An Industry Rant

Apologies in advance for what will likely appear to be using the forum as my personal tl;dr soap box, but I have a rant I need to get out and nowhere else to put it.

------------------

I've always been a big proponent of making games, and RPGs in particular, more accessible in order to grow the scope of their potential demographic. The genre and industry can't grow out of its ruts without breaking stubborn design cliches, and chasing alternate customer bases. That includes focusing more on casual gamers and gradually steering genres towards inclusion of historically under-represented demographics, like kids, women, and older folks. And yes, that means focusing on accessibility more than we traditionally have.

But so far, I'm seeing just about every AAA studio get this completely *#&$ing wrong.

Whether it's Fable III, FF13/14, Force Unleashed II, and even now Dragon Age II, designers seem to think the way to improve on an already 90+ Metacritic rated game is to drastically simplify it. The argument seems to be that it isn't the content that's limiting the genre to a certain core market, but rather the complexity of it. And if you just reduce that complexity, you'll still have a 90+ game but with 10x the users.

The problem is, one of the most important things in game design, harped on again and again in nearly every industry presentation or seminar I've ever attended, is Mastery. You need to imbue your players with the feeling that they're attaining Mastery of a particular mechanic in order for them to feel compelled to invest more time.

The reason that games like FarmVille, WoW (or even non-video games like Chess or Bridge) are so enormously successful is because they are easy to learn, but difficult to master, even if that Mastery is sheer time investment. They have made them enormously accessible (almost brain dead) in their first user experience, but the goals and mechanics grow and evolve with time.

The Mastery mechanic can be deviously simple! In most MMO's, the core mechanics are often so shallow they border on Skinner Box levels, but by putting players in indirect competition over limited resources, you force them to squeeze every last bit of complexity out of the system -- even stuff you never intended -- in order to attain Mastery. Well-designed simplicity can easily lead to complexity that grows with the player through emergent behavior.

Recent AAA seems to be whiffing this. We are (I believe correctly) trying to increase accessibility and grow our target market, but we are over-simplifying on every subsequent iteration, and a sense of Mastery becomes the unintended casualty.

If your core mechanics are so transparently simple that, within the first few sessions, I've experienced and fully understand basically all the game will ever offer in terms of gameplay and options, there's no reason for me to continue outside of consuming whatever secondary content you provide. Instead, I would encourage designers to really analyze other successful mass-market games, and figure out how to better design our systems to have a low barrier of entry yet simultaneously grow with the player.

The answer is not to just take 90+ Metacritic scored games, tear out half your customization, exploration, and other mechanics, and call it a day.

Yes, it's hard. But that's what we pay designers the big bucks for. =)

Thank you!

I understand companies want to make more money but widen your target market without dumbing the game down...

To my mind it's all about risk. So the big developers, instead of taking risks, will just acquire (successful) smaller companies and development studios that are more willing to take risks on new design models and game play styles.

/shrug

But that's how acquisitions work in other industries as well--just buy out the new guy that has the fancy hot-at-the-moment thing and rebrand it as your own. Then rehash that until everyone is sick of it. Then do it again later.

Good rant, Jaerik.

I've had similar ones in my days, and I'd like to offer Pokemon as an example.

On the surface, it seems like a very simplistic, childish RPG with each pokemon having no more than 3-4 stats each. But in reality, under the surface, they probably have 20-30 stats and abilities. Throw in rare variants that you can only achieve my breeding and all the other tiny things in the game, and the level of commitment it takes to earn "Mastery" level is staggering.

But a 5 year old kid can buy it (and beat it) and will absolutely love it and want to buy the next one. And his 25 year old brother can invest 100 hours and obsess over min/maxing his team and still have something to do with his family over Thanksgiving break...

I've been there. Bravo to that dev team.

Jaerik, have you considered making a personal blog?
Not to brown nose, but you are considered a God among men here on the forums and have displayed numerous testimonies of great insight and knowledge from politics to video games.

Just sayin; I'd read it.

I second this motion

So true..

But that's the model I mentioned also. Gamefreak was the studio that designed Pokemon originally, then was picked up by Nintendo (long before Nintendo was the self-identified "Pokemon company".)

Then they just rehash the same thing over and over. Generation III and IV pokemon games actually implement a few design changes, but it was the others (Pokemon Colloseum, Pokemon Ranger, etc.) that were the real "design-departures," I think.

Thirded~

Thirded, I definately would.

Edit: Dammit, beaten to third,

I fourth it then!

You can not post anything in better response to this than applause!!!

Take your bow sir, take your bow.

/shines Jaerik's soap box

Just kidding! Don't fire me!


Anyway, I agree.

the matter is approved for vote with in the consensus of his peers; All in favor of Jaerik making personal blog- say, "Aye!"

All those opposed... "GET OUT!"

A good example of a company that i feel has been doing good at this recently is Harmonix with the Rock Band series. The basic concept of the games on easy mode make it easy enough that my son has been singing and playing guitar on it since he was 5. My wife has been playing for a couple years, but carpal tunnel keeps her from moving from hard to expert on guitar, but she does amazing on vocals for most songs. And I push myself on all the games I play because I am obsessive compulsive, so i am working on mastering expert drums and guitars, but i suck at singing(only try when i'm drunk). The game is simple enough that even my non-gamer friends and relatives can come over and have a good time, but it's still challenging enough to master that my hard-core gaming friends and I can compete and feel like we are accomplishing something. This, the Halo series, and FFXI are about the only games that have given me that sense of accomplishment recently, though. More video game developers need to pick up their game, or the entire market will continue to suffer. And video games, being a non-essential form of entertainment for a large part of the economy, could very easily force itself out of existence by dumbing down everything they put out in an effort to "reach out" to the casual crowd.

I stopped playing after FireRed/LeafGreen so correct me if things have changed, but a major reason the series hasn't tanked despite repeating the same core concept each time is that GameFreak/Nintendo never made the error of simplifying an already intuitive concept. In fact, they expanded on the system after the first three games - splitting the Special stat into Special Attack/Defense, adding Dark and Steel types, introducing concepts such as Pokemon Breeding. They've done everything right and created a game that is literally accessible to everyone while maintaining a very deep system. Repetition is ok as long as it's done well and not overdone.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

One of those damn games (I wanna say it was leaf green(?)) I put in over 200 hours trying "catch them all" and the game was still fun.

Agreed, we also just purchased the Kinect system for Xbox, and bought dance master. Simple game, my 7 year old can play it and smiling all the way. yet at the same time Angie & I play it, middle age BTW, and smile as big as the 6 year old. as we progress the game unlocks harder scoring system making you more accountable for each move preformed with slightly upbeat tempos. It is nice because if you can beat that game on the super expert mode and score a AAA, you may consider a change in professions. But at the same time the 6 year old can score a new high score on an easier setting. Plain and simple, it makes us feel good to play it and accomplish even the simplest things, and we do it as a family.

I remember finishing CoP, this is back pre ToA, and Thinking My God I have done it. I have finally done it!. I think I even giggled a little.

Then I basically solo Kannagi in 2 weeks which almost overpowers my job, and I am like MEH!

Like someone said the other day, you know it's serious when Jaerik drops a f-bomb.

Also, do you watch Extra Credits over on The Escapist Jaerik? Think it might interest you, if you don't watch it already. I'm sure you already know about most of the topics they discuss however.

As far as I'm concerned, Jaerik can use this site as his own personal blog.

Reading what you said (Jaerik) one game stuck out in my mind, Sins of a Solar Empire. It's a RTS that is elegantly simple to pick up and learn, but you can make it as complex as you want. I don't think it really gets the credit it deserves, when someone says RTS, the first thing to usually come to mind is like C&C or StarCraft. Sins is all but ignored.

I'm certainly not questioning the success of "franchise titles"...just addressing Jaerik's post of why "AAA studios can't grasp this concept of fundamental game design." Again, I'd say it's because very often they don't want to risk money when the franchise formula is a cash cow.

Certainly a lot safer to rehash a working model like the SIMS into SIMS2, SIMS3, etc. or Madden NFL into Madden 2010, Madden 2011, instead of implement some new gameplay model. A lot easier to farm out that sort of risky Angry Birds or Farmville or City of Wonder clever game design to a smaller company or acquire it, then either make that the new cash cow or leave any risky game development up to that product division in the future I'd think.

Dear SE, Shut your forum down RIGHT NOW! and read these forums. the truth is hear. HEAR US! something has to change here, and its either you, or I want a divorce...NO, it is not because I have someone new; I would rather lay down my gaming hands of 30 years then be in this lukewarm relationship any more.

Thank you Jaerik, I enjoy reading your posts.

This is very true, as games are becoming more expensive to create and sale trends are becoming more observable and predictable, developers and publishers alike tend to play it safe and go with what they know will produce sales rather than testing something new and unique that may or may not be rewarding in the long run.

However, the truth is this trend can only play out for so long before we're playing the same old SUPERAWESOMEFIRSTPERSONSHOOTERWITHAWESOMEGRAPHICSINSPACE game over and over and over again.

Wouldn't repeating the same formula be a safer bet than changing it, whether simpler or more complex? They're trying to cash out by "improving" the system, but Jaerik's point is that many are going about it wrong.

I for one love it when you make posts like this. *stands up and claps loudly*

How do you guys feel about... uh... genre hybridization?

I mean, something like tossing in a half-assed action battle system in place of what the series had established before (turn-based I guess)

I'm going to use Fallout 3 as an example here (despite me throwing in at least 40 hours into the game). Without the RPG element, we have a pitiful excuse of an FPS. Without the FPS element, we're stuck with an "RPG" easily outclassed by a basic dungeon crawler from the 80s. Together, they form to create some bland experience salvaged only by the pretty neat locations you can explore and ways you can screw around.

Has there been any instances where this was a good thing, drawing in a new audience? Or have we been left with lackluster "sequels"? I felt this was relevant because it kinda goes hand in hand with simplification, pointing to Mass Effect 2 here now.

Related to the actual topic though, Dragon Quest has an edge over FF for a couple reasons and could be seen as a source of doing sequels fine. Like Pokemon, one reason is that the core gameplay remains static, only absorbing new elements with later entries. They also know how to take advantage of gameplay trends the right way, rather than just trying something new for the sake of it like what FF is seemingly doing. In Dragon Quest IX's case, it was the behemoth that is handheld gaming plus seamless multiplayer.

I mean, hell, you got Wizardry. The definer of all dungeon crawler RPGs, and later the entire genre as a whole. The series died out at entry number 8 in 2001, partly because they could not draw in new fans. Each title was better than the last in every way but it's really debatable on how they could've kept on going. Oddly, the series thrives in Japan on top of being the ultimate influence for Shin Megami Tensei and Dragon Quest.

Speaking of Hybrids...Golden Sun.
I love the game lol.
One of the fewer gameboy games that has consistently released pretty good titles that work for me.
I'm just sick of games not challenging anymore.
It's not that they don't necessarily make the games challenging...I think the dawn of the internet age is what killed it for me.
way back when, when i'd be stuck on a part in a videogame i didn't have the internet to rely on for my answers and i would try to do it with my own will, and after beating the game it felt so much more rewarding.
I just get sick of games that push using these stupid *** guides rather than leaving the air of mystery about for it.
For instance, I've been playing Demon's Souls lately and I haven't referred to the internet at all for it.(minus having my roomate check something that wasn't very well spelled out within the game progression as to where that monumental is located in the beginning)

i've had a lot more fun sucking and losing and learning from my own mistakes than referring to X guide for X strategy and all that...i find overly extensive strategy guides to be the bane of a good games existence.
makes people not use their brain anymore and just mindlessly follow a guide rather than intuitively interact with a game more or less IMO.
so difficulty and available information seem to be the thorns in the video game hide for me.

well far SE go i don't know exactly when started maybe when the companys merged but they shifted the companys goal from quality of product to just plain profit. They started slapping the name brand titles IE final fantasy and dragon warrior on any peice of crap weather it had anything do with the franchise or not. In turn both hurting the product name and the over all quality of products. pumping out bunch crap and slapping brand name titles on them does not make for a good company philosophy..