Easy Should Be Easy

[Playbahnosh]

Many of you seem to be missing my key point that there are people out there who want to play games -- complex, thought-provoking, beautiful games -- but are intimidated by how much they don't know. And who are we to say that they have to learn to play the "right" way before they're allowed to enjoy those games? It's unfair to suggest that someone has to become as skilled as you in order to be able to enjoy the same things.

Unfair? Hardly. Say, if you want to play basketball, (in the NBA, just because it looks fun), would it be unfair to expect at least a good level of basketball knowledge and experience? I don't think so. If you want to play on the Australian Open, would it be unfair to expect a good level of tennis experience? No. Before you can play the "real" thing, you have to learn how to play.

Same with games. If you want to play complex games, because they look fun, first you have to learn how to play. Period. Yes, they have to learn to play the "right" way before they can enjoy those games. It's not "allowed to" it's "can". The good players are not keeping anything from the newbies, simply expecting a little effort and determination on their part. There are megatons of learning material, tutorials, guides and FAQs available for most games on the interwebs. If you know the basics, let's practice a little. Nearly every game in existence has a tutorial level or practice mode where you can learn to do basic things. When you are confident in using the basic controls, you can move on to the real game. It's that easy. It's not a movie, you have to put in at least a little effort before you can enjoy video games. It's not rocket science!

The problem is, people nowadays are too lazy to put in any effort, they want gain without pain, something for nothing. That's not how video games work. Like I said, video games are like sports. I'm all for making it easier for newbies to learn how to play, but whining because they want to enjoy them without putting in some effort is maddening. If you, in fact, don't want to put in any effort, then use cheats, trainers and walkthroughs. They are freely available. But that is taking the game out of video games...

 

[Susan Arendt]

Many of you seem to be missing my key point that there are people out there who want to play games -- complex, thought-provoking, beautiful games -- but are intimidated by how much they don't know. And who are we to say that they have to learn to play the "right" way before they're allowed to enjoy those games? It's unfair to suggest that someone has to become as skilled as you in order to be able to enjoy the same things.

Unfair? Hardly. Say, if you want to play basketball, (in the NBA, just because it looks fun), would it be unfair to expect at least a good level of basketball knowledge and experience? I don't think so. If you want to play on the Australian Open, would it be unfair to expect a good level of tennis experience? No. Before you can play the "real" thing, you have to learn how to play.

Same with games. If you want to play complex games, because they look fun, first you have to learn how to play. Period. Yes, they have to learn to play the "right" way before they can enjoy those games. It's not "allowed to" it's "can". The good players are not keeping anything from the newbies, simply expecting a little effort and determination on their part. There are megatons of learning material, tutorials, guides and FAQs available for most games on the interwebs. If you know the basics, let's practice a little. Nearly every game in existence has a tutorial level or practice mode where you can learn to do basic things. When you are confident in using the basic controls, you can move on to the real game. It's that easy. It's not a movie, you have to put in at least a little effort before you can enjoy video games. It's not rocket science!

The problem is, people nowadays are too lazy to put in any effort, they want gain without pain, something for nothing. That's not how video games work. Like I said, video games are like sports. I'm all for making it easier for newbies to learn how to play, but whining because they want to enjoy them without putting in some effort is maddening. If you, in fact, don't want to put in any effort, then use cheats, trainers and walkthroughs. They are freely available. But that is taking the game out of video games...

But we're not talking about playing in the NBA, we're talking about playing in your back yard. Or perhaps the local gym. And in basketball, the core concept -- put the ball in the hoop -- is simple to grasp, but the nuances of strategy, pick and roll, and so forth aren't going to be learned in an afternoon, or even a few weeks. You're saying you're not even going to let someone on the court until they've mastered every nuance of the game. And yes, that's just plain unfair.

And I never for a moment suggested that new players shouldn't have to put in some effort. But simply learning how to work the controls -- which I assure you, is quite difficult for a new player -- is putting in effort. Learning to navigate in 3d space is effort.

Yes, games should still be an experience, no matter what your skill level. You should still have to exert some kind of influence on the game world. Nothing I suggested disputes that. I absolutely agree that new players should still have to play the game, but I see nothing wrong with also providing them a few extra tools to help them through the experience.

 

[Crystalgate]

You're saying that rooks would be to dumb to know that they can combine moves ... yeah, sure xD

Not to dumb to do it, but unable to. It may sound absurd to you, but for some the act of moving the crosshair to a moving enemy and keeping it there requires a conscious effort. Likewise, if a rocket is heading towards a newbie the newbie may actually have to concentrate on dodging, something en experienced player makes effortlessly and often even without thinking. This means that if the newbie is forced to dodge a rocket, the crosshair will be off the enemy and chance is the newbie will have a problem getting it back unless the rockets stop coming and he can stand still while aiming.

My social life is such that I do encounter a lot of people playing for practically the first time. Things like what I described happened all the time. It is hard to do two things which requires conscious effort simultaneously. The reason good FPSers can shoot/switch weapon, dodge and make decisions simultaneously is because their brain outsources most the tasks to the subconscious level. If for example an enemy appears right in front of them, the act of backing off while switching to the shootgun, or whichever weapon is best for close range, is done as a reflex and not as a conscious effort.

 

[Playbahnosh]

But we're not talking about playing in the NBA, we're talking about playing in your back yard. Or perhaps the local gym. And in basketball, the core concept -- put the ball in the hoop -- is simple to grasp, but the nuances of strategy, pick and roll, and so forth aren't going to be learned in an afternoon, or even a few weeks. You're saying you're not even going to let someone on the court until they've mastered every nuance of the game. And yes, that's just plain unfair.

Exactly! See, that's the difference between hardcore games and the more casual games. Shooting a hoop is an easy concept, just like Peggle or Sonny. That's playing in the back yard. But, say, CoD 5, Halo 3, Neverwinter Nights and X3: Terran Conflict is like the NBA. This isn't "not letting them on the court". Sure, you can try and play in an NBA game, but all you going to experience is disgrace and failure if you don't know your basketball. The "back yard" is the training levels, the practice rounds and the occasional game with some friends who are on the same level as you. But until you grasp the basic concept and controls of a given game genre, be it FPS, RPG or whatever, you simply won't enjoy it no matter how much you want it, and it's not the game's fault. These games, at least the main missions, take basic knowledge of the given genre for granted, and they have a difficulty curve upwards. So if you can't complete the fist few levels, you most certainly won't be able to complete the rest. You have to learn to walk before you can run...

Yes, games should still be an experience, no matter what your skill level. You should still have to exert some kind of influence on the game world. Nothing I suggested disputes that. I absolutely agree that new players should still have to play the game, but I see nothing wrong with also providing them a few extra tools to help them through the experience.

Those tools already exist, and have existed since the dawn of video games! Tutorials, training levels, trainers, cheats...etc. These are all there to help those who are not that familiar with a given game or stuck at some point. Hell, sometime even I use trainers or walkthroughs if I'm stuck or frustrated at some point in a game, it's nothing to be ashamed of, but not without trying my best to overcome the obstacle first.

An example is my tough love with X3. I saw some of my friends play the game, it looked awesome, and they made it look easy. They built huge factory complexes, automated traders, conquered entire star systems, and they flew around with an entire fleet following them and doing their bidding. So I went, bought the game and started playing. Needless to say, after two hours of desperate trying I stood up as a complete failure. The controls were a nightmare, I was unable to control my own ship, let alone a fleet, and I even failed to complete the very fist mission in the game. So what did I do? At first, I threw up my hands "meh, this is too hard", I uninstalled and the game's case just sat on my shelf, gathering dust for months. But after a few sessions of me watching my friends play the game and having tremendous amount of fun, I said "no way I'm gonna be left out", I buckled up and went to work. I went online, spent an entire night hunting for guides, FAQs and even got some trainer scripts for the game. Then I spent countless nights just flying around, trying to gain control over my ship, then I went on to figure out the rest. A few weeks in I built my first station, then I got another fighter flying in wing with me, and the rest is history. After I got better in playing the game, I realized, that there is no way this could've been done easier. The controls are complex for a reason, to complement the complex gameplay. Now I'm one of the best X3 players in the neighborhood. All it took is some brains, determination and practice.

We don't need more tricks, watered down gamepleay and built-in clutches for new guys, those are already around, all you need is a little effort.

 

[Susan Arendt]

You still don't get it. You're already a gamer. So, yeah, if you want to get better at a game, all you likely have to do is try. It just isn't that simple for someone completely new to the experience. A tutorial about what button does what doesn't help someone adjust to moving their character with a pair of sticks.

It's just not as simple as "a little effort" for someone who's never, ever, played a game before. (Or perhaps at most played Solitaire on their PC or Tetris.)

Ok, ok, let me put that to the side for the time being. You seem to be saying that if people want to play, they should have to (if we're continuing the sports metaphor) train enough to be as good as an NBA player.

Why?

Why can't a dabbler, someone with no interest or ability in EVER getting that good, be allowed to play the same game as you? Not in multiplayer, certainly -- that wouldn't be fair or fun for either party. But why can't they have a setting that lets them play the game in a way that's entertaining and fun for them, despite their low skill set? It doesn't impact your game experience at all -- you'll still be playing the good, old-fashioned way.

 

[Playbahnosh]

You still don't get it.

Wait, wait. It seems like we have a communication problem here, Susan. I'm all with on the subject of making it easier for new people to get into gaming. We just have differing ideas about the "how".

You're already a gamer. So, yeah, if you want to get better at a game, all you likely have to do is try.

See, that's why I cited that example about me and X3: Terran Conflict. Yes, I'm a gamer now, but I did not become a gamer in one night! And I certainly didn't become a gamer without hardship and practice. I learned to play different kinds of games over long long years of wasted nights, cursing and mountains of snacks and Coke. It's called commitment.

I never ever played X3 before in my life. The closest I got to space sims is GalCiv and Freelancer. But X3 is light-years ahead of those in both complexity and controls. Like comparing a kite to a space shuttle. You could control Freelancer with just the mouse and a few buttons, but for X3, two keyboards wouldn't be enough, not to mention the labyrinthine maze of menus, scripts and options. And yes, I had to learn how to play Freelancer too, that was my first ever space sim, and yes, it was hard, but guess what? I practiced, and it worked.

It just isn't that simple for someone completely new to the experience. A tutorial about what button does what doesn't help someone adjust to moving their character with a pair of sticks.

You are absolutely right! That can only be achieved with practice. There is no other way. You have to just sit down and play. Any human being with some basic skill in hand-eye coordination can be sufficiently self-taught in relatively small amount of time to use analog sticks. Better yet, start with keyboard+mouse combo, it's a lot easier, and when you learn the concept of movement in a 3D environment, then go for the analog sticks. But you cannot evade the practice part.

Ok, ok, let me put that to the side for the time being. You seem to be saying that if people want to play, they should have to (if we're continuing the sports metaphor) train enough to be as good as an NBA player.

See? Communication problem. Maybe my examples were a bit polarized, it's my fault. No, I haven't said that if you wanna play basketball you have to be an NBA player. I just compared NBA to triple A video games in terms of skill and experience required. Those games take the basic ability to move around and interact with a virtual environment for granted. Those games won't hold your hand and take you line-by-line through the game saying "now press the forward button. Great! Now turn the mouse to face the enemy. Awesome! Now press the fire button until the mans fall down.." You see what I'm trying to say here?

Why can't a dabbler, someone with no interest or ability in EVER getting that good, be allowed to play the same game as you?

Being "able to" is not the same as "allowed to"! Sure, everyone is allowed to buy, install and play any game they wish, but if they are not able to play the game because they've never seen an Xbox controller or a keyboard in their life is an entirely different matter. You can buy a ball, pro gear, and rent Alamodome to play in, but that won't make you a basketball player. See what I'm getting at?

Let me respond to your question with another question: Why, should they lover the standards of NBA, because you are not a pro player? Wouldn't that be unfair to the rest of the players who learned to play for years?

Not in multiplayer, certainly -- that wouldn't be fair or fun for either party. But why can't they have a setting that lets them play the game in a way that's entertaining and fun for them, despite their low skill set? It doesn't impact your game experience at all -- you'll still be playing the good, old-fashioned way.

There is just one small problem. In order to cater to the beginners, so they can play the game start to finish, the game designers would have to create the entire game so that Little Jimmy could play it. God modes, tooltips, hints and "where should I go" buttons can go only so far, but there are certain elements in games that simply cannot be dumbed down enough to cater to newbies without ruining the game for the "real" players, easy mode or not. Level designs, puzzles, game dynamics, controls...etc. The designer would have to create two entirely different games, one for the newbs and one for the seasoned players, and that's not possible, I don't have to tell you that. There are guides, trainers and cheat that beginners could use to train themselves (hence they're called trainers), but to water down a game just because the guys have difficulty playing it for the first five minutes is just unfair, as you said it.

There are certain games, that are not for beginners, and it's not a scheme to shut out new players, it's a fact that they need to understand. In order to be able to enjoy rich, advanced gameplay, first you need to reach a certain level in experience and knowledge, just like in RPGs where you gather XP to level up. Once you learn the nuances of the given genre, you'll be able to enjoy those games too. New playes shouldn't be offended by this, rather encouraged to learn and practice, like we, old-school gamers did. In StarCraft, there is no Cow Level...

 

[Playbahnosh]

Truth be told, a rook has no business playing games that advanced. I had to start easy and so do they. It's like asking a white belt to fight in a black belt tournament, it's just not smart

Fucking genius!! That's what I'm trying to say here, too!

 

[Dhatz]

problem is the additional info and hints should be switchable in menu or only in easy mode, not the thing with PDA help in tomb rider underworld. but having game adapted for noobzors would meand to teach them how to move through the world, some tactics and that one button can have different functions on occasion.

 

[Susan Arendt]

You're saying that rooks would be to dumb to know that they can combine moves ... yeah, sure xD

Not to dumb to do it, but unable to. It may sound absurd to you, but for some the act of moving the crosshair to a moving enemy and keeping it there requires a conscious effort. Likewise, if a rocket is heading towards a newbie the newbie may actually have to concentrate on dodging, something en experienced player makes effortlessly and often even without thinking. This means that if the newbie is forced to dodge a rocket, the crosshair will be off the enemy and chance is the newbie will have a problem getting it back unless the rockets stop coming and he can stand still while aiming.

My social life is such that I do encounter a lot of people playing for practically the first time. Things like what I described happened all the time. It is hard to do two things which requires conscious effort simultaneously. The reason good FPSers can shoot/switch weapon, dodge and make decisions simultaneously is because their brain outsources most the tasks to the subconscious level. If for example an enemy appears right in front of them, the act of backing off while switching to the shootgun, or whichever weapon is best for close range, is done as a reflex and not as a conscious effort.

Truth be told, a rook has no business playing games that advanced. I had to start easy and so do they. It's like asking a white belt to fight in a black belt tournament, it's just not smart

Here's the problem with your analogy -- no, a white belt can't possibly compete in a black belt tournament, because that involves other players. In what I'm suggesting, no-one is being affected but the new player.

As for the X3 argument, Play -- you may not have been familiar with games of that ilk at the time, but you were familiar with games in general. Whether or not you realize it, this gives you a huge leg up on understanding and conquering any game that's put in front of you.

Now, if you're suggesting that implementing these features would necessarily take time away from creating a full-bodied experience for the experienced player -- if we're being realistic about developer resources, you're absolutely right.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that that wasn't the case. That developers could implement all of these ideas and more to make games more accessible for new players without taking anything at all away from the "real" game. The pro gamers (so to speak) get the exact same experience they would if the newbie features weren't even there at all. (Yes, it's a stretch, but roll with me on this one.)

Then what are your thoughts?

 

[Susan Arendt]

Here's the problem with your analogy -- no, a white belt can't possibly compete in a black belt tournament, because that involves other players. In what I'm suggesting, no-one is being affected but the new player.

Now, if you're suggesting that implementing these features would necessarily take time away from creating a full-bodied experience for the experienced player -- if we're being realistic, you're absolutely right.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that that wasn't the case. That developers could implement all of these ideas and more to make games more accessible for new players without taking anything at all away from the "real" game. The pro gamers (so to speak) get the exact same experience they would if the newbie features weren't even there at all. (Yes, it's a stretch, but roll with me on this one.)

Then what are your thoughts?

It's possible to do, but impossible to make because of time and money. But still the point is that rookie gamers need to start with the basics and work their way up. Not start with a FPS or whatever that's targetted at more experienced gamers.

Why? Saying they need to "work their way up" assumes that gaming is something they want to improve at. And those who do naturally will improve. They'll try harder, they'll hone skills, and eventually get better. Which is all fantastic for them.

But not everyone who would enjoy playing a game necessarily wants to be a better gamer. Those are the folks I'm talking about. And they shouldn't have to. Games of all kinds -- not just the ones currently aimed at the casual crowds - should be enjoyable by all kinds of people. Again, the last thing I want is to take anything away from people who make gaming an important part of their life. I think gamers should be rewarded for their efforts. They put in the time, they should be able to feel good about that.

 

[SimuLord]

Here's the problem with your analogy -- no, a white belt can't possibly compete in a black belt tournament, because that involves other players. In what I'm suggesting, no-one is being affected but the new player.

Now, if you're suggesting that implementing these features would necessarily take time away from creating a full-bodied experience for the experienced player -- if we're being realistic, you're absolutely right.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that that wasn't the case. That developers could implement all of these ideas and more to make games more accessible for new players without taking anything at all away from the "real" game. The pro gamers (so to speak) get the exact same experience they would if the newbie features weren't even there at all. (Yes, it's a stretch, but roll with me on this one.)

Then what are your thoughts?

It's possible to do, but impossible to make because of time and money. But still the point is that rookie gamers need to start with the basics and work their way up. Not start with a FPS or whatever that's targetted at more experienced gamers.

Why? Saying they need to "work their way up" assumes that gaming is something they want to improve at. And those who do naturally will improve. They'll try harder, they'll hone skills, and eventually get better. Which is all fantastic for them.

But not everyone who would enjoy playing a game necessarily wants to be a better gamer. Those are the folks I'm talking about. And they shouldn't have to. Games of all kinds -- not just the ones currently aimed at the casual crowds - should be enjoyable by all kinds of people. Again, the last thing I want is to take anything away from people who make gaming an important part of their life. I think gamers should be rewarded for their efforts. They put in the time, they should be able to feel good about that.

In the sunshine-and-rainbows world of unlimited developer resources this is all well and good. But the way you get non-gamers into gaming is to start them off with simpler games, not with making harder-core games more accessible (FFS, look at Oblivion when compared to Morrowind...or even Morrowind compared to Daggerfall. Accessibility must necessarily lead to dumbing down the whole experience, and that---to use the old sports analogy from earlier in the thread---is making NBA players use kid-sister rules.)

I'm all in favor of making games to get non-gamers into gaming. It's why the DS and the Wii print money. And if some people never want to make the leap from rhythm games or "brain trainers" to real games, that's no skin off the marketing department's back because they can just sell more idiot games to more idiots.

But the point is, there was a progression for all of us as gamers. I started out on SimCity, learned Aerobiz, graduated to Uncharted Waters and Civilization, then via Railroad Tycoon 2 and Panzer General discovered how to play games like Capitalism, Rome: Total War, and Victoria. I don't want Trevor Chan or Johan Andersson to give even a moment's thought to the casuals---I love Paradox games and hardcore business sims, but I acknowledge that those games are made for gamers, not for casuals. If casuals want to come along and learn the mechanics of those games, I'd recommend they start with The Sims, graduate via the SimCity Box to understanding how builders work, then applying that knowledge to a Civ-type game and work from there.

The answer isn't "easy mode". The answer is to keep games themselves tiered as "white belt" games and "yellow belt" games and "brown belt" games before people can graduate to black-belt kung fu master games.

 

[SimuLord]

sorry, double post due to glitch in the matrix...

 

[Susan Arendt]

In the sunshine-and-rainbows world of unlimited developer resources this is all well and good. But the way you get non-gamers into gaming is to start them off with simpler games, not with making harder-core games more accessible (FFS, look at Oblivion when compared to Morrowind...or even Morrowind compared to Daggerfall. Accessibility must necessarily lead to dumbing down the whole experience, and that---to use the old sports analogy from earlier in the thread---is making NBA players use kid-sister rules.)

I'm all in favor of making games to get non-gamers into gaming. It's why the DS and the Wii print money. And if some people never want to make the leap from rhythm games or "brain trainers" to real games, that's no skin off the marketing department's back because they can just sell more idiot games to more idiots.

But the point is, there was a progression for all of us as gamers. I started out on SimCity, learned Aerobiz, graduated to Uncharted Waters and Civilization, then via Railroad Tycoon 2 and Panzer General discovered how to play games like Capitalism, Rome: Total War, and Victoria. I don't want Trevor Chan or Johan Andersson to give even a moment's thought to the casuals---I love Paradox games and hardcore business sims, but I acknowledge that those games are made for gamers, not for casuals. If casuals want to come along and learn the mechanics of those games, I'd recommend they start with The Sims, graduate via the SimCity Box to understanding how builders work, then applying that knowledge to a Civ-type game and work from there.

The answer isn't "easy mode". The answer is to keep games themselves tiered as "white belt" games and "yellow belt" games and "brown belt" games before people can graduate to black-belt kung fu master games.

Again, for people who are interested in becoming skilled gamers, you're absolutely right. But there are folks who have no interest in "casual" games because of their shallowness, but would enjoy the more complex stories and characterizations of harder games. And right now, the closest they can ever get to those games is watching someone else play. Seems patently unfair to me.

But yeah, sunshine and rainbows. Devs only have so many resources at their disposal.

 

[GrinningManiac]

In regards for 1, I remember in the early Crash Bandicoot games that, if you died repetedly in one area, you respawned WITH an aku-aku mask (kind of like a mario mushroom in effect), rather than picking them up later

 

[SimuLord]

Again, for people who are interested in becoming skilled gamers, you're absolutely right. But there are folks who have no interest in "casual" games because of their shallowness, but would enjoy the more complex stories and characterizations of harder games. And right now, the closest they can ever get to those games is watching someone else play. Seems patently unfair to me.

But yeah, sunshine and rainbows. Devs only have so many resources at their disposal.

Life isn't fair sometimes.

Gaming is what it is and I see no reason why an entire hobby based on the joy of skill progression should be rejiggered so people who don't want to take from this pastime what it offers can be pandered to.

Plus, it's not like I started on Mario Is Missing. I can only speak for strategy gaming (my area of expertise), but if someone's looking to get into that and has no prior gaming experience, The Sims/SimCity 4 is just as good an endpoint as a starting point, and I'm sure other genres have similar examples of "hardcores think they're too easy, but they're still great games."