Are today's gamers, on average, dumber?

[Zantos]

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

I never played any of those games. But this isn't about those specific games it's about games in general, of which the ones I played mostly had shitty controls.

 

[CriticalGriffin]

Gaming Elitists are dumber for actually believing all this.

 

[Bostur]

The variety of genres have certainly decreased. Strategy games are limited to Total War series and clones. Tactical games, well we have SC2 and Dawn of War both are tactical/action hybrids.

The adventure genre is pretty much dead, only handled by a few indie games where it's mostly story and very little game.

I can't remember the last time I played an economic sim, like Capitalism shown in the screenshot or Railroad Tycoon.

The RPG genre is pretty much doomed as well it seems, considering that most RPG developers wants to make shooters instead.


The only new thing we got is an increased focus on storyline in many games which is cool, but it's not much considering the wealth of game variety that has been lost.

Even the majority of FPS games are dumber, being mostly rail shooters now.

 

[Adzma]

"gamers" not "games"

Read between the lines good sir. Why must games be dumbed down if the average player is unable to understand and play it if they haven't been "streamlined."

and no an entire group of people who happen to have a certian hobby have not gotten dumber

Fixed that for you. Also I agree. An entire group of people who have a certain hobby have not gotten dumber. Said hobby now attracts a larger player base which includes less than stellar players, because hey, that's how the world works. No two humans are the same. Therefore my point is that the average player has infact become dumber, because there is an even larger playerbase, and that games are no longer a niche thing.

 

[Con Carne]

I work customer service and I believe that as a whole, people are dumber.
But I think that developers don't make as more puzzle games because it's not their time any more. In the age of all this new technology, as a society, we want instant gratification, there is no time for a puzzle.

 

[The Madman]

Spoiler

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.

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

That game is Capitalism 2 which despite all the fancy graphs and such isn't nearly as impenetrable as that screenshot makes it out to be. I remember I bought the game when it came out thinking it was some sort of Sim City esq game and still had a pretty fun time with it despite having gone in hoping for something else and with no real experience or for that matter urge to tinker in that sorta stuff. Much less complex than it might look at first glance.

Kinda surprised that of all games would be shown alongside other legendary titles like X-Com, Sim City Transport Tycoon and Jagged Alliance by the OP though. I never really thought of it as anything special myself, but whatever.

 

[madwarper]

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.

I won't, but I will reprimand you for calling Minecraft a shooter.

He did?

What does the word "non", of non shooter, mean?

 

[SerpentsLairStudios]

This thread has just reminded me that I have a a copy of Capitalism 2 sat on the shelf which I have not played in years. Time to load that up i think. I know i have put nothing into this thread but I just though I should mention this for no real reason.

 

[veloper]

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

I never played any of those games. But this isn't about those specific games it's about games in general, of which the ones I played mostly had shitty controls.

The games mentioned sofar in this thread were THE games of those lost genres we're just talking about.
You can't credibly dismiss them without having played them.

 

[Blackpapa]

Actually, "smart" games exist still too. You just choose to not aknowledge them. You're cherry-picking, good sir.

Sure they do, games don't vanish from existence. I'm guessing you're talking about smaller titles and indie games - as a lot of posters have noted. I'm perfectly aware of those. I actually follow the development of those games.

For those who enjoyed X-Com here's a treat:
http://www.xenonauts.com/ - it's as indie as it gets without hearing mum calling for dinner in the background of the voice acting.

The question is different - why have those games been pushed to the very fringe of gaming, having once been notable mainsteam titles?

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.

Stupid? Games can't be stupid or smart. People can. Games can be twitch or thinking based - always a combination of the two, matter of fact.

I think you're failing to see the point. There's nothing wrong with twitch games. The issue is that there's little but twitch games on the AAA market with the other genres having vanished from the mainstream. It's about the decrease of diversity.

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.

All hail the master PC race! Kein Mitleid für die Mehrheit!

Offended much?

I don't want to go down that road since it'll inevitably result in mud-slinging. For the record no, I didn't call you a dumb fuck for enjoying CoD.

 

[Zantos]

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

I never played any of those games. But this isn't about those specific games it's about games in general, of which the ones I played mostly had shitty controls.

The games mentioned sofar in this thread were THE games of those lost genres we're just talking about.
You can't credibly dismiss them without having played them.

So I have to stick to the games in the thread? Then I have no idea. Since the OP was severely overgeneralising I thought I might be allowed to draw from the experiences of the games I did play.

 

[Phenakist]

Well,theres a few major factors to look at.... But I'll just cover 2 'cause I don't want to be here all day...

Popularity: Gaming popularity has skyrocketed over the past... lets say decade, so as with anything, lets say motorsport, started off a few hardcode petrolheads who wanted to race their cars for a laugh, that got more serious, they got a couple fo people down to watch, and a few more, and a few more, and a few more, then they wanted a go at it themselves, and a few more and a few more again, and now we have idiots crashing their piece of shit cars to try and look cool and impress women pushing the initial insurace for new male drivers up to ridiculous levels (side rant over)... Lets apply the same principals to gaming, there are those of us, who genuinely care and enjoy our medium, like a big communal garden, a couple of guys started it, a few more came to chip in and do their bit, and now it's grown so big, we've idiots running around the place kicking whatever they see.

MONEY: It aaaaaaaaalways comes down to money, as much as I would like to say "I want to make a game with a loyal and mature fanbase" that isn't a great business target, because "loyal and mature" means relativly small. Whereas if I say "I want a game that sells" I will make something like say, Call of Duty, or World of Warcraft, something conceptually simply, easy to grasp and more addictive than crack. I mean think about it, if you and a team of co-workers are putting X years of your lives into making a game, you want to make that worth while right? how would you feel if you poured 5 years of your life into making a crazy intuative, revolutionary game, but only a few people actually got it, and it got dismissed by the people to ignorant to get it and you end up just scraping by (if you're lucky)? So you make something that doesn't push too many boundaries and sticks to a similar formula to everything else out there.

But to answer your question, yes, on average, they are, simply due to the influx of "casuals" and "internet scum" who simply dont' care, caused by the popularity increase. But the core of 'true' gamers, like the vast majority of users here, has if anything got more intellegent, we've all grown up thinking we could do things better, or differently and some of us have had the chance and succeded, look at Notch and Minecraft,and all the creativity that has came out of that, or all the insane mods for Kinect, or even guys like Freddie Wong on Youtube, all gamers.

 

[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.

I won't, but I will reprimand you for calling Minecraft a shooter. Yes, it's in first person, but that doesn't make it an FPS. For starters, the only shooter dynamic (barring mods) is the bow, which is entirely optional. It's an exploration and creation game with a combat/adventure dynamic to increase difficulty that is in the first person perspective.

Edit: misread your post. Sorry, I'm tired, too.

That's fine. If I thought someone called Minecraft a shooter I would be correcting them fast.
OT: I have never seen a single game in OP's post including the modern ones. I need more games.

 

[Hagi]

You're comparing old RTS and RPG against current day FPS and TPS....

While your comparison is horrible as an actual comparison I do think it's one of the closest I've ever seen to the well-known apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Bostur]

That game is Capitalism 2 which despite all the fancy graphs and such isn't nearly as impenetrable as that screenshot makes it out to be. I remember I bought the game when it came out thinking it was some sort of Sim City esq game and still had a pretty fun time with it despite having gone in hoping for something else and with no real experience or for that matter urge to tinker in that sorta stuff. Much less complex than it might look at first glance.

Kinda surprised that of all games would be shown alongside other legendary titles like X-Com, Sim City and Jagged Alliance by the OP though. I never really thought of it as anything special myself, but whatever.

Actually it is pretty complex under the hood. But a perfect example of a UI and controls done so well that it's possible to jump right into it. Old games did not have poor controls or UI, they didn't have the luxury of graphical sugar so controls had to be almost perfect.

 

[Signa]

Yeah, I've been seeing the same trends. They wouldn't bother me if there were still good games being made with any reliable frequency, but it seems like my only hope for an enjoyable and complex game is from an indie dev, and most of those guys have a hard time putting out good ideas that don't look like unpolished shit.

And to whomever mentioned Doom earlier, I would like to point out that while Doom was simple in mechanics, the levels, enemies and weapons all balanced into what feels like more complex gameplay than what is standard today. Sure, you don't have to aim up or down or reload, but by removing (or lacking) those common features, the player is allowed to focus on the ultimate run-and-gun experience. Situations can change in an instant, and worrying about an empty clip or watching to see if you landed that headshot before pulling a 180* to blast the next monster probably would have detracted from the experience. Doom may be the mother of the modern shooter, but it's such a different breed now that it's not even fair to compare them. FPSs have changed to the point where Doom feels new again just because the design is unique compared to everything else.

 

[Vibhor]

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.

Nope. Doom 1 had fairly low system requirement for that time. In fact one of the upper edge of doom in terms of competition was that it could run on almost anything. See Magic carpet for evidence.

 

[Hamish Durie]

*ahem* sorry to point out the obvious but those games you showcase are
first i have no idea

second a real estate game with a horrible interface

the 3rd is an rpg and you know what other rpgs have come out in this *stupid era* oblivion,witcher 2 and soon skyrim all of them really really good(not counting morrowind or Kotr because there a bit old....sorry)


now the moderen games that you show are
action
action/horror
action/driving
action/in space

now do you see what all the moderen ones have in commmon *THERE ACTION HEAVY GAMES* meaning there not meant to have complex gameplay.

now if you want a modern game that's fun and mentaly challenging PORTAL 1 AND 2


edit: i know that there will be a comment saying that portal 2 was dumber then portal 1 to which i say
how many people have been introduced to gameing because of portal 2 and how many people where introduced to gameing because of portal 1

 

[Blackpapa]

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

I would, but the 4X genre hasn't, surprisingly, been hit as bad. The inertia of Civilization games resulted in civ5 - 2010. And the latest space 4X I remember was GalCiv 2 with it's latest expansion pack in 2008.

On a sidenote I think MOO3 is a pretty interesting case. MOO2 couldn't get any more complex because computers wouldn't handle it - in essence video games became more and more complex as computing power was available. MOO3 followed this trend and ended up a game overly complex. It's about this time that computing power stopped being a limiting factor in the depth of gameplay design.

 

[Sir Boss]

Larger player-base, more people, statistically speaking, people are idiots. Gaming used to be the ultimate nerd hobby, nerds as a general rule are smart (or they at least think they are) Or maybe it's just on-line multi-player has brought the lack of intelligence of our peers to our attention. Two completely opposed opinions, take your pick.

By the way... can someone name the old games in the OP?