The Dumbification of Gaming

[Mouse One]

There's difficulty, and there's "dumbed down". Difficulty can be achieved simply by having tougher enemies (more hit points, more powerful attacks), debuffing the player's abilities, speeding up the gameplay, removing "hail mary" items like health packs/potions, etc.

Dumbed down is more about reducing player choice. If before, a player had three corridors to waltz down, and now only has one route, it's dumbed down. If a player could design a character with 30 options before, and now only has four (all of which will be maxed by game's end), again-- dumbed down. If a player could talk to twenty NPCs before, but now can only talk to the one with the big flashing arrow over his head...you get the idea.

The diff is that the former is easy to design, and moderate with a slider on the options page. The latter is fundamental game design.

But. How much of that reduction in choice is real? To echo the Extra Punctuation video on the "Illusion of Choice", if there is really only one or two optimal builds for that character with 30 odd ability choices, is it really that different from our streamlined game? If talking to all those NPCs only results in a few throw away lines that contribute nothing to the narrative, perhaps it is really no different than the game with the flashing yellow arrow over the guy you really need to talk to, except in time wasted on repetitive uninteresting gameplay.

I was struck by Dragon Age 2's FedEx missions. Yes, they were silly. You find an item and immediately know who to give it to, and that someone was typically on your way to an actually interesting plot point (unlike said FedEx quest). But isn't that what FedEx quests really boil down to? I don't think the answer is to do quests like DA2, but neither do I think that those quests contribute much in other games.

Perhaps the real answer is not to return to the Byzantine game mechanics of days past, but to focus on new and better forms of gameplay. Streamlining a game down to "push button, save princess" is no good. But neither is "push 300 buttons, save princess". There's ways of challenging with simple game mechanics (Portal, anyone?), after all.

 

[Hyper-space]

Making it so that you don't need to memorize what EVERY SINGLE KEY on your keyboard does and limiting it so that you can just use a few keys and still do just about everything without having to go through a sea of menus? That's "simple".

Oh god this, this is pretty much the crux of most older RPG's (such as Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment etc). For example, memorizing spells in Baldur's Gate 2: to learn a spell you first have to find a scroll, then you open up your inventory (menu count: 1), right click the scroll (menu count: 2), click memorize (menu count: 3), rearrange the spells, open up yet another menu to rest (menu count: 4) and watch a small clip of a couple of beds. Holy shit, thats 4 unnecessary menus and a small cut-scenes which add nothing to the experience and there are no penalties for resting whenever.

If i were to re-make the system, i would make it so that you would first find the scroll, then just open up your spellbook (menu count: 1) and put the scroll into an empty slot and then find an inn or set up camp and rest. This would reduce the menu surfing to just one menu and make it so that resting actually requires thought and not just clicks.

 

[Zay-el]

Feel this picture is appropriate:

To be fair, even back in the day I often found myself getting incredibly frustrated with levels that just would not end, EVER. Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith was amongst the worst offenders. Not to mention that with the big levels, they artifically lengthened the gametime of each as well, with keys, levers and all that stuff. I'd rather take something in between, perhaps branching levels or such.

 

[Lancer873]

I think that one of the best ways to reconcile this is through optional side-challenges, the sort you'll find in LittleBigPlanet or LocoRoco. The main path is actually fairly easy, but there are several branches where you'll find huge challenges with great rewards, and there's also rewards for doing it well (like not getting hurt/killed, or beating the level quickly). I've always thought it's the best way to bridge the gap between the casual and the hardcore. I've helped dozens of less experienced players get the tougher optional prizes in LittleBigPlanet, and I've also met plenty of experienced players that are clearly hardcore like myself. Acing levels in LBP (1 and 2) is a fun and crazy challenging feat, but you don't have to do it at all if you don't want to. If you do it, though, you can get some of the best prizes in the game (like the "paperboy" costume in LBP2, or the original sackboy concept in LBP1). It encourages challenge without forcing it on the player, so the casual can train his way up to the hardcore if he wants, or just get through the levels if he's only interested in having fun.

 

[RA92]

Am I just seeing PC and console gamers agreeing with each other for once (other than calling the Wii a bag of dicks)? Shamus, you've done the impossible. Kudos. This article will be referenced quite a lot in the future.

I remember the old days when each platform (PC, Sega, PS and Nintendo) used to give us entirely different gaming experiences. Now, all we get are watered down multi-platform titles.

I has an idea. Devs invented Hard difficulty level. They invented Very Hard difficulty level. use it.

A 'hard' mode neither changes enemy AI (just increases the HP) nor linear level and gameplay structure.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

What's worse is that it's getting increasingly hard to pick up an old title you know and love.Mainly because a dumbed down title means a cleaner design and less bugs.I mean cmon how much time do you spend modding Fallout 2 before you start playing it just to have a non raging experience.Dumbing down isn't that amazingly bad.I think the achievements are what's bad...The hard difficulties are mostly gimmicks and are easily doable so people can get more achievements.If you wanna play casually play on casual.I like my hard difficulties merciless to your every mistake.Hence why there was a quicksave.Notion on the was.

 

[lawdjayee]

I like the way Shamus brought two the PC and console "dumb down" arguments together; they are rarely in the same place at the same time. The use of the term "dumb down" I've always thought to be revealing, tho; the criticisms come from people who like to think of themselves as smart, and like to flatter themselves that succeeding at a game testifies to their intelligence.

I think he mistakes causation. People who make games wanted, like good capitalists, to profit from their labors as much as possible, and to do that they needed to appeal to a broader and broader audience. Developments in graphics technology weren't natural or inevitable; they were required to show those who were not enthusiasts what the heck they were actually doing, to compete with film and television. The larger budgets made design by committee (in both its best and worst senses) inevitable; as did the involvement of major players in the technology industry who now dominate the industry.

 

[Dastardly]

Experienced Points: The Dumbification of Gaming

Shamus wants us to stop fighting and get along.

Read Full Article

This isn't a new concept. Games used to have ways of making the game harder on yourself. Back when games had fewer moving parts, it was as simple as "Go to Menu - Increase Difficulty - Monsters now have more health and stronger attacks and appear in larger numbers." And that was it. Ta-da.

A lot of developers are still stuck in those days. One enemy is too easy, so we'll give you two or ten. Difficulty is just a matter of adjusting the magnitude of existing game elements, throttling a couple numbers in the mix up to 11, and voila.

New Vegas is a great example of games using a sort of "modular difficulty." There are game elements present that you might or might not use. The more you choose to use, the more challenging the experience. Want easy mode? Play it on normal mode and put your skill in Energy Weapons. Want a bit more challenge? Try melee. Still more? Move to hardcore and use guns (with all that weighty ammo). Not satisfied yet? Melee in hardcore mode, and go do all those side quests.

There's another type of game that has used this sort of modular difficulty for a long time: pen and paper RPGs. The best GMs are the ones that tailor the mechanics to the group--use this rule, ignore that one, keep track of this stat, but completely dismiss these. They allow the players to determine the level of challenge and micromanagement of the game. The manual is just a sourcebook, not a Bible. The writers weren't afraid to create rules that only a small minority of the players might actually use, but they'll be there if you want them.

But with tight budgets and timetables, developers are generally unwilling to spend time creating any modes or mechanics they're not utterly convinced will see constant use. They don't want to "waste" the time including mechanics for creating your own handgun ammo if they're not going to just plain require everyone to use it... which means most of these potential tools are left out of the box.

 

[Zom-B]

This is why traditional table top board games will never die. One person can come up a with a good game, make a prototype and have a successful game made out of it. It could even be self published. I'm not saying indie video game developers can't or aren't doing the same thing, but it's far easier to make a deep, complicated, confusing, smart, thoughtful, bewildering game out of tokens and dice and paper and cardboard than it is to code a similar game with all that entails. (Or so I assume, not being a programmer myself. But anyone can sit down with an idea and cut shapes out of paper or cardboard and roll dice and think up rules)

Even digitizing those components of those games for use on something like Microsoft's Surface display will be easier than producing a full fledged video game.

And this makes me happy.

 

[WanderingFool]

Feel this picture is appropriate:

Not sure what's sadder, the fact that FPS's have basically become hallways, or that I can run that DOOM map with my eyes closed...

I honestly dont think either of those are truly appealing. While the "corridor" shooter maps are limiting, the large area maps are practically made to take as long as possible, by having a key open a door on the other side of the map, which said door belongs to a room with a key to another door on the other other side of the map.

I think what needs to be done is a shooter that features the best of both designs. the open roam of the older maps, and the constant progress-pushing of the new "maps".

Also, I think we need to have more developers drop the photo-realistic graphics quest and instead use a more artistic approach, like Borderlands and their cel-shading, comic book effect. Graphics should not be item #1, despite what some may say. While bad graphics may hinder the experience, decent, okay, good, and great graphics are just as good, and take less time and money than, "OMGZ DIS ARE AWSUM GRAPX!!1!"*

*[sub]IDK, I tried to mimic the style of... hell what are they even referred to now?[/sub]

 

[danhere]

I played Splinter Cell: Conviction when it first came out on Normal difficulty. Last week, I replayed it on Hard difficulty only to realize that the only difference is the amount of hits you can take before you die. The AI stays the same, upgrading weapons isn't any harder (in fact, there is only so much that you need to upgrade).

This all comes from the fear of innovation. Sure, the games that are being released look a lot a like, but developers are also unwilling to experiment with variety within a game. When the difference between difficulties is just the damage you take, there's a problem. Any other changes usually come through making the game more of a grind. Hardcore mode in Fallout:NV is a good example of making things more difficult through a twist; the gameplay changes significantly in the process. I can't imagine something like this taking up drastically more development time either, since the majority of the game remains the same. However, it does expand options for the player.

The opposite is true as well. Games need to be accessible to more people in order to progress as a medium. After all, books, movies, and television all have target audiences of different demographics and it is all because they were adopted on a mass scale. Grandma won't be playing Dragon Age anytime soon (and Mom won't be playing Dead Space, or at least that's what EA tells me), but thinking about the expansion of the medium on a smaller scale is definitely important. I recall the YouTube videos that were posted on this site a month or two ago of the dad playing Portal. That's definitely a start. Portal isn't a very demanding game, but proves to be extremely engaging. And to give people more options, Valve included those challenge and advanced maps for people who felt like they could have gotten more from the game.

 

[JimmyC99]

Because the game market is now so HUGE with lots of varying and sometimes overlapping demographics, a developer, which while they want to make a good game, they also have to make money, everyone needs a salary you know, and publishers need to know that the money there spending will be recovered and improved upon that's natural and acceptable we live in a capitalist society after all. but you cannot please everyone all the time, ever. lets take DA2, a game that seams to have bombed. but I'm sure more then half of people who bought it liked it some may have considered it a great game, I do and I adore DA1 and KoTOR ect. but its the Vocal Minority who appear on forums. social networking sites ect. and blow an entire idea of a game out of proportion. the metacritic rating cant really be accepted as it seamed to have been "Amazon Bombed" following the dev who rated 10/10 fiasco.

Good news travels.
Bad news travels at light speed.

(this is ripped from my Facebook post so if you get dejavu i'm sorry)

 

[draythefingerless]

Am I just seeing PC and console gamers agreeing with each other for once (other than calling the Wii a bag of dicks)? Shamus, you've done the impossible. Kudos. This article will be referenced quite a lot in the future.

I remember the old days when each platform (PC, Sega, PS and Nintendo) used to give us entirely different gaming experiences. Now, all we get are watered down multi-platform titles.

I has an idea. Devs invented Hard difficulty level. They invented Very Hard difficulty level. use it.

A 'hard' mode neither changes enemy AI (just increases the HP) nor linear level and gameplay structure.

you seem to be speaking of a particular game, or games, instead of gaming as a whole. i know a lot of games where these difficulties kill you. A lot. I would also like to know how games were harder back then. I know some were harder by level complexion, but apart from that, they were harder for the same reasons youre saying now. Lower HP, HIgher HP for enemies, more use of one hit kills, thats about it. In fact, speaking of enemy AI, to assume that AI 10 years ago was ANYWHERE near complex as what we have today, is near insulting. To some people.

 

[Irridium]

Agreed for the most part, although I'd argue the relevance of the BioShock and System Shock comparison, considering they're in different genres almost. I'm not sure who the first group was to coin the whole 'spiritual successor' thing when it came to BioShock, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the developers. BioShock's a shooter, System Shock is much more of a mix. .

Ken Levine said Bioshock would be a spiritual successor to the System Shock series. So yeah, it was the head dude(of both Bioshock and System Shock).

To be fair, even back in the day I often found myself getting incredibly frustrated with levels that just would not end, EVER. Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith was amongst the worst offenders. Not to mention that with the big levels, they artifically lengthened the gametime of each as well, with keys, levers and all that stuff. I'd rather take something in between, perhaps branching levels or such.

I honestly dont think either of those are truly appealing. While the "corridor" shooter maps are limiting, the large area maps are practically made to take as long as possible, by having a key open a door on the other side of the map, which said door belongs to a room with a key to another door on the other other side of the map.

I think what needs to be done is a shooter that features the best of both designs. the open roam of the older maps, and the constant progress-pushing of the new "maps".

Also, I think we need to have more developers drop the photo-realistic graphics quest and instead use a more artistic approach, like Borderlands and their cel-shading, comic book effect. Graphics should not be item #1, despite what some may say. While bad graphics may hinder the experience, decent, okay, good, and great graphics are just as good, and take less time and money than, "OMGZ DIS ARE AWSUM GRAPX!!1!"*

*[sub]IDK, I tried to mimic the style of... hell what are they even referred to now?[/sub]

Oh trust me, I know. The old ways are not much better. But I'd rather have them then what we have now. But of course a hybrid would be great. Or perhaps the old way with less stupidity(keys, levers, ect.).

Depends,
How fast can you run it?

If I really tried with my eyes open? Probably 20-30 minutes. Time also varies based on the difficulty(the easiest has no enemies, the hardest has infinitely respawning enemies, everywhere).

 

[draythefingerless]

I has an idea. Devs invented Hard difficulty level. They invented Very Hard difficulty level. use it.

This does work in some cases. But some games can be annoyingly hard if you crank it too far.

Like he said about New Vegas. I jumped into that game on hardcore cause I liked the mechanics and it created a greater challenge. To me it seems a lot of Hard & Very Hard modes do nothing but make enemies stronger, and make you die faster.... which seems like a lazy way to create a bigger challenge..

Explain to me how they did it in the past. And again, along with another one who replied to me, you seem to be speaking of a very specific game or games. Games in the past were harder for those very reasons, at least the ones that have those elements. AND the occasional level complexion. One of the few genres i can unanimaly say has gotten easier, is side scrolling. Apart from that, all ive seen is games having Normal difficulty be....normal, as opposed to stupidly hard. Speaking the general sense.

 

[Jumplion]

I don't like the word "dumbing down" as that assumes that everyone has just gotten stupider (I misspelled stupider when I typed it...), and I guess I have more faith in humanity than that. Most games are becoming more "simplified", and an unfortunate result of that can be "dumbing" or watering down the whole experience. I think developers just need to trust their audience more.

I think a prime example of "oversimplification" for me was the change between Mass Effect 1 and 2. The first one I thought was great, even if it did have some gameplay issues (and even if the Mako was bouncy as fuck). The second one, however, I think BioWare overreacted to the complaints and drastically simplified, though not quite watered down, the overall experience.

In Mass Effect 1, I never really noticed that I was unloading shot after shot, and it felt varied and epic in a sense. In Mass Effect 2 I noticed that all I was doing was unloading clip after clip after clip, and that's all I felt I was doing in fight after fight, with nothing to break up the monotony. That, I think, is oversimplification, and it's dangerous when a developer doesn't give their audience enough credit to assume that they can't manage a simple inventory or pilot a helicopter.

 

[Jumplion]

Feel this picture is appropriate:

Not sure what's sadder, the fact that FPS's have basically become hallways, or that I can run that DOOM map with my eyes closed...

While that's obviously for comic effect, I would have to say that the current design of FPS maps are more linear but they provide more ways to approach a situation. With the old DOOM maps, as others have said, you could only enter a room with a key that was behind another room that needed another key, so you had to go in precise order and know exactly where and when to shoot (as you can do with your eyes closed ). Current FPS maps (at least the good ones) offer more variety in how your shoot something, at least.

 

[Irridium]

While that's obviously for comic effect, I would have to say that the current design of FPS maps are more linear but they provide more ways to approach a situation. With the old DOOM maps, as others have said, you could only enter a room with a key that was behind another room that needed another key, so you had to go in precise order and know exactly where and when to shoot (as you can do with your eyes closed ). Current FPS maps (at least the good ones) offer more variety in how your shoot something, at least.

Yes, but current maps completely killed exploration. As I said above, I'd be more than willing to accept old-style maps with the stupidity taken out. If current FPS's used the old-school design(but without the stupidity of levers, keys, ect.) they could flesh out their worlds without needing massive info-dumps. Which means less text to sift through and less people endlessly droning on about stuff.

It would give a sense of discovery(nobody told you about this stuff, YOU found it out on your own). It just offers plenty of great things.