PDA

View Full Version : Simplicity "drives the industry"


Pages : [1] 2

NarcissistZero
03-11-10, 02:18 PM
At GDC there was a Fable 3 presentation and here was a key slide:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/03/photo__1_.jpg

As you can see, despite Fable 2 being dumbed down to the point a monkey could play it it just wasn't dumbed down enough, because half the people playing it were too dumb to know what to do.

The answer? MORE SIMPLICITY!

I think we should start a forum pool on how long the mainstream industry has before it completely kills its core audience, for better or worse, and we are all playing indie or small studio games.

I bet 3 years.

Article here: http://kotaku.com/5491095/problem-fable-gamers-didnt-understand-half-of-fables-features

|MaguS|
03-11-10, 02:44 PM
Eh its Peter Monowhateverhisnameis, He is pretty retarded to knowning what actually the gamers want. He's basing this on that fact that many people never fully completed the game, but I would say its more about Fable 2 being not that good then being too difficult.

Noriega
03-11-10, 04:01 PM
Dumbed-down is all what next gens are about

t3hl33td4rg0n
03-11-10, 05:00 PM
Aren't console games dumbed down enough?

Fable 3 = Peggle RPG?

lawl

NarcissistZero
03-11-10, 05:08 PM
This is getting hillarious... some quotes:

"According to Molyneux, Microsoft user research revealed that a majority of Fable 3 players understood fewer than half of the features in the game. "We're creating content that people literally don't care about," said Molyneux."

Why wouldn't their response be "wow, half our entire player base cares about this"? Why do they default to caring more about the idiots?

To help rectify this, Fable 3's menu system is managed entirely from within the game world. When players pause the game, their character is instantly warped to a chamber with different rooms that serve different functions. Molyneux specifically demonstrated the dressing room, where players will change clothes. Molyneux contrasted the process with that of Fable 2, in which changing outfits was like "going in the morning and choosing index cards to choose what you wear."

So instead of bringing up a menu and quickly changing your outfit or armor you have to warp to another area, likely through a load time, then walk to a certain room, then change clothes.

And this is... easier? More intuitive? Really?

Because it sounds like the opposite.

I played Fable 2 and it was a decent RPG ruined by trying to be for everyone, rather than cater to an audience. That is a real problem with all console games this generation for the most part, in my experience, and it of course carries over to PC as well through ports or similar design ideas. There really comes a point where you are not going to be Peggle, and you are no longer Fallout, and then nobody cares at all.

Redeemed
03-11-10, 05:20 PM
I gots an idear- since developers are doing all they can to try and please everybody, they should have no plot.

If you cater to the lowest common denominator, and then make that standard, it'll be something everybody can grasp.

FPS- just have it very generic- make it a hallway that randomly changes directions. Each new section of hallway will have "targets" to shoot- no story at all. Just start, make this last for 8 or so hours, and then roll credits.

Easy.

For RPG's- scratch that. The nature of RPG's implies far too much complexity. No more RPGs.

For RTS's- have the game automatically build up your army. At the bottom have one giant red button. Simply click it to launch devestating attacks on your enemy with the AI choosing how to attack for you. The more you mash this button, the more damage you inflict.

We'll stop here. Anymore than two catagories an it becomes too complicated.


:headexplode:

NarcissistZero
03-11-10, 05:28 PM
For RTS's- have the game automatically build up your army. At the bottom have one giant red button. Simply click it to launch devestating attacks on your enemy with the AI choosing how to attack for you. The more you mash this button, the more damage you inflict.

This has already happened in other genres really... Fable 2 has no dying, no real penalty at all, you just pop right back up where you were. Thus, when fighting an enemy, isn't it just "click the button to make them die"? You could literally stand there and mash the button and eventually win.

And this is too complicated, he says.

I could see this in other genres... RTS, FPS, whatever... Prey and Bioshock pretty much already did it.

The future is interactive movies, not games. Games require risk and reward, a chance to lose, tactics, whatever. We need to completely rename the hobby from the looks of things.

"Interactive Entertainment."

Oh wait, I think a lot of publishers already did this.

Armed_Baboon
03-11-10, 05:43 PM
This is the future of gaming:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/371944179_90fdf9690d.jpg

Redeemed
03-11-10, 05:48 PM
:(

Sazar
03-11-10, 06:47 PM
http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/easy-button.jpg

DansFace
03-11-10, 07:19 PM
meh people need to listen to bioware and the mass effect 2 creators not this peter guy.. I really don't see one game coming out this year that will please me mass effect 2 ...
except maybe starcraft 2 but it'll please me in a multi-player manner :]

Armed_Baboon
03-11-10, 09:24 PM
meh people need to listen to bioware and the mass effect 2 creators not this peter guy.. I really don't see one game coming out this year that will please me mass effect 2 ...
except maybe starcraft 2 but it'll please me in a multi-player manner :]

hmmm, you prefer solo pleasure? hehehe :D

Vanzagar
03-11-10, 11:54 PM
This is the future of gaming:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/371944179_90fdf9690d.jpg

why do you have to make it so confusing...

NarcissistZero
03-12-10, 12:52 AM
Yeah really, do I press the button or pull on it?

I'm confused.

Vanzagar
03-12-10, 01:02 AM
gawd, I was thinking you had to turn it to win.... this sucks...

methimpikehoses
03-12-10, 01:06 AM
groan

Buio
03-12-10, 04:54 AM
As long as they make money doing fairly complicated games, there will be studios doing that. Even now there are companies doing PC-only advanced strategy games like for example Paradox Interactive and Matrix Games.

Sure there might be less blockbuster big number games. But maybe the easy going crowd isn't really interested in buying a lot of games, and most are really happy with their Wii and few games they got. Therefore there isn't a huge end of the rainbow pot of gold market that these guys seems to believe exist. Hope it backfires and the easy mode idiot game pushing idiots get burned.

NarcissistZero
03-12-10, 05:56 AM
As long as they make money doing fairly complicated games, there will be studios doing that. Even now there are companies doing PC-only advanced strategy games like for example Paradox Interactive and Matrix Games.

This is very true, at least for strategy and RPG games, but I think a lot of us would be sad to see the death of larger budget games in those genres with any intelligence.

I like retro-style indie games with small budgets, but I don't want them as my only gaming outlet.

LydianKnight
03-12-10, 06:34 AM
This is the future of gaming:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/371944179_90fdf9690d.jpg

:lol2:

Buio
03-12-10, 12:21 PM
This is very true, at least for strategy and RPG games, but I think a lot of us would be sad to see the death of larger budget games in those genres with any intelligence.

Indeed, the "blockbuster" productions have already moved to consoles in large. But maybe we will see a shift back sometime, hard to predict the future of gaming.

Saw that Lionhead looks for PC-people now, maybe Fable will be converted to PC.
http://www.vg247.com/2010/03/12/molyneux-says-platforms-in-relation-to-fable-iii-job-listing-says-pc/

bacon12
03-12-10, 04:50 PM
Why not keep all the casual dumbed down games on the consoles anyways? Isn't this what the wee wee was made for?

|MaguS|
03-12-10, 05:03 PM
Why not keep all the casual dumbed down games on the consoles anyways? Isn't this what the wee wee was made for?

Because the market for Casual Games on the PC is far larger then that of consoles. Have you ever seen PopCap Series? Heck Farmville on Facebook is one of the most popular casual games in the world... The PC is more popular platform for casual games then consoles so stop crying when they announce casual centric games for PC, its not shifting to that style... it's already there.

bacon12
03-12-10, 05:12 PM
You are talking about two different types of games here so you really don't have a point. Fable 3 is not Peggle you tard. :P IMO a casual game is not a something that takes hours to complete or even has an ending.

NarcissistZero
03-12-10, 05:23 PM
Indeed, the "blockbuster" productions have already moved to consoles in large. But maybe we will see a shift back sometime, hard to predict the future of gaming.

Saw that Lionhead looks for PC-people now, maybe Fable will be converted to PC.
http://www.vg247.com/2010/03/12/molyneux-says-platforms-in-relation-to-fable-iii-job-listing-says-pc/

I usually do not involve myself with such PC gamer bravado, but I literally have no interest at all in Fable 3 on PC, not only because we never got 2, but also because it just will likely not be a game I would enjoy playing at all.

|MaguS|
03-12-10, 06:50 PM
You are talking about two different types of games here so you really don't have a point. Fable 3 is not Peggle you tard. :P IMO a casual game is not a something that takes hours to complete or even has an ending.

You are the one who stated "Why not keep all the casual dumbed down games on the consoles anyways?" I take that as you claiming that console games are casual games or that console games are dumb down and casual style oriented compared to PCs which YOU even admitted right there is not the case. Casual games by definition are games that can be started and stop in short playtimes, consoles has FAR fewer casual games then PC.