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

[Caliban Darklock]

On 5/26/07, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that complexity doesn't factor into it.

Of course it does. Complexity is one of the many ways we select a game
from the vast array of possibilities. It's not that the average
airplane passenger CAN'T learn to fly the plane, but that he doesn't
WANT to.

> the complexity of a game should not be artificially reduced
> through some misguided attempt to target a specific group of people.

Isn't the complexity of a game artificial by nature? I don't see how
any game has a "natural" level of complexity. The level of complexity
may be implied by the rules, but the rules are still artificial.

> something like the Sims creates its own
> hardcore Sims players, and each new expansion pack increasingly targets
> only their desires rather than the far broader goals of the original.

Agreed. "Unleashed" was where the line got crossed - while I was
fascinated and charmed by the way the game dealt with social concepts,
"Unleashed" introduced the metagame - pets were like sims for your
sims. You can't directly control your sims, and your sims can't
directly control their pets, and then we went on to "Superstar" and
"Makin' Magic" which just got more and more ridiculous. "Vacation" was
still somewhat acceptable, but edged a little close to the line. I
didn't really like the "community lot" idea that started in "Hot
Date", but it was an interesting idea.

There was a point, I think, where The Sims stopped even trying to be a
game and just became an unapologetic experiment in game design. And
that's fascinating, and I spent a lot of time playing around with the
new dynamics and mechanics of the "Superstar" and "Makin' Magic"
expansions, but they just weren't fun anymore.

> The only way to keep a game from becoming too hardcore is to actively
> punish the hardcore players for their behavior.

This is an intriguing idea, and I'd like to hear a more detailed
example. On a theoretical basis alone, I think you've hit on something
important.

> > Most game designs are shortsighted.
>
> I don't know that I'd blame the design itself.

I'm not blaming the design, I'm blaming the designers. There's a
subtle difference. ;)

> I think most goals are acceptable to most people, even the ones that are
> seemingly hardcore.

The question isn't what goals are acceptable, but what goals are preferable.

Consider the "Outdoorsman" achievement in Dead Rising, which amounts
to "go to the helipad and leave the game running while you watch a
movie". It might be interesting if I could achieve it while actually
playing the game... but I can't. The game requires me to go indoors at
intervals. The achievement is not really an achievement, it's proof
that I was so obsessed with getting another 20 gamer points that I
left my console running for two hours.

Many people would still call this a "hardcore" achievement. This isn't
hardcore, this is just sad - but most people can't tell the
difference. I think the hardcore player prefers achievements like
"Karate Champ" which requires you to defeat 1,000 zombies barehanded.
A "hardcore" goal needs to display meaningful skill, ideally at a
level few players will achieve.

> If you've got to win a level in 14 minutes, the first
> time a player tries and gets 14:26, you can be sure that only the most
> hardcore will try again.

I completely disagree. I think if you get 14:26 on your first try,
EVERY gamer will try again at least once, and keep trying as long as
this time was better than the last OR the player sees a way to further
reduce his time.

The hardcore will simply look harder for ways to reduce his time,
because whenever he hits a point where he feels like giving up, it's
also a milestone where he knows fewer players are still playing.
Pushing through that desire to give up naturally and normally takes
him to a level fewer players achieve.