I think it's simply that game development is hopelessly cannibalistic and self-referential. Other forms of media (and dare I say it, 'art') draw upon other art forms and media as well as trying to reflect the many different facets of human life, whereas games - for the most part - limit themselves to either copying a film, or a sport, or more likely, previous games.

It also has to do with how computer games are an exception in the entire history of games themselves.

Games are inherently multiplayer, pretty much since the beginning of time. Yes, single-player games have developed from multiplayer games, such as solitaire card games, but for the most part games are multiplayer.

With electronic devices, it's different. Mattel's handheld Football, the Sargon series, CRPGs, etc... computers great and small created a world of games unlike what has existed in the past - single-player games. As a result of the single-player design, a different approach has been taken with them. The approach most common is that of the player rising to be the hero against the electronic opposition.

Video games also have to move in the direction of creating an immersive environment because it lacks the engaging physical activities that a board game has.

In a board game, you often roll dice, flick a spinner, flip cards or move pieces. There are a lot of aspects that cannot be reproduced in a video game. You cannot reproduce the dice in your hands and the anticipation of that roll. You cannot reproduce seeing the awesome card you flipped and slowly revealing it to your opponent. You also don't have an opponent that is going to be affected by your actions, nor do you even care if the computer feigned being affected.

The personal and 'real' aspect of board games simply isn't there no matter how many cutting edge animations and triumphant fanfares are added. It's the nature of creating single-player games.


A good single-player video game is more a good toy than a good game.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan or more likely, previous games.

Mainstream game development really has followed a Markov process of decreasing diversity. And so have the expectations of gamers, unfortunately. It's not just that current games are based on previous ones, it's that they're heavily, almost exclusively influenced by *recent* games. You rarely see good ideas from the past brought up again.

You can do essentially anything you want with a computer, short of providing real intelligence or social interaction. Expectations be damned. I hate to keep banging the drum of Darklands, but it really fits here. Darklands used a system for encounters and city exploration that looked like a Choose Your Own Adventure book: text description, and a series of choices presented over a background image.

After a choice was selected, the system could do any kind of calculations to determine success or failure (typically skill checks), and then present you with an outcome, which was sometimes dumping you into combat mode. So creating a totally new situation just required writing the text, making a few backgrounds, and adding some simple code. And it really, really works.

Quote:

Original post by drakostar I hate to keep banging the drum of Darklands, but it really fits here. Darklands used a system for encounters and city exploration that looked like a Choose Your Own Adventure book: text description, and a series of choices presented over a background image. After a choice was selected, the system could do any kind of calculations to determine success or failure (typically skill checks), and then present you with an outcome, which was sometimes dumping you into combat mode. So creating a totally new situation just required writing the text, making a few backgrounds, and adding some simple code. And it really, really works.

Not a bad drum to keep banging at all. :)

Well, like someone else has already said, when it comes to board games they are from the ground up a social experience. Playing the game often is more of a byproduct to meeting with others. Don't know how much that influences it but if you do something for itself chanches are you might be expecting more from that expreience. Like beeing the lone hero that saves the world in a video game opposed to playing the regular guy in a table top game.
And even in an MMO there is that abstraction layer of chat or voice communication that prevents a lot of social interaction. So it's more about playing the game than if you are playing a board game with some friends that are actually in the same room.
Don't know if that makes any sense just something that came to mind when I read the topic.

Quote:

Original post by LynxJSA With electronic devices, it's different. Mattel's handheld Football, the Sargon series, CRPGs, etc... computers great and small created a world of games unlike what has existed in the past - single-player games. As a result of the single-player design, a different approach has been taken with them. The approach most common is that of the player rising to be the hero against the electronic opposition.

But do you think that's an explanation for why it is that what you do is so narrow? I do understand that developers decided to replicate the hero's journey (over and over and over again). But most of the time the hero's journey isn't a killfest.

Quote:

Original post by drakostar It's not just that current games are based on previous ones, it's that they're heavily, almost exclusively influenced by *recent* games. You rarely see good ideas from the past brought up again.

I agree heartily with this. There used to be a time when I attributed this to gamers growing to a certain age and abandoning the hobby. My thought was simply that there weren't enough old timers to even remember, let alone have played certain games from the past. Yet it's been widely detailed that the bulk of gamers are thirty-somethings, so that excuse is out the window.

Quote:

I hate to keep banging the drum of Darklands, but it really fits here. Darklands used a system for encounters and city exploration that looked like a Choose Your Own Adventure book: text description, and a series of choices presented over a background image. After a choice was selected, the system could do any kind of calculations to determine success or failure (typically skill checks), and then present you with an outcome, which was sometimes dumping you into combat mode. So creating a totally new situation just required writing the text, making a few backgrounds, and adding some simple code. And it really, really works.

I think you mentioned Darklands to me before and for some reason I thought it was something totally different. I just checked out Youtube vids and I'm really sorry I missed that game when it was out. I like how there were all sorts of weird distinctions like talking to clerks to redeem a note or jumping out of a boat you were traveling in before it reached harbor. That's just the sort of thing I'm talking about that you rarely see in a games. It's as if we've moved away from subtlety and non-linear problem solving and are telling players, "to hell with it, you're stupid, here's a weapon, go kill things until I tell you to stop."


I'd love to see what a more updated Darklands style system would be like. I know we've moved away from text to action and there are several situations you can now act out (like the boat jumping or chosing to take side streets), but it often feels hollow when not backed by some level of narrative. You're doing it, but it's not as if the game notices, so it's not reinforced or validated.

Quote:

Original post by sebbit Well, like someone else has already said, when it comes to board games they are from the ground up a social experience. Playing the game often is more of a byproduct to meeting with others. Don't know how much that influences it but if you do something for itself chanches are you might be expecting more from that expreience. Like beeing the lone hero that saves the world in a video game opposed to playing the regular guy in a table top game. And even in an MMO there is that abstraction layer of chat or voice communication that prevents a lot of social interaction. So it's more about playing the game than if you are playing a board game with some friends that are actually in the same room. Don't know if that makes any sense just something that came to mind when I read the topic.

Just wanted to make sure I clarify this point: I understand what you mean in terms of barriers to socialization, but that's not so much what I'm talking about. I'm more talking about the situations that you're presented with and the options you're given in terms of how to respond.

As I've said elsewhere, one problem I can sympathize with is that it's difficult to come up with a scalable, repeatable form of gameplay that has the same excitement, challenge of combat (to say nothing of comparative ease of implementation-- combat is often a math problem in most games, and computers are good at math problems).

I'm replying to the original topic here.

I might have misunderstood the original question, but it seems like you're attacking your own definition here. You're defining "hardcore" games with a very narrow view, then attacking the games that fit within that narrow view. You dismiss the entire category of games that thwart your definition with the world "casual," as though they don't exist. I don't think you can dismiss those games and still ask why the palette of situations in video games is narrow, because is isn't. You mention Flower, Diner Dash and Katamari Damacy. On my desk is sitting Phoenix Wright, Hotel Dusk, Trauma Center, Brain Age and Wii Sports. My 60 year old mother loves adventure games that feature zero combat at all.

At the heart of the issue, it seems as if you wonder why games that feature combat or management are popular. My opinion is that combat and management are simple and intuitive. It is easy to make a series of patterns of increasing complexity with those two types of gameplay. I'd even say we've mastered the art of shooters and strategy game pattern designs. That makes them easy to make, and more profitable.

I also tend to think a little bit negatively about the people who buy games. I don't think the majority of game players want to read or think too much about a story. I look at the varying successes of the Infinity engine games as the basis for this assumption. The game with the most dialogue and least combat had the weakest sales, even though it was critically acclaimed.

Playing a CRPG is more like reading a book than playing a board or card game.