Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 7:11 PM
Sun Nov 8
18 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/14/09
i think instead of having modes like easy or hard it should be age groups. kids, teen, 20 something, adult, senior.
09/13/09
..no, wait, let me rephrase that. Games should not have the illusion of interactivity like they do now, but be as movies, just with the illusion of being video- games?
..What kind of mind comes up with these kinds of things?
Next: books should have the illusion of story- telling, for the ones who can't be bothered to actually read the book.
You know - that's what we typically call "a sham".
09/13/09
--------
The people making points that video games can never successfully be all-inclusive are making good ones.
In fact, we don't WANT video games to become 100% exclusive, especially if we think of a video game as art. Art is not about catering to as large a mass as possible; it's about making a personal expression and projecting it for the sake of projecting it. (The fact that art is ALSO a commodity makes a lot of professional artists very uncomfortable. But ultimately, art is about self-expression, not estimated other-expression.)
Video games don't have to be art, of course, but even for something purely commercial and entertainment, it's often ineffective to attempt to appeal to all markets simultaneously. Attempts to make a film both a chick flick and a bloody action popcorn movie generally tend to make a hash of both; the same thing applies to everyone. Are you making a game that everyone on Earth can play, or are you making a game that will present challenges for the players to overcome?
This is where I'll bring up the GNS Theory that mostly applies to pencil-and-paper role-playing games, but can still give insight to video games. One of the three types of players is the Gamist. Their expectations of a game is that it will provide challenges, and provide the tools for the player to overcome those challenges. Many, many video game RPGs are structured very explicitly like that. You follow a linear path, and at each point you are simultaneously defeating more difficult challenges and gaining the tools or skills to defeat those challenges. It's an extremely popular view among video gamers.
The problem is that by Gamist standards, anything like Nintendo's Demo Play will make the game worse. It doesn't matter if the mode is optional, something that can be ignored. Its mere inclusion devalues the challenges provided by the game, since they are all completely bypassable; and it devalues the tools included to defeat the challenges, because none of them are as effective as the Ultimate Challenge Solver, the Demo Play. By Gamist standards, a negative reaction to completely optional Demo Play is completely understandable and legitimate.
Simulationism and Narrativism, on the other hand, are more amenable to Demo Play-style "let everybody experience the game, regardless of whether or not they can meet its challenges." Rarely, however, are games made to appeal to Simulationists and Narrativists. Games are usually about providing challenges first, and representing a world or exploring themes second (if at all). Why do so many games have absolutely execrable stories and dialogue? Because providing a world in which interesting stories can occur is secondary to granting the player the ability to express their personal mastery over the universe in a variety of interesting ways. When your story MUST be told in a form such that the main character continuously grows more powerful and is always finding new ways to beat down opponents... It can be very powerfully told, but not in the same ways almost every writer is used to.
So even if we just break down the games market into four major groups--Gamists, Narrativists, Simulationists, and Casuals (casuals simply want a diversion from whatever; they play video games because video games are momentarily more interesting than TV or the movies or whatever else they would be doing)--you can't make a game that appeals to everyone. At best you can make a game that is geared toward one, maybe two of those groups, and make concessions to the other two or three. But attempting to appeal equally to everyone just results in lukewarm, unartistic pap. It is entirely possible to "dumb down" a video game or a franchise. I don't think it happens as often as it's claimed, but attempting to be too many things to too many people can easily result in a game that is nothing to everyone.
09/13/09
Of course then once the single-player gamers are set loose on Battlenet, all bets are off. But hey, no one is perfect.
09/13/09
I remember it well because I felt that it was obnoxious that the game didn't give me a chance to figure out what to do by myself.
09/13/09
The fact is, video games, just like films, cover a wide variety of topics, genres, and interests. Hardly anyone ever makes a film saying, "How can we make this appeal to everyone?" because that just doesn't work; you need to understand what your target demographic is, what they want, and that's what you make. If you try to please everyone you generally end up with a lukewarm product that reeks of mediocrity and is watered-down in all areas.
I think we will see a lot of games that make these attempts; Devil May Cry has been doing this for years, as is the upcoming Bayonetta, but don't be fooled - just because the game makes certain concessions in an effort to allow different kinds of gamers to proceed doesn't mean it's giving them the same quality of experience. One may be awesome, while the other may very well be crap.
The fact is, you can't make everyone happy, because everyone wants different things; that being said, if you want to make everyone happy with a single product, what you will really be creating is 5 or so products wrapped up in one pretty package, meaning it will take roughly 5 times the work (if not more, in an effort to somehow merge these many fundamentally different pieces) which requires at least 5 times the sales to recoup.
Good luck on that.
09/13/09
[www.ted.com]
09/12/09
Games do not need to become like interactive movies, and doing such would remove a good chunk of what makes games enjoyable for most people. Challenge is the lifeblood of humanity, everything the human species has accomplished has been the result of a challenge. And we continue to proceed down a series of increasingly challenging tasks, from verbal communication to the written word and bronze working all the way up to space flight and the Internet. Seeking to surmount challenges is hardwired into us from birth. Babies take their first steps so they can move faster, they say their first words so they can communicate and they continue to tackle challenging things as they mature.
The issue that seems to have arisen is the narrative strength that games are slowly accumulating. They're no longer pastiches of bad action movies or inane cartoons, they have slowly reached a point wherein their stories alone can be a draw for some. People read books and watch movies to typically relax, just as a soothing song works the same way. Some people view games as a stop gap between "doing something" and relaxing, thus the large 'casual' boom in recent years. So, for a title like the recent Arkham Asylum people may want to enjoy the story and feel like they're part of an actual Batman tale themselves. So when they encounter a room full of henchmen that their inexperienced fingers cannot vanquish their joy turns to anguish. This is indeed an issue, and certainly game companies should look into it, as the market is only going to further expand and eventually the next "blockbuster" will not be playing in a theatre near you but within your living room, in your hands.
However, advocating the diminishment of challenge in games is pure fallacy.
Just because someone wants to enjoy Shakespeare's more articulate and nuanced plays does not mean we should alter and gut the Bard's choice dialogue so the masses are placated that they 'get it'. The same goes for games too.
Equating challenge and failure within a game to "work" shows the naivety of the writer. Would they perchance wish for the removal of rent in Monopoly? No one likes losing and that frustrating dice roll that landed you on Boardwalk nearly bankrupted you. Lets just flip one to a new number, and presto you've now passed Go and you can collect your well deserved $200. While we're at it, remove that whole silly jail concept.
And why even support or desire the inclusion of an "autoplay" feature in a game? Just release a video of someone completing the title on DVD for a fee, there would be no difference. Once you have removed player input you nullify the whole point of playing a game. Doing so leaves game's as nothing more than a typically trite narrative tied around some pretty 'lights'.
I fully comprehend why people dislike difficult games, but to wish for their removal is nearsighted. Difficulty levels exist for a reason, and the advent of Trophies/Achievements allows those who seek that higher form of challenge to enjoy the games just as someone at the 'entry level' of 'skill'.
If a game is too hard for you, decrease the difficulty, and if at that point you still cannot succeed than mayhap the game is not for you. Some people enjoy Danielle Steele novels and others salivate over Voltaire. Do we honestly need to alter and diminish the latter so those who prefer the former can understand? I surely hope not. Yes, games are meant to be fun, and frustratingly losing is never fun for anyone. Yet, there are those who seek to surmount said frustration and reach a state of elation only derived from beating a challenge. You don't need to make it so every game accommodates those who cannot tackle their challenges and you especially don't have to for those who just don't want to play and prefer to "ride along". To those I recommend the nearest remote control and TV guide.
Not everything can be for everyone. That's the way of life.
09/13/09
09/13/09
@Duin: WALL OF TEXT HAS NEVER BEEN SO BEAUTIFUL
09/13/09
I would not want them dumbed down (i hate this phrasing but it seems to fit), and i appreciate that fans of other genres are the same.
I am one of those people that now enjoy gaming for its narrative and interactive experiences. I do get easily frustrated when i hit a brick wall in gaming, but this is why i play most action games on easy and am not afraid to look up an FAQ if stuck.
There is a different between genuine challenge and bad design, but many people (myself included) can mistake one for the other, and it can be worrisome as i think few would object if we eradicated bad design from gaming.
I'm kind of spiralling on my point here so shall end this spiel. Good post *thumbs up*
09/13/09
What I find funny, is that I enjoy today's games less than ever. For me, that frustration that makes you put down the controller also makes me pick it up later.
09/12/09
I don't see any point in paying to auto-play a full game -- though it would be really useful for, after you've beaten a game, to show it to someone else. "Hey, mom, check this out."
Nobody's going to put a gun to your head to push the auto-pilot button, but XTREEM GAMERZ are still going to whine all butt-hurt about it, as can be seen below.
09/12/09
I think the writer took himself one step too far. I agree with removing tedium from games, because tedium is not fun. However, removing failure from games strips games of a necessary element, and there are ways to reduce/eliminate tedium without throwing out failure altogether.
For instance, dynamic difficulty, or alternative means of progression might remove tedium without entirely removing failure. If you fail at a task several times, the difficulty might scale down until it matches the last completed milestone encounter.
Or, an alternate task may be inserted instead. Can't beat the boss? Free the captives and escape instead. Or, set a bomb next to the control panel and stealth your way to the next round.
Anyone who's played a game with too-generous save options (i.e. most shooters), knows that eventually it feels like cheating, and you might as well just type "give 1000 bullets" and "idkfa" into the console and waltz through the level unscathed.
09/12/09
And if an easy mode/option is in the game, it usually sells a lot better......which means to keep their job stable. Ever wondered why Gears of War 2 and WoW added an easy mode to the game?
09/12/09
One of my students fears the "slippery slope", if games get too easy and reach a broader market, he fears manufacturers won't make games with challenges any more. My wife's rejoinder: there are lots of "low" or broad-market books, that doesn't stop people from writing "literature".
Yet what I've proposed is an *alternative* to "dumbing down" games. We can have games be challenging to those who like challenges, and not overly challenging to those who don't like them, via autopilot/Demo Play and undo/rewind.
If "autopilot" does not become common, then we'll see games continue to be "dumbed down" to give them broader appeal, and the hard-core players will suffer for it. With "auto-pilot" the hard core can continue to enjoy their challenging games. Those of you who love challenging games should DEMAND an auto-pilot feature in games so that they won't be "dumbed down" to the point that you won't like to play even on the hardest difficulty setting. Because that's the alternative to letting the computer take the player through the challenges the player does not want to face.
As a designer you'd love to be able to make a game that has something for everyone. But that's impossible. In non-electronic games you can have several different versions, from simpler to more complex, but that has distinct limits. In video games you can have difficulty levels from easy to very hard, but that too has its limits. Yet thanks to the power of the modern computer, in video games we can now do both: provide a highly challenging game, yet let people who may not want to take on heavy challenges still play the game. What a great situation! Let the computer play the game when necessary so that players can get past the parts they find most challenging (parts that will vary from player to player: some like puzzles, some hate them, some like "twitch", some just can't twitch fast enough (or don't want to bother)).
What makes games games, is not challenge or accomplishment, it's entertainment. Yet different people are entertained in different ways. Some like the provided-by-designer and implemented-by-computer challenges; some like the challenges of playing against other people, a very different situation. Some like to "see what happens". And so forth. Yet some people seem to think that games are "intended" to be only what they enjoy (e.g., challenging interactive puzzles that we call video games).
As for removing competition, believe me, folks, I know what happens in K-12 schools, where competition (and thinking) has largely been eliminated and anyone can pass if they show up. I'm a college teacher, and sometimes teach high school kids taking college classes. But school is an important part of LIFE, and how to cope with life, it's not entertainment. When we "dumb down" school, the students suffer for it all their lives. And the smarter kids KNOW they're being cheated by the current system. Games are entertainment. If you start to think of games as like life, you're distressingly confused.
One part of me boggles at all the "sense of accomplishment" people. One commenter said "Without the risk of failure, success is meaningless." Right, and you can't fail at a video game, they only take a lot of persistence. You can't LOSE a single-player video game, folks; where's the accomplishment in something you cannot lose? (But remember, I despise formal puzzles, some people love them.) If you could actually lose, then maybe you'd accomplish something when you win. Years ago I wrote a piece titled "Are video games turning us into a nation of losers"--because you can't lose, and because they were (and are) getting easier and easier, and often can be solved by trial and error rather than rational thought. (Btw, if you happen to find the article somewhere, I no longer agree with all of it, having learned some things from my video game design students about the social side of video gaming.) I perfectly understand the distress of people who dislike "dumbed down" games. Yet with modern computers we can provide a game that is both challenging and completely palatable to those who aren't looking for heavy challenges. Why not do it?
The "I'm extraordinary because I'm a video gamer" crowd typically object strenuously to any "devaluation" of game playing. They're evidently worried that they will somehow be "diminished" when some n00b can easily play through the same game the hard core person "beat", using autopilot and undo/rewind. Some video game players evidently glean a significant part of their self-worth, their self-esteem, from their abilities as video game players. Yet people not members of this small group don't care whether someone "beat the game", or beat it in a short time; they don't care how many "achievement points" you've scored. Beating a game, being a "bad-ass" video game player as David Jaffe puts it, counts for nothing in the real world. It doesn't help you survive, it doesn't help your family, it doesn't help your friends, it doesn't help the culture or the nation, it is "unproductive". In that respect it's no different than watching a movie or reading a novel. On what basis are we criticizing the movie-watchers, then?
Lew Pulsipher
09/12/09
09/12/09
Ignore the "hardcore" types and keep speaking truth.
09/12/09
We want everything handed to us on a silver platter and a golden straw to drink our Large Strawberry Delight Milkshakes.
It makes sense in an RPG that maybe the game can give some lenience when you're maybe an hour into the dungeon and away from the save point, if you die, maybe some mercy can be granted in some form or another. However, if you're playing Super Mario Galaxy 2 and maybe half your player base can do the triple-wall jump followed by a ground-stomp whereas your younger kids and elder fellas can't, maybe the game design itself should change. Let the advanced players go up the level that way with their advanced aerial maneuvers, and let the lesser-skilled folk take the long spiral way up, being challenged along the way via other means.
I feel a dynamic difficulty would be far superior to a "rewind and everything's ok" button. At least immersion wouldn't be hit so terribly.
09/12/09
I think a series that has done this rather well despite the difficulty level not being dynamic is Metal Gear Solid, from 2 on. On one end is very easy, on the other is extreme. The story can be enjoyed either way.
09/12/09
The concept of "lives" may have been removed, but the emotions that follow failing at some point in the game don't cease to exist.
And just for the record C's aren't a failing grade. I didn't know the average was failing. The concept of mediocrity is what I think you're aiming for, not failure. Further note, kids who went through high school with Cs and go to college probably won't get that much of a wake up call: they'll just continue to maintain Cs. Cs are still passing in college, ya know? All you need is a 2.0 or higher to graduate.
09/12/09
For example, I finished Batman AA on Normal. And they were times in the end, I felt like stopping the game altogther and re-sell it, just like Owen. Why? It was too hard for me. Maybe not for you, but for me.
Anyway, I finished it, and I didn't feel an accomplishment, as you say. It was more "ok, it's finished, whoopdifuckindo", but during the credits sequence, however, I remembered all the good moments in the game, especially levels and/or parts of the story. And none of them were the hard parts, but more the "this thing was way cool".
For me, saying that the accomplishment is essential to a game, is saying that you will not scream/raise your arms/enjoy yourself during a rollercoaster ride, and at arrival you scream "I DID THE RIDE!". The important part is in the middle, folks, not just doing it from beginning to end.
09/12/09
09/12/09
Jak 2 was a great example of this. Boy, did I love that game. But my God, did they love their frustrating as hell moments. I never finished it. :(
09/12/09
Perhaps there were a couple ways to tweak the game so that Nudgenudge could enjoy it that wouldn't require changing the experience at all for other. Would that not be a worthy goal or are you saying that isn't something developers should pursue? What if making those changes increased the sales of the game (not that it needs more sales) enabling them to make more great titles in the future?
The problem I have with what you are saying is that while he is opining on what might create an enjoyable experience for him, you respond by dictating to him how he should enjoy himself. But what a person finds enjoyable and what they want to do with their time is a their own decision they get to make for themselves. So he would enjoy playing a game on an easier difficulty setting than you would want to play it on? As long as it doesn't hurt your experience I see no need to slight him for his views. If people want to play easy games that is their prerogative, who are we to judge another?
09/12/09
09/12/09
What games don't have a proper easy mode? I can name more than a few that don't have a proper hard mode, like Imagine Babies. They need to include a hard mode for me because I'm offended.
For the record, I've been known to enjoy a Chinese buffet from time to time ;)
09/12/09
Either way I think games should have multiple difficulty modes regardless of the cost. Everything in games costs money, it's just a matter of prioritising things. I think difficulty modes should be high priority.
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/12/09
09/12/09
[kotaku.com]
09/12/09
$9 to play Arkham Asylum hell yeah count me in.
09/12/09