Manifesto for Accessible Computer Games

After many conversations with gamers in the 30-40 age range I believe I have come up with a set of things that annoy us about current games releases. I'm sure I don't speak for *everybody* in this age range, but the points make sense in terms of the life styles of most 30-40 year olds. I'm sure if a games company delivered a game that addressed these issues we wouldn't be the only ones to run out and buy it.

Let us start the game quickly! It's 10 O'clock. we've got the kids to bed and just fancy a quick 30 minutes of Operation Flashpoint, but we find that we have to watch that bloody video at the start of the mission. Interesting the first time, immensely annoying to watch the rest of the time when we just want to get started. This isn't a gripe about Flashpoint, I'm just using this as an example.

No hidden features. Perhaps there is someone who will say "ah, if you click Ctrl-Alt-S you can skip the movie" - ok, then there should be some text on the screen which tells us this, otherwise what is the point of having this feature? More generally, make the controls and features clear. Tutorials are almost always a good idea.

Document "cheats" and walkthroughs. We don't have time to search the Internet for cheats and walkthroughs, just put it all in the game in the first place. Some people start a game, get stuck on the first level and give up. There has to be some way to take the player through the game and explain what they are going wrong - similar to the helper in Theme Park World. Ideally hints and cheats would just be integrated into the game, but at least they should be included in the documentation. Now some people are going to say they don't want to play games like this - fine, have an option to turn off hints. Others might say there is less satisfaction in finishing a game if other may have completed it with cheats, ok - have a "certificate" for finishing it with or without hints and cheats. The point is we don't have time to spent 20 hours to finish a level. If we've spent an hour or two and are just stuck we want to be able to move on in the game, and the game should facilitate this.

Make the games easier. Many people just want to play a game and enjoy it at the ability level they are on, they don't have time to practise and practise. There should be options to make a game harder, but too many games just start off too hard in the first place. Driving games seem particularly bad at this - a lot of people seem to get stuck on an early level, can't win the race and so cannot proceed to play the rest of the game.

Explain what is going wrong. Sim games in particular seem bad at explaining to players what they are doing wrong. The number of times I think I have done everything I should have in Caesar III, but still get a low score - yet I don't know why. Similarly in Tropico I built those mines where the minerals were, but they are losing money. Why? The same holds true for other games, it would be useful in any game to have feedback on what you are doing wrong.

Avoid long boring bits. People I have spoken to who have given up on Black and White did so because it was too boring, apparently you had to spend ages moving things about from one part of the island to the other. This may be ok if you have all evening to play, but if we are looking at spending the odd hour or two every week that hour has to be spent doing something exciting and interesting, otherwise you won't come back to the game.

I would hope that game developers take note of the needs of 30-40 year old game players as we have the cash to buy their games, unlike those younger players complain that games are too expensive.

Letter to Ian Hislop

I wrote this to Ian Hislop (the editor of Private Eye) after he wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph attacking computer games.

I would like to make some points in response to Ian's comments regarding computer games and the Harry Potter computer game.

Are computer games a bad thing? Computer games, like games in general, are a medium and so surely cannot be "bad" in themselves any more than TV, books, newspapers or films can be bad in themselves. There are good computer games, there are good books and there are good films, conversely there are bad computer games, bad books and bad films. I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are saying although I think it is implied (what you actually argue is that if children are playing computer games they are not reading and so literacy is the loser).
If it were possible to compare one medium with another, where do computer games fit in? Are they better or worse than films or books? I think from your articles that you believe computer games are worse than both books and films. I'm not sure such a general comparison is useful - I think it is good that people do all three and don't concentrate on just one medium such as just watching films for example - however I think a good case can be made for games, computer or otherwise. I think few people would argue that chess is a bad thing or that someone who had mastered chess had wasted their time, other games may be less universally praised yet nevertheless it is games such as chess that require strategy and thought that would be thought worthwhile. Is playing chess against a computer qualitatively different to playing chess against another person? Surely the chess player still requires the same skills when playing against a computer as playing against a human opponent? So is playing chess better or worse than reading? It could be argued that reading is - or can be - a very passive activity not dissimilar to watching TV. The reader simply sits there and watches the events unfold - they are not involved, they do not have to actively think and plan in order for the story to reach a successful conclusion. Could it not be argued then that computer games that require logic and deduction, thought, planning and imagination are superior to reading? As I said at the beginning of this point, I am not sure such a general comparison is useful, however I certainly think the case can be made for computer games being a constructive and positive activity for children and adults.
Is the Harry Potter computer game a good game? Even if we accept that there are good games, even good computer games, could you still make your point that the Harry Potter computer game is not one of them? Firstly I don't think this was the point you were making - simply by being a game you implied it was a bad thing, secondly I don't believe you are familiar with the rules of the game and so could not comment on whether you found them fascinating and playable or dull and predictable. Nevertheless there seem to me to be a number of aspects to the game that makes it worthwhile to play. (a) It allows children to explore the world of Harry Potter - they can move above the school, meet the characters and interact with them in a way that is not possible in the linear plot of a book; (b) the game is puzzle based, so as you explore parts of Harry's world you come across puzzles that must be solved in order to explore more of the world - this encourages children to think logically and solve problems, (c) it encourages social interaction as children will discuss with each other where they have gone in the game, where they are stuck and the puzzles they have solved.