "World of Warcraft rulez" bandwagon, but WoW did that very well. It's an MMORPG that is very simple, without the kind of ridiculous learning curve associated with EQ or AO, or any number of older MMO's, but has enough depth and complexity to keep people playing. I think a lot of people would prefer more depth and complexity (myself included), but I think that their model is clearly working out great for them, so I understand why they're not rushing to screw things up.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Sid Meier and Johnson may have been mainly discussing PC games (though they do mention the console release of Pirates). To change the discussion flow a bit towards consoles, I would like to disagree with them. I want an offline multiplayer aspect on EVERY game I purchase (for the consoles) and I don't care if it is tacked on (as long as it is fun).
Why are there only 5 million PS2/Xbox owners that play games online when the install base is some 100 million (numbers may not be entirely accurate)? The first reason is because not everyone has the opportunity hook their PS2/Xbox up to DSL or cable internet. Secondly, people are averse to technical hurdles (physically setting it up, lag, user interfaces). Lastly, people dislike the social hurdles (griefers, not being able to find friends, not being able to see their faces, etc.).
As for myself, I actively look to purchase games with split screen multiplayer (preferable a customizable split screen). For the average user playing with or against a bunch of friends or relatives while sitting on the couch is much more enjoyable than playing online friends (and idiots) over the internet.
I spend a very limited time playing on my PS2. When I do play the PS2 it is usually with relatives or friends, either taking turns, watching each other, or simultaneously playing.
I give two examples: Super Monkey Ball Deluxe and Dog's Life. I bought both of these for the same reason so I could have something to play with my young nephews. I grant you that Dog's Life received mediocre to good reviews. I played only the beginning of the single player and despite the game world being well-crafted and fleshed out, I soon gave up due to the story-mode's annoyingly cutesy cutscenes and too many tedious gameplay aspects. I later eBayed it for $20 (USD).
I have never played the single-player game of Super Monkey Ball Deluxe, even though reviews say it is quite good (I don't have the time). But I bought the game BECAUSE it had about 10 totally different offline multiplayer modes (that don't require any effort to unlock them). Individually some of these modes can get a little boring after a while, but when taken together they amount to a fairly fun set of party games.
Back to Dog's Life, I would have kept the game if it had ANY fun multiplayer because the animations, controls, and levels were pretty good and most games don't let you control a dog (even Nintendogs only lets you own it not be it). They could have put in a dog barkoff match mode or a dog chases cat mode (they already had models for both), but they didn't so I got rid of it.
Yes, I agree that developer's should focus on either the single-player experience or the multiplayer for the thrust of their efforts, but why not throw in a simple but fun multiplayer mode as long as your creating all of these digital assets. Think about it? What if Pac-Man had a two-player mode where one player is Pac-Man and the other is the only ghost on the board (both retaining same relative speeds etc.)? What if Shadow of the Colossus had a race mode where you can stand up on your running horse and shoot arrows at the player in the lead (but risk falling off/ slowing down)? What if it had a king of the mountain (aka Colossus) mode? Sure you would have to re-optimize the engine to handle split screen and more I/O data, but other than that those modes are practically there, and would have added to the long-term enjoyment of the game.