Oblivion too complex for casual gamer acording to gamersinfo

[Dolar]

http://www.gamersinfo.net/index.php?art/id:1286

Thought you Codexers would get a kick out of this

The synopsis kills me:

RPG Developers: Stop creating "open ended, epic-scale" time-consuming worlds while ignoring the people that only have 10-30 minutes a night to play *and progress* in your game, i.e. the much sought-after, "casual," "mainstream" player.

He wants more mini games, thats just far too funny.

 

[Mangler]

So everyone wants QUICK rpgs!
Yoda Stories
Indy Desktop game

So are we going back to where RPG's were in 1996? or worse?

SAIS isn't all that bad, but I fail to see how these are RPGs anymore. Just RPG flavoured adventure games.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

I haven't participated in a good 'ole fashion lynching in a while. Haven't firebombed any offices in a while either. This looks like the perfect opportunity for both.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

I'll go get the rope.

 

[Claw]

That's not what the article says.

Did I enjoy Vice City more than Oblivion? Of course!

 

[Inziladun]

I used to consider myself a casual gamer... but after reading this, i'm freaking hardcore in comparison.

 

[Zomg]

Well, that's pretty much the logical conclusion of the "theme park" GTA/TES/MMORPG design structure, where you have a big, static world that you move around in, gradually exhausting content. In that context, he's right, have big investment rides and small investment rides.

Now, the kind of games that most of us like, which are usually played in 4-5 hour chunks of dissociative disorder, probably couldn't and shouldn't work that way. Of course, that would entail making different types of games for different people, rather than trying to load all the content onto one superfreighter that can cross the hype ocean, and so is currently impossible in the mainstream.

Also, noise noise so busy have to read Tom Clancy novels busy busy social capital.

 

[Nedrah]

The guy hates the right game for the wrong reasons.
It's entirely possible he even hates it for the right reasons and just *thinks* it's because it is not casual enough. That being said, I don't believe our beloved rpg devs need any more people telling them to take inspiration from yahoo games and mobile phone garbage.

 

[psycojester]

Fuck long term investment I WANT MY INSTANT GRATIFICATION NOW!

 

[Claw]

Then jack off and stop wasting our time with your posts.

 

[Data4]

Computer RPGs have become so easy because computers have become easy. Yeah, this sounds like I'm being an old fart, hacking up a lung while bitching about kids and their newfangled toys, but follow my logic:

In the old days, you had to be low level programmer just to get a computer game-- or a computer, PERIOD, to work. You had to tweak your autoexec.bat and config.sys. You had to run memmaker to allocate memory. You had to set up IRQs and DMAs to get the sound card to work. Basically, you had to have logical, problem solving, deductive reasoning skills. It's no wonder that the RPGs of yore attracted the nerdier among us.

But now, since everything is plug and play, and a retarded one armed chimp could build a PC, the games have followed suit. The biggest "WHAT THE FUCKING HELL!?!?!" thing for me nowadays is seeing twerps on places like the ESF calling other people nerds because they like their RPGs old school. It always sends me in a rage, wondering who in the fuck let the dumbasses into the club...

-D4

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Yeah, I steal news items from the forums because I'm lazy. Incidentally I'd read this before and realised Elwro had pointed it out in the innovation thread.

 

[psycojester]

Hmm perhaps i should have phrased that a bit better for Claw.

To me the main thrust of this guys article seemed to be "Fuck Gameplay i'm in a hurry"

 

[SanguinePenguin]

Computer RPGs have become so easy because computers have become easy. Yeah, this sounds like I'm being an old fart, hacking up a lung while bitching about kids and their newfangled toys, but follow my logic:

In the old days, you had to be low level programmer just to get a computer game-- or a computer, PERIOD, to work. You had to tweak your autoexec.bat and config.sys. You had to run memmaker to allocate memory. You had to set up IRQs and DMAs to get the sound card to work. Basically, you had to have logical, problem solving, deductive reasoning skills. It's no wonder that the RPGs of yore attracted the nerdier among us.

But now, since everything is plug and play, and a retarded one armed chimp could build a PC, the games have followed suit. The biggest "WHAT THE FUCKING HELL!?!?!" thing for me nowadays is seeing twerps on places like the ESF calling other people nerds because they like their RPGs old school. It always sends me in a rage, wondering who in the fuck let the dumbasses into the club...

-D4

You're making it sound a lot harder than it really is I think. I had an old 486 in the third grade and I remember having to do those kind of things. The couple of times there was a problem it was no big deal to call up the game's tech support which, in "the old days" more helpful then it is now. I think the fluff and hype surrounding video cards is somewhat more obscure because of all the marketing bullshit and the bloat of PC graphic whores then technical problems, which I've always found to be straight forward as long as you have all the documentation.

 

[Data4]

You're making it sound a lot harder than it really is I think. I had an old 486 in the third grade and I remember having to do those kind of things. The couple of times there was a problem it was no big deal to call up the game's tech support which, in "the old days" more helpful then it is now. I think the fluff and hype surrounding video cards is somewhat more obscure because of all the marketing bullshit and the bloat of PC graphic whores then technical problems, which I've always found to be straight forward as long as you have all the documentation.

It's a relative problem. I'm going to make the assumption that you're reasonably intelligent, and had the ability to do some amount of deductive reasoning even in third grade. I'd imagine the bulk of the people here were like that. Just remember that while you, precocious PC gamer, were fiddling with your 486, the future "casual" players had ZERO interest in doing that sort of thing. They were out playing tag or GI Joes or whatever. Not that there's anything wrong with kids playing with stuff, but you understand the comparison I'm drawing. You were probably a "nerdy" kid (and don't take that wrong; I was, and still am, too), which also means that you operated on a higher intellectual level than your peers. Would I be right in guessing one or both of your parents had a job working with computers?

In any case, the whole idea of doing DOS stuff would probably be something that would make today's casual gamers' heads spin. The genepool, as it were, has become diluted now, and since the gaming industry is market-driven, the lowest common denominator has to be catered to. It's like lumping Special Ed and AP classes together in highschool.

-D4

 

[Stark]

Re: Oblivion too complex for casual gamer acording to gamers

He wants more mini games, thats just far too funny.

actually, i think he has a point.

What most of us want from an rpg, is not necessarily tangential to what he said. we want a reactive, action with consequences environment with lots of possible interactivition to the environment. None of this necessarily dictate that side quests have to lasts more than 10 minutes.

imagine an alternate world where an alternate Oblivion is designed this way: random quest generator that allow you to act the good guy (rescue damsel in distress threatened by bandits in forest while on way to Tamriel) or steal a horse and run down the stalls in the market place, getting everyone to go mad and run after you.

the system should track your notoritety and dish out short term and long term consequences accordingly. the actions need not be morethan 10 minutes long, but the consequences of it should last longer. after all, it is an rpg we're talking about here.

 

[sheek]

You're making it sound a lot harder than it really is I think. I had an old 486 in the third grade and I remember having to do those kind of things. The couple of times there was a problem it was no big deal to call up the game's tech support which, in "the old days" more helpful then it is now. I think the fluff and hype surrounding video cards is somewhat more obscure because of all the marketing bullshit and the bloat of PC graphic whores then technical problems, which I've always found to be straight forward as long as you have all the documentation.

It's a relative problem. I'm going to make the assumption that you're reasonably intelligent, and had the ability to do some amount of deductive reasoning even in third grade. I'd imagine the bulk of the people here were like that. Just remember that while you, precocious PC gamer, were fiddling with your 486, the future "casual" players had ZERO interest in doing that sort of thing. They were out playing tag or GI Joes or whatever. Not that there's anything wrong with kids playing with stuff, but you understand the comparison I'm drawing. You were probably a "nerdy" kid (and don't take that wrong; I was, and still am, too), which also means that you operated on a higher intellectual level than your peers. Would I be right in guessing one or both of your parents had a job working with computers?

In any case, the whole idea of doing DOS stuff would probably be something that would make today's casual gamers' heads spin. The genepool, as it were, has become diluted now, and since the gaming industry is market-driven, the lowest common denominator has to be catered to. It's like lumping Special Ed and AP classes together in highschool.

-D4

Yeah, you are right. I am not as old as most of you but I started 'gaming' on a Spectrum, typing in the code from a book. Very few kids ever used DOS in the early 1990's... some had Segas and Nintendos. There were only two or three other kids in my year to swap PC games with.

I'd guess the big expansion was about 96-97 with Quake, Warcraft 2 etc. By then it was all Windows 95, and I bet even that would be too difficult for many gamers today.

 

[Nog Robbin]

10 minutes for a quest. That's barely long enough for a fricking shopping trip, even when you take into account the game day is sped up to, what, 12 times (a day lasting two hours gaming time)?

This is where gaming and RPGaming may need to seperate. Where the casual gamers wants a ten minute fix, the highlights if you will of the task, a lot of true RPGamers actually enjoy (and covet) the whole experience - the stocking up and preparing, the research before departing, the journey, and of course the culmination of the quest - which in itself may not end in one quick step but lead to other issues. And of course, between the two levels depicted here (10 minute gamer and pretty hardcore gamer) you get the casual RPGamer that wants some of the world experience, but none of the management (so want's to be able to carry everything, not need to eat, or sleep, or really prepare other than maybe stocking up on heal potions and buffed weapons/armour).

Can a single game cross those three types of gamer? If Oblivion is already RPG-lite, what level does the really casual gamer want? If, for example, fast travel in Oblivion was made to allow you to teleport to places you hadn't already been to, so you could just get on with the fighting, would that have been acceptable to the very casual gamer, or would it still be too awe inspiring as you are not forced down predefined corridors with little real freedom? Does the casual gamer really want nothing more than a dungeon or cave to walk around in (or a very limited scope "outdoors" such as found in Baldurs Gate - Dark Alliance where it looks like outside, but you can only follow set path ways) something with fixed and limited routes? Or something like a traditional FPS where a level may be free roaming, but over a very small area (relatively) at any one time? Can/should a real roleplaying game be played to those sort of constrictions? Or is this only relevant to open/free roleplaying games?

 

[Sentenza]

Re: Oblivion too complex for casual gamer acording to gamers

He wants more mini games, thats just far too funny.

actually, i think he has a point.

What most of us want from an rpg, is not necessarily tangential to what he said. we want a reactive, action with consequences environment with lots of possible interactivition to the environment. None of this necessarily dictate that side quests have to lasts more than 10 minutes.

Actually, what he failed to realize, is that he wanted a fast paced Action/Adventure game (which Obl is close to, but is not 'fast paced' enaugh); but since he (and many) thinks RPG are basically adventures games with swords and stats, he's disappointed having to follow 'very long & boring questline' (but shouldn't have been more interesting than MW this time around? I missed something?) and not being able to complete a 'mission' (as many call them) every 2 minutes of his precious free time

 

[Claw]

I don't think so. He may have trouble putting two and two together, but his comparison of GTA III and Oblivion illustrates what he means nicely, and it has jack to do with finishing a mission in two minutes or similar nonsense.
In Oblivion, and already Morrowind, I often found myself bored because the game failed to occupy me, which he seems to call distraction.
It's not an RPG "thing" he complains about. I didn't have this feeling in Ultima VII, Realms of Arkania, Fallout or Gothic. Well, there were a few points in Gothic where I had it, but those were exceptions. In Morrowind, it was the rule.

RPGs don't need any "warm up" period to be fun. I can launch the aforementioned games and jump right into the fun. I never stopped my time, but there are often small quests I can do in a couple of minutes on top of long quests, and there is usually some non-quest stuff to be done, like killing random monsters or finding hidden treasure.

the bottom line is the gameplay itself wasn't interesting enough

And I wholeheartedly agree with that.

PS: I used to shun away from using the term "gameplay" in regard to an RPG. But if I learned a lesson from playing Morrowind, it's that RPGs can have bad gameplay.

 

[Frankie]

Re: Oblivion too complex for casual gamer acording to gamers

http://www.gamersinfo.net/index.php?art/id:1286

Thought you Codexers would get a kick out of this

The synopsis kills me:

RPG Developers: Stop creating "open ended, epic-scale" time-consuming worlds while ignoring the people that only have 10-30 minutes a night to play *and progress* in your game, i.e. the much sought-after, "casual," "mainstream" player.

He wants more mini games, thats just far too funny.

And people wonder why Oblivion turned out the way it did? They listed to complete fools like the person who wrote the article than those of us who actually PLAY and ENJOY RPG's

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yeah, but they also made millions on it, so they didn't learn anything.

 

[gromit]

So everyone wants QUICK rpgs!
Yoda Stories
Indy Desktop game

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that those are two of the greatest "lunch-break" games ever made. There's nothing wrong with a little diversion now and then; everyone's had one of those dull half-hours before they have to such-and-such; everyone's felt like their brains were dripping out of their ear after a particularly long day at work.

Now, as for his "thesis statement" in that article...

Long, open ended, epic style quests can certainly be a good thing for an RPG. As long as they are written well, and serve to draw the player into a compelling, deep, rich and satisfying game world. However, such long quests can also serve to alienate, bore, or otherwise 'put-off' some players, including the "casual gamer' crowd. Aside from including long, grand-sized quests, there needs to also be an alternative side to the game(play) which can be accessed quickly and easily, and also put aside quickly and easily for when there is limited time (or motivation) to play.

I'm with him until halfway through. Yes, long quests -can- alienate and bore players. In the case of Oblivion, many alienated me because of their "roller-coaster" nature. Lady tells you to go here, script fires, msgbox("You are where the lady told you to go!") and you either fight there or some other person tells you what to do. Yes, any game can be broken down to this level, but the big O rarely seems to make any attempt at hiding this framework. It's like those FPS that shout "press action button to plant the bomb!" as you walk up to the transparent yellow bomb model that waits patiently to be textured... it's very much a psychological thing.

On the gameplay end, by building quests so rigidly you hamper the ability for a player to set their own goals within the framework of one of these grand, epic quests, and you can easily find yourself building a game where the systematic, emergent gameplay requires less attention before you have a "finished" product. The result is a talking checklist that constantly shouts "you aren't done yet!" and a world that offers little alternative. If this gigantic quest just told me what I needed to do to complete it, didn't bark at me at every step, and the rules handled the rest, "I'll get through the mountain pass for now," "better case the joint a little before the big heist," "I'll stock up now, so I can dive right in when I have more time" and other short-term player-set goals are no longer invalidated by comparison to achieving each predetermined checkpoint.

I think the player would feel more like they were working toward something, making progress at whatever pace they choose, possibly amusing themselves with whatever worldly distractions along the way. If you try to chop the quest up into chunks on the development end, you are, perhaps unwittingly, dictating the denominator for that quest... at which points the player "makes progress" and when they should feel rewarded.

Heh, I think I got off on a tangent from the author's point, but whatever. I don't think chopping down quests is the way to solve the problem. Big, open quests are very symbiotic with gameworld interaction.

 

[elander_]

The author of that article has a point but he is also trying to pin his own explanations and theories for his own boredom into his observations. A game needs short term gratification + long term gratification, period. Only hardcore players are patient enough to wait 1 hour playing a game before the game gives him some gratification. Blaming long quests as the cause for this problem is like curing a broken nail with a shot in your foot. He is just another idiot without a clue like many others who happen to be writing about or designing "modern rpgs".

 

[sleepy]

How about an IQ rating for games?
Well, more like "easy, challenging and hard" -type of tag on the box using image of a brain or a light bulb or whatever works in the country it is sold in. Make the rare intellectually challenging game's "rating" something "forbidden" and so inviting. It couldn't be limiting, a clerk cannot ask "Are you by change stupid?", but it could bring in some curious. Or not Hum, fun thought anyway.