Soren Johnson's 8 Things Not To Do in Game Design

[dh_epic]

I imagine there's a lot of people who play mostly with their friends, and so they don't mind resuming a saved game. PitBoss has a pretty good audience, too. But the fact remains that a thriving MP community requires good "ladder play", and that means picking up saved games is rare.

Again, it's not to make the point that Civ is SP only, or they'll eventually force everyone to play on quick mode. It's just to add more fuel to the notion that they're trying to hold the line on how complex the game gets. That's not just so newbie-SPers can understand the game, but also so you can actually finish an anonymous MP game.

 

[shiremct]

I think that Soren Johnson mis-phrased his title for the complexity paragraph... he's not really talking about complexity it seems in terms of game design and layers, but of the number of individual pieces of content within existing layers. Like is a swordsman unit really required when you have the axeman as currently implemented? Some would argue yes, some would argue no, but this is the sort of question that illustrates what he meant, at least it seems so to me.

But for the sake of the arguement, I think the success of a more complex design is almost entirely based on its implementation. For example, look at Dungeon Siege 1: The character leveling system was too simple, by far. It's important to keep in mind there is a such thing as too simple. Now look at Dungeon Siege 2: Here you had the same basic system with a new game element (skills) that added complexity and added to the game in a positive way. Titan Quest functioned similarly but was even more complex and polished, in fact, Titan Quest had the best character development system of any hack-n-slash rpg i have ever played, but the game's short campaign was less-than stellar and had ZERO replay value.

Now look at Oblivion's character development system: Its basically the same as Dungeon Siege 1 at its core. Dungeon Siege 1 had one of the worst systems because of its pitifully simple design, but Oblivion's tops even DS1 and its much much more complex. The difference is in the implementation: DS1 -> DS2 saw a new layer that really added to the capabilities of you character and made sense within itself. DS1 -> Oblivion saw basically an increase in the components of the same useless layers and new layers that added nearly nothing to the experience. The result was a mess that failed to be enjoyable. And no I'm not implying Oblivion was made by the same company or was a sequel of any sort to Dungeon Siege, just the similarities of the character development systems present within them.

The golden rule is responsiveness. If you can implement an additional layer of complexity but keep the overall system responsive and meaningful, you will probably add to the game in a positive way, but just like there is a such thing as too simple, there is also a too complex.

 

[DaviddesJ]

DS1 -> Oblivion saw basically an increase in the components of the same useless layers and new layers that added nearly nothing to the experience. The result was a mess that failed to be enjoyable.

Is your analysis supposed to explain why Oblivion was hugely successful with both critics and players?

 

[shiremct]

Oblivion had many good qualities, not the least of which was it being impressively easy to mod (To fix the bad ones), but its character development system was NOT one of them. Nor was its interface.

Oblivion suffered from the opposite pitfalls that Titan Quest fell into; its game world is large, non-linear and open, and has massive replay value, especially with the many and varied mods from the community which can be used modularly with one another, but its character development and some other game mechanics are rather poor. Both titles had poor interfaces 8 /

 

[DaviddesJ]

But, obviously, the overwhelming majority of people disagreed with you about these flaws. Right? I think it's great for different people to have different opinions, but it's not all that useful to generate principles of game design when they contradict what's actually popular with most reviewers and players.

 

[HypnosTene]

Is your analysis supposed to explain why Oblivion was hugely successful with both critics and players?

Hugely successful with the mass market who also promoted GTA3. And who regularly vote FF7 as the BEST GAME EVER.The response among hardcore RPG circles was much worse.

And even among my friends who like the Elder Scrolls series, it is universally considered the worst installment of the series and another example how console gaming can cripple a good concept.

But, obviously, the overwhelming majority of people disagreed with you about these flaws. Right? I think it's great for different people to have different opinions, but it's not all that useful to generate principles of game design when they contradict what's actually popular with most reviewers and players.

Right. And pop music is as good as Dan Brown.

 

[shiremct]

I don't personally know the masses, but every single fellow gamer I know disapproves of the character development system in Oblivion except for one, and he only plays console games, which is a whole different ballpark in terms of expectations and precedents. Critical acclaim is a joke with ANY game so I only base my opinions on my own and my fellow gamers' observations. I modded Oblivion for a while and the stock leveling system was not highly approved of, even on their official forums. Much of the community replaced it with mods aside from those who were unwilling to use any mods at all.

I'm just trying to illustrate a point with Oblivion as an example, and it's perfectly okay if you don't agree with my logic, but I think you overestimate the PC gaming community's happiness with the game.

 

[DaviddesJ]

And even among my friends who like the Elder Scrolls series, it is universally considered the worst installment of the series and another example how console gaming can cripple a good concept.

Sure. But this is evidence that your friends are unrepresentative of the market. For example:

Metacritic
Elder Scrolls III = 80%
Elder Scrolls IV = 94%

Rotten Tomatoes
Elder Scrolls III = 88%
Elder Scrolls IV = 100%

To the community of people who actually review and play these games, ES4 was a great advance over ES3. It's not even close.

If the designers were attempting to make a game to appeal to your friends, perhaps they didn't do so well. But if their goal was to appeal to the broad market of CRPG gamers, they succeeded spectacularly.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I think you overestimate the PC gaming community's happiness with the game.

I would like to think you are right, because I don't like the direction of PC gaming either. But what objective metrics would you substitute for mine?

 

[shiremct]

You mistake my statement; I have only said that Oblivion's character development system is bad, I didn't say the game in general was bad. The game has many great qualities and I personally still enjoy playing it (with mods), but the character development system in particular was not great and that is all I was using for my point. All the people I know of don't like the character development system, NOT they all don't like the game. I'm not sure where you get this idea my point is invalid because I claim the game sucks but it gets good reviews... I made no such claim.

I simply mentioned Oblivion's leveling system to evidence my point, not to claim it was a bad game. You're interpreting this as a completely different subject. But just for the sake of it, you can feed me any number of reviews from any website you like, it means nothing to me... I don't trust any of them anymore. I modded this game many months and I saw and participated in many conversations on just this subject in the the official forums with those who DID play and mod the game. But the great thing is if you don't like/support my point of view on design, you don't have to make a game with it.

EDIT: with regard to your question, I don't think it's really relevant. A fair many people here don't like the lack of support for marathon and longer game speeds, but that doesn't mean they don't like the game, especially when you consider how many mods are out there that make those changes for them. Its the same with Oblivion's leveling system. I'm not trying to argue Oblivion was a bad game, just that it had some (very) bad design issues, luckily ones that could be modded easily

 

[DaviddesJ]

But just for the sake of it, you can feed me any number of reviews from any website you like, it means nothing to me.

It means something about how to create popular and successful games, which is the subject of this thread. Soren isn't saying to avoid these 8 things because they will lead to games he personally dislikes. He's saying that these are things that will lead to games that are not well received by the overall gaming public. Whether or not you agree with his particular points, this is what they are about.

 

[Gelvan]

I really don't like the idea of "reduce to the max".

Sure 200 spells like in Baldur's Gate won't be used, as long as it is SO complicated to use them at all (select the spells, rest, only 8 at the time…) - BUT if you have a game where it's possible to use 200 spells, without unnessecary "realistic" aproaches (for example like in Spellforce) - that's fun.

Civ4 does a really good job regarding the workers: instead of like in Civ 1 & 3 where in the end you had thousands of workers without any purpose, in Civ 2 you had the option to change the terrain, and in Civ 4 you will want to make windmills out of mines in the later stage of the game. You really have to DECIDE something, and that make's it funny. Also the descision which wonder's to build, the diplomatic descisions - that's great.

What I don't like in Civ 3 & 4, in the un-modded game: it's really difficult to overcome the long bow archers / musketeers with knights. in Civ 1 + 2 knights were GREAT (as they should be), in Civ 3 & 4 you have to wait until you can build cannon before you can make a "useful" war. Also, the unit stacking of CIV 3 was really the most un-funny thing of all CIV games...

Games like MOO2 show that complexity with a great interface are the best way to go. Games like MOO3 show that micromanagement not nescessarely is ..er needed. As long as it is complex "behind the scenes". But complexity as is - should be in.

So in my opinion Sorenson has just not used the right words: it's not, that a game can be too complex - Civ4 IS complex (especially for anybody who has not played CIV since 1991). The question is: how is the players aproach to the game's complexity - can he USE the complexity or is it an obstruction.

 

[dh_epic]

Money is a pretty good metric for what Soren is talking about.

Me personally, I have a LOT of patience for complexity. Especially for a franchise that I've grown to love. But people like me are a niche market. There's audiences of all different tastes, and some can handle more complexity than others. But at a certain point, you make a game so complex that only the most hardcore will enjoy it. A game like that is a marketing disaster, and pretty much kills a franchise.