Topic: EA CEO calls Video Games "Boring" and "Too Complicated"

[Mashiro]

Full Story: Reuters: EA CEO calls video games "boring", complicated: WSJ

It's a small read but interesting . . . coming from EA. I guess it makes more sense now as to why those family friendly easy modes are coming to the Wii versions of their popular sports franchises.

[ShyGuy]

That sounds like what I said after playing Madden 07.

[Kairon]

Sounds like a concurrent thought to what Miyamoto said about games a while ago: gamers don't want long games, don't want story.

[King of Twitch]

what next, tony soprano complaining about violent crime?

[Ian Sane]

If I had to deal with EA games all day I'd find games boring too.  Though EA is very much a trend-oriented company.  Nintendo has created a new trend so EA is jumping on it.  If Nintendo was selling Wii's hand over fist with long complicated games EA would be all "simple games are boring, people want things more complicated."

If anything in a few years non-games will get sh!t on because every game company in the world will be rolling out stale copycat product.  EA has no right to complain about things always be the same thing because they're a big reason for that and they'll probably burn out current game designs too.

And anyone complaining that they were making games "too hard" THESE DAYS is full of sh!t or has a short memory.  In the 3D era games have been insanely easy compared to the 2D era.

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

And anyone complaining that they were making games "too hard" THESE DAYS is full of sh!t or has a short memory.  In the 3D era games have been insanely easy compared to the 2D era.

You know that is a very strange paradox. The more buttons they added to controllers the easier games seemed to become but at the same time the more casual gamers were pushed away by the complexity of the controllers...

Sounds like a conspiracy to me!

[Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane

And anyone complaining that they were making games "too hard" THESE DAYS is full of sh!t or has a short memory.  In the 3D era games have been insanely easy compared to the 2D era.

You know that is a very strange paradox.

How so? If they made things more complicated and then made it insanely hard, no one would want to play. I almost gave up on the original Resident Evil because of this point.

We like simple controls and hard gameplay. Where's the paradox in that?

[MarioAllStar]

Although the gameplay itself has become easier, the interface has increased in complexity, which has caused some gamers from the 2D-era to stop gaming altogether. That's all denjet78 is trying to say.

[Ian Sane]

Has everyone ever thought that maybe people who left gaming over time did so because they played videogames as kids and as they grew up they stopped doing what they viewed to be a childish thing to do?  This never comes up.  It's like Nintendo expected everyone who played the NES as 10 year olds were going to be hooked on videogames for life.  I don't see Super Soaker or Nerf making up reasons why I'm no longer their customer.

The button thing might be a coincedence or just part of the cause.  Or the complexity wasn't why they left but just why they never got back in.  They became teenagers and figured games were for kids and left and then later thought about getting back in but had missed years of controller and game development and just said "to hell with it".  My brother pretty much did this.  Our parents hated videogames and us kids had no money so once SNES games stopped being made we were out of luck for a few years.  My brother tried to get back in with me when we had money to buy our own N64 but I was willing to learn what I had missed out on and he wasn't.  And he still isn't and no wand waving or touchscreen stuff is catching his interest.  Had he never left maybe he would still be interested because the learning curve would have been gradual.  He didn't abandon games one day because things were too complex.  He left for other reasons and then didn't want to put the effort in to get back in.

The industry crash obviously played a part since that ended the first game "fad".

Gaming becaming easy as more and more casuals came in and companies focused on them more and more.  The Playstation brought in a new group (teenagers, young adults) and to encourage this the difficulty dropped.  Now Nintendo is bring in another new group and again the difficultly drops to be more mass market friendly.  Eventually I figure games will be designed so that you can't fail ever.

EA's mass market focus is what has made me more and more disinterested in videogames.  Since the solution seems to be to go even MORE mass market things are just going to get worse.  In ten years Nintendo will make their latest console target people who left when non-gamers became the focus.  It will be a never-ending cycle of targeting and turning away two groups with different tastes.

[Mashiro]

I disagree with the whole turning away groups of gamer things with different tastes. It's still early in its life but Wii isn't ostracizing one group or another (non-gamers vs gamers) nor is the DS.

The DS has a healthy mix of games for non-gamers and games for those of us whom grew up with them or are just more accustomed to actual games (not non-game games).

Personally I welcome the mix and the current stream of games Nintendo is publishing doesn't seem to be catering all to one audience and I don't think it really ever will. So long as Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Star Fox, Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros., and other such games keep selling well there will always be a market for the more true games.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Ian the success of the Wii alone shows how large a market the "casual" gaming segment of the market is. Granted this is anecdotal, but there are many people I know who are getting into video games now because the complexity of the controllers scared them away, which is why things like Wiisports have become a smash hit.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Since the solution seems to be to go even MORE mass market things are just going to get worse.  In ten years Nintendo will make their latest console target people who left when non-gamers became the focus.  It will be a never-ending cycle of targeting and turning away two groups with different tastes.

Geez Iansane. With that reasoning, you'd think that movies today churn out pure action flix one year, then pure romances the next, with nothing inbetween, leaving the differing movie audiences with NOTHING until the sun comes around to shine on them.

Nintendo isn't trying to change all the videogames ever made. They're trying to expand the genres that videogames can enter. EVERY SINGLE VIDEOGAME TODAY IS AN ACTION-COMEDY-BLOCKBUSTER. Just because they start releasing music games and romances (Boogie, The Notebook) doesn't mean that they'll stop releasing FPS' and adrenaline-fueled-cinema (Army of Two, Crank).

Talk about a false dichotomy. That way of looking at things is so black and white and stupid.

And games don't have to be easy for casual to enjoy then Iansane. They have to be FUN.

That encapsulates a lot of things.

It means some games need less arcane control systems/system inputs (steel battalion controller vs. wiimote).
It means some games can tackle more relevant subject matter (bald space marines vs. contemporary pop music).
It also means a wider palette of experiences (shooting a million bad guys in the head repeatedly vs. kidding around, communicating, sharing, learning, feeling and rocking).

I swear Iansane. Do you go to the movie theatres today and moan and complain that because a movie like "The Jane Austen Book Club" exists it's an industry wide conspiracy to never make "The Bourne Ultimatum"?  

[Ian Sane]

"With that reasoning, you'd think that movies today churn out pure action flix one year, then pure romances the next, with nothing inbetween, leaving the differing movie audiences with NOTHING until the sun comes around to shine on them."

The movie industry has more universal appeal than the game industry so the companies involved are more willing to release multiple different films for different audiences.  Gaming requires effort and thus has less widespread appeal.  That's just the way things are.  TV, movies and music are more popular than pretty much all other forms of entertainment because they require little effort to enjoy.  You just let your eyes see and your ears hear and away you go.

The game industry has a history of neglecting entire genres of games when they decline in popularity.  Note that 2D games became a rare occurance once 3D hit big.  Almost all 2D games these days are on portables.  Arcades are no longer as popular as they were (or in places where they are popular they all have specialty controllers) so games in arcade-style genres like beat-em-ups or schumps have dried up.  In the PC gaming field point-and-click adventures and flight simulators pretty much are no longer being made.  The game industry lacks the widespread appeal of other passive forms of entertainment so thus all the game companies focus on what group is the biggest.  Any game design trend that is not embraced by the mainstream virtually disappears.  It has happened all thoughout gaming history.

Indy game design is also considerable smaller than indy films or music.  That's because games take a sh!tload more knowledge and skill and time and MONEY to make.  You can make a film just by pointing a camera at something and record a song on a tape recorder.  But the crappiest game takes a lot more just to get it to work.  I've made decent films and recording decent music with my friends (they're noticably amateur but they're entertaining).  The only game I've ever made would have been a minor Atari 2600 title at best (made 20 years later) and I'm a professional programmer.  The average person can film some sort of movie.  Most people haven't the slightest clue where to even start with making a game.  Gaming is also a proprietary industry.  You have to play ball with MS, Sony or Nintendo or go the PC route.

Right now it seems that the vast majority of annouced third party Wii games are non-games or spinoffs or "family-oriented" titles.  It never seems like there is much focus, besides a token effort, to target customers outside of the mass market, at least not from any Wii developer but Nintendo themselves.  And that's no surprise because the game industry is too small and too specialized.  It has always gone after the big money so why would it suddenly change now?

[Kairon]

The industry pulls in more money than the movie industry Iansane. And your entire post is a list of all the things that Nintendo is trying to change. It's the whole reason for the Wii.

From Reggie's E3 '06 questions about why everyone's watched movies or tv, yet not everyone's played videogames, to Iwata's belief that they can provide a platform for smaller, more idea-centric and risk-taking developers to make the leap, Nintendo's ENTIRE goal this generation is to make sure that what you describe never happens.

You've painted a nightmarish future, the same one that Nintendo say many years ago, and is now trying to avoid.

[Ian Sane]

"Nintendo's ENTIRE goal this generation is to make sure that what you describe never happens."

Fine.  But I want to see results first because I don't see other developers following them.  It's very much real games for the PS3/X360, B-material for the Wii.  And Nintendo's talk about new ideas and risks sounds like marketing BS when most of their new IPs are non-games and most of their gamer games are sequels (ie: old ideas).  I don't see Nintendo walking the walk quite yet, though they're closer to it than any other company.

[Mashiro]

I'm a little confused Ian Sane, you sound like you're mad about games seemingly going the non-gamer route. Ok. Then you're mad that the existing IPs are following the old route and being like more traditional games. Then you're mad at all the genres that all but vanish because their style of play isn't used all too much anymore.

So...you want a world where companies make new games that think outside the box (see: non-games), yet stick to old style of games (see: current gamer style games) but at the same time be completely original with new ideas.

. . .

yeah.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Fine.  But I want to see results first

That's exactly the mentality that will create the future you envision. That's exactly what third parties say when they become more and more insular and start becoming the soulless vehicles you describe.

I can understand that this is a risk, a risk that may not pay off. But that's the essence of change. Revolutions are never bloodless, and if you expect things to just turn out all hunky-dory you've got another thing coming. History is never clean, least of all when it's being made.

Now, I can envision a future where Nintendo fails to produce a change in the industry, where this grand experiment is just a blip in the entire scheme of things, where despite all these words and bravado and effort and money and excitement and energy, nothing changes. I can envision such a reality. I can almost expect it.

But I cannot envision a reality where I wouldn't try to change all that.

[Chozo Ghost]

Many popular games seem very dumbed down to me these days. I briefly owned one of the GTA games but I didn't find it very challenging, and after killing people randomly for awhile it just got boring.

Video games are basically experiencing the same thing as literature. People used to read the Iliad and Moby Dick... now they just read magazines about Paris Hilton. Why should video games be any different? People just seem to get stupider as technology increases its grip over us and we are no longer required to think or imagine anymore. Technology does those things for us.

[Kairon]

Back in the days of the Iliad and Moby Dick, many people couldn't read. Probably, if they could've read, they wouldn't have been reading those books, they'd be reading ancient tabloids, which, actually, I bet existed as well. I read this one account of how they discovered that the shoes of a prostitute back in antiquity left a footprint on the ground that spelled out the message "follow me" ....

Technology isn't making us dumber. It's just revealing how dumb we already were in the first place.

[Chozo Ghost]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Back in the days of the Iliad and Moby Dick, many people couldn't read.

Some couldn't read, but the literacy rate in the US during that time was much higher than you might expect. There were no TV or video games, and so reading was a major form of entertainment then. Plus people tended to be more religious, and that meant reading the bible.

The literacy rate today is considered higher, but I think the percentage of people reading books like the Iliad has fallen drastically. Nowadays we consider people literate if they can read the menu at McDonalds or the Tv guide. So yeah, our literacy rate may seem higher, but that may be because we've lowered the criteria of what makes a person literate.

Anyway, getting back on topic here... I'd say Nintendo is moving in the right direction with games like Brain age and those puzzlers. They require a person to think, and that's certainly more than can be said about Halo or GTA....

[oohhboy]

Games are relatively easier because the more complex gameplay allow more options to solve a given problem or situation. Mario in 2D could only dodge an enemy you either jump or run away. Mario 3D allows you to run, side step, jump. Adding an additional dimension alone adds extra options. Modern games also have a lot of advanced concepts that weren't used deliberately in a controlled manner like Bullet time, or in the 16 bit days, slowdown.

Anyway, the guy is blowing crap out of his mouth. He has been playing too many of his own games.

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Back in the days of the Iliad and Moby Dick....

You do realize that there were about one million days between those two works, right?  

[Mikintosh]

Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Many popular games seem very dumbed down to me these days. I briefly owned one of the GTA games but I didn't find it very challenging, and after killing people randomly for awhile it just got boring.

Video games are basically experiencing the same thing as literature. People used to read the Iliad and Moby Dick... now they just read magazines about Paris Hilton. Why should video games be any different? People just seem to get stupider as technology increases its grip over us and we are no longer required to think or imagine anymore. Technology does those things for us.

What do these two points have to do with each other? It's not like the computer's playing GTA for you; just because it's easier to get through doesn't mean it's "stupider", that's just the way it's designed. I think games that have a lot of story shouldn't be terribly hard to beat (although there should still be the standard amount of effort), because then the story loses its momentum. Movies don't last for 15-20 hrs., and while games take longer than 2, they shouldn't make it so that you're stuck on one chapter for weeks and weeks and can't find out what happens next. That's not "fun" to me.

I think the best balance from creating challenge and encouraging fun were the old arcade games that placed getting points over proceeding from stage to stage. Everybody could play Pac-Man, but not everybody could get the high score. I'm sort of sorry most games nowadays don't have the same set-up. It wouldn't work for Zelda, but I think for action games (which constitute probably the majority of the games out there) it could.

[Galford]

The comments made by this exec might mean something if wasn't said by a CEO whose company became famous by whoring one of the best known casual games of all time, Madden.

I can't get rid of the sinking feeling that most publishers view the Wii as quick, easy money via mini-game collections.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mikintosh
I think the best balance from creating challenge and encouraging fun were the old arcade games that placed getting points over proceeding from stage to stage. Everybody could play Pac-Man, but not everybody could get the high score. I'm sort of sorry most games nowadays don't have the same set-up. It wouldn't work for Zelda, but I think for action games (which constitute probably the majority of the games out there) it could.

How about Metroid speed runs perhaps?