Conference Call

GWJ Conference Call Episode 144

Trine, Jules Verne's Return to Mysterious Island, Doom Resurrection, Tales of Monkey Island, Worms 2 XBLA, Are Game Developers Losing Confidence In Their Audience?, Your Emails and more!

As promised, we clock in with a good ol' fashioned Conference Call this week. Lots of games, an obtuse topic of discussion and plenty of emails complete with bonus commentary on the quality of writing. Special thanks to Robert Ashley's I Come To Shanghai for some music from their new album! If you want to submit a question or comment call in to our voicemail line at (612) 284-4563.

To contact us, email [email protected]! Send us your thoughts on the show, pressing issues you want to talk about or whatever else is on your mind. You can even send a 30 second audio question or comment (MP3 format please) if you're so inclined. You can also submit a question or comment call in to our voicemail line at (612) 284-4563!

  • Subscribe with iTunes
  • Subscribe with RSS
  • Subscribe with Yahoo!
Download the official apps
  • Download the GWJ Conference Call app for Android
  • Download the GWJ Conference Call app for Android

Show credits

Music credits: 

Intro/Outtro Music - Ian Dorsch, Willowtree Audioworks

"Your Lazy Eye" - I Come to Shanghai (I Come to Shanghai) - http://www.icometoshanghai.com - 0:41:22
"Pass the Time" - I Come to Shanghai (I Come to Shanghai) - http://www.icometoshanghai.com - 0:57:16

Comments

I am going to enjoy this tomorrow by the beach...or the pool, haven't decided yet.

The problem with the Tales of Monkey Island's control scheme is that it doesn't give you all the options. From what I read on Telltale's message board, since Wallace and Grommit they no longer implements point and click movement in their games. So if you try to click on a location that isn't a hotspot your character will not try to move to it. I'm fine with the WASD controls, it's more old-school Sierra than Lucasarts, but the mouse click-and-drag to move just feels painful to me. It might work better on the iPhone with a touch screen though.

No mention of the new Prince of Persia in the topic? That game's difficulty was on par with Lego Star Wars but totally was not aimed for the same age group.

Also I think it's a mistake to say that Starcraft's campaign was any better than Dawn of War 2's at preparing the player for multi-player. Those campaign maps are just completely different experiences and I'm glad that developers like Relic and Blizzard are embracing that because the best missions were the ones that gave you the most completely different experiences. As an alternative Blizzard has stated they're going to offer tutorials and training modes in Starcraft 2 specifically for the multiplayer, which I think is the way to go. I think the biggest problem was that when Starcraft was first released, the developers didn't yet know how hardcore players would really play the game.

Good show guys, some interesting thoughts there!

Are game developers losing confidence in their players?

I think that there’s two angles here:

1) There’s a danger that when games are made easier it exposes the lack of interesting backdrop to the gameplay which was previously obscured by the challenge of the gameplay.

2) Games that are made easier without any way of making them harder cater to the ‘casual’ crowd as much as games that are harder cater to the ‘hardcore’ crowd. Forza 2 and its companions aren’t included in this because they cater to both sets.

I agree with Certis that the majority of games are getting easier…. but I don’t think it’s because developers are losing confidence in the abilities of the players, I think it’s because they’re specifically catering to the larger audience.

I also agree with Corey that Fallout 3 was made super easy because of the VATs system. I tried playing it without for a couple of battles and the engine just doesn’t work. Past a point, though, once I levelled up the game became a case of point and click…. It was unchallenging. I think that's more of a balance issue though.

The thing that seemed to be all the rage a number of years ago was adaptive difficulty and I think that this is the best way to serve all members of a community and all player abilities. Somehow the games industry has stepped back from that ideal and they’ve shifted back towards discrete level systems which you can’t switch between once you’ve started.

No one has played the original Monkey Island games?

Inconceivable!

Duoae wrote:

I also agree with Corey that Fallout 3 was made super easy because of the VATs system. I tried playing it without for a couple of battles and the engine just doesn’t work. Past a point, though, once I levelled up the game became a case of point and click…. It was unchallenging. I think that's more of a balance issue though.

Well, I found that point kind of confusing, because the very next thing he said was that the segment of the new, broadened audience who likes their games to be more challenging feels like they're being left behind by this new, "everybody in the pool" approach... but Fallout 3 is a really weird example to use for that particular problem. How would those "old school", difficulty-loving fans have been better served by removing VATS? Then it wouldn't have resembled Fallout at all, and probably would have been completely shunned by fans of the series for turning it into a straight FPS. If anything, I think VATS actually helped to quiet the complaints of "hardcore" Fallout fans about the new first-person perspective, even if it made the game easier than it might otherwise have been in the process.

I agree with Latrine that Prince of Persia seems a much better game to use as an example here, because that's a series that was once known specifically for being extremely demanding, and has only gotten less and less so over time. The original side-scrolling Prince of Persia is still a real challenge to get through in the time limit given to the player (a time limit for beating the whole game, no less, meaning you can get almost to the end and then realize success is impossible, a design decision you could never get away with now), while the most recent Prince of Persia - though in my opinion an excellent experience - is almost literally impossible to fail at.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing and I think the preference of the consumer base as a whole is very clear. Both critics and customers seem to have less and less tolerance for games that frustrate them without at least giving them an option to take an easier route to success, and if there's been a change in game design due to that, it's not developers "losing faith in their audience", it's developers responding to their audience's wishes. Personally, I like to have the "easy button" be optional - sometimes I do love a Mega Man 9, or a Bionic Commando remake, that can really just kick my ass and demand that I improve. But I've never really seen beating a tough game as a "badge of honor" people need to "earn" (though you can bet if I ever DO beat Mega Man 9, I will brag about it ;)), and I don't have a problem with other people being able to take a simpler path through the same game.

For that matter, when I think about it, in the past if a game got frustrating enough to kill my fun, I was going to either (1) quit, or (2) go find some a God mode cheat code anyhow. So if the developers want to put options in their game that mitigate the need for me to make that choice, why would I complain about that?

kabutor wrote:

No one has played the original Monkey Island games?

Inconceivable!

I've only ever played MI 2. :p

Ravenlock wrote:

That said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing and I think the preference of the consumer base as a whole is very clear. Both critics and customers seem to have less and less tolerance for games that frustrate them without at least giving them an option to take an easier route to success, and if there's been a change in game design due to that, it's not developers "losing faith in their audience", it's developers responding to their audience's wishes. Personally, I like to have the "easy button" be optional

For that matter, when I think about it, in the past if a game got frustrating enough to kill my fun, I was going to either (1) quit, or (2) go find some a God mode cheat code anyhow. So if the developers want to put options in their game that mitigate the need for me to make that choice, why would I complain about that?

I agree. I like having the option of being able to change from hard/medium to easy if i need to.... but i would still prefer an adaptive difficulty overall - which negates the need to change.

I went to visit my cousins and their little lad was playing the original Half Life. He took all the monstrosities in his stride but he was obsessed with pounding on the heads of dead enemies with the crow bar until they exploded. I kept trying to press on in the game and he would say, "Hold on," and I had to wait while he went around systematically smash the heads of the fallen.

I'll agree that there are still a lot of hardcore games out there but what makes gamers feel like the whole market is getting dumbed down is when a game they want appears to be drifting away from the hardcore and toward the "accessible" (see: BioShock).

You have to admit that it's heartbreaking when a traditionally hardcore game like BioShock is made significantly more shallow and the designers were consciously trying to make it more approachable.

I have no problem if my mom can play the same games as I (she never would but that's besides the point). What I do have a problem with is when a game is made a worse experience for me because a developer wants to sell one more copy to moms and girlfriends who might play it a few times, might enjoy it, but are highly unlikely to actually stick with the game. I know that a copy of a game that gets played for 2 hours nets the same profit as one that gets played for 200 hours, but I feel somehow betrayed when my 200-hour experience is at all altered in an attempt to trick someone else into having a 2-hour experience that they otherwise would not really care about.

For all the flak it's taken, I really like Nintendo's idea for games that let players go through the hard parts on autopilot. That way they can make the game as hard as they like but anyone can still beat it if they like. My experience is not cheapened by someone else "cheating."

Lobster I'd be truly terrified if your mother played the same games as you. Imagine the uncomfortable silence when we have to cut a Lobster's Mom joke short as we realize she can hear us.

Is it just me, or does bringing back the paint-your-pets sponsor seem like an incredible idea? Come on, give em a freebie! (I have no affiliation, I don't even remember the url for the site)

Duoae wrote:

I agree. I like having the option of being able to change from hard/medium to easy if i need to.... but i would still prefer an adaptive difficulty overall - which negates the need to change.

I don't like adaptive difficulty because those systems are designed to make sure that the game is always at a set challenge level relative to my abilities. This robs me of the ability to either make the game significantly more difficult than the designers would normally accept as a challenge to myself or to make it significantly easier so that I could waltz through it unchallenged.

If you'll allow me to be nerdy for a moment, think of it in terms of role-playing stats. Whatever level of game skill I have, games with adaptive difficulty are designed to be, say, +2 to that. So if I have a skill of 2, the game will have a difficulty of 4, while if I have a skill of 10 the game will be a 12. If I have a skill level of 10 and want to play the game at 4, I can't do that, nor can I play it at a 20.

My preference would be for games to have difficulty sliders that can be adjusted in-game and that can adjust individual aspects of the game. System Shock and Silent Hill 2 both allowed players to adjust the difficulty of the combat and the puzzles independently. I'd like to see more games follow in that lead so that players can determine for themselves the kind of experience they'd like to have.

I don't care much for the adaptive difficulty because it seems to ramp up until I reach frustration, and many deaths, before it tones the difficulty back down.

Prozac wrote:

Lobster I'd be truly terrified if your mother played the same games as you. Imagine the uncomfortable silence when we have to cut a Lobster's Mom joke short as we realize she can hear us.

My mom still thinks all video games are Mario and are just silly children's toys. She wouldn't be caught dead playing one, I know that, she knows I know, so I've never asked her to try.

My dad used to think all games were pieces of crap programmed in some idiot's basement and riddled with virii (even though he works in IT) but eventually noticed that they're professionally produced affairs with giant budgets and, in fact, MAY be as structurally sound as other programs.

adam.greenbrier wrote:
Duoae wrote:

I agree. I like having the option of being able to change from hard/medium to easy if i need to.... but i would still prefer an adaptive difficulty overall - which negates the need to change.

I don't like adaptive difficulty because those systems are designed to make sure that the game is always at a set challenge level relative to my abilities. This robs me of the ability to either make the game significantly more difficult than the designers would normally accept as a challenge to myself or to make it significantly easier so that I could waltz through it unchallenged.

If you'll allow me to be nerdy for a moment, think of it in terms of role-playing stats. Whatever level of game skill I have, games with adaptive difficulty are designed to be, say, +2 to that. So if I have a skill of 2, the game will have a difficulty of 4, while if I have a skill of 10 the game will be a 12. If I have a skill level of 10 and want to play the game at 4, I can't do that, nor can I play it at a 20.

My preference would be for games to have difficulty sliders that can be adjusted in-game and that can adjust individual aspects of the game. System Shock and Silent Hill 2 both allowed players to adjust the difficulty of the combat and the puzzles independently. I'd like to see more games follow in that lead so that players can determine for themselves the kind of experience they'd like to have.

Did you ever play Sin episodes: Emergence? You could set the adaptive difficulty to 'curve' above or below your level at all times via a slider. So you could easily achieve this by giving the player the ability to change the difficulty on the fly. I still think it gives a better overall experience - whether you want it to be super easy, super hard or scale exactly to your level.

People's problems (including yours) with the system are not a problem with adaptive difficulty itself but the designer's implementation of the system. Personally, i'd rather be able to scale a system once or twice per game (or playthrough) rather than wanting/having to go into the options menu for each encounter depending on whether i found it ridiculously over easy or hard etc. Sometimes with static difficulities (provided you're given an on-the-fly difficulty slider) you just reach that encounter that hits a difficulty spike that is beyond your skill level and you have to dial it back.... but you still have to go back and rejig the skill level to what you were previously comfortable with.

Rabbit - You *should* move out here and play boardgames with us on a regular basis. Not just because it's fun, but also because we're cool. And then when you hold RabbitCon out here, I can come peek in the windows.

Games may be getting easier, but a lot of games have different difficulty settings for different players, which you guys didn't mention at all.

Lard wrote:

Games may be getting easier, but a lot of games have different difficulty settings for different players, which you guys didn't mention at all.

When's the last time you were comfortable dropping down from Normal to Easy?

EDIT: This isn't a reason for not mentioning difficulty settings, I'm just curious. And I'd love to hear how everyone answers.

There was one mission in Infamous where I had to drop down - the mission where you had to protect the guy fixing the bridge and you are swarmed by guys trying to take him out. I was just dying over and over - probably over 20 times, when I finally said **** it, and switched to easy.

Demiurge wrote:
Lard wrote:

Games may be getting easier, but a lot of games have different difficulty settings for different players, which you guys didn't mention at all.

When's the last time you were comfortable dropping down from Normal to Easy?

I'm thinking that this is a general question? I've played a few games on easy because i couldn't hack them on hard. Dark Sector, Gears of War, Mirror's Edge are the ones that i remember though there may be a couple more. I never really played any older games on easy and even these days easy really is too easy for me in many games.

Conversely, i never play on hard anymore. When i was younger and could spend the time mastering a game or relying on my reflexes i used to do that all the time but nowadays i just can't be bothered with it and don't get more enjoyment out of the seemingly exponential challenge.

I was able to play through both Gears on Insane, and with the exception of a couple of points in the game (like the goddamn fish thing in Gears 2, the cable cars, or the luminous wretches in Gears 1 and Raam), found the difficulty scaled well. But with these very particular scenes, it was purely an exercise in frustration. I just had to sit there and do it again, and again, and again 30 - 40 times. I would have LOVED to have been able to drop the difficulty a notch in just these areas (and forgone the resulting acheivement).

I know there are many more games out there where the difficulty will swing wildly between what you could consider the "base" game - that which forms the core of the play, and individual scenes where the difficulty seems to ramp up geometrically.

Perhaps part of the reason WHY you can't adjust difficulty on the fly for games of this nature is precisely because it's tied to achievements? It also, in the Gears case, seems to be tied to the actual scene and not some element in gameplay like adjusting damage or HP as it does in things like Oblivion.

If I'm playing a game for the Story and the mechanics are frustrating me I'll happily drop the difficulty or 'cheat', but if I'm playing a game for the mechanics, or a multiplayer game I like it hard I'll shoot teamates on purpose to 'motivate' them. Lobster needs a LOT of 'motivation' sometimes.

Good show!

listened to the show this week, absolutely fantastic discussion!

I loved the shout out to classic point-and-click with a Microïds game. It made me realize I'd neglected to add the Jules Verne collection to the Adventure Gaming Catch-All. Anyone who plays it on the iPhone (it's only $3 right now) and enjoys it should check out some of the Benoit Sokal games from Microïds, like Syberia 1 and 2, Sinking Island, and (my personal favorite) Amerzone.

I own Return to Mysterious Island on the PC but not the iPhone, so I haven't had a chance to try out their "sharing" module, which is something a little different.

Microïds wrote:

Return to Mysterious Island offers a very innovative gameplay with the synchronization with iPhones and the information sharing module. The synchronization will allow the PC player to complete a puzzle on his/her iPhone while on the go, then reintegrate it into his/her PC to continue the game. This allows him/her to carry on the game experience in another context, away from the computer. The data sharing module will allow one to seek advice and share impressions and tricks from players who are online at the same time.

Anyone tried this? Sounds weird but interesting.

Can I note the irony of me listening to a gaming podcast discussing gaming on the beach while I in turn was on the beach?*

* - *Legion* would've enjoyed the view.

Demiurge wrote:
Lard wrote:

Games may be getting easier, but a lot of games have different difficulty settings for different players, which you guys didn't mention at all.

When's the last time you were comfortable dropping down from Normal to Easy?

EDIT: This isn't a reason for not mentioning difficulty settings, I'm just curious. And I'd love to hear how everyone answers.

Maybe it's not called "Easy", but "Casual" mode seems to be the only fun way to play Red Faction: Guerrilla. I started that way without hesitation and after hearing other folks' frustration with Normal mode I have no intention of moving away from it.

As far as I'm concerned, if "Easy" mode is more fun I'll do it every time and not feel bad about it. The only reasons to pick Normal over Easy as far as I'm concerned are (1) Easy is legitimately just TOO simple, or (2) Easy mode restricts you from experiencing segments of the game or bonuses you would get on Normal mode.

Beyond that, though, I generally want my gaming experiences to be enjoyable, unless it's something like a Mega Man 9 where I'm going in expecting to have to furiously practice my way to the end. Watching a loading screen every 4 minutes is, usually, not enjoyable.

Now, very occasionally, the opposite does happen. Ninja Gaiden on the DS was a good enough experience on Normal, but actually got better for me on Hard because of the level of tactics encouraged in Hard mode that weren't required on Normal. And in those circumstances where I can appreciate that sort of thing, sure, I'll bump it up and feel a little rush of personal pride for beating it "for reals." But it's a matter of choice, and I certainly don't fault anyone who doesn't choose to do that.

Great job ... again.
And in reference to a comment about Rob... maybe we should hold a fund raiser and buy him a t-shirt.

http://www.snorgtees.com/images/Body...

(no idea how to embed pics on this fandangled website)

An addendum to the vacation issue: how bad are DS's and PSPs affected by sun glare? I tried taking a picture of Molokai yesterday to use as my cell phone wallpaper and could barely see the display.

People like collecting virtual things
That's what WoW is all about you know...

Difficulty or complexity for its own sake is not depth. Neither is a bad user interface.

Depth comes from the aspect of the game design that allows you to combine mechanics in interesting ways to get interesting results.

Depth does not come from the need or desire to memorize obscure sequences of inputs to get the in-game avatar to do something simple.

Finally, when half of the reason for the game to exist is to deliver an in-game narrative to you, then the game design damn well better let you get to the end. Otherwise the game is just an annoying tease.

Edit: Also, I often play shooters on easy because they are badly designed and normal is too annoyingly hard.