I’ve decided to continue from my last post with a whole series of posts talking about aspects of video games.
We as humans tend to have a love for grouping and classifying things. What can we say, we love taxonomy. We primarily classify games in very specific tiers or levels, most of which go unnamed and often unconsidered. I have listed them here in as simple a way as possible.
-Macro-Cultural Origin; Western or Eastern
-Base Cultural Origin; Europe and North America most specifically
-Micro Cultural Origin; from individual countries (Australia, Japan, Korea, England, Germany, France, The States, Canada, Poland, Russia, Ukraine etc)
-Gameplay structuring: Turn Based, Real Time
-Non-diegetic Interactivity: player either acts upon or Interacts (adventure games) with the game world
-Diegetic interactivity: How interactive the actual game world is; a gradient from none to very
-Diegetic Relevance: How important said interaction has with the player, world and the narrative.
-Narrative/Spatial constriction: From Open World to Linear.
-Realism: the gradient of which one gauges a game; from arcade to simulation
-Accessibility: a gradient of which a game is considered from casual to hardcore
-Viewpoint: First Person, Third Person, Third Person Omniscient (the sims, strategy games)
-Design Genre: RPG, Shooter, Adventure, Action, Strategy, and any hybrid possible
-Narrative Genre: Science Fiction, Military, Fantasy, Real World Fiction, Crime, etc
-Thematic Genre: Horror, Adventure, Action, Satire, etc
The list can go on forever, getting more specific and anal about little details that ultimately don’t matter. The depth of which I have gone into gives all the base points for picturing/describing a game.
For example, take a game such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. It is a: Western; European game; from Ukraine; that is Real Time; in which a player acts upon a world; with limited interactivity; But said interaction has great affect upon the game world and narrative. It is a somewhat open world game; with a heavy focus on realism; and hardcore gameplay. It is a First Person; Action-Adventure-RPG-Shooter; Science Fiction Game; with a Thematic focus on Horror and Adventure.
Each aspect and influence, from the continent and country of origin to the viewpoint in which you play the game from, has an effect on how we envision the game will be. And rightly so since every cultural, national origin and design choice ultimately has a great impact on the game, how its played, how it regarded and what demographic it will appeal to.
While I argue that we should throw down our classifications and allow game design to run wild and mutate into new and various breeds of interactive entertainment; I know people are stupidly adherent to classification and tend to regard real hybrids with confusion and anger (a lot of complaints I hear about Brutal Legend confirm this).
What I instead intend to focus is what said taxonomy says about game design in general. This fill in blank, madlib sheet for games acts in very much the same manner as socio-ethnic prejudice. People, whether aware of the fact or not, have a tendency to stereotype games based on design points and generalize games from where they come from. This tends to affect the widespread appeal of games to the general gaming population who base most of their decisions and views on second and third hand opinion, personal prejudice, massive generalization, and wildly wrong assumptions. Much like how they govern their lives, in fact.
But I digress, as the inherent problem with gaming stereotypes is that for the most part, they are true. Many games that come from Japan and Korea tend to be anime influenced, turn based, fantasy rpg melodramas featuring angsty androgynous teenagers. And since what represents 60-70 percent of the eastern games that reach our western market resemble the above mentioned stereotype, it forms a solid base from which we form our opinions despite direct opposition to the fact with examples such as Dynasty Warriors, Demon’s Souls, Lost Planet, Resident Evil etc. Is it right? No. Is it excusable? No! But does it have basis in fact? Yes, yes it does.
But unfortunately, this realization within itself goes on to raise even further questions about the nature of game design itself. The fact that stereotyped games exist and are fundamentally true makes me question the validity of game design, period. This can be easily explained. Game stereotypes exist simply because they sell. People have an overwhelming preponderance towards safe investments because it’s easy to pick what you like and never take any chances.
Unfortunately, this has led to a refinement of a Lego snap-together design document that developers use today to build games that sell. It makes marketable games with minimal effort or cost and the expense of orginality. Put plot point A with introduction of Gameplay feature B. Driving segment C should lead into base assault 3A. Street Level fight G should finish with mandatory tank fight R. Finish off game with set piece 42-Alpha. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Modern Warfare 2!
While this may be attributed to the refinement of games into a high concept entertainment business, which leads to the relatively homogenized nature of game design we see now, and this is true, I argue a counterpoint. I argue that even being unoriginal, most game design is simply terrible. This is, once again, the calling card of my old friend, Stupidity.
And yes, it is stupidity. People walk around and say they are lazy or uninspired. I pose the fact that stupidity is prevalent here because game designers are trained to think this way. It’s called super-specialization. Many are trained to think and act in certain ways, using rote process instead of creativity to develop their games. They are, by process of their own education, drained of actual intelligence and creativity. The levels they make are rote and so by the book that if they weren’t visually interesting, it would literally look like you were running around a large corridor with some cover. The game features they implement are so mediocre and overused by the rest of game industry, you could strip a game of it’s textures and label and they would not be able to tell the difference between one game or another. But challenging someone trained like this causes them to virtually malfunction. They are so used to doing something a certain way that asking them to do something different will stop them dead in their tracks.
People may ask what is the inherent difference between stupidity and simple ignorance in these situations. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge but the ability to learn. There is nothing wrong with that. Stupidity is the lack of knowledge without the ability or willingness to learn coupled with the complete lack of understanding the basics of real design, which should be understood before making any effort.
The best example is stupid level design. The inherent artificiality of levels in games today is a crime. They design spaces to look real with no understanding of how reality works. Take a street level for example. A street is designed for maximum population access and use. This leads to problems in the level design such as frequent side streets and buildings. So developers miraculously solve this problem by making every side street and off shoot result in a dead end, or are blocked off by cars or police barriers. But can’t people just jump over the hood? Not if they can’t jump!!! There are also buildings that people enter and use. Oh, wait all the doors are locked. The lack of understanding of how spaces and objects work is simply astounding. Is it not possible that people can jump over barriers and cars or break glass to get access to a building?
They either don’t understand this or simply don’t care. But what really makes me cry on the inside is the absolute brain bending idiocy to not realize the potential of maximizing the use of the street. Imagine using buildings for cover or using them to get to the access point, turning a regular street level battle into a pitched fight across small businesses and roof tops. And what about side streets? Sneaking behind buildings to take out forces without being seen greatly increases the options for the gameplay and replaying. And the barriers? People can get around cars and signs quite easily in the real world, so why is it so damn hard here. What about blocking off an area with a collapsed building or even a huge vehicle like a fire truck or a train? It makes absolutely no sense and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be fixed. This literally took me, some university student from Canada, five minutes to figure out and yet it never occurred to these seasoned game design veterans?
But stupid game design is just as widespread and inane. Take for example the over use of the ‘RPG’ mechanics in shooters nowadays, using very basic stats levelling system to give ‘options’ to the player. Without significant focus on this feature, it’s merely a vestigial left over which just artificially pads the game and gives false depth to it. It’s essentially pointless. Furthermore, you don’t have to increase the complexity of a game to make it better. In many cases pure simplicity actually provides a more pure and rewarding experience. What about rechargeable health bars and the QTE in favour of gameplay or simple cutscenes? Just because every thing can be interactive, does not inherently mean it should be and what the hell is wrong with a goddamn health pack.
However the worst offender of bad game design in recent history I can think of is Far Cry 2. Don’t get me wrong, I really like that game, but for god’s sakes, some of the choices made in the design phase of the product are utterly moronic. For example, why are you randomly attacked every five minutes? Why does everyone want to kill you despite allegiances? Why do you take a taxi into the game but have to use a bus for quick travel. Why are the save spots so damn hard to see? What’s with the crappy widescreen function? Why do all your buddies get into trouble every mission? Why do enemies see you from a mile away from behind a bush? Why does stealth not work? Why is there no real ending to the game? What is with the inherent lack of SDK for PC users? None of these problem’s make any sense and could easily have fixed with a little play testing and tweaks. But they released the product as and never took the time to fix it. It makes no sense.
Why is it so hard to design game that visually and structurally makes sense. Is it so hard, and yes I do recognize the issue put forth by deadlines, to take the time and effort to research spaces and designs. Because everyone else adds some half baked gameplay mechanic to pad the length of the experience, doesn’t mean you should too. We live in an age where games are rapidly approaching photorealism (not necessarily a good thing but still) and yet we can’t expect someone who has the ability to command development tools at a professional level to make a game to give us a visual and gameplay scenario that makes sense? The original Call of Duty for PC had better level design than Modern Warfare. I’ve played mods for age old games like UT2004, Deus Ex and Half Life that show a better understanding of how spaces are constructed and how they can be used to maximise player experience than most games nowadays. And Yes I recognize great design when I see it; Jak and Daxter, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Half Life 2 and Portal, and even Banjo-Kazooie, it is a simple fact that most games are, no matter how good I or many people may think they are, are all just terribly designed.
yes this is a mod for UT2004 called out of hell, look it up
Maybe it’s just me but when I see amateurs out pacing the professionals, there has to be something very wrong with the game’s industry.
Next up on the We Should Expect Better Series is (not necessarily in this order):
-Sound Design
-Morality
-Gamers
-Genre
-Third party Engines
-Ports
-Waggle
-Trilogies
-The business itself
And Finally: Killing the PC (this one will probably be the longest)
Bugsport's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
Great write up! I have to say that I agree with every single one of your points. I don't understand when developers decide to add or leave in game elements that make no sense and take you out of the experience. It is sometimes excusable when said element is meant to do something. For example, lets talk about Animal Crossing on the DS (only one I've played). If you forget to save and just turn off your DS you will be bombarded with a wall of text by the mole when you continue your gane. The game has obviously saved your progress, because everything you did is saved, but the game wants you, to the point of actually aggravating you to save you game. We should be saving it anyway, but something like this isn't very fun. It's funny, but grows tried very quickly.
Great job again on the post, we'll definitely be talking about this on this one on the next Failcast.
I think alot of the examples come down to time and budget. You can't enter all the rooms in a building because the developers didn't have the time to code for it, or the money to spend on the extra labor. Alternatively, sealed off side streets can be a way to funnel players in the right direction, instead of allowing them to wander off and lose pace. Its fundamentally a situational problem.
I disagree with alot of this.
I think your statement of "stupidity" in this context is way out of line. As you noted in the beginning, there's alot of different focuses and labels that we can apply to games. I feel that what one ends up having is compromise for a specific point, eschewing details in some parts for detail in others.
Its incredibly presumptuous to assume that there isn't capable and willing talent in the industry at large. The guys putting these things together are just like everyone else. They have great game ideas too, and dreams about large scale detail. But, in order to put together a larger vision, things get cut and streamlined. I'm sure the guys that made that hypothetical street know how a street works. But, in the context of a gaming system, that's trying to convey space or progression or narrative purpose, there has to be some blocking and channeling.
While I applaud Hideo Kojima for allowing alot of detail within the levels of his game, he's also earned the clout to make that sort of thing happen. His games are well designed, but they're pretty straight forward, regarding linearity and player choice. He cut through the pack through clever gameplay and production value and, by the time he gets to MGS4, he's got more meandering streets than you even actually need!
But the limitation of resources is at the heart of game design and process. Save for those companies that have a direct hold on their financial destiny, like a Blizzard, Valve or Nintendo, there have got to be excessive compromises in design, based on what's important.
got cut short...
Just to finish off, I really think your assessment of the situation with regard to a perceived widespread lack of heart, dedication, follow through, caring about good design is just way off base.
And to be fair, modders work with pre-made engines and add upon them. If you've got the tool ready made and are allowed the time and freedom to focus on details.. I won't say its easy, but most of the work has already been put into place, by those same stupid people.
I can’t say that I’m exactly on board with everything mention in this c-blog entry.
It is true that we humans love to label just about anything we can. While labels certainly do pose problems, they also allow us to quickly know what something is. When you talk about game design in this case, there are various game play styles that are labeled by genre. Different people like different genres more than others. Some genres are also more closely related than others, which is why you tend to see combinations of some a lot more than others. There are just certain combinations that people don’t like that they may like by themselves. When you bring up Brütal Legend, it is very rare if almost non-existence that RTS, driving, and general action game play is mixed into one game. RTS as a genre is almost always self-contained due to the game play style and how it doesn’t really mix with others that well. Adventure games that attempt to throw in action mini-games that demand quick reflexes and are required to finish the game are often not well received.
If that example is hard to accept, think about different kinds of food. There may be various kinds of food that you eat together, but not other kinds. For example, do you want to eat chocolate candy at the same time you’re eating pizza? You may like both by themselves, but not together. Also, a pizza could have various toppings, some which you may not like, even by itself. Does that make you any stupider than the guy who does like all those toppings? Are people who play Brütal Legend stupid for not liking the RTS aspects if they generally don’t like playing RTS games?
Another issue with hybrids is that the more time you spend on one thing, the less time you have to spend on something else. Notice how fighting games tend to have much more complex fighting systems than action games where melee combat is a lot simpler? Ever notice how pure driving games tend to have vehicles that handle a lot better than vehicles in FPS games? Basically, the more game play styles that put into one game, the less time and effort they have to focus on and fine tune each one. From what I heard of RTS fans, the RTS game play in Brütal Legend is not done that well compared to pure RTS games.
As for game stereotypes selling well, that’s because people will play and buy what they like. Is that so wrong, even if the majority prefers FPS games more than say, adventure games? There’s also the factor of the average game being $60 (on 360 and PS3) and the recession we’re in that makes it a lot harder to bite the bullet if we buy a game we don’t like very much, especially if you can’t sell it like a PC game. In fact, I written a whole c-blog based on this in a way, about the originality of gaming. This “true and tired” formula doesn’t apply to just video games, but all media as well. It’s not like original games don’t exist even with games like Modern Warfare 2 existing.
@ RBinator I never said that the people who play it safe when they buy games were stupid. I never actually said their was much wrong with staying with what you know. That was much less a criticsm as it was just a statement of fact which seems to depress me quite a bit.
As for hybrids, most hybrids aren't done right either and have just as stupid design as regular games. A proper hybrid is something that directly fuses two components together seamlessly. Imagine if Brutal Legend was you as Eddie travelling the open world with a raging possy, unleashing total war upon his enemies. The whole land was a battlefield and you commanded groups doing raids on fortresses, capturing strategic points and exploring instead of just constantly switching between Action RTS and open world.
@Tubatic: There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with me, and I said at the end of the post that there were exceptions to the rules. Look at games like the Ratchet and Clank, probably the simplest, sleekest and best designed action platformer ever made. Look at the strength of the story, the perfection of the level design, the simple perfection of the gameplay. It takes them only a year or so to make it. In comparison it takes people like four years and they give you a glorified QTE event called Prince of persia.
As for the stupidity. That's the label i gave the feelings I have towards people who are good enough to work at a professional level yet are seemingly incapable of understanding how basic environmental design works, period. And they'll continue to work for years, pushing out the same mediocre design and never change and never learn. The reason I mention taxonomy was to give reason to why I call stupidity as such. Words have no real meaning. I can call a pidgeon a rat with wings with absolutely no negative connotations or as slight against all flying city vermin. I choose call the relative widespread incompetence I see in the game industry stupidity just to save me time and the fact that it just fits to me.
As for Hideo Kojima, His games are just as stupidly designed as most other games. I LOVE MGS but i recognize crappy design when I see it. Why are the cutscenes so long when they could be just mixed into the Gameplay. Why is it so necessary to lay so much pipe (exposition), maybe somethings are better left as mysteries. Why did it take the snake family over twenty years to learn to shoot while moving when his less capable enemies have been doing it since their tour of duty began. Why is it that Snake is such a badass throughout the game, deliberately hurting and nearly killing himself as so many times throughout the series, incapable of just doing himself in by the end. Also why can't you use other people's weapons in MGS3, it's before the convenient exposition of gene tagging in the other games and yet you can't just seem to pick a ak47 and just go with it. And finally, The MGS series has had characters run around scale walls, sneak around complex three dimensional structures and yet none of them can seem to fucking jump! That's stupid and just does not make sense.
@ Khazar As for level designers, they don't code levels. They actually build fully integrated SDKs (source development kit) for their games and then use them to build the game levels and then stick game logic, props and triggers where necessary. Essentially the tools the modders use are almost exactly the same as what the developers themselves utilize, Just scaled down so they can't steal the engine's source code.
Do you know that Dunia (farcry 2's engine) apparently has one of the most powerful SDKs ever made. It's believed so powerful that people can use it as a modeling tool and build assets in engine. But no one ever can confirm this because they refuse to release the SDK to modders who would actually fix the goddamn stupid design choices they made for free. You know why, because their IDIOTS. They actually destroyed the longevity and community of their game on PC because they're unwilling to fix their damn problems and won't let anyone else do it for free. You ask why and they'll just stare at you blankly and say, 'we have our reasons'. They killed FC2 by focusing on consoles and acting like morons from both a design element and a publicity element
I totally agree on the ability to move around better in environments. Is it really that hard to program a "Move that Box" button? At least, if you are going to make a linear game, make it seem linear, and if like in Half-Life, you can't go to a certain area, then make reasonable excuses for why, like that I could fall off a fucking cliff and die. That still annoys me how in MGS you couldn't move boxes but you can hold at least 2 different kinds of rocket launcher in your ass.
Also, I did disagree on your position that all idea have been done so it isn't original. People accuse Star Wars of copying Shakespeare, but the neglect to recognize that everything has copied Shakespeare in one form or another. Fiction has to abide by probabilities, which is why truth is stranger than fiction, and all I can hope for is that someone either comes up with something REALLY revolutionary, or improves on it.
Still, great piece of writing, and I believe that you have made another great blog.
I never said all ideas have never been done before thus it isn't original or valid. That's just not true.
I said, everything has been done before and often times done better. What this says is that people strut their stuff around like it's hot shit when it's really mediocre crap that had been done better by someone else.
If you can't beat a game did it right before the concept of coloured lighting (hot shit technology around the time of Quake 2 and the original Unreal) was even imagined by the great supercomputer that is John Carmack, why the hell are you doing it at all?
@Bugsport: I think the main reason why gamers tend to stick much more closely to what they like and avoid taking risks is because of not only how much gaming costs (which we covered), but also because core gamers tend to have more specialized interests. At least you do realize that many hybrids are not done that well, aside from the commonly done ones like shooting and driving. As you said, making hybrids stemless is a proper way to do a hybrid and not just have different game play elements that don't flow that well together. Games like GTA have various aspects in well and designed in such a way that you'll expect. Being in an open world city means that you know you'll have to drive, shoot, and other related concepts. In Brütal Legend, from what I understand, the suddenly game play change comes out of nowhere.
But I do agree that there are various ways that game design can be better. For example, in MGS2, they explained why you couldn't use enemy weapons, but IIRC, they didn't explain why you couldn't disarm them. I do think that Kojima should find better ways to explain the story during the game play so you don't spend a long time just watching what happens. As for linear design, stuff that you can't get pass like fallen trees often pose no problems for your enemies, even going as far as showing them jumping or climbing over them, which you may not be able to do. I too would like to see more logical ways to block you off since that the player doesn't simply face palm at the usual dumb ways to keep you on track. I think RPGs are particular bad about this in various ways, usually with someone blocking a doorway or something.