Slashdot Mirror
"Necessary Complexity" in Online Games
Massively is running a story about Google's short-lived virtual environment, Lively. The article examines why Lively shut down so quickly, and how its simplicity and its attempts at user-friendliness did more harm than good. Quoting:
"The idea here is that any interactive system has a certain amount of complexity, usually involving the number and type of tasks which can be performed. Obviously, it is detrimental if the interaction interface is more complicated than it needs to be. That just makes things harder. What's a little less obvious is that reducing the complexity of the interaction interface too far makes things harder as well. Either it makes it hard to perform the tasks, or it reduces the number of tasks which can be performed. ... ideally the interaction interface needs to be of an order of complexity that is coupled to the order of complexity of the number and type of possible tasks. If it rises above that or falls below that, performing tasks becomes harder. Performing tasks with an oversimplified interaction-interface is like trying to make coffee with one hand tied behind your back. Overcomplicating it is like trying to instruct five people to build a shed, when none of you have any language in common."
I think one of the problems is I, even as an avid google user and surfer of /. and several many other sites did not even know about "Lively".
If they advertised this on google's main page, just think of the results? Maybe they had, but I never ever once saw an ad.
I'm gonna be honest, I don't really get it.
So, what are some good free online games? I'm bored.
>What's a little less obvious is that reducing the complexity of the
>interaction interface too far makes things harder as well.
Yeah, somebody tell the GNOME guys please...
I don't think "complexity" and "having shit to do that is worth doing" are necessarily the same thing. Simplicity is good, simplicity is why we write those shell scripts instead of typing them out each and every time, I think the problem with Lively was that it had no point, no goal, it was just...pointless. In something like WoW, you have tasks, quests, missions, whatever you want to call them. You have goals, objectives, you have character development. Yet, it's all quite user friendly, I wouldn't call it a "complex" game at all.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Kinda reminds me of PlayStation Home, except PSH is a marketplace and a way to gather networked game sessions - What was the point of Lively, again?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Of a very well built piece of software (after they fixed the lack of caching) that did nothing new or interesting, aside from let some University Conveners try and impress the female students in their subject.
It looked to me like someone at Google wanted to create a 3D graphically-enhanced version of IRC, isn't that what IMVU already did?
I mean jeez, WoW players were doing that (in addition to maintaining their virginity) WAY back...
A Man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties -- Albert Einstein
Better yet, online games need to stop being total grind fests. Why haven't more MMO's done that yet?
quote
What's a little less obvious is that reducing the complexity of the interaction interface too far makes things harder as well.
Windows has been pounding that over our heads for years
... or at least none who have read the seminal "No Silver Bullet" paper which introduces the difference between accidental complexity and essential complexity. Sort version: you can't simplify a complex task because it is inherently complex.
P.S. go ahead and mod me down because I'm not a google fanboy. Your ignorance can't eliminate theirs.
Well, actually while it's not a "complex" game, it does kind of illustrate their point.
Think this: what if we took WoW and simplified it even _more_. Would it make it more fun, or, past a point, it actually turns it into a boring kiddie game? (At this point some guy who got bored of the endgame raids will want to butt in and say it was a boring game to start with. Bear with me for a bit, I'll get to that too.)
The easiest low-hangin-fruit example is SWG. Sony or the SWG team seem to have had an "OMG, Blizzard is making more money with simplistic games for retards" and proceeded to do the ill advised NGE. That's what the NGE did: over-simplified it. In a major way. Pet classes were gone. The complex and flexible skill system was gone and replaced by a linear level skill that was actually more simplistc than Blizzards (no talents, minimal skills, etc.) The races were simplified into all having the same stats and just different looks. The interface was over-simplified into a bad FPS interface. Etc. The game became a bad FPS with levels and, oh, maybe 10 skills/spells total you'd get by level 80. They actually lost most customers there. While some hung around begging for Sony to undo the stupidity (yeah, right), the number of active players at any given time had sunk like a lead duck. Heck, like a depleted uranium duck.
Or as an anecdote, there's this guy I know which plays a healer wherever he goes. That's the kind of character he likes to play. So he buys AOC at launch, and makes a healer. According to him, the fact that heals were PBAOE and he just needed to mash one button, actually made him cancel his subscription. He didn't even have to target a party member. Just mash the heal button. It got boring really fast.
Or let's get even further. There have been games so simplified that you could have played it with a gamepad. Needless to say, none got too many players, even if they survived.
Think of doing the same to WoW. Heck, I can't even imagine what 4 skills to map on a gamepad's buttons for any hybrid or pet class. If you're, say, a paladin, between healing, seals, auras, etc, you don't even have a button for each _type_ to cycle through them. Shaman? You'd have one button for each element, so no way you'd still have as many totems as today, and that doesn't even leave you with a button for attacking. Warlock or hunter? Lemme see, 1 button for sending in the pet, 1 button to heal the pet, that leaves you with 2 buttons for your spells. You don't even have enough for the "unholy trinity" of Corruption, Curse Of Agony, and Immolate, that warlocks use since the low levels. You don't have enough room as it is, never mind more complex strategies with spells like Fear, drains, or even to make soul shards.
Would it make it better if we simplified it some more like that? Like heck it would. IMHO it would become a major bore.
And to get back to WoW and people bored of endgame raids, what's the #1 complaint? That it gets boring. And it's not just the repetition, but also that each class is pushed into some narrow role where most of its skills become useless. There are classes which can get through a raid with 1-2 spells total, e.g., any healer. It's not very exciting in the long run.
So to get this long rant anywhere near a conclusion: IMHO the secret of WoW isn't just "keep it simple", but that they hit a sweet spot between simplicity and still allowing lots of stuff to do. I.e., pretty much what the summary was saying.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The argument's flawed. Lively had a simple interface and it failed, so let's blame it on the simple interface!
Given _a_ program, there is a direct relationship between the simplicity of the interface and quality. In the set of all programs that allows for the same set of interactions, the program with the simplest interface wins.
The problem with Lively is that its set of interactions was not large enough. Its problem was not the interface that delivers these interactions. It's like saying the monitor isn't working when your program doesn't compile.
I can't even imagine what 4 skills to map on a gamepad's buttons for any hybrid or pet class.
With a typical console controller (Xbox 360, Wii Classic, or Dual Shock series), you get a directional pad, left and right analog sticks, four face buttons, and four shoulder buttons. This allows up to twelve actions out of the box (face + shoulder + D-pad), plus camera control on the right stick if needed. This is something you have to think about even on the PC if you want to be able to sell premium subscriptions that allow split screen.
great example, not nearly enough options.
1. WoW user interface. It was perfect. When I first played WoW I thought the interface was just right, not overwhelming but complex enough to do everything I wanted my character to do reasonably easy. Then I learned I could customize the interface in-game to add more toolbars, get more buttons, I learned more keyboard shortcuts, I thought it was perfect. THEN I learned about custom made interface addons. Holy Christ you can do so much in Wow to enhance the interface by effectively managaing greater and greater levels of complexity that I think it hit perfection. Then I quit because WoW is a full time soul-sucking drainer of life force, and I already have a wife for that. I haven't played much of other MMOs but I think one of WoW's reasons for its astronomical success is its perfect interface, as far as catering to many levels of interface whores. Maybe someone can reply with other games that got it right.
2. Google Chrome. WTF. I wanted to change the settings so video media is played by Media Player Classic instead of by WMP, and in a seperate window. I like simplicity where simplicity is warranted, but not in a web browser. "Basics", "Minor Tweaks", "Under the Hood". It seems like Google dumbed this down for retarded people, or my mom. Maybe I am missing something, but browser design is sorta defacto standardized as far as changing options and things go. Google Chrome is a no go (like a Chevy Nova) for me at this time. FWIW I use primarily use Opera and that makes me a freak if you go by usage numbers.
"Politics is like trying to screw a cat in the ass" -Charles Bukowski
...in that it's been reduced to such a simple game that there's nothing to do. It's a simulation game without any simulation.
Any game that touts a "simulation" of an entire galaxy that doesn't even let carnivores and herbivores interact on planet surfaces has gotten nearly everything wrong.
Maxis's previous game SimLife had more complex systems interacting than Spore does. And Sim Life came out in 1993.
The most interesting games, to me, are the ones that have multiple systems that interact with each other with simple, but easily combine-able mechanics. Simcity's a good example... traffic effects land value which effects what goes on the land which effects your tax revenue, and so on. Those kinds of games offer tons of replayibility, because you're constantly changing systems that affect other systems.
Anyways, just my two cents. Spore might be popular, but it was my biggest gaming disappointment in half a decade.
hookers and grits.
Asheron's Call was one of the first MMORPGs when it came out in 1999, long before WoW had dumbed everything down. There was no classes, just a huge list of basic skills (i.e., melee defense, unarmed combat, thrown weapons, alchemy) -- you had to decide what you wanted to do and train/specialize a set of these skills that uniquely defined your character. You needed to have component items to cast spells, and you had to do research and some guessing to learn the spells. The PvP server was harsh, but the monarchy system provided protection and made for the best faction system in any game.
Of course, AC was not without its problems, and it was simplified somewhat (probably too much) over the years. But it's still nowhere near as cookie cutter and cliche as World of Warcraft.
1. Actually, I'm not even going to argue with you there, because we're making completely different points.
You're saying that a game could be made for a gamepad. Well, probably.
Mine is merely to illustrate an (over-the-top) over-simplification and its effects it would have on a game. So my contrived example uses a gamepad with only 4 buttons for the skills and, let's say, the shoulder buttons to cycle through enemies and respectively friendlies (e.g., if you need to heal them.) Can you make WoW as fun on that limited number of actions? Nope, I should say.
That's really all my point.
2. If I'm to get into your example, too, though, you're talking about 12 buttons for actions. A WoW shaman can easily need more than _60_ buttons for all the spells and totems. Seriously. Plus, again, you need some way to cycle targets too.
Now I don't doubt that something could be worked out, e.g., using the D-pad as a multi-shift to select a toolbar, and the 4 buttons as actions. That would give us room for 20 spells. (4 per toolbar, and we have 5 toolbars at our disposal: D-Pad up, down, left, right, and untouched.)
But at that point we've complicated the interface for the average Joe. Now instead of simply pointing and clicking at an icon, he has to remember key combinations. Now maybe for you that's trivial, being an experienced gamer, but for a casual gamer it's more complicated.
At any rate, it takes it into the exact opposite direction from what I was trying to achieve with that example. I was getting at the effects of _simplifying_ it past a point, so I can't use that setup for my purposes :)
But basically, again, I'm not arguing about the feasibility of an MMO for consoles. Yes, it could be done. It's just not the point I was making.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
http://tobolds.blogspot.com/
Tobold: January 02, 10:40am
Massively: January 02, 3:00pm
Ancient Gaming Noob's 2009 prediction of the Tobold Cult are on target!
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
What's a little less obvious is that reducing the complexity of the interaction interface too far makes things harder as well. Either it makes it hard to perform the tasks, or it reduces the number of tasks which can be performed. ... ideally the interaction interface needs to be of an order of complexity that is coupled to the order of complexity of the number and type of possible tasks.
Which is why some of us don't buy the marketing notion that a GUI makes a computer easy to use.
Maybe if you only actually use it to do a few simple things, but if you want to harness the full power of a computer you need a command line... or a program language.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is just a restatement of Ashbey's Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ross_Ashby which can also be restated as "Every Good Regulator of a System Must be a Model of that System"
..is free until the end of February. It's a great game.
While I understand what you're saying, it's not a new thing, and is exactly what I meant by the game getting oversimplified at the endgame end. At any rate, the exact complaint and situation existed even way back before the Burning Crusade. In fact, as soon as raid instances got put in the game.
That's just how a tiered endgame grind works. That's what makes it tiered. To get into T2, your DPS/healing-per-sec/mitigation must be this high, and they won't be unless you farmed the T1 set. That's how the devs make sure you don't skip T1 entirely.
And yes, the classes got pretty oversimplified at that point too. If you were a DPS-er, you had to do one single thing, DPS. You needed 2 buttons total for that. If you were a priest, you had to heal. Period. As a Holy spec priest you could get through a whole raid instance while using a single button. And as any other spec you just wouldn't get in.
If anything, I find that the game offers slightly more options and flexibility these days. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily say much. Just that anything is more than zero ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I messed around with Lively for a bit, and can easily say that it was a turd. It felt like an extremely limited version of Active Worlds, offering really nothing to do other than change your clothes and walk around a room.
Maybe if it had features (i.e. stuff you can do) it would have gone somewhere. Blaming its failure on a lack of complexity is like blaming a box of tissues for failing as a refrigerator because it only has one little slot to put things in. What it called an open beta, I'd call a pre-alpha tech demo. There was simply nothing there.
Oh, and it was about as user-friendly as the power button on the dome-shaped iMacs (a white button with a white icon on it, perfectly flush with the white surface of the unit, on the back of the unit... without a user manual -- I was at a friend's -- it literally took me hours to find).
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
so i only noticed the necessary complexity(didnt see gaming) and was really disappointed this wasn't a mac bashing article
If you ask me, they failed by trying to build an application based on what marketing said what would make a good "product", rather than building something they thought would be fun.
See Microsoft's work in this area in 2007.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Paul Thurrott just did a rant on this.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You can have the same interactions. But the interface command sequence grows longer.
A chess clock I know has one button you press seventeen times in something resembling morse code to set every feature it has, but it has a lot of features!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Why can't there be multiple front ends to the same back end set of features? The "dumbed down" thing will serve a business purpose. It's now really the era of "simple interface - advanced interface".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Lively is not intended to be a game, but it was intended to be used by humans. Which I don't think Google anticipated.
Why games of any kind fun is because fundamentally humans enjoy learning. If you remove the complexity from a game or quasi-game in terms of the interface, tasks and challenges presented you a simple removing things that are enjoyable.
In the case of complexity alone, you are removing depth. But from what I found with lively it was so stripped bare it had NOTHING.
I'm all for making things accessible to people who are not so quick to figure things out, or perhaps just have a low tolerance for wasting time fighting a confusing interface. Dumbing down is what you do in lieu of designing the interface properly in the first place and in this case Lively was just plain Dumb(tm) right off the bat. Lets making a carefull distinction here: dumbing down implies there was once a smart idea at all.
Come on Google, do something like lively, with interesting physics sandbox and it's google earth and twitter and gtalk all mashed up and linked to my GPS and webcam so my avatar can walk around the world in real time as I do. I'll send you my job application.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
While the chess clock's appearance may be simple, the morse code is part of the "interface" so it should be seen as a complex interface. A simple interface should be one without a large learning curve.
Good (useful) interactions, simple interface=Apple's Ipod- to sleep it took a minute to figure out, but otherwise, it was good; www.google.com is pretty good too
Good interactions, complex interface=your chess clock
Bad (worthless) interactions, simple interface=Lively
Bad interactions, complex interface=
Funny, i have always thought Gnome as a case example of this "Usability though uselesness" ideology. That is, remove all complicated or advanced features until you get something that does not do anything usefull.
Shame that KDE is somewhat going in the same direction.
Did you know that the first Lively was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire servers were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why Lively was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization.
Overcomplicating it is like trying to instruct five people to build a shed, when none of you have any language in common.
"No, no! This one goes there, that one goes there! Got it?"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?