Complicated games and kids today

[jpinard]

I was reading a post about the complexity of of some games (Falcon 4 vs. Universal Combat), and it got me thinking. When I was younger I loved games that had a steep learning curve. It seemed like the more complicated and authentic the better. People had the patience to learn Jane's combat sims, and still played pen & paper games with lots of rules.

I don't know of any groups of teens that are into this stuff anymore. Why is it things were so different in the late 80's vs. today? Is it because we have too many games or too many choices to play around with?

/spellchecked

[Mysterio]

Different generation of kids with very limited attention spans and a propensity for instant gratification (see Text Messaging, My Space, etc.).

[roguefrog]

Instant Gratification Portable Television!

[EFlannum]

I was reading a post about the complexity of of some games (Falcon 4 vs. Universal Combat), and it got me thinking. When I was younger I loved games that had a steep learning curve. It seemed like the more complicated and authentic the better. People had the patience to learn Jane's combat sims, and still played pen & paper games with lots of rules.

I don't know of any groups of teens that are into this stuff anymore. Why is it things were so different in the late 80's vs. today? Is it because we have too many games or too many choices to play around with?

/spellchecked

I think they are still there. I think you overestimate the number of *ahem* geeks that there were back in the good old 80's (I certainly qualify as one of them). If I go to my local hobby shop there are plenty of kids playing stuff like Warhammer, D&D, M:tG, etc... I think what has happened to games like Jane's is that they are very niche titles that publishers just aren't willing to dole out the cash to develop in the face of more popular genres. It was just that in the 80's the crowd that would buy Jane's could actually fund a title.

[Wheelkick]

the reason people bought it was that there wasn't much else like it. The big sim titles (Janes et. al) were the ones pushing the PC hardware back then. I doubt that people was looking for games as complicated as Falcon. It was just that everybody was talking about those games back then.

[BobJustBob]

I bought Falcon 4 because not enough games feature dynamic campaigns. Then the complexity kept me from ever playing it much.

[mok]

I don't know of any groups of teens that are into this stuff anymore. Why is it things were so different in the late 80's vs. today? Is it because we have too many games or too many choices to play around with?

/spellchecked

The market is a great deal greater now than it was in the 80s. Those that played did not grow up with machines and not nearly as many people had them...the Internet was only for a few and lynx was the browser of the day as GEnie and Compuserv were the big networks...so it was a much smaller group of gamers...the stone age nerd group.

[Brian Rucker]

I have to think there are the same number or more gaming nerds that would get into deeper and more authentic games but they're just such a small number of overall gamers that big companies aren't (or weren't) that interested. But maybe some people are getting smart enough to devote just enough resources to exploit that niche profitably.

My flavor of the month game, for example, certainly wasn't designed for a lowest common denominator but it is being published by a big company. I think Eve Online's relative profitability might be teaching lessons about how to sweeze a bit more revenue on the margins.

[GregB]

Did we all forget that during the eighties, video arcades were chock full of simple, easy-to-play games. Sure there were complicated computer games (as there still are today), but there were tons of simple, popular games, too.

[AndrewM]

..and they sucked then, too.

[Zylon]

..and they sucked then, too.
Isn't it too early in the morning for you to be trolling?

Catch some Pac-Man fever!

[Njal]

Goddam kids!

[spiffy]

I think it's still a problem even with myself now. I already spend the majority of my time on somewhat 'complicated' games, ie strategy and flight sims, but I've never cracked into hardcore wargames. I perceive them to have too high a learning curve and too many hurdles to justify the time I'd need to spend, vs what I'm already familiar with-- even though I'd know ultimately I'd enjoy them.

I can easily see some kid wanting to play a real flight sim, but picking up Ace Combat 6 or Warhawk instead, even though if he gave it half a shot he'd have had more satisfaction and lasting value (given the money for a good PC and game hardware as well).

[Reldan]

So you've just pulled into a restaurant you heard was really really good, and damn are you famished. You walk through the door and find out there's a 45 minute wait for a table. You probably could wait since you know the food will be really good and... oh wait! There's a Mickey D's across the street.

Fast Food Nation. Yeah. It's kinda like that.

[Morkilus]

I seriously doubt things are all that different right now. There are plenty of kids playing Magic: The Gathering as well as tabletop war games, and the Dominions forums aren't completely made of 50+ y.o. grizzled wargamers. You can still get complex simulators, and even the most average fratboy-typical shooter (Halo 3, ahem) is orders of magnitude more complex than Quake 2 ever was. Heck, even D&D is more complicated than it was when you were a kid.

[Hugin]

People play complex games now. People played simple games then. The premise of this thread is silly.

[mkozlows]

In the past, the simple stuff was really bad and the good stuff was really complex, so you had to hurdle the complexity barrier to play the good things. Pac-Man vs. Wizardry, Risk vs. hex and counter wargames, and so on.

But game designers have made enormous advances in the last 20 years, and now you have games with more depth than in the past, yet also with less complexity and learning hurdles. Mass Effect or Oblivion are both way deeper games than the early Wizardries and Ultimas, yet also a zillion times more accessible (no need to learn runic alphabets!); Puerto Rico and Memoir '44 are better balanced and paced than most '80s era games, yet also far simpler and more accessible.

Hell, even outside of games that's true: Word 2007 is unbelievably better than Wordstar 2000, but I had to read a 400 page manual to use Wordstar and get irritated if I have to so much as read a 100-word help article to use Word.

If kids are avoiding complexity, it's because there's no need for it any more.

[Alan Au]

Not only were games more complex back then, but the UI was generally clunky, and we played those games anyway because they were what was available. Going back and replaying some older stuff, I'm convinced that I must have originally played them using hotkeys and keyboard shortcuts, which I guess was par for the era.

Are games better now? Probably. Less complex? Well, it depends on how you're measuring complexity. Nor is it clear that complexity makes for better gameplay. I mean, it was a chore having to lay sewers and subways in one of the SimCity games. (Uh.... SimCity 2000?) Of course, some modern games go overboard with the simplification, sometimes as a result of consolization. Crippling gameplay to match hardware constraints isn't really a very good tradeoff, at least not for the player.

- Alan

[cliffski]

Alan speaks the truth. Better GUI design hides a lot of complexity these days. There are still complex games out there, and they are still a success. Is WoW really simple? I know Eve sure as hell isn't.

[jpinard]

Alan speaks the truth. Better GUI design hides a lot of complexity these days.

Interesting & excellent point.

One reason I'd assumed things were so different is when you look at the videos being made of boardgame parties, D&D events, LARPS, or even mockmentaries - 99.9% of the people are late 20's or older. The only stuff I see teens obsess with is Zelda and Final Fantasy.

BTW - I liked the Ultima Runic alphabet...

Heck, even D&D is more complicated than it was when you were a kid.

I assumed the # of monster maunals and books sold is not as high as it used to be?

[GyRo567]

Are games better now? Probably.

I'd like to disagree with that. While many industry trends have improved things like interfaces and other design elements (even if they temporarily go off track, overall there has been improvement) a lot of the games that were good back then are still great today. Some of the games from back then are better than the ones today.

In the context of this topic, TIE Fighter - a far more complex game than its modern counterparts that really makes you feel like a part of its fictional world - is endlessly declared better than the Rogue Squadron games on any Star Wars forum you visit.

Granted most kids aren't playing it anyway.

[Alan Au]

Some of this is genre-specific and biased due to availability. Newer FPS and RTS games tend to be better. Older adventure games and space-sims tend to be better, mostly because the top-tier studios just don't make them anymore.

- Alan

[Charles]

Complicated interfaces were simply the byproduct of an immature industry, and have little correlation with the actual complexity of games, with some exceptions (sims).

A streamlined interface doesn't necessarily make a game less complex.

[Shadari]

Complicated interfaces were simply the byproduct of an immature industry, and have little correlation with the actual complexity of games, with some exceptions (sims).

A streamlined interface doesn't necessarily make a game less complex.
Yeah, but in the case of games like flight sims, even with a perfectly simplified interface, there's going to be a good amount of complexity present.

[Shadari]

The market is a great deal greater now than it was in the 80s.
I believe you're right. But nonetheless, almost every childhood friend of mine back in the 80s had an Atari 2600 or an Intellivision. And then there were arcades, which were everywhere!

[Quaro]

Different generation of kids with very limited attention spans and a propensity for instant gratification (see Text Messaging, My Space, etc.).

I've seen 10 year olds playing WOW with interface mods, so many buttons and readouts it looks like a 747 cockpit. Blows away most of the crap I was playing in terms of complexity. If kids today are different, they can handle it better than the generation before them.

[Shadari]

You can still find a good number of new war games and adventure games being made these days since their production costs aren't prohibitively high. Alas, the spotlight no longer shines upon them for various reasons that others have already mentioned.

But I don't see much activity in the flight sim sector. I would imagine that's because the cost to make them is considerably higher.

[Slainte Mhath]

Most MMORPGs today, WoW included, require a kid to learn and keep track of a lot. Toss on popular RPG games like Oblivion and RTS titles like the Age games or Civ games, and that's some decent time and effort spent learning to successful play games. Hell, even some of the shooters now require more than just point and click to succeed.

[EvilIdler]

I liked the Ultima Runic alphabet...

It's just the Futhark - look it up :)

I think the sim market hasn't grown as much as the explosive casual, FPS and MMO markets.
MMOs are the fast food chains of gaming.

I still see lots of complex games sell well, though. And as the WoW UI example proves,
some people like lots of buttons with many functions.

(Why are all the text ads about sodomy, rape and things up yer bum?)

[spiffy]

Yeah, but in the case of games like flight sims, even with a perfectly simplified interface, there's going to be a good amount of complexity present.

I agree.. civilian and ww2 sims are only as complex as needing buttons for flaps, landing gear and throttle, everything else is gravy for the grognard. What makes it difficult for the newbie is the actual understanding aviation part.. why you're stalling, why you're blacking out, how to best use your plane to get where you need to be in space, why you're being buffeted about to not get a close shot. That's also everything to do with why it's satisfying to play, and why the smooth easy experience of mainstream equivalents hold so little appeal for me. I downloaded a voluminous flight tactics manual to ease me into combat sims and I enjoyed going through it, but with today's mantra that says a game must be explained and be competitively playable within five minutes..

[jellyfish]

There are still some complex games being created today. Some of the Paradox titles come to mind.

[beloved one]

I downloaded a voluminous flight tactics manual to ease me into combat sims and I enjoyed going through it, but with today's mantra that says a game must be explained and be competitively playable within five minutes..

It was never any other way, you are alone in downloading those voluminous flight tactics manuals and playing complex games. They still do exist, we just don't talk about it because it isn't popular. It isn't popular for the same reasons it never was.

[Matthew Gallant]

Back when I got started, which sounds like ancient history, back then the demographics of people who were into computer games, was totally different, in my opinion, then they are today. Back then, computers were more expensive, which made them more exclusive to people who were maybe at a certain income level, or education level. So the people that played computer games 15 years ago were that type of person. They probably didn't watch television as much, and the instant gratification era hadn't quite grown the way it has lately. I think in the last 5 or 6 years, the demographics have really changed, now this is my opinion, because computers are less expensive so more people can afford them. More "average" people now feel they should own one.

[Matthew Gallant]

I'm honestly surprised I only get to post it about once a year.

[JMR]

I bought Falcon 4 because not enough games feature dynamic campaigns. Then the complexity kept me from ever playing it much.

Falcon 4 and all of the other hard core Jane's sims had scalability. You didn't have to play them with every balls to the wall realism box checked off. Hell, you could play with everything simplified along with invulnerability to just fly around and blow shit up.

[Zylon]

I'm honestly, surprised I, only get to, post it, about once, a year.
Fixed.

[uddi]

Interesting & excellent point.

One reason I'd assumed things were so different is when you look at the videos being made of boardgame parties, D&D events, LARPS, or even mockmentaries - 99.9% of the people are late 20's or older. The only stuff I see teens obsess with is Zelda and Final Fantasy.


To counter-example from personal knowledge, I run a D&D campaign for high school kids from my (UU) church. There are a couple of them who own far more books than I ever did and were literally* ravenous to play when I met them. So there is at least some youth support for complex classics. And a number of them play Civ, which has the aforementioned complex systems hidden by a delicious, creamy UI.

I'm not sure of the source of your videos, but I suspect they might not be a representative sample. Also, from what I've seen, LARPS have always tended to attract older audiences.

--Tom
*literally used figuratively here

[Lizard_King]

I'm honestly surprised I only get to post it about once a year.
Guess she never wrote that "historical fiction" novel after all.