EA Exec Says Its Games Are "Too Hard to Learn" For New Players

[Seracen]

Hah...hahahaha....AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh wait, you're serious?

Huh...well then, perhaps more folks should take courses in game theory and level design. There are effective ways of teaching someone how to play your game without making it a chore, even with today's ADD minset.

Egorapter actually has a good breakdown on game design...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

 

[Scorpid]

Well this sounds bleak. I can't think of the last EA game that had hard to grasp mechanics... I mean EA isn't exactly Paradox. Most of their games are "point reticle at thing press fire button till not a thing anymore. Follow prompt to next objective. Repeat.". Who takes 2 hours to learn that? And social media connections? What is this 2012? Haaven't we already established no one cares about sharing their cheapest gaming experiences with their friends? I mean EA already tried this and got the Simsville or whatever and it went nowhere. This is none sense. But then again i've already discovered I'm not their target audience, since I actually only want to buy the same game once.
OH I KNOW WHAT IT IS. They are mad they didn't get any massive push back on DA3 so they're trying to rebalance the scales. Good job setting goals for yourself EA and following through! Customer good will only exists to be spent as fast as possible on pointless bullshit.

 

[Nazulu]

They obviously want to look the worst again since Ubisoft has taken the shit stand. Just say some retarded things in public and... I don't want to touch you with even a 40 foot pole. Stay away please.

In the same interview, Shadow of Mordor design director Michael de Plater chipped in that in the future, we will be seeing more and more RPG elements in non-RPG games. "Every game is an RPG now," he said. "You wouldn't make a game without progression and levels and XP."

He also added that "And I think every game is going to be a social game...good ideas propagate."

WHAAAAATT!!! Where the hell do all these thick headed parasites come from!? So many mainstream developers have this bleak tunnel view of what 'THE FUTURE' should be, and it usually ignores diversity and convenience.

RPG elements do not magically make games better or even more re-playable. In fact, I find out they usually fuck up the balance in certain things since there is so much to work with and work out. And I'm hoping him saying 'social game' means just adding extra options and nothing forced. Even then that requires more time and focus.

 

[Bat Vader]

If it takes someone two hours to learn how to play a game they have no business playing video games.

 

[XenoScifi]

I am curious to know exactly how EA would know this?

I always find tool tips very helpful for new games I play. After about 15 minutes most of what I need for the rest of the game is already learned.

Personally I agree games should be brought back down. Some of my favorite games are really simple in design that really require nothing more then picking it up and playing. No tutorial to explain a bunch of complex actions that most will disregard over some good ol fashion run and gunning. I mean fuck, I had better success at Metal Gear games by just killing everything and not using all the overly complicated stealth mechanics.

<hug wall, tap wall, lure patrol, sneak to other side, sneak up on patrol, fuck up trying to choke out patrol by alerting every other patrol in the area, kill everything>

Perhaps I just suck at MGS games, or perhaps toning it back down is for the best?

 

[Dandres]

Which is already true I suppose, but he's right about RPG elements. Leveling up and what not, experience, these sort of concepts that make game progression easy to quantify are not going to disappear, and we're going to see more and more of them from now on.

I blame Borderlands, which is one of the only FPS I play because of its story and RPG elements.

 

[Michael Tabbut]

And with that EA is on my shit list. Time to throw my remaining EA games into the pyre in spite.

 

[Dalisclock]

He also added that "And I think every game is going to be a social game...good ideas propagate."

You're obviously not talking about me then, because I don't play online if I can at all help it. And it's bad enough Uplay keeps bugging me to "SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE! GO ONLINE TO HAVE MORE FUN!", now I can look forward to EA pulling this shit too.

Do what you want EA. Even (God Forbid)if you were the only game company in existence, my game backlog is nearly 300 games now(and one of those is Kerbal Space Program). I could theoretically never buy another new game and still have plenty to play for the rest of my life.

 

[Aerosteam]

Who the hell takes two hours to learn how to play a game?

have you played crusader kings II? or your first trek into playing kerbal space program?

Nope!

Also with games like those, taking two hours to learn everything is likely as that's a tiny fraction of the time they're played in total and even before playing them the player should know they'll play them for a long time. EA games though? Hardly, I don't think even the Sim games take that long to get into.

 

[Dalisclock]

If it takes someone two hours to learn how to play a game they have no business playing video games.

Two hours learning how to play? Or two hours getting a feel for how the game works beyond the surface?

Because I can think of numerous games that it takes hours to really grasp how everything works. Pretty much any of the paradox games fits this to a tee.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

But, again, this is EA. What the hell do they know about good game design?

They know how to ruin it if it accidentally makes it into one of their games.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Hello EA's stupidity, hows it been. seriously I could understand this if someone from Square Enix was saying it, but this is EA we're talking about their games can only be played three different ways, shoot things, give use money to play for five minutes or both.

 

[VanQ]

Well, if EA's game design wasn't all over the place, they might be able to teach players through fun gameplay. It doesn't help that a lot of game devs these days assume their audience is stupid. Like, watch this video. He nails how to teach a player in a fun way on the head.

 

[RJ 17]

All I have to say to Mr. EA Exec is "Citation, please."

Seriously though, I really have to wonder how many big game company execs have ever even played a game. Surely there must be some business/finance majors among the vast swathes of game-playing veterans...can we get some people in executive positions who have actually been part of the target audience and not people who depend on committees and focus groups?

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I am curious to know exactly how EA would know this?

I believe they call it the ass

 

[MysticSlayer]

Eh, initially I was going to join the laughing at a stupid comment, but it has been years since I was a new player to any of EA's major franchises, much more to gaming itself. The more I think about EA's titles, the more I realize that they may very well be daunting to new gamers or even people who are new to their genre. Battlefield is complex compared to its competition (unless you count ArmA among that competition). The Sims can be a confusing game for any newcomer, and I can't imagine a brand new gamer looking at Dragon Age and not getting overwhelmed to an extent. Even the original Mass Effect had enough stats and ideas that you could spend a good amount of time just making sure you knew what each of them were.

So yeah, EA's games probably aren't the easiest for a new player to pick up and play right from the start. Yeah, we who have been playing games for years and have gotten used to these conventions sort of understand how Battlefield works, especially if we've played past games in the series. But imagine coming into that with virtually no experience. It doesn't surprise me that some new players can spend an incredible amount of time learning the game.

 

[VoidWanderer]

"The average player probably spends two hours to learn how to play the most basic game."

Says a lot about your target audience, EA.

Says a lot about their tutorial design, doesn't it?

 

[Bat Vader]

If it takes someone two hours to learn how to play a game they have no business playing video games.

Two hours learning how to play? Or two hours getting a feel for how the game works beyond the surface?

Because I can think of numerous games that it takes hours to really grasp how everything works. Pretty much any of the paradox games fits this to a tee.

Both in terms of what the AAA gaming industry releases. I love games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age but it shouldn't take someone two hours to learn the ins and outs of them.

Games like Crusader Kings II, CIV5, and other Grand-strategy/RTS games I can understand. It took me a day to figure out everything in Crusader Kings II. That is what makes them fun.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The entirety of the test chamber portion of Portal was a tutorial to prepare the player for the "backstage" sections. Nobody complained, because it was a full, enjoyable game experience in its own right.

Besides, I thought EA was reducing the single-player portions of their games to glorified tutorials for the multiplayer aspect.

 

[Baresark]

Wow... just wow.

For a couple of reasons: 2 hours to learn to play a game is not much. Anyone who thinks taking two hours to learn a game is looking at it completely wrong. They don't mean 2 hours to learn WASD and left mouse to click... they mean two hours to become proficient at the game. I can safely say that I got better throughout my entire experience of Shadows of Mordor. I was much much better with the controls and combat at the end than I ever was at 2 hours. But if a lot of people are some kinds of savant and mastered the game 10 minutes in, then why the hell do you even play games.

Social features in everything. Go for it but I have never ever ever ever used a social feature of a game. I don't post my scores to websites and I certainly could not care less about comparing myself to other players. I also don't don't feel an overwhelming need to have RPG elements in everything. Some games it's great I supposed. But a lot of games are fine without them. Many they do not fit in. And it depends on what kind of RPG elements we are talking about. EA's shitty weapon unlocks per level they do in BF games is so old and dated and annoying. Nothing is worse than having to grind to a gun you like to use.

I don't pay much attention to anything executives say though. They are not concerned with the actual games, only the money they lead to. I'm sure these are the same types of guys who came up with that horrendous Dungeon Keeper mobile game.