EA CEO calls video games 'boring,' complicated

[JFman00 1]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118387245259860156-CZxlr9ocNSbycu2KBeT8zwpcMo4_20070807.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Some highlights from EA Chief Executive John Riccitiello:

“We’re boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play,” 

“For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat,” “There’s been lots of product that looked like last year’s product, that looked a lot like the year before.” 

He says EA and others need both to push more aggressively beyond traditional audiences to court "casual" consumers and to experiment more with new sales approaches He says EA and others need both to push more aggressively beyond traditional audiences to court "casual" consumers and to experiment more with new sales approaches ...

Mr. Riccitiello worries that competition puts the games business "at risk of being a little less interesting than Facebook and iPods and the next cool cellphone."

I won't say anyting in response. If I did it might result in sort of cataclysmic environmental event.

[ADG 0]

Originally posted by: JFman00

“We’re boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play,” 

quote>

He's right about the first part, but the second part should have read "because we are making games too easy to play"

[Poetic 0]

I agree with ADG - the "harder and harder to play" just isn't true. If it is true then I feel bad for the gaming community (I certainly know it isn't true for most of us on Simtropolis). But the games are indeed getting boring and, like both EA CEO and Will Wright have said, the endless sequels get annoying real quick. I still disagree with not making a realistic SimCity sequel though.

[zzsim 3]

“For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat,” “There’s been lots of product that looked like last year’s product, that looked a lot like the year before.” quote>

 

This coming from the people that bring us Madden every year which includes little more than an update to the previous version's roster (oh and a $60 dollar price tag) .

[JanYpe 17]

Curse EA for seeing the need to make games more innovative, curse them I say!  Why haven't they listened for the past 5 years while we told them that we want more sequels and less original thought? We want more stale repeats, we want mo...

Wait a second.

This coming from the people that bring us Madden every year which includes little more than an update to the previous version's roster (oh and a $60 dollar price tag)quote>

You didn't actually read the article, did you? This new EA guy is saying that, get this, making minor update sequels is not the way to go. He's saying that they need to change the way they make games:

He said he believes making sequels is still a sound strategy, as long as they are more innovative than in the recent past.quote>

Don't go off the quotes that were cherry picked for the first post, actually click the link and take a minute to read the article.

[Robstersfive 0]

I totally agree with this, this is exactly why simcity is being made more approchable. lot games have got very dull as i been saying to my mate because I am in my early 20s...have games just got more boring or have we just grown up? and everytime I pick up an old game im hooked on it again for a few weeks so its clearly games have lost there fun!

Simcity 4 is impressive but it was still more boring compared to the first 3 in the series, it requires many hours of play to get your region going. I play sc4 all the time but this only a core group of people who prepared to do that.

the c&c3 looked amazing and sounded a true return to classic c&c3 yet i failed to really get into the game and never went back to it same with sims 2 and i was huge fan of sims 1.

trouble is games not inviting anymore they either same old crap again with newer graphics or just so complicated require hours and hours of your time which many people these days do not have! life stressful enough why should a game be just as frusting? 

If look back at retro games they were easy pick up and fun to play and were even in pubs and clubs, and this is exactly what they need to return to something anyone can pick up and play and enjoy because that what ultimately a game needs to be a form of escape from real world and to have fun with.

[John-SJ 13]

Sure, you can find games that get easier to play over time, but you can find those that get harder to play also.

Can anyone honestly say that SC4 is an easier game to master than previous iterations?  Another example would be Rome:Total War, the 2 expansions are much more difficult than the original.  Or Civilization?  I could name a lot more, but I think the point is made.

I read the article linked by the OP and I found it interesting.  I look forward to seeing what new and innovative titles will come from EA in the future.  Should be intereting!

[Robstersfive 0]

yeah times are changing the old format of games have been pushed far enough as it is anyway and as gamers grow up and next generation come in its time to start fresh again with many titles, but also be nice to see new games, spores will be one of these and is probably why EA let Will Wright do some new titles for them and push simcity to a new team for a new focus.

I also believe expansion shouldn't be allowed of limited to 1 big addon because one thing that made me leave the sim games is because the sims 2 was just a water down version of 1 with same addons being release again, pets, nightlife etc and that just takes the mick out of buyers

Also simcity was getting stale with age, simcity 2000 format reused over and over, if anything this new Simcity reminds me of classic, limited how big city can be, plop down the zone or buildings in this game, no water pipes and the kinda game anyone can pick up build a city and have fun with, plus with 3d graphics and street level i think cities are going to feel much more personal creations than just watching a simulation of same city grow every time.

[xxbydesign 1]

I don't see a reason why the two cannot exist side by side. Kinda like SimCity for dummies next to the real thing. Everyone has thier own particular flavor they like, hense the ice cream aisle in any grocery market anywhere. I personally like the semi-flexibility of SC4, and the surprise of not knowing what a lot will become over the course of a game century; you have to play to find out! Like the Rewards in Sim City 2000, you have to earn them, with hard work and good planning and lotsa hours! And if you like the game, you wont mind spending the hours upon hours, because you like it. But games like CityLife and the upcoming SimSocieties, its like you plop the building and thats what it will be through the whole game. Even the new Caeser 4, another city buidling franchise I've had a love-hate relationship with, has ploppable housing that doesn't really change like the housing in Caeser 3 did. And that doesnt seem real flexible to me, cause the buildings will always be the same size, so the roads kinda plan themselves. With lots, they can fit most of the crazy curves you could ever think of. Call me old fasioned, but I like the evolution aspect of the older games where you zone and see what happens. I'm just afraid these new renditions of older games will have shorter shelf life if they give it all up in the first round. But who knows, right? Maybe we just have to wait and see...

[John-SJ 13]

Sorry, but I can't resist:

xx, there is no reason to be insulting to current and future Simcity users by referriiing to a possible SC4 follow-on as SimCity For Dummies.  They deserve your respect as much as SC:S players do. 

[Xiahou Dun 4]

I both agree and disagree with this. They do need to have a range of games, both for the entry level gamers and the experienced ones. I don't think there is a doubt where SC4 falls in its appeal. I really have no problem with the direction they are taking Societies, because they want to appeal to the newer players who may in turn look into the games that came before it. In my eyes, SC:S isn't a sequel, its a spinoff. I personally don't think it sounds interesting, and don't plan on playing it, just like with many other games that are produced.

I don't really doubt that at some point in time, SC5 will come around. They want to appeal to new gamers first, since the majority of the SC fanbase is older. When we get a true sequel, they want the newer people to the series (those that have only played the Sims and Societies) to be able to play a game alongside the longterm fans like the majority of people here.

[Mr. Flibble 134]

There is a huge difference between depth and difficulty, something this EA person did nothign to articulate (and probably doesn't even know the meaning of anyway). With apologies, this next game will be SimCity for Dummies. Not only are core features of all previous versions of the game being scrapped, they are being replaced not by something that adds depth, but by (IMO) utter garbage designed to cater to the so-called casual gamer that seems to think realism is some kind of taboo in a game. It's actually an interesting direction game design is taking...as graphics and processing capabilities come ever closer to being able to simulate near-realistic scenes and situations, along comes this notion that games are too difficult and only by making them simpler (whatever that will end up meaning) can we return to whatever glory days of gaming this guy thinks are gone.

Was this EA guy a gamer back when flight sims, 4X titles like MOO and MOM, and wargames were king? Did he think games were too complicated then? Those games are gone...replaced in large measure by simpler games. What does he want next, a return to Pacman and Asteroids?

[Cob92 360]

The problem isn't sequels following in the footsteps of their precedessors, more so as it is that many game sequels over the past few years have been mere rehashes of the old game. Sorry to say, but SC4 is guilty of this. Aside from region play, the game feels almost like SC3000 with better graphics. Games shouldn't ditch proven formulas entirely, but instead should bring massive new innovations to each iteration. Sequels should be massive leaps from their previous incarnations, not the clones that exist nowadays.

[wozzar 154]

I think T2 use to make Madden until EA got the rights for it. T2 always made better football games than EA ever did.

[Metrotrainboy 0]

Well this is what I am considering. I started playing Sim City at the 3000 era, and was awed when 4 came out and likewise with the Rush Hour Expansion Pack. Although we do admit there can be more added, but enough to wow the world with a new system as well that wouldnt incorporate all of the same addons we so wonderfully have here at Simtropolis? And money could also be an issue, Simcity Deluxe, Im sure, isnt bringing in thousands of buyers monthly as it did in the beginning. But this new system, which I find faintly to be like City Life (someone correct me if I am wrong) will do that much, while grabbing many Sim City 4 fans and new fans that want the experience on an easier level.

[ElvishPresley 0]

I liked the older Madden games, now they ARE the exact same games, with different rosters. EA never made anything special. Other than Sim City 4 and Need For Speed High Stakes and Hot Pursuit

[Mulefisk 15]

Let's face it. As videogames attract a greater and greater number of players, we will see a change of generations. The games that we love (Sim city 4) will be looked on as dull, old-fashioned and complicated. It's true what EAs CEO says, that games have become more and more complicated. We don't notice this because we have all followed this development from the very beginning. (Back in the days of 16 and 32 bit) New players, however, who don't have the same experience as we do, will obviously find many of the games being made today as too complicated. To illustrate, this isn't a change that is exclusive to video games. Look for example, for those of you that know abit about the history of music, at the change that happened in the 1950's. At that time, most of the pop muic around was based on jazz (Frank Sinatra, etc..) Most of the people who listened to this, were part of the older generation. Then, however, Rock music appeared with Billy Evans, Elvis, and the others. This was looked on by the older generation as overly simplistic and stupid, yet the younger generation loved it. Then the Beatles came. The older generation hated it, while young people embraced it. My point is that we are seeing the exect same thing here today with video games. Young people who are new to video games will have different likes and dislikes than we do. Therefore, the face of the gaming industry will change, and no matter how much we dislike it, it will happen. Let's just hope we are not forgotten, and that people keep making games for us as well.

[Robstersfive 0]

Sadly there has been games in the past that have now been long forgotten that never come back, one at top off my head is rollcage 1 and 2. EA probably mean they want new titles of there own now, they fed up continuing old titles of companys they took over, another sad thing with EA is once games stop working in the future due to new system hardware and windows, don't expect a patch from EA either there brillant at letting there games rot

Some examples was all online bugs that c&c generals had for well over a year. That game only recieved a patch because of the huge out cry, a year and half to fix a simple bug! Plus any of the need for speed games that came out before hot pursuit 2 that doesn't work has now been left and forgotten to the grave.

The only hope is fans make there own patches. one victim simcity will definatly fall under is speed of the cpu! simcity 2000 runs insanely fast on max speed now. I had few old dos games ruin due to fact there game based on how fast your cpu ran and so now they run so fast there unplayable. same with streets of simcity as well it runs to fast.

[Shingure 56]

I will say one thing. How much Robotussin have you took in one day Mr. CEO honestly. I find the games entertaining. Simcity 2 up to 4 was entertaining. And Now with you handing SCS off to Tm you just made a good game so bad that no one wants to pay 50 bucks just to buy it. The games have actually have become harder only in concept. But in terms of gameplay it's complicated with a easy twist. That's my first response

Robstersfive also has a point too..EA does have a bad reputation of letting games rot from other companies. But then again when they release sequels they turn out better with a shorter shelf life. Such as Simcity 1. I still know people that play it today. Simcity two I know less people that play it. SimCity 3000 . I dont even try to play it and many that I know dont play it. Simcity 4 is so far the game that's been proving this trend wrong. But SCS will be a complete flop. It may be so bad it may strech into a anticipated SC5.

[Woulfe 1]

Boring - Maybe, depends on how you play the game.

Complicated - Well, the only thing I found overly complex about SC4 is the budget menus, far too much data to take in all at once.

I don't think going back to square 1 and then stripping it down even more is the answer.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Woulfe Boring - Maybe, depends on how you play the game.

Complicated - Well, the only thing I found overly complex about SC4 is the budget menus, far too much data to take in all at once.

I don't think going back to square 1 and then stripping it down even more is the answer.

quote>

He wasn't specifically talking about SC4 or SCS, SCS would simply be part of a new general trend for EA. Read the article.

[JFman00 1]

Well heres my take.

EA knows that it is not an innovator. It has bought just about every studio and franchise it has from the outside world. I agre with seanivs, that EA is confusing depth with difficulty. But EA, imo, is not the one putting out difficult games, other companies are. So 1 point EA. However, EA thinks that because its "Casual Games" division happens to sell well, making games simpler and require less effort is what they need to do to augment sales. I think the Wii has had a big part of it, with its ease of use and intuitiveness bringing non-gamers into the fold. But do games HAVE to be as easy as Wii Sports to play? Do we really want to make 3D pong clones?

Also, if you read the article, the new CEO has only been in since April, so I'm not sure how much he had to do with the SCS decision.

Maybe off-topic, but about SCS being a spinoff, why, if the SC franchise is famous for being "difficult", are they sticking with the name? The target audience is afraid of it, the hardcore fans resent it, what was EA thinking?

[Blazerhawk 162]

Games become boring because they are too easy. Plain and simple. After you reach the end goal of a game there is no reason to keep playing it. Lesson to be learned from Halo, incorporate ways for great multiplayer easily. EA is just a bunch of office workers who make and test these things all day, they should ask players before calling video games "boring."

[Hanson784 165]

I agree and disagree with what he said in the article. Why not make both types of games or expand divisions to cater to new gamers?

I also agree with the distinction between depth and difficulty.

Games with depth such as games which allow for user custom content have a longer playability factor to them than games that don’t allow customization. Entire communities spring up around the customarily factor of the game, mods are made etc… In a way the gamers are making the expansion packs for the title prolonging the games life.

Even most casual gamers will continue to play a customizable game longer than they would normally have because as long as there's a community providing custom content the game is still mostly engaging.

Though, I think it’s a bit of a generalization he says they make boring games. Who are they boring for? The gaming market is made up of niches.

[purpledaddy 6]

Pardon me if it sounds nitpicky about the language but the subtlety is important: I don't think that he is saying that video games are boring in and of themselves, but rather that the industry are making the games boring.  And I understand the sentiment...  

...It would be easy for any entertainment company to grab some easy money by producing a quick sequel that will be consumed by the franchise's fans and then go on their way.  If the recent summers have been any indicator, I presume It happens in the movies and in the recording industry a lot.  A very hyped sequel produces a big money making weekend by those who can hardly wait and then quietly disappears after that.    

But there has to be innovation if an organization, or a franchise for that matter, is to keep from stagnating and ultimately dying off. I presume that it is much harder and probably riskier to find ways to make a product fresh and inventive without losing qualities that made the predecessors attractive to begin with.  Making an item complicated, in and of itself without creativity or high production values, does not make the item fresh and innovative; it may , at best, stave off boredom by the hardcore fan for a little while...

...Now what that has to do with SCS or anything currently coming the down the pike, it appears we have a whole forum trying to speculate on. 

[DanWalker8 3]

It sounds like he ought to retire if he's bored with what his company does. Hopefully he does retire and they get someone in there that can make decisions that lead to a proper sequal.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Is it me or is this just lame excuse for them to put less thought into games...

Easier game = Less time in production = More money

Its not like the easier a game gets the more the price goes down (unless its for pre-schoolers), it's just seems like less effort for more money...

Swines...

[getdown11 0]

I just don't understand how catering to the lowest common denominator is going to bring innovation to gaming.

I believe that catering to the casual market is the reason why gaming is becoming boring. Games have become too hard? What a joke. I have yet to play a game that was so complicated I couldn't understand it. Thats what the manuals are for. Geez. I'm not a member of MENSA or anything but if I can get through Falcon 4 then anyone can.

I honestly believe most gamers are looking for a challenge. Thats why we play. If we wanted easy we would still be playing asteroids and pacman. We want to think. We enjoy solving the problems presented to us.

Given the technology today I feel gameplay is inherently going to be limited. Innovation I feel is only going to come when we change the way we play games.

Plug me into the Matrix I'm ready.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

you don't get bored to death by playing a hard game, you get bored to death by playing a game that's super easy. this guy is full of bs.

[+Guest]

I think Riccitielo is almost on the right track, but he falls off somewhere in the middle.

He's right in the fact that there is a lot of rehash in gaming today. Take a look at any FPS or RTS in development right now. Nearly every single one you'll find touts new graphics and perhaps some updated physics and gameplay tweaks, but are they really that much different than what we've been playing for the last 5+ years? Take a good hard look at them and break the games down to their essentials and you'll be looking at games that are perhaps 80-90% the same as their predecessors in the genre. So, does that mean changes in development and a focus on innovation is probably necessary? Of course.

Here's where Riccitielo falls off the tracks, slams into a chemical plant and blows everything to kingdom come. He's completely ignoring the current gaming demographic in hopes of opening up a new market of fresh gamers. It's fine to make some accessible games for those with little to no gaming experience. In the meantime those of us who have grown up with games over the past 15-30 years have become quite sophisticated in our tastes. We know what we like, what we don't like and we've also become a bit wiser in the process. We need games with some built in complexities and challenges. We need games that truly add to the games we've seen before instead of simply rehashing them. We can appreciate a game with depth, character and intricacy. Unfortunately what we get thrown time and time again is the same old games with new coats of paint. Those can only keep us interested for so long. In the meantime, while we consistently find ourselves rummaging through our older games in search of something different to play (because nothing new can hold our interest) Riccitielo wants to make games more accessible, less complex, simple. This leaves us with the drab, the dull, the uninteresting. It leaves us with updated clones of puzzle games, pac-man and pong. Those games have their place, but we who enjoy the level of gaming sophistication we've grown into will crave for something more until it's either given to us, made by us, or we get tired of waiting and find another hobby entirely.

I have no problem with developing for new markets, but disregarding existing markets in lieu of the new potential is nothing short of ignorant.