What makes a great game?

[Drool]

Almost every aspect that I enjoyed in the game Legend of Grimrock, I have seen posts demanding that it be changed, that it be made easier, that it be made more obvious ~the game is about challenging puzzles and and realtime grid based combat ~and they want it made easier and to remove the tactical aspects of the combat.

Players aren't used to frustration and failure. In the tunnels (I think it was), that place where you had to press a button, duck around a corner, throw a rock, dart back through a raising grate, and hop through a door before it closed? Yeah. I spent close to an hour trying to get the timing down, looking up to see if I was doing something wrong, swearing at my computer and then trying again. It was frustrating as fuck, but a great feeling when I made it through.

So many modern players have never had that kind of frustration. Have never had to do the beholder two-step instead of just circle-strafing. I'll admit, there's aspects of Grimrock I don't like (I've never enjoyed food mechanics) but I'm glad that they've stuck to their guns about the game, and hope that inXile does too. And they're working furiously on a mod kit for Grimrock (primarily so people can make their own dungeons) so those things people want changed, they can change themselves. With inXile doing a mod kit, they can make the game right and let players ruin it themselves.

[Ronin73]

With inXile doing a mod kit, they can make the game right and let players ruin it themselves.

Have to admit that during the Kickstarter campaign I didn't really care if the goal for the mod tools was not met. The more that I think about it I am actually now glad the goal was reached for the exact reasons you mention.

Also great post, Gizmo. I pretty much agree with everything you posted.

[Color Blotch]

Consumer taste can't be a factor in how games have changed recently, because consumer taste didn't actually change that much. Actually it was always bad.

Yes it did... The consumer base didn't used to include half of the country, at one time it was a far smaller group. I happen to agree with tuluse, and do believe that the developers are making what they perceive will sell best to the modern audience... and the modern audience is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_5VWLsxDUU

*The rest of us have to endure games designed to entertain ~everyone. Almost every aspect that I enjoyed in the game Legend of Grimrock, I have seen posts demanding that it be changed, that it be made easier, that it be made more obvious ~the game is about challenging puzzles and and realtime grid based combat ~and they want it made easier and to remove the tactical aspects of the combat.

Do you really think that all the crowd that used to play Super Mario and River Raid back in the day were so much more classy and refined kind of people? Somehow I don't see it. There are more people playing games now, yes, but that has more to do with young players growing up than less 'tasteful' people joining in. Perhaps that has changed a little bit with social gaming, but it isn't that much of a factor for 'core' games anyway.

What has changed is not the players, but the way they are served by the industry. There used to be lots of fundamentally different games to serve very different niches and interests. It was always games like Super Mario that reaped the biggest financial success, but it didn't mean games like Eye of the Beholder weren't made because of that. And it didn't mean they weren't commercially successful in their niches. And the funny thing is they never really stopped being successful. It's just that at certain point most big publishers decided they don't want to make those anymore. Publishers decided that, not players. There are now gaping holes in the market as far as product diversity goes and the level of satisfaction for an average consumer goes down. Those are symptoms of industry with some heavy structural disbalance. How long it will take for the market to come to its senses again - only time will tell.

[Woolfe]

Consumer taste can't be a factor in how games have changed recently, because consumer taste didn't actually change that much. Actually it was always bad.

Yes it did... The consumer base didn't used to include half of the country, at one time it was a far smaller group. I happen to agree with tuluse, and do believe that the developers are making what they perceive will sell best to the modern audience... and the modern audience is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_5VWLsxDUU

*The rest of us have to endure games designed to entertain ~everyone. Almost every aspect that I enjoyed in the game Legend of Grimrock, I have seen posts demanding that it be changed, that it be made easier, that it be made more obvious ~the game is about challenging puzzles and and realtime grid based combat ~and they want it made easier and to remove the tactical aspects of the combat.

Do you really think that all the crowd that used to play Super Mario and River Raid back in the day were so much more classy and refined kind of people? Somehow I don't see it. There are more people playing games now, yes, but that has more to do with young players growing up than less 'tasteful' people joining in. Perhaps that has changed a little bit with social gaming, but it isn't that much of a factor for 'core' games anyway.

What has changed is not the players, but the way they are served by the industry. There used to be lots of fundamentally different games to serve very different niches and interests. It was always games like Super Mario that reaped the biggest financial success, but it didn't mean games like Eye of the Beholder weren't made because of that. And it didn't mean they weren't commercially successful in their niches. And the funny thing is they never really stopped being successful. It's just that at certain point most big publishers decided they don't want to make those anymore. Publishers decided that, not players. There are now gaping holes in the market as far as product diversity goes and the level of satisfaction for an average consumer goes down. Those are symptoms of industry with some heavy structural disbalance. How long it will take for the market to come to its senses again - only time will tell.

Agreed, altho there has been a change in Gamers as well.

I grew up playing games in the 80's, I had a C64 from age 5/6. But we were exceptions at the time. Whereas today, the exceptions are the households that don't have some sort of machine to play games on. PCs/macs, consoles, tvs, phones etc. Gaming is literally everywhere. So the demographic has changed, it has gone from a small section of the populace being exposed at a young age, to literally almost everyone being exposed.

[Gizmo]

Do you really think that all the crowd that used to play Super Mario and River Raid back in the day were so much more classy and refined kind of people? Somehow I don't see it. There are more people playing games now, yes, but that has more to do with young players growing up than less 'tasteful' people joining in. Perhaps that has changed a little bit with social gaming, but it isn't that much of a factor for 'core' games anyway.

I don't recall a PC version of Super Mario Bros.

*Honestly I was only speaking about PC games... I've never owned a console, so it's a bit out of my depth.

As for the bit about young players joining in... how is that not one and the same, more often than not? If it were the other way around, we'd all be craving a break from the gaming monotony and desperate for decent a hack-n-slash, or an old time Shooter with keys.

What has changed is not the players, but the way they are served by the industry. There used to be lots of fundamentally different games to serve very different niches and interests. It was always games like Super Mario that reaped the biggest financial success, but it didn't mean games like Eye of the Beholder weren't made because of that. And it didn't mean they weren't commercially successful in their niches. And the funny thing is they never really stopped being successful.

I think Carlin said it best about industry and service. I would really like to believe this, but it doesn't show in my PC game library ~there are just too few titles that aren't shovel ware [IMO].

It's just that at certain point most big publishers decided they don't want to make those anymore. Publishers decided that, not players. There are now gaping holes in the market as far as product diversity goes and the level of satisfaction for an average consumer goes down. Those are symptoms of industry with some heavy structural disbalance. How long it will take for the market to come to its senses again - only time will tell.

Publishers only give a damn about what will sell. If the market [industry wide], suddenly demanded Turn Based math dueling games with virtual card collecting and the ability to change the equasion by playing an operator card....... We'd be swamped with them on every shelf. A lot of publishers don't even play games, or have any preference... There is no SSI, known for military strategy games anymore, or Black Isle known for various RPGs; I can barely think of three current companies that pride themselves on a preference. I cannot believe 'they don't want to' for any reason other than their perception that those titles don't target the greater bulk.

[Drool]

I don't recall a PC version of Super Mario Bros.

I do. You killed these mosquito looking things in some kind of factory.

[Color Blotch]

I don't recall a PC version of Super Mario Bros.

*Honestly I was only speaking about PC games... I've never owned a console, so it's a bit out of my depth.

As for the bit about young players joining in... how is that not one and the same, more often than not? If it were the other way around, we'd all be craving a break from the gaming monotony and desperate for decent a hack-n-slash, or an old time Shooter with keys.

My point being, an average video gamer didn't change much since then, neither did his taste. There was always a certain number of people who like complex games and the majority that can't stand them. We have constant influx of young players and those add to the auditory that also consists of mostly people starting out young, but overall preference towards complex games remains roughly the same.

And yeah, PC isn't the kind of platform it used to be, yet for video game makers (and publishers) I don't think that specific platform mattered all that much anyway. It certainly doesn't now.

Publishers only give a damn about what will sell. If the market [industry wide], suddenly demanded Turn Based math dueling games with virtual card collecting and the ability to change the equasion by playing an operator card....... We'd be swamped with them on every shelf. A lot of publishers don't even play games, or have any preference... There is no SSI, known for military strategy games anymore, or Black Isle known for various RPGs; I can barely think of three current companies that pride themselves on a preference. I cannot believe 'they don't want to' for any reason other than their perception that those titles don't target the greater bulk.

Well, "targeting the greater bulk" isn't exactly equivalent to properly serving all the niches of the market. In fact, under that approach, even if there was a considerable demand for math dueling games, big enough to make them fairly profitable, they would still not be made simply because they don't target the greater bulk, only the lesser one. That entire doctrine of going for as many players as possible looks more or less like "brute-forcing" the market. It's not at all that efficient. In fact it's the least efficient method by definition. But it requires least amount of actual (managerial) work and it seems to be working, or at least it used to. But as a long term strategy it's garbage.

Also you probably give too much credit to Publishers for their ability to recognize demand and make all the right decisions. Living in the world where EA just threw away hundreds of millions dollars on epic failure of SWTOR along with countless other companies investing literally billions in MMOs that probably won't make any money, with social gaming that many industry commentators used to regard as be all end all replacement for games of all varieties tanking so badly, I wouldn't be so sure.

As for the companies from the past, I don't know about SSI, but Black Isle went down with Interplay and it didn't seem that overall marketability of their products was the main reason for that, much rather catastrophic managerial decisions. Troika seemed to be chronically mismanaged as well, I believe Tim Cain acknowledged that himself. They were people very dedicated to game design but not so much to business side of things.

But there's also, say, Paradox Interactive. They carved a nice niche in PC strategy games and doing pretty well for themselves the last time I checked. It also seems they're doing even better since digital distribution kicked in.

[Drool]

Well, SSI was bought out by Mindscape before being sold to Mattel and finally sold to Ubisoft who retired the name. Sort of the long, drawn out version of what happened to Epyx (bankrupt, part of its library rights bought later).

Honestly, I think the market is finally starting to achieve some kind of balance. With GOG being around, people have easy access to a host of older games. Many of those games are owned by big publishers, but distribution through a third party means it's essentially pure profit. It also means they can judge the popularity of more niche genres by watching those sales figures. While they might not give Math Blaster 2012 a AAA budget, they might not be opposed to giving it a chance, even through one of their subsidiaries.

The other end of the spectrum is largely being managed by Steam. Indy developers can make their own game and get it sold on a massive distribution platform relatively easily, either sold on its own or as a part of one of their Indy Bundles. This is some serious exposure, especially with Steam allowing you to search by genre as well as price. And getting in a bundle is probably a comparative gold mine; I doubt I would have bought Jolly Rover on its own, but I got it through a bundle, and it was pretty fun.

Now with Kickstarter (and, probably, Indigogo) getting involved, indy developers with a great idea have a place to go for funding, so they don't have to just plink away at the game during their weekends and when they have free time (eg: Mount and Blade's development).

Personally, I think the industry is going to be changing, especially if these first Kickstarted games are successful. I wouldn't be surprised if some big publishers start having an in-house company for smaller titles. We see this already in the movie industry (Fox Searchlight, Miramax, or Focus Features). Hell, we already see it for casual games (Popcap is owned by EA, for instance).

[Woolfe]

Speaking of here are ESA's 2012 Demographics.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf

Some interesting points.

Average age of Gamers is 30
32% under 18 years
31% 18-35 years
37% 36+ years

Gender of Gamers
53% male
47% female
However :-
Women 18 or older represent a significantly greater portion of the
game-playing population (30%) than boys age 17 or younger (18%)

U.S. households that own a dedicated game console, PC, smartphone,
dedicated handheld system or wireless device play games
70% - On their Console
65% - On their PC
38% - On their Smartphone
35% - On their Dedicated Handheld device
26% - On their Wireless device

Type Video Computer
Action 19.00% 2.70%
Adventure 9.50% 9.20%
Arcade 0.20% 0.10%
Casual 4.00% 20.60%
Children's 0.80% 0.70%
Family 11.00% 0.10%
Fighting 3.70%
Flight 0.60% 1.60%
Other Games 2.10% 2%
Racing 5.80% 0.70%
Role-Playing 7.20% 21.10%
Shooter 18.40% 13%
Sport Games 14.80% 0.60%
Strategy 2.80% 27.60%

[Color Blotch]

Quite some numbers right there. Again, the funny thing is how many genres were dropped on peak of their popularity. Dragon Age: Origins sold 3 millions copies only to be scrapped in favor of more "modern" dialogue wheel non-stop action nonsense. Everyone wants to score big, and the way Fargo says he wants to just make a good game would probably cause laughter on most big studio design meetings. The good news is that just like any madness, it can only continue for that long...

[nustada]

I don't agree with a shift from a focus on gameplay to graphics. The focus on graphics has always been there.

We remember the good stuff with fondness and forget the bad.

What I see causes most modern RPG's to be shallow is the insistence of voice-overs. I think this was acknowledged in the vision statement. It causes so much money and time to have voice-overs, it becomes impractical to have branching story lines or randomized/simulated conversation pieces. I think some peices that are core to the story line can be voice acted, or some semi-generic "hello" "goodbye's" can be done just to break up the staleness.

I tried playing skyrim, but I would get tired of listening to the voice-over, every NPC talks so slow. And with a few exceptions conversation options were mostly meaningless. I think most people before their first play through end up reading the text and rushing through the one sided "conversation".

And on the visual side; some things like drug abuse, or abuse in general, can be made to be tongue and cheek, or not to distracting when left to the imagination. But if visually done in a realistic way could cause an puritanical outcry or be in general bad taste.

[Gurkog]

A great game has the minimum number of options with the ability to use them in the maximum number of ways.

I will use the worn out phrase, 'A game should be like chess. It is simple in design, but allows for great complexity in the actual interaction of available options'.

[Color Blotch]

A great game has the minimum number of options with the ability to use them in the maximum number of ways.

I will use the worn out phrase, 'A game should be like chess. It is simple in design, but allows for great complexity in the actual interaction of available options'.

I agree. I still think that the best space 4x game of all times is original Master of Orion. It didn't have a lot in a way of micromanagement of colonies, there were only so many technologies to develop and so much to customize about your ships. And yet it came together so nicely and in such a sensible way that nothing could beat it ever since. All the games that followed were focusing on "improving" game by adding more mechanics, more controls and more stuff in general. And as nice as some of those could be in isolation, all together they were only little more that just incoherent mess. "Let's add more stuff" is easily as prominent of a cause of making bad games as "consolization" or "streamlining" considered now.

[Mandemon]

A great game has the minimum number of options with the ability to use them in the maximum number of ways.

I will use the worn out phrase, 'A game should be like chess. It is simple in design, but allows for great complexity in the actual interaction of available options'.

I agree. I still think that the best space 4x game of all times is original Master of Orion. It didn't have a lot in a way of micromanagement of colonies, there were only so many technologies to develop and so much to customize about your ships. And yet it came together so nicely and in such a sensible way that nothing could beat it ever since. All the games that followed were focusing on "improving" game by adding more mechanics, more controls and more stuff in general. And as nice as some of those could be in isolation, all together they were only little more that just incoherent mess. "Let's add more stuff" is easily as prominent of a cause of making bad games as "consolization" or "streamlining" considered now.

Funny, it seems the most vocal complain of the modern is quite opposite, that they are "dumbed down", not "they7 are more complex".

Also I disagree. I prefer Master of Orion 2 over Master of Orion 1. Galactic Civilizations 2 is also better in my opinion. They were not "only little more that just incoherent mess".

[Drool]

Funny, it seems the most vocal complain of the modern is quite opposite, that they are "dumbed down", not "they7 are more complex".

I dunno. The addition of unnecessary complications and minigames was my biggest problem with GTA:SA

[Woolfe]

A great game has the minimum number of options with the ability to use them in the maximum number of ways.

I will use the worn out phrase, 'A game should be like chess. It is simple in design, but allows for great complexity in the actual interaction of available options'.

I agree. I still think that the best space 4x game of all times is original Master of Orion. It didn't have a lot in a way of micromanagement of colonies, there were only so many technologies to develop and so much to customize about your ships. And yet it came together so nicely and in such a sensible way that nothing could beat it ever since. All the games that followed were focusing on "improving" game by adding more mechanics, more controls and more stuff in general. And as nice as some of those could be in isolation, all together they were only little more that just incoherent mess. "Let's add more stuff" is easily as prominent of a cause of making bad games as "consolization" or "streamlining" considered now.

Funny, it seems the most vocal complain of the modern is quite opposite, that they are "dumbed down", not "they7 are more complex".

Also I disagree. I prefer Master of Orion 2 over Master of Orion 1. Galactic Civilizations 2 is also better in my opinion. They were not "only little more that just incoherent mess".

Agreed... Moo2 was better than Moo1. Endless space is really good but doesn't quite fill the MOO gap yet. But its still a work in progress.

Personally I am hanging out for CIV in space

[Ronin73]

Personally I am hanging out for CIV in space

Granted, it's been a long time since I've played it, but wasn't Alpha Centauri exactly that?

It even has Sid Meier's name on it!

[Woolfe]

Personally I am hanging out for CIV in space

Granted, it's been a long time since I've played it, but wasn't Alpha Centauri exactly that?

It even has Sid Meier's name on it!

I never played it actually.. but wasn't it just 1 planet?

I want Civ in space across multiple systems and intergalactic wars dammit

[Color Blotch]

Funny, it seems the most vocal complain of the modern is quite opposite, that they are "dumbed down", not "they7 are more complex".

I don't know, I never complained about anything being "more complex". Adding more stuff without concern for how well it works together usually results in SIMPLER games, just more extensive in scope.

Also I disagree. I prefer Master of Orion 2 over Master of Orion 1. Galactic Civilizations 2 is also better in my opinion. They were not "only little more that just incoherent mess".

I guess you just didn't play MOO2 to the point where both you and your opponent has hundreds and hundreds of ships and every turn in battle takes like half an hour just for AI to move. Sure you get to control a lot of things, but for the most part this control is meaningless micromanagement and has strategic depth of your average Facebook farming game.

Granted, it's been a long time since I've played it, but wasn't Alpha Centauri exactly that?

IMO Alpha Centauri was a victim of the very problem I mentioned. You have gazillion of buildings you can build in every city and as many technologies you can research. But why? Go Santiago (+experience to units, +control), build that building that increases experience to all units (don't remember which one) and a "wonder" building doing the same effect on every city again. And voila, you getting elite units right out of bootcamp. Now go and roll everyone over. And that's just one example. Extensive options - simplistic gameplay.

[Color Blotch]

And now a quote from the guy who actually knows something:

A lot of the time, some of the mistake comes from the design. You over-scope. You try to make a bigger game than maybe you even needed to. There’s nothing easier to do than to over-design a game – to put in a lot of features feeling like they’ll make your game feel bigger. But the truth of the matter is, having a really solid core experience, simplicity, and presentation – Minecraft is a perfect example – is more valuable than having a ton of features.