DDL on 23/7/2013 at 08:19
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
Valve seem to have a good handle on it but a lot of other devs else seem pretty clueless.
Valve do, as I recall, put a fuckton of work into it, though. Watching numerous playtesters run through a level, seeing where they seem even
slightly hesitant, adding contextual clues to the environment to help etc (i.e. "the players seemed to take a while to figure out they needed to go through the hole in the roof, so let's add dangling wires, a small pile of rubble and a ray of sunlight to make the hole more obviously 'exity'").
It really works, but it's a substantial outlay of time and effort. Putting
OBJECTIVE HUD ICON #05 is a lot easier.
Briareos H on 23/7/2013 at 09:10
Quote:
“Sometimes people with slightly different skillsets but similar gaming-taste want to have as much fun as you. Is that so wrong?”
More often than not, no, but it can be wrong at times and people tend to forget it.
Your entire article is written from the now-traditional perspective that video games should please and be completable by everyone. I challenge that point of view because it has become systematic.
So most games want a huge, broad appeal: rubbing some players the wrong way is considered to be a bad design decision. Just ask any big name in the industry what they think about it. Why? Just because you lose some players, which amounts to fewer sales, should all high(er) budget games follow that purely economic rule? Really, should they?
Actively involving the player in a learning process is a fundamental part of immersion. If a game tells you how to do something or, worse, contextually reminds you how to do it every time, you are not involving the player, you are giving them a safety net, a comfortable blanket they can wrap themselves in without fear of not having learned the game properly. You are not challenging them to be better, you are not challenging them to be involved, and as a consequence you are actively acting against their immersion.
Difficult, arcane and demanding games are usually those with cult followings and strong communities. Because people interact with them on a personal level and because these games are seen as unlike anything else.
I'm not talking about completely illogical puzzles in adventure games, at least not at a Sierra level. Those are stupid. I'm talking about complex mechanics that require learning, reading a manual, perfecting player skills lest they stop progressing altogether because the player is just not good enough. If you tell players that they are not good enough, you'll lose some along. Welp, accept it. You'll have some who persevere, and those who stay will have experienced your game in such a vivid way that they'll talk about it for years to come.
That might sound elitist, and it is because that's just how everything works in life. If you disagree, just tell to the people who play Dwarf Fortress that their game should be less complex. In one sentence: Make your games so that everyone who comes to them has an equal chance of learning their systems if they are logical and interested enough, don't make your games so that everyone can win. That's dumbing down.
Melan on 23/7/2013 at 09:28
Quote Posted by DDL
Valve do, as I recall, put a fuckton of work into it, though. Watching numerous playtesters run through a level, seeing where they seem even
slightly hesitant, adding contextual clues to the environment to help etc (i.e. "the players seemed to take a while to figure out they needed to go through the hole in the roof, so let's add dangling wires, a small pile of rubble and a ray of sunlight to make the hole more obviously 'exity'").
It really works, but it's a substantial outlay of time and effort. Putting
OBJECTIVE HUD ICON #05 is a lot easier.
It is also one of the things that make their games feel really handholdy. Sure, visual and audio cues are nice, but it kills any sense of exploration stone cold dead. Was being lost in the burrick tunnels in the Bonehoard frustrating? Yes, but it was also satisfying when I finally found the way. Designers need to find a balance somewhere, and I'd rather they didn't follow Valve's example too closely.
Chade on 23/7/2013 at 11:15
Nice article, Yakoob, and it's a sentiment that I'd like to see more often around here. The observation that dumbing down can be due to development constraints is interesting.
Most arguments against "dumbing down" run along the lines of
"make games for me, not these other groups, because my abilities and/or tastes are worthier for reasons x, y, and z". Reasons x, y, and z, are often pretty fair, I would add, but the underlying premise that designers should make decisions based on how worthy their audience is seems a bit iffy to me*.
Anyway, the point I'm slowly getting to is that you raise the rhetorical question ...
Quote Posted by tfa
“Sometimes people with slightly different skillsets but similar gaming-taste want to have as much fun as you. Is that so wrong?”
... and I'm not so sure the question is all that effective, because really, the entire belief system lying behind most arguments against dumbing down is that yes, that
is so wrong. The world has an ethical obligation to provide games that appeal to experienced gamers like me, and damnit, I'm going to get angry when the world doesn't pony up.
* You can probably make some decent arguments in favour of "audience worth" in the case of sequels, where you might claim there are unwritten contracts between fans and developers. I'm not sure what I think about that.
Briareos H on 23/7/2013 at 11:23
I don't think it should be about pre-supposed abilities, skills or existing as a gamer. These arguments don't hold up because they are not about giving everyone a chance.
Rather, it should be about a conscious developer decision of involving players (newcomers and experienced gamers alike) in a way that goes beyond the simple consumption of a product, a strive to get people outside their comfort zone and to challenge them without completely losing all of them.
In many games, challenging the player works without influence of accessibility, interface simplification or hints because it's done on an entirely different level. But there are games where it does matter, let's just not ignore them and maybe someday we can acknowledge than some of those can be made on a high budget and still become reasonably profitable.
ZylonBane on 23/7/2013 at 18:34
Quote Posted by Melan
It is also one of the things that make their games feel really handholdy. Sure, visual and audio cues are nice, but it kills any sense of exploration stone cold dead.
Valve doesn't make exploration games. The player is intended to progress in pretty much a straight line from beginning to end.
Queue on 23/7/2013 at 18:49
... which is absolutely fine is that's the type of game you want to play.
Renault on 23/7/2013 at 19:34
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Valve doesn't make exploration games. The player is intended to progress in pretty much a straight line from beginning to end.
Yeah, and I heard id make shooting games.
ZylonBane on 23/7/2013 at 20:03
Quote Posted by Queue
... which is absolutely fine is that's the type of game you want to play.
Uhh... yes. Nobody said or implied that it wasn't.
Yakoob on 24/7/2013 at 04:12
It's a good point that different games cater to different audiences and should not always be dumbed down to open up. Dwarf Fortress is an interesting example here - I agree removing complexity would be bad and go against what the game is inherently about. But introducing better UI, more informative graphics, or some form of ingame tooltips or something, would make it far easier for many players without undermining the game's complexity.
(NOTE: I do not play dwarf fortress and only saw a few LPs so these things may have already been added or I may be off-base here. correct me as needed)
Quote Posted by PigLick
Yeh thats the thing that really annoyed me about Skyrim vs Morrowind. Both great games, but the journal system in Morrowind was so much better AND immersive. In Skyrim you just ended up with a whole bunch of quests with no real info about how to achieve these other than using the quest markers, in Morrowind you actually had to figure out where to go yourself.
And that is the very crux which I argue, for I HATED morrowind's and was happy to see Skyrim's version of a journal (even tho it was imperfect as well)
Yes the former was more "realistic" journal, but it was a massive clusterfuck of a wiki novel that made it impossible to find the info you actually needed without spending half an hour re-reading tens of pages and hopelessly clicking on key terms.
Skyrim's on the other hand, actually helped keep things organized. I do completely agree the notes were too sparse, however, and could have used more detail. But the base format, imho, was far superior to Morrowind's.
