Topic: Princeton Hosts Forum on Game Criticism

[Jonnyboy117]

Some experts think the quality of games can be raised by coming to a consensus on what makes a game great.

The New York Times has an article about the study of computer and video games as artforms, an emerging profession among academics.  The article discusses various difficulties of the medium when approached from a critical point of view, as well as some of the methods being used by students and professors to study games.

One unique methodology is called close gameplay, in which a researcher plays critical scenes of a game repeatedly, analyzing the details, perhaps searching for an anomaly the programmers have buried in the code or simply arriving at some resolution.

One of the reasons for studying games in-depth, say researchers, is that a better understanding of what makes some games fun and others not will help developers raise the quality standards of future titles.

A symposium called "Form, Culture and Video Game Criticism" has been organized by two academics to further discuss these matters.  It will take place Saturday, March 6 at Princeton University.

Hit the link above to read this lengthy article (requires free registration).

[Ian Sane]

This is a very, um, interesting idea to say the least.  I personally am a little worried about it but I'm worried about virtually any study of the game industry since my tastes don't match the gaming mainstream.  I do worry that if a formula of quality game design is created it will REALLY hurt originality.  I mean EA generally makes decent games but they follow a successful formula and end up releasing virtually the same stuff again and again and that's why I don't like them.  Sega on the other hand is much more experimental which results in some really amazing games but a less consistant amount of quality.

Anyway some of my formula for game design is as follows:
-With any problem once the player figures out what to do they should be able to solve it with minimal difficulty.  If they fail they should be able to improve.  Stuff like cheap random occurances or death due to poor control or poor camera angles should never happen.  Failure should always be the player's fault.
-Nothing must require a guide to figure out.
-The purpose of a game is for the player to DO stuff not WATCH stuff.
-Unnecessary restrictions suck.  If I can see it I should be able go up to it.  If it's not a steep hill I shouldn't need to use the stairs to go up it.  If all that's stopping me from going somewhere is a two inch fence then either let me go where I want or don't put anything beyond where I can't go.
-The player should never be stuck with no way to finish the game because they saved with too little health or not a high enough level, etc.  Put health near save points.  Do whatever to make sure the player is never totally f*cked.
-Controls have to be responsive.  And I should always feel like I'm doing what the character is doing.  In a lot of RPGs when I press an action button there's a delay.  I HATE that.
-Freedom is more important than realism.
-Games should follow these guidelines consistently.  Therefore any mini-games that are different than the traditional gameplay of the title must be as polished as the basic game.  If you can't get the fishing mini-game to play decently then get RID of it.  RPGs again are notorious for really sh!tty mini-games.

[vudu]

suffice to say, you're not a fan of the resident evil series.  i don't think any of the games adhere to a single point mentioned above.

[Ian Sane]

No I'm not really a RE fan but RE does follow the "DO stuff not WATCH stuff" rule.  RE's big flaws would be the controls and possible "player is f*cked and has to start over" situations.

My guidelines mainly come from what I like about Ocarina of Time which follows all of those guidelines to a tee.

[HereticPB]

There shouldn't be any standard. Once you start creating standards your holding down creativity and innovation. Games will all start to come out with the same mechanics, same graphics engines, etc.

NO NO NO HELL NO!

[oohhboy]

Ian had pretty much nailed down the fundamentals of a good game. Those above rules would apply to any game regardless of kind of gameplay it has on top as these rules are the underlying machanics which allow a game function as it should.

Although I would argue that better level design and A.I. would eliminate the need to have health packs at save points. The greatest example of that would be GoldenEye. If you played the game well you didn't need all that crap. You died because you were stupid and stuck your head out for too long.

-Freedom is more important than realism: Freedom in actions and movement over graphical realism, definately. But what about realism in the actions you can take and what the A.I. can or can not do. Greatest example of this would be C.S. where you would jump sniper shot. Outragously unrealisic. That freedom in the phyiscal sense must follow the rules set out by the enviroment and setting.

[KDR_11k]

I don't think realism should restrict the player in any way. If gameplay and realism conflict somewhere, throw out the realism.

[couchmonkey]

I don't think these guys are aiming to come up with a formula, necessarily.   If they're truly interested in videogames as an art, they should realize that art can't be reduced to a formula anyway.

Whatever the case may be, I find this to be a very interesting concept, but I highly doubt that it will "improve" games.  Talking about games or anything in these high-minded academic terms is fun for dorks like me, but I don't see a bunch of eggheads talking about what makes games great having any real bearing on developers.  Look at movies, you can win an armful of awards at fancy European festivals, but 99% of the time you're still screwed compared to the next James Bond movie or animated Disney "Masterpiece".

(No offence to Eggheads, fans of James Bond, or people who actually consider Disney's animated movies to be masterpieces...I've been all of the above, at one time or another.)

[Talban]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to have a group of people decide what makes a good game.  If that happens, all you'll ever see are games that follow those rules.  Games like Harvest Moon (which are so un-traditional that they defy description) would never see the light of day because they don't conform to what's "right."

On the other hand, the game industry could seriously use some basic interface standards.  Let me give you a couple of examples.  

Take Splinter Cell.  When you want to save in one of the game's ten, nondescript save slots, the default block is always the first one.  There should be a standard that, when saving, the default block selected is the game you're currently playing or the first empty block if you've started a new game.  If you wanted to select another block, you could, but your default would be to save over the game you're playing.

In the same vein, when games first come up, the default selection should only be "new game" if there are no existing saved games.  I can't tell you how frustrating it is, when you're trying to speed through the intro of Beyond Good & Evil and  you accidently start a new game.

Take Zelda: Wind Waker.  Every time you get a skull necklace, you have to wait for the game to re-explain what the item is.  On top of that, you can't just hit A and skip it, you have to wait for it to scroll across at a snails pace.  All games should allow you to skip such text and even cut scenes if you desire.  Having to wait through slow, extended, or boring scenes kills re-playability.

There are many other things like this.  Admittedly, they're minor, but they're things that a quality oriented company like Nintendo should address and insist on in their games.  Apple computer built their entire company on a detail-oriented, consistent user experience philosophy.  Games could benefit from this as well.

[Ian Sane]

"Take Zelda: Wind Waker. Every time you get a skull necklace, you have to wait for the game to re-explain what the item is. On top of that, you can't just hit A and skip it, you have to wait for it to scroll across at a snails pace. All games should allow you to skip such text and even cut scenes if you desire. Having to wait through slow, extended, or boring scenes kills re-playability."

Agreed.  It took me a few times to beat the last boss in Eternal Darkness and EVERY time I had to watch a lengthy cut scene before fighting him.  That was just really irritating.  The game should know if I've watched that cut scene before and thus allow me to skip it.  I don't have a problem with forcing players to watch cutscenes just don't force us to watch them twice.

And with Zelda the description shouldn't even come up if you already have the item.  Just say "You got a gold feather!"  If I want to know more I can re-read the description from the menu.

"Although I would argue that better level design and A.I. would eliminate the need to have health packs at save points. The greatest example of that would be GoldenEye. If you played the game well you didn't need all that crap. You died because you were stupid and stuck your head out for too long."

Are there even save points in Goldeneye?  I thought you just had one shot to beat each mission.  As far as I know it's impossible to get stuck in that game because of saving with low health so the "rule" doesn't apply.

"But what about realism in the actions you can take and what the A.I. can or can not do. Greatest example of this would be C.S. where you would jump sniper shot. Outragously unrealisic. That freedom in the phyiscal sense must follow the rules set out by the enviroment and setting."

I guess maybe the guideline should be "realism should only be used to make the game more fun."  Sometimes a lack of realism can make a game less fun so it can be useful if the situation calls for it.  In Splinter Cell for example everything is super realistic yet if I shoot a guy from a behind in the back of the neck he'll just turn around and kill me.  That is utterly ridiculous for a game that is realistic is every other sense and it really hurts the fun factor of the game (I've given up on SC because that sh!t kept causing me to lose).  On the other hand some RPGs have tried to incorporate mandatory eating and they are incredibly unfun because of it.  You spend the whole time trying to keep the party from starving to death.  But then again usually in those cases the characters need food every five minutes which is pretty unrealistic so maybe part of the rule should be "realism must be consistent".

[KDR_11k]

Ian: I could swear that's the third time I read that last paragraph. Do you copy&paste it every time the realism argument comes up?

[Ian Sane]

No you just have a bizarre reading disorder that makes you read everything three times.

I have brought up the Splinter Cell thing before but it's not a copy/paste job.  I don't think I've ever mentioned the food thing.

[couchmonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I guess maybe the guideline should be "realism should only be used to make the game more fun."  

Absolutely!  The long sailing times in Wind Waker (and gigantic game worlds in general) are a good example of how this rule should be applied.  While a big, empty wilderness is probably more representative of reality than the obstacle-laiden overworlds of games like Mario & Luigi or the older Zelda titles, it's still not as much fun.