Obviously, the answer to the question posed in the title of this post is, “No, difficult games do not need to go the way of the dodo.” However, longtime players often lament the almost indisputable notion that games have, in fact, become easier over time. And I’m about to suggest that maybe they should get even more so.
Whether you preferred playing Ninja Gaiden Black as a “Master Ninja” or a “Ninja Dog,” click on through and be sure and let me know if my recent experience sounds familiar to you.
Now, before I begin, know this: when it comes to games-related terminology, I’m a pretty high-minded kind of guy. A jerk, even. For instance, you don’t call it gameplay. Why? Because there’s no such thing as bookread. So when a developer insists on dividing their content into episodes and chapters rather than, say, stages, you’d better believe I’m going to get behind them. That’s why, late last night while I was finishing Half-Life 2: Episode One, I was way surprised to hear myself muttering about the “crappy level” I was on.
This may not seem especially significant, and in the grand scheme of game design, it probably isn’t. But during the particular points at which things got overwhelmingly heated, I ceased to think about Episode One as an experience. Instead, it became a struggle to endure, an ax to grind, a chore to finish. And even my diction reflected that.
It really makes me wonder: do hard games get a bad rap? Do players revert to language that’s been around since the medium’s infancy every time they become frustrated with a game, and, if so, how will critics ever manage to break new ground? Is extreme accessibility the catalyst that gaming needs in order to end up being the next (really) big thing?
Tags: Half-Life 2: Episode One, ninja dog, Ninja Gaiden Black, Team Ninja, Valve
26 August 2008 at 9:55 pm
I hope you won’t mind a response from someone who still occasionally uses “gameplay” to describe the ludic aspects of a game - mainly because I still haven’t come across a word people will understand that works better.
I think accessibility really is the next stage of game evolution; more important than AI or graphics or online interconnectivity, or any other game design element. The keyboard/mouse and gamepad, when you really stop to examine them, are terribly kludgy interfaces. The Wii-mote may not be the final answer (I hope not!), but it points the way toward a method of interacting with games that makes sense.
Obviously, accessibility has implications for overall game design as well. I’m in no way suggesting all games be “dumbed down” or made “grandma-friendly,” but just like products from other industries, the very best, most intelligently engineered products are often the simplest to use. Simple and easy can be very hard to do.
Thanks for your blog. I’ve enjoyed reading and chuckling my way through your recent posts. The retail game space is a real nightmare, ain’t it?
27 August 2008 at 12:27 pm
As for “gameplay”: I tend to favor the somewhat cumbersome “game mechanics.” But I’m really not THAT much of a snob. As the Gershwins would say, “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off.”
Glad you brought up various gaming interfaces. These items are usually the first (at least physically) to suffer when the going gets tough. In my younger days, I certainly wasn’t above throwing a controller or punching a television. Oddly enough, such stuff seems fairly commonplace where extremely difficult, often arcade-y (Geometry Wars 2, for instance) games are involved. This kind of regressive behavior (and its potential to affect critical thinking about games) is both fascinating and kind of scary.
I’m happy to hear you enjoyed the “Overheard in…” and “On the Phone with…” posts. They’re most representative of where I’d like this blog to go. Games won’t truly come into their own until specialty retail outlets can mature a little bit. Online distribution isn’t going to take over all that quickly, and the truly mainstream audience will likely still turn to brick and mortar first for quite a while yet. I feel some friendly prodding is in order.