One subject of constant debate is on making concessions of game design to appeal to the mainstream over the core gamers. This argument has been told countless times regarding the Wii, but for this entry it will be on game design in general. I find this topic interesting as I come from a game play first point of view, and I prefer to keep my nose out of the business end of things.
Let’s get a few thing straight, the more complex a title is the narrower the fan base is going to be. That will never change, 12 year old boys aren’t interested in adjusting tax sliders to get optimum economic balance. However game play depth keeps gamers playing longer and can easily make up for less then amazing graphics among other things (look at X-Com). As I mentioned in an earlier entry, creating games is a business first and foremost, but should it get in the way of creating a great game?
In an interview Will Wright said that the game play of Spore was intentionally simplified to attract a larger audience at the cost of the game play depth. Unfortunately for someone like me that has put the final nail in the coffin for Spore and I will not be buying Spore anytime soon. I perfectly understand the position however, by making the game play simple more kids and non gamers will buy it making more money for Maxis and EA, and perhaps give Will Wright the authority to make a complex game play driven title at some point. I still believe that this was a mistake, and I don’t see people coming back to Spore or going to be calling it the best game out there. The meat of any game is the game play, the stuff the player is going to be doing, by removing it your leaving the player with less to do. Now I want to take this chance to explain something.
I’m not talking about niche or casual games for this entry, but the multi million dollar AAA games that are released. For niche titles I expect to sweat the details, and I want to see if that piece of armor provides .34242352 more protection then another, simplifying games aimed at niche gamers is a huge mistake. On the other hand when I play a casual game I’m not looking for something to tax my brain. I just want to hit a few buttons or deal with one kind of game mechanic and have fun. Both sides are fine in my opinion, the middle ground comes from the mainstream titles, the ones we see advertised on TV all the time.
Can a game be complex and still be enjoyed by the mainstream? I say yes but with a few caveats, no matter what you will most likely annoyed the extreme ends of both sides of your audience. Unless you actually create two games in one, one very simple and one very complex, but I doubt a publisher will be interested in that. Another way to look at this is looking at the titles Peter Molyneux, I’ve said it before that I’ve yet to find a game he’s made recently that I’ve fallen in love with. Yet I love the ideas he dreams up, and I’m willing to vote for his titles every time. I’d rather support the guy who takes chances and will either win big or lose big then the one who plays it safe every time. I’m looking forward to Fable 2, having enjoyed the first one but felt it could have been so much better.
The trick is to balance out these two opposing forces, whether it is better to create a game that will make loads of money or create one that fans will be playing for a very long time. I think Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said ” You can please some of the people all of the time, or all the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time.”
Josh
