I'd say there's still competitive games:

- Halo 3: try to get high ranked, it's pretty damn hard.
- Starcraft 2: staying true to the spirit of competition in the original.
- CS / CS Source: go get on a league practice server. People in those are ridiculously good.
- WoW Arena: try to get 2200+. It is very hard to do.

But yeah, "competition" in games is pretty much relegated to a smaller market. Very few people have the inclination or time to try to master a game just so they compete. Can't really blame them since usually the learning curve consists of getting your ass kicked repeatedly for a long time.

One possibility that might work to push competition to the masses is officially sanctioned "Tiered Leagues" like in Starcraft 2. Copper, Gold, Platinum, etc.. so you can compete with players around your skill level. The WoW Arena also does that somewhat. However, such a system absolutely requires from the developer a complex matchmaking system and league tracking service. It seems the vast majority of development houses don't want to put in the effort for that.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by japro What astonishes me is, that competitivity and focus seems to be so strongly associated with "hardcore gaming". I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore gamer. But apparently today everyone who is interested in developing skills in a game instead of just amassing items and achievements is "hardcore" and the casual gamers are seen as some sort of digital stamp collectors by the industry? Yes. You may find this surprising, but that's how it goes. Most people treat games like TV, or a Hollywood blockbuster. They seek out streamlined content that is easy to digest and which doesn't make them feel stupid if they don't understand it at the beginning. You are hoping to make something which requires a little more investment, which a lot of people can't or won't want to put in. For this reason, such games are relatively unpopular these days.

Typically arcade games are much easier to pick up than easy console games, but they are just as unpopular as anything else that offers actual chance for big improvement. It's not even correct to say a Tetris or a Mr. Driller or Ikaruga requires investment, IMO. If you have fun with the game to begin with, you play again. You keep playing, you improve. You improve, you get deeper into the game and see even more stuff.

Quote:

To some degree the market goes where the money is, and the money is not on games that are too hard or too competitive for most people. There's certainly merit to developing a game with a single great mechanic, but that's actually very difficult since we have few tools with which to approach such a design except pure creativity, which is lacking.

It's not creativity that's lacking. It's the will and ability to actually focus on something - whether new and original, or a basic thing like how exactly should jumping behave in a platformer - and polish the hell out of it. To do the job of game design. Back in the day people were able to make masterpieces like R-Type at minuscule budgets, staff etc when the only meaning of "game design tools" was pen and paper. Funny how current western developers can't design a fighting game or shoot'em up worth playing, despite having sat through all those GDC lectures on "cinematic narratives and fiero in interactive games". Lack of love for the game, ignorance, laziness, hubris. Those are the things keeping designers from doing good work.

Quote:

Original post by EJH One possibility that might work to push competition to the masses is officially sanctioned "Tiered Leagues" like in Starcraft 2. Copper, Gold, Platinum, etc.. so you can compete with players around your skill level. The WoW Arena also does that somewhat. However, such a system absolutely requires from the developer a complex matchmaking system and league tracking service. It seems the vast majority of development houses don't want to put in the effort for that.

What's difficult about implementing ELO ratings (which is such a simple thing that chess players can do the calculations on a pocket calculator) or equivalent? This stuff was mostly figured out half a century ago.

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari Quote: To some degree the market goes where the money is, and the money is not on games that are too hard or too competitive for most people. There's certainly merit to developing a game with a single great mechanic, but that's actually very difficult since we have few tools with which to approach such a design except pure creativity, which is lacking. It's not creativity that's lacking. It's the will and ability to actually focus on something - whether new and original, or a basic thing like how exactly should jumping behave in a platformer - and polish the hell out of it. To do the job of game design. Back in the day people were able to make masterpieces like R-Type at minuscule budgets, staff etc when the only meaning of "game design tools" was pen and paper. Funny how current western developers can't design a fighting game or shoot'em up worth playing, despite having sat through all those GDC lectures on "cinematic narratives and fiero in interactive games". Lack of love for the game, ignorance, laziness, hubris. Those are the things keeping designers from doing good work.

I agree with this a lot. The recent games i've played have a lot of visual polish, are highly interactive, and beautiful, but... Something i notice in software a lot is a products main feature will be incredibly lackluster, but to make up for that the company will pump it full of extras until it looks great. Sure, in Uncharted, i can shoot guns, jump across ledges, and it has an OK story, but i found the game itself very boring. It tried to wow me with graphics and animation and whatnot, but the core package didn't contain anything that made me think it was a good game.

I think the current focus about many games is on superficial qualities rather than core mechanics.

But, as mentioned, games that require involvement from the player are not always popular. But, isn't the goal of good game design to have a deep mechanic that is still accessible? Takes a minute to pick up, a life-time to master?

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari Typically arcade games are much easier to pick up than easy console games, but they are just as unpopular as anything else that offers actual chance for big improvement.

The reason arcade games are unpopular may be irrelevant to this discussion. It may have more to do with cultural trends and the popularity of home gaming.

Quote:

Original post by Splinter of Chaos I think the current focus about many games is on superficial qualities rather than core mechanics.

Agreed.

Quote:

But, as mentioned, games that require involvement from the player are not always popular. But, isn't the goal of good game design to have a deep mechanic that is still accessible? Takes a minute to pick up, a life-time to master?

No. As long as you are aware of what you're making, mini-games which are accessible and easy to master are fine. So are games which are complex enough that they are no longer able to be accessible. Fast learnability is not always a relevant metric for user interfaces either.

Besides, every game requires involvement from the player. It's not a game if it doesn't.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Stroppy Katamari Typically arcade games are much easier to pick up than easy console games, but they are just as unpopular as anything else that offers actual chance for big improvement. The reason arcade games are unpopular may be irrelevant to this discussion. It may have more to do with cultural trends and the popularity of home gaming.

I'm referring to the features of game design, not games actually played in an arcade. There are lots of arcade ports and remakes for consoles, and (in rare cases) original games like some Contras that are developed on the console but whose design is that of an arcade game.

The trick is to make games that are appealing and easy to learn for casuals, but that have enough depth for hardcore gamers who want to spend the time for competition. I think that Blizzard's games are all good examples of this. You can't really have a game that's easier to pick up then Diablo, it's just click, click, click. Starcraft is more complicated, but the campaigns are designed to let you learn to use each unit. Another very good example of games that have done this well is without a doubt the Super Smash Brothers series. I played that game a lot with my kids, and we're pretty good at it, but new players can pick it up and be good enough in no time.

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari Typically arcade games are much easier to pick up than easy console games, but they are just as unpopular as anything else that offers actual chance for big improvement.

They may be easy to pick up but it usually takes a lot longer before you are making much progress. This means a lot of people try the game, find out after 30 to 60 seconds that they don't enjoy it, and move on. By contrast, the industry cannot support this. It tries to ensure that everybody who buys the game will get hours of fun out of it and won't give up in frustration early on.

Quote:

It's not creativity that's lacking. It's the will and ability to actually focus on something - whether new and original, or a basic thing like how exactly should jumping behave in a platformer - and polish the hell out of it. To do the job of game design.

Hmm, I can't say I agree with that. To some degree all this is subjective and there's only so far you can push 1 idea. There's also a massive problem of diminishing returns - what kind of team and budget would you need to get a platformer that handled better than every Mario game ever? It makes more sense to strike out on completely new designs, but they are hard to create.

Quote:

Back in the day people were able to make masterpieces like R-Type at minuscule budgets, staff etc when the only meaning of "game design tools" was pen and paper. Funny how current western developers can't design a fighting game or shoot'em up worth playing, despite having sat through all those GDC lectures on "cinematic narratives and fiero in interactive games".

Now that is definitely subjective. :) I love retro games as much as the next person, having grown up with the 64K 8-bits, and some of those games definitely had amazing gameplay, but the vast majority of them were utterly unforgiving and repetitive. That was fine for the audience of the time - and the original poster, and probably yourself too - but most gamers now don't want to do that. They don't want to memorise Pacman patterns or

">try the same pixel-perfect jump over and over again (warning - profanity!).

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari Quote: Original post by EJH One possibility that might work to push competition to the masses is officially sanctioned "Tiered Leagues" like in Starcraft 2. Copper, Gold, Platinum, etc.. so you can compete with players around your skill level. The WoW Arena also does that somewhat. However, such a system absolutely requires from the developer a complex matchmaking system and league tracking service. It seems the vast majority of development houses don't want to put in the effort for that. What's difficult about implementing ELO ratings (which is such a simple thing that chess players can do the calculations on a pocket calculator) or equivalent? This stuff was mostly figured out half a century ago.

The calculations aren't difficult, but its the expense of running the service I suppose. Most game companies aren't willing to do it. Some of the current largest competitive game communities are probably:

- Starcraft 2
- Halo 3
- WoW arena

And the reason is because both Blizzard and Bungie put in the effort to develop and support official tiered ladder and matchmaking systems. Can't think of any other companies that have a ladder system like BattleNet or BungieNet. Are there any as big?

Take home imho is: you can make your game mechanics as competitive as you want, but if there is no official ladder and matchmaking system that makes it easy to participate, it will be hard to build a persistent competitive community.

Quote:

Original post by EJH The calculations aren't difficult, but its the expense of running the service I suppose. Most game companies aren't willing to do it. Some of the current largest competitive game communities are probably: - Starcraft 2 - Halo 3 - WoW arena And the reason is because both Blizzard and Bungie put in the effort to develop and support official tiered ladder and matchmaking systems. Can't think of any other companies that have a ladder system like BattleNet or BungieNet. Are there any as big? Take home imho is: you can make your game mechanics as competitive as you want, but if there is no official ladder and matchmaking system that makes it easy to participate, it will be hard to build a persistent competitive community.

Most multiplayer games these days already have centralized matchmaking both for convenience and deterring piracy. Unless I'm missing something, a functional ladder doesn't need anything more than implementing the ranking algorithm on top of that, and optionally showing the player's rating and rank. Even the "tiers" a la SC2 are an unnecessary complication. We're talking zero cost on top of the existing system.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by Stroppy Katamari It's not creativity that's lacking. It's the will and ability to actually focus on something - whether new and original, or a basic thing like how exactly should jumping behave in a platformer - and polish the hell out of it. To do the job of game design. Hmm, I can't say I agree with that. To some degree all this is subjective and there's only so far you can push 1 idea. There's also a massive problem of diminishing returns - what kind of team and budget would you need to get a platformer that handled better than every Mario game ever? It makes more sense to strike out on completely new designs, but they are hard to create.

I did not say anyone must exceed Mario. I said it's of utmost importance for developers of a platformer to make sure jumping works well in it. It is of utmost importance for developers of a FPS to make sure moving around and shooting works well in it. If you can't get the essentials right, the game will suck regardless of the amount of ludo-socio-cinematic horseshit or achievements or tacked-on multiplayer or bad story or voice acting by famous actors or minigames or pixel shaders that went into it.

Quote:

Quote: Back in the day people were able to make masterpieces like R-Type at minuscule budgets, staff etc when the only meaning of "game design tools" was pen and paper. Funny how current western developers can't design a fighting game or shoot'em up worth playing, despite having sat through all those GDC lectures on "cinematic narratives and fiero in interactive games". Now that is definitely subjective. :) I love retro games as much as the next person, having grown up with the 64K 8-bits, and some of those games definitely had amazing gameplay, but the vast majority of them were utterly unforgiving and repetitive. That was fine for the audience of the time - and the original poster, and probably yourself too - but most gamers now don't want to do that. They don't want to memorise Pacman patterns or ">try the same pixel-perfect jump over and over again (warning - profanity!).

I said nothing at all about retro games, and this is not a new vs old issue either. The Japanese continue to make excellent shoot'em up games (easy modes, too) to this day because they actually do the work and accumulate the understanding it takes to make an excellent shoot'em up game. Contrast this to a developer "working on an IP" and understanding so little of shoot'em up design that they only realize halfway through the project - and then only through external feedback - that the nature of the bullet patterns is a defining characteristic of the game, and they can't just wing it in designing them. What results is abortions like 1942: Joint Strike, easily overshadowed by a number of free games made by hobbyists in their proverbial garages, because said hobbyists are shoot'em up players and the essentials in their zero-budget games are up to par.