|
I think there's a lot of reluctance based on the fact that a lot of game developers still make the games they would want to play, and in general, games like FarmVille are not going to fill that particular need.
RG: I agree. And by the way, I don't play FarmVille, personally. However, for example, I can tell you that in this last year, almost 100 percent of my gaming as an avid gamer has been on my iPhone. But I've tried every portable platform that's existed, and none of them were terribly good, but finally we have a platform where lighter mobile games are compelling even to a hardcore gamer.
The way we find this market, the key thing about the casual and social gaming market to me, my definition of it says this: "What's important to these users is not the game fundamentally; it's really their friends." So, the first thing you have to realize is their friendships and networking with their friends is the dominant activity.
So, to find them, you have to go into that community. And then when you decide that you have presented them something entertaining, your friend has to be able to say, "Hey, I found something that's fun. Check it out," they have to be able to send you a link.
They have to be able to download and check it out yourself with no cost, never going to the retail store, never sitting with a long download, never with an instruction manual, never with a tutorial. You have to sit down and play it.
Well, in my mind, every online game that we've already made to date would be a better game if I could pick it up for free, I could download it immediately, I could launch it without any installs, etcetera, etcetera. So, the things the new market is demanding is actually a benefit to every game we've already made in history.
And as you make these games, a lot of those people will come along the ride. A lot of them will be immersed with gaming and want to play more. Some of them will stay light; some will increase their journey. But either way, it's going to be radically market-expanding, and the quality of the offerings is also going to go up very quickly.
One of the things that the portable area is going to be able to do, is that the majority of offerings that you see today on these social media networks are all developed on things that were great common denominators like Flash and Java. And the reason why those were great initial foundations is because it's ubiquitous. You can run it on IE or through Firefox or Safari or on your iPhone eventually. It's easy to transport thing you write there.
And the engine is already designed for you, and there's books written on it and etcetera. And so it makes sense that that would be the first place that people would build games. But the results of those games don't provide you with the same what I'll call graphical power that you do out of a more customized engine, and I would also argue that the user interface, what I'll call the tactile feel that you get when you play a lot of these earlier games, aren't yet up to years of iteration of gaming that we've already done in more hardcore games.
And so I actually think it's actually going to be fairly straightforward for those of us in the traditional gaming market to bring sensibilities of user interface, of graphic quality, of engine performance as long as when we arrive on the scene, we also respect well those fundamentals -- I've already mentioned what I believe that market is -- and then we offer a palette of everything from very simple games like poker and farming or whatever else, as well as a full suite of... to my mind, it could be any MMO you pick, as long as it doesn't violate those premises.
In terms of the UI and kind of backend concerns in the existing social network games, what do you think are the main areas that need to be improved upon, and in what way?
RG: Well, I would think this early generation of social games that exist, the thing they've done brilliantly is that they respect and enhance the social ties of groups of friends within a social network. So, they're doing a very good job of every time I log into one of those games, you can see the kind of next level of crafting that people are learning to how to help bond people to each other, and I'm trying to make sure we learn those laws very quickly, too.
The place that I so far see so little progress on has been the recognition that, if you have the option of two games that are otherwise identical, and one of them is in fact physically just difficult to use -- hard to install, unreliable to install, graphically inferior, obtuse user interface, inelegant or less beautiful than the other -- of course you're going to pick the one that's more beautiful and easier to use.
And I see so far less progress in that area than in what's clearly the core of social games, which is the social part. That part is learning is going very quickly. But strangely, and I think the reason why, by the way, is the people that are making these games are this new breed that gets that, but aren't members of this group [traditional game developers] yet, so to speak, and very few people in this building have chosen to back them up.
It's interesting to me looking at some of these earlier offerings and seeing that the graphical quality isn't quite there -- and that in many cases, it doesn't matter. I don't believe that it won't matter, but I believe it hasn't really mattered yet in many cases.
RG: Well, no. And by the way, that was true... about Ultima Online. So, Ultima Online, we made by using... We were on Ultima 9 at the time, but we used Ultima 6 graphics literally to build Ultima Online. And so the traditional press, all the press in this building, panned it. They went, "Here is a game. It looks three years old. Who gives a flip about playing with other people. It's irrelevant."
And guess what? It wasn't irrelevant. It was the harbinger of things to come. And the same thing's happening right now in social media.
Do you think that story has any kind of place in this arena?
RG: I do. I was asked to play the anti-story role during that debate [at DICE]. And so hopefully I represented the anti-story side pretty well. But fundamentally, I'm a story guy. But I was correctly articulating what I thought the challenges to doing good story were, which is that it's almost never done well and it's rare that the marketplace has rewarded good story. So, I think those are true.
That being said, I actually think what takes games out of being an irrelevant way to spend some time and puts it into literature and meaningful life experience is to put good story in it. And so for me personally, I think it's a really big deal, and I think it absolutely can be done on online interactive environments just like we barely are able to do it now in solo player gaming experiences, but it's definitely a big challenge.
|
Good morning, Remo. :)
So true, but I wonder how that compares to, say, aspiring movie director & producers? On the one hand they do the same thing to an extent. On the other, many are research-oriented and those are usually the ones that make the biggest contributions because they draw from outside the industry.
'And so designers have no job qualifications really, if you know what I mean. And so everybody wants to be one and nobody's skilled at it. '
I'm not sure about this. I think this is a conflation of production skill with game design skill. It seems to be me core game design skill is just that - the art of designing core activities for players to do, which are fun/interesting/compelling. And then being able to communicate these activity-sets to the team in a way that they work with existing art and technology. It's a soft, nearly intangible skill. But just because it's soft and intangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The state of Facebook games is such that they're indirectly interactive. I do nice things for you, you do nice things for me, but even if we're both interacting with the same Farm at the same time, we don't see each other and can't talk.
Closing the gap, giving people things to do together, and still keeping the game casual, now that would be a design challenge.
It is nice to hear someone like Garriott affirming the importance of research. Now I feel my tendancy to obsess about fully knowing something I wish to design around has more weight than my own conjecture.
John, isnt it even more of a design challenge to come up with gameplay thats fun for friends *despite* having only asynchronous communication?
Theres nothing wrong with designing games around friends interacting in real-time. Im just not sure that capability is right for the architecture of social networks like Facebook.
It seems to me that if social nets like FB are to become the Next Big Thing in gaming as Richard Garriott predicts, its the very asynchronous nature of friends casually communicating with each other -- as distinct from single-player or massively-multiplayer architectures -- that will enable this result. So thats probably where design creativity needs to be directed.
Speaking of which, its nice to hear an Industry Figure sticking up for designers as people who have a unique gift of understanding how systems fit together to achieve an overall purpose.
IMO (and since my opinion is free, take it for what it's worth) is as follows.
VGA Planets. Trade Wars.
In comtemplating Facebook games, we also step back in time to the days of dialup services and BBSes. Gaming occurred in these enviornments (VGA Planets being one of the most notable) and ought to have some wisdom for us to take forward into Facebook.
I don't want to excessively downplay the challenges of developing asynchronous multiplayer games for Facebook. The challenges ARE there. If nothing else the potential scale of the world is many orders of magnitude larger than any BBS game. How do you keep an asynchronous story straight when you and a friend happen to be playing at the same time? Farmville doesn't have the sort of story progression that can be thrown off by multiple players stirring the pot at once.
It's just not totally unexplored territory.
That Facebook presents such a limited platform for synchronous activity is *why* such content is the greater challenge in my mind. Clearly any Facebook game that accomodated synchonous multiplayer play would also have to handle the asycnhronous case. Keeping the two modes straight and complemntary in a story-format is also a challenge.
Me, I gave up on FarmVille and I am just about ready to jump Café World (friends who want to play with me be damned). Why? Zynga, as much as I like these guys, are FLOODING you with spam. The first Minute of FarmVille these days is clicking away pop-ups. If you're not careful, you click on more ads in the playing field. And Café World is nearly there, too.
I do understand and respect that they need to maintain a business and micro transactions is what they live from. However, all it has done for me so far was drive me away from their games.
Once you introduce sync games, casual play becomes more difficult to maintain. In particular, if we look at the MMO model, players become dependent on other players to get some content done and they need to invest a lot of time in the game as well.
Is there a middle ground? There sure is! I have a lot of ideas and some include sync play.
@Andrew. I think there is going to be a lot of competition in this space and that will/should cause companies to back off on the amount of spam.
@Bob. The game/entertainment industry is evolving as it always has. So, imo its not a fad, simply another step in evolution. Keep in mind the majority of folks playing these social games would never bother with a PC or console game, so there is no 'everyone to get back to regular games'. This is why this space is pulling is so much crazy money, its expanded the player base dramatically.
I don't think I'm the only one who know at least a couple hundred people playing these games that either use their work PC to play or have a PC at home that could not handle a game created within the past 3 years.
@John Trauger "could be so good at design that he doesn't need to play Farmville to figure it out. "
With that approach you are missing 90% of features that make a game social: virality & retention & events that you couldn't "figure out" unless you'll play it.
@Gesine You'll come back to the game as soon as it will provide enough of new content and meta-game layers. Or you'll see new beautiful pics in news feed :)
What I would say to you is this: What things have you done outside of the game industry? What outside world experience can you bring that will let you make something meaningful and interesting?
The article sez RG has been playing a lot of phone games. He may be assuming that Facebook games are similar. Now I don't play games on my phone, but it strikes me that phone games are more like games from the pre-internet days of desktop computer games. I don't know (or not know) that phone games play to the social/viral aspects of Facebook that Farmville does. Based on some fo RG's comments, he's thinking of essentially moving casual internet gaming portals to a facebook app.
If true --and it may or may not be, my telepathy is down today--RG would be missing what makes Facebook unique and sometimes annoying (Farmville does indeed want to put a whole lot of sheer carp on your wall if you let it. I only publicized opportunities for myself or other players like lost animals barn-raisings or when I levelled to a number divisble by 5).
I'm about due to check in with Farmville and see if the server has erased my farm yet. I'm about 3 months clean and sober, now. :)
I don't "play" Farmville myself but I have in the past.
That said, if he hasn't studied it and doesn't have intentions to it is in direct violation of his own statement of how essential extensive research is.
But from a guy who did Ultima 4 in early eighties, one of the first real moral games at least (what makes Bioshock and Mass Effect decisions system a kid's play) and foresee in Ultima 7 a living world that would take place in the pioneering Ultima Online, i can really expect from him something more than Farmville's watching and copying from the others.
Being a failure or a sucess, he doesn't have to knock on the door to ask for permissions.