Bethesda: Games Can Always Be Easier
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
T-that...that sounds awful. Like...Puppy Holocaust awful.[/quote]buy teh haloz said:
I apologize. Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 is the worst game I've ever played in my life. Period.
Step 1 ought to be making the games easier for everyone. By that, I mean doing serious user interface design and testing, not banking on the player having gone through tens of similar games, and in general, doing what makes sense for *your* game instead of mindlessly aping what some other company did in some other game.
You can't blame the player for getting lost in rooms that are unnaturally alike due to insufficient attention from the level designer.
You can't blame the player for missing inputs like (lightning fast) d/f+K+G ~ f+P ~ b,f,f+P+K.
You can't show the player tens of locked doors whose locks are magically invulnerable to guns and tools, and then in the middle of the game, expect him to shoot his way through a door.
You can't put supplies in breakable crates that would never logically contain such supplies, not inform the player about the fact that there might be supplies in crates, and then blame the player for not finding them.
You can't blame the player for getting lost in rooms that are unnaturally alike due to insufficient attention from the level designer.
You can't blame the player for missing inputs like (lightning fast) d/f+K+G ~ f+P ~ b,f,f+P+K.
You can't show the player tens of locked doors whose locks are magically invulnerable to guns and tools, and then in the middle of the game, expect him to shoot his way through a door.
You can't put supplies in breakable crates that would never logically contain such supplies, not inform the player about the fact that there might be supplies in crates, and then blame the player for not finding them.
*puts on his devil's advocate costume, rehearses lines*
He has half of a winning situation here. His idea's are correct but he's identifying the wrong thing. Games should always be FUN. 'Easy' doesn't mean fun, it means 'not frustrating'- frustration is the opposite of fun. He's aiming in the right direction, he's just shooting the wrong target.
He has half of a winning situation here. His idea's are correct but he's identifying the wrong thing. Games should always be FUN. 'Easy' doesn't mean fun, it means 'not frustrating'- frustration is the opposite of fun. He's aiming in the right direction, he's just shooting the wrong target.
Also this.Nutcase said:
You could also make books easier. Make characters that are stereotypical and easy to relate to, plots that are easy to follow and try to keep an average readability of 6 words per sentence and 5 letters per word or less. Don't introduce too many original ideas, and don't leave any mysteries or plot twists that'll force people to read a book more than once. Don't ever try to challenge your customers, that's just bad business. Anyone working in retail can tell you that.
Of course anyone trying to create art will tell you what the fuck are you talking about customers for? That's what Douville does, even if he calls the customers "players". Making games that you think players think they want is not conductive to the development of games as an artistic medium.
Of course anyone trying to create art will tell you what the fuck are you talking about customers for? That's what Douville does, even if he calls the customers "players". Making games that you think players think they want is not conductive to the development of games as an artistic medium.
IN ORDER TO BE GOOD, YOU MUST BE EASILY CONSUMED BY THE MASS MARKET. AFTER ALL THE MASS MARKET KNOWS WHATS BEST.
TAKE FOR EXAMPLE MCDONALDS HAMBURGERS, EASILY THE PINNACLE OF QUALITY FOOD DUE TO THEIR EASY CONSUMPTION BY THE MASSES. OR PERHAPS REALITY TV, ANOTHER PINNACLE OF AN ARTFORM.
THANKS MASS MARKET FOR SHOWING ME THAT MAKING THINGS EASY TO DIGEST IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ART YOU CAN ACHIEVE.
TAKE FOR EXAMPLE MCDONALDS HAMBURGERS, EASILY THE PINNACLE OF QUALITY FOOD DUE TO THEIR EASY CONSUMPTION BY THE MASSES. OR PERHAPS REALITY TV, ANOTHER PINNACLE OF AN ARTFORM.
THANKS MASS MARKET FOR SHOWING ME THAT MAKING THINGS EASY TO DIGEST IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ART YOU CAN ACHIEVE.
I always liked the idea of feeling like I accomplished something when I beat a game. I still get skeptical looks when I claim a beat Morrowind without Todtest or TGM.
How will I feel immersed (and if you feel immersed in a game, in my opinion, then you can forgive all other flaws) if I really have no obstacles? It feels more like a scene selection at the movies.
How will I feel immersed (and if you feel immersed in a game, in my opinion, then you can forgive all other flaws) if I really have no obstacles? It feels more like a scene selection at the movies.
Game difficulty has never really plagued me. I will say though I hear more people complain that it's too hard before they say it's too easy.
I need games to be ad least moderately difficult I found that out when I played Bioshock on normal and coasted through it. After Peach Wilkins I realized I had to change it to hard or I could have done it in my sleep. Then a friend of mine tried it on normal and couldn't beat the first Big Daddy after 10 tries. I guess its really what separates Hardcore gamers from casual.
I need games to be ad least moderately difficult I found that out when I played Bioshock on normal and coasted through it. After Peach Wilkins I realized I had to change it to hard or I could have done it in my sleep. Then a friend of mine tried it on normal and couldn't beat the first Big Daddy after 10 tries. I guess its really what separates Hardcore gamers from casual.
And, of course, cue the inevitable complaints of those who confuse the terms "good game" and "BDSM session with no safe word".
-- Steve
-- Steve
And this is the reason why we can't have nice discussions. Way to raise the level of maturity...MaxTheReaper said:
Let's go back to the original post, shall we?
Again, for effect:
Now, I'm sure some of you simply skipped over this part of the sentence in your self-righteous "must-bash ignorant game developer" mindset, but what he's actually saying is not "All games should be ridiculously easy to beat." He's saying "The easiest setting of a game should be ridiculously easy to beat".
I don't know if you've ever noticed things like this, but my younger brother who is not as experienced a gamer as I, but still a hardcore gamer, can't beat Gears of War 2 on normal difficulty. My older brother, who is not an as experienced a gamer as either me or my younger, and not a hardcore gamer, can't beat Gears of War 2 on casual without me giving him hints as to where to go and what to do.
Considering the mass entry of new gamers into the market, what he's saying is -- brace yourselves -- a good idea. I don't know how it is for others, but me personally I stop playing a game if I can't beat a part of it. Not entirely, I'll come back later and bash my way through the level but I stop playing because constantly losing is not fun for me. So, I go and find out how to beat the section, beat it, and move on.
I've actually stopped playing the Last Remnant [A game which I genuinely like] because of one ridiculously difficult double-boss battle sequence that I just can't beat because I'm not high enough in level [Or don't have the right equipment, whatever]. A lesser gamer would never even go back to try again, they would drop the console or game entirely and go find something easy and mindless to do. This leads to a lack of desire to play video games because most of them are "hard", which in turn means not buying video games, no profits, and the downfall of the video game industry [Exaggeration; not an actual effect of one new gamer no longer playing video games]
The crux of this idea is the hardcore gamers, the ones who like the challenge: This is why he said "Easiest setting". He in no way shape or form touched down on the harder settings and, for some reason, everyone seems to think of difficulty setting only affecting your bullet damage and health absorption.
Why does difficulty setting have to only affect those two options?
Why can't the easiest setting also make the game better lit? Less shadows to obscure things and more signs to point you in the right direction - Go with the Perfect Dark thought and have a big glowing arrow pointing the way. And then as you crank the difficulty up, those dissappear. On normal, no big glowing arrow but still a sign or two and a some good lights. On hard, less lights, no signs, and a weaker constitution. Or maybe, when playing on hard your health doesn't regenerate and you have to find medkits as opposed to regenerating health on normal and easy difficulty.
You see... He's not saying that all games should be so easy you could beat it in your sleep, but rather that there is no reason to make the easy setting a watered down version of the hard setting. You can make easy 'easy'. Hardcore gamers don't have to play 'easy' and thus get a nice challenge in the other difficulties, and new gamers aren't denied the fun of playing the game simply because their thumbs don't have the same dexterity as ours or the same hand-eye coordination that by all rights should make us super ninja sitting in comfy chairs.
Moral of this story: Read the fuggin' article entirely, don't jump to the end ;\
Err, I think he meant "Push button, win game" to be understood more like "In the easy setting, you don't have to memorize an insanely difficult, blood-pumping sequence of rapid button-presses to pull off a good combo".
Like Devil May Cry 3's automatic mode. Most of the time I like to control every little attack I can make, but after nearly having a stroke, I either quit playing, or just switch to automatic mode for a while, leaving Dante to choose what attacks he wants to use whenever I push THE SAME BUTTON.
Like Devil May Cry 3's automatic mode. Most of the time I like to control every little attack I can make, but after nearly having a stroke, I either quit playing, or just switch to automatic mode for a while, leaving Dante to choose what attacks he wants to use whenever I push THE SAME BUTTON.
