There was me thinking games are too dumbed down these days.. I guess not, I've just been struggling with them apparently. I'M TOO FUCKING STUPID FOR EA GAMES!
""And asking for two hours of somebody's time--most of our customers, between their normal family lives...to find two contiguous hours to concentrate on learning how to play a video game is a big ask," he added."'
2 hours.... two... really
Yet another sign of the coming apocalypse
Yes really.
2 hours is the time to watch a movie. I usually don't give a game 2 hours before I decide whether to give it more time. If it is not fun in the first 15-20 min, i am out of there.
Plus, he makes a good point in the article. I really don't want to waste time to learn just another button layout in a more game. It is not that I cannot .. but I have better use of my time. So it would be great if button layouts are similar across games (which btw, is almost true today, anyway).
Now if devs don't want to make games for me, it is perfectly fine .. i have plenty to do. However, if they want a slice of my entertainment time, don't waste it, and make it fun from the start. I am not giving anyone 2 hours just to sell me.
You are exactly what EA is looking for. I don't have time to figure out the complexities of a game that add depth, longevity and replayability. Give me something I can master in 2 mins and I'm happy.
I honestly didn't think people like this actually existed and it was just a profile the marketing department at EA made up to justify making crappy disposable games.
What are "the basics" of a mmorpg? The analogy using Chess is that if you know how the pieces move then you know the basics. Can we analogously say that if I know the WASD keys to move, the space bar to jump and the number keys to use abilities that I know the basics?
nope ... leveling system. Skills of classes. How to gear .. there are a thousand things beyond just movement.
In fact the problem pretty much explicitly happens after the purchase. If a player is struggling to learn a game, it means they bought the game (at least with the majority of EA's games still being B2P.)
So it's a stretch to look at one of the highest revenue game companies and claim its games "don't sell" by any stretch.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The majority of gamers really have no clue about the subject, as evidenced by the significant amount of "only make games specifically for me and my level of gaming experience, or I'll belittle you" responses that this thread has.
Meanwhile anyone who's ever observed an actual game usability testing session understands the pain of watching less experienced gamers try to understand even the most basic concepts in games.
The widest audience isn't always the right move, but making games that a lot of players enjoy is definitely a safer bet. This carries the implication that those same players need to understand how to play, or they can't have fun.
But most gamers unsurprisingly have a very selfish view "make games only for me!" and aren't concerned with whether making games for them actually makes any business sense. Which results in a lot of useless insults being toss around by these gamers.
Of course the way to actually be the most selfish would be to drop the insults entirely and simply be an avid evangelist of good game design (design which manages to simultaneously be easy to learn and deep.) Only a fool is against something being easy to learn. But the ideal is "easy to learn, hard to master" and that's basically a win-win situation for everyone.
It's too bad this post didn't get a response by those who seem to disagree with your view on the topic. It's super insightful.
Axe's last few posts really hit on a lot of great points.
If you're just joining the thread now... scroll up to Axehilt's stuff.
Some very good posts that shed light on the meaning behind the EA statement.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The majority of gamers really have no clue about the subject, as evidenced by the significant amount of "only make games specifically for me and my level of gaming experience, or I'll belittle you" responses that this thread has.
Meanwhile anyone who's ever observed an actual game usability testing session understands the pain of watching less experienced gamers try to understand even the most basic concepts in games.
The widest audience isn't always the right move, but making games that a lot of players enjoy is definitely a safer bet. This carries the implication that those same players need to understand how to play, or they can't have fun.
But most gamers unsurprisingly have a very selfish view "make games only for me!" and aren't concerned with whether making games for them actually makes any business sense. Which results in a lot of useless insults being toss around by these gamers.
Of course the way to actually be the most selfish would be to drop the insults entirely and simply be an avid evangelist of good game design (design which manages to simultaneously be easy to learn and deep.) Only a fool is against something being easy to learn. But the ideal is "easy to learn, hard to master" and that's basically a win-win situation for everyone.
It's too bad this post didn't get a response by those who seem to disagree with your view on the topic. It's super insightful.
Axe's last few posts really hit on a lot of great points.
If you're just joining the thread now... scroll up to Axehilt's stuff.
Some very good posts that shed light on the meaning behind the EA statement.
agreed .. some here think that games need to be like challenging jobs, as opposed to some fun past time. EA is merely saying that most consumers are not like that.
and people often confused with undesirability with inability. Sure, i can learn a new game (whether it is control, or the systems, or what-not), but why should i waste my time doing that if there is a better solution?
Sigh, I feel a new dumbing down of the games comming up... A chimp can already learn to play them but it seems that EA thinks their players are incredible stupid.
They also in their wisdom say: "Every game is an RPG now,".
OOO OO, I got this one. Just put a chip inside your brain, and hand, and you will have no more need to learn how to control the game!!!!
The majority of gamers really have no clue about the subject, as evidenced by the significant amount of "only make games specifically for me and my level of gaming experience, or I'll belittle you" responses that this thread has.
Meanwhile anyone who's ever observed an actual game usability testing session understands the pain of watching less experienced gamers try to understand even the most basic concepts in games.
The widest audience isn't always the right move, but making games that a lot of players enjoy is definitely a safer bet. This carries the implication that those same players need to understand how to play, or they can't have fun.
But most gamers unsurprisingly have a very selfish view "make games only for me!" and aren't concerned with whether making games for them actually makes any business sense. Which results in a lot of useless insults being toss around by these gamers.
Of course the way to actually be the most selfish would be to drop the insults entirely and simply be an avid evangelist of good game design (design which manages to simultaneously be easy to learn and deep.) Only a fool is against something being easy to learn. But the ideal is "easy to learn, hard to master" and that's basically a win-win situation for everyone.
It's too bad this post didn't get a response by those who seem to disagree with your view on the topic. It's super insightful.
Axe's last few posts really hit on a lot of great points.
If you're just joining the thread now... scroll up to Axehilt's stuff.
Some very good posts that shed light on the meaning behind the EA statement.
agreed .. some here think that games need to be like challenging jobs, as opposed to some fun past time. EA is merely saying that most consumers are not like that.
and people often confused with undesirability with inability. Sure, i can learn a new game (whether it is control, or the systems, or what-not), but why should i waste my time doing that if there is a better solution?
Why not just go watch a movie. You don't have to do anything and that is about where games are moving to anyway. The movie will provide provide more entertainment value for less money.
I have issue with people saying that anything is hard to master if you are shown the basics of how to do it. Pretty much anything as simple as a game that someone has shown me how to do I can do well enough. Perhaps not to compete against others, but to compete against the game itself. Regardless simplicity comes in many forms. Forms like stripping everything out of the game except for combat, leveling, looting, and PvP. Somehow this shell of a design is supposed to be fun for people. I guess the only point is to get loot and PvP. In terms of a game like Dragon Age Inquisition it just has terrible controls by default. They are not difficult. They are just poorly designed. The class skills are yet again very boring to look at and use in combat. I struggle to even see how people find these games entertaining enough to play through them. All you do is repeat the same thing over and over again in a very controlled environment. There is very little choice given to the player. I guess this is making the game easier. Outside of learning the controls I don't see how the game can possible be so hard they can't learn it. There is not video game I've ever played that I couldn't figure out on my own and I've been playing them for a long time. To me that just shows people just aren't really interested in playing the game in the first place or just understand how to figure things out on their own. I would imagine we are all selfish when it comes to games if we really care about them.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 EA are basically saying their customers are dumb. what absolute cunts EA are.
And masses of people continue to buy and play their games. I wonder what is up there.
It means the masses of people buying their games could care less about what people post on game sites like this. Heck they don't even visit them. Most people buy games to have fun. Not looking for hard to play games because of the limited time they have to play. The EA guy was spot on about this. You guys can call them dumb gamer's all you want. It just shows how not so smart you are. Playing game's for most people is the new watching tv. They are not willing to waste time stuck at a lvl or any part of game they will just quit and play something else. because its just a game and not real life. Game Dev's are starting to realize this now.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 EA are basically saying their customers are dumb. what absolute cunts EA are.
And masses of people continue to buy and play their games. I wonder what is up there.
It means the masses of people buying their games could care less about what people post on game sites like this. Heck they don't even visit them. Most people buy games to have fun. Not looking for hard to play games because of the limited time they have to play. The EA guy was spot on about this. You guys can call them dumb gamer's all you want. It just shows how not so smart you are. Playing game's for most people is the new watching tv. They are not willing to waste time stuck at a lvl or any part of game they will just quit and play something else. because its just a game and not real life. Game Dev's are starting to realize this now.
I think it just goes to show how stupid people are for wasting their time on hollow entertainment. If they think there are so much more important things to waste their time on then why don't they go and do those things? Why spend and hour or two on a hallow experience. I've thought the same thing about movies for a long time. I generally don't watch them anymore. Sometimes I watch TV, but the only shows I really watch with interest are documentaries (things that actually aid your knowledge and most people don't care about). Personally I'd rather people just go and do what they deem important. Gaming has been important to me most of my life so I don't like to see it turn into crap for the masses to consume.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 EA are basically saying their customers are dumb. what absolute cunts EA are.
And masses of people continue to buy and play their games. I wonder what is up there.
It means the masses of people buying their games could care less about what people post on game sites like this. Heck they don't even visit them. Most people buy games to have fun. Not looking for hard to play games because of the limited time they have to play. The EA guy was spot on about this. You guys can call them dumb gamer's all you want. It just shows how not so smart you are. Playing game's for most people is the new watching tv. They are not willing to waste time stuck at a lvl or any part of game they will just quit and play something else. because its just a game and not real life. Game Dev's are starting to realize this now.
Yup, seeing as "reality TV" is/was massively popular with the "average viewer", I can completely understand that those same viewers have trouble mastering the complexities of EA's games, lol
Specially when their attention span prevents them from playing anything for longer than 30mins continuously before getting bored/distracted and changing channels (or games). If that "average gamer" hasn't completely mastered the game in those first 30mins (without reading a manual or playing a tutorial), then you've probably lost that potential player forever.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 EA are basically saying their customers are dumb. what absolute cunts EA are.
And masses of people continue to buy and play their games. I wonder what is up there.
It means the masses of people buying their games could care less about what people post on game sites like this. Heck they don't even visit them. Most people buy games to have fun. Not looking for hard to play games because of the limited time they have to play. The EA guy was spot on about this. You guys can call them dumb gamer's all you want. It just shows how not so smart you are. Playing game's for most people is the new watching tv. They are not willing to waste time stuck at a lvl or any part of game they will just quit and play something else. because its just a game and not real life. Game Dev's are starting to realize this now.
When they talk of simplicity, they aren't talking about the difficulty of the game, but the difficulty understanding it, e.g., template systems, crafting, etc.
Original games for the NES were extremely easy to understand, yet it housed some of the most difficult games ever created - sold millions.
Good games are easy at the start and ramp up difficulty, like Everquest, WoW, Shining force, Dragon Quest.
Go look at every good RPG series, all of them have a good ramp that starts low.
Bad games have no ramp, and they stay one dimensional and shallow throughout the game. Like EVE online, big ramp at the beginning, but stays shallow and one-dimensional.
Originally posted by MisterZebub And this is why I no longer support EA Games and haven't for some time. Games made by committee just become bland and boring copies of other games negating any real reason for said game to exist.
Really?
The first Deadspace is not fun for you? It was a lot of fun for me.
I'm too often suprised by comments similar to that of MisterZebub. Why do people consider supporting a game company to me it fails logic. The only one I am supporting with games is myself as in supporting myself with some entertainment. Else there are thousands if not millions of company's with that logic I support purely by buying their products??
On topic: I am an experianced gamer thus have no issue's adapting to games. I play plenty of EA games aslong they provide me with enjoyable entertainment currently Dragon Age inquisition is providing that. Before that and still playing off and on is Crysis, went into BF:Hardline beta vand am enjoying it while it took some time figuring things out since the last battlefield I played was I think 2. It's that figuring out I enjoy in games.
Once people understand there is no time presure to beat game X within a certain amount of hours/day's or weeks + and consider what's not done today can be done tommorow while learning the game then we might see Excec's make different comments. Most likely they provide these type of comments based on their data.
I'm too often suprised by comments similar to that of MisterZebub. Why do people consider supporting a game company to me it fails logic. The only one I am supporting with games is myself as in supporting myself with some entertainment. Else there are thousands if not millions of company's with that logic I support purely by buying their products??
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're saying here, so I'm wondering if you could clarify this. It reads as if you are saying that giving money to a particular person or group for their product/service not a show of support for what they do or deliver.
Can you clarify what you meant there?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
They should qualify their statement - "our games are too hard to learn for console/mobile players"
Not that I can think of a single game EA has put out that's anything but ultra simple and simplistic due to the fact that they're designed console first and are already completely dumbed down.
I like for there to be a mix of games. There's nothing wrong with a really good game that's not complex. But I also like having really meaty games that challenge me or that have deep and compelling gameplay systems to delve into. Variety is good. For some players.
When you're corporate sludge and all you care about is pushing the most games to the most players to make the most money, the quality of game doesn't really matter - just the sales. EA has exemplified this for a long time.
The same mentality has driven MMORPGs into the toilet. It's a bummer that MMORPGs are so expensive to make as that results in it being nearly impossible for anybody to make a decent one without the corporate greed factor getting smeared all over the game.
And since all the corporate types care about are big numbers, you get crappy MMORPGs that aren't even MMORPGs aimed at console players, casuals, and wider appeal (none of which match the niche roots of good MMORPG gameplay) and weak MMORPG after weak MMORPG.
How many people are really all that excited about any of the currently out generic corporate style MMORPGs or any of the other dookie piles coming out any time soon? This weak type of MMORPG has long run its course and it's time for some returning to the genre's roots.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
This is your average "take something out of context and make an article about it".
I listened to an hours presentation on game design and part of it was this subject. They do studies how people play games, and in this case studying how long people are willing to learn how to play a game. They come up with two hours being too much, and taking a look at my dead pile on steam with 90% of the games I dropped was something I played for 1-3 hours.
The idea is to make smarter design so people get into the game quickly so that they can learn the game by playing it. That's all its about.
You can talk about all the stupid and impatient people that don't want to learn games, but you just made all sorts of conclusions based on just a headline.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I have issue with people saying that anything is hard to master if you are shown the basics of how to do it. Pretty much anything as simple as a game that someone has shown me how to do I can do well enough. Perhaps not to compete against others, but to compete against the game itself. Regardless simplicity comes in many forms. Forms like stripping everything out of the game except for combat, leveling, looting, and PvP. Somehow this shell of a design is supposed to be fun for people. I guess the only point is to get loot and PvP. In terms of a game like Dragon Age Inquisition it just has terrible controls by default. They are not difficult. They are just poorly designed. The class skills are yet again very boring to look at and use in combat. I struggle to even see how people find these games entertaining enough to play through them. All you do is repeat the same thing over and over again in a very controlled environment. There is very little choice given to the player. I guess this is making the game easier. Outside of learning the controls I don't see how the game can possible be so hard they can't learn it. There is not video game I've ever played that I couldn't figure out on my own and I've been playing them for a long time. To me that just shows people just aren't really interested in playing the game in the first place or just understand how to figure things out on their own. I would imagine we are all selfish when it comes to games if we really care about them.
No, mastery is mastery. If you describe your skill as doing "well enough" you aren't talking about mastery.
In chess the rules are simple. The controls are simple. So why aren't you a high-rated grandmaster? Because mastery isn't simple. Mastery requires flawless, adaptive decision-making (skill).
So your disagreement seems grounded in the wrong idea that mediocrity is mastery. Mastery means you're an unstoppable badass, capable of flawlessly dominating every challenge a game throws at you. And in all but the shallowest of games, that's a difficult level of skill to reach.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I have issue with people saying that anything is hard to master if you are shown the basics of how to do it. Pretty much anything as simple as a game that someone has shown me how to do I can do well enough. Perhaps not to compete against others, but to compete against the game itself. Regardless simplicity comes in many forms. Forms like stripping everything out of the game except for combat, leveling, looting, and PvP. Somehow this shell of a design is supposed to be fun for people. I guess the only point is to get loot and PvP. In terms of a game like Dragon Age Inquisition it just has terrible controls by default. They are not difficult. They are just poorly designed. The class skills are yet again very boring to look at and use in combat. I struggle to even see how people find these games entertaining enough to play through them. All you do is repeat the same thing over and over again in a very controlled environment. There is very little choice given to the player. I guess this is making the game easier. Outside of learning the controls I don't see how the game can possible be so hard they can't learn it. There is not video game I've ever played that I couldn't figure out on my own and I've been playing them for a long time. To me that just shows people just aren't really interested in playing the game in the first place or just understand how to figure things out on their own. I would imagine we are all selfish when it comes to games if we really care about them.
No, mastery is mastery. If you describe your skill as doing "well enough" you aren't talking about mastery.
In chess the rules are simple. The controls are simple. So why aren't you a high-rated grandmaster? Because mastery isn't simple. Mastery requires flawless, adaptive decision-making (skill).
So your disagreement seems grounded in the wrong idea that mediocrity is mastery. Mastery means you're an unstoppable badass, capable of flawlessly dominating every challenge a game throws at you. And in all but the shallowest of games, that's a difficult level of skill to reach.
This whole line of thinking seems weird to me. I don't really care about being a bad ass or not. I just want the game to be challenging. Part of the challenge is to learn things on your own. If people are capable of being bad ass (your words for it) then they should be able to pick up the controls with no problem even if they are not as intuitive as chess. Video game controls are not hard to learn. Even if you didn't have a tutorial to show you how. I realize another posters said that people were struggling with games, but the struggle is often rewarding once you learn how to use the controls.
I have issue with people saying that anything is hard to master if you are shown the basics of how to do it. Pretty much anything as simple as a game that someone has shown me how to do I can do well enough. Perhaps not to compete against others, but to compete against the game itself. Regardless simplicity comes in many forms. Forms like stripping everything out of the game except for combat, leveling, looting, and PvP. Somehow this shell of a design is supposed to be fun for people. I guess the only point is to get loot and PvP. In terms of a game like Dragon Age Inquisition it just has terrible controls by default. They are not difficult. They are just poorly designed. The class skills are yet again very boring to look at and use in combat. I struggle to even see how people find these games entertaining enough to play through them. All you do is repeat the same thing over and over again in a very controlled environment. There is very little choice given to the player. I guess this is making the game easier. Outside of learning the controls I don't see how the game can possible be so hard they can't learn it. There is not video game I've ever played that I couldn't figure out on my own and I've been playing them for a long time. To me that just shows people just aren't really interested in playing the game in the first place or just understand how to figure things out on their own. I would imagine we are all selfish when it comes to games if we really care about them.
No, mastery is mastery. If you describe your skill as doing "well enough" you aren't talking about mastery.
In chess the rules are simple. The controls are simple. So why aren't you a high-rated grandmaster? Because mastery isn't simple. Mastery requires flawless, adaptive decision-making (skill).
So your disagreement seems grounded in the wrong idea that mediocrity is mastery. Mastery means you're an unstoppable badass, capable of flawlessly dominating every challenge a game throws at you. And in all but the shallowest of games, that's a difficult level of skill to reach.
This whole line of thinking seems weird to me. I don't really care about being a bad ass or not. I just want the game to be challenging. Part of the challenge is to learn things on your own. If people are capable of being bad ass (your words for it) then they should be able to pick up the controls with no problem even if they are not as intuitive as chess. Video game controls are not hard to learn. Even if you didn't have a tutorial to show you how. I realize another posters said that people were struggling with games, but the struggle is often rewarding once you learn how to use the controls.
What Axehilt said isn't weird at all. "Easy to learn, hard to master" is a great way to design a game.
You are right about "being challenged" ofcourse. That is indeed a very important part of fun. But he didn't say anything against that.
Basically, games have to initially "grab" the players and get them to the point of being able to fluidly play quite quickly, or many of them will become frustrated ("clunky game", "didn't get it", "wasn't fun", etc) and leave, that's just how it is. So the game has to be intuitive and easy to pick up. The player should be able to start actually "playing" (this is where the fun really starts) very quickly, even if he at first plays at a low skill level.
Mastering the game on the other hand should take a long while, because, in general, things we have fully mastered become boring. (constantly improving ourselves, being challenged, refining our knowledge and skill is a major part of why we enjoy games).
Basically once we have fully mastered something and have all the patterns down, our brains aren't challenged anymore and become bored. We have basically "beaten the game" and it becomes a trivial chore and feels boring / repetitive / unfun / like a grind instead of being fun.
MMOs ofcourse often have this problem, especially in PvE, they have to keep people happy for very long timeframes, without being able to produce enough challenging content to keep the player from fully mastering the gameplay. They also have the problem that different players find different levels of difficulty challenging, and that means the games will usually rather make things too easy than too hard so that noone becomes too frustrated. This leads to many players mastering gameplay extremely quickly.
One of the advantages of PvP is that we can't fully master it, because new human opponents will always add new challenges and keep us adapting, coming up with new strategies and improving. Similarly, group/coop gameplay can add a lot of fun-longevity too when you keep mixing people/setups up. Emergent gameplay is another positive thing that comes to mind in this context, if someone would actually implement it well.
Why not just go watch a movie. You don't have to do anything and that is about where games are moving to anyway. The movie will provide provide more entertainment value for less money.
I have issue with people saying that anything is hard to master if you are shown the basics of how to do it. Pretty much anything as simple as a game that someone has shown me how to do I can do well enough.
I do watch anime & tv at home, and movies in theater. In fact, games *are* competing with my time on those activities. And no, movies do not always provide more entertainment for less money. You know that people seek VARIETY in their entertainment, right? Do you know of anyone who only play games, and not watch movies, and vice versa? I don't.
You really think you can do well enough in games? Do you have a world champion title in SC2 or LoL?
I would argue that both of those games are easy to learn the basics, but hard to master ... (and master in this case means being better than everyone).
Video game controls are not hard to learn. Even if you didn't have a tutorial to show you how. I realize another posters said that people were struggling with games, but the struggle is often rewarding once you learn how to use the controls.
They are not hard. But why would I want to waste time to learn another set when the time can be used better?
I am all for standardizing the controls, so i don't have to waste time learning it again.
Comments
There was me thinking games are too dumbed down these days.. I guess not, I've just been struggling with them apparently. I'M TOO FUCKING STUPID FOR EA GAMES!
Yeah... that is why they don't sell.
You are exactly what EA is looking for. I don't have time to figure out the complexities of a game that add depth, longevity and replayability. Give me something I can master in 2 mins and I'm happy.
I honestly didn't think people like this actually existed and it was just a profile the marketing department at EA made up to justify making crappy disposable games.
nope ... leveling system. Skills of classes. How to gear .. there are a thousand things beyond just movement.
Their games are selling.
In fact the problem pretty much explicitly happens after the purchase. If a player is struggling to learn a game, it means they bought the game (at least with the majority of EA's games still being B2P.)
So it's a stretch to look at one of the highest revenue game companies and claim its games "don't sell" by any stretch.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Axe's last few posts really hit on a lot of great points.
If you're just joining the thread now... scroll up to Axehilt's stuff.
Some very good posts that shed light on the meaning behind the EA statement.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
agreed .. some here think that games need to be like challenging jobs, as opposed to some fun past time. EA is merely saying that most consumers are not like that.
and people often confused with undesirability with inability. Sure, i can learn a new game (whether it is control, or the systems, or what-not), but why should i waste my time doing that if there is a better solution?
OOO OO, I got this one. Just put a chip inside your brain, and hand, and you will have no more need to learn how to control the game!!!!
Why not just go watch a movie. You don't have to do anything and that is about where games are moving to anyway. The movie will provide provide more entertainment value for less money.
I have issue with people saying that anything is hard to master if you are shown the basics of how to do it. Pretty much anything as simple as a game that someone has shown me how to do I can do well enough. Perhaps not to compete against others, but to compete against the game itself. Regardless simplicity comes in many forms. Forms like stripping everything out of the game except for combat, leveling, looting, and PvP. Somehow this shell of a design is supposed to be fun for people. I guess the only point is to get loot and PvP. In terms of a game like Dragon Age Inquisition it just has terrible controls by default. They are not difficult. They are just poorly designed. The class skills are yet again very boring to look at and use in combat. I struggle to even see how people find these games entertaining enough to play through them. All you do is repeat the same thing over and over again in a very controlled environment. There is very little choice given to the player. I guess this is making the game easier. Outside of learning the controls I don't see how the game can possible be so hard they can't learn it. There is not video game I've ever played that I couldn't figure out on my own and I've been playing them for a long time. To me that just shows people just aren't really interested in playing the game in the first place or just understand how to figure things out on their own. I would imagine we are all selfish when it comes to games if we really care about them.
Isn't this the sole reason why MMOs continue to flop? There is no depth and complexity anymore.
IT'S ALL SO BORING
It means the masses of people buying their games could care less about what people post on game sites like this. Heck they don't even visit them. Most people buy games to have fun. Not looking for hard to play games because of the limited time they have to play. The EA guy was spot on about this. You guys can call them dumb gamer's all you want. It just shows how not so smart you are. Playing game's for most people is the new watching tv. They are not willing to waste time stuck at a lvl or any part of game they will just quit and play something else. because its just a game and not real life. Game Dev's are starting to realize this now.
I think it just goes to show how stupid people are for wasting their time on hollow entertainment. If they think there are so much more important things to waste their time on then why don't they go and do those things? Why spend and hour or two on a hallow experience. I've thought the same thing about movies for a long time. I generally don't watch them anymore. Sometimes I watch TV, but the only shows I really watch with interest are documentaries (things that actually aid your knowledge and most people don't care about). Personally I'd rather people just go and do what they deem important. Gaming has been important to me most of my life so I don't like to see it turn into crap for the masses to consume.
Yup, seeing as "reality TV" is/was massively popular with the "average viewer", I can completely understand that those same viewers have trouble mastering the complexities of EA's games, lol
Specially when their attention span prevents them from playing anything for longer than 30mins continuously before getting bored/distracted and changing channels (or games). If that "average gamer" hasn't completely mastered the game in those first 30mins (without reading a manual or playing a tutorial), then you've probably lost that potential player forever.
When they talk of simplicity, they aren't talking about the difficulty of the game, but the difficulty understanding it, e.g., template systems, crafting, etc.
Original games for the NES were extremely easy to understand, yet it housed some of the most difficult games ever created - sold millions.
I agree with him 100%.
Good games are easy at the start and ramp up difficulty, like Everquest, WoW, Shining force, Dragon Quest.
Go look at every good RPG series, all of them have a good ramp that starts low.
Bad games have no ramp, and they stay one dimensional and shallow throughout the game. Like EVE online, big ramp at the beginning, but stays shallow and one-dimensional.
Nope. They are saying ppl should be able to get into the game and enjoy themselves from the start.
And that I agree with!
He didn't say games couldn't be hard or easy, he said games should not be hard to LEARN.
A good game has a good difficulty ramp, it is a sign of good game design.
I'm too often suprised by comments similar to that of MisterZebub. Why do people consider supporting a game company to me it fails logic. The only one I am supporting with games is myself as in supporting myself with some entertainment. Else there are thousands if not millions of company's with that logic I support purely by buying their products??
On topic: I am an experianced gamer thus have no issue's adapting to games. I play plenty of EA games aslong they provide me with enjoyable entertainment currently Dragon Age inquisition is providing that. Before that and still playing off and on is Crysis, went into BF:Hardline beta vand am enjoying it while it took some time figuring things out since the last battlefield I played was I think 2. It's that figuring out I enjoy in games.
Once people understand there is no time presure to beat game X within a certain amount of hours/day's or weeks + and consider what's not done today can be done tommorow while learning the game then we might see Excec's make different comments. Most likely they provide these type of comments based on their data.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're saying here, so I'm wondering if you could clarify this. It reads as if you are saying that giving money to a particular person or group for their product/service not a show of support for what they do or deliver.
Can you clarify what you meant there?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
They should qualify their statement - "our games are too hard to learn for console/mobile players"
Not that I can think of a single game EA has put out that's anything but ultra simple and simplistic due to the fact that they're designed console first and are already completely dumbed down.
I like for there to be a mix of games. There's nothing wrong with a really good game that's not complex. But I also like having really meaty games that challenge me or that have deep and compelling gameplay systems to delve into. Variety is good. For some players.
When you're corporate sludge and all you care about is pushing the most games to the most players to make the most money, the quality of game doesn't really matter - just the sales. EA has exemplified this for a long time.
The same mentality has driven MMORPGs into the toilet. It's a bummer that MMORPGs are so expensive to make as that results in it being nearly impossible for anybody to make a decent one without the corporate greed factor getting smeared all over the game.
And since all the corporate types care about are big numbers, you get crappy MMORPGs that aren't even MMORPGs aimed at console players, casuals, and wider appeal (none of which match the niche roots of good MMORPG gameplay) and weak MMORPG after weak MMORPG.
How many people are really all that excited about any of the currently out generic corporate style MMORPGs or any of the other dookie piles coming out any time soon? This weak type of MMORPG has long run its course and it's time for some returning to the genre's roots.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
This is your average "take something out of context and make an article about it".
I listened to an hours presentation on game design and part of it was this subject. They do studies how people play games, and in this case studying how long people are willing to learn how to play a game. They come up with two hours being too much, and taking a look at my dead pile on steam with 90% of the games I dropped was something I played for 1-3 hours.
The idea is to make smarter design so people get into the game quickly so that they can learn the game by playing it. That's all its about.
You can talk about all the stupid and impatient people that don't want to learn games, but you just made all sorts of conclusions based on just a headline.
No, mastery is mastery. If you describe your skill as doing "well enough" you aren't talking about mastery.
In chess the rules are simple. The controls are simple. So why aren't you a high-rated grandmaster? Because mastery isn't simple. Mastery requires flawless, adaptive decision-making (skill).
So your disagreement seems grounded in the wrong idea that mediocrity is mastery. Mastery means you're an unstoppable badass, capable of flawlessly dominating every challenge a game throws at you. And in all but the shallowest of games, that's a difficult level of skill to reach.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This whole line of thinking seems weird to me. I don't really care about being a bad ass or not. I just want the game to be challenging. Part of the challenge is to learn things on your own. If people are capable of being bad ass (your words for it) then they should be able to pick up the controls with no problem even if they are not as intuitive as chess. Video game controls are not hard to learn. Even if you didn't have a tutorial to show you how. I realize another posters said that people were struggling with games, but the struggle is often rewarding once you learn how to use the controls.
What Axehilt said isn't weird at all. "Easy to learn, hard to master" is a great way to design a game.
You are right about "being challenged" ofcourse. That is indeed a very important part of fun. But he didn't say anything against that.
Basically, games have to initially "grab" the players and get them to the point of being able to fluidly play quite quickly, or many of them will become frustrated ("clunky game", "didn't get it", "wasn't fun", etc) and leave, that's just how it is. So the game has to be intuitive and easy to pick up. The player should be able to start actually "playing" (this is where the fun really starts) very quickly, even if he at first plays at a low skill level.
Mastering the game on the other hand should take a long while, because, in general, things we have fully mastered become boring. (constantly improving ourselves, being challenged, refining our knowledge and skill is a major part of why we enjoy games).
Basically once we have fully mastered something and have all the patterns down, our brains aren't challenged anymore and become bored. We have basically "beaten the game" and it becomes a trivial chore and feels boring / repetitive / unfun / like a grind instead of being fun.
MMOs ofcourse often have this problem, especially in PvE, they have to keep people happy for very long timeframes, without being able to produce enough challenging content to keep the player from fully mastering the gameplay. They also have the problem that different players find different levels of difficulty challenging, and that means the games will usually rather make things too easy than too hard so that noone becomes too frustrated. This leads to many players mastering gameplay extremely quickly.
One of the advantages of PvP is that we can't fully master it, because new human opponents will always add new challenges and keep us adapting, coming up with new strategies and improving. Similarly, group/coop gameplay can add a lot of fun-longevity too when you keep mixing people/setups up. Emergent gameplay is another positive thing that comes to mind in this context, if someone would actually implement it well.
I do watch anime & tv at home, and movies in theater. In fact, games *are* competing with my time on those activities. And no, movies do not always provide more entertainment for less money. You know that people seek VARIETY in their entertainment, right? Do you know of anyone who only play games, and not watch movies, and vice versa? I don't.
You really think you can do well enough in games? Do you have a world champion title in SC2 or LoL?
I would argue that both of those games are easy to learn the basics, but hard to master ... (and master in this case means being better than everyone).
They are not hard. But why would I want to waste time to learn another set when the time can be used better?
I am all for standardizing the controls, so i don't have to waste time learning it again.