So after watching the PAX East panel somebody asked the question of what PC franchise Dave would like to see ruined next. His reason for their demise: Removal of tactical view in DA 2 and the simplification of Civ 5. Now I've been playing games a while, and I certainly do love my complicated strategy games like Hearts of Iron and Civ 3 and 4, but lets be honest does the removal of one or two features for the sake of streamlining really amount to a franchise being ruined? That's not to say simplification is perfect. Clearly Bioware went a little overboard with their latest drive, but overall I thought simplification in Mass Effect 2 went pretty well. Now I still like DA2 just not as much as some other Bioware games, but the reason I don't like it as much is because of other things, like reusing the same dungeon 50 fuckin times, not because I can't zoom out.
I think we can all say that we like some simple games, Gamedev Story, Angry Birds, Super Meat Boy, and others. These a great but pretty simple games. There will always be super complex tactical and strategic games cause there is a demand for them. I guess what I'm trying to get at is yes simplification can be bad if it goes overboard, but at the same time Civ 5, DA2, Crysis 2, and other reacent games giving a simplified treatment are not bad games. They're still way better than a lot of the other shit that comes out. I gess what I'm trying to say is that one shouldn't jump to conlusions like, hardcore gaming is dead. It's just evolving, and I think many gamers are a little worried about the direction the industry is taking. That's understandable change is scary and we love the old games, but its so important we don't stifle innovation or just wright off good games becasue they are simple or for casual players.
Wasn't he talking to dave. and No I don't think its a bad thing, and since DA2 will most likely come up here I think stream lining shit makes the game experience a lot more playable.
simplification encourages lazy game design and short poorly made games. Bioware examples not withstanding. I think games need to have a level of depth in them to make them worthwhile. And no one is asking me to pay $60 for mobile games, so those are also not the point.
Sometimes it's better to improve features or systems that were too complex at first.
For example, they could have just tried to fix the inventory in ME 2, and made it more accessible and fun to manage than in ME. But instead they almost removed it entirely.
" simplification encourages lazy game design and short poorly made games. Bioware examples not withstanding. I think games need to have a level of depth in them to make them worthwhile. And no one is asking me to pay $60 for mobile games, so those are also not the point. "
as simple the FPS concept of Black Ops was, there was nothing about that game was effort-less.
we are all arm chair game designers so I can't really call out devs for being lazy. sometimes i don't think its a matter of "simplifying" the game, its just making the game a better experience.
best examples i can come up are: Adventures games of the 90s compare to Adventure games today. THIS. Is simplification done right.
I pretty much agree. Just because you need a game element doesn't mean that it needs to be as deep as every other mechanic. The experience created by all of those elements should have some kind of depth though. Otherwise it just gets boring.
To claify I'm not supporting lazy game design like Bioware using the same goddam dungeon over and over again. That's lazy desing, don't get me wrong Is till love Bioware but that is lazy. I don't think that making a game simple is lazy as long as you still produce a quality product.
we are all arm chair game designers so I can't really call out devs for being lazy.
Don't you understand that paying $60 (or whatever it is you pay in your region) is why we are all arm chair designers and rightly so? The developers and publishers are providing a service (not really a product since we don't ever really own the games). If their customers aren't happy about the way they're designing games, they have to change their ways to better suit the largest demographic. Unfortunately everyone who's an armchair designer is for casual and easy style gaming and that's why gaming is taking the turn it is. Game designers aren't musicians or artists. In the end, they're there to make money, not show their work of art whether people like it or not.
" To claify I'm not supporting lazy game desing like Bioware using the same goddam dungeon over and over again. That's lazy desing, I don't think that making a game simple is lazy as long as you still produce a quality product. "
ya the re-used indoor areas of DA2 was really...bad. but for a 14month production what they pushed out was kinda fun!
@FancySoapsMan said:
" Sometimes it's better to improve features or systems that were too complex at first. For example, they could have just tried to fix the inventory in ME 2, and made it more accessible and fun to manage than in ME. But instead they almost removed it entirely. "
technically there was nothing complex to inventory management. the player would always equip the best item available. complexity arise where they would make many similar items and players have to scrutinize everything to min/max their stats . which also is kinda moot cause people will *still* just go for the best stuff.
I'm not sure how much time/skill it takes to come up with a robust loot table, come up with enough art assets to significantly differentiate them etc etc
i think we're at a point of game development where past genre definitions do not apply anymore. for instance the key element of FPS (aside from shooting dudes) was 1990s - Key hunting (Doom) 2000s - Scripted events (Half Life / MoH 2000) 2010s- Multiplayer / blending single player with MP (Brink) 2020s - ???
So maybe we're seeing the same thing for RPGs happening now. 2010s - boning/conversations/visceral combat/???
Simplifying things is neither good or bad by default. The problem is that many devs see it as an easy way out when they have systems that need to be fixed. Simplification should be done to systems that are needlessly obtuse or complex, not systems that have other problems as a way to avoid those problems. Developers should be fixing these problems, not avoiding them.
Take the change of inventory use from ME1 to ME2 for example. The inventory had problems, but being too complex wasn't one of them. Equipping new guns and armor was a chore, but that was because Bioware didn't put in a very simple solution for it. When you have multiple pieces of the same equipment, that piece shouldn't be listed multiple times. Instead, it simply should have been listed once, with a listing next to it telilng you how many you have. Tons of other RPGs do that, like it will say "Potion x 10" or "Antidote x 7". That simple, commonplace feature would have made things so much easier. I was seriously baffled that Bioware, a veteran RPG developer, overlooked that.
But instead of fixing that problem, they decided to remove the inventory completely, which sacrificed an extra layer of depth to avoid dealing with it.
As with most things, it's never always bad, and it's never always good. Depends on the situation, and the extent of it.
Also, it's never possible to please everyone. If you keeps things the same, then people start complaining about it being the same. You change stuff, people complain about stuff being changed. People just complain about everything.
Although, I must say that I prefer to use the term "streamline," because simplify sounds bad.
@Commisar123: It's bad when you change a sequel as much as ME2 changed from the original, unless the original was broken. The original game wasn't broken, it was flawed. In the case of Civ V, I feel like thy reached the point of perfection with Civ IV with the level of complexity for the hardcore fans and decided to go on to a new audience. Which for the 5th game in a series is totally reasonable. But at the same time, it was one of the few games that WASN'T being dumbed down for a while there. Same with BioWare games. And seeing the last few AAA devs start making shooters and hack-'n-slash games from what used to be unique and deep RPGs is really really really unsettling for people who prefer games like the original Dragon Age or Civ IV. Simple games can be great. But depth is also important, and it sucks that developers are no longer willing to make games like DA:O. Not even the ones that used to be dedicated to people who played those games.
I also think there should be a distinction between simplification and streamlining. For example. Removing the inventory in Mass Effect 2 is simplification. Making things stack, reducing the drop rate, and making the inventory faster to navigate is streamlining. Gamers like Dave probably have an issue with simplification, not streamlining.
@MordeaniisChaos: Look MassEffeect is one of my favorite games ever, but that game had a lota issues. Bad tech, bad inventory, akward controls, akward combat and other stuff. The thing is that Mass Effect 2 and DA2 are still pretty hardcore games. They still take a lot of investment in time and still have many dimensions to them. I don't think so much that AAA developers are "afriad" more that they are responding to the demands of the public, not neccasarily gamers but a game buying public. at least personally speaking I was never drawn to Biowar games cuz of their game play, which is perfectly fine, but more because of their story and world Also are you saying that ME2 is a bad game cause it changed? Sure mabye it wasn't perfect but there were a lot of worse things to spend your time on
Well I can understand from a business standpoint why they would need to simplify game mechanics that might intimidate average/casual gamers. They need to make their game more accessible, expand their audience, sell more titles. But reaching out to a new audience while trying to hang on to the old ones is hard to do because gamers are whiny bitches. And I can understand why they are whiny bitches about the things they whine about. There is something to be said for the genre/ type of game experience that they like. Imagine if Bioware said "oh we're going to stop making hardcore RPGs altogether." The fans of that hardcore Bioware RPG experience are going to be left in the dust with very little alternatives. I mean I get pissed off when people say Monster Hunter needs to speed up the combat gameplay and give monsters visible health bars, fast combos. And I would be pissed if Capcom decided to go for the western market and turn Monster Hunter into a God Of War/DMC like game, since I enjoy that type of game and they're telling me that they're going to stop making it.
" @MordeaniisChaos: Look MassEffeect is one of my favorite games ever, but that game had a lota issues. Bad tech, bad inventory, akward controls, akward combat and other stuff.
But those aren't necessarily issues that need to be solved by simplifying the game. Making the combat better than it was in ME1 wasn't an issue of complexity, it was caused by a lack of polish and poor AI. And like I explained before, the inventory didn't need to be removed, it needed to be fixed.
Just because a feature in a game was poorly implemented doesn't mean it should be removed for the sequel.
I think that to a point it can be alright, but making controls of a game easy enough so that a 5 year old could pick it up is not fun. I would prefer to have slightly more complicated controls if it made for an overall better and more challenging gaming experience. Things like maybe polishing up the UI a bit is fine, but taking something that was fun and challenging to master and making it to simple takes away a good portion of enjoyment that I personally at least would prefer to have kept in the game (example, ME1 inventory system. I did not mind it at all and was very disappointed when they took it out completely)
Streamlining != simplification. Streamlining is a broader effort I fully support that includes simplifying a game's mechanics or design, but not defined by it. The other half is just refining the system and making it easier to understand or use. However it would be ignorant to assume games are worse because simplification is used to streamline. The motivations be what they may, simplification doesn't automatically mean bad either, especially if it's only part of how a game was streamlined. In my opinion it all comes down to execution. If I'm enjoying the fuck out of 1+1 = 2, so be it. So what if the past 3 games in the series were algebraic equations.
I love people's assumptions that games stay $60, are obligated to buy them, and know how balls hard it is to make even a shitty game. Vote with your dollar is still the rule here, but I'd rather live in the era where games aren't out to get you and are supposed to be enjoyed instead of beaten. Games helping you along the way is a better reward than would be the cost of some games choosing to be oversimplified (which is rare beyond elitist-prone franchises).
I think it's all a product of this nerd heritage of appreciating the complex for it's own sake because that was a defining feature of the culture and the people. Refinement and depth in one context is arm chair development and elitism in another.
Simplification in and of itself is fine if it makes the game better and it's done in moderation, but too many developers dumb down and out right remove features from games and add nothing in it's place. Since DA 2 is the most recent example of dumbing down game design butchering a franchise, I will pick on that for my examples.
I have yet to hear a single good reason why they removed the zoomed out view from the PC version of DA 2. I can't begin to count the number of times I had to fight with the camera and pause and unpause a dozen times just to properly place an AOE spell that would have taken two seconds if I could have just zoomed out like in the first game. What did removing the feature add to the game? Nothing but frustration.
The chat system in DA 2 was also a pain in the ass for me. The game went from making every decision feel important and actually make me stop and think about what I was being presented as options, into "Well I'm playing a good character, so always pick top.". Plus there were several occasions where I picked something expecting the character to say one thing, only to have them say something completely different then what was shown to me as an option to choose. I never once had that happen in the first game.
" To claify I'm not supporting lazy game design like Bioware using the same goddam dungeon over and over again. That's lazy desing, don't get me wrong Is till love Bioware but that is lazy. I don't think that making a game simple is lazy as long as you still produce a quality product. "
It's not lazy, it's a way of making the game cheaper to make. That way they can focus on other areas witin the budgetted amount of resources.
Over simplifying a game is bad. Refining and streamlining is good. The trick is to offer deep game play, but don't make your mechanics overwhelming and confusing to the player. Making the game approachable and easy to instantly understand to the player is a sign of good design.
The goal is to make the game easy to learn and difficult to master. Accessibility and depth. Ironically, the grognards who hate accessibility are the ones who find the exploits in every complex game to completely bypass it.
Dragon Age is a great example. For all the talk about how complex it was, most people found the character builds and spells that broke the game and then rinse-and-repeated for 50 hours.
There's a difference between simplification and the dumbing down\ruining of an experience which I think people get confused aboout. DA2 and ME2 are instances where "streamlined" gameplay led to a complete removal of strategy and skill. ME2 turned into a gears style shooter while DA2 turned into a mindless button masher. Ubisoft is another major culprit of this. While the redone PoP looked fantastic, the gameplay was so effortless that the experience felt like more of a platformer on rails. The same goes for splinter cell conviction which removed or simplified the gameplay, turning it into another gears clone.
I think developers should stick with the original game-design decisions since it's been proven that changing gameplay mechanics to appeal to a larger audience is completely flawed logic. DA2 is selling worse than DA, ME2 didn't sell any better than ME1, PoP sold about as well as SoT, Conviction sold about as well as previous entries, civ 5 is selling worse than civ 4, etc. If developers want to appeal to a larger fanbase, develop a new series catered to that idea, don't ruin new entries in the franchise, it just alienates fans.
Depends on what your simplifying. Taking choices away from the player I think i generally a bad idea. For example, Marvel ultimate alliance (and Xmen legends games before it) let you pick items and clothing to incease abilities and stats with an auto select option for those that cant be bothered to do it, but in UA2 they take the choice away and just felt like a weaker game (just one example tho). On the other hand playing PC games back in the day that required you to read a manual the size of war and peace and sit with a notepad, pen, atlas and calculator I do not miss.
Log in to comment