Why are games so bloody easy these days?

[zeitgeist]

For a long time, for instance, turn based combat was not really a design choice but a necessity because for many games it was the only or simplest way to actually handle combat.

When exactly was this mythical era, and which turn-based games do you feel are the best representatives of this "design-by-necessity"?

 

[Raghar]

I didn't talk about replay values. I talked about differences between TV series and games. I doubt even Monkey Island, an adventure game thus much better for episodic approach, would be able to keep players attention when presented continuously, even if that would be possible, for several months.

Games are related to books. Not every stuff that works for movies, or TV series is smart idea to use in games. Look at these TV series. While stuff like Halo Halo, Black's books, or Yes prime minister was ideal for an episodic content, it also worked because TV had sharp and free monopoly. There is only so much story they can pack into series, when they will fall short on story they often introduce something emotionally engaging, like throwing main character into jail because of wrong accusation or whatever, only to improve rating. Games are more compact thus even story is presented in more compact format. Name Final fantasy where at least one character was not thrown into jail, or faced an execution. In fact computer games occasionally even kill the main character. Beat that.

In addition, TV series can estimate amount of time people would spend by watching. While there were people who could watch an episode in 15 minutes, or less, common person would spend around 45 minutes per episode. This is impossible in games, when one person finishes it in week, the other person would play it for half year and wouldn't bother to finish it. The closest to TV series like behavior are cell phone games, and some handheld console games. Programming for cell phone and keeping game in sync with all types of cell phones is PITA, handheld market is oversaturated, full of remakes, and people are expecting finished product that would last.

TV companies and game companies are competing over too small pond, where people are moving into alternatives. The old TV model isn't working well, and adapting it for games is self defeating idea.

BTW that service that offered to stream single player games into PC for a small monthly payment failed as well, isn't it?

Re 1.
So you actually talked about last three Bethesda games, not about ES series. Only FO3 and FO:NV are using nearly identical/identical code base.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I guess its along the same level of having to play a system you do not like as much as your favourite one vs not playing at all. Most people would prefer working in the industry and making a game vs making the one game and facing unemployment afterwards. Some companies take the risk and are successfull, such as the witcher publishers, and some simply don't. Thats where titles like DA, Mass Effect, ArcaniA and the like come from IMHO.

To be honest, I suspect that they also like that kind of games. It's not like developers are some special different people. They are a part of the lowest common denominator.
Even Jeff Vogel loves such games and he used to make games for goldbox/ultima fans.

 

[Excommunicator]

Indeed Awor, and that is certainly one of the biggest problems we have today. These people are making games for their own demographic, it is not simply that they are making games that they think will draw the most audiences.

We have the amateurs rising to the top of the pack now because there is such a market for their tripe, and this is being blindly mistaken for some grand ability to design and develop games by their audiences served. This cycle is only just getting worse now that we have a new generation of designers who have been brought up on these simplified, attention-deficit games, and they now not only believe that this is good design, but have no knowledge or experience of anything beyond that.

In fact, I speak a little too optimistically, as we have the likes of William Wallace already in the new generation of developers, making his kinds of games (shitty Star Wars MMO).

It will take another generation or two before that trend can be changed.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

More like several years for people like the ones on the Codex to get education and start making their own games like the greats started and for those who started big team projects to actually finish them.

Personally, I foresaw what's going to happen in the end of a 90s - gaming turning into interactive movies, getting ridculously expensive to make, etc. That's why I haven't aimed for computer science in my education, which was a big error because I ended up there anyway and wasted many years in a "no future" mode.
Spending a lot of time modding games and watching stuff like indie developers becoming more prominent made me change my mind.

 

[Excommunicator]

Several years won't destroy the trend, as you need the entire generation's exposure to change for them to grow up and demand these games in large enough quantities for developers to pay attention. But yes, in the meantime there must be the oldschool indies and the hardcore fanbases slowly growing in size to get the wheel turning in a positive direction

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

You seem to assume that there's going to be some reversal in the tastes of the mob.

 

[Excommunicator]

Not a "reversal" and not in "the mob". But it is basic sociology that the development of cultural trends in "taste" grow through the widespread exposure of those defining elements in powerful contexts like childhood and entertainment.

In the simplest of terms, people as a group like the things they are exposed to in large amounts, early on, and that is what gives us things like pop music and crap like that. This phenomena is certainly playing a role in the current direction of game design, and only just beginning to have its effects as the first generation of "streamlined" games become the "oldschool" of the new generation, and are the recognised reference points for this new generation of designers. It is a destructive process.

I will have to make a disclaimer though, that I do not think that everyone will suddenly begin to crave better crafted or deeper games; obviously there are far more forces at play here than simply exposure. The point is though, you need to harness this "trend setting" if you want to expose the new generations to the traditional games; this is essentially what happened at various points during the 90's, the delayed effect of the "golden era", eventually leading to "innovashun" by "talented" designers as the industry exploded in popularity, which led us to the state we are in now.

People may not like to admit it, but it is these "trends" that will provide the means for the "hardcore" designers to bring the higher ideals back into greater acceptance, which unfortunately is the only way to increase the industry's offerings of real RPGs and keep new generations aware of what the older generations had to offer. Reject it and you will consign yourself to extinction.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Wasn't the main problem that they started making games for specific kind of people, which happens to not be us?
I know a lot of people who are playing since C64/NES/386 times and liked a lot of our classics which simply love where the industry went.
Basically they see it as evolution, that's what they want.

I met 6 "Fallout fans" in my class and somehow only 2 of them preferred the real Fallout and none of these 2 was versed in arguments against Fallout 2 and Fallout: Tactics.
And one of these 2 played all the next gen games and bought a fagbox.
Simply, most of old school gamers wanted the next-gen, they dreamed about it before it happened.
I suspect that for a lot of people stuff like Wing Commander IV and old FMV games was a promise of what's going to happen when 3D graphics will become more advanced.

And now next-gen LARPers got their New Vegas, which apparently has many good features. The difference is that I never liked LARP simulators and always preferred tabletop-style games, which isn't the mythical difference between the strawman "retarded next-gen" and "elite old school".
A lot of people who like Oblivion and Fallout 3 apparently like it mostly because they are good hiking simulators. I can't blame them for that, because it was one of the very few things that I liked about Baldur's Gate 1.

 

[Excommunicator]

Wasn't the main problem that they started making games for specific kind of people, which happens to not be us?

They always made games for specific people. Today there is a very significant difference in the types of designers we have, and they are much more akin to marketing executives and movie producers.

Standout example among a sea of thousands: Todd Howard. He is a game designer in title only.

I know a lot of people who are playing since C64/NES/386 times and liked a lot of our classics which simply love where the industry went.
Basically they see it as evolution, that's what they want.

That's primarily because the industry has improved in many ways (not universally, but the majority) including graphics technology, music, SFX, VA, interface, polish/QA, etc. These are all things that have superficial appeal, can be appreciated at surface value rather than necessarily through deep analysis, and most important of all they draw people in much, much, much more easily.
The biggest problem is that this list has the most important one of all missing: game design. It is also important to note that RPGs often lag behind in these areas partly because they are tied up in some perpetual limbo of what the mainstream wants in their games and what the traditional/hardcore idealist preaches.

I met 6 "Fallout fans" in my class and somehow only 2 of them preferred the real Fallout and none of these 2 was versed in arguments against Fallout 2 and Fallout: Tactics.
And one of these 2 played all the next gen games and bought a fagbox.
Simply, most of old school gamers wanted the next-gen, they dreamed about it before it happened.

And now next-gen LARPers got their New Vegas, which apparently has many good features. The difference is that I never liked LARP simulators and always preferred tabletop-style games, which isn't the mythical difference between the strawman "retarded next-gen" and "elite old school".
A lot of people who like Oblivion and Fallout 3 apparently like it mostly because they are good hiking simulators. I can't blame them for that, because it was one of the very few things that I liked about Baldur's Gate 1.

Game design is much more abstract than graphics, audio and accessibility, the same goes for proper movie reviewing and critique: many people can recognise a good movie most of the time, but as soon as you ask them to explain what makes a movie so good, they will be at a complete loss, or alternatively they spew out something ridiculous and pseudo-intelligent. They also won't be able to isolate and create these strengths if you put them in a situation where they are required to reproduce a product with the same strengths.

I am only pointing out a few of the many paradoxical things about the way people are and why you cannot equate behaviour and response with understanding. This is why you need to rely on social trends to lead audiences as a social entity rather than as individuals - they simply aren't intelligent or educated enough to know for themselves.

Do a proper high quality survey and analysis of the data and you will see these truths coming through to the surface every time.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I am only pointing out a few of the many paradoxical things about the way people are and why you cannot equate behaviour and response with understanding. This is why you need to rely on social trends to lead audiences as a social entity rather than as individuals - they simply aren't intelligent or educated enough to know for themselves.

Fucking Xenos .

 

[MetalCraze]

For a long time, for instance, turn based combat was not really a design choice but a necessity because for many games it was the only or simplest way to actually handle combat. With the advent of real action based combat (as in real time) it became a choice and a large part of the audience seems to prefer it

The fuck is with retards repeating what EA and Bethesda PR managers tell them?

Real time gameplay was there before turn-based strategies or RPGs. I remember there was some vector graphics based first person rail shooter dated '79. That's as old as personal computers themselves. And let's not forget arcade machines where everything was in real time too.
Turn-based gameplay was there because it makes for a different kind of a game, not because it was a necessity.

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO SO TRUE THERE WERE LOTS OF STAT BASED REAL TIME GAMES

ALL OF THE OLD ATARI AND INTELLIVISION GAMES HAD REAL TIME ACTION WITH SKILL TREES AND STATS THAT IMPROVED DAMAGE AND CONTROLLING MULTIPLE PARTY MEMBERS IN REAL TIME ACTUALLY I GOT A LEVEL THIRTY PACMAN THAT COULD CAST POLYMORPH SELF AND TURN INTO A BUGBEAR AND BREAK THROUGH THE MAZE WALLS ONLY IF MY STAT CHECKS WORKED THOUGH

IN FACT AN IDENTICAL VERSION OFTHE INFINITTY ENGINE WAS PRODUCED IN 1965 BUT SUPRESSED BY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED SUCH SOPHISTACED GAMES WOULD LEAD TO COMMUNIST TAKEOVER

BRO GREAT JOB IN EXPOSING THE REAL TRUTH BRIAN SURGERY FOR REAL

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO DID YOU KNOW THAT I NO LONGER TALK TO PEOPLE IN REAL LIFE BECAUSE REAL TIME ACTIUONS IS FOR FAGS

I WRITE NOTES AND HAND THEM TO PEOPLE I AM TURN BASED FUCK THE RETARDS

 

[SCO]

Darklands was realtime with pause. Granted, you couldn't queue attacks.

(Still butthurt in Homeworld about that one. I suppose it would make it too easy, and not very fun).

 

[Lysiander]

When exactly was this mythical era, and which turn-based games do you feel are the best representatives of this "design-by-necessity"?

As MetalCraze pointed out, Real time was there before Turn based, but couldn't handle the complexity of RPGs such as DnD. When the old SSI Games got made, Turn based was the only way to handle them as far as I know.
RTwP was an innovation because it was new to handle a similar level of complexity to turn based in real time, with the opportunity cost that you forfeited actions if you didn't pay attention.
Necessity isnt always a question of technology though. Some companies probably were able to do RealTime but TurnBased is much simpler in many respects due to the sequential handling of events. Cutting down on coding & design time saves money and that can be a necessity as well. Not my original point, but also noteworthy.

In addition, TV series can estimate amount of time people would spend by watching. While there were people who could watch an episode in 15 minutes, or less, common person would spend around 45 minutes per episode. This is impossible in games, when one person finishes it in week, the other person would play it for half year and wouldn't bother to finish it.

I agree this would be a problem. While estimates can be made, they are by definition not as accurate as a fixed timespan. However, considering the time differences, 45 minutes watching vs 1 week of waiting time for a new episode could account for that if adjusted accordingly. I agree that your attention concerns are valid though. I probably need to explore the concept more. I still like the idea, but maybe it is not as feasible as I first thought.

So you actually talked about last three Bethesda games, not about ES series. Only FO3 and FO:NV are using nearly identical/identical code base.

I was under the impression FO3 was a relative direct port from Oblivion, but I am not a programmer so I cant make that claim with certainty. I do seem to remember that being one point of criticism back when it launched, but I could be wrong.
I wasn't making my example exclusive to the code side though. Having a standing concept of game mechanics can cut down design time a lot. The ES series has always had the same core mechanics. The time they did not spend figuring out how the attributes interact with the skills, or what races to include and the like saved money.

A different example would be the Ravenloft/ Stone Prophet/ Menzoberanzan series. There were code adjustments but not that many. The game mechanics were identical as far as I can tell. Im told UFO Enemy Unknown & Terror From The Deep were virtually identical code & mechanics wise as well and I do remember the differences beeing very few aside from flavor. Its been ages since I played either, so feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

When exactly was this mythical era, and which turn-based games do you feel are the best representatives of this "design-by-necessity"?

As MetalCraze pointed out, Real time was there before Turn based, but couldn't handle the complexity of RPGs such as DnD. When the old SSI Games got made, Turn based was the only way to handle them as far as I know.
RTwP was an innovation because it was new to handle a similar level of complexity to turn based in real time, with the opportunity cost that you forfeited actions if you didn't pay attention.

There were accelerated real time simulations at least since 1983 (strategic/operational level wargames), I'm pretty sure that Guadalcanal on C64 was accelerated real time with pause and Legions of Death on C64 was phase based (with planning phase and one execution phase for both sides). Fire-Brigade was phase based too and even had chain of command implemented.

I suspect that the main reason why RTwP was rarely used was because it made Real Time too easy as it removed the element of lack of control. Especially that the AI can't pause the game.
RT, Phase Based and Turn Based limit player's control over units. In RTwP, the control is absolute because the player isn't constrained by time.