Accessible.
Recently at work, I've been thinking a lot about the game we are making and how it just really isn't that great currently, and the reason for it not being that great, is that everything needs to be accessible. I'm not sure what the lead designer means by this precisely, but I do get the impression he wants people who have never touched a game of this type before, to pick it up and be instantly at home with it. I truly cannot stand this line of thinking. I don't mind if the first few levels are made to be accessible but after that, the player is no longer a virgin, and he can confidently know what to press when to do what. The term accessible for me has taken on the same connotations as words like: revolutionary, innovative and special.
I have to wonder about this. First up, is it truly a feasible desire to make a game that anyone can pick up and instantly know how to play it, over say, a game that requires you learn the basics and then apply them in the game world to varying degrees of success in the levels thereafter? Bear in mind that the former actually requires that all areas of the game are virgin-friendly, whereas the latter only requires the opening areas, which train or teach the player in how to play the game and what abilities they have under their control. Personally, I find the ability to pick and choose, to make choices in games, really fun. That was what had me hooked on Guild Wars for so long, was all the skills and different ways you could combine them along with the items and your characters appearance. So on that hand, we have choices. I am not saying throw open the doors to choices throughout the game, as I think we have to be reasonable, at some stage someone has to balance all those choices, and that can often make or break the game if the balance is bad.
Secondly, what does accesible actually mean? For me (as that's really the only person I can speak for with authority) it means that they are presented to the player upfront. They are not hidden away, hinted at, secreted in some remote menu or options screen. They are the nuts and bolts of the game, and are therefore the things that you give the player headsup information about in their use. Accessible at work, has taken on a new meaning, which is that it means simple. I was unaware of this definition of accessible until recently, and I dislike it, because it's taking everything that we could do more with, add in cool sparkly bits etc, and dumbing it down, making it less cerebrally challenging.
Lastly, why is it that wherever I've worked (bar one studio) I've had a lead designer that doesn't listen to the not-lead-designers. Are our opinions truly so juvenile and clouded? Oddly this topic came up at work the other day, and the two designers I was talking to, when posed the question, "Why are all lead designers like this?" frowned and me and said, "Yeah, I don't know." indicating my experience is not out of the ordinary. Does this mean, that when we become lead designers, we too are going to overrule other peoples' opiions?
I fully acknowledge that at some stage, there has to be a decision-maker, that is, someone who has the final authority and say to go, "No, we aren't going to do that." and that's fine. To me there is just a difference in having someone who plays that role, and in hitting a solid wall with every single suggestion of importance. Some of what I have said recently, has been accepted yet I got the feeling it was only because the lead had decided to go that route anyhow. The rest, was largely met with resistance in the form of, "Let's keep it accessible."
Cheers,
Digit
I have to wonder about this. First up, is it truly a feasible desire to make a game that anyone can pick up and instantly know how to play it, over say, a game that requires you learn the basics and then apply them in the game world to varying degrees of success in the levels thereafter? Bear in mind that the former actually requires that all areas of the game are virgin-friendly, whereas the latter only requires the opening areas, which train or teach the player in how to play the game and what abilities they have under their control. Personally, I find the ability to pick and choose, to make choices in games, really fun. That was what had me hooked on Guild Wars for so long, was all the skills and different ways you could combine them along with the items and your characters appearance. So on that hand, we have choices. I am not saying throw open the doors to choices throughout the game, as I think we have to be reasonable, at some stage someone has to balance all those choices, and that can often make or break the game if the balance is bad.
Secondly, what does accesible actually mean? For me (as that's really the only person I can speak for with authority) it means that they are presented to the player upfront. They are not hidden away, hinted at, secreted in some remote menu or options screen. They are the nuts and bolts of the game, and are therefore the things that you give the player headsup information about in their use. Accessible at work, has taken on a new meaning, which is that it means simple. I was unaware of this definition of accessible until recently, and I dislike it, because it's taking everything that we could do more with, add in cool sparkly bits etc, and dumbing it down, making it less cerebrally challenging.
Lastly, why is it that wherever I've worked (bar one studio) I've had a lead designer that doesn't listen to the not-lead-designers. Are our opinions truly so juvenile and clouded? Oddly this topic came up at work the other day, and the two designers I was talking to, when posed the question, "Why are all lead designers like this?" frowned and me and said, "Yeah, I don't know." indicating my experience is not out of the ordinary. Does this mean, that when we become lead designers, we too are going to overrule other peoples' opiions?
I fully acknowledge that at some stage, there has to be a decision-maker, that is, someone who has the final authority and say to go, "No, we aren't going to do that." and that's fine. To me there is just a difference in having someone who plays that role, and in hitting a solid wall with every single suggestion of importance. Some of what I have said recently, has been accepted yet I got the feeling it was only because the lead had decided to go that route anyhow. The rest, was largely met with resistance in the form of, "Let's keep it accessible."
Cheers,
Digit