Are today's gamers, on average, dumber?
- Thread starter Blackpapa
- Start date
Take off the nostalgia glasses. Games aren't just for the two nerds sitting in the corner. Now you have Grandma playing Wii Sports, little Junior playing Kirby on his DS, Tommy the college student playing everything, Tina the otherwise non-gamer sister playing The Sims...switch up the roles, but however you allocate them, everyone is a gamer these days, even if it's only Wii Tennis. Gamers are not dumber; you're just seeing more of the average population, rather than the very smart right side of the bell curve, playing games. You're also claiming, as far as I can tell, that some genres are "dumber" than others, when in fact there are some pretty deep and intense FPS games and some really stupid puzzlers. You can't judge a game by its genre, and Sim City was not the Holy Grail of video games, no matter what your rosy spectacles want to tell you.
On the glut of FPSes...go watch Extra Credits' first mailbag session. FPSes are numerous because people like them and they're easy to make via some widespread pre-made engines. Sooner or later, something else will take its place. Meh.
Here's one more thing to increase your faith in gamers' willingness to put forth mental effort and not just throw blood around. One of the most popular games ever is a puzzle game where you never fire a single bullet: Portal.
On the glut of FPSes...go watch Extra Credits' first mailbag session. FPSes are numerous because people like them and they're easy to make via some widespread pre-made engines. Sooner or later, something else will take its place. Meh.
Here's one more thing to increase your faith in gamers' willingness to put forth mental effort and not just throw blood around. One of the most popular games ever is a puzzle game where you never fire a single bullet: Portal.
1. The FPS games are just getting the most attention.
2. Stragedy and Simulation games are still out there.
3. The games are dumbed down to plain shooting just to apply to a larger audience. A market sim may seem complicated to new players, but everyone understand action.
2. Stragedy and Simulation games are still out there.
3. The games are dumbed down to plain shooting just to apply to a larger audience. A market sim may seem complicated to new players, but everyone understand action.
It's simply that the market has widened, thus publishers and developers have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to maximize their profits. Even further, this fact is amplified by the huge budget of modern games. So, not only must developers and publishers appeal to a wider demographic than ever before, but the money they must spend to produce a game is simply massive, meaning the room for game makers to take risks and experiments decreases more and more with every passing game generation, so they have to go with something "safe" that will sell. "Safe," more often or not, has a lot to do with being simpler.
This is just a thing: it's not a bad thing or a good thing.
This is just a thing: it's not a bad thing or a good thing.
Games are getting dumbed down for mass appeal (accessibility). It doesn't mean that ALL the players who play them are dumb though (some of em might be). Let's not be making sweeping generalizations.
Problem is, if we gamers really want more from games/ developers we need to organize ourselves to wield any kind of power. Right now, we've got purchasing power....which is only persuasive (capable of affecting developers) in big numbers. Big numbers are hard to organize + not every single gamer will have the same level of commitment.
Basically, on aggregate level we are a disorganized, non-committed group of people that therefore has no determinative power on the developers.
Make no mistake...this isn't some fancy restaurant where everyone gets to place an order. We just eat what we are served.
Problem is, if we gamers really want more from games/ developers we need to organize ourselves to wield any kind of power. Right now, we've got purchasing power....which is only persuasive (capable of affecting developers) in big numbers. Big numbers are hard to organize + not every single gamer will have the same level of commitment.
Basically, on aggregate level we are a disorganized, non-committed group of people that therefore has no determinative power on the developers.
Make no mistake...this isn't some fancy restaurant where everyone gets to place an order. We just eat what we are served.
wow... first I'll comment on what I thought this was going to be about. Once upon a time, the only people playing games were software engineers and their friends. So I would say gamers were smarter exclusively during that time. Once games became available to a paying audience, average intelligence became a symptom of society and is ultimately unlikely to change.
You are trying to make a claim that because you took selective screenshots of two complicated old school games and a few modern games that are more approachable, that modern games are less sophisticated? That they take less thought?
If you want a game with many options and buttons, they still make those. They will always make those. You wanna talk about a simple game that takes very little thought to understand? How about Tetris? Mario Brothers? Should we compare a modern flight simulator to Qbert as proof that we're smarter than the gamers of old?
You are trying to make a claim that because you took selective screenshots of two complicated old school games and a few modern games that are more approachable, that modern games are less sophisticated? That they take less thought?
If you want a game with many options and buttons, they still make those. They will always make those. You wanna talk about a simple game that takes very little thought to understand? How about Tetris? Mario Brothers? Should we compare a modern flight simulator to Qbert as proof that we're smarter than the gamers of old?
Theres definatly MORE people playing games. More people mean the groups within gaming grow. Theres also alot more smarter people playing games these days.
So I would say that there are more dumber people playing games (im not exactly the sharpest shruiken in the ninja bag) but I wouldnt say their dumber on average although they might be... AAAHHH MATHS, BLARGGGGH.
So I would say that there are more dumber people playing games (im not exactly the sharpest shruiken in the ninja bag) but I wouldnt say their dumber on average although they might be... AAAHHH MATHS, BLARGGGGH.
Quite simple really. There is a greater amount of people playing games. The wider the appeal to the casual audience, the lower the average intelligence will get as current developers are trying to appeal to them as intelligence is rarer.Hammeroj said:
However, the OP is intentionally picking the most complex old games and the least complex new ones. Games nowadays are still pretty complex if you look in the right place, but if you stare at the triple A games industry you will always feel like games are getting dumber, because they're appealing to the working class right now.
So gaming elitists would make themselves out to be dumb, as instead of focusing on the entire games industry in general, they choose to focus on the dumbest part and proclaim that the entire industry is like that.
Which, hilariously, is the same thing that racists do when they see a black person. Same logic, different subject. And I think we'd all agree that racists are stupid.
(By racists i meant people who are actually racist, not people who will make the odd racist joke. I don't regard that as true racism as you can joke about something without believing in it)
I don't know about you, but if I want to go hours upon hours of number crunching to achieve something, I'll take a fucking Math semester.
Otherwise, I'll be over here stabbing things with swords, shooting aliens and creating legends in my own personal fantasy experiences, thank you.
Otherwise, I'll be over here stabbing things with swords, shooting aliens and creating legends in my own personal fantasy experiences, thank you.
So because games these days are simpler and easier to play, the people who play them are dumb?
That makes little sense to me. Game have been made more accessible. Except FPSs, they've been made more compelx.
CoD and Battlefield are much mroe complex than Doom or Wolfenstein.
Looking at the OP, all you've showin is that older strategy games had a lot more micromanaging than modern shooters. It was very dumb of you to compare games of completely different genres. Strategy games will always be more complex than FPS games.
And strategy games with micromanaging do still exist. Simcity still exists, RPGs still exist.
So no, gamers haven't become dumber, you've just chosen (in a rather dumb manner) to focus on the best selling games while somehow forgetting that more than 4 games have been released this generation.
EDIT: I'm currently resisting the urge to make a topic entitled "Are today's gamers, on average, smarter?" and comparing E.T. on the Atari To Dragon Age Origins.
That makes little sense to me. Game have been made more accessible. Except FPSs, they've been made more compelx.
CoD and Battlefield are much mroe complex than Doom or Wolfenstein.
Looking at the OP, all you've showin is that older strategy games had a lot more micromanaging than modern shooters. It was very dumb of you to compare games of completely different genres. Strategy games will always be more complex than FPS games.
And strategy games with micromanaging do still exist. Simcity still exists, RPGs still exist.
So no, gamers haven't become dumber, you've just chosen (in a rather dumb manner) to focus on the best selling games while somehow forgetting that more than 4 games have been released this generation.
EDIT: I'm currently resisting the urge to make a topic entitled "Are today's gamers, on average, smarter?" and comparing E.T. on the Atari To Dragon Age Origins.
This: I had a demo of X-Com, and for the life of me couldn't figure out what anything did. Since tutorials didn't exist, and this was a demo, I didn't have the manual either.Zhukov said:
However, I watched a Let's Play of it (a couple missions), and suddenly I could play it an I actually understood everything.
Also, I bigger reason games seem easier than they were 20 years ago, is because, back than maybe 10 people made an entire game. Now we have 100s to 1000s of people working on a single game. Bugs, control difficulties, and other things like that can be worked out much easier when people who aren't working on the controls play test.
HCI is fun, you make a slick interface and remove irrelevant components (Be it statistics, controls of a host of other possiblities) and people instantly denounce you for 'dumbing it down' when all you've done is made it easier to get to the actual game instead of wading through spreadsheets for several hours before initiating a fight.
Also OP, not a fair fight putting up a bunch of shooters against Sims, and RTS games; try The Witcher or perhaps even Cities XL.
Also OP, not a fair fight putting up a bunch of shooters against Sims, and RTS games; try The Witcher or perhaps even Cities XL.
*stiffles a tear* Love how the games OP uses in his example are some of my fav games of old time.
There has been a dearth in these kinda strategy/simulation games for sure, but still some gems here and there, such as paradox with titles like hearts of iron or victoria.
Apparently there's gonna be a Jagged Alliance 3 coming out.
After their disaster with Elemental war of magic, stardock are working on a sequel, enchantress, that looks to achieve the untapped potential of the first game.
Various xcom style games are in the making (lets just pretend the actual xcom game fps doesnt exist).
Stronghold 3, Tropico 4, fps might be flavor of the month but there are still these awesome strategical games around for those who look and more coming out ^^
Edit:Heh totally missed point of thread, totally dismissed the "are gamers smarter" as assumed it was a nostalgic thread ranting on about how these awesome old games have no equal today.
Nope, i dont think games are on average dumber, or if so, its an affect of there being so many more gamers then there was 10 years ago that the median intelligence is dragged down.
There has been a dearth in these kinda strategy/simulation games for sure, but still some gems here and there, such as paradox with titles like hearts of iron or victoria.
Apparently there's gonna be a Jagged Alliance 3 coming out.
After their disaster with Elemental war of magic, stardock are working on a sequel, enchantress, that looks to achieve the untapped potential of the first game.
Various xcom style games are in the making (lets just pretend the actual xcom game fps doesnt exist).
Stronghold 3, Tropico 4, fps might be flavor of the month but there are still these awesome strategical games around for those who look and more coming out ^^
Edit:Heh totally missed point of thread, totally dismissed the "are gamers smarter" as assumed it was a nostalgic thread ranting on about how these awesome old games have no equal today.
Nope, i dont think games are on average dumber, or if so, its an affect of there being so many more gamers then there was 10 years ago that the median intelligence is dragged down.
Well, my opinion is FPS's sell BETTER, and so they are made to keep up with the demand and so companies can cash in. Simple as that.
I'm unsure that number of genres is decreasing.. but perhaps the number of games within each genre is. I'm sure plenty of people could name stacks of FPS games, just not as many from other genres.
It's funny, before reading your first post, I was just going to say "No, people have always been this dumb, the internet just didn't exist and thus we wern't as exposed to it."
I'm unsure that number of genres is decreasing.. but perhaps the number of games within each genre is. I'm sure plenty of people could name stacks of FPS games, just not as many from other genres.
It's funny, before reading your first post, I was just going to say "No, people have always been this dumb, the internet just didn't exist and thus we wern't as exposed to it."
try from dust. it might just be a downloadable game but i consider it to be a thinking game. kind of nostalgic to the "god" games from the 90's early 2000's
Eh, i was mainly taking the piss anyway. I mean, sure, AAA studios will lower the average IQ (if you want to call it that) of gamers, but hell, doesn't mean more complex stuff isn't there. OP is being an idiot.Hammeroj said:
So yeah, wasn't denying, I was just having a little fun. No counter argument from me.
Really complex games that required a fair bit of thinking were always for a bit of a niche audience. It's just that the return on investment needed for most AAA games nowadays is something like 300x as much as it used to be and AAA studios need to appeal to a broader audience to get back their ROI.