Re: The nature of the beast

From: htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Andrei Jirnyi:

>> Now for the third generation of PBEM games, which I will refer to as PFEM
>> (Paper Free Electronic Mail) games.  Not a particularily great acronym,
>> granted, but it emphasises the major evolutionary step taken by this
>> mutation.  Here we talk about games like VGA Planets, Stars, etc., where
>> the turns were never meant to be displayed on a paper medium - a program
>> not only being used to display reports, but compile orders as well.
>
>I would not use unreadability as a classifying factor. Galaxy reports are
>technically human readable ASCII text, but it is impossible to analyze them
>without tools in practice, and in fact, the best tools for Galaxy are
>much more technically advanced than those for Stars! or Vga Planets, or
>any other game I have seen so far, including single-player commercial
>strategies.

Whether a report is technically human readable is irrelevant - if 90% of
the players use a computer program to process it then the game is
obviously a PFEM game.  The distinction lies in the medium used to convey
the report to the majority of players, not the quality of the medium
itself - sheets of paper are characteristic of a PBM/PBEM; a computer
program is characteristic of PFEM.

Paper is preferred by one generation of players; programs are preferred by
another.  If designers can understand this fundamental difference, then
they might start creating games attuned to the medium of delivery (and the
expectations of the right generation of players).

Basically, if your players are going to read reports on paper, then you
need to use a completely different presentation style than if your players
are going to use a computer program to accomplish the same thing.  It's
obvious, it makes sense, but there are still a lot of programs out there
that have shocking interfaces, derived from paper reports, and slapped in
front of player's faces on a colour screen...  One screen for battle
reports; one screen for ship reports; one screen for colony reports; blah,
blah, blah.  VGA Planets is a classic example of how *not* to design an
interface.

If you want to convey the same amount of information to a player as a
bunch of papers spread out over a desk, then you have to think in terms of
"relational", "process-oriented", and "context-sensitive" when you design
the interface.  Sure, it makes it harder to program, but the players will
appreciate the more intuitive interface - and in the long run, that's what
really matters.

>> Pulling it all together, it seems as though, as a result of technological
>> advances, the time available to play these sorts of games has gradually
>> decreased.  This, in turn, has resulted in shallower games with less
>> personal interaction and less emotional payback.
>
>I did not get this statement.

Don't worry - it was based on a shaky foundation which you and Carl Burke
(quite rightly) exposed and which I have addressed in a different post.

>> The newest generation of players
>> seem to be throwing around the acronym RTS (Real Time Strategy) without,
>> it seems, any idea of what the word 'strategy' actually means!
>
>RTS is a totally different kind of game. Saying that they take players
>away form pbem's is like saying Quake is taking players away from pbems.

I agree totally, and if I had actually made such a statement, I would be
quite embarrassed.  :)

RTS *is* a different beast to PFEM, just as PFEM is a different beast to
PBEM, and just as PBEM is a different beast to PBM.  Each has it's own
following because each has qualities that the others don't, and it's for
*those* reasons they do not take players away from each other.

>> As the
>> original (PBM) generation ages, their numbers will thin until critical
>> mass is lost, then the PBM industry will crumble and take PBEM with it.
>
>i see no much connection between PBM and PBEM either, at least not to the
>point to taking each other along when going down ;) The paper based
>commercial RPGs, usually with exorbitant turn fees, are much more alien
>to me as a Galaxy player than the said Quake is ;)

You've hit the nail on the head.  Most newcomers to the industry are
exposed to free (or easily piratable) PFEM games like VGA Planets and
Stars! (and Galaxy?) and only then do they find out about the
pay-for-paper version: "Pay?  Paper??  Two weeks???  You've got to be
kidding!"  Faced with the option of a free Coke or a $100 bottle of
Chardonnay, they go for the evil black stuff every time.

The insidious effect of "cheap thrills" is the single biggest threat to
the PBM industry, and few people can see the writing on the wall, let
alone read what it says.  PFEM games don't "steal" players away from PBM
or PBEM, they "intercept" them.

The crunch is that because few newcomers ever even try the pay-for-paper
versions of the game, the retirement rate of PBM players probably exceeds
the recruitment rate.

(This is the feeling I get - it may be wrong.  Does anyone here have
access to figures for the amount of active players in, say, Australia, the
UK, and the US, over the last five or ten years?  This sort of stuff would
have appeared in flagship, surely?)

Anyway, simple math shows that if your revenue base shrinks then your
profit margins shrink even faster.  As their profit margins drop to zero,
PBM companies will, one-by-one, shut their doors.  Quite simply, the
expenses associated with a paper-based operation cannot even think to
compete with a byte-based operation.  Coke-swilling youngsters with Big
Macs in one hand and a mouse in the other will create market forces which
will drive PBM to the wall.  Chalk up another spectacular success for
capitalism!

Since PBM companies are the only ones who offer PBEM games (remember that
I classify VGA Planets, Stars! and Galaxy as PFEM games), when PBM goes,
PBEM goes as well.  The only difference between PBEM and PBM is the way
you submit your turns - they are processed by the same companies.

>> medium (the Net) has obscured the fact that the quality of entertainment
>> it delivers has gone down the drain.  The big question is whether or not
>
>Not at all. I am observing no decline in Galaxy community, in fact it's
>increasing.

Hmmm...  I think you missed the point I was trying to make.  Here's the
above sentence - in context:

>>There is no question in my mind that the success of PBM was due to some
>>fundamental qualities which are ageless.  The hype surrounding the current
>>medium (the Net) has obscured the fact that the quality of entertainment
>>it delivers has gone down the drain.

What I was trying to say (and perhaps should have said in a more direct
way) was that hack programmers, in porting PBM to PBEM and then to PFEM,
never bothered to reflect on what they were doing, failed to structurally
redesign it for the new medium, and ended up producing an inferior
product.  You can take the engine out of a VW Beetle and put it into a
Porsche - but the fact is that a Beetle with a Beetle's engine will go
faster than a Porsche with a Beetle's engine.  To get the Porsche to go
faster than the Beetle, you need to tweak the Beetle's engine, build a
better Beetle engine, or start from scratch and build a Porsche engine.

Did that help, or just make things worse?

Henry.

References

The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
Andrei Jirnyi <jonn@i-connect.ru>
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
Andrei Jirnyi <jonn@i-connect.ru>
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000