Hello GD.net, I'm back with another essay on game design. I'm going to take a look at "old-school gamer nostalgia" and give it, at least partially, a basis in reality, one that is connected to some of the trends that have affected games development in the past decade. Then, as usual, I will connect it to MMORPGs. Enjoy, and as always, let's try to keep on topic and have a great discussion! Back in the good ol' days... If you've been gaming for a while, you've heard it again and again: "Man, games just aren't what they used to be," or "man I really miss it when games were X and Y." I'm sure that some of us, myself included, have been guilty of this sometimes. The truth is, however, that innovative games are coming out all the time. Great games that break preconceptions of what games should be, and games that offer a wide array of new experiences to players. So, really then, what's the problem? The real problem is that the games industry was and is able to make billions of dollars off of games that lack the afore-mentioned traits. Games that are neatly packaged products of rigid methodologies, business-minded production, and creatively void games assembly; manufactured in a context of ideological mechanization. That is, as many others have said before me, game store shelves have too much cookie-cutter crap on them. Now, partially, what I just said represents inevitable complaining that is coming from gamers who are growing old and feeling nostalgic about their childhood. However, let me just point out two things that were in fact different "back in the day." The first was a limitation in technology that forced innovation in game design. With no insane physics engines, enormous on-screen poly counts, and exorbitant cinematic scenes, designers were forced to come up with game systems that were fun. In other words, these new elements have often undermined the necessity for good design in commercially viable games. Most game review sites have "graphics" and "sound" as major parts of their grading system with "gameplay" often just falling alongside. It is true that well-designed games still vastly out-do their cookie-cutter counter-parts in terms of player popularity, but this does not change the fact that producers, developers, game review sites, and even players themselves continue to buy into games hyped up for their graphics and technology with very basic and elementary concepts of design. In the "golden years," such combination was never a possibility: you either had good game design, or you failed. Of course, standards of "good game design" have indeed been raised, and the actual progression of things in the industry is much more complex. However, its undeniable that graphical content and other content has certainly subverted good game design in some cases. Established Game Genres Closely connected to this problem is the second issue: the establishment of defined game genres. When I call this an "issue," I am referring not to game genres themselves, but to the expectation (or perhaps lazied defaulting) of games in a genre to follow certain guidelines. Obviously, there are many games that have broken the boundaries of "genre" both present and past. However, like I said, the genres themselves are not the issue. The problem is the reliance on outdated game systems that do not always fit simply because they provide a precedent for the genre. Again, in the "golden years," this was not the case since there WERE no precedents. That is, games were designed to be the best representation of a certain experience: being a spaceship pilot, being a warrior in a land, being a detective, telling a story, etc. Many of the central systems in the games we play today rely on the systems established in those games: systems that were never designed to be used in such a diverse array of contexts, and systems that were never designed to properly represent the technology associated with them today. In the MMORPG Context There are many examples of how this has occurred. One of the most well-known examples is the application of table-top RPG designs to video games, and eventually the MMORPG genre. It is commonly agreed among game designers that the die-rolling system combined with attributes, originally used by the game CHAINMAIL, is an outdated system that was never meant to be used with video games. Yet it continues to be used by many games today. What is the result of this use? A focus on "stats" in games, leveling, and simplified calculations. In MMORPGs, this means that players become more number-crunchers than actors in the game: they attempt to exploit the system because it is so simplified and is unable to properly represent the experience the MMORPG is attempting to convey. In games like World of Warcraft, players become increasingly obsessed with +STR, +INT, +whatever items. Yet ideally, these players would be more concerned with what those stats meant: actual strength, actual intelligence. By reducing such attributes to these low levels of oversimplification, the game design undermines the very meaning of those attributes. In other words, if a character can have +134 strength, what, exactly, does that really mean? It means nothing more than he has +X to damage and +Y to Z skill bonus, it has nothing to do with the original meaning of strength. Likewise, a mage in the classic sense is an intelligent individual who uses magic in innovative ways. With INT, players who play mages dont need to be intelligent, they just need to have INT. Obviously, INT does not equal to player intelligence, cunning and innovative play. At the same time, it SHOULD. More on this at the end of this post, let's move on to a second example: hit points. In all game genres, hit-points, which also happen to be rooted in the same table-top tradition, grossly oversimplify and limit gameplay. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand why: damage is inflicted and received in a variety of ways; it is not an integer that counts down to death. Developers have often tried to create hybrid systems including HP, with things like "effects" to make it seem more realistic. Other games combine hit-points with body parts (think Mech Warrior series, original Starsiege game) to create more comprehensive systems. However, note that those games are once again, from the "golden years." Though you certainly are treated to more systems these days,there is a huge number of games out there that rely on outdated systems like HP while attempting to "innovate" on higher levels and inevitably being limited by their foundation systems such as HP or Attributes. I am by no means saying that these systems should be removed. What I am saying, however, is that misuse of these systems results in gameplay focused on the systems themselves, and not the experience the game is attempting to convey. Think about one example in games that reaped success from simple innovation in these fundamental systems: Counter-Strike, which introduced the headshot that became insanely popular among gamers and a staple of future FPS games. The Preconception About "Casual Gamers" The stubbornness of game producers and developers to depart from these rigid game systems, often attached to specific genres, has a lot to do with money-making. This is not an accusation, it is simply how things are. On the other hand, there is another factor influencing the perpetuation of these systems: an increasing focus on marketing towards "the casual gamer," especially in the MMORPG genre. This growing community of players, who do not play as much as "hardcore gamers," but comprise the majority of the game-buying community is increasingly the target market for game makers. Unfortunately, there is a preconception that casual gamers and hardcore gamers are completely different animals, and that they want completely different things. In this case, I feel it is appropriate to assemble a list of things that casual gamers do and do not want. Enjoy... Casual Gamers Want: - A game that they do not have to play all day to be successful at - A game that does not require several long hours of meaningless activity to be successful at - A game that gives them a fresh experience Casual Gamers Do No Want: - Shallow game systems - Repetitive play - To be labeled "carebears" or "PvEers" and protected with ineffective systems - The same old game What do hardcore gamers want/do not want? They want the same thing! There is a myth out there that hardcore and casual gamers are divided into two cleanly organized groups of gamers with certain tendencies. Though it is true that extreme player categories of "carebears" and "power-leveling hard-core gamers" do exist, the majority of gamers fall somewhere in between. Just because a player does not play a game for 8 hours a day does not mean he/she is a "casual gamer" who wants this and that. In other words, the preconception that casual gamers need to be pampered is false; it is often the case that hardcore gamers want exactly the same thing but simply play the game more. Likewise, while the complaints of hardcore gamers are often labeled to be "complaints of hardcore gamers," casual gamers often have the same complaints, but simply do not have the time or care enough to express them. Furthermore, players move between casual and hardcore, depending on their outside-of-game lives and other factors. Either way, the goal of pleasing "casual gamers" is often cited as an excuse not to change these game systems. For some reason, it's assumed that casual gamers have no patience to learn new systems and are stupid cows without the ability to do so. Again, this is a myth, casual gamers have no connection with these established systems, but simply do not want to be grossly disadvantaged by players who player 10x as much as they do. OK, so how can we change MMORPGs to solve these problems? I will argue in my next thread that MMORPGs should depart from many of their staple systems to solve this problem. Central among these will be an elimination of the system of "levels" and a constant quest to increase stats in a linear manner. More fundamentally, however, is the need to design systems that represent the role-playing aspect of the game, or other aspects, and not simply systems that have worked before. That is, why put in STR, INT, etc. attributes into a game when they are not really needed? Why must every fantasy-setting RPG include leather armor, bronze swords, and copper helms? Why must there be so many systems of play in games that require time in content-production and player time when they are no longer fun or relevant? Designers should think of what they are trying to convey to the player and design a system around that; not design a system around a series of systems, group other systems together in a larger system, and call it a "game." Instead of putting numbers over the heads of characters in game to represent damage, we should SHOW that the monster got hit: show blood, show the damage. Instead of making magic in MMORPGs spell-spamming, let's take about 30 minutes and brainstorm some ways to make it more tactical. Instead of making quest grinding and monster farming the only way to progress, lets give players experience for participation in PvP. These are examples that have already been used by some games, but more fundamentally: instead of just using systems that are already there, we should use systems that make sense for what is occurring in the game. More on this in my next thread. Cheers, -Pin

As you said, the main factor in all of this is money.

The only people willing to deviate too far from the standard mold are (unfortunately) companies who lack the cash to make the changes mainstream.

Plenty of radical concepts have died not-so-honorable deaths. Games such as Seed, or the Saga of Ryzom had ideas that could have worked. Plenty more have never even made it to launch day, despite having excellent ideas.

What is worse, is that for every good game that dies, there are at least 10 unoriginal rip-offs that bite the dust as well. MMOs are especially tricky, because you not only have to nail the game perfectly, but also the marketing and community.

Quote:Original post by Humble Hobo
As you said, the main factor in all of this is money.

The only people willing to deviate too far from the standard mold are (unfortunately) companies who lack the cash to make the changes mainstream.

Plenty of radical concepts have died not-so-honorable deaths. Games such as Seed, or the Saga of Ryzom had ideas that could have worked. Plenty more have never even made it to launch day, despite having excellent ideas.

What is worse, is that for every good game that dies, there are at least 10 unoriginal rip-offs that bite the dust as well. MMOs are especially tricky, because you not only have to nail the game perfectly, but also the marketing and community.

Sorry, but I disagree, disagree and disagree.

There are people with money who are willing to deviate from standard games. For instance, Will Wright's games, or Sid Meier's games. It's been proven that games like The Sims with innovative designs can reach huge numbers of non-traditional gamers. Money is a part of the games industry but the idea that good game concepts never come to fruition is just a very bitter and jaded perspective that is not true (at least not fully true).

In terms of "radical concepts," it's interesting that you mention Saga of Ryzom. When the game was released, I happened to be am MMO games reviewer for an internet site. They hooked me up with a copy of the game and a lifetime account. I will not mention the review site, but let's say I did not give Ryzom a good review. Why was the game flawed? For exactly the reasons I mention in my post: restricted by the fundamentally flawed systems in the game such as linear leveling, oversimplified combat, and outdated skills systems. Never played Seed so cannot comment on that one.

I agree that there are a lot of unoriginal cookie cutter games out there. However, your statement that you have to "nail the game perfectly" along with "marketing" and "community" is much too vague. What does "nailing the game perfectly" mean? If it means doing all the same things that other MMORPGs do, as in laying the so-called "foundations" (a.k.a. flawed systems I have been criticizing), then obviously that is not the correct formula as assumed. Apply this to Ryzom and we can see why it failed so miserably. It is my belief that a game with an MMORPG with solid, innovative design (or just solid) will always attract its own community and market itself. See my previous thread on EVE Online to see my case study on such a game.

Tangireon, I appreciate the long and thoughtful reply. I am inclined to agree with your facts, but not your argument. Before I say why, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be a hardass here, but I am simply trying to make clear what I posted in my original thread.

Firstly, games are surely built upon games. What you have said regarding this is completely true. Also, success and financial success in particular certainly play important roles in the perpetuation of what you refer to as "cloning." However, my point was not that "cloning" is bad for the gaming industry, nor is my point that the "golden years" represent something that is lost in the present day. Though the issues surrounding marketing and the business side are acknowledged in the first part of my post, they are not the central argument. This is, after all, a forum for game designers, not businessmen. Thus, what is "good for the industry" may or may not have relevance to what is "good for game design" or even what is "good for games." You have backed up your arguments with facts, and your argument is correct because your facts are correct. However, you do not confront the facts and argument that I have presented.

In other words, while my argument acknowledges your argument, your argument does not acknowledge mine. That makes your argument incomplete. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are implying that despite everything I stated in my post, factors in marketing and business are more important than good game design. Certainly, these factors constantly outweigh good game design in the industry, but will you argue here that they should?

Moreover, your reference to casual gamers and hardcore gamers makes me suspicious that you did not read my entire section on the "preconceptions towards casual gamers." You are falling into the same misconceived framework of categorizing gamers as I have been pointing out! If you look at Wii games and other casual games that are successful, they are hardly lacking in design innovation. Casual games do NOT equal to badly designed games. In most cases casual games require better design. Would you call Mario a hardcore game? Certainly it is a casual game but it is worshiped by hardcore gamers. Please re-read my original post and reconsider your definition of casual and hardcore gamers, as well as how game design should be. This is, after all, not a board meeting for Electronic Arts, but a forum where we have the luxury to think of these things :)

Here is a central point of yours:

Quote:So wouldn't it be more profitable, efficient, and easier to just adopt an existing gameplay system rather than doing something you'd know that there is a high percentage of failure?

But who is "you"? Everyone here is a game designer and we have knowledge of what works and doesn't work in game design. We are not businessmen who have no knowledge of game design. Game design is not a philosophy where we throw our ideas at each other and theorize, it is a constant process of experimentation. We can, through scientific iteration, understand why something should or should not fail in games. Even if businessmen and the talking heads might ignore us, I am sure that, among game designers, we are able to figure out what would be radical "failure" and what would be safe (and often-times much needed) improvement. Please study my examples. I am not suggesting that we throw out all our systems in the name of innovation. I am saying that while technology has advanced rapidly over the years, game design systems have stagnated over the same period. It's time for an upgrade!

Cheers,
-Pin

Quote:Original post by Tangireon
I said that Casual games are those that are geared to those who don't play a lot of games (the majority), while hardcore games are those that are geared to those who play a lot of games (the minority)!

This is beside the point, but I wouldn't be so quick to label those as minority and majority. All people in general are moving closer to computers and gaming. Games are getting more interesting, more diverse, and more appealing to everyone. That's only going to lead to one type of outcome. It's just a question of time. I wouldn't be surprised if new laws are made one day, to prevent too much time from being wasted in simulated reality. But that will likely be a while.

Quote:Original post by PinWang
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are implying that despite everything I stated in my post, factors in marketing and business are more important than good game design. Certainly, these factors constantly outweigh good game design in the industry, but will you argue here that they should?

Who cares what you think should be the case? Nobody is stopping you from making the perfect game if you want. Just don't expect to make money from it. If you do want to make money, then you have to start accepting those marketing and business factors. Complaining about this is not going to change a thing.