The Dumbification of Gaming

[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.

 

[Mantonio]

Thing is, developers (and gamers) seem to think that unless your game sells millions of units in the first week, it's a complete flop. And that's just not true.

Also, why SHOULD they have to appeal to a wider and wider audience? This ties in with my first point, they don't need to to be successful, and indeed they perhaps in most cases have to specifically not do so if they want to fulfil their artistic vision free of the stifling compromise of publishers and marketing.

You try to appeal to everyone, and more often than not you end up making a game that's disappointing for everyone instead.

 

[Mantonio]

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...

Wooooow...it just hit me how true that is. I mean, that looks exactly like the progression in Black Ops. Seriously, that IS Black Ops. Get rid of all the shit around you, this is EXACTLY the same type of progression in Black Ops. Even Games like Gears or War, Halo, even Half Life 2 are formed like this. Sure, you can look into this area or that area but they just end. You've gone through this entire section that doesn't go anyway else. Best example: Bioshock. It's literally nothing but a bunch of hallways! In older game, like the original Half Life you had no clues, no hints, you just kept going. You had a bunch of different routes; their were a few dead ends, but most route either converged or the dead ends could be overcome. (sending a tram through a barricade) In Bioshock you're constantly being told where to go. To go to places you would have eventual found simply by reading the sign on a door! I mean look at this: http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/htm/2007/09/bioshock-p2b-14.jpg It looks complicated but it's just a bunch of interconnected hallways leading to rooms that go NOWHERE!!!

Edit: Oh and if there was an alternate route, you'd have to wait till a CUTSCENE to actually use it.

To be fair, Half Life 2 never endeavours to be open world. It's designed to be linear to better tell the story. Sure you can say it's just a bunch of corridors, but you could probably say the same about most games if you simplified it enough.

 

[Jumplion]

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.

Depending on how it's handled, sure. It's versatility vs. variety (if that makes any sense whatsoever), either have a versatile linear corridor so that you can discover new strategies, or go through a huge map where many areas will be unexplored or ignored. I think it borders on a sandbox approach, and some games just aren't meant for that. Obviously, there's nothing stopping these two aspects from merging together, they're not completely separate entities.

 

[JET1971]

I would like to mention some of the arguments and flaming that happens from a PC exclusive players point of view is sometimes in the interest of console players on the subject of dumbing down a game for consoles. it may or may not be true but I feel that publishers like EA think that console players are drooling basement dwelling mouth breathers who would be overwhelmed with a few features that PC games have had for years upon years such as a simple server lobby.

when many PC players complain and say they are dumbing down games for consoles they are not saying the console players are dumb we are saying the developers and publishers are saying that. we PC players want more features and content, or improved features we already have. and we are more than happy if console players got those same features. we are annoyed when features are removed for the sake of consoles rather than features added to console for the sake of PC. many console only players should back PC players when they complain about the dumbification of cross platform games instead of calling them PC elitist.

I guess my point is when in a forum as a console player and a PC player is complaining about the game being dumbed down for consoles, back the PC player up and demand the features too!

another thing on this topic I think developers should be doing is take a look at the game you want to make and where it should be as for player base that you want to buy the game. hardcore gamers? casual gamers? and build the game acordingly to the player base you are targeting rather than target everyone. case in point you dont make feminine hygine products for men so dont make casual games for hardcore players and hardcore games for casual players.

 

[RA92]

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.

Newer games don't necessarily have better AIs. Compare the AI of Crysis 2 and Half Life 2. The Crysis AI might have more complex scripted behavior, but HL2 has overall better AI (never saw one running against the wall or circling idiotically), even though it was released around 7 years earlier.

Even more blatant is Half Life's AI. I have yet to see a recent FPS whose enemy AI tries to dominate you as aggressively (through out-flanking, suppression fire, flushing you out of cover with grenades, etc) as HL1's Marines did.

 

[draythefingerless]

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.

Newer games don't necessarily have better AIs. Compare the AI of Crysis 2 and Half Life 2. The Crysis AI might have more complex scripted behavior, but HL2 has overall better AI (never saw one running against the wall or circling idiotically), even though it was released around 7 years earlier.

Even more blatant is Half Life's AI. I yet to see a recent FPS whose enemy AI tries to dominate you as aggressively (through out-flanking, suppression fire, flushing you out of cover with grenades, etc) as HL1's Marines did.

Again, a very narrow choice of examples. AIs have many formats. And yes, ive seen a lot of games that do that. post Half Life. And if you didnt notice, Marines only had THAT programming of thought. They wouldnt adopt other attitudes. Basically it was, Hes in far cover, toss grenade, hes close, melee. Also, most of the more complex fights in Half Life , were half-scripted, aka, you reached a certain part, game would tell enemies to go here or go there. Other cases of the out flanking was just them looking for cover. There was no suppression fire in Half Life. Only plain regular "imma kill you" fire. Kinda hard to have suppression fire if there is no squad/army/battalion to suppress... Half Life is a great game, but dont make it to be more than it is.

Also, i have seen cases of enemies running into walls or doing stupid stuff(oh lol let me run directly at him shooting, i wont get killed at all ) in Half Life 2. If anything, the ceph in Crysis 2 are quite intelligent(if they spot you). The way they maneuver around the terrain(completely non scripted) is quite clever.

 

[Waaghpowa]

To be fair, Half Life 2 never endeavours to be open world. It's designed to be linear to better tell the story. Sure you can say it's just a bunch of corridors, but you could probably say the same about most games if you simplified it enough.

The difference being that Half life never felt linear, and would allow you to explore to an extent, possibly finding special locations that help to tell the story of current events.

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.

The lack of exploration is a big problem, too many fps's try for that cinematic thing which gets tiresome once it's done one hundred billion times.
The original Crysis is a good example of giving a certain level of freedom while sticking to a linear path. The environments were large enough that you could explore in order to find a different angle of attack, but ultimately led you to the same conclusion.

 

[RA92]

Also, most of the more complex fights in Half Life 2, were half-scripted, aka, you reached a certain part, game would tell enemies to go here or go there.

The single player campaign is a bad place to judge HL2's AI due to it's linear structure and scripted fights. It's better to try it out in Gmod.
Other cases of the out flanking was just them looking for cover. There was no suppression fire in Half Life. Only plain regular "imma kill you" fire. Kinda hard to have suppression fire if there is no squad/army/battalion to suppress... Half Life is a great game, but dont make it to be more than it is.[/quote]

HL1 Marines couldn't fire when they moved. The other marines used to lay down fire to support the ones outflanking you.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I blame the N-Gage-tards.

 

[Namewithheld]

I pretty much agree with the entire article...EXCEPT that SHODAN, while scary, was just a riff on Hal9000 for me. The overarching plot was a fairly simple sci-fi horror one. It was done REALLY REALLY WELL. Don't get me wrong: SS2 has one of the creepiest, most immersion filled plots ever, and the twist was awesome.

But Bioshock's plot had all of that, except the villain was actually somewhat tragic, as you see his optimistic beginnings and descent into madness and betrayal of everything that he had once believed in. And more, the twist in THAT game deconstructed the very concept of the whole FPS genera.

Yes, SS2's gameplay was better. But I still prefer Bioshock 2's story.

Now, I'm going to replay both, because they were regoddamn awesome.

 

[Zay-el]

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.).

I'd go with that no problem! Perhaps even some 'sculpuble' levels, in which if you behave badly with you weapon, say, misfiring a lot and shooting pillars, part of the level might collapse, forcing you to take another route. In case that's not available though, I could still go for simply somewhat bigger levels, WITHOUT the tedious backtracking. Let's be honest, Doom had huge levels, but how much shorter would they have been, WITHOUT keys and levers? I can accept some fetch-objectives every now and then, but only until it doesn't pad it out TOO much.

I think most devs just really scurried into the other end of the spectrum, actually, rather than finding that golden middle road.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.).

I'd go with that no problem! Perhaps even some 'sculpuble' levels, in which if you behave badly with you weapon, say, misfiring a lot and shooting pillars, part of the level might collapse, forcing you to take another route. In case that's not available though, I could still go for simply somewhat bigger levels, WITHOUT the tedious backtracking. Let's be honest, Doom had huge levels, but how much shorter would they have been, WITHOUT keys and levers? I can accept some fetch-objectives every now and then, but only until it doesn't pad it out TOO much.

I think most devs just really scurried into the other end of the spectrum, actually, rather than finding that golden middle road.

What I think would be a big step, is to keep the actual linearity of direction, but add different ways to get there. For my example, watch one of the DE:HR videos showing the different ways to complete a given objective. You want to get the job done quick? Grab a grenade launcher and blow shit up. You want to sneak in and not waste time fighting? Use stealth and sneak pastor subdue the guards, maybe cut the security connection so no alarms can be sounded. If developers were to simply add choice in how to tackle a problem, than simply telling you how you must proceed, I think things would probably get better pretty damn quick.

*Edit*

Actually, here is a video.

 

[DanDeFool]

The push for more sales really has made games easier and less complicated. It is the same reason instruction manuals have died a death. People don't want to have to read and learn in order to play so it has to get more simple.

Well, now we have tutorials. Back in the days of big, colorful manuals, games didn't have tutorials, either because there wasn't enough space on the distribution media to add one to the game, or they just didn't bother (because they were going to include a big, colorful manual).

Frankly, I kind of like the fact that games have gotten more accessible; it means I can play and enjoy more types of games. I remember trying to get into FA-18 Strike Eagle, an early air combat simulator. You literally have to learn how to fly a fighter jet just to be able to play that game, let alone finish it. I don't want to have to spend days or weeks mastering the mechanics of one game before I can even play it.

And we certainly don't need any more "Nintendo Hard" games that most of us mere mortals can't even finish.

As usual, I agree with Shamus. What we need are games with more scalable difficulty, greater depth for the players who want it, and more open-endedness for everyone.