We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.

Games Too Complicated? Carmack Agrees.

by Rick Powers - August 23, 2003, 4:10 pm EDT
Total comments: 33 Source: CNN Money

"I agree strongly with that point of view", says Carmack, when discussing Nintendo's plan to make games simpler.

In an interview with CNN Money, John Carmack of id Software and the man behind the upcoming PC hit Doom 3 agrees that games, specifically PC Role-Playing games, have gotten to be so complex, "they had to have a book ship with the game."

He goes on to detail the internal debates over simplifying the controls for Doom 3, and how you sometimes need to ignore your more supportive fans in order to give them what they really want, something Nintendo is frequently accused of doing.

It's an excellent interview with the always outspoken Carmack, so make sure to head over to CNN Money and read it.

Talkback

Bill AurionAugust 23, 2003

At least this should get some gamers to realize that not just a "kid company" follows this philosophy...

PIACAugust 23, 2003

it should, but in all seriousness it probably wont. doom 3 on gamecube perhaps ?face-icon-small-happy.gif

mouse_clickerAugust 23, 2003

No, bceause according to Carmack "Doom 3 isn't possible on any system other than the XBox." face-icon-small-wink.gif

Bill AurionAugust 23, 2003

Doom 3 isn't even possible on the X without bringing down the framerate and/or the visuals...

edit: Am I the only one who gets error messages(aka: Page not found) when I reply? It's really irritating face-icon-small-mad.gif

mouse_clickerAugust 23, 2003

In Opera I get "Cannot find remote server". I just click the point a few (hundred) times again, though, and it usually works. face-icon-small-wink.gif

Clock NovaAugust 23, 2003

Personally, I love the big thick manuals that come with RPGs and strategy games. I live for complex games that take months to beat. I loved Wind Waker, but it was just too damn easy. Way, way too easy. This is not a good trend.

Ms.PikminAugust 23, 2003

I agree with Clock Nova. I don't think they should dumb down...oh, sorry.."simplify" these games. There are alot of people who really love the time it takes to beat them. Why not leave some games difficult and have others that are aimed at people who need something easier to play? The quote Carmack made about gamers not realizing that simplified controls are what they really want irks me. What an arrogant and condescending butt-head.

BlkPaladinAugust 23, 2003

You know I don't think they are talking about the physically difficulty of the game. But what it takes to play the game.

mouse_clickerAugust 23, 2003

Simplification and dumbing down are too very different things and it's important to make the distinction. Take Ikaruga, for example: very simple concept, you shoot ships of the opposite color, and yet it's one of the hardest games I've ever played. Look at Super Monkey Ball- you roll a ball to a goal, and yet anyone here claiming that game was a walk in the park is a liar. Games can be simple without being easy or dumbed down for the masses.

BlkPaladinAugust 23, 2003

Thanks for elaberating I was writting another rant on another board and should of put more meat on it. And in addition some of the simpliest games are still the most addicting and fun to play. Oh that rant will be up on the Gamecube board soon. I'll polish it off more before hand... It been awhile so my argument isn't that long this time. (Remember the State of the Launches rant.)

mouse_clickerAugust 23, 2003

I used to write huge rants myself, but most of the time now they start off small and end up in a huge argument between me and someone else. face-icon-small-wink.gif

GoldShadow1August 23, 2003

I think there's a place for both games with simple controls and more complex games. It just depends on what you're trying to acheive. For example, a game that's trying to be a simulation necessarily needs more complex controls, because in real life building a city or piloting a 747 is much harder than it would be in the average game. On the other hand, a game can still have a lot of depth without complicated controls. Like someone above said - Monkey Ball doesn't even use a button (unless you count start) but it is insanely hard and amazingly sensitive to your controls.

Right now I am playing both Metroid Fusion and Homeworld for the PC. Metroid Fusion is a 2D platform/shooting/adventure game and thus needs simple controls, while Homeworld is a 3D space real-time strategy game, which needs much more complicated controls. I don't think it's a matter of games overall needing more or less complicated controls, it has suit the individual game. For example, it always irritates me if a game has a button designated to only be used in a situation where you can't use any other button anyway - why not just use a standard action button like Zelda? Yet games can also have controls simplified far too much - like in Animal Crossing when you have to go to the menu every time you want to get out a shovel or something yet there are several buttons not being used at all.

Errol ZephryAugust 23, 2003

It's nice and all to say games are too complicated, and that may be true but it's not true for PC RPGs. PC RPGs are complicated because true roleplaying games are complex, non-linear and take a lot of effort to do. True roleplaying game fans demand complexity as they want to be able to create a character all their own and through out the game choose should he/she save the kid in the well, should he go on a homicidal rampage, or join the local criminals in a town and get everything he can or just try to put them away. That is the essence of roleplaying, you can't make it simple without getting rid of the roleplay. Hell just look at the word "role-play" its about playing a role as you see fit, not as some designer who is only good at making engines and not gameplay. Also Miyamoto is a true genius, he is known for good gameplay average graphics. It's tottaly the other way around for Carmack. It's a shame the standards for being a genius have gone down so much.

Grey NinjaAugust 24, 2003

I think what they mean is simply making the controls and concept of the game simple. A game can be more fun if it only uses a couple of buttons than one that requires both hands and an inate knowledge of the controller. There are some games that require a great deal of controls, such as a flight simulator, but some games, such as MGS2 use a lot of needless controls that can be stripped right out of the game for a more entertaining experience and less frusteration. Just because a button is there doesn't mean that you have to use it.

Complicated games in terms of details are sometimes fun to play, but oftentimes those details will bog down the game. Take Master Of Orion III for instance. When the game first shipped, the AI was seriously bugged, so it made it required to micromanage everything in your empire, which was FAR too complicated. With the new patch, the AI works as advertised, so you can give broad orders to everything, and it gets done with a minimum of effort. Simplifying some very complicated stuff makes the game that much better. The game is still complicated to the core, but you are shielded from that by a powerful AI.

DjunknownAugust 24, 2003

I'll have to disagree with Zephry in his last remark concerning Carmack. Its not really fair to compare Miyamoto-san with Carmack; its like apples to oranges.

Miyamoto-san was one of the pioneers of Gaming itself way back when, Carmack was just a pioneer in a specific brand of gaming: FPS.

Miyamoto-san created not just friendly characters (Donkey Kong, Zelda,etc) but expanded in different Genres ( RPG, Adventure, Platforming), if you read the article Carmack is more or less stuck with FPS? Why? Here's snippet if you didn't read:

More than 5,000 made the journey to Dallas (QuakeCon) last week to mingle and play with the people who created their favorite action games. The price of having fans that devoted? The company isn't afforded the chance to branch into other genres. "Since we're a single title company...we're constrained to do something that has a high probability of success," said Carmack. "It's unlikely id will come out with something that's off the wall."

His running buddy, John Romero probably branched off because of said reason (And how many are leaving their companies to branch out on their own?). But that's another story in itself.

Simply put, who knows whats inside the head of Carmack? We only know what we see (and what sells). Since he's a fan of simple gaming, it'll be interesting to see if he puts that philosophy to use in the future.


mouse_clickerAugust 24, 2003

I think Carmack already has put simple gaming to use. Look at games like Doom and Quake- it's all pretty much shoot-shoot-bang-bang-get the key-open door, which I LOVE- my favorite FPS's today are the ones that just unlease you on a horde of enemies and enable you to let loose a barrage of bullets/plasma upon them. I like objective based FPS's, too, but they'll never reach the level of enjoyment basic first-person shooters have for me.

RazeAugust 24, 2003

As the head of a game development company, I have to strongly disagree with this whole policy of shortening games or simplifying them. There is a plethora of simple games, much to the dismay of anyone with an IQ that outranks their shoe size. This talk of simplification of games is nothing new, its been going on for years, especially by Sony's hand (not to pick a particular company and bash, just an example). The unfortunate trend is that games are getting shorter and shorter, regardless of genre. So, instead of getting 40-60 hours of gameplay for $50, you're now starting to get 15-25 hours of gameplay for $50.

This whole process is just the capitalism side trying to take over the creative side of the game industry. If the publisher can get out more games, since they are being developed nice and simple, then they can get a whole ton of titles and have a larger percentage of the possibility of one of the titles being their "big hit". The simplification of games won't hurt them at all, it will hurt the consumer, and especially in the genre of rpg type games, where the complex story and the delicate weaving of character, plot and the unfolding of the overall tale is the main thing. What I can chalk up this new thought process of simplifying games to is simply the laziness and apathy to pour one's heart and soul into a game for the sake of making a game. It seems that the developers out there these days forget about designing a game for the love of making the game, and only focus on their cash reward.

So we have the big companies looking at RPGs and wanting to simplify them. Folks, RPGs by nature are not simple, they never were before the reign of video games, and they never were during the age of video games. RPGs are complex, and until you've actually sat down and started working on a development team to design one, it's hard to truly appreciate the architecture behind it. Which brings me to my next point, regarding Carmack. Sure, he's a legend, but mostly of of FPS games, but FPS games are simpler in nature than an rpg, thus why you see so many more FPS games flooding the PC market as opposed to traditional rpgs (not including MMORPGS- different element). It's easy to bash a genre that you don't specialize in. It's not different than someone on this forum never playing a PS2 or xbox before and bashing the system anyway. Carmack's word on this matter has the value equivalent to a pack of JuicyFruit.

Look at it this way, when you beat a game, regardless of genre, you feel accomplished. Yet, with an RPG, when you beat it, if designed well, you feel like you just finished reading an amazing book, and want it to continue on. I know the feeling, as I've had it once before, when I completed Zelda: Ocarina of Time (I know, not really rpg, but close enough in element). I was glad that I beat the game..but then I wanted more.. I wanted to continue on, living through the characters. What will happen if the developers are forced to simplify their rpgs is this: there will be a lot of squeezing of elements, less weaponry, less races, less moves, less spells...basically all the elements a developer puts into giving an rpg replay value will be lost, and the game MIGHT be good for a play once through... and then the story will be simplified and you'll get a 6th grade reader version of the story, which would leave a lot of unanswered questions for the player.

As a developer and head of a gaming company, I find this interesting, especially in the view of Nintendo, as we are working on pitching our adventure rpg to them before the year's end, and our game is quite complex. Should prove interesting indeed. Personally, I think all games, regardless of genre should be made longer and more in-depth. After all, the players are paying good money , they should get their money's worth.

Randy Wilson
Founder/Team Lead
Broken Attitude Studios
http://www.brokenattitude.com


RickPowersRick Powers, Staff AlumnusAugust 25, 2003

Quote

As the head of a game development company, I have to strongly disagree with this whole policy of shortening games or simplifying them.


It saddens me that even a game developer has missed the point. Games, even RPG's, don't HAVE to be complex. You can simplify what it takes to play the game without "dumbing it down" or shortening the game. A context-sensitive control scheme that has been thought out well in advance can allow anyone to pick up a game and start to play immediately, rather than needing to expose the user to a lot of needless data. Some users enjoy having to read a thick manual, but not everyone does.

For example, take the EXEMPLAY "Knights of the Old Republic". This is an AD&D 3rd Edition role-playing game, which is about as complex as it gets. Bioware has hidden most of the complexity from the user, making for a very engrossing experience. You can easily forget you are playing a game and get swept away by the story, and in an RPG, that's exactly how it should work.

Just because you have a controller with eight buttons or a keyboard with 80+ buttons, doesn't mean you HAVE to use them all. This is what Nintendo means by simplifying games. Not making them easier, or shortening them. Just taking out needless complexity to make the game more accessible. I think KOTOR proves that you can have a complex game with a lot of depth, without injuring the gameplay or story.

Quote

Look at it this way, when you beat a game, regardless of genre, you feel accomplished. Yet, with an RPG, when you beat it, if designed well, you feel like you just finished reading an amazing book, and want it to continue on. I know the feeling, as I've had it once before, when I completed Zelda: Ocarina of Time


Interesting. Originally, people were very upset when they first saw Ocarina's new target lock-on function, saying that it was dumbing down the game and would make it too easy. What's the point when you can press a single button and be guaranteed that you're aiming in the right direction? Instead, what it did was change the way 3D games are presented forever ... a lot of 3D games now have a similar lock-on function.

Complexity for complexity's sake is the LAZY approach. As Carmack said, adding features and functions is easy. Knowing when to pull them back is hard, even when it's the right thing to do. It's always more work to find a way to simplify your user interface, and it's always worth the effort in the end if it equates to more sales.

thecubedcanuckAugust 25, 2003

I agree 100%.
I like a game that is difficult to play, but not because I have to push 11 buttons at once while steering in 2 seperate directions.
I like a game that has a lot of fast paced shoot em up suprise around every corner type stuff, but I want to be able to pick it up and play in a few minutes without having to read a novel and memorize 75 differant special moves.

Simple controls, simple gameplay, medium/difficult play, that may get harder and a little more complex as the game goes on.

vroenisAugust 25, 2003

there's a time and place for both i think, though i would suggest that perhaps there aren't enough simpler games out there.
and yes - simple does not mean dumb - perhaps just more intuitive.
as much as i enjoy FPS and RPGs a la ts2, ff, and action/sneaks (metal gear solid 1) i enjoy smb just as much.
i'll probably get slammed for this, but i think one game that has achieved this intuitive simplicity would be ico.
no gui, simple controls, but i'd have to say i find it just as emersive as metal gear solid 1 and eternal darkness are, especially the use of language and subtitling.
i've only just gotten access to ico recently, a mate of mine bought it ex-rental from a video store, and i've got to say that it's my kind of game. i'm not saying that all games should go down this path - albeit probably none will because ico was terribly unpopular, but i'd definately like to see more games like it to compliment the huge range of complicated cames out there.
arg - but i'm a myst fan from way back, so i'm probably just a bit strange face-icon-small-wink.gif

RazeAugust 25, 2003

Quote

It saddens me that even a game developer has missed the point.


Ah, but I haven't missed the point. There is a buzz going around about publishers trying to keep games in the future under 20 gameplay hours, so the players wont spend so much time playing one game, and in turn, purchasing more games to keep them entertained. Brilliant strategy for a publisher, horrible for the players. I understand the surface point of it all, but what the hidden message in calling for a "simplification" of games is, that is what interests me far more.

Quote

Games, even RPG's, don't HAVE to be complex. You can simplify what it takes to play the game without "dumbing it down" or shortening the game.


True, we both know this, but is that surface level talk of simplification the only level there truly is? The things I've heard from other independents is making me wonder. For the gamers' sakes, I hope it is.

Quote

A context-sensitive control scheme that has been thought out well in advance can allow anyone to pick up a game and start to play immediately, rather than needing to expose the user to a lot of needless data. Some users enjoy having to read a thick manual, but not everyone does.


Agreed, especially when dealing with console games. Players usually pop the disc and and pick up the controller and figure out the buttons as they go along in the game, one of the reasons a good in-game tutorial is one of the better approaches, and spare the paper. In this vein, I can think of one game that used more buttons than probably needed to: Lord of the Rings: Two Towers. Great game, can't knock it, but some of the combos were borderline ludicrous.

Quote

Just because you have a controller with eight buttons or a keyboard with 80+ buttons, doesn't mean you HAVE to use them all. This is what Nintendo means by simplifying games. Not making them easier, or shortening them. Just taking out needless complexity to make the game more accessible.


As I said, I hope you're right on this, that this is all they mean. This news came to me in the same week that I heard two different sources informing me that game publishers are making a push to keep games shorter as their new marketing scheme. If you can disprove these sources, then all the better. Yet, having combined all this news together, it makes me question the definition of "simplification" in the eyes of the publishers.

Perhaps I'm reading too deep into the topic, I've been guilty of such before. I'd rather that be the case again, than there being alterior motives.

Randy Wilson
Founder/Team Lead
Broken Attitude Studios
http://www.brokenattitude.com

Licken34August 25, 2003

Quote

There is a buzz going around about publishers trying to keep games in the future under 20 gameplay hours, so the players wont spend so much time playing one game, and in turn, purchasing more games to keep them entertained.


You can already see this happening. Anyone up to date on .Hack? Having to buy FOUR seperate discs for what is, essentially, ONE game. There are NO worthy changes or upgrades in the battle system or overall game, it's HORRIBLY repetitive, graphics are LAZY, and it's ludicrously short. The game is in it's third part and basically it's the exact same as the first, and yet we have to pay $50 bucks for each of its four parts (and that damn anime extra that comes with it is HARDLY worth it). The .Hack series could have easily -and should have- been made into ONE game, and yet, by the time it's done, I will have spent around 200 smackers on it. If this is the direction publishers are trying to take games, then I truly fear for the future.

(and of course, this could be me angrily ranting and totally missing the point...heh hehe.)


And, I think it's kinda funny to argue the complexity of controls in RPGs. Now, granted, I can't speak for PC (I'm not much of a PC gamer), but for consoles, the average RPG's control scheme is centered around one button for talking/opening chests/entering commands and another for cancelling. Maybe a few buttons are added to make the battles a bit more interactive, but other than that, how simple can you get?

KDR_11kAugust 26, 2003

Carmack obviously spoke about PC RPGs. Some of those have simply an overkill of options. Example? In Baldur's Gate 2 you can rent four different rooms at different prices at an inn.
BTW, a good example for cut-to-pieces games is Golden Sun. Heck, for that price I expected a full game, not a shareware ending with "to be continued" half way through!

mouse_clickerAugust 26, 2003

It IS a full game, KDR- it took me 30 hours to beat and I didn't get anywhere near everything in the game. Just because it had a "to be continued" ending doesn't mean it's not a great game- Empire Strikes back just cut off at the end and is regarded as the best Star Wars movie by far. Golden Sun was just one part of a much larger story- Camelot could not have fit the entire saga onto one GBA cart.

rpgloverAugust 26, 2003

i have played many rpgs during my time and i must say that most console rpgs are pretty simple- usually just one button to do everything (which is basically to go through menus)- i like those rpgs, but i do like when an rpg developer takes some chances with how the battles should be played out- two good developers (monolith soft and tri-ace...i seem to talk about them a lot) take rpgs to new levels with different battle systems that spice up the action from the usual press a to do everything- although complex, they are fun- anyone who has played valkyrie profile, star ocean series, or xeno series can see that eventhough you press a lot of buttons during battles- they are relatively simple once you learn what you are doing- but pc rpgs can be a whole different story
basically some developers of pc rpgs just know what they are doing (bioware is the best in my book)- bioware takes the complicated D&D 3rd addition rule system and simplified it in their games (knights is a good example, as is neverwinter nights- you could basically point and click in that game and never know about any of those dice rolls the game does) but other companies just force you to press just about every button on the keyboard to play the game
i agree that there are games out there that are just too complicated to have fun, but some games (although they make you use different buttons on the controller) are still fun and are not complicated

mouse_clickerAugust 26, 2003

Complexity can add a bit of strategy to a game, too, especially an RPG. Take Grandia's superb battle system, for example- it is by no means simple, and during a random battle in the Grandia series there seems to be too many things to watch out for- where the enemies are on the time guage, how fast they're moving, whether or not they're using magic ora special attack, who they're planning to attack, if that person has time to defend or counter attack, where your party is on the time guage, how fast they're moving, what enemies can be most easily dispatched, which enemies pose the most of a threat, whether the slower acting time of a stronger attack is worth the lost agility or if the enemy may counter attack in that time period, if you even have enough magic points or special points left to execut such an attack, where everybody's HP is and who needs healing, precisely WHERE everybody is on the battle field and whether it's feasable or not to cross the distance to attack an enemy, etc, etc- anyone who has played Grandia, though, will tell you all of these things, plus more thing you need to look out for I failed to mention, become second nature to you, and actually become pretty damn fun (I'd fight enemies in Grandia II just for the fun of the battle system). In my opinion, Grandia's battle system is vastly superior to the straight turn based styles used in Pokemon or Golden Sun, and a WHOLE lot more fun.

rpgloverAugust 26, 2003

mouse has it exactly right there- and grandia's battle system (although complicated at first) is one of the more rewarding ones out there- make the right choices and moves and you can counter an enemy's attack and skip their turn- make a wrong move and the same thing happens to you- and it is tons of fun as mouse has said
another good rpg battle system is valkyrie profile's- for those who have played it you should know how it works but basically you have four characters on screen for your party and those 4 characters are mapped to a face button on the controler (it is for playstation if you are wondering)- basically to attack it is simple- you press the button and the character mapped to the button will go and do a regular attack with their weapon- you can have more than 1 press of the button per turn if you equip the right weapons too- but the point is not just to damage the enemy- you try to build up a combo meter by chaining the attacks- if you get to 100 on the combo meter, you can do the character's special move by pressing their button quickly when the time meter comes up- as strange as it sounds the special meter when filled up is called "purify weird soul" and the specials are pretty cool- this system may seem simple, but it takes strategy as well- you must time the button presses perfectly to get the combo meter filled up- and you must know if your character attacks low, ground based, or throws the enemy in the air- if you do an air attack, then do a ground attack, chances are you will miss the enemy unless you time the button press to get to the enemy just as he falls- it is an interesting system and one of my favorites- it may sound complicated, but with practice it becomes a lot of fun

KDR_11kAugust 27, 2003

mc: I agree, Grandia 2's battle system was very good. If it had FF's system I'd have given up after 5 hours, as the plot simply is too bad to be the only driving force...

rpgloverAugust 27, 2003

"the plot simply is too bad to be the only driving force..."

even though the plot was pretty linear i thought it had good twists in it (even though you could see them coming) but i think the plot was intentionally linear and easy going- game arts usually focuses on character developement more than plot- and to me the characters were very well done in the game

mouse_clickerAugust 27, 2003

The plot was maginficent- well, maybe not the plot alone, but the issue Game Arts tackled was one I firmly believe in and I'm glad someone's not afraid to attack religion in a videogame.

I also agree with rpglover- the characters were very well rounded and three dimensional (no pun intended), something a lot of other RPG's lack.

Ocarina BlueAugust 27, 2003

Now that I think about, clever simple games often have more varied gameplay than complex ones. Super Mario 64 had a simple engine, which might have taken 20 minutes to get used to, but it had clever enough objectives and varied enough means to get them I never felt bored. Baldur's Gate 2 was the opposite, I felt I was doing the same thing over and over again, but I enjoyed doing it because the story was interesting. I felt OoT was a good mix of these elements, as it combined simple controls with more weapons and complex puzzles. Still, there is a place for complex games, BG2 was one of my favorite of all time, I just think that some people are blowing Nintendo’s simplifying out of proportion.

ThePermAugust 27, 2003

What Nintendo has been doing has been making its control systems more intuitive. Simplifyin game...no not really Nintendo games all have a certain feel and thats been apparent since the metroid super mario 3 days.

thecubedcanuckAugust 28, 2003

Even though many here claim they hate GTA3, it think its simple control scheme was one of its biggest selling points.
Yes, beating up hookers, stealing cars, and killing in the hundreds did sell it, but you could simply pick up the game and do these things without a big learning curve.
I guess I miss the old 3 button controllers, I really think they were all that was needed.

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement