Risking Alienation
I keep seeing comments from Telltale about how they use the model they do for games to keep from alienating players, but the more I see that concept the more I wonder about it. It seems that the more effort you put into "not" alienating players, the more players start showing up who start to get bothered by things being simplified. Back to the Future didn't alienate me because it was too difficult, it alienated me because it was far too simple.
I'm of the opinion that the best games knowingly take that risk of alienating people and accept that they're not going to please everyone. Some of the best games I've played in the last year (Demon's Souls, Resonance of Fate, Final Fantasy XIII) turned off a lot of people because of their mechanics, but I absolutely loved them.
I wonder what the balance is between not alienating people and still making a game that people enjoy playing.
I'm of the opinion that the best games knowingly take that risk of alienating people and accept that they're not going to please everyone. Some of the best games I've played in the last year (Demon's Souls, Resonance of Fate, Final Fantasy XIII) turned off a lot of people because of their mechanics, but I absolutely loved them.
I wonder what the balance is between not alienating people and still making a game that people enjoy playing.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I think that one problem is having only one clicking icon. It dumbs down the experience. I wish Telltales at least brought back something like what was used in Curse of Monkey Island: when clicking on something, being able to decide if you want to interact with your mouth, eyes, or hands. Apart from giving more depth to the gameplay, it opens up a lot of possibilities for humorous responses.
Funny you should mention FF XIII, seeing as how it goes against the point you're trying to make. The main reason it turned off fans of the series was because it had been dumbed down in plot and mechanics to try to appeal to a mass market. Not because it was taking a risk. The risk in that case would have been to release as a traditional JRPG style game. It had nothing to do with the game being to difficult for the casual crowd.
However, that said, I do agree with the basic point your trying to get across. I would have stated Heavy Rain as a good example. It was a great game that took risks as far as story, maturity, and mechanics and it paid off in a big way for the developer.
Also, seeing as this is in the Kings Quest forum, I think it should be stated that instead of worrying about alienating POTENTIAL fans of a series, worry about alienating the ones it already has.
I would hope that with TTG's usual respect towards established series will still hold true. I was one of the few who felt the same about Sam & Max as many do about King's Quest. They didn't let me down for S&M why would they on KQ?
Claims that they are selling out or just interested in making loads of money are pretty ridiculous... if that was the case lets be honest here they would NOT be making adventure games.
I can understand if you do not like an episode here or there or elements in a series.. but I think when its all said and done and you have played an entire season that the end experience is still something pretty unique and special... this includes the atmosphere on these boards...
Now I know this may make me sound like a Fanboy... BUT keep in mind I have not been afraid to say something negative about TTG in the past... But I still believe that as a whole TTG is a company that deserves my money and they make games I look forward to playing.... I do not see that changing anytime soon.
Have you ever heard of eustress? Counterpart to it's cousin, distress, eustress is the good kind of stress. This is the kind of stress people seek out because it gives them the feeling of excitement and accomplishment. In fact, we as humans almost entirely center our lives around it. We come up with goals all the time in life and when we don't meet them, we don't really feel good about it.
The reason we spend hours on end trying to get a worthless achievement is the same reason we run marathons or maintain a floral garden. More likely than not for this reason, more people want at least a bit of a challenge in a game.
It is actually quite profitable to have a monopoly over a niche market. Nowadays, that seems to be the most successful new business model; find a niche group that does not have a specific product and exploit it. If there were other adventure game companies out there making a mark in the adventure game market, they might have to rethink what they are doing, but for now, while there is little competition, they can continue as they are. I think that is why they went after KQ in the first place. If AGDI or someone else were to make KQ games it would effect their bottom line (for other games as well). They are a business, and the bottom line is the $$ they make. Even if you don't like that, it is true. They don't make adventure games because they aren't profitable.
This. I would say that the lack of interactivity and larger explorable areas is the MAIN reason why the games don't feel as deep or immersive as the old classics. The simplistic puzzles don't help either.
Imagine if Roberta Williams or Al Lowe were to make a game that looked and played exactly like one of their best games but with a new story, would you rush to it with drooling mouths? I think you would. Isn't it ironic that companies don't give what the fans want because it sounds economically stupid - who would make a game that looks like it came out of the early 90's, who would expect it to sell? This is exactly the kind of stigma that is probably hurting sales in the first place. Someone, somewhere has to take that "leap of faith", trust the fans arguments and see where it takes you, maybe the fans are right, maybe giving us what we want is actually more profitable.
I agree that I want challenge in a game. Most people who spend time on forums want that too. The problem is that most people who buy games don't want a challenge. They want the have the achievement and they will use walkthroughs to get it and then they feel "acomplished." And for what? Being able to repeat what you saw in a youtube video with someone much smarter than them telling them exactly what to do. The problem is that it is the guy making the walkthrough that wants more of a challenge, not the thousands of people that end up using the walkthrough. Way more people want to be given the solution with no work on their part. They at times will post questions on a forum because they don't want to do the work of reading through previous posts where the answer is already sure to be found.
..:( you didn't read my post. The entire reason why people play games is to give them a little extra something to do. IE: Giving themselves an unnecessary challenge in life.
Whoa, I totally disagree. Games that handhold you through difficult puzzles, or else have no difficult puzzles to speak of, are boring and forgettable. A feeling of accomplishment only comes from having to work to get the desired outcome.
This is why people are saying BTTF and JP are closer to "interactive movie games" than adventure games.
It's the same type of person that would stockpile Potassium Iodide for themselves in the United States as a result of a nuclear emergency halfway around the world in Japan.
So I understand both sides of the argument and while I'm open to some new features and maybe even some slightly more "streamlined" puzzles, I think that if I ever want to play a game like the ones I remember, I'm going to have to actually go back and play those games. That genre isn't totally dead though, the genre of games we have now is just more prominent, and still looking for its niche.
I understand today there's a pretty big market for casual gamers, specially after the advent of Wii and Cellphone games, but I think it's a big error to try to make adventure games for this market. It'd be a smarter move, IMO, to try to attract people who don't necessarilly play video games, but are inteligent and like to flex their brains solving puzzles. I really don't think intelligent people are becoming extinct.
So, what I'm trying to say is that adventure games shouldn't aim the Wii Party market, who'll think it's all too complicated anyway, nor the modern console gamers, who finds this genre too slow-paced. They should attract a new audience by having really funny or thought-provoking stories, great dialogue, and good puzzles. And that means not dumbing down the experience.
What needs to go so as not to push newcomers away is the big amounts of frustration some old games used to have, and again that won't be achieved by dumbing down things, because that'll just ruin the experience, but to have logical puzzles and a good hint system. If you're getting too frustrated, it's much better to have the game giving you hints, if you want to, than stop playing and go looking for a walkthrough.
Completely agree. There is a stigma on games that most people aren't in it for the challenge, they're in it for fun, and fun in the game industry = simple to play, shallow story or no story at all. Unfortunately the game industry is significantly wrong about this. I believe most people who specifically play adventure games are in it for the challenge and they thoroughly enjoy that. Don't forget the satisfaction of FINALLY getting past that puzzle - something that you can't get with an easy game.
Bring back the good old days - the days that made games so successful in the first place!
Are my expectations any less valid than the next gamer? Am I now the lowest common denominator?
Yes. lol
Somehow.... I've always known CRY!
I guess the point I was trying to make is how is any one person's opinion of what the games should be like any less valid than the next?
When I last played the original version of the first King's Quest, I was charmed by the love of nature evident in the game. You get a different message for drinking water on every screen featuring water. Grass is everywhere. Trees have variety. The mythical creatures and fairy tale characters are themselves like magic mirrors that are sufficient stimulation by themselves. The logistics of solving the intellectual puzzles took a back seat to appreciative absorption in a beautiful little world.
Interactive stories can have the profound appeal of what Brian Moriarty calls the sublime arts, but the reliance on puzzles (defined as obstacles to the progression of the living experience of the story) may be holding them back.
MI I totally feel the same way about games that I have played. I also agree that the "fans of classic adventure genre always loved a challenge." The problem is that this group is small compared to the number of people who actually buy and play games. I think TT is trying so hard to bring in those who are not fans of classical adventure games that they are losing the original fanbase in the process. If they had any form of legitimate competition, who knows where they would stand. That is one of the reasons I am really looking forward to Himalaya's "Mage's Initiation." If sucessful, it could show people around here what games could and should be and it could turn some heads over here within Telltale.
All you have to do is complete the game once and you know everything about how to complete the game. That's what multiple playthroughs are for.
The game becomes easy once you complete it. Take King's Quest 6 for example. Back in the day, I first encountered KQ6 at my neighbor's house who had the game on diskette. It took us quite a long time indeed to finally complete the game, but we enjoyed it. Sometime shortly after that, I obtained KQ6CD, which I can beat in just a few short hours, even without skipping much voice dialog. Does that mean I get bored with the game now since it's lost its challenge? No; absolutely not. I can say, however, that the initial challenge is part of the fun. I want the opportunity to get stuck.
I don't even like hint systems making things so easy that all I have to do is turn it up a few notches and let the game tell me what to do next. If I have to consult a walkthrough, then I have to consult a walkthrough. I don't see why that's so terrible to have to do if I get stuck.
KQ games should be hard on the first playthrough. The old games made you think; made you explore; made you experiment. They made you "save early and save often." They made you try using everything you have with everything else you have and then everything else on the screen. Why is that such a bad thing? We're gamers. We adapt. King's Quest was fun because it was hard, not in spite of it.
I understand what you're saying, Irishmile, but really... if you want the game to be easy so you can just enjoy the story, why can't you just play the game more than once? The second time is bound to be easy once you know what you're doing.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I think the replayablility for Telltale's games would be a lot higher for me if they were compiled on disc in a fashion that forced me to start at the beginning of a season; that is to say, made to play as one continuous game. I know Telltale isn't going to do what I'm suggesting, but let me just say that I greatly disliked the fact that even KQ7 gives the opportunity to start a new game by skipping ahead to whatever chapter I want to start at. I want to be made to start the game at the beginning. I want to have to experience the whole story. For that matter, I also don't like having to watch 3 minutes worth of credits after every chapter's end when my intent is to play the entire game all the way through.
Sure, Sam & Max are designed to be somewhat self-contained episodes, but ToMI is not. Sometimes I really do just want to play ToMI all the way through without seeing any credits until the very end, and I would pay full retail price for such a game. Seriously, I would pay $50 to buy it today if that was available.
Kings Quest obviously I want to be a little harder... I think they know that.. I think that KQ will be more challenging than BttF.
If Telltale had come right out and said "This is a game which is based on a movie and is therefore designed specifically to tell a story rather than get the player stuck on hard puzzles while forced to wander the countryside and back at length" then the gamers-at-large who are apprehensive about upcoming titles that ought to be difficult would already know that the reason why Back to the Future and Jurassic Park are easy is because they're designed to be easy, and not because Telltale is increasingly treating the adventure gaming community like we couldn't find our way out of a wet paper bag even if equipped with a pair of scissors.
Most of the statistics that are out there show that an alarming amount of people never finish games that they buy.
Although another solution to that problem is continuing to deepen their in-game hint systems.
I have not looked into the statistics, but might people be more likely to finish adventure games than other kinds of games, though?
Same with games - I can enjoy both difficult ones and easy ones, though I want to know what to expect when I purchase. That said, I definitely want King's Quest to be harder than BTTF, and I think Telltale probably recognises that the franchises are pretty distinct.
Do you have any links to share on that? Not that I don't believe you (goodness knows I've collected enough unfinished games myself), I just like to read original sources.
With the ease of access of hints and walkthroughs these days, I wonder if not completing a game would be less due to difficulty and more due to the game just failing to engage the player enough to motivate them to finish.
That's not a reason for Telltale to make their games easy to beat.
Besides, I'd say having a whole month or two in which to complete an episode is more than enough time, especially when you consider the availability of information on the internet to aid in completing it.
This.
People aren't failing to complete games because they are too hard, they aren't finishing them because they get bored with them. I myself haven't finished Sam and Max Season 2 because the first and second episodes bored me to tears.
I kid I kid.
Hmmm a brilliant observation. Great point.
100% this. Sure there's a market of people out there who don't care much to be challenged, but I personally believe there is an even bigger market of people who are waiting to be properly challenged again by adventure games. I don't think they all play Telltale's games either, I think there's plenty of people waiting around for something different. If people didn't want to be challenged games like Heavy Rain and Demon's Souls would've done horribly.
But I think Alan is a fair guy and asked me to be a mod anyway... at the request of some of the other mods.
I am a TTG fan no doubt about it... but I will speak my mind if I feel necessary... Even if its not in line with TTG.. If that is unpopular that is OK I can go back to being just another fan on the boards .. I will try to be fair as best as I can... that is how I think mods should be.
I do not see myself closing too many threads or censoring people as long as they contribute to active conversation and are respectful to other forumites.
I'd never see anything wrong with that seeing as you aren't actually working for Telltale. Your job is to keep the peace and moderate the forums. Your own personal opinions shouldn't enter into the picture. There are plenty of other game developer forums out there whose moderators are honest and sometimes critical of the game developer whose forum they moderate because they're fans too and not employees.
As any great moderator should.