Why twitch gamers suck

[Cantousent]

I believe you, Magnum, but I also think that there is an RPGer in every "twitch gamer." KotOR, for all the complaints I've ever heard, is a great transition from action RPGs to an RPG experience that focuses on writing, plot, and role playing. We aren't the only ones who love a good RPG experience. ...But the way to convince Diablo 2 players to try a slower paced game isn't to insult them.

[Magnum Opus]

Heavens no, completely agree with you there.

 

I'm not so sure that there's an Roleplaya' in every Twitchy, though. Let's face it, the whole culture is becoming one of fast turnover rates, instant gratification, and sound bites, right down to the six o'clock news; that doesn't lend people to long, slow adventures, drawn out combat (or longer tactical battles, if you're looking at it from the other end of the spectrum), and meandering gameplay... most of which I am looking for, given a good atmosphere. I even found the NWN OC to be too fast-paced and too combat-heavy (not to mention lacking in that necessary atmosphere), and that's considered pretty much core RPG material these days (maybe a little bit too stripped down to really be considered typical, but essentially that's what we're looking at when it comes to gameplay).

 

Besides, I'm betting you're right when you say that it's only the elitism of the RPG crowd that's keeping this issue afloat. There's a pretty healthy dose of "twitch games" out there, because that's what sells. Those gamers, the casual ones who just want a quick distraction, I suspect are perfectly happy with the way the industry is, and they don't really need to go looking through other genres to find a game they'll like. People like me, though, who want something more leisurely, more detailed, and that offers a more varied experience, have never had all that many offerings to choose from... probably because to get them right, they have to do everything, from combat to story to world-presentation to economics reasonably well. Damnably difficult, that. And so, instead of trying to bring the mountain to Mohammed -- ie. changing the tastes of the majority of the gaming public -- the developers move closer to what they think that average gamer is looking for: faster gameplay, more frequent combat. The Twitchies have no real incentive to go looking for the hardcore cRPG -- although certain companies' reputations may be getting large enough that some will go looking just to see what all the fuss is about -- so even if there is a 'playa buried in there somewhere, I'm not sure many of them would even try and get in touch with it. Why bother? Plenty of games they already know they'll like.

 

*shrugs* I suspect that what we're seeing with the current popularity in cRPGs isn't so much a fondness for the type of cRPG I'm looking for so much as it is a reflection of cRPGs becoming more what I'd term Action-RPG. The RPG market's growing because the genre's moving toward what "twitch" gamers want, not because anyone's preferences are changing.

 

All my opinion, naturally, with absolutely no facts or figures to back it up, and probably based on cynicism more than anything else, but there you go.

[Child of Flame]

I had a friend who complained about there being too much text and not enough action in the Zelda games for him to play them.

 

This is entirely serious.

[Calax]

I had a friend who complained about there being too much text and not enough action in the Zelda games for him to play them. 

 

This is entirely serious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would pay to watch him try and play somthing like FFVII or FFVI

[Musopticon?]

Or Torment?

[Calax]

I can't say torment because I've never played it.

[EnderAndrew]

I like Rhomal, and I normally dig his rants. But I;m with the masses here in that I don't care for this rant, nor the tone of it.

 

I agree with the spirit of it however.

 

While I'm not opposed to innovations, change, first-person or 3d worlds in RPGs, I would rather that entire RPG genre didn't all suddenly become FPS clones with weak RPG elements.

[vaxen83]

I had a friend who complained about there being too much text and not enough action in the Zelda games for him to play them. 

 

This is entirely serious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ask him to try SW: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast

 

If he manages that one, he can play SW: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

 

See if he can last that one through.

[zer"0"]

Here is an interesting article. From The Escapist website.

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/8

There's a button at the bottom of the page for the text version.

 

Here is an excerpt:

Death to the Games Industry, Part I

Greg Costikyan

 

    "The machinery of gaming has run amok... An industry that was once the most innovative and exciting artistic field on the planet has become a morass of drudgery and imitation... It is time for revolution!"

 

    - "Designer X" in the Scratchware Manifesto

 

When "Designer X" wrote those words back in 2000, the industry, to the degree that it took any note whatsoever, dismissed them as irrelevant ravings. Jessica Mulligan wrote that the Scratchware Manifesto was "naive in the extreme," and obviously written by an industry outsider - and was quite surprised to learn that I was Designer X. Of course, things have only gotten worse since 2000, and the industry - or at least, developers - have started to agree.

 

Two years ago, speaking at a conference in the UK, Warren Spector said "The publishers have to die, or we are all doomed" - to cheers. And this year, at GDC, I ranted on the problem - and received a standing ovation.

 

What is the problem? And is there any way to address it?

[metadigital]

Already posted it.

 

Here is part two.

 

...

Matrix Games, for instance, still publishes its games in boxed form - but they say they sell far more copies of games like Gary Grigsby's World at War via direct download than they do at retail.

 

The reason that's happening is simple: Many PC game styles that, in years past, got huge attention from the PC game zines and consumers now have a hard time getting distribution. Retailers don't even like stocking PC games - they take up too much space, and they don't sell as well as console - and have cut way back on the titles they'll stock. As a result, if you're a computer wargamer, a flight sim fan, a fan of 4X space conquest games or of graphic adventures, or even of turn-based fantasy - you're going to have a hard time finding product you like on the shelves. Those gamers are beginning to learn they can find what they want on the net.

 

But "if you build it they will come" doesn't work; stick a game up on your own website, and you'll be lucky to sell a thousand copies, even if it's good. And even for the gamers who have migrated online, it's not ideal; you may know about Matrix's site, but there are a lot of other decent computer wargames out there, and to track on the field, you have to visit a half-dozen different sites. And the magazines and review sites no longer bother with the kind of games you like, so it's hard to figure out what's good and real.

 

There are any number of developers out there just itching to find another path to market, a way to develop games outside the conventional model - and to make a decent living by so doing. But at present, they don't have a clear path to market - and though the technology exists, the Internet can act as a distribution mechanism, it's not obvious to them how to reach their potential market.

 

In other words, technology isn't the problem...

 

Marketing Is the Problem

Even though the PC magazines are starting to devote some attention to "indie" games, it's still scant. And in general, download-only product isn't taken seriously; the assumption is that if it doesn't get published conventionally, it isn't "real," it must be of lower quality. And, of course, the conventional publishers buy most of the advertising space, so the magazines naturally pay more attention to them.

...

To solve the marketing problem, we need a new kind of business.

You need an operation that aspires to be the place to go for indie product. Not casual games; there's no point in trying to compete with the likes of Yahoo! and Real, the casual games market is well served already. No, you want to be the place to go for hardcore gamers looking for something beyond what the conventional machine gives them.

 

And the company needs to be marketing driven. Developers (and if truth be told, many publishers) suck at marketing. It's not a core competence, and it's not something they've ever done. The purpose of this intermediary company must be to figure out how to get exposure for independent games and niche/indie product - and it needs to spend the bulk of its revenues on advertising and PR.

 

In other words, the Internet allows you to avoid retailers and solves the problem of distribution; what it does not solve is the problem of making consumers aware of your product, and getting them to want to buy it. There's a role for an operation that steps up to the plate and says "We know how to sell online, and we will spend good money to make sure your product does."

 

Developers can and should figure out how to stop relying on publishers for development funding - but they will always need help on the marketing side. And moving online not only doesn't solve the problem - it makes it worse, because moving gamers online requires a change to consumer behavior.

 

And yes, that means some revenues need to go to the intermediary - but developers should still wind up with the bulk of the revenues, not the risible 7% they typically get today. And developers will of course own their own damn IP.

 

And anyway - our product consists of bits. So why are we still shipping boxes of air when we have a network designed to ship bits?

 

Re-Engineering the Customer

In comics, film, and music, there is an audience that has what you might call "the indie aesthetic." They prize individual vision over production values. They believe they are hip and cool because they like indie stuff. They like quirkiness and niche appeal. And they are passionate about the things they like.

 

We need to establish the same aesthetic in gaming. And while that's hard, it's also pushing at an open door - the meme exists in other media, so why not in games? In other words, some of the marketing you need to do is the conventional stuff - advertising and promotion. But the more important task is getting the meme out there.

 

And to do that, you need more than ads. You need manifestoes. Brickbats. Slogans. Outrageous stunts. You need to rabble-rouse.

 

Like, say, by writing articles like this.

 

Here are some slogans, if you like:

 

"Corporate games suck."

"Gamers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your retail chains!"

And one more, but a little explanation: The PC is largely irrelevant to the publishers now - it's the fourth, and weakest platform. When they publish a PC version, it's usually because there's an Xbox version, and the port is easy. But games designed for console controllers and TV screens twelve feet away just don't play so good with mouse-and-keyboard and a screen two feet away... You're better off playing the Xbox version. And so PC sales continue to slide... Except in the genres that just don't work on consoles: MMOs, RTS, and sim/tycoon. PC games should be designed for PCs. Thus:

"Aren't you tired of getting Xbox's sloppy seconds?"

[zer"0"]

Already posted it.

 

Ah, thought so. Somehow I must have missed it.

[Judge Hades]

Well, I gotten sick of the PC gaming market complete and that is why I no longer game onthe PC. Trying to swork with poorly made and unsupported games that require $1500 worth of hardware to run is pure idiocy. It took me a while but Obsidian showed me the truth in that.

[Gabrielle]

Quite informative to say the least.

[metadigital]

Greg Costikyan has designed more than 30 commercially published games in various genres and platforms. He has written about the game industry for publications including the New York Times, Salon, and Game Developer magazine. At present, he works for Nokia Research Center's Multimedia Technologies lab as a games researcher.

[Guest Fishboot]

Two things to say:

 

First, I apologize for my stridency Rhomal - I read the thread on the Bio boards that your original post was copied from and it seems like on that forum you got your point across and recieved a basically positive reaction. It was apparently well suited to its intended audience, so I can't fault it.

 

Secondly, I was somewhat surprised by the second Costikyan article - I hadn't considered the idea of a "portal" type online distribution system. Perhaps naively I thought the solution would be Steam-like, with the developers assuming all of the roles and blowing the concept of publishers a raspberry. I'm interested to see if someone can attract venture capital with the portal idea (perhaps the Themis Group itself, the guys who foot the bill for the Escapist? Perhaps I am a bit conspiracy minded...)

 

The call for an indie aethestic still irks me, though. There's something unpleasantly anti-geeky about it - putting yourself in this feedback loop of validating one's own tastes to validate one's self the way indie comic/film/music fans often do. A few other parts of the typical indie idiom are also annoying - for example, it's very hard for a fandom to be anti-corporate yet to not also be anti-success. I can already imagine developers being called sellouts by stoner Katamari Damacy fans...

[Plano Skywalker]

I generally agree with something that was alluded to in this thread and at least one other recent thread and that is that one of the things that make it an RPG is that you are pretending to be someone else (and, hence, using that person's stats).

 

With true, real-time combat your own skills are being tested rather than the skills of the imaginary protagonist. Not to say that there is anything wrong with an action/adventure with a good story but do we really need the kind of ambitious marriage that JE, for instance, is trying to pull off? Not sure.

 

I'll buy it if it's fun but I agree that RPGs don't need to be poor clones of FPSers or Action/Adventures.

[alanschu]

They don't need to be.

 

But simply having FPS elements or Action/Adventure elements doesn't make them bad.

 

The wierd thing is that Rhomal complains because some developers didn't evolve, but at the same time complains at those that did.

[Judge Hades]

Like I said, the days of traditional CRPGs are dead. Bioware was the last great maintstream CRPG maker and well with them deep sixing the traditional style with NWN and KotOR there was no one left worthwhile.

[alanschu]

You say it like it's a bad thing.

[Judge Hades]

It is. I miss the days of Fallout and and old school Ultima.

[Shadowstrider]

Fallout was by no means a "traditional CRPG." At least not in any summation I can find, it was beyond its time.

[Judge Hades]

How was it not be considered a traditional CRPG.

 

Turn base combat, rules system that played like PnP, isometric view, and a good story. What wasn't traditional about it? If you say that it was sci fi there was plenty of good sci fi CRPGs prior to Fallout and decently written PnP RPGs as well.

[Shadowstrider]

Traditional CRPGs had shallow stories, for one. Traditional CRPGs really didn't allow the freedom of Fallout, either. Turn base combat, sure.

 

All RPGs still have rules "like PnP" so thats moot. Most also still have isometric view, also moot.

[alanschu]

The fact that it had a good story makes it non-traditional in my opinion.

 

I could stand for a few less traditional CRPGs like Dungeon Hack (!) and pretty much any of the gold box games.

 

The best Ultima game also didn't have turn-based combat either, and the majority of Ultimas weren't isometric, nor did they have rule systems that played like PnP.

 

Many of the old school CRPGs like the Wizardry series were games played in the first person perspective. This also includes the Gold Box games, as well as large parts of the early Ultima games.

[Guest Fishboot]

How was it not be considered a traditional CRPG.

 

Turn base combat, rules system that played like PnP, isometric view, and a good story.  What wasn't traditional about it?  If you say that it was sci fi there was plenty of good sci fi CRPGs prior to Fallout and decently written PnP RPGs as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm, I'd say the isometric PoV was pretty non-traditional at the time, with most of its predecessors being first person (Bard's Tale, Wizardry, Daggerfall), iconic bird's eye (Temple of Apshai, Wasteland, Rogue, Final Fantasy) or both (Gold Box games, Pre-VIII Ultima). I guess Betrayal at Krondor was mixed first person/isometric (although isometric isn't technically correct). One might guess that the isometric perspective was a trendy pickup from Ultima VIII/Crusader.

 

Good story... not really, that was much more of an adventure game thing until that genre died (although I'd say the movement had begun somewhat earlier in Betrayal and the mid-late Ultimas). So you're left with P&P rules and turn-based combat, which are not well separated. I would say that all in all Fallout was more like the leader of a surge of tent revivalist CRPG-as-P&P games than it was an evolution of what had come before.

 

Edit - My slow composition betrays me again.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Fishboot