Topic: Games Too Complicated? Carmack Agrees.

[RickPowers]

"I agree strongly with that point of view", says Carmack, when discussing Nintendo's plan to make games simpler.

In an interview with CNN Money, John Carmack of id Software and the man behind the upcoming PC hit Doom 3 agrees that games, specifically PC Role-Playing games, have gotten to be so complex, "they had to have a book ship with the game."

He goes on to detail the internal debates over simplifying the controls for Doom 3, and how you sometimes need to ignore your more supportive fans in order to give them what they really want, something Nintendo is frequently accused of doing.

It's an excellent interview with the always outspoken Carmack, so make sure to head over to CNN Money and read it.

[Bill Aurion]

At least this should get some gamers to realize that not just a "kid company" follows this philosophy...

[PIAC]

it should, but in all seriousness it probably wont. doom 3 on gamecube perhaps ?

[mouse_clicker]

No, bceause according to Carmack "Doom 3 isn't possible on any system other than the XBox."

[Bill Aurion]

Doom 3 isn't even possible on the X without bringing down the framerate and/or the visuals...

edit: Am I the only one who gets error messages(aka: Page not found) when I reply?  It's really irritating

[mouse_clicker]

In Opera I get "Cannot find remote server". I just click the point a few (hundred) times again, though, and it usually works.

[Clock Nova]

Personally, I love the big thick manuals that come with RPGs and strategy games.  I live for complex games that take months to beat.  I loved Wind Waker, but it was just too damn easy.  Way, way too easy.  This is not a good trend.

[Ms.Pikmin]

I agree with Clock Nova.  I don't think they should dumb down...oh, sorry.."simplify" these games.  There are alot of people who really love the time it takes to beat them.  Why not leave some games difficult and have others that are aimed at people who need something easier to play?  The quote Carmack made about gamers not realizing that simplified controls are what they really want irks me.  What an arrogant and condescending butt-head.

[BlkPaladin]

You know I don't think they are talking about the physically difficulty of the game. But what it takes to play the game.

[mouse_clicker]

Simplification and  dumbing down are too very different things and it's important to make the distinction. Take Ikaruga, for example: very simple concept, you shoot ships of the opposite color, and yet it's one of the hardest games I've ever played. Look at Super Monkey Ball- you roll a ball to a goal, and yet anyone here claiming that game was a walk in the park is a liar. Games can be simple without being easy or dumbed down for the masses.  

[BlkPaladin]

Thanks for elaberating I was writting another rant on another board and should of put more meat on it. And in addition some of the simpliest games are still the most addicting and fun to play. Oh that rant will be up on the Gamecube board soon. I'll polish it off more before hand... It been awhile so my argument isn't that long this time. (Remember the State of the Launches rant.)

[mouse_clicker]

I used to write huge rants myself, but most of the time now they start off small and end up in a huge argument between me and someone else.

[GoldShadow1]

I think there's a place for both games with simple controls and more complex games.  It just depends on what you're trying to acheive.  For example, a game that's trying to be a simulation necessarily needs more complex controls, because in real life building a city or piloting a 747 is much harder than it would be in the average game.  On the other hand,  a game can still have a lot of depth without complicated controls.  Like someone above said - Monkey Ball doesn't even use a button (unless you count start) but it is insanely hard and amazingly sensitive to your controls.

Right now I am playing both Metroid Fusion and Homeworld for the PC.  Metroid Fusion is a 2D platform/shooting/adventure game and thus needs simple controls, while Homeworld is a 3D space real-time strategy game, which needs much more complicated controls.  I don't think it's a matter of games overall needing more or less complicated controls, it has suit the individual game.  For example, it always irritates me if a game has a button designated to only be used in a situation where you can't use any other button anyway - why not just use a standard action button like Zelda?  Yet games can also have controls simplified far too much - like in Animal Crossing when you have to go to the menu every time you want to get out a shovel or something yet there are several buttons not being used at all.

[Errol Zephry]

It's nice and all to say games are too complicated, and that may be true but it's not true for PC RPGs.  PC RPGs are complicated because true roleplaying games are complex, non-linear and take a lot of effort to do. True roleplaying game fans demand complexity as they want to be able to create a character all their own and through out the game choose should he/she save the kid in the well, should he go on a homicidal rampage,  or join the local criminals in a town and get everything he can or just try to put them away.  That is the essence of roleplaying,  you can't make it simple without getting rid of the roleplay. Hell just look at the word "role-play" its about playing a role as you see fit, not as some  designer who is only good at making engines and not gameplay.  Also Miyamoto is a true genius, he is known for good gameplay average graphics. It's tottaly the other way around for Carmack.  It's a shame the standards for being a genius have gone down so much.

[Grey Ninja]

I think what they mean is simply making the controls and concept of the game simple.  A game can be more fun if it only uses a couple of buttons than one that requires both hands and an inate knowledge of the controller.  There are some games that require a great deal of controls, such as a flight simulator, but some games, such as MGS2 use a lot of needless controls that can be stripped right out of the game for a more entertaining experience and less frusteration.  Just because a button is there doesn't mean that you have to use it.

Complicated games in terms of details are sometimes fun to play, but oftentimes those details will bog down the game.  Take Master Of Orion III for instance.  When the game first shipped, the AI was seriously bugged, so it made it required to micromanage everything in your empire, which was FAR too complicated.  With the new patch, the AI works as advertised, so you can give broad orders to everything, and it gets done with a minimum of effort.  Simplifying some very complicated stuff makes the game that much better.  The game is still complicated to the core, but you are shielded from that by a powerful AI.

[Djunknown]

I'll have to disagree with Zephry in his last remark concerning Carmack. Its not really fair to compare Miyamoto-san with Carmack; its like apples to oranges.

Miyamoto-san was one of the pioneers of Gaming itself way back when, Carmack was just a pioneer in a specific brand of gaming: FPS.

Miyamoto-san created not just friendly characters (Donkey Kong, Zelda,etc) but expanded in different Genres ( RPG, Adventure, Platforming), if you read the article Carmack is more or less stuck with FPS? Why? Here's snippet if you didn't read:

More than 5,000 made the journey to Dallas (QuakeCon) last week to mingle and play with the people who created their favorite action games. The price of having fans that devoted? The company isn't afforded the chance to branch into other genres. "Since we're a single title company...we're constrained to do something that has a high probability of success," said Carmack. "It's unlikely id will come out with something that's off the wall."  

His running buddy, John Romero probably branched off because of said reason (And how many are leaving their companies to branch out on their own?). But that's another story in itself.

Simply put, who knows whats inside the head of Carmack? We only know what we see (and what sells). Since he's a fan of simple gaming, it'll be interesting to see if he puts that philosophy to use in the future.

[mouse_clicker]

I think Carmack already has put simple gaming to use. Look at games like Doom and Quake- it's all pretty much shoot-shoot-bang-bang-get the key-open door, which I LOVE- my favorite FPS's today are the ones that just unlease you on a horde of enemies and enable you to let loose a barrage of bullets/plasma upon them. I like objective based FPS's, too, but they'll never reach the level of enjoyment basic first-person shooters have for me.

[Raze]

As the head of a game development company, I have to strongly disagree with this whole policy of shortening games or simplifying them. There is a plethora of simple games, much to the dismay of anyone with an IQ that outranks their shoe size. This talk of simplification of games is nothing new, its been going on for years, especially by Sony's hand (not to pick a particular company and bash, just an example). The unfortunate trend is that games are getting shorter and shorter, regardless of genre. So, instead of getting 40-60 hours of gameplay for $50, you're now starting to get 15-25 hours of gameplay for $50. [p]

This whole process is just the capitalism side trying to take over the creative side of the game industry. If the publisher can get out more games, since they are being developed nice and simple, then they can get a whole ton of titles and have a larger percentage of the possibility of one of the titles being their "big hit". The simplification of games won't hurt them at all, it will hurt the consumer, and especially in the genre of rpg type games, where the complex story and the delicate weaving of character, plot and the unfolding of the overall tale is the main thing. What I can chalk up this new thought process of simplifying games to is simply the laziness and apathy to pour one's heart and soul into a game for the sake of making a game.  It seems that the developers out there these days forget about designing a game for the love of making the game, and only focus on their cash reward.

So we have the big companies looking at RPGs and wanting to simplify them. Folks, RPGs by nature are not simple, they never were before the reign of video games, and they never were during the age of video games. RPGs are complex, and until you've actually sat down and started working on a development team to design one, it's hard to truly appreciate the architecture behind it. Which brings me to my next point, regarding Carmack. Sure, he's a legend, but mostly of of FPS games, but FPS games are simpler in nature than an rpg, thus why you see so many more FPS games flooding the PC market as opposed to traditional rpgs (not including MMORPGS- different element). It's easy to bash a genre that you don't specialize in. It's not different than someone on this forum never playing a PS2 or xbox before and bashing the system anyway. Carmack's word on this matter has the value equivalent to a pack of JuicyFruit.

Look at it this way, when you beat a game, regardless of genre, you feel accomplished. Yet, with an RPG, when you beat it, if designed well, you feel like you just finished reading an amazing book, and want it to continue on. I know the feeling, as I've had it once before, when I completed Zelda: Ocarina of Time (I know, not really rpg, but close enough in element). I was glad that I beat the game..but then I wanted more.. I wanted to continue on, living through the characters. What will happen if the developers are forced to simplify their rpgs is this: there will be a lot of squeezing of elements, less weaponry, less races, less moves, less spells...basically all the elements a developer puts into giving an rpg replay value will be lost, and the game MIGHT be good for a play once through... and then the story will be simplified and you'll get a 6th grade reader version of the story, which would leave a lot of unanswered questions for the player.

As a developer and head of a gaming company, I find this interesting, especially in the view of Nintendo, as we are working on pitching our adventure rpg to them before the year's end, and our game is quite complex. Should prove interesting indeed. Personally, I think all games, regardless of genre should be made longer and more in-depth. After all, the players are paying good money , they should get their money's worth.

Randy Wilson
Founder/Team Lead
Broken Attitude Studios
http://www.brokenattitude.com


 

[RickPowers]

Quote
As the head of a game development company, I have to strongly disagree with this whole policy of shortening games or simplifying them.

It saddens me that even a game developer has missed the point.  Games, even RPG's, don't HAVE to be complex.  You can simplify what it takes to play the game without "dumbing it down" or shortening the game.  A context-sensitive control scheme that has been thought out well in advance can allow anyone to pick up a game and start to play immediately, rather than needing to expose the user to a lot of needless data.  Some users enjoy having to read a thick manual, but not everyone does.

For example, take the EXEMPLAY "Knights of the Old Republic".  This is an AD&D 3rd Edition role-playing game, which is about as complex as it gets.  Bioware has hidden most of the complexity from the user, making for a very engrossing experience.  You can easily forget you are playing a game and get swept away by the story, and in an RPG, that's exactly how it should work.

Just because you have a controller with eight buttons or a keyboard with 80+ buttons, doesn't mean you HAVE to use them all. This is what Nintendo means by simplifying games.  Not making them easier, or shortening them.  Just taking out needless complexity to make the game more accessible.  I think KOTOR proves that you can have a complex game with a lot of depth, without injuring the gameplay or story.

Quote
Look at it this way, when you beat a game, regardless of genre, you feel accomplished. Yet, with an RPG, when you beat it, if designed well, you feel like you just finished reading an amazing book, and want it to continue on. I know the feeling, as I've had it once before, when I completed Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Interesting.  Originally, people were very upset when they first saw Ocarina's new target lock-on function, saying that it was dumbing down the game and would make it too easy.  What's the point when you can press a single button and be guaranteed that you're aiming in the right direction?  Instead, what it did was change the way 3D games are presented forever ... a lot of 3D games now have a similar lock-on function.

Complexity for complexity's sake is the LAZY approach.  As Carmack said, adding features and functions is easy.  Knowing when to pull them back is hard, even when it's the right thing to do.  It's always more work to find a way to simplify your user interface, and it's always worth the effort in the end if it equates to more sales.

[thecubedcanuck]

I agree 100%.
I like a game that is difficult to play, but not because I have to push 11 buttons at once while steering in 2 seperate directions.
I like a game that has a lot of fast paced shoot em up suprise around every corner type stuff, but I want to be able to pick it up and play in a few minutes without having to read a novel and memorize 75 differant special moves.

Simple controls, simple gameplay, medium/difficult play, that may get harder and a little more complex as the game goes on.

[vroenis]

there's a time and place for both i think, though i would suggest that perhaps there aren't enough simpler games out there.
and yes - simple does not mean dumb - perhaps just more intuitive.
as much as i enjoy FPS and RPGs a la ts2, ff, and action/sneaks (metal gear solid 1) i enjoy smb just as much.
i'll probably get slammed for this, but i think one game that has achieved this intuitive simplicity would be ico.
no gui, simple controls, but i'd have to say i find it just as emersive as metal gear solid 1 and eternal darkness are, especially the use of language and subtitling.
i've only just gotten access to ico recently, a mate of mine bought it ex-rental from a video store, and i've got to say that it's my kind of game.  i'm not saying that all games should go down this path - albeit probably none will because ico was terribly unpopular, but i'd definately like to see more games like it to compliment the huge range of complicated cames out there.
arg - but i'm a myst fan from way back, so i'm probably just a bit strange

[Raze]

Quote
It saddens me that even a game developer has missed the point.

Ah, but I haven't missed the point. There is a buzz going around about publishers trying to keep games in the future under 20 gameplay hours, so the players wont spend so much time playing one game, and in turn, purchasing more games to keep them entertained. Brilliant strategy for a publisher, horrible for the players. I understand the surface point of it all, but what the hidden message in calling for a "simplification" of games is, that is what interests me far more.

Quote
Games, even RPG's, don't HAVE to be complex.  You can simplify what it takes to play the game without "dumbing it down" or shortening the game.

True, we both know this, but is that surface level talk of simplification the only level there truly is? The things I've heard from other independents is making me wonder. For the gamers' sakes, I hope it is.

Quote
A context-sensitive control scheme that has been thought out well in advance can allow anyone to pick up a game and start to play immediately, rather than needing to expose the user to a lot of needless data.  Some users enjoy having to read a thick manual, but not everyone does.

Agreed, especially when dealing with console games. Players usually pop the disc and and pick up the controller and figure out the buttons as they go along in the game, one of the reasons a good in-game tutorial is one of the better approaches, and spare the paper. In this vein, I can think of one game that used more buttons than probably needed to: Lord of the Rings: Two Towers. Great game, can't knock it, but some of the combos were borderline ludicrous.

Quote
Just because you have a controller with eight buttons or a keyboard with 80+ buttons, doesn't mean you HAVE to use them all. This is what Nintendo means by simplifying games.  Not making them easier, or shortening them.  Just taking out needless complexity to make the game more accessible.

As I said, I hope you're right on this, that this is all they mean. This news came to me in the same week that I heard two different sources informing me that game publishers are making a push to keep games shorter as their new marketing scheme. If you can disprove these sources, then all the better. Yet, having combined all this news together, it makes me question the definition of "simplification" in the eyes of the publishers.

Perhaps I'm reading too deep into the topic, I've been guilty of such before. I'd rather that be the case again, than there being alterior motives.

Randy Wilson
Founder/Team Lead
Broken Attitude Studios
http://www.brokenattitude.com

[Licken34]

Quote
There is a buzz going around about publishers trying to keep games in the future under 20 gameplay hours, so the players wont spend so much time playing one game, and in turn, purchasing more games to keep them entertained.

You can already see this happening. Anyone up to date on .Hack? Having to buy FOUR seperate discs for what is, essentially, ONE game. There are NO worthy changes or upgrades in the battle system or overall game, it's HORRIBLY repetitive, graphics are LAZY, and it's ludicrously short. The game is in it's third part and basically it's the exact same as the first, and yet we have to pay $50 bucks for each of its four parts (and that damn anime extra that comes with it is HARDLY worth it). The .Hack series could have easily -and should have- been made into ONE game, and yet, by the time it's done, I will have spent around 200 smackers on it. If this is the direction publishers are trying to take games, then I truly fear for the future.

(and of course, this could be me angrily ranting and totally missing the point...heh hehe.)


And, I think it's kinda funny to argue the complexity of controls in RPGs. Now, granted, I can't speak for PC (I'm not much of a PC gamer), but for consoles, the average RPG's control scheme is centered around one button for talking/opening chests/entering commands and another for cancelling. Maybe a few buttons are added to make the battles a bit more interactive, but other than that, how simple can you get?
 

[KDR_11k]

Carmack obviously spoke about PC RPGs. Some of those have simply an overkill of options. Example? In Baldur's Gate 2 you can rent four different rooms at different prices at an inn.
BTW, a good example for cut-to-pieces games is Golden Sun. Heck, for that price I expected a full game, not a shareware ending with "to be continued" half way through!

[mouse_clicker]

It IS a full game, KDR- it took me 30 hours to beat and I didn't get anywhere near everything in the game. Just because it had a "to be continued" ending doesn't mean it's not a great game- Empire Strikes back just cut off at the end and is regarded as the best Star Wars movie by far. Golden Sun was just one part of a much larger story- Camelot could not have fit the entire saga onto one GBA cart.