Give Me a Win Button
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
you described Dawn of war (which is quite bad), not SC. every organic unit in SC explodes into gore, resources matter (which is an entire thing that keeps a game balanced), and its not a game where everyone is mentally fused together. it is a game where everything has its own will to a point. the squad system just ruins an RTS as you have to select multiple units, not willingly select them. armies dont get big in DoW either. and since you said you are a korean, your bad at rts can mean you crush everyone else you knowSon of Makuta said:
This is why I always prefer the PC version of a game over any console version (and why I still don't own a PS3 or Xbox360). With modern games (especially console ones) being less and less likely to include cheat codes, I just don't want to go through the pain of getting half-way through a game only to encounter a brick wall challenge I can't pass that completely ruins the game for me (since I can't get to most of it). At least with PC games, though most still don't come with cheats, there are usually trainers available.
I do try to avoid using cheats/trainers, and most of the time I don't end up using them at all. But if I run into a situation where I've replayed the same section ten or more times without getting through, it's good to be able to just bypass it and move on rather than having to abandon the game entirely. (Plus it makes it more likely I'd buy the sequel.) And sometimes I do just want to breeze through a game (eg. if I've played it before, or if it's only peripherally in my genre of interest).
So: I support cheat codes (in single player games). I support multiple difficulty levels (where Easy really is). Sometimes I want a challenge, sometimes I want the story. The player should be able to decide what they want at the time.
I have mixed feelings on achievements (and whether or not to disable them when cheating); maybe the best option there is to still grant the achievement, but mark it differently from ones gained without cheating -- but have it "upgrade" to the non-cheating one if the requirements are met later on without cheats being involved. (eg. a "completed mission" achievement should be marked as a cheat one if cheats were used at any time during that mission, but a normal one otherwise; if the mission is replayed later without using any cheats then it should be upgraded to a normal one. For a "killed 100 enemies" type achievement, if 80 enemies were killed with cheats off and 20 were killed with them on, then the achievement should be granted with a "cheater" flag, but when a further 20 enemies get killed without cheats it should upgrade to the non-cheater version. A non-cheater achievement should never downgrade into a cheater achievement.)
I do try to avoid using cheats/trainers, and most of the time I don't end up using them at all. But if I run into a situation where I've replayed the same section ten or more times without getting through, it's good to be able to just bypass it and move on rather than having to abandon the game entirely. (Plus it makes it more likely I'd buy the sequel.) And sometimes I do just want to breeze through a game (eg. if I've played it before, or if it's only peripherally in my genre of interest).
So: I support cheat codes (in single player games). I support multiple difficulty levels (where Easy really is). Sometimes I want a challenge, sometimes I want the story. The player should be able to decide what they want at the time.
I have mixed feelings on achievements (and whether or not to disable them when cheating); maybe the best option there is to still grant the achievement, but mark it differently from ones gained without cheating -- but have it "upgrade" to the non-cheating one if the requirements are met later on without cheats being involved. (eg. a "completed mission" achievement should be marked as a cheat one if cheats were used at any time during that mission, but a normal one otherwise; if the mission is replayed later without using any cheats then it should be upgraded to a normal one. For a "killed 100 enemies" type achievement, if 80 enemies were killed with cheats off and 20 were killed with them on, then the achievement should be granted with a "cheater" flag, but when a further 20 enemies get killed without cheats it should upgrade to the non-cheater version. A non-cheater achievement should never downgrade into a cheater achievement.)
I can understand the desire for more difficulty levels, if only because different people will have different levels of ability. A single difficulty means it's too difficult for some people and too easy for others. If you buy the theory that "fun" is about overcoming meaningful challenges, then there's a delicate balance of difficulty needed to achieve that for any one person.
But what you are describing of wandering through the game as a tourist is the very definition of a virtual world. There's a reason we differentiate between virtual worlds and games -- games have a challenge to overcome. Perhaps we should add some trivial way for virtual tourists to wander through the insides of our games, but it seems silly to design a game with this alternative use in mind.
If you really just want to see what cool characters and graphics there are, might I suggest joining Second Life? Though the detail isn't up to modern standards, I gaurantee you an infinite helping of new content, interesting characters, and worlds to explore.
But what you are describing of wandering through the game as a tourist is the very definition of a virtual world. There's a reason we differentiate between virtual worlds and games -- games have a challenge to overcome. Perhaps we should add some trivial way for virtual tourists to wander through the insides of our games, but it seems silly to design a game with this alternative use in mind.
If you really just want to see what cool characters and graphics there are, might I suggest joining Second Life? Though the detail isn't up to modern standards, I gaurantee you an infinite helping of new content, interesting characters, and worlds to explore.
I was very amused when playing Devil May Cry and "unlocked" easy mode, though I think having unlocked it made me vow to not play it as a point of pride.
I think all single player games need multiple difficulty settings as I myself like to play from about normal up to and including the hardest setting.
I played Bioshock on Normal and enjoyed the hell out of it. I played it on the hardest setting and said eff that, and decided not to continue playing it because I enjoyed the story so much I didn't want to soil that experience.
I think all single player games need multiple difficulty settings as I myself like to play from about normal up to and including the hardest setting.
I played Bioshock on Normal and enjoyed the hell out of it. I played it on the hardest setting and said eff that, and decided not to continue playing it because I enjoyed the story so much I didn't want to soil that experience.
I'm sorry, but...what? You go through months/years of effort and millions of dollars to develop, package and sell a well crafted game with great mechanics and pretty graphics, and you want to tell the person who buys it how they should enjoy the game?ReverseEngineered said:
Basketballs are meant for basketball courts, but if the kids want to use it as a kick ball or a dodge ball (ow!) why not?
I may not have been clear about that. I wasn't saying he can't do it, but it's not fair to condemn games for not making it easier. It would be the same as complaining that a basketball doesn't make a good tennis ball -- they were designed to be used in different ways. If he wants a world he can cruise around in and explore without any challenges getting in the way, he should be looking for virtual worlds, not games. That's not to stop him from trying to use a game this way, he just can't expect developers to start making games aimed at people who like virtual worlds.Skratt said:
Admittedly, with the ever-increasing emphasis on graphics, games like Crysis have almost become virtual worlds with a game tacked on for completeness, so maybe it's not unreasonable to expect them to drop the game part altogether.
When I was in the Navy I have to admit I agreed. My problem was is I used to play games as a kid. Tear them apart, replay them to uber dorknessw until my fairly broke family, and lawn mowing could afford me a new one. You know you can win the original Zelda without swords, or rings...
Dorkness aside. When I joined the military i lost those hours and hours of grind time. Then it became wanting to see the story...the plot. I know I wanted to play X ammount through a game but then when the outragous was asked and I have three days till 6 months under the ocean... I cheated till no tomorrow.
What's amazing is the losers that troll cheat request sites "Why ya have to cheat play the game."
Well i would loser but i also have to, i don't know...fight a war?
Tomb raider games, Mortal Kombat ect, are the example of something i'd like to see played out. But with the never ending AI turbo cheating, and loser programer you must jump my way or die a hundred times. I don't WANT to learn them inside and out.
They didn't intrest me enough save the story. America Mcgee's Alice was a great story and conscept but filled with the evils of exact platforming, leaps of faith jumps and pretend difficulty to strech the game out.
Yet get me something good enough like ps3's metal gear and I've replayed it time and time again...
Guess when your older you gotta learn what to take outa a game and enjoy it. Or stop playing them all and build ships in a bottle eh?
Dorkness aside. When I joined the military i lost those hours and hours of grind time. Then it became wanting to see the story...the plot. I know I wanted to play X ammount through a game but then when the outragous was asked and I have three days till 6 months under the ocean... I cheated till no tomorrow.
What's amazing is the losers that troll cheat request sites "Why ya have to cheat play the game."
Well i would loser but i also have to, i don't know...fight a war?
Tomb raider games, Mortal Kombat ect, are the example of something i'd like to see played out. But with the never ending AI turbo cheating, and loser programer you must jump my way or die a hundred times. I don't WANT to learn them inside and out.
They didn't intrest me enough save the story. America Mcgee's Alice was a great story and conscept but filled with the evils of exact platforming, leaps of faith jumps and pretend difficulty to strech the game out.
Yet get me something good enough like ps3's metal gear and I've replayed it time and time again...
Guess when your older you gotta learn what to take outa a game and enjoy it. Or stop playing them all and build ships in a bottle eh?
There are some things I just understood about this whole issue.
That's where cheats come in, and that's where the whole argument starts. Maybe you don't like the whole genre, but you like parts of a game and you want to experience those parts, and those parts only. Undeniably, that shoves the intended game experience down the drain, but may entertain you. That may baffle and infuriate the fans of that genre, who are able and willing to play the intended way thereby experiencing the real deal. These people may argue that if you cheat in their game, that is but a bleak and distorted shadow of the full experience, and if you can't of won't play the intended way you shouldn't play at all. And they are absolutely right! They are trying to protect the game experience they hold dear, that the developers created for us with tireless work neglecting friends, family, themselves, and lost years of their lives for. To the fans, it's a kind of sacrilege to defile that experience with cheats. They don't want to keep you from playing the game, but they want you to play the intended way, to experience the real deal.
On the other hand, there are people who doesn't care about the meticulously detailed and paced story, the well crafted and designed gameplay or any of the details that make that game experience a whole, and are only looking for simple, clean fun. And they are absolutely right, too! If they find that fun by cruelly ripping a chunk out of the full experience, it's their choice. Sure, they cripple the full experience for themselves, but if they have fun, who we are to judge? There are people who like some kind of games and dislike others. But if they can find fun in the games they otherwise don't like playing, even if it's not the "real deal", it's a win, doesn't it?
I may argue, that cheating in Silent Hill 2 is a blatant desecration of the game, because playing in god mode and with all weapons obliterates the constant fear and paranoia that is the main theme of the game. In other cases I may argue, that playing in god mode in FPS and other games is okay, because I don't like dying only to restore a quicksave and fight my way through the same places again, I just want to experience shooting people dead and wanna see the story. Some might say that makes me a hypocrite, but I think it just makes me a smart gamer. I can enjoy the genres I love, and I can also find fun in titles I can't or won't play the intended way, and I think that's the key!
The worst way is incorporating cheats as unlockables. That's a paradox right there, since it requires you to play the game, pass certain challenges (for which you need cheats to pass) to unlock cheats. Blows my mind. Like in Red Faction Guerrilla, if you managed to unlock some cheats, and turned them on, from that point onwards achievements were disabled and you were unable to save your game. What purpose on Earth does that serve? It's stupid. Sure, in earlier games, the game itself scorned you for using cheats, ridiculed you, labeled you a cheater and some games made your gaming harder in some other areas, even to the point, that it denied cheaters the use of some special items or bonus stuff. Note, that it didn't made the game unplayable, but it made you feel like shit for cheating. In those times, using cheats was a sign of weakness, and that was the incentive not to use them. I think that was an awesome concept. If you are not willing, too lazy, or "too weak" to play the game the way it was intended, you had the option to use cheats, but you had to bear the consequences. I think we need to revert back to that. You wanna play in god mode? Sure, go ahead, you sissy! You wanna watch the story as a movie? Yea, go for it, you lazy bastard!
Just my $0.02
Right. Cheats can drastically change the experience. The developers want you to play their game in a certain way, the way that conveys their ideas and feelings, tells the story they wanna tell, and experience what they want you to experience. The developers try to make their game flexible, so a wide variety of people can play the intended way, hence the scalable difficulty and whatnot. But not everyone enjoys the same type of games, or the same things in the games. Like Shamus and many others who wanna experience the story without any hassle or difficulty, drive awesome cars that they can't be bothered to unlock legally, or just build houses in Sims without having to work for game money.Ytmh said:
That's where cheats come in, and that's where the whole argument starts. Maybe you don't like the whole genre, but you like parts of a game and you want to experience those parts, and those parts only. Undeniably, that shoves the intended game experience down the drain, but may entertain you. That may baffle and infuriate the fans of that genre, who are able and willing to play the intended way thereby experiencing the real deal. These people may argue that if you cheat in their game, that is but a bleak and distorted shadow of the full experience, and if you can't of won't play the intended way you shouldn't play at all. And they are absolutely right! They are trying to protect the game experience they hold dear, that the developers created for us with tireless work neglecting friends, family, themselves, and lost years of their lives for. To the fans, it's a kind of sacrilege to defile that experience with cheats. They don't want to keep you from playing the game, but they want you to play the intended way, to experience the real deal.
On the other hand, there are people who doesn't care about the meticulously detailed and paced story, the well crafted and designed gameplay or any of the details that make that game experience a whole, and are only looking for simple, clean fun. And they are absolutely right, too! If they find that fun by cruelly ripping a chunk out of the full experience, it's their choice. Sure, they cripple the full experience for themselves, but if they have fun, who we are to judge? There are people who like some kind of games and dislike others. But if they can find fun in the games they otherwise don't like playing, even if it's not the "real deal", it's a win, doesn't it?
I may argue, that cheating in Silent Hill 2 is a blatant desecration of the game, because playing in god mode and with all weapons obliterates the constant fear and paranoia that is the main theme of the game. In other cases I may argue, that playing in god mode in FPS and other games is okay, because I don't like dying only to restore a quicksave and fight my way through the same places again, I just want to experience shooting people dead and wanna see the story. Some might say that makes me a hypocrite, but I think it just makes me a smart gamer. I can enjoy the genres I love, and I can also find fun in titles I can't or won't play the intended way, and I think that's the key!
Exactly. The way the developers intends you to play must be obvious from the start, and cheats must be well hidden, but accessible with a little research. That's what my last post in this thread was all about. Because if you don't know any better, you will play in that X way. If you have difficulty playing, and cheats are not obviously there, you may consider giving it another try, and with a little luck, you may succeed and grow to like the full experience. But if cheats are blatantly in front of you from the start, you may never bother to try and play the intended way, and just cheat your way through the game from the fist sign of difficulty. I think that's very bad. That was my story with X3: Terran Conflict a few posts back. I think that's the most important issue with cheats. Cheats must be there, not so obviously that it discourages gamers to put in an effort to play the real thing, but accessible enough so you can turn to them if you got really stuck and not give up the game altogether.Ytmh said:
Nintendo Power and other gamer magazines come to mind. In those days, cheats were not at all obvious, in fact, you had to buy a magazine, and read through to have a chance of finding tricks and cheats for you game. There was no internet, no Google, no IM, no mobile phones, and in general, communication was slower. The cheats were in the games, but to get to them, you needed a code, and tracking them down was a chore itself, so many people decided to suck it up and overcome the challenges in the game instead, and in many cases it did pay off big time. But today, you are one simple Google search away from finding cheats, trainers and walkthroughs for whatever game you got stuck in.
The worst way is incorporating cheats as unlockables. That's a paradox right there, since it requires you to play the game, pass certain challenges (for which you need cheats to pass) to unlock cheats. Blows my mind. Like in Red Faction Guerrilla, if you managed to unlock some cheats, and turned them on, from that point onwards achievements were disabled and you were unable to save your game. What purpose on Earth does that serve? It's stupid. Sure, in earlier games, the game itself scorned you for using cheats, ridiculed you, labeled you a cheater and some games made your gaming harder in some other areas, even to the point, that it denied cheaters the use of some special items or bonus stuff. Note, that it didn't made the game unplayable, but it made you feel like shit for cheating. In those times, using cheats was a sign of weakness, and that was the incentive not to use them. I think that was an awesome concept. If you are not willing, too lazy, or "too weak" to play the game the way it was intended, you had the option to use cheats, but you had to bear the consequences. I think we need to revert back to that. You wanna play in god mode? Sure, go ahead, you sissy! You wanna watch the story as a movie? Yea, go for it, you lazy bastard!
Yes, but we need to impose certain limitations on this whole thing, like I said up there. Constantly using cheats may be fun for someone, but it also makes some people whiny bitches, complaining about games being to hard. We need to make games for the people who enjoy them as they are, and we can provide help, cheats, crutches for those who are not able or not willing to play that, but provide incentive for them to get better and play for real.
Just my $0.02
Honestly over the years I've appreicated cheats, assuming they would be helpful at all, to keep me intrested in a game that I wanted to enjoy from the start. Now I probably have a...unique veiw...from the norm as I often enjoy a challange, one thats set just above my skill level. Of course its impossible for any game devloper to know what I can/can't do, so often I put up with the snafus I run into. I don't want cheats to just guide me through; I prefur doing things first then if I really like the game and I hit a wall I'll bust out one or two and go back to what I was doing. For me the thrill in gaming comes from doing it on my own and making myself (or my gf since she occationaly watches me) feel impressed at what I had just done.
Sometimes though I don't feel games are worth it. Even if I want to know how something ends (currently wanting to throw away Prototype) spending hours and hours on something or finding myself staring at a loading screen/cutsceen thats longer then my play time eats away at my desire to keep going. In the odd event I do overcome it eventualy I don't feel badass for doing it, I feel like it was pure luck I bumbled through it or the game felt sorry for me and somehow threw me a bone. How can I feel badass when I just saw this character I've come to like over the course of, lets say for example, 5 hours pasted to the ground and pissed on 10+ times?
I remember an Escapist artical a few months ago "Glory of the Last Stand" for me there is no glory in fighting impossible odds, nor as I said before is no thrill in overcoming them. I either want to be clearly better then/equal too or just under/have to be creative with my opponent. The recent Batman game let me be both superior and just under. Letting me pummel with impunity and forcing me to be creative in many of my assults. I didn't need cheats, even when I failed I knew why...I knew how I could overcome it...I just needed to try something different. By contrast I would really welcome something in Protoype. I have a Last Stand situation, I have no powers but fighting opponents that require the powers to beat. I want to see how this game ends, I really do, but riding in on a tank (which should make me SUPER badass) that get totaled faster then a GTA:VC car, and watching poor Alex getting a mudhole stomped into him just as fast isn't satifying in the least. I've thrown my control down, and pretty much sworn the game off. Whatever Alex had in his future I no longer care to see, the devlopers just wasted their time crafting a meh story and making Alex's powers flow like water. Now, on the other hand, if this is the make you/break you part of the game and after that I can still make Alex seem badass with all his super powers AND without need of MORE cheats, I'd be happy to play to the end. I don't want to start over in easy mode, last thing I need to do is go around and try to fill that web of intrigue again.
I think out of all the games, Silent Hill 2 surprised me with its easy mode. I had never played a game like that before, I took on easy mode assuming things would be cut out or I wouldn't get the best weapons (which is ironic in some games you need to play the higher difficulty settings to get gear/items that make the game easier). I would however accept that for the time being. I was still scared witless in some points even screaming at one where a bathroom stall opened up with a sudden change of music, and I even came through some events on the verge of death desperatly running from monsters searching for more ammo or health. How could that have been easy mode? After all the controls were so clonky it made combat near impossible, the monsters STILL took as much as they could dish out, and health was scarce. I wouldn't find out until long after I beat the game and felt super badass for recovering so well from all these situations, that on easy James can't die from normal traps and monster attacks. That knowlege didn't, however, diminish the feelings I had gotten from it. I saw and experienced the the story the way the creator intended to...all of it suprisingly...to its bittersweet end, and all that with only one cheat I didn't know I had on.
Sometimes though I don't feel games are worth it. Even if I want to know how something ends (currently wanting to throw away Prototype) spending hours and hours on something or finding myself staring at a loading screen/cutsceen thats longer then my play time eats away at my desire to keep going. In the odd event I do overcome it eventualy I don't feel badass for doing it, I feel like it was pure luck I bumbled through it or the game felt sorry for me and somehow threw me a bone. How can I feel badass when I just saw this character I've come to like over the course of, lets say for example, 5 hours pasted to the ground and pissed on 10+ times?
I remember an Escapist artical a few months ago "Glory of the Last Stand" for me there is no glory in fighting impossible odds, nor as I said before is no thrill in overcoming them. I either want to be clearly better then/equal too or just under/have to be creative with my opponent. The recent Batman game let me be both superior and just under. Letting me pummel with impunity and forcing me to be creative in many of my assults. I didn't need cheats, even when I failed I knew why...I knew how I could overcome it...I just needed to try something different. By contrast I would really welcome something in Protoype. I have a Last Stand situation, I have no powers but fighting opponents that require the powers to beat. I want to see how this game ends, I really do, but riding in on a tank (which should make me SUPER badass) that get totaled faster then a GTA:VC car, and watching poor Alex getting a mudhole stomped into him just as fast isn't satifying in the least. I've thrown my control down, and pretty much sworn the game off. Whatever Alex had in his future I no longer care to see, the devlopers just wasted their time crafting a meh story and making Alex's powers flow like water. Now, on the other hand, if this is the make you/break you part of the game and after that I can still make Alex seem badass with all his super powers AND without need of MORE cheats, I'd be happy to play to the end. I don't want to start over in easy mode, last thing I need to do is go around and try to fill that web of intrigue again.
I think out of all the games, Silent Hill 2 surprised me with its easy mode. I had never played a game like that before, I took on easy mode assuming things would be cut out or I wouldn't get the best weapons (which is ironic in some games you need to play the higher difficulty settings to get gear/items that make the game easier). I would however accept that for the time being. I was still scared witless in some points even screaming at one where a bathroom stall opened up with a sudden change of music, and I even came through some events on the verge of death desperatly running from monsters searching for more ammo or health. How could that have been easy mode? After all the controls were so clonky it made combat near impossible, the monsters STILL took as much as they could dish out, and health was scarce. I wouldn't find out until long after I beat the game and felt super badass for recovering so well from all these situations, that on easy James can't die from normal traps and monster attacks. That knowlege didn't, however, diminish the feelings I had gotten from it. I saw and experienced the the story the way the creator intended to...all of it suprisingly...to its bittersweet end, and all that with only one cheat I didn't know I had on.
I want to stop you right there on that, the part where you speak of using walk-throughs and guides to finish a game. It is a firm belief of mine that a game, no matter what type of game it is, shouldn't force the player to go pick up a guide or walk-through That's bad design, the solutions to problems should be held within the game. If your player has to stop playing the game to look up the answer then you've failed as a game designer.Playbahnosh said:Shamus, you been talking to Susan lately? Because she wrote an article just about the same thing. We had a difference in opinion, and now she won't talk to me anymore...
She insisted on installing stuff into the core gameplay to make it easier for new players to stroll through the game, one of them was what she called the "What Should I Be Doing Now?" button, which is essentially the WIN button you described, in games where you need to figure out what to do yourself.
I said to her the same thing: this already exists. The things that help you finish a game without much effort. Trainers, walkthroughs, guides, stuff like that. If I can't find cheats to a game I stuck in, I just get a walkthrough or a trainer.
Now granted people are lazy and will pick up guides so they can cruise through games. I won't deny it I've played many games on the first go-round with an internet guide pulled up, but there are a great many more that I've played where I can do the entire shabang without one.
Immersion is one of the biggest obstacles that designers have to over come when making a game and creating something within the game that forces a player to break game-play destroys that. An entire industry has cropped up around guides, or more to the point an entire industry has cropped up around the idea of breaking immersion.
While I can't speak for anyone else I can definitely say that if I make a game, I want to make damn sure my players can play it without breaking the immersion.
In Oblivion I work to earn gold even though I know an easy glitch that would allow me to replicate any item I have, which basically means unlimited gold. I never do it, even when I really need money I just keep playing. Well ok I do it for hording reasons, but that doesn't help anything expect my inner chipmunk.So I agree that for players to whom the struggle means something an "I win" button doesn't really matter, but I still don't want one.
Or rather I don't want a particular kind of one, one that is an auto-win. Not making you stronger/them weaker (i.e. cheats/difficulty) but a literal "I win" button that is part of the regular game, for example the bot that plays for you in the new Mario title. That to me is a step in the wrong direction.
Let me explain what I would like; A game with functioning difficulty levels and an array of cheats that act like normal ones (find a code, punch it in). To me having a button that allows you to win without effort will let developers make the game far too hard, because if they do people can always escape the bad design with the press of a button.
Maybe I'm wrong and such a feature will be a good thing.
Maybe.
Or rather I don't want a particular kind of one, one that is an auto-win. Not making you stronger/them weaker (i.e. cheats/difficulty) but a literal "I win" button that is part of the regular game, for example the bot that plays for you in the new Mario title. That to me is a step in the wrong direction.
Let me explain what I would like; A game with functioning difficulty levels and an array of cheats that act like normal ones (find a code, punch it in). To me having a button that allows you to win without effort will let developers make the game far too hard, because if they do people can always escape the bad design with the press of a button.
Maybe I'm wrong and such a feature will be a good thing.
Maybe.
I really disagree with a lot of the assertions. He notes that the issue has nothing to do with "hardcore" or "casual", but I really think that's where the dividing line lies: hardcore gamers play the game for the game itself and the challenge it provides, the adrenaline rush they get and the mental stimulation it requires. Casual players play it for the story it offers, the graphics, the scenery, the mood, everything else, really. I know I like games that have a good story, but I'd rather play a game that's fun to play as a game rather than a shallow one with a lot of glitter and fancy stuff.
The whole problem is, hardcore players will buy the game, play it until the sequel comes out, then play the sequel until its sequel comes out. Think of the 'hardcore' Street Fighter player, or the 'hardcore' Counter Strike player who plays the game every day, participates in tournaments, makes or participates in clans, et cetera. Even so-called 'casual' games like Guitar Hero or DDR have those hardcore players who try to master the game, getting insane scores or beating it at the fastest speed on the hardest song. Hardcore players are where you get your long-term profit from, where you get dedicated customers who will buy sequels. I agree, it's important to appeal to the players who are just worried about the scenery, but they're as likely to not spend another dime on video games as they are to become hardcore gamers.
It's a trap, I think, with developers these days. Always appealing to the short term, never building up a long term relationship. I mean, you even noted that developers are spending far too much money on graphics these days and we're far past the point of diminishing returns. It's because developers are focusing on jockeying over todays casual crowd (like they've been doing for years) rather than securing a small portion of the player base as dedicated customers. Bobby Kotick, heady of Activision, has a point when he claims he only invests in IPs with sequel potential, despite the fact that he proceeds to run every one he gets his hands on to the ground.
I understand it's important to appeal to the casual crowd who just wants to get through the game, but not at the expense of the hardcore crowd who will continue buying sequels year after year. If you can give players win buttons without compromising the hardcore crowd, then go ahead; the problem with generic win buttons, I think, is that the hardcore crowd is all about exploiting the best strategies. They want to find the best way (by all accounts) to win and master it; when you offer a way to win that is also incredibly easy to do, it really becomes the best way to win, and that's the extent to which they play unless they make a conscious effort to ignore it. I agree it's important to appeal to casual players, but it must be better than cheat codes and win buttons.
The whole problem is, hardcore players will buy the game, play it until the sequel comes out, then play the sequel until its sequel comes out. Think of the 'hardcore' Street Fighter player, or the 'hardcore' Counter Strike player who plays the game every day, participates in tournaments, makes or participates in clans, et cetera. Even so-called 'casual' games like Guitar Hero or DDR have those hardcore players who try to master the game, getting insane scores or beating it at the fastest speed on the hardest song. Hardcore players are where you get your long-term profit from, where you get dedicated customers who will buy sequels. I agree, it's important to appeal to the players who are just worried about the scenery, but they're as likely to not spend another dime on video games as they are to become hardcore gamers.
It's a trap, I think, with developers these days. Always appealing to the short term, never building up a long term relationship. I mean, you even noted that developers are spending far too much money on graphics these days and we're far past the point of diminishing returns. It's because developers are focusing on jockeying over todays casual crowd (like they've been doing for years) rather than securing a small portion of the player base as dedicated customers. Bobby Kotick, heady of Activision, has a point when he claims he only invests in IPs with sequel potential, despite the fact that he proceeds to run every one he gets his hands on to the ground.
I understand it's important to appeal to the casual crowd who just wants to get through the game, but not at the expense of the hardcore crowd who will continue buying sequels year after year. If you can give players win buttons without compromising the hardcore crowd, then go ahead; the problem with generic win buttons, I think, is that the hardcore crowd is all about exploiting the best strategies. They want to find the best way (by all accounts) to win and master it; when you offer a way to win that is also incredibly easy to do, it really becomes the best way to win, and that's the extent to which they play unless they make a conscious effort to ignore it. I agree it's important to appeal to casual players, but it must be better than cheat codes and win buttons.
I disagree. Shamus is talking about infantilizing all games for no good reason other than he doesn't like playing them but feels like he has a right to experience them anyway. A bit blunt, but there you go. Nothing personal. Do literary critics whine about James Joyce being too difficult to read and how he should have made an easy mode version of Ulysees for people who just wanted to experience the story? Maybe some of them they do and maybe those ones are wrong.
People who feel this way should stick to playing games that offer what they want and should not insist that every game caters exactly to their very specific wants.
People who feel this way should stick to playing games that offer what they want and should not insist that every game caters exactly to their very specific wants.