[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN} Who to design for?

[Caliban Darklock]

On 6/6/07, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
>
> "Caliban Darklock" <cdarklock at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your position is that because casual gamers have been known to buy and
> > play very complex games, the complexity of your game is not important.
>
> My position is that casual gamers MAINLY buy complex games!

But they don't really get much of a choice, do they? Thousands of
games are released each year, and most of those one might accurately
call "simple" are directly targeted at young children.

> > My position is that every casual gamer considers the complexity of a
> > game as part of the buying decision.
>
> I disagree. I think just about everything else has a greater importance to
> which games casual gamers will buy than complexity.

Everything else they consider, maybe. I don't care how important it is
in the relative ranking of considerations, I am simply saying that it
IS a consideration.

> I think if complexity mattered, you'd be able to find an example to back up
> your claims.

I did, and you claimed Falcon 4.0 wasn't unpopular with casual gamers
because it was complex, but because it was a niche product. But that's
the very definition of a niche product - a product which is not
popular among the general population. So if a complex game isn't
popular with casual gamers, you'll just say it's a niche product and
completely ignore the question of why.

> I think the only implication you can take from complexity being a factor
> is that casual players are stupid.

I think it's far MORE stupid if complexity ISN'T a factor. Since it's
next to impossible to return a game, if you buy a game that's too
complex and not fun, you essentially flush the money down the toilet.

> All it says is that you've got to try a different approach

Like, say, "consider the complexity of your game as part of the
overall picture, and mitigate the chilling effect it might have"?

I'm not saying "remove the complexity". I'm saying "the complexity of
your game is a critical element of the design that must not be
ignored". You can HAVE complexity. You just have to understand WHY
your game is complex, and exert sufficient effort to compensate for
that complexity.

> There's something else at work. Common wisdom is wrong.

The common wisdom is that if your game is complex, there had better be
a good reason.

> >> Natual or not, harmony is harmony and it is the destination all
> >> designers must aim for.
> >
> > I find that to be a very dangerous idea. Whenever someone decides
> > there's only one Right Way to do something, it almost never ends well.
>
> But the One Right Way is that every project has a unique Right Way that
> depends on the nature of the project.

Then harmony is not harmony. There's harmony-here and harmony-there
and every time you go to a new project the definition of "harmony"
changes again. And there's no destination for which all designers must
aim, either: all designers are aiming at completely disparate
destinations that only they can define or understand. The statement is
meaningless. It's empty. There's nothing in it.