3 ms·

The audience for games has expanded out of the computer club and into all walks of life. By some estimates, the number of people playing some sort of video gam

The audience for games has expanded out of the computer club and into all walks of life. By some estimates, the number of people playing some sort of video game has tripled in the past five years. As it happens, different people like different kinds of games. The classical male introvert gamer really enjoys difficult challenges that require focus and mastery to overcome. But, today there is a new, additional audience that enjoys a simple pleasure of directed progress much more than the thrill of defeating great threats. There is also a new audience of part-time gamers who play in very short spurts, but can't devote the extended, continuous blocks of time required to mentally log the details of complicated situations (required to recover from being lost). The classic audience is still here. And, after a lifetime of nearly all games being focused on a fairly uniform audience, some classical gamers are having a hard time adjusting to the huge influx of new games that are explicitly not targeting them for the first time. But, the old-skool games, full of challenges to overcome, are still around if you are still interested. If you want a game that cruelly beats you down until you finally get good enough to genuinely beat it back, try Dark Souls. If want a game where no matter how smart you are, there is always a smarter way to do it, try SpaceChem. If you want a strange and dangerous new world to trip you up, try Zeno Clash. If you want some sarcastic fun with friends, try Magicka. If you want to compete at any level from pants-on-head to world-champion, try StarCraft II. If you want a game where you make incredible things come to be, but there are no graphics to speak of, try Dwarf Fortress. And, if you need more suggestions, here's a list of what reddit.com/r/gaming is talking about: http://nowplaying.gamedifferences.com/ http://nowplaying.gamedifferences.com/

JoshTriplett 15y ago
Note that the article specifically distinguishes between the idea of helping out a lost player (see the paragraph about the help system in Machinarium) and the idea of assuming that all players need continuous help. The former seems perfectly fine; the latter feels patronizing. Also note the main quote from the article: 'Saying that "any game should be finished by anyone". is not the same as saying "any game must be completed by anyone". The verb complete implies a 100% goal.' Consider the progression of maps in Metroid games. The original Metroid had no map whatsoever. Super Metroid had an automatic map which recorded the locations you'd seen, to help you find your way around and see what you'd explored; that also gave you a vague idea of the size of the world. Metroid Prime had an automap, together with an optional hint system that reminded you of your next major objective if you wandered around for too long without doing anything; however, the hint system wouldn't lead you to 100% of items, just the main required upgrades and objectives. Metroid Fusion put the whole game on rails, so you could almost never wander off course, though still had to poke around a bit if you wanted 100% completion. A similar progression occurred in the Zelda series. The original didn't even tell you where to find dungeons or how to get inside when you did. Link to the Past marked major objectives on the map. The first few 3D Zelda games (Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask) had a map with major objectives plus an optional hint system if you forget where to go. The two Wii titles so far have introduced increasingly long tutorial segments (but at least they have plot), increasingly invasive hint systems that you can't ignore or disable, and constant reminders about established game mechanics. (That doesn't make them bad games, and they still have enough exploration and puzzles to provide a pile of fun, but the hints and reminders got obnoxious and patronizing very quickly.) In both cases, I think the "automap with optional hints" approach seems like the right balance, while "forced hints and reminders" goes too far. I don't pine for the days when games introduced huge artificial difficulty by forcing you to wander around until you guessed what to do; I just don't games to drag me through the whole way without even a "shut up" option.

JoshTriplett 15y ago

Note that the article specifically distinguishes between the idea of helping out a lost player (see the paragraph about the help system in Machinarium) and the idea of assuming that all players need continuous help. The former seems perfectly fine; the latter feels patronizing. Also note the main quote from the article: 'Saying that "any game should be finished by anyone". is not the same as saying "any game must be completed by anyone". The verb complete implies a 100% goal.' Consider the progression of maps in Metroid games. The original Metroid had no map whatsoever. Super Metroid had an automatic map which recorded the locations you'd seen, to help you find your way around and see what you'd explored; that also gave you a vague idea of the size of the world. Metroid Prime had an automap, together with an optional hint system that reminded you of your next major objective if you wandered around for too long without doing anything; however, the hint system wouldn't lead you to 100% of items, just the main required upgrades and objectives. Metroid Fusion put the whole game on rails, so you could almost never wander off course, though still had to poke around a bit if you wanted 100% completion. A similar progression occurred in the Zelda series. The original didn't even tell you where to find dungeons or how to get inside when you did. Link to the Past marked major objectives on the map. The first few 3D Zelda games (Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask) had a map with major objectives plus an optional hint system if you forget where to go. The two Wii titles so far have introduced increasingly long tutorial segments (but at least they have plot), increasingly invasive hint systems that you can't ignore or disable, and constant reminders about established game mechanics. (That doesn't make them bad games, and they still have enough exploration and puzzles to provide a pile of fun, but the hints and reminders got obnoxious and patronizing very quickly.) In both cases, I think the "automap with optional hints" approach seems like the right balance, while "forced hints and reminders" goes too far. I don't pine for the days when games introduced huge artificial difficulty by forcing you to wander around until you guessed what to do; I just don't games to drag me through the whole way without even a "shut up" option.