Are today's gamers, on average, dumber?

[Blackpapa]

See, there's this thing that has been puzzling me for a while.

Back in the old days we had games like this:

Today we have games like this:

By no means am I saying FPS games are inferior. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing ARMA2 as much as the next guy.

The point is in the old days we had a wide diversity of game genres. Tactical games, sim games, tycoons and clever hybrids of all of the above. It's hard to argue games of that complexity aren't being produced any more. Back in 1999 JA2 was in every way an AAA title. You might try, but you won't find any titles like that in the current AAA lineup.

The question is why? Publishers are quick to answer that thinking games aren't

contemporary

, as per this article: http://www.gamefront.com/2k-boss-strategy-games-arent-contemporary/

It's obvious enough that publishers go where the money is and wouldn't hesitate to release anything that would turn a profit. The logical explanation why complex strategy/management/sim games aren't developed then is because they wouldn't sell. But here's the thing - those games did sell, very well actually. Most gamers born before 1993 should recognize the images I posted instantly.

In fact, if anything, gaming has become more, not less popular. Which means not only more people but a wider diversity of players as well. If anything that should contribute, not harm the variety of games released.

So why is the number of genres decreasing? Why have "thinking" games been almost entirely displaced by "twitch" games? Is there a better explanation than a sudden drop in global IQ?

(Or are the publishers just giving us a hint that if you enjoy playing Capitalism then you probably would be better off doing the same thing IRL instead?)

 

[JochemDude]

Those games are still around and played plenty it's just that those 'dumbed' down games are bigger moneymaker. What they are trying to do is get people into gaming and how better then making them more accessible. They don't think in how enjoyable will this game be, how good will it be? How does your money goes into ours the fastest? That's the mentality of AAA game publishers these days, not much we can change about that.

 

[The Madman]

Mass Appeal. It really is that simple.

X-Com for all the love it gets probably only sold a couple hundred thousand at the absolute most, but at the time that was huge. Nowadays with the time and budgets thrown into even a seemingly simple project anything less than a sales number somewhere in the millions is often considered a failure. And so to prevent those failures, publishers and developers alike try to make their games appeal to as large a market as possible.

Still, there are games like that still around and for that matter plentiful. A fantastic recent example is Frozen Synapse. Smaller developers with smaller budgets appealing to a niche market. If you're looking for your fill of more cerebral games you just need to look around, still around.

Just less 'mainstream' unfortunately.

 

[Zhukov]

No, not really.

Old games were never as complex as people like to think. They just had really shitty GUIs and an over-reliance on number crunching.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Because games today are disgustingly expensive to produce, so much fewer genres can float the bill of a triple A title.

 

[Disgruntled_peasant]

No, not really.

Old games were never as complex as people like to think. They just had really shitty GUIs and an over-reliance on number crunching.

Pretty much this.

Modern strategy games are far more complex than older titles, they just present the data to you in a much better way.
Same goes for shooters, the shooters you showed are no less complex than the shooters from years back, the original Doom was a very very simple game.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Yes they are, statistically, gamers used to be the 10 nerds in the village who understood how technology works, now the market has turned everybody into gamers and the average person isn't all too bright.

Hell just look at some gaming "journalists", the guys that are suppose to have more then air between the ears and it's a bloody monkey show out there.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Um, you're wrong. There is a glut of FPS games, yeah. That's been true for what, like a decade at least but just because half the games are FPS games that doesn't dimension the fact that the other half aren't. The big name games are FPS games but there are tons of smaller name game that are also there and compose every section of every genera. Games may be less cluttered then some of those atrocious interfaces above but that doesn't make them less complex. As a matter of fact its hard to argue complexity in games since its an abstract concept. Aside from that, I'm not sure what gives you the right to call FPS games not complex. Sure they dont pause time like in RPGs or some sim games but there is still a level of strategy and thinking involved in Shooters that encourages quick decision making a tactical thinking. Its not the number crunching of a deep RPGs where you have 15 states and 20 multiples on 30 weapon types but its not as if math is the holy grail of knowledge. Their are different way of thinking and reasoning and different types of intelligence. Aside from those two fact, there also the trend to incorporate RPG elements into everything that is running through gaming that is literally the antithesis of your statement that games are getting dumber and there are developers whop simply don't make shooters.

Now publishers go where the money is, true, but that just means that there is less of a market for sims or strategy or whatever. A game falling out of popularity does not necessarily point to games getting stupider. Advancing technology and changing public interest as well as a shifting demographics affect what games people will buy. Saying that its all negative or dumbing down is just short sighted. I mean even a casual glance reveals advancement in the ability to tell stories and new and interesting design ideas that have been made possible by just the simple act of having more space to put your data on. More complex system can and have been designed over time.

Whenever I hear this argument it usually comes from nostalgia or from sour grapes. People who like, for example, sim type games are upset that sims don't dominate the market. There is still a market for those types of games (Hell they are still making sim city games and you can pretty much name any sim_____ thing and its probably a game) but the niche appeal upsets people since, if they don't enjoy the popular FPS games that get made more often, then they don't have much to play. So they go all sour grapes and say FPS games all suck and the market sucks. Others are blinded by nostalgia remember only what they want to remember, i.e.e the good old days when there were so many more games they liked, even if that's just a product of them forgetting all the other games and only remembering the ones they liked. That's the same reason why people think that back int he day there was less crap and more awesome because they simply forgot all the superman 64s and only remember the ocarina of times. There are tons of people who complain about how dumb games are getting or how poor they are getting and immediately blame it on a dumbing down of things or greedy publishers or stupid people or whatever. I honestly think someone who puts himself so high as to say "I'm smarter then everyone else I can see this happening and its because everyone else is stupid" needs to examine just where he is sitting int he world since such a view is the mark of a crazy person and is seldom the case.

Finally, this applies to your argument

 

[VanQ]

Because most games are targeted at an American audience.
And what do Americans love more than anything else in the world?
Guns.

If you want a thinkers game, go grab a JRPG or two. Because that's the only haven left for you.

 

[The Madman]

No, not really.

Old games were never as complex as people like to think. They just had really shitty GUIs and an over-reliance on number crunching.

Pretty much this.

Modern strategy games are far more complex than older titles, they just present the data to you in a much better way.
Same goes for shooters, the shooters you showed are no less complex than the shooters from years back, the original Doom was a very very simple game.

I think the OP's point is more in how few 'mainstream' strategy or tactical games you see today rather than their comparative complexity or depth to modern titles, a point I don't necessarily agree with but which I also don't think this is entirely a nostalgia fuelled 'ye olden games were better' topic either.

Besides, X-Com was amazing. I honestly can't think of a single modern game released within the past 5 years that even tries to do what it did nigh on 17 years ago. There was Silent Storm a few years back that sorta tried and... erm... well that's about it.

Pity, I'd love to see what developers today could do with the X-Com brand and modern technology. Oh wait...

Fuck.

 

[Zenkem]

Yes, they are dumber. It's a sad side effect of making them easier to get into.

Back in the days manuals were somewhat necessary because games could be complex and without tutorials. While tutorials are now common (even for things like walking and turning your head), the complexity they could be used to teach is gone. I agree that old games tended to be frustratingly hard, but dumbing them down is exactly the wrong way to lower difficulty.

 

[teebeeohh]

of course, in the past to access gaming(at least the screens you have shown) you had to like processing a lot of data and almost everybody who owned a machine that supported gaming did like that kinda stuff. Today a much larger percentage of the population play games and thus it's now more profitable to cater to the larger audience who enjoys shooting stuff than to the smaller audience who enjoy doing spreadsheets in their spare time.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Minecraft, TES, The Sims are all popular non shooter based games.... I am tired so don't yell at me if I misunderstood the whole post.

 

[Blackpapa]

No, not really.

Old games were never as complex as people like to think. They just had really shitty GUIs and an over-reliance on number crunching.

Pretty much this.

Modern strategy games are far more complex than older titles, they just present the data to you in a much better way.
Same goes for shooters, the shooters you showed are no less complex than the shooters from years back, the original Doom was a very very simple game.

Depends on how you understand complexity.

If you're talking about technology then you're right, of course. The advances in graphics have been the most considerable. The AI, on the other hand, hasn't improved much. It topped during the Q3/HL2 time and that's about it.

If you mean gameplay complexity however I can't agree. The only title that attempted to deepen RTS gameplay as of recent was SupCom 1. Not that RTSes need more complexity - time is a resource in RTS games and the only way to increase gameplay depth and complexity without making the game unplayable is to provide a better GUI - again that's what SupCom 1 did.

I'm not arguing that SHOOTERS have become less complex. I could try to make that point, seeing as today's FPSes are in general much more linear, have regenerating health and little challenge. Also note that doom was constrained technically - if you remember the "will it run Crysis" jokes then it was pretty much like that with Doom 1.

 

[veloper]

Since it's mostly PC gamers here, pretty much.
You'd only ever notice if your gaming history is PC and/or Amiga.

Where's the complex games on the Atari 2600 or the NES? Though NES may not be a perfect example.

PC gaming in the 90s was still the domain of nerds, so a turn-based tactical game like UFO:EU did receive just as much spotlight in the mags (cover story) as the most succesful action games. It was the equivalent then of a triple-A title now.
Just back then development costs, sales and revenue were much lower everywhere.
The old gamers haven't gone anywhere, but we've seen a big influx of newcomers with different preferences. Still playing the classics like MOO2 and JA2 because progress in those genres has come to a standstill.

 

[Zantos]

No, there are still a lot of games out there that are mentally challenging. They're just not overburdened with terrible UIs and dodgy controls. I don't mind losing in a game when I've made a bad decision, but I remember most of the challenge in my old games was just a bad controller or a game that wasn't designed to be easy to use. That's just downright frustrating.

Besides, me and a lot of my friends prefer reflex based games. We spend all day number crunching and reading endless amounts of text, I don't really want to come home and have my chill time involving that too.

Actually, "smart" games exist still too. You just choose to not aknowledge them. You're cherry-picking, good sir. To your arguments about how gamers are dumber nowadays because of Cod and Cod and Cod, I reply with DOOM, DOOM 2, DOOM 3, Duke nukem, ect. "Stupid" games will, and always will, be made. It's not because they're made for stupid gamers. It's because not everybody goes home from 8 hours of work so that they can sit and be mentally tested again. That shit is draining. Not everybody wants to pay for a second job as a middle-manager for the city's industrial center. Games like COD and DOOM give entertainment, while not being mentally draining. You wanna stand on a pedastal and decry the millions who play them as being stupid for not finding this

enjoyable? Then fine. Just don't expect us to feel ashamed for having fun.

This got posted while I was typing me response. Just, yeah, in every way.

 

[Adzma]

I'm going to have to say yes. There's a reason why "streamlining" is synonymous with "dumbing down."

It's all about maximising the profit margin these days.