Making games easier, not stupider

So quite a while back EA wanted to toss themselves into a fire yet again when they made the declaration that games are too hard! Yeah we know that this is wrong to some degree or another, though more clarity is really needed. Here I actually encourage you to watch this video to save me a rant on streamlining and trend following for the sake of being similar and easy. Its a terrible thing and I'm getting kind of tired of it. It got to the point where seeing the circle button being the use button on shadow fall became a unique trait standing out against the norm for shooters... yeah that's just weird. So I could do this two ways: Rant and moan about how awful things are. Or the next and more productive option is point out better solutions. I'll go with the last plan, but I'm sure I'll manage to mix a little of both. So let me make an assumption that all EA wants is for more accessible, and intuitive games that respect the player's time. Ok lets look at some things the majority of triple A could make standard again and how it would benefit the entire player base.

Control mapping

That's a lot of control

I often hear one of the biggest barriers for anyone is actually within the controller. I can't relate so well, but I do have to admit that I can see some potential points to it. Some veteran gamers claim they need to slowly build muscle memory to a game, meanwhile from the casual perspective supposedly you've got the disadvantage of jumping in at a time where there's over 10 buttons, 10 genres, and multiple platforms where that layout can change. Now this isn't actually as big of a problem as some want to make it seem, because we didn't actually all grow up playing Atari and many old gamers could have easily gotten in through an old computer where you still had a full keyboard worth of stuff. However it still is clear that not everyone would be able to handle that, and looking back I remember struggling to learn how to jump right on a 2D plane in the original Super Mario Bros. I bet I could still get it over time without being restricted to a d-pad and two core buttons, but it might have been longer and other people are surprisingly impatient about learning stuff.

So we have two options here: Destroy all progress and make only games that run off of 5 or less core buttons, and render the default consoles and most of your keyboards, and likely plenty of genres obsolete. Yeah that's a ridiculously radical option and I guess we should just let designers themselves think about whether or not they want to design a simple Journey-like game or something more traditional.The other options is to make games open up their control schemes more so you not only can look at the controls, but alter them to your own desires and do things that feel right and intuitive. Good ideas for this might be someone that wants the highest face button (Triangle/X/Y) to be a jump control for any game with jumping, or the camera/aiming analogue stick to also click in for zooming or aiming down the sights in a shooter. Both functions are very uncommon features that could be subjectively intuitive to an individual, and to make matters more confusing they have been done this way as default controls under a minority of games. So clearly some designers out there even prefered them, but when games mainstreamed themselves into one line of thought for most controls with only minor changing pre-sets, people that may have gotten used to the minority function were isolated. I'm like this with the aiming example, I adore R3 ADS in shooters but for whatever reason I had to be forced into using a shoulder button to aim. Now on paper I can get that this was to make the controls parallel, and because triggers became a big deal for shooter, but this logic doesn't follow through elsewhere. The crouch button is almost always to the upper right of the jump button, or possibly the lower left, either way it is far from some parallel function. How do you fix this without losing anything for those complacent with mainstream practices? Simple, its called controller remapping and like I said it allows you to input whatever feels intuitive to you. Many PC gamers are used to ports that usually still have this function, but for consoles its for some reason a forgotten quality that used to be precent in at least a 3rd or so PlayStation 2 era games. For whatever reason now, we aren't allowed to remap controls in most games, with the major exception being either an indie game or Alien Colonial Marines of all games (which is likely only there because they kept it from its original PS2 function). Bring this back game designers. This will make gaming easier and better for all of us.

Lots of other options!

I love the Shadow Warrior game I got for christmas, and you're looking at one of the reasons why (A blury look at least). Well ok, its more like icing on a great cake, but its still some great icing to talk about. Games used to occasionally come loaded with options. You could totally redesign your Crosshair, customize some bits of your HUD, and occasionally some silly extra like changing the color of blood. On top of all that there were cheat codes to, some silly, some game changing. This not only gave you some personlization, but it made things easier and more suited to any player. On top of that cheat codes made a game more accessible. While the game should have a natural difficulty curve, and well designed levels, they could cover for someone's mistake as a difficulty spike was thrown. If we just sucked, we could also get by. We could also just enjoy a game longer if we could replay it while say... invisible and able to just screw with the AI. Still being able to set up our own HUD, change its size, change colors, etc helps with a lot of potential issues (like color blind-ness, or reading impairment), and just adds more to a game for some die-hard fan. I know I played Killzone 2 a few times with the self-imposed challenge of no HUD, but it would be a much better and smoother experience to do the same idea with only an ammo indicator. Its been proven before that both of these things can exist within a modern game, you just disable achievements with cheats, and take the time and care to give players HUD options.

Handling a multiplayer centric video game...

I've been consistently bashing forced matchmaking over last generation, and to this day I'm still baffled by the practice. You want games to be accessible, or even in the slightest bit advanced to show real innovation, then use or improve the system that has been with us since at least the 90's, because as it is most games have been backwards on online support. However I'm getting a bit out of touch with the subject at hand... imagine this: A newer gamer is playing one of their first online games. They were told by their friends it would be fun, they get it, and then they play a bunch of awesome private matches with their friend on their favorite map. Then... they can't quite get in touch with their friends because of a busy day, but they still have that urge to play. They try to connect to a public game and its just a mess. They don't like being instantly killed by some explosives, the map is unfamiliar and sucks, and they just weren't prepared for what was thrown at them. If only there was a system they could practice in, and/or some way to adjust the rules for a steadier learning curve or something more people could appreciate beyond the stock settings you're thrown into with 8-16 other players. Oh wait a minute, that stuff has been done before and its called bots and server browsers. However neither are standard, and one is pretty much as rare as the launch of a Duke Nukem game. Again this is something that makes life and gaming better for the casual and veteran alike. Weapon overpowered? Ban it! Want to see what a headshot only match is like? Do it! Want to take out regenerating health? That's usually an option. Campers too cheap? Well fix it so that you always see them on the map and people need to move. Just want to be dumb and have an all explosive low gravity party? Go right on ahead. That's the way of many server lists games, at least back when you could say "many". This is still possibly common place on PC, but you're screwing over a huge market of casual gamers by neglecting the console side, as well as just pissing them off. As a big fan of Starhawk and Killzone 2 I can proudly say there are console gamers who know the good side of this stuff, but the fact is many devs just stopped caring. However I will say at least EA themselves gets this a bit and has battlefield come with server browser support, thanks EA. However truth be told the bigger thing for casuals or those wanting to get easy access, bots pose a bigger solution. As much as I adore server lists, I've got to say this problem is better fixed with bots as that eliminates online stress, provides easier learning time, some customizable training, and is just a better way of learning how to come to grips with a multiplayer game. Now there is another aspect of MP that needs to be done just right, but that is worth its own section....

Don't screw up DLC

You know I get that at times gamers, including myself, complain too much and complain over some dumb things. However there is a damn good reason tied to certain DLC complaints. I suppose big games like Battlefield and Call of Duty get away with some of it, but the bottom line is you've got to double check yourself to make sure your DLC plan isn't causing people to back out of the game, and trust me quite a few actually are. As a guy that doesn't buy Battlefield because I've seen BF3 actually keep me out of the game when I wanted to give it another chance several months after its release, as a guy that didn't pick up evolve because I know its not going to simply let me play a deep and compelling game until I've purchased DLC later down the line, and as a guy who saw Destiny's path coming before it even launched because of how exploitative Activision could be with a fake MMO I know DLC can keep people out. You're not only having games keep casuals out because of DLC, but I know for a fact you're keeping experienced gamers out of it as well. Having a bad DLC plan is the exact same as trying to launch a broken game, people get frustrated and fed up with the idea that they can't simply play the game and let that speak for itself. The only difference is with cases like Evolve and Destiny you can see this kind of bad crap coming before launch because developers or publishers have no subtly about their season pass plans, where as a broken game is up to reviews (not likely though) and word of mouth. People just want to play your damn game and have fun, that's a lot less of an option when you're cutting the package up and making us feel like we're missing something but also too confused by the split models to know exactly what it is we're paying for even if we do try to get everything. On top of all that, if these plans and publishers had even half an ounce of common sense on marketing they'd know that people don't know how you're game is going to be until they're actually playing it. Trying to sell them expansion packs with terms, weapons, or characters they don't even understand because they have no experience to go on is just plain stupid, and its not helping anybody out. Furthermore, just stop making map packs! That needs to stop being a thing as that just splits the community. Its not only a disservice to late comers, and new gamers, but hardcore fans still watch as one of their favorite game's playercount drops.

Look DLC is a very diverse system that can be handled from many angles and many price ranges. You don't have to stop DLC, and I don't want anyone to either as I love seeing new content for a game like Killzone Shadow Fall. I love it when a developer supports their game way after launch like Naughty Dog does. I'm sure COD ghost players were surprised and delighted back when suddenly they were offered a chance to have R Lee Ermey narrate their matches. Things like that are nice, and can stay. Its just you got to be smart about it, and you have to stop shoveling out this stuff before a game is even launched, or just shoveling out things that will wreck the game by making it actually lack something rather than add. Make sure a new gamer is always welcomed, whether its a new guy ready at launch, or a guy buying the game at a discount 4 months from now. Either way he contributed to your game's lifeblood, he's probably offering you some funds, and it'd be a real shame if he simply backed out of the whole thing because before he even knows what the game is he's assaulted with various locked down paywall content. As it is some people are making it harder not to just play the game, but to even make a purchase of one to begin with. I plan on attacking this issue in its own article at another time as well.

Conclusion

Naturally one concern I do have to address is the one that someone will say I'm only asking for more complex games, and to a degree that is true. However I say each and every thing with accessibility in mind in addition to a better overall game experience. Each and every thing here outside of DLC is asking for more, but each and every one allows for users to reconfigure a game to a degree they'd be more comfortable in. Honestly if someone is simply so overwhelmed by help and options that they find that a draw back, then they never had any business with gaming and I've got to wonder if they have any business with almost anything else. Nearly everyone uses smart phones, some use tablets, we all have to fill out over-regulated paper work more than once in our life, and honestly if they can't be bothered to figure out what HUD color means or how to hit default if they mess up their controller then honestly I'm legitimately concerned for their capabilities and I don't think they would have truly sunk their teeth into the actual act of playing a game. This is an age in which you can look up practically anything and everything up in the palm of your hands, and that's what millions of people both gamers and non-gamers do in their routine life with this age of technology. So forgive me if I'm missing the problem with giving the users more options. As for dev work, this shouldn't be a ton to ask for seeing as how ancient games have had these options without a problem, and I'd be fine with them taking their time to put it in rather than rushing out yet another game that can't even be bothered to let you change volume pieces beyond "Master". Seriously, fuck you to some of the games even going lower than we've already been in option menus.

Games do not need dumbing down. Not everything needs to be streamlined. Time and time again we've seen new and old gamers alike engaged and loving tough, cryptic, and complex games. Thats what brought gaming an audience in the first place. Yes some things in the past were simpler, but the skill was still high and gaming is still something that has been picked up by people looking for accomplishment, challenge, and fun. Just look at some of the big popular games out there besides just Call of Duty. Its a unique medium in that you control it, and are actively asked to work a bit within it, and I think that needs to be capitalized on not just by letting games revel in some complexity but also by letting the user customize and engage in them on their own terms. You can have some simple and dumbed down games that will sell, but you must also allow room for complicated, deep, and engaging games that you can actually walk away from and feel like you've learned or done something new and feel amazing about it. That is the power of video games, and nobody should be fooled into thinking you have to make the gameplay itself easier for enough people to enjoy it. You just need to give them the tools to be a little more at home.

They can make it to the top, just give them good footwear