Patrick Dugan"I am a gamer, my brothers are gamers, some of my best friends are gamers, but no matter how much it hurts, I must speak the truth: Gamers are what's wrong with the game industry." Patrick Dugan explains.
Issue 31 - Reimagining Challenge
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Thomas Crymes
Very interesting article. I think you are onto something. One of the things you wrote sparked something.
It is about Challenge in games. In Project Gotham Racing 3, players are given the highest performing cars out of the box for on-line play. I don't have to play the game for 2 months straight, running race after race, just to get a car to race with on-line.
I think that is key. If I want to race against a friend, I can use just about every car and race anywhere the game offers. I don't have the time or the will to shave quarter seconds off of a lap time in order to enjoy the game. But if I want to challenge my skills, the game waits for me.
Am I just getting too old to put up with repetitive, fight the monster 20 times before you find the key to beating him, then another 10 times to perfect the move, or is it a natural evolution of games to just deliver an enjoyable experience to the gamer.
I can't count the number of side scrolling shooters where i just wanted the thrill of flying through the air with the biggest gun, blowing away all opponents. And I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about having fun.
But there is a contradiction. If I can effortlessly walk through a game, I'm bored. I want something to challenge me, but to know when I've had enough, and just usher me along.
I propose that there should be a scalable difficulty. Each time you die the, level/boss gets a little easier until you just march on without penalty. I hate it when there are hidden items in a game that are only accessable if you beat the game in every concievable way. This is a cheap way to garner replay value. Rant over.
Very interesting article. I think you are onto something. One of the things you wrote sparked something.
It is about Challenge in games. In Project Gotham Racing 3, players are given the highest performing cars out of the box for on-line play. I don't have to play the game for 2 months straight, running race after race, just to get a car to race with on-line.
I think that is key. If I want to race against a friend, I can use just about every car and race anywhere the game offers. I don't have the time or the will to shave quarter seconds off of a lap time in order to enjoy the game. But if I want to challenge my skills, the game waits for me.
Am I just getting too old to put up with repetitive, fight the monster 20 times before you find the key to beating him, then another 10 times to perfect the move, or is it a natural evolution of games to just deliver an enjoyable experience to the gamer.
I can't count the number of side scrolling shooters where i just wanted the thrill of flying through the air with the biggest gun, blowing away all opponents. And I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about having fun.
But there is a contradiction. If I can effortlessly walk through a game, I'm bored. I want something to challenge me, but to know when I've had enough, and just usher me along.
I propose that there should be a scalable difficulty. Each time you die the, level/boss gets a little easier until you just march on without penalty. I hate it when there are hidden items in a game that are only accessable if you beat the game in every concievable way. This is a cheap way to garner replay value. Rant over.
I'm with you Thomas. I'm getting tired of the Trial and Error gameplay of dying multiple times just to figure out how to proceed. That is a sure-fire way to get me to stop playing a game. Is this the only way we can experience challenge? An interesting thought and question.
Original Comment by: cudthecrud
I believe that the new SiN episodes that are coming out via Steam will have some dynamic scalability in terms of adjusting difficulty to suit the player. I think its an interesting idea; it makes me think of the new continous variable transmissions that they're putting in cars. The game aims to keep you on the peak of challenge according to your skill demonstrated. Not to plug other people but here's a link to the Joystiq article: http://playstation3.joystiq.com/2006/01/27/sin-episodes-coming-early-ish-march/
I believe that the new SiN episodes that are coming out via Steam will have some dynamic scalability in terms of adjusting difficulty to suit the player. I think its an interesting idea; it makes me think of the new continous variable transmissions that they're putting in cars. The game aims to keep you on the peak of challenge according to your skill demonstrated. Not to plug other people but here's a link to the Joystiq article: http://playstation3.joystiq.com/2006/01/27/sin-episodes-coming-early-ish-march/
Original Comment by: Mark
Interesting comment, "gamers are the problem." I don't disagree, but at the same time I like ludic systems. Gaming, for me, is meant for relaxation. A series of challenges - I completely agree that challenges are important - a series of challenges that I can solve or not solve at my leisure, clever challenges that make me think but never make me guess, but most importantly that are mine alone. Video games have their precursors in card games and board games, yes, but also in logic puzzles and crossword puzzles. A game of backgammon is certainly fun, but for unwinding at the end of a long day I'd sooner recommend a jugsaw puzzle. There are many types of entertainment, and many of them are most effective in solitary situations.
Life is interaction with others. Games are escapism. The ideal game, therefore, is one that takes away the weary parts of interacting with others. For some people, there is no part of interacting with others that is inherently taxing. For others (such as myself), any social situation, whatever its rewards, will also entail mutual dependence with others to do certain things, even if it's just as simple as fulfilling some cultural norm like responding to a question with an answer. To place trust in others and to in turn be trusted demands a certain level of participation and a certain surrender of control - neither of which are very leisurely things. Gaming as a leisure activity, therefore, should err on the side of fewer interpersonal components.
On the other hand, competition is fun and cooperation, if done right, can be equally fun. Part of what makes them entertaining (or leisurely) activities is that a participant knows in the beginning what s/he's getting into. If you're playing a board game, you're only counting on your opponent(s) to follow rules and play well, and all you are expected to do in that situation is to follow rules and play well. There's no need to worry about anonymous 13-year-old griefers, since the situation makes it impossible; no need to worry about someone you trust turning on you, since there are (usually) no allies*; no need to worry about whether your teammates are incompetent; no need to worry about whether you're going to be blamed for it if you lose; no need to worry about people disconnecting and preventing you from winning; in fact, it makes it so the only thing to worry about is what your next move will be, and occasionally a time limit. It simplifies the problems which are facing you, compartmentalizes them, and forbids surprises. You know exactly what you're getting in to, and it's less taxing than the challenges that face you normally - and that's what makes it relaxing. Having more control over the situation helps as well.
*and also because you can avoid them or use physical intimidation in the future - you're not automatically reduced to begging [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7118750192530790377] if somebody puts you in a bad situation
I was going somewhere with this, but I got distracted. Maybe I'll post here again once I remember.
Interesting comment, "gamers are the problem." I don't disagree, but at the same time I like ludic systems. Gaming, for me, is meant for relaxation. A series of challenges - I completely agree that challenges are important - a series of challenges that I can solve or not solve at my leisure, clever challenges that make me think but never make me guess, but most importantly that are mine alone. Video games have their precursors in card games and board games, yes, but also in logic puzzles and crossword puzzles. A game of backgammon is certainly fun, but for unwinding at the end of a long day I'd sooner recommend a jugsaw puzzle. There are many types of entertainment, and many of them are most effective in solitary situations.
Life is interaction with others. Games are escapism. The ideal game, therefore, is one that takes away the weary parts of interacting with others. For some people, there is no part of interacting with others that is inherently taxing. For others (such as myself), any social situation, whatever its rewards, will also entail mutual dependence with others to do certain things, even if it's just as simple as fulfilling some cultural norm like responding to a question with an answer. To place trust in others and to in turn be trusted demands a certain level of participation and a certain surrender of control - neither of which are very leisurely things. Gaming as a leisure activity, therefore, should err on the side of fewer interpersonal components.
On the other hand, competition is fun and cooperation, if done right, can be equally fun. Part of what makes them entertaining (or leisurely) activities is that a participant knows in the beginning what s/he's getting into. If you're playing a board game, you're only counting on your opponent(s) to follow rules and play well, and all you are expected to do in that situation is to follow rules and play well. There's no need to worry about anonymous 13-year-old griefers, since the situation makes it impossible; no need to worry about someone you trust turning on you, since there are (usually) no allies*; no need to worry about whether your teammates are incompetent; no need to worry about whether you're going to be blamed for it if you lose; no need to worry about people disconnecting and preventing you from winning; in fact, it makes it so the only thing to worry about is what your next move will be, and occasionally a time limit. It simplifies the problems which are facing you, compartmentalizes them, and forbids surprises. You know exactly what you're getting in to, and it's less taxing than the challenges that face you normally - and that's what makes it relaxing. Having more control over the situation helps as well.
*and also because you can avoid them or use physical intimidation in the future - you're not automatically reduced to begging [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7118750192530790377] if somebody puts you in a bad situation
I was going somewhere with this, but I got distracted. Maybe I'll post here again once I remember.
Original Comment by: Patrick Dugan
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
What I'm saying is its all the same, life and games, the difference is on a spectrum of freedom. While adaptive challenge is something I'm interested in, and actually quite implementable by better methods than seen in Max Payne or other ad-hoc examples, the thing about social challenge is that the difficulty is determined by the goals you yourself bring to the game. If you're aims are to completely turn the in-game culture on its head, then you're going to have a harder time than if you slyly manipulate a few folks into a desired scenario. Thats the beauty of social challene, its really about the player, not the game; if you come in wanting to compete with the other characters such is your story, if you're a co-operator or leveraging managerial shylock or wander off and do your own thing, thats your freedom to do so. Depending on the social dynamic being modeled you'll have different consequences for different approaches. Theres a whole universe of phenemona to capture and play with.
That said, social challenge isn't for everyone. Hence the whole "gamers are whats wrong with the game industry" bit, which suprisingly hasn't pissed too many people off. While theres a portion of current gamers who would dig social challenge, theres also a portion that love their resource managing FPS puzzle Football simulators, or whatever, and thats cool, thats already being made in spades.
I want to thank Raph Koster for his comments on my last article, which inspired the penultimate paragraph of this article and gave me a clearer concept of how social challenge can be designed.
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
What I'm saying is its all the same, life and games, the difference is on a spectrum of freedom. While adaptive challenge is something I'm interested in, and actually quite implementable by better methods than seen in Max Payne or other ad-hoc examples, the thing about social challenge is that the difficulty is determined by the goals you yourself bring to the game. If you're aims are to completely turn the in-game culture on its head, then you're going to have a harder time than if you slyly manipulate a few folks into a desired scenario. Thats the beauty of social challene, its really about the player, not the game; if you come in wanting to compete with the other characters such is your story, if you're a co-operator or leveraging managerial shylock or wander off and do your own thing, thats your freedom to do so. Depending on the social dynamic being modeled you'll have different consequences for different approaches. Theres a whole universe of phenemona to capture and play with.
That said, social challenge isn't for everyone. Hence the whole "gamers are whats wrong with the game industry" bit, which suprisingly hasn't pissed too many people off. While theres a portion of current gamers who would dig social challenge, theres also a portion that love their resource managing FPS puzzle Football simulators, or whatever, and thats cool, thats already being made in spades.
I want to thank Raph Koster for his comments on my last article, which inspired the penultimate paragraph of this article and gave me a clearer concept of how social challenge can be designed.
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast
Patrick:
I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that gamers are the problem with the game industry. After all, it was "gamers" who waited in line for 8 hours to buy the latest, prettiest sequel-pusher ever made.
In terms of the social challenge, it reminded me of that section in Koster's book about the different types of intelligences (can't remember if it was his or he was citing somebody else, don't have the book on hand). Anyways, it mentioned a variety of intelligence-types, like logical, kinetic, social, etc. I remember reading that and thinking that was a very good point. I'm a big gamer of all kinds, but my gf is always saying how she likes games where she has to try and read the other players, decipher their goals etc. So, I bought Settlers of Catan, and she loves it. I really think there is a ton of unexplored potential in the idea of the social challenge game. Given the increasing complexity of 3D models, it would totally be possible to have a game that requires the players to interpret the facial expressions of in-game characters, or something to that effect.
Patrick:
I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that gamers are the problem with the game industry. After all, it was "gamers" who waited in line for 8 hours to buy the latest, prettiest sequel-pusher ever made.
In terms of the social challenge, it reminded me of that section in Koster's book about the different types of intelligences (can't remember if it was his or he was citing somebody else, don't have the book on hand). Anyways, it mentioned a variety of intelligence-types, like logical, kinetic, social, etc. I remember reading that and thinking that was a very good point. I'm a big gamer of all kinds, but my gf is always saying how she likes games where she has to try and read the other players, decipher their goals etc. So, I bought Settlers of Catan, and she loves it. I really think there is a ton of unexplored potential in the idea of the social challenge game. Given the increasing complexity of 3D models, it would totally be possible to have a game that requires the players to interpret the facial expressions of in-game characters, or something to that effect.
Original Comment by: Patrick
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
One of the two problems I had with Koster's otherwise brilliant book (the first one was the "games are puzzles" dictum; rhizomes people! Think about rhizomes!) was that while acknowledging social intelligence as a major mental module, he discounted social jockeying as an activity which games could model. Obviously I disagree, and as your gf can attest social manuevering is a lot of fun, particularly to people who don't dig your typical conquest-oriented min/maxing gameplay.
Reading facial animations is an essential feedback mechanism to the three working drama engines currently in existence (those being Facade's, Storytron (next article of mine) and Utopia's) and probably as vital to interactive drama as a health gauge is to old school ludic challenge. There is the issue of the uncanny valley, one young woman who contacted me after "An Exit" was published is trying to build a Source mod scripted with the Facade technology; I'm kind of amazed by her determination to go in that direction, as much research shows uncannily hyperreal faces tend to look more creepy than expressive. Barring a very powerful AI module the uncanny valley is an impenetrable pit of fog.
For now myself and others on the cutting edge of social challenge are sticking to simpler representational (though procedurally animated) graphics that get the expressions across in an iconic way. Someday (as soon as I have millions to spend on dev budgets and R&D) I'll hold my breath and sprint right through that damn valley, but until then I think we can build the social equivilant of Super Mario.
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
One of the two problems I had with Koster's otherwise brilliant book (the first one was the "games are puzzles" dictum; rhizomes people! Think about rhizomes!) was that while acknowledging social intelligence as a major mental module, he discounted social jockeying as an activity which games could model. Obviously I disagree, and as your gf can attest social manuevering is a lot of fun, particularly to people who don't dig your typical conquest-oriented min/maxing gameplay.
Reading facial animations is an essential feedback mechanism to the three working drama engines currently in existence (those being Facade's, Storytron (next article of mine) and Utopia's) and probably as vital to interactive drama as a health gauge is to old school ludic challenge. There is the issue of the uncanny valley, one young woman who contacted me after "An Exit" was published is trying to build a Source mod scripted with the Facade technology; I'm kind of amazed by her determination to go in that direction, as much research shows uncannily hyperreal faces tend to look more creepy than expressive. Barring a very powerful AI module the uncanny valley is an impenetrable pit of fog.
For now myself and others on the cutting edge of social challenge are sticking to simpler representational (though procedurally animated) graphics that get the expressions across in an iconic way. Someday (as soon as I have millions to spend on dev budgets and R&D) I'll hold my breath and sprint right through that damn valley, but until then I think we can build the social equivilant of Super Mario.
Original Comment by: parkbench
I'm curious as to what the author thinks about punishment [http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=13149].
(i pray html be allowed)
I'm curious as to what the author thinks about punishment [http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=13149].
(i pray html be allowed)
Original Comment by: parkbench
PS: direct link [http://www.gamemakergames.com/index.php?a=view&id=3741].
PS: direct link [http://www.gamemakergames.com/index.php?a=view&id=3741].
Original Comment by: Olumide Edu
Do I agree or don't I?
I am not really sure. Are gamers the problem? Maybe, but I am not exactly who gamers are any more or at least which gamers you are refering to. I do know one thing, though. While I didn't pre-order a 360 (mainly due to lack of funds) I would have simply because of the promise held in games such as Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Too Human etc. and not because of those oh-so-dazzling xbox ports. Secondly, the reason I have not purchased 2D games such as Castlevania in years is simply because I do not have fun with or get any other kind of enjoyable stimulus from those sort of games anymore. Still, I am intensely irritated by people buying an endless amount of sequels, unimaginative movie games and all the imitator titles in between.
As for all this paedic vs. ludic... stuff
p), I have heard a wide variety of arguments supporting either side. On the one hand paidea can be extremely liberating while aslo being frustratingly aimless. On the other hand overly ludic games can very limiting even if they feel more focused.
I do however; intensely love the idea of socially challenging games. They are something I look for constantly and almost never find. I am tired of plowing through endless seas of baddies just for the heck of it. I need something much more compelling. It is that I don't like a good sports game or other because I really do. The problem is that I am being more than satisfied as far as those sort of games are concerned and being completely starved of the sort of games that make go 'damn, I didn't think of it that way before' or even make any kind of social or artistic statement at all. I am not sure if that is the key to widening gamings appeal seeing as such fare in other mediums is limited to their various independent industries in favor of pretty 'splosions or their equivalents. I could be wrong there though.
Do I agree or don't I?
I am not really sure. Are gamers the problem? Maybe, but I am not exactly who gamers are any more or at least which gamers you are refering to. I do know one thing, though. While I didn't pre-order a 360 (mainly due to lack of funds) I would have simply because of the promise held in games such as Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Too Human etc. and not because of those oh-so-dazzling xbox ports. Secondly, the reason I have not purchased 2D games such as Castlevania in years is simply because I do not have fun with or get any other kind of enjoyable stimulus from those sort of games anymore. Still, I am intensely irritated by people buying an endless amount of sequels, unimaginative movie games and all the imitator titles in between.
As for all this paedic vs. ludic... stuff
p), I have heard a wide variety of arguments supporting either side. On the one hand paidea can be extremely liberating while aslo being frustratingly aimless. On the other hand overly ludic games can very limiting even if they feel more focused.I do however; intensely love the idea of socially challenging games. They are something I look for constantly and almost never find. I am tired of plowing through endless seas of baddies just for the heck of it. I need something much more compelling. It is that I don't like a good sports game or other because I really do. The problem is that I am being more than satisfied as far as those sort of games are concerned and being completely starved of the sort of games that make go 'damn, I didn't think of it that way before' or even make any kind of social or artistic statement at all. I am not sure if that is the key to widening gamings appeal seeing as such fare in other mediums is limited to their various independent industries in favor of pretty 'splosions or their equivalents. I could be wrong there though.