What's wrong with current BBGs?

Building off my earlier break down of the core PBM characteristics, I'm interested in seeing how modern games fail to exhibit all these features.

I am particularly interested in browser (and turn) based games (BBGs), which intuitively seem to exhibit some of these features, but fail to hook me and result in my losing interest. There are literally hundreds of these types of games out there. MPGOD lists 811 text and turn based browser games, but if you include "tick-based" games that number doubles.

I've played only a handful of these, so I will discuss those below.

The sort of games I am talking about are these:
Travian (w) - Medieval - Strategy - Closed Ended
Planetarion (w) - Space - Strategy - Closed Ended
Cosmic Supremacy - Space - Strategy - Open Ended (not actually browser based as it uses a downloadable client)
Astro Empires - Space - Strategy - Open Ended

Like I said before, there are hundreds of these types of games out there, but I think most of them are very shallow, too fast paced, and very repetitive. I'm out of time now, but I'll reply later with a more detailed discussion on these games.

In the meantime, if you have any experience with these types of games, share your experiences. Did they hook you, if not why not? Why don't they compare to the PBMs of old.. what is that missing element?

My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Repetition, itself, can be either boring or fun. I used to do a lot of repetitious stuff, back when I played Warcraft II and Starcraft on Battlenet, many years ago, but I had a lot of fun in the process.

Browser based games also suffer from a malady common to numerous post-postal PBM games - namely, interface issues. Often times, interfaces for games are not very intuitive, and the player invariably struggles with the interface. Interface issues can ruin an otherwise interesting sounding game. The interface can be a real interest killer, at times.

With postal gaming, the time delay between turns can help to build the anticipation factor, even as it acts as a retardant to the potential for game burnout. Players can become burned out, playing PBM games of the postal variety kind, to be certain.

Of the games on your short list above, I've tried Travian. It sucks. It gets old very fast, thus, it has no staying power for me, where its appeal factor is concerned.

Of the browser based games that I have tried, thus far, the one that I liked the best (but which I also no longer play) was Warlords of Eluria. It's been a long while since I have played it, though. I took a glance at the game's Top 100 Player rankings list, just now, and several of the players listed there are current or former players of the play by mail game, Hyborian War. I don't know how many of those players still play Warlords of Eluria, though.

The thing that I liked best about the game was its fledgling character system. One of the things that I disliked about the character system, though, is also one of the things that I also dislike about Fate of a Nation's character system - you have to grow a cast of characters, rather than starting with the equivalent of a royal court or assembly of great leaders, as is the case with both Hyborian War and Middle-earth PBM.

With browser based games, the player faces an accelerated curve for both familiarity and disenchantment. Imagination tends to be the "glue" that holds a postal game together. For all of the numerous deficiencies and shortcomings and outright problems that postal games tended to have (and to still have), whether computer-moderated or hand-moderated or a little bit of both, imagination was the great equalizer for postal games. Because there was a sizable span of time between turn results, players' imaginations were kept active and engaged for longer time spans, than browser based games tend to enjoy. Browser based games tend to be more bug free and more efficient, but efficiency devoid of imagination tends to yield rather dry results. Dry, in turn, equals boredom.

Grim I think you hit the figurative nail square on the head: browser games are boring. I rapidly experience everything the game has to offer, and end up bored with no interest in the gameplay. The rapid turn/tick time contributes to the 'acceleration of disenchantment' as you put it.

Additionally, most browser games are shallow to the extent that I can almost feel/see the raw mechanics churning away between clicks. Even if the game lacks a story/plot, I should still feel part of a narrative, a narrative I'm creating or contributing to as I play my position. However, when I play browser games I feel as if I am merely crunching numbers through an elaborate system.

Your point regarding imagination is key. The PBMs were fun, in many ways, because they lacked graphics and relied solely on your imagination. When playing RTG's RN:ROTE fiddling with my spreadsheet and tracking orders on paper really didn't feel like number crunching, rather I felt as if I was actually planning and issuing orders to my vast empire. In many ways I think many PBMs, while not RPGs, had a certain roleplay element that grabbed our imagination. For example, in SN:ROTE I was able to fully craft my position's species including physical, socio, and religious traits. I wasn't playing some canned or nameless people, but a people I created and gave life too, even though the RP didn't manifest it self during regular gameplay.

I still like have hopes for the web as a gaming medium for "deep" games, for it is accessible and ubiquitous these days, just like paper+mail was (is) two decades ago. I wonder what a web based game without these flaws would look like. Long turn/tick times? More player actions/customization? Less graphics?

Regarding the character systems, did you ever play Olympia?

Ramblurr, I have not tried Olympia. though I have looked at it and considered it. Isn't it similar to Atlantis?

Herm, I think so. Which one came first?

I know there are is active game of each:
http://www.arno-saxena.de/atlantis/atl_home.php
http://olympia.v-labs.be/g3/

Also, a friend recommended me this new browser game Zandagort. I'm going to play a couple turns to check it out.

Edit: Some quick notes about Zandagort after playing for about 30 minutes:

• The UI is very slick. Presents lots of information in a readable manner, and makes good use of AJAX to make performing actions easy.
• The english translation is a little rough in some spots
• The beginning is slow - which IMHO is a good thing!
• The tutorial is helpful
• The economy looks complex

I to find the browser games very repeative and boring, the few I have tried did not hold my attention long enough and gave no scope for personal action, only what was allowed within the confines of the game...

I played cafe-world and farmville a lot for 4-5 months. I advances through the levels, decorated my playspace, but in the end it just turned into a grind. One friday night, I found myself planting a 6 hour crop and cooking an 8 hour dish and thinking "I have to get up at 6am to get a 16 hour crop in before bedtime." I quit cold turkey.

ESMS has a rhythm, I email my teamsheet off, look at the transfer offers, see which of my squad is not getting playing time, and plan for the draft. I wait weeks for my scouts to come back with new talent, I eagerly await each Saturday's email with game results. A season unfolds over 6 months, and I may have to change my goals for the season each week depending on results and injuries. There's definitely plenty of anticipation.

Dave

[quote='Ramblurr' pid='147' dateline='1298645620']
Herm, I think so. Which one came first?

I know there are is active game of each:
http://www.arno-saxena.de/atlantis/atl_home.php
http://olympia.v-labs.be/g3/[/quote]

According to this site, Olympia preceded Atlantis.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='139' dateline='1298475582']

Browser based games also suffer from a malady common to numerous post-postal PBM games - namely, interface issues. Often times, interfaces for games are not very intuitive, and the player invariably struggles with the interface. Interface issues can ruin an otherwise interesting sounding game. The interface can be a real interest killer, at times.

[/quote]

That isn't the fault of the concept. A lot of programmers, even highly-paid one who have been doing web or desktops for a long time know diddley-squat about how to create a user-interface. Indeed, most of them look down on the interface as some sort of tail that cannot be allowed to wag the data-dog.

A few years ago, I was asked to beta test (and beta program) Microsoft's tablet concept. My response after using it for awhile (computers are too big and heavy, basically Windows XP with so-so handwriting analysis, not capable of being used while being held) was not well received by the boyos at M$FT who talked about all the impressive programming (and it was!) under the hood. When tablets didn't take off, for pretty much the reasons I had cited - the concept was pronounced a niche market in Redmond. Then along came Apple and the I-Pad. Most of the innovative programming in it is in the UI. The focus was on making it intuitive, and easy. . . Now tablets are the fastest growing segment of the market, and may relegate laptops to being the niche in the not too distant future.

One thing good modern game programming (desktop and on-line, computer and game-box) understands is that the GUI makes or breaks the game. Heck, that is true of turn-sheet gaming, too. If you cannot figure out how to give orders, or it is a PITA to give them, you are far less likely to keep playing.

[quote='JonO' pid='420' dateline='1300979568']If you cannot figure out how to give orders, or it is a PITA to give them, you are far less likely to keep playing.[/quote]

That sounds like my experience with Far Horizons, to date (Ramblurr take note). I am trying to sort through it, though.

One of the things that used to turn me off quickly in PBMs is having to learn a lot of codes. People are not supposed to have to figure out how to talk to computers any more, they should be able to give orders in something approaching standard English,

Yes, "Feed/Rations" is harder to program for than "G9/ST-FU" and it will require that either you give the player an input program so he can select "feed rations" and the program will translate it into back-end-readable code or you turn to regular expressions so that "Fedd/Ratons" is recognized as close enough for government work.

But, is the government playing the game? If not, then is "close enough for government work" sufficient?

[quote='JonO' pid='484' dateline='1301151530']
One of the things that used to turn me off quickly in PBMs is having to learn a lot of codes. People are not supposed to have to figure out how to talk to computers any more, they should be able to give orders in something approaching standard English,

Yes, "Feed/Rations" is harder to program for than "G9/ST-FU" and it will require that either you give the player an input program so he can select "feed rations" and the program will translate it into back-end-readable code or you turn to regular expressions so that "Fedd/Ratons" is recognized as close enough for government work.
[/quote]

Hear hear! The games I have played are mostly so code-intensive it's like the 80's. I put up with it out of love and devotion, but one of the real strengths of a web-based approach ought to be a really good, intuitive interface. Instead of manipulating spreadsheets and encoding your intentions, you ought to be able to click and drag bits of your empire around, move a "quantity" slider up and down, have intuitive default values auto-populate with your orders, etc.

I wholeheartedly agree. While I don't mind them as much as the code-based orders, I also detest regular orders like the kind in Far Horizons.

Players are constantly using incorrect syntax, forgetting commas, confusing "sections". Hence my desire to create a GUI during/after this FH game.

[quote='Ramblurr' pid='509' dateline='1301233858']
Players are constantly using incorrect syntax, forgetting commas, confusing "sections". Hence my desire to create a GUI during/after this FH game.
[/quote]

I agree. The primary functions of GUIs are: A. to make everything intuitive. Having to RTFM in order to give an order is just wrong. B. Make it impossible to give a wrong order. By 'wrong' I don't mean one that has disastrous consequences, but one that cannot be carried out.

One of my pet peeves is the error handler that catches a mistake that could have been made impossible to make. It's like the programmer is setting the user up so he can yell "gotcha!" You'd fire an assistant who dealt with you that way, but are expected to think that a program that acts like that is user friendly.

Exactly!

TRANSFER amount item source, destination

TRANSFER amount, item, source, destination

Why the arbitrary requirement that only source/destination be separated? Pretty ridiculous.

[quote='Ramblurr' pid='572' dateline='1301407408']
Exactly!

TRANSFER amount item source, destination

TRANSFER amount, item, source, destination

Why the arbitrary requirement that only source/destination be separated? Pretty ridiculous.

[/quote]

My guess is that the programmer was combining those two fields into a single variable that was passed to a subroutine or maybe a stored proc and thought the player should be kind enough to provide the separator.

The way I am handling transfers in RW is the player drags cargoes from a representation of his hold to a representation of his loading dock. Then he selects from a list of available recipients, and clicks on a commit button. He can still screw up, of course, but it won't be because the game mechanics tripped him up.
[attachment=12]

I would propose 2 items that dramatically improve the user experience:

1. default orders. In this Far Horizons game, I have been delighted to discover that at the bottom of each set of turn results, there is appended a blank order set with all the basic codes in place, along with a few "suggested" orders. My scout ships have the locations of the nearest stars pre-set in their navigational arrays -- all I need to do is leave those jump orders in place, or replace them with my own overrides.

2. standing orders. Many games have repetitive tasks that need to be done each turn. Send the freighter to the mining colony - pick up all the lithuanian ruby dust - move freighter back to home world. If this needs to happen every turn, just set up standing orders to handle it, and the player can concentrate on new development while still enjoying status reports on all his drone labor.

Yup. Both are great features to have in large-scale empire building games.

FH unfortunately lacks standing orders. Hmm.. maybe something to implement. I wonder if it is actually needed however. Micromanagement isn't really necessary in FH I suspect.

Default Orders and Standing Orders are all fine and dandy, but it would be nice if I actually understood what to do with the current order options.

It sounds like a tutorial - either written, or provided on-line - would be a good idea. Take the player through the basics with lots of screenshots.

[quote='JonO' pid='598' dateline='1301493492']
It sounds like a tutorial - either written, or provided on-line - would be a good idea. Take the player through the basics with lots of screenshots.
[/quote]

Oh, God! Another tutorial - just what the gaming world needs. ACK!!

Make the game intuitive, and the player can figure it out, without the game losing players to deficient tutorials, before they ever even try the game, proper.

I don't hate tutorials, per se. Rather, when I sign up for a game, I just want to start playing. This is most likely to happen if, one, the games interface is tutorial, and two, the game's design is intuitive. Rulebooks and game manuals are all fine and dandy things, of course, but a game that is not intuitive, at all, can become "learn-able" via the long, scenic route.

When it comes to games with pure text interface, the phrase "intuitive interface" is impossible if the game is computer moderated. Unless the programmer can solve the million dollar problem of parsing natural language, players will have to abide with un-intuitive means if interacting with the computer.

Sure, some systems are better than others (arcane number codes vs actual words), but in the end they will all follow a strict format that can only be learned by reading a manual or tutorial.
(addition)

... which is why I think an interactive orders creator is an invaluable tool.

The player should identify an action he wants to do, e.g., move a ship from A to B, and be able to do] it, without having to figure out how to encode/instruct that order. This is what GUIs are for: translating abstract actions a user wants to accomplish into a command the machine can understand.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='602' dateline='1301500047']
[quote='JonO' pid='598' dateline='1301493492']
It sounds like a tutorial - either written, or provided on-line - would be a good idea. Take the player through the basics with lots of screenshots.
[/quote]

Oh, God! Another tutorial - just what the gaming world needs. ACK!!

Make the game intuitive, and the player can figure it out, without the game losing players to deficient tutorials, before they ever even try the game, proper.

I don't hate tutorials, per se. Rather, when I sign up for a game, I just want to start playing. This is most likely to happen if, one, the games interface is tutorial, and two, the game's design is intuitive. Rulebooks and game manuals are all fine and dandy things, of course, but a game that is not intuitive, at all, can become "learn-able" via the long, scenic route.
[/quote]

Nobody ever makes a user RTFM, but if he doesn't, and asks questions of the game moderator that are answered in the tutorial, the GM has the option of simply send a link to it rather than answering the question, which'll save everybody time. And, I believe that there are players who prefer to read a tutorial before filling out their first turn.

I agree wholeheartedly about making the choices as intuitive as possible, however that can only make sure that the player's orders are correctly formatted and machine-readable. A tutorial can have a line it in like "You can, of course, order the other planets in the system to be colonized, but you are better off sending your scouts to the nearest star systems." And then display a graphic that shows the method of sending scouts to the nearest systems.

One of the advantages of a tutorial in this case is Ram could produce it a lot more quickly, in time for Galaxy Alpha players to take advantage of it, than he can code an entirely new application.

[quote='JonO' pid='609' dateline='1301508289']
One of the advantages of a tutorial in this case is Ram could produce it a lot more quickly, in time for Galaxy Alpha players to take advantage of it, than he can code an entirely new application.
[/quote]

Yup, I've been working on this with a current FH GA player this past week. I hope to have the wiki and/or forum post up with the tutorial. It is 12 turns of orders and turn reports along with some brief strategy comments on why the player did what he did.

IMHO, part of the problem with a tutorial that gives order examples is a player will use it to the exclusion of the game manual. Moreover, the player likely won't even read the tutorial for comprehension, but simply scan through it until he/she finds something relevant to their interests. Then they'll copy+paste the relevant bits, attempt to change the orders so it applies to their position, then wonder why they get errors upon orders submission. I've seen this before in other games :(

I look forward to reading it. I spent the day working on the help files that go along with enrolling in the game. I am bored out of my gourd doing it, but if I provide a narrative for each input screen and a nice big button with a question mark on that will call up the appropriate file, I am hopeful that the process will be, for the new player, as painless as possible.

I think that, tomorrow, I will be able to upload the entire finalized enrollment app to my test server. :D

[quote='JonO' pid='609' dateline='1301508289']Nobody ever makes a user RTFM, but if he doesn't, and asks questions of the game moderator that are answered in the tutorial, the GM has the option of simply send a link to it rather than answering the question, which'll save everybody time. And, I believe that there are players who prefer to read a tutorial before filling out their first turn.[/quote]

RTFM, of course, for those who might breathe air instead of acronyms, stands for "Read The Fucking Manual." Or, if one prefers a muted variation on the same, "Read The Freakin' Manual."

Most games that I have ever played have had manuals. Many have also had tutorials. Some have had strategy guides, as well. Others have had example turn reports, or overviews, or guided tours. Just piling more eggs on the player's plate won't make those eggs taste like bacon, however.

Certainly, tutorials can instruct the player at a pace where a game is more easily comprehended. Tutorials can also bore players out of their very existence.

Going back to my very first posting on page # 1 of this thread, I will say it, again. My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Whatever else may be said about tutorials to their benefit, tutorials have acquired a well-deserved reputation for being boring.

The more intuitive that a game is, the less that the game in question needs a tutorial. I think that that much is axiomatic. Of various browser based games that I have tried, to date, I just don't think that a tutorial - or even a better tutorial for those that already had one, would have been sufficient to bridge the gap, in order to transition the game from being boring to being exciting and engaging and addicting.

Programmers are a lot like engineers, in that as they program their respective games, they each acquire a hefty degree of familiarity with them. When a game manual or a set of rules are then crafted by those very same individuals, things tend to invariably get taken for granted.

The completely uninitiated approach the very same games with very different perspectives form those who programmed them. What is obvious or logical to the programmer can be confusing - or even invisible - to the player new to the game.

Since I play in Far Horizons: The Awakening, currently, I will use that game as an example to help illustrate my point. I downloaded the latest version of the game manual from the game moderator's website again, earlier this evening. The rules in question are the seventh edition of the rules for Far Horizons. Yet, they are highly deficient. Why? Because, things that I need to do are not always obvious.

Why aren't they obvious? There have been at least seven separate revisions to the rules, and even still, confusion is no stranger to the uninitiated that chance to try the game.

In the following thread, site user Wolvar posted this:

[quote='Wolvar' pid='298' dateline='1300594165']I understand the frustration took me a good 4 weeks to understand everything myself even with the rules. Still pretty much a novice since this will only be my third attempt.[/quote]

If a game is incapable of making me want to read the rules, after I start playing, then what are the chances that I am the only one who will feel that way?

Over a decade into the Twenty-First Century, do I want to become a rulebook archaeologist, and try to sift through the bits and pieces covered by a mountain of text, just in order to perform basic, rudimentary tasks? It certainly isn't going to make my Top Ten list of things that I most look forward to doing.

I want to sit down, and play the game - whatever game it is that I play. I don't want to hoist a voluminous tome of boring incarnate, regardless of whether it is First Edition or Seventh Edition, in order to get up and running in the game. If the game is intuitive, then I, the player, will know that, and I will feel that. The game moderator won't have to pressure me or brow beat me or remind me to read the game manual or the rulebook. Rather, I will have incentive on my own to tackle what I call "the heavy reading."

If I want to read, then I'll buy a book. Except, I don't like to read. I like to play games. I don't like to play games that bore me to death, though. I also don't like to play rulebooks posing as games.

That's the simple math of it, to me.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Most games that I have ever played have had manuals. Many have also had tutorials. Some have had strategy guides, as well. Others have had example turn reports, or overviews, or guided tours.

[/quote]

All the same, really. The idea is to explain how to play the game. There are some games which encourage the role of a live mentor - that's just another verion of a manual or tutorial

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Going back to my very first posting on page # 1 of this thread, I will say it, again. My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Whatever else may be said about tutorials to their benefit, tutorials have acquired a well-deserved reputation for being boring.

[/quote]

I know you are not saying that you have played all of them or that you know your experience is universal, but to stress the point, it is obvious that there are thousand, maybe tens of thousands of players who enjoy browser-based games.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
The more intuitive that a game is, the less that the game in question needs a tutorial. I think that that much is axiomatic. Of various browser based games that I have tried, to date, I just don't think that a tutorial - or even a better tutorial for those that already had one, would have been sufficient to bridge the gap, in order to transition the game from being boring to being exciting and engaging and addicting.
[/quote]

I am confused. Are we talking about the fact that a game is browser-based, or that it is simplistic (boring) or that its documentation is hard to understand. Those latter two, while not mutually exclusive, do not always go together, and neither is a concomitant of being in a browser.

The ideal, I believe is that a game should be "easy to learn, hard to master."

Most of the PBM games including Rimworlds -1986 and (I suspect) all of the ones you remember fondly, were not easy to learn because they required either looking up or memorizing a bunch of codes. Good ones had a set pattern for the codes so you didn't have to remember the format for each one as well. Some PBMs also had return sheets that were filled with codes, that had to be mentally translated before they were understood.

But yet we loved 'em - why? because they challenged us. They made us feel good when we succeeded and made us try harder when we failed. There were BBS's filled with the equivalent of tutorials - some players took on the role of being tutorials and were worth their weight in gold to the GM, whether they knew it or not.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Programmers are a lot like engineers, in that as they program their respective games, they each acquire a hefty degree of familiarity with them. When a game manual or a set of rules are then crafted by those very same individuals, things tend to invariably get taken for granted.
[/quote]

Invariably??? I beg your pardon??? I am a programmer. The rulebook for RW-1986 was detailed, indexed, and updated constantly. (Much of the book was not needful to learn how to give orders, it was back stories, strategy choices, lookup tables, reference works and indexes.) I know that BSE was presented in much the same way and I assume the rest of ABM's games were, too. On the other hand, I can agree that the situation you describe exists - has existed since the earliest days of gaming, and will continue to exist forever. It is simply not universal.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
The completely uninitiated approach the very same games with very different perspectives form those who programmed them. What is obvious or logical to the programmer can be confusing - or even invisible - to the player new to the game.
[/quote]

You are dead right. But again you paint all programmers with the same brush. Not every member of any profession acts in lockstep with every other member. Nor is every programmer limited to only thinking in terms of code. I have earned my living as a technical writer -- who are paid decent bucks to explain how to handle software far more complicated than any game.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
Since I play in Far Horizons: The Awakening, currently, I will use that game as an example to help illustrate my point. I downloaded the latest version of the game manual from the game moderator's website again, earlier this evening. The rules in question are the seventh edition of the rules for Far Horizons. Yet, they are highly deficient. Why? Because, things that I need to do are not always obvious.

[/quote]

Here's where I get confused. Are you criticizing FH because its rulebook is not well written, or because it is played in a browser? You are talking about a game that was written years ago, in a language (Ansi C) known for efficiency and control not its ability to deal with strings (words). It is filled with codes a la the 80's and 90's, and so far Ram has yet to upgrade its input/output beyond that era, even though the website is attractively laid out and shows great promise of becoming a good interface.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

If a game is incapable of making me want to read the rules, after I start playing, then what are the chances that I am the only one who will feel that way?

Over a decade into the Twenty-First Century, do I want to become a rulebook archaeologist, and try to sift through the bits and pieces covered by a mountain of text, just in order to perform basic, rudimentary tasks? It certainly isn't going to make my Top Ten list of things that I most look forward to doing.

[/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more. Eliminating this experience, to me, is the promise of computer-interface gaming. When Ram gets an interface in place that is easy to understand, offers only the options (in understandable terms) that are available at that moment and generally makes it impossible to enter an order that will fail, then FH can start achieving its full potential. (I note that the interface doesn't have to be browser-based, it can be a client program running on the player's computer and utilizing the web merely as a way of communicating with the game server.)

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
The game moderator won't have to pressure me or brow beat me or remind me to read the game manual or the rulebook. Rather, I will have incentive on my own to tackle what I call "the heavy reading."
[/quote]

The incentive that has existed since Starweb was being run on punch cards is wanting to play the best game you can. That is not changed by the game being available on the web. It is a function of how much the game (as opposed to the interface) challenges you.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Sure. but the operative word there is boring, not manual or game. Let me rewrite it as:

Grim, the fact that you cited the poorly-written rules of Far Horizons shows that this is not about whether the game is played in a browser or a more traditional PBM format. The FH rules *are* terrible, but with the right rules the game mechanics are fairly simple and straightforward. I have half a mind to write up a field guide to FH myself.

Similarly, many BBGs are boring, but many are not. I give you the examples of Farmville and Mafia Wars (on facebook) as examples of *very* simple repetitive games that have a stunning grip on their players. (Earning their publishing companies millions of dollars, incidentally.)

I'm not saying PBM should look to Farmville as the way of the future. Rather, PBM should put it's vast experience at text-based and simple-graphic storytelling to use and leapfrog past Farmville. In a big way.

[quote='JonO' pid='632' dateline='1301587078']
[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Most games that I have ever played have had manuals. Many have also had tutorials. Some have had strategy guides, as well. Others have had example turn reports, or overviews, or guided tours.

[/quote]

All the same, really. The idea is to explain how to play the game. There are some games which encourage the role of a live mentor - that's just another verion of a manual or tutorial

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Going back to my very first posting on page # 1 of this thread, I will say it, again. My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Whatever else may be said about tutorials to their benefit, tutorials have acquired a well-deserved reputation for being boring.

[/quote]

I know you are not saying that you have played all of them or that you know your experience is universal, but to stress the point, it is obvious that there are thousand, maybe tens of thousands of players who enjoy browser-based games.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
The more intuitive that a game is, the less that the game in question needs a tutorial. I think that that much is axiomatic. Of various browser based games that I have tried, to date, I just don't think that a tutorial - or even a better tutorial for those that already had one, would have been sufficient to bridge the gap, in order to transition the game from being boring to being exciting and engaging and addicting.
[/quote]

I am confused. Are we talking about the fact that a game is browser-based, or that it is simplistic (boring) or that its documentation is hard to understand. Those latter two, while not mutually exclusive, do not always go together, and neither is a concomitant of being in a browser.

The ideal, I believe is that a game should be "easy to learn, hard to master."

Most of the PBM games including Rimworlds -1986 and (I suspect) all of the ones you remember fondly, were not easy to learn because they required either looking up or memorizing a bunch of codes. Good ones had a set pattern for the codes so you didn't have to remember the format for each one as well. Some PBMs also had return sheets that were filled with codes, that had to be mentally translated before they were understood.

But yet we loved 'em - why? because they challenged us. They made us feel good when we succeeded and made us try harder when we failed. There were BBS's filled with the equivalent of tutorials - some players took on the role of being tutorials and were worth their weight in gold to the GM, whether they knew it or not.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Programmers are a lot like engineers, in that as they program their respective games, they each acquire a hefty degree of familiarity with them. When a game manual or a set of rules are then crafted by those very same individuals, things tend to invariably get taken for granted.
[/quote]

Invariably??? I beg your pardon??? I am a programmer. The rulebook for RW-1986 was detailed, indexed, and updated constantly. (Much of the book was not needful to learn how to give orders, it was back stories, strategy choices, lookup tables, reference works and indexes.) I know that BSE was presented in much the same way and I assume the rest of ABM's games were, too. On the other hand, I can agree that the situation you describe exists - has existed since the earliest days of gaming, and will continue to exist forever. It is simply not universal.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
The completely uninitiated approach the very same games with very different perspectives form those who programmed them. What is obvious or logical to the programmer can be confusing - or even invisible - to the player new to the game.
[/quote]

You are dead right. But again you paint all programmers with the same brush. Not every member of any profession acts in lockstep with every other member. Nor is every programmer limited to only thinking in terms of code. I have earned my living as a technical writer -- who are paid decent bucks to explain how to handle software far more complicated than any game.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
Since I play in Far Horizons: The Awakening, currently, I will use that game as an example to help illustrate my point. I downloaded the latest version of the game manual from the game moderator's website again, earlier this evening. The rules in question are the seventh edition of the rules for Far Horizons. Yet, they are highly deficient. Why? Because, things that I need to do are not always obvious.

[/quote]

Here's where I get confused. Are you criticizing FH because its rulebook is not well written, or because it is played in a browser? You are talking about a game that was written years ago, in a language (Ansi C) known for efficiency and control not its ability to deal with strings (words). It is filled with codes a la the 80's and 90's, and so far Ram has yet to upgrade its input/output beyond that era, even though the website is attractively laid out and shows great promise of becoming a good interface.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

If a game is incapable of making me want to read the rules, after I start playing, then what are the chances that I am the only one who will feel that way?

Over a decade into the Twenty-First Century, do I want to become a rulebook archaeologist, and try to sift through the bits and pieces covered by a mountain of text, just in order to perform basic, rudimentary tasks? It certainly isn't going to make my Top Ten list of things that I most look forward to doing.

[/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more. Eliminating this experience, to me, is the promise of computer-interface gaming. When Ram gets an interface in place that is easy to understand, offers only the options (in understandable terms) that are available at that moment and generally makes it impossible to enter an order that will fail, then FH can start achieving its full potential. (I note that the interface doesn't have to be browser-based, it can be a client program running on the player's computer and utilizing the web merely as a way of communicating with the game server.)

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']
The game moderator won't have to pressure me or brow beat me or remind me to read the game manual or the rulebook. Rather, I will have incentive on my own to tackle what I call "the heavy reading."
[/quote]

The incentive that has existed since Starweb was being run on punch cards is wanting to play the best game you can. That is not changed by the game being available on the web. It is a function of how much the game (as opposed to the interface) challenges you.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='623' dateline='1301539659']

Sure. but the operative word there is boring, not manual or game. Let me rewrite it as:

[/quote]

I agree with you 100% JonO :)

[quote='ixnay' pid='639' dateline='1301593003']
Grim, the fact that you cited the poorly-written rules of Far Horizons shows that this is not about whether the game is played in a browser or a more traditional PBM format. The FH rules *are* terrible, but with the right rules the game mechanics are fairly simple and straightforward. I have half a mind to write up a field guide to FH myself.

Similarly, many BBGs are boring, but many are not. I give you the examples of Farmville and Mafia Wars (on facebook) as examples of *very* simple repetitive games that have a stunning grip on their players. (Earning their publishing companies millions of dollars, incidentally.)

I'm not saying PBM should look to Farmville as the way of the future. Rather, PBM should put it's vast experience at text-based and simple-graphic storytelling to use and leapfrog past Farmville. In a big way.
[/quote]

If PBM want to convert successfully to the on-line media I think it can do far worse than look to games like Farmville or Mafia Wars. Yes we all agree they are repetitive, shallow and maybe even boring however they have got right far more than any PBM todate regarding success online. What is so wrong with getting a simple basic PBM game working online successfully and using it's model and platform as a base to increase depth and complexity?

Some very interesting discussion here. I agree with Grim and JonO on certain points.

When it comes to FH, rather than spend my time rewriting 80 pages of rules, I want to spend my time enhancing the interface. This is because I agree with Grim, that in today's world a player should be able to gently ease into the game if the interface is well designed, which makes the need for a player to read and comprehend 80 pages of mediocre unnecessary.

As a game maintainer, the FH manual is very helpful, because it spells out each and every game mechanic, hence my propensity of calling it a "manual" rather than "rulebook".

In many ways the PBM interfaces of old are similar to command line DOS and *NIX interfaces. They are considered 'expert' interfaces, because if you know what you want to do and how to do it, the action is very easy. For everyone else, these interfaces are opaque. You look at the neon green cursor blinking on a black backdrop and recognize the sheer power that lies behind it, but just can't figure out how to convey your goal to the unforgiving prompt.

[quote='ixnay' pid='639' dateline='1301593003']
The FH rules *are* terrible, but with the right rules the game mechanics are fairly simple and straightforward. I have half a mind to write up a field guide to FH myself.
[/quote]

Yes! Yes! Do it! Or just help expand the How do I... article.

[quote='Ramblurr' pid='645' dateline='1301628664']
For everyone else, these interfaces are opaque. You look at the neon green cursor blinking on a black backdrop and recognize the sheer power that lies behind it, but just can't figure out how to convey your goal to the unforgiving prompt.
[/quote]

Someone once called that scenario the ultimate existential challenge.

[quote='Gads' pid='642' dateline='1301600122']
If PBM want to convert successfully to the on-line media I think it can do far worse than look to games like Farmville or Mafia Wars. Yes we all agree they are repetitive, shallow and maybe even boring however they have got right far more than any PBM todate regarding success online. What is so wrong with getting a simple basic PBM game working online successfully and using it's model and platform as a base to increase depth and complexity?
[/quote]

First this is an excellent conversation and I'd like to thank you all for it.

While I agree with what Gads is saying here in principle, I wonder if the solution is really to go another route.

I am basing my response on a specific experience playing "Lords of Ultima" a friend showed me this game a while back and during a lull I tried it out. It had a lot going for it, nice graphics, a nice little soundtack in the background, some strategic complexity. It was definitely sticky. It's definitely successful. But as a player I felt like a patch of mold growing.

I think this particular game suffered from some common problems, that though a good formula for success, made it no fun.

A) the whole "grow your virtual tamagachi" thing got old after a while because the design was so focused on keeping you constantly engaged for short term gains. The effort, while easy, was continual. My time is worth more than that.

B) I played for a week or two but never even managed to get into a real fight because the design really didn't give you much incentive for fighting with others ? It was much more rewarding to raid a dungeon rather than another player. This probably helps the success of the game, but kept it from being fun in my mind. I want to play with human allies against human opponents who are trying to win.

C) Because it was free it meant that there were a ton of folk out there that really weren't even interested in playing the game. They were playing "Web Forum" it was like gathering all the folk who don't consider their time to be worth anything together to talk about whatever. While your patch of mold grows in the background.

D) Finally the kicker, if you ever got into a fight, the arms war mechanic from "Magic the Gathering" was there to pit your wallet against your opponent's. So the idea is clearly to get everyone to be precious with their free game and then get them to pay a bunch for it at the end. Really the worst case scenario.

It reminded me of public free concerts. Sure they can be free, but they can also be so mobbed and standing room only with folk that are really there for the beer and fried food that if you really want to see the band you'd do better to buy a ticket and get a seat in a nice theater with good sound.

This game was like enduring the atmosphere of a free public concert but if the band were to every starts playing you would have to pay a lot of money to hear then anyway.

I think the key strengths of the PBM style is that it's turn based so that you can play when you have time, that it's players against players - not killing 100 giant frogs to get to the next level - and that the game moves at a pace that allows the players who are interested to write up stories.

Whether it's browser based or not, good UI or not, difficult to learn or not. Those are the aspects that call out to me. I'd rather pay money and have my time respected, than play MMO's like WOW or Lords of Ultima.

I think Ilkor sounds pretty exciting, but what I think will really make it fun is if it attracts a lot of folk who do blogs on their character's adventures like the space faring stories you guys were putting up.

The more you can even require roleplaying the better, though I don't have any ideas offhand on how you could do so.

Hey Cortrah,

Thanks for picking up this thread, it is a very interesting topic and something that is on my mind alot as we develop Ilkor.

As I read your comments I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything. I had to re-read what my own quote was about!

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough as I think you've gone off on all the elements of those games that I really dislike!! :-)

I totally, 100% believe that the on-line media is the way to go. I also think the game needs to be turn-based and I've blogged on this a number of times already explaining in some detail how I think this can be achieved online, balancing the best of the internet with traditional PBM.

Depth is also a key element to Ilkor. It isn't going to be a game that you can succeed in in a couple of weeks or even months. We've already worked out that to reach 15th level, the player would have to have played for at least 4 years. The player isn't going to be able to achieve this my buying his way up the ladder, nor spending hours online, nor clicking on an 'attack' button 100 times. The only way to advance will be to find a strategy that works for your style of play, to interact with other players and to plan ahead for the long term gains not the short.

As you can see advancement is going to be slow, as will the pace. We however hope the depth of the game and it's richness in detail and history will help the players immerse themselves into the roleplaying and storytelling, get involved in shaping the history, populate the guild libraries with info to share with others and to study strategy.

The games like Farmville and Mafia Wars have done alot right however, despite all the game features that PBM gamers tend to dislike. I think we need to look beyond the game mechanics, features and playing style and see the game strengths. For example, their architecture is amazing to learn about, how they host the game, how they handle load and are able to scale, their caching and datastore implementation, the way they make use of the various cloud based internet services. It's seriously hardcore stuff. It's not rocket science, nor is it expensive to achieve, but they have been there and done it. It is something we should learn from.

The same goes for their marketing. The games integrate with many of the social media services out there, especially facebook. They also ensure that their games can be accessed by almost any browser and phone. The introduction into the game is also generally well put across, often shielding the beginning player from some of the game's complexities and guides the player through the setup and early stages of the game.

There is also plenty more we can learn from such games (revenue stream - the newer games have some very interesting ideas here) but maybe that is for another discussion.

So it makes perfect sense for companies like ours to look long and hard at such games and see what we can learn. For me there is no doubt that they have succeeded online while PBM to-date has not.

I for one am very curious to see how the Facebook version of Civilization pans out. It is supposedly in closed beta. I am an avid fan of the series, and the developers are (in my humble opinion) among the best game designers out there. So it will be very instructive to see how they make a turn-based single player (or hot-seat) game like Civ transition into a 100-player-per-game Facebook app.

I agree. It's going to be very interesting and a prime example of what I've been trying to say. For such a popular and successful PC / Console game to consider Facebook as a platform for their next version of their game says a huge amount.

[quote='ixnay' pid='1150' dateline='1306355163']
I for one am very curious to see how the Facebook version of Civilization pans out. It is supposedly in closed beta. I am an avid fan of the series, and the developers are (in my humble opinion) among the best game designers out there. So it will be very instructive to see how they make a turn-based single player (or hot-seat) game like Civ transition into a 100-player-per-game Facebook app.
[/quote]

Yes I totally agree and think you guys are hitting a great mark.

I think my main thought is that the one thing more than all the rest that can ruin an online game though is that it needs "some" barrier to entry.

With that game because it was so easy to enter and so easy to play and free, it didn't seem like half of the folk wanted to play the game, just talk about their girlfriends or where they should go to college or trying to sell you sports memorabilia.

I was amazed as a developer at how well they eased the player into the game with their tutorial. It was very expertly done. You basically press "OK" and "Continue" and read a sentence, then get a reward, read another, click, reward. That was incredibly well done.

But I'd just like to say that I think that I'm willing to pay for good players in a good game, and I value my time a lot. I'd pay a lot more for a better game and better players and I think it's worthwhile to think about how to organize that editorial process.

One simple way to do it (in general, not nec with Ilkor) might be to charge just a bit more for folk who want an integrated weblog to go with their gameplay for storytelling. That group would inhabit one world, the group that is just interested in the strategy aspect pay less and inhabit a game with each other. Most folk can find a free weblog somewhere, but the folk who are willing to pay extra know that all the others they are playing with are willing to pay a little extra because they intend on posting stories. Just a thought.

[quote='Cortrah' pid='1152' dateline='1306361951']
But I'd just like to say that I think that I'm willing to pay for good players in a good game, and I value my time a lot. I'd pay a lot more for a better game and better players and I think it's worthwhile to think about how to organize that editorial process.

One simple way to do it (in general, not nec with Ilkor) might be to charge just a bit more for folk who want an integrated weblog to go with their gameplay for storytelling. That group would inhabit one world, the group that is just interested in the strategy aspect pay less and inhabit a game with each other. Most folk can find a free weblog somewhere, but the folk who are willing to pay extra know that all the others they are playing with are willing to pay a little extra because they intend on posting stories. Just a thought.
[/quote]

That is a nice idea. It could work. :-) It could be something that would work for Ilkor. I'd have to give it some more thought how we'd implement something along those lines but it would certainly fall into our revenue strategy. Thanks for the idea!

We intend to offer Ilkor for free, no catch, no limited features, limited time to play, limits on levels or something like that. We are also hoping not to have to go the advertising route where the interface contains google ads. Instead we want to eventually offer a number of 'value added services' which are optional and will only enhance your gaming experience. Non of these services will aid you in progressing further or quicker in the game. So the idea of paying for additional 'storytelling' richness is not a bad idea at all.