Comments
6 CommentsThis week has been a week of contemplation for me. You see I've been doing a lot of reading about video games and checking out a ton of sites where enthusiasts like to lurk and it amazes me how much passion people have for some games. I can't think of any other industry that has it so easy as the games industry with something so fundamentally easy.
All you need to do is make a fun game right? But tons of games are fun, yet they don't continue to draw us back to them. I am trying to understand what makes a game fun and yet also draws us back to it no matter what. The simple games I am finding on XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade) are doing a great job of keeping things simple and yet bringing me back. For example, Pac-Man Championship Edition is a game that I might leave for a while, but I can easily come back to it again and again.
The game is nothing special (yet maybe it is) and the boards never change so it's not as if you are looking for anything new. The only purpose is to beat your previous high score or the score of your friends. That is really it. Yet such a simple game you start to find yourself looking for strategies or ways to shave off some time yet adding more points. Because of this the game takes on an added complexity that most games would die for.
The latest game I downloaded from XBLA is Track & Field. This is an old school game as well, graphics are what you expect from a game done in the 80s/90s and the gameplay is downright simple. Move the controller back and forth and press A at the right time, that's it. Yet I play this game every single day for the sole purpose of trying to improve my score.
Ikaruga is the same way. The shooter only has 5 levels and all you do is switch colors and shoot, yet the depth of the gameplay goes far beyond that.
I'm not saying that the simple games are the only fun ones because that isn't the case. It's that these are simple games on the surface and if you are willing to look there is depth to them that you might not have noticed before.
A great example of this is World of Warcraft. If I sat here trying to explain everything to you then I would probably make it sound like the deepest game known to man, but when it comes down to it the gameplay is as simple as can be. Kill monsters, gain experience, level up. For simplistic reasons let's say you are a warrior, you can just run up to a mob, swing your axe, kill it and that's it. Rinse and repeat. Very simple, but yet not that fun when you portray it like that.
The fun kicks in when you think about what skills you might get at the next level, what new places you will get to see. That is one part, but then you can see you go through different talent trees to change the way you play the game. You can group up with different classes to see how they go about it. You can take up professions to enhance the game in ways you couldn't imagine. Like to crunch numbers? You can get involved in some craft theory to achieve maximum performance with your gear selection. In the end though you don't have to do this. You can still just run up to a monster, kill it and go find another.
Breakout, solitaire, tetris...all games that have no story behind them. No game play trickery. Simple mechanics and you don't need anyone to teach you how to play them, you just sit down and go at it. Games with million dollar budgets fail yet a game with a ball that breaks bricks sticks around for decades? Games can be fun with a big budget and great story, but they aren't necessarily fun because of that.
I can explain to you why I like a game, but that doesn't mean that is the reason why it is fun to everyone. There has to be a universal rule(s) to games that makes them fun or not fun and maybe I'm trying to find it. Unlike the simple games that I love, maybe I am trying to complicate things.
Tony
Written Jul. 11, 2008 / Report /
I don't think there is universal rule. I think it's all about execution:
You elude to it yourself, "simple" games are fun because they're easy to pick up (Uno in person or XBLA), good to pass the time (Tetris/Solitaire) or good activities for groups (Twister). I think the latter is the reason why the Wii is dominating this generation: great for parties/families.
The more involved games will always be fun because core games are the foundation of the industry and will always be catered to. Rainbow Six (probably my favorite console franchise right now) is so much fun because it's executed beautifully. I can't get into other FPS/Army games because it's not as slick as Rainbow. It's the beautiful combination of depth and simple objectives.
Scrivs
Written Jul. 11, 2008 / Report /
There is something to a game being easy to pick up. I don't think all of the objectives have to be easy, but the fundamental gameplay should be. Press A to jump, B to run fast for example. Beyond that you can start to add complexity with how you combine such controls.
Because of this simplicity though I think game developers miss the execution part. You allude to it perfectly with Rainbow Six. There are many games that fit the same mold, but how they go about executing the idea is never up to par.
World of Warcraft follows the same standard, there is simply an execution there that you can't find anywhere else at the moment.
Ozone42
Written Jul. 11, 2008 / Report /
Wii Sports Tennis is one of the most enjoyable video games I've played in years. Everyone I've got to try it can play decently within 2 rounds, and then they're addicted.
There's a lot of nuance to it as well. You can pick it up easily, but you can't master it without a lot of work... but it's not WORK, it's fun.
WoW is fun, but a lot of the objectives are too close to WORK rather than game. It's accessible to a certain type of gamer.
So for me a game needs to be easy to pick up, have enough nuance to give a lot of replayability, or at least some sort of reward system that is engaging. That doesn't cover the "fun" factor either. I'm not sure what that is, perhaps enough variety in what happens, and a enough style to make it unique and interesting.
fuscom
Written Jul. 11, 2008 / Report /
There's something in each paragraph you wrote which answers your question.
The secret to these games is dual purposed, I believe. First, it's a simple, quick route to escapism...a quick and easy "move the controller back and forth and press A at the right time" trip away from the complexities of reality.
Secondly, there's the psychological effect of "this is too easy, it's got to be more difficult / I can whip this easy" challenge that we all seek. When the ghost eats out last pacman or the computer calls us 'a mere space cadet" when our line of defenders fails to protect our ship...we're faced with that oh no this simple thing did not just beat me...I'm smarter than it is factor.
I would reckon it's the same need for a quick win that causes most hardcore gamers to seek the cheats of the more elaborate and complex games.
It's probably also the reason why I can't easily allow myself to get beaten by my 7 year-old son when we're playing on the Xbox.
Scrivs
Written Jul. 11, 2008 / Report /
There is something to a game being easy to pick up. I don't think all of the objectives have to be easy, but the fundamental gameplay should be. Press A to jump, B to run fast for example. Beyond that you can start to add complexity with how you combine such controls.
Because of this simplicity though I think game developers miss the execution part. You allude to it perfectly with Rainbow Six. There are many games that fit the same mold, but how they go about executing the idea is never up to par.
World of Warcraft follows the same standard, there is simply an execution there that you can't find anywhere else at the moment.
Tyme
Written Jul. 11, 2008 / Report /
I read this yesterday and I had to give it some thought. When a game is too easy to me I become bored, quickly. I enjoy a challenge, the feeling of mastering the game. When it is too hard (like Myst) I become too frustrated so I feel for developers trying to balance a challenge with being too difficult for "everyone". Some of the web games on Pogo keep me coming back simply because they make me "think".
I agree and it would take a company game a lot of resources to compete with what Blizzard built over time, especially with the expansion coming out. Blizzard is one of the few companies that has the resources to spend on a game and will spend it (and the time) on a game getting it right. Looking at the gameplay video for Diablo it looks like it will be the same way. Of course, they've been working on this game for something like 3 or 4 yrs already. Very few companies can sink that kind of money into a game and know they can reap a return.