Psychochild's Blog

A developer's musings on game development and writing.

12 December, 2006

Simplicity is simply not appreciated
Filed under: — Psychochild @ 7:03 PM

As regular readers know, I am not a big fan of oversimplification in games. Some games are meant to be hard, and that adds to the enjoyment. So, sometimes it’s nice to see someone else agree with this sentiment, even if it is in another discipline.

Don Norman, the author of the often recommended book The Design of Everyday Things, writes that simple isn’t really better to most people. In fact, most people actually prefer something more complicated because it means they are getting their money worth. If you pay more, then you want more options.

I think this can carry over into games as well.

The article I’ve linked to above talks about how people really don’t want simple. Even as the machines automate more and more aspects of our life, we still want a sense of control. If the machine is expensive, it should have more options, not less, even though there is less need for the options. He gives a great example about a washing machine that senses everything about the load inside: how big the load his, what type of fabric, how heavily soiled, etc. The user only has to input if the load is “hot and colored” or “easy-to-clean fabrics”. Simple, right? Wrong; this machine has more controls than your normal washer! The most telling bit of this exchange came when Mr. Norman asked a friend at the manufacturer why there were so many controls on an arguably simpler machine.

“Are you one of those people who wants to give up control, who thinks less is better?” asked this usability expert. “Don’t you want to be in control?”

Wow, talk about a bolt from the blue. Think about this in game terms: why would our player want to give up control for the sake of simplicity? If we believe that games are an expressive medium, why do we want to limit that expression? Why are we trying to take control away from the player. (Besides the obvious reason that it’s easier to tell our story to the player if we don’t have to give him or her control, of course.)

Now, let me state once again that I don’t think every game has to be complicated. Or, that we need more complication for complication’s sake. In fact, I really enjoy some really simple games. One game that I keep going back to recently is Winterbells on Ferry Halim’s amazing Orisinal site. Go spend a bit of time there playing the games, and I’ll argue that many of them are masterpieces of game design and implementation.

But, let’s let the nasty world of business crash this lovefest: How would you feel if you had bought a box in a store for $50 and you found one of the Orisinal games inside? Personally, I love the games, but would most people pay $50 for one? Probably not. I probably wouldn’t either. The game is too simple to be worth the cost, even though I’m sure it took plenty of time to make the art, record the music, and put it all into an appealing presentation. It’s all about price psychology; despite the fact that these games have a lot of effort poured into them, they are not perceived as being worth as much.

Pricing psychology also works the other way around. The simpler washing machine above is perceived as being worth less because it has less options. As Mr. Norman explains in the article:

If a company spent more money to design and build an appliance that worked so well, so automatically, that all it needed was an on-off switch, people would reject it. “This simple looking thing costs more?” They would complain. “What is that company thinking of? I’ll buy the cheaper one with all those extra features – after all, it’s better, right? And I save money.”

So, I think this illustrates some of the dangers in trying to make every game “so simple your (grand)mother can use it!” Yes, we also need to make sure we don’t make complexity for complexity’s sake and limit our audience. But, I think that oversimplification is a bigger danger here because it can lead to marginalization (games are obviously just for kids) and lack of creative expression. Important issues we need to tackle on an ongoing basis.

What do you think? Does this parallel hold water? Or, is there something I’m overlooking.







16 Comments »

  1. How large do you want your target market to be?

    You’re really talking about potential market here, not target market. By making the game “simpler”, the goal for most developers is to attract more people and get more money. However, I doubt that people that can’t grasp how a taskbar works will likely ever be huge game purchasers.

    The further problem with this philosophy is that we’re potentially alienating the audience already interested in buying games. When people advocate making games easier, they’re essentially gambling that the market they’ll lose will be less than the market they gain. In other words, they hope they can convince Mr. “What’s a taskbar?” or Ms. “Games are just for kids!” that they can play games, too. At least, convince enough of these people to replace the “hard core” that will get bored because they have less options.

    And, I’m not just talking out my ass here. Over on Greg Costikyan’s blog, you can see a comment from someone who believes short/simple games aren’t worth as much. The person that wrote that comment is essentially claiming that a simplified game is worth less; note that his recommendation is that the games should have been cut down and sold cheaper, not that there should have been more content. And, if you’ve been paying attention to the industry the last few years, you know that games aren’t getting cheaper to make. You aren’t going to see games of Okami’s level of polish in the $20 bin soon (if ever again).

    They want to get into the fun right away. And when they come back a week later, they don’t want to relearn all the bits they’ve forgotten.

    I call BS. They remember the plots to shows they watch only once a week. Of course, lots of shows have a “Previously on the show…” segments right before the new episode. But, that only acts as a refresher, not a complete summary of the previous show.

    The buttons on a washing machine make it look expensive/cool but no one ever uses them. (I don’t even change my water temp setting or load size.)

    Yes, that’s because you’re male. :) People (read: women) with actual nice clothes that don’t want shredded in the wash actually do use those buttons. But, if you read the article you’ll notice that some of the buttons actually might serve no purpose. But, the option is there to play with them.

    If you accidentally press the wrong button in a game, you’re in real trouble.

    That’s more of a design problem. The solution here isn’t to remove the button, but to make it so that you aren’t screwed by pressing the “wrong button”. But, I also think that you’re overstating the problem here. In most games, you’re just a game reload away from undoing a screwup; online games are a bit different, of course.

    Further, maybe I want the opportunity to “screw up” my game. Maybe I want the chance to make the desperate attack that would be suicide any other time, but it’s my final option. Why should the designer restrict me just because I might hurt myself? And, why are we so worried about this in the context of a game? Give the player some credit here.

    Again, I don’t agree that simplifying things is the only correct solution here. In fact, I think it’s one of the worst.

    My further thoughts.

    Comment by Psychochild — 12 December, 2006 @ 11:36 PM

  2. I think that many of the great games have achieved a status of ‘simple to learn, difficult to master’.

    This is most evident in board games like Go, and Blockus.

    Many of these games require a very low overhead when it comes to teaching or learning the rules of the game, but the strategies are very complex.

    Some of the best computer games can be boiled down to very simple mechanics. MMOs are the antithesis of this, but many great games are fairly simple.

    By focusing on intuitive controls that use single buttons for multiple tasks, you can make games that are deep, but fairly intuitive. Nintendo is pretty good about making the A button do the primary thing, and the B button does ‘that other thing’, for instance.

    Basically, you usually get appliances that strive to fit two different audiences. My roommate reminded me to take a look at the cell phones of people in the gaming industry.

    Artists typically have Razors or other slim, sleek phones which make it a point to do the bare minimum, but they do it sexily! Producers will walk around with their PDAs that happen to be able to make phone calls. Likewise, more artists prefer Macs (which have put a huge focus on things like only having 1 mouse button to avoid unnecessary confusion).

    I think that hardcore powergamer types love their MMOs with the 500 rows of buttons (some of which are macro’d to take into account thinks like current mana, and their target’s health). Other people enjoy playing games like the Sims which only really requires the mouse. Buttons are hidden until you click something, and then only the relevant buttons pop up.

    I don’t think this is a topic we can make a simple rule about. It’s just important to ‘scope’ your game from it’s early phases to figure out how much complexity you want to advertise.

    Comment by Rusty Parks — 13 December, 2006 @ 12:14 AM

  3. The best games out there tend to follow a simple control scheme that proves adaptable to more complex functionalities, and by extension more dynamic gameplay. Take Gears of War as a simple example – The A button gets you cover, The RB button helps reloading. However, use the A button while pushing a direction in cover and now you can jump over it, perform a SWAT roll across a gap, or leap away from it. Similiarly push RB at a specific point, and you get a ‘quicker reload’ push it a finer grained specific point and you get the quick reload + a small damage boost.

    Take those ‘extra functionalities’ out of the scheme and essentially the gameplay immediately drops to ‘too simple.’ This is probably the reason the biggest thing I ever see requested on official forums for sequels or expansions is ‘new moves/spells/abilities/units.’ People want what they buy to do more than it does.

    Similiarly just look at the gameplay in any game (ignoring controls). If it’s too basic, it becomes either ‘too easy to defeat’ or ‘too childlike’, with people complaining ‘it’s repetitive’ or ‘it lacks depth.’ Then people feel that it’s a ripoff. I remember buying games that i’d finished a few hours later and wishing i’d bought something more complicated.

    I’d say that the parallel holds up well.

    Comment by Jpoku — 13 December, 2006 @ 6:28 AM

  4. In regards to the washer, I think the control the manufacturer was referring to probably wasn’t an everyday illusion of control but a security in knowing you can take the reins every once in a while. Computers/programs designed to handle user operations are notorious for their lack of human wisdom. They apply their rules without exception, without regard to circumstances. The user needs to know that he/she can take control in those exceptional circumstances and tell the computer “To hell with your dogmatic rules! This is different.” WordPerfect annoys me to no end for just this reason, trying to help where I don’t want it’s help (even after I’ve deselected most help options).

    Another consideration is that we tend to relinquish control only when we have faith in the replacement operator’s reliability. A lot of people probably use those washer buttons unnecessarily because they’re afraid of risking trust…and by not taking the risk, they never develop the habit necessary to become comfortable with the machine’s control features. Old people are famous for stubbornly sticking to old technology even after they’ve agreed the new tech is better, and little kids are famous for their fear of jumping in the water to learn how to swim…that’s just people. The founding truth of all psychology is that human beings can, and regularly do, ignore reason. That’s what makes us life interesting though. =)

    Anyway, two game experiences I’ve had in regard to control:

    I’m a big fan of the “easy to learn, difficult to master” guideline. I remember Bill Roper describing once how Diablo 2 started the player off with just a simple “point and click” control scheme, but ended with the player using well over a dozen hotkeys and switching between skills at a frantic rate. Even MMOs like EQ2 with the slow step-by-step guide are considerably more complex right at the get-go, certainly enough to give non-gamer types some difficulty and hesitation. Using WASD to move and the mouse to look around is second nature to me, but for a non-gamer it’s probably analogous to a non-musician trying to play something dirt-simple on a guitar or piano. It’s not just a matter of the player knowing which button on the keyboard to press…you’re training new motor movements.

    And remembering game control schemes, by the way, is considerably different than people getting back into the plot of their favorite TV show after a week. Motor movement/assocation is a wholly different branch of memory. And the controls are secondary to the intended focus of the gamer. Yes, some sort of refresher would be good, but control memory will only come back quickly to habitual gamers. New gamers do not employ that particular type of motor memory nearly as often as the memory systems employed in catching up on a TV show (which are used and trained almost daily in life away from the TV). And memory refreshing is infinitely more viable after a habit has been developed.

    My other interesting control experience is with RTS and squad-tactics games. I really enjoy RTS games. Command & Conquer: Red Alert, Age of Empires III and Battle for Middle Earth 2 have been some of my favorite games (i still play BfME2 at ungodly hours of the night). But I don’t enjoy squad-based gameplay where I have to control more than one character, like in Star Wars: Commando, KOTOR (i enjoyed it by just controlling my jedi) or one of the many 3rd-person RPGs in which every party member is controlled by the player. Squad-based games like Gears of War and Neverwinter Nights, however, in which my squadmates will do their thing without direction from me, are something else.

    So, why? RTS control schemes are as complicated as it gets (with the possible exception of that F-14 Tomcat game back on DOS!). The RTS player not only has to know a large range of commands, but also has to know how to quickly move between tasks, quickly move to parts of the map, quickly locate divided units, quickly check the status of upgrades and production, etc. Squad-based gameplay isn’t more complicated than that, but when I try squad-based games of that kind, my intuitive complaint is indeed the complexity.

    I think expectations of control complexity are inseparable from the avenue of a game’s appeal. For me as a gamer, RPG and FPS games are more about tactics than strategy. If I feel like a general or a god (ala Black & White) looking down from above, ordering my troops/minions to and fro, then I accept the great complexity. But if I empathize with a particular character, an avatar, then complexity can distract me from the roleplay experience; it drags me out from that empathetic mindset and into the mindset of an objective strategist…which is contrary to the appeal of that particular game to me.

    Comment by Aaron — 13 December, 2006 @ 11:40 AM

  5. And remembering game control schemes, by the way, is considerably different than people getting back into the plot of their favorite TV show after a week.

    True, but I was thinking more of “what was I doing?” rather than “how do I control my guy?” If people can keep in mind the relationships between all the characters in a show like Friends (which I know just by virtue of being around people that liked the show, not from watching it much myself), they can probably remember some detail in a game.

    But, you are right, mastering the controller is a separate task altogether. But, in my opinion, this isn’t something that you have to do on a per-game basis. Once I grok the layout of a controller, I usually don’t think about it when playing a new game. The only exception is when I have to press the right button that shows up on screen. It took me forever to learn that the green triangle was the top button on the Playstation controller, for example.

    Thanks for the insightful commentary, all. :)

    Comment by Psychochild — 13 December, 2006 @ 2:14 PM

  6. You’re really talking about potential market here, not target market.

    Good point.

    By making the game “simpler”, the goal for most developers is to attract more people and get more money. However, I doubt that people that can’t grasp how a taskbar works will likely ever be huge game purchasers. The further problem with this philosophy is that we’re potentially alienating the audience already interested in buying games.

    (a) Those playing games now will continue to play games. This market will always exist. Complex games will be built for them, just like complex novels are written for hard-core readers.

    (b) People who can’t use the taskbar aren’t big purchasers, but there are lots of ‘em. Plus, they haven’t been tapped as a market, so that market will continue to grow. There won’t be any more hard-core gamers in the US and Europe (maybe in China, India, Africa, and South America though).

    And, I’m not just talking out my ass here. Over on Greg Costikyan’s blog, you can see a comment from someone who believes short/simple games aren’t worth as much.

    Yes, they aren’t worth as much. However, especially for short games, people will may more of them. A MMORPG that takes 600 hours to complete means that a typical (hard core) MMORPG player will play 1-2 MMORPGs a year. A FPS takes 10-25 hours, and a hard-core FPS player will play 5+ FPSs a year. A novel takes 5-10 hours to read, and a hard-core novel reader will read 25-50 a year.

    And, if you’ve been paying attention to the industry the last few years, you know that games aren’t getting cheaper to make. You aren’t going to see games of Okami’s level of polish in the $20 bin soon (if ever again).

    I understand your point. But in specifics, I expect Okami to be in the $20 bargain bin soon. :-)

    I call BS. They remember the plots to shows they watch only once a week. Of course, lots of shows have a “Previously on the show…” segments right before the new episode. But, that only acts as a refresher, not a complete summary of the previous show.

    The plots on most TV shows are (a) incredibly simple, and (b) provide subtle refreshers in the script.

    My example: I took a break from Dark Messiah a few weeks ago to play NWN2. I’m in the middle of being chased by some sort of dragon/serpent, where reaction times count. I had to unlearn Dark messiah to learn NWN2 controls, and now if I want to restart Dark Messiah I have to relearn them, and quickly because the game is designed assuming I’m just as good at DM controls now as when I last saved a few weeks ago.

    Comment by Mike Rozak — 13 December, 2006 @ 2:43 PM

  7. Plus, they haven’t been tapped as a market, so that market will continue to grow.

    It’s not a market if it won’t spend money. I still think it’s a bit silly to think that the grandmothers of the world would buy games if only we could just make a game simple enough for old granny to understand. That whole attitude is a bit patronizing.

    There won’t be any more hard-core gamers in the US and Europe…

    I disagree. Younger people are still getting into gaming faster than than any other age group. The bulk of the “video game generation” are hitting middle age, and as the Boomers die off we’ll see more people that grew up with games taking their place. So, I think the hard-core market still has some room to grow before the market is completely saturated. But, you are partially correct in that the hard-core market will grow faster in some of the (until now) less technically sophisticated countries.

    But in specifics, I expect Okami to be in the $20 bargain bin soon. :-)

    And the developer has already been shut down. See the discussion at Greg Costikyan’s blog I referenced above.

    I had to unlearn Dark messiah to learn NWN2 controls, and now if I want to restart Dark Messiah I have to relearn them, and quickly because the game is designed assuming I’m just as good at DM controls now as when I last saved a few weeks ago.

    This is one of the reasons why most games have customizable controls. I set my controls to something similar in every game I play. Alternatively, most casual gamers tend to stick to one type of game. Jumping from a multi-player focused LAN RPG to an action-RPG and back again isn’t going to be a huge problem for most of the more casual gamers.

    Thanks for the discussion. :)

    Comment by Psychochild — 13 December, 2006 @ 3:16 PM

  8. It’s not a market if it won’t spend money. I still think it’s a bit silly to think that the grandmothers of the world would buy games if only we could just make a game simple enough for old granny to understand. That whole attitude is a bit patronizing.

    My mother and neighbor are both grandmothers. They both play games, but of the solitaire, sudoku, and crossword variety. They don’t spend much money on games, true. With online crossword puzzles, for example, they do get ads. They won’t play complex games.

    My brother has kids. He only has a few hours a week to play games, but he wants to play games. He won’t subscribe to a MMORPG, but a one-off fee is okay (which means he’s low revenue). He’ll play moderately complex games, but has the problem of getting back into the game after a week or more of not playing.

    My non-scientific guestimate is that 50% of the population plays some form of computer game. Of those 50%, half just play solitaire or crossword puzzles and won’t go for retail games. That’s 25% of the population, times 600 million people in US + Euorpe = 150 million. If the industry could get $25/year from each of them, even if by in-game advertising (not much money per person), that’s still $3.75 billion. Sure, it’s not as much as the top 25%(?) of the population that spends $10 billion (?) on gaming systems and retail games, but it’s still significant. Even if the number is only $1 billion, it’s still signficant. (I’ve seen guestimates for the casual games market, but I don’t recall what they were.)

    I disagree. Younger people are still getting into gaming faster than than any other age group.

    Sorry, I exaggerated in my comment. The hard-core gaming population in the developed world is probably growing at the rate of population growth (younger people coming into the market, as you say) + inflation + gaming systems becoming more affordable (very small growth in the US/Europe, but large elsewhere). In the US that would be around 10%. (Guestimate.)

    This is one of the reasons why most games have customizable controls.

    Spoken like a true gamer, but I suspect the more casual gamers wouldn’t even realize that control customization is there in the first place.

    Comment by Mike Rozak — 13 December, 2006 @ 5:50 PM

  9. Ooops, forgot to mention that as people get real jobs and children, they tend to play less… which (IMHO) means they’ll want simpler games, not more complex ones.

    Comment by Mike Rozak — 13 December, 2006 @ 5:55 PM

  10. The vast majority of humans are perfectly capable of figuring out the windows task bar.

    The reason why so many computer users (apparently) don’t use it isn’t because they aren’t smart enough to figure it out. It is because they have already found a functional path (“Close foreground window”, for example) so can’t be bothered to learn a new path.

    I don’t know what most of my buttons on my washing machine does (Delicate vs permapress? Huh?), but I can’t say I particularly care – clothes get clean. I would be insulted if you were to claim I *couldn’t* figure out what those buttons did, however. Ignorance != stupidity.

    - Brask

    Comment by Brask Mumei — 13 December, 2006 @ 6:30 PM

  11. Talk to me if either of these people play something like Brain Age, then we have a potential gamer on our hands. :)

    I loaned my neighbor Myst II; she played for awhile, but said the puzzles were too difficult. (I’m not particularly great at puzzles either, so I tend to agree, but I’m sure she didn’t get too far.)

    I know I’m breaking your definition of “game”, but her sister plays online multiplayer card games; not a MMORPG, but heading that way.

    You’re talking about razor thin margins and competing with an installed fanbase.

    Unfortunately, yes. And most 40+ year-olds aren’t willing to venture far from computerized cards and crosswords.

    I think that a downloadable low-cost adventure game might work… which is, in a sense, what I’m working on… chasing after the market that you think doesn’t sufficiently exist.

    You’re forgetting an important element here: the cost to acquire the customers. It’s not like someone can make a simple game and suddenly earn $1 billion here. Just one large cost would be the cost to market to these people: they don’t read gamer magazines, so it’s not like you can just do a free interview and get some interest in your game.

    While I generally agree, I’d play devil’s advocate:

    - Second Life has done an awfully good job getting free mainstream-media hype… although I think I heard they pay a PR company to do this.

    - Email word of mouth will get you part way there. One retiree can cc a lot of people on their E-mails. (I know, I get lots of spam from one of my father’s friends.)

    - While gamer magazines won’t work, you could advertise in crossword puzzle books at the supermarket checkout. Not really a good venue, but better than nothing.

    Not necessarily. Many people I know, including Christopher Allen, say that they still want complex games, they just don’t want a game that demands much time. So, they still want RPGs, for example, they just prefer something that takes 10 or so hours instead of 40+. This fits better into a busy lifestyle. But, as I point out above, the problem is to get people to pay a reasonable amount for this type of “shorter” game.

    I still think there’s a correlation between shorter and simpler. I think that a game like Fate, which is short and simple, would work better than a short version of NWN2 (with overly-complex D&D rules to deal with).

    Comment by Mike Rozak — 13 December, 2006 @ 7:59 PM

  12. Mike,

    You can have depth without a complex interface, of course. The classic screw-up here is RTS (NOT RTT!) games, where the last games to at advance the UI appreciably were Total Annihilation and Homeworld: Cataclysm. (Supreme Commander…is a marginal advance on TA)

    Comment by Andrew Crystall — 14 December, 2006 @ 6:00 AM

  13. Sounds like we are missing something in this discussion: Peoples interest. People do not play games because they want to play a game. The play games because of interest…or hobbies. The 40+ crossword market is just as viable. They play because they like those games and found that computer games in that market provide a higher consumption rate at a more efficient cycle. They can hit a web site or by a game with 10k crosswords…and play for months.

    Some people like sports. Grown men who are not even “gamers” play every Madden title there is. In essence they have replaced their vacant lot time with couch time. Same friends…same football…just not as hard on the knees.

    Same thing with everyone. I play RPG games (fantasy and medieval) because that interest me. For a while I played flight sims…back when I wanted to be a pilot. Oddly enough FPS were very popular when I was in the Army…big strong guys who would never be considered gamers loaded up FPS because they were interested in that. They could get a rush…without the danger.

    I don’t understand why it matters really…bigger market. Simple vs Complex. It seems like “Cart In Front Of The Horse” talk to me. Everyone has an interest. And there is a game genre for every interest imaginable. The question is not how do I design a simple or shorter game…or complex game. No, the question is how to I make a good game for my market…or for a group of people who are interested in X game. In that genre there should be a variety of titles, or even variations of the same title. Some of those can be simple. Some short. Some complex. It really doesn’t matter. In the end people have their own interest…regardless of age…and game designers and publishers should just identify those interest groups…establish market understanding…and produce game titles that meet that need. Regardless of it is a FPS, RTS, Crossword puzzle, or online Texas Holdem title.

    You can’t make everyone happy…and it is folly to try. My dad plays card games. My friends dad plays puzzle games and card games. I had a friend once who’s dad was in to hunting games. I like RPG, MMORPGs, Tactical-FPS (probably the Army talkin’), and my grandmother likes brain teasers. And my son likes anything with a cartoon character off of the TV…no one really cares if it is short or simple…or complex. As long as we are entertained and we feel we got our monies worth…

    Comment by cl — 14 December, 2006 @ 7:44 AM

  14. cl, the problem is that letting marketing dicate game design has produced a number of rather large flops (kinda like, well, movies). That’s why it has to be thrashed out by designers. Even if it is an inefficient and messy process.

    Comment by Andrew Crystall — 14 December, 2006 @ 8:51 AM

  15. “Ooops, forgot to mention that as people get real jobs and children,
    they tend to play less… which (IMHO) means they’ll want simpler games,
    not more complex ones.”

    As a geezer with a real job and kids, I have to disagree. I don’t want
    simpler games, I want games where I can have fun in shorter play sessions.
    I’m a player, not a developer but I see a huge difference there…

    Comment by JuJutsu — 14 December, 2006 @ 2:06 PM

  16. Another thought. Complex is not the same as complicated. Following on from the design of everyday things, it’s important to remember that as humans we offload our calculations onto the environment around us. That’s to say in this case, the interface can help out. Context-icon’s mean we don’t have to remember what to do all the time. The simplest example is weapon swapping. Here’s what will happen on pressing this button is often shown in an icon. This goes a long way to forgetting controls. Likewise loading screens with core-tips on are great as “Btw, if you forgot, here’s how to do a block.”

    An example of making something complex more complicated: I hate fighting games to some extent because you have to remember sequences of moves. It always annoyed me that there were no little tips. Or you had to pause and look in a menu. I always wished I could just scroll through a little menu easily to remind myself of the button/direction sequence. It makes it so I have to remember the sequences, a complex series of button presses becomes complicated through needing to memorise them. Training modes have gone some way to help out here.

    Yeah, my enemy might see me looking, but people cheat all the time on Halo 2 split screens in the same way. I know I have fights with my younger brothers over screen watching!

    Fun is outside of all this to me. I can have fun with a simple game, but it’s not as valuable to me as a similiar costing game that is much more complex.

    Comment by Jpoku — 15 December, 2006 @ 9:30 AM

Leave a comment

I value your comment and think the discussions are the best part of this blog. However, there's this scourge called comment spam, so I choose to moderate comments rather than giving filthy spammers any advantage.

If this is your first comment, it will be held for moderation and therefore will not show up immediately. I will approve your comment when I can, usually within a day. Comments should eventually be approved if not spam. If your comment doesn't show up and it wasn't spam, send me an email as the spam catchers might have caught it by accident.

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Email Subscription

Get posts by email:


Recent Comments

Categories

Search the Blog

Calendar

November 2019
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Meta

Archives

Standard Disclaimer

I speak only for myself, not for any company.

My Book





Information

Around the Internet

Game and Online Developers

Game News Sites

Game Ranters and Discussion

Help for Businesses

Other Fun Stuff

Quiet (aka Dead) Sites

Posts Copyright Brian Green, aka Psychochild. Comments belong to their authors.

Support me and my work on