Excellent video regarding "dumbing down" games

[JSt0rm]

I agree.

Funny thing is, my best friend wants his kid to play games growing up and I was able to talk him into letting me bring her up with them. Starting her off with a NES and MegaDrive and working our way up each generation after she gets to play a lot of the classics. Since I own all the old systems and most the classics she will get an authentic gaming experience like many of us, though at an accelerated rate. He grew up playing most the same stuff I have and I'll be loaning him the systems/games one at a time. We just hope she actually likes playing video games otherwise that idea is shot 😛

sweet

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Dumbing down games:

Is this not a better example?

Retarded video. iD was the primary company responsible for dumbing down the first person shooter genre from its first-person RPG background in Ultima Underworld, System Shock, and others. The original Quake is a stupid-simple game and all the hint pop-ups and such are a ridiculous hyperbole, being that any game that does contain such things will naturally be more complex (take Fallout 3 for example). And the ending was hilarious considering that the end-boss of Quake is killed by walking through a portal.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Megaman X is one of my favorite games. I can't count the number of times I have beaten it. He did point out things I didn't realize, the game does teach you and motivates you. Sometimes the subtle genius of these things eludes you until someone points it out. Similar to how deep the failing of the prequel trilogy is not fully appreciated until RedLetterMedia pointed it out.

 

[Veliko]

And not only was the game-play in Megaman X fantastic, even the soundtrack was superb.

That's the Good ol' Days in action right there. The younger players (younger by at least two generations of console releases) don't get it when "older" players say this, the "good old days". It's not just in reference or mere nostalgia. I'm not sure if such gamers will ever understand how video gaming changed over time (especially on consoles), and often not for the best.

It is 99.99% nostalgia. The good old days may have been great at the time but compared to what we have now the stuff we had to put up with was an utter turd.

 

[Zenoth]

It is 99.99% nostalgia. The good old days may have been great at the time but compared to what we have now the stuff we had to put up with was an utter turd.

Still very subjective. I never considered games like A Link to the Past a "turd" up to this day even if I compare it to a modern Zelda game. They are relatively proportional in features and complexity in their respective periods for what the hardware they ran on could offer, and for what the developers of the respective periods considered standard or evolutionary. The worst case scenario is that the turds of the the past (and yes they existed I never denied it, nor will I ever start to) were necessary mistakes to learn through them about what went wrong, it's just part of video gaming's evolution (and revolutions) history. I would be curious to know what you would consider a turd in the past gaming's history, and what would be a turd today. In the end, a turd from the 8-Bit or 16-Bit era will include features (or lack thereof) or game-play mechanics that just don't work or aren't fun. A turd from the PS3 or 360 will also include features or game-play mechanics that won't work or won't be fun either, but the specifics of what might be disliked will only change in accordance to newly established standards.

Besides, nostalgia is merely the appreciation of what it was like playing games at a younger age and being wow'ed by them since back then the video gaming market gave birth to many "first"'s and evolutionary titles. But nostalgia itself cannot change what the games were on paper, what their complexity or their simplicity was like. As a grown adult gamer you may or may not appreciate the games of the past either because you're a nostalgic person by nature or not (or for other reasons), but ultimately you could go back to look at the games objectively and still see what the developers did. And many games back then were just as big and as effectively and positively evolutionary for their period in accordance to what was possible back then to what some modern games did for recent generations (including the PC).

Turds in the past, turds today... doesn't change the fact that even if nostalgia is present that video games of the past had superb AAA titles (for their time). And that over time something somewhere changed many games and game-play mechanics and concepts so much as to practically play the game for the gamer (pointed at in the video). The "respect of human intelligence" (as spoken about in the video) concerns gamers starting their game and from the start having to learn how to play by themselves. And that is one of many aspects of video gaming (not the only one really) that changed over time. Not all games point at the next quest with an arrow for you, and not all game's tutorials (or regular first levels) will force you to crouch to learn how to crouch or to show you which button does what... but that kind of video games play-teaching principle wasn't as heavily applied in the past and I completely agree with that from the video's main points.

 

[Veliko]

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. You took three paragraphs to just restate what I said in two sentences.

 

[Zenoth]

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. You took three paragraphs to just restate what I said in two sentences.

The way I understood is that you seem to consider what we "had to put up with" in the past, from the turds back then, somehow worse than what we have to put with today from today's turds. To me it just doesn't make sense. There's "worst games" in all gaming generations and turds from all consoles, all platforms, all genera.

 

[Veliko]

The way I understood is that you seem to consider what we "had to put up with" in the past from the turds back then somewhat worse than what we have to put with today from today's turds. To me it just doesn't make sense. There's "worst games" in all gaming generations and turds from all consoles, all platforms, all genera.

Well yes of course there is but games are immeasurably better now than they were in the past. The good old days didn't exist.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Classic games are generally not as easy to use or user friendly, and are often frustratingly difficult either by design or by accident.

Nonetheless, I think some of the gameplay they offer still isnt matched in today's games. I dont know what it is exactly, I cant put my finger on it. What makes a game like Baldurs Gate 2 a classic where as Dragon Age 2 will be forgotten in a year? Is it simply that there are more games and we have more choice? Could the same be said of modern movies - that there are no classics generated anymore?

I do think games were more adventurous back then, and I think for a lot of them, thats why we love them. Syndicate is a good example - in its modern incarnation, its being made as an FPS, because FPS's sell and everyone understands them. Maximum target audience, maximum money. Whereas, Syndicate the original could be viewed as an experiment. No one knew if the market would like a dystopian future in which you were practically the bad guys. It combined tactics and strategy, it was pretty violent. There was no market research done, no precedents, it was not a sequel. Yet it was made, it sold, it became famous.

I think the nature of games has changed as the industry has changed, and its mostly the injection of modern corporate thinking into development. Which is to say, avoid risk, go for what you know, what can we get out of it? This is why we dont get games unless publishers think they are bankable, which inevitably means they must appeal to the lowest common denominator. A partially non linear RPG based on a complicated AD&D ruleset set against 2D backdrops with virtually no 3D graphics? Nope, not interested. There goes Baldurs Gate 2.

Maybe the only "classic" game (and its not even that old) that could still be made today, exactly as it was except for graphics and still sell, is Diablo II. Which is probably why its getting a sequel.

@Veliko

They are more playable but less innovative. Thus they have no staying power because they arent unique.

 

[Zenoth]

Well yes of course there is but games are immeasurably better now than they were in the past. The good old days didn't exist.

Very subjective anyway. I completely disagree though. I've been immeasurably disappointed by many games of recent years, and games released this year. I barely play them and usually end up never touching or completing them again. The most recent is RAGE which I've played approximately eight hours then left untouched since the past week, and I don't miss it, I'm not sure if I will complete it anytime soon, perhaps next year. About two months ago I invited two of my friends at home and we played Twisted Metal II, Ultimate MK Trilogy, Killer Instinct Gold, Perfect Dark, General Chaos, etc., a good 10+ games on three different consoles and we had tremendous fun for at least five or six hours, with a good pizza and some beers thrown in. I find it hard to play RAGE or Bad Company 2 or Left 4 Dead and many others for more than two hours before getting bored.

I love the Mass Effect series, the Dawn of War series, Rome and Empire TW, and a couple of surprising recent Indie games such as Trine or World of Goo. And I really liked recent jewels like Portal 2, the original Far Cry, Half-Life 2: Episode Two or Dragon Age: Origins. There's a good number of games I like from recent years, even some series I cherish, but I can count them on the fingers on both hands. It's easy for me to buy games today however with low prices on-line from Steam sales or other digital distribution platforms, but I often end up purchasing them by impulsion hoping to find a gem... or an "immeasurably better" game than the usual turd I have to put up with, but alas... only happens once every two or three years when I finally see something "good enough". My next hyped game is Skyrim coming in a few days, I know I will like it, but I'm not sure if it'll automatically be "immeasurably better" just because it's being released in 2011, when compared to how awesome Super Metroid or Donkey Kong Country were at release.

In my book anyway it's clearly exaggerated and excessive to say that games today are immeasurably better than games of the past generations. Most of them are neither better or worse but simply very different, in my opinion (still subjective yes). There are some games that do distinguish themselves from others by their seemingly unequaled level of turdness but honestly there's been games like that all the time, dating back from even before I knew of video games to this very day.

 

[Veliko]

The innovation argument could go on and on for hours but a game is nothing without playability.

 

[Veliko]

Very subjective anyway. I completely disagree though. I've been immeasurably disappointed by many games of recent years, and games released this year. I barely play them and usually end up never touching or completing them again. The most recent is RAGE which I've played approximately eight hours then left untouched since the past week, and I don't miss it, I'm not sure if I will complete it anytime soon, perhaps next year. About two months ago I invited two of my friends at home and we played Twisted Metal II, Ultimate MK Trilogy, Killer Instinct Gold, Perfect Dark, General Chaos, etc., a good 10+ games on three different consoles and we had tremendous fun for at least five or six hours, with a good pizza and some beers thrown in. I find it hard to play RAGE or Bad Company 2 or Left 4 Dead and many others for more than two hours before getting bored.

You could have had just as much fun at a Justin Bieber concert if you went with some friends and had a load of pizza and beers. You played 10+ games over a course of 6 hours which means less an hour apiece, something that you say is a flaw with RAGE and BC2.

My next hyped game is Skyrim coming in a few days, I know I will like it, but I'm not sure if it'll automatically be "immeasurably better" just because it's being released in 2011, when compared to how awesome Super Metroid or Donkey Kong Country were at release.

I am saying that Skyrim and those other modern games you mentioned are better than DKC and Metroid *now*.

In my book anyway it's clearly exaggerated and excessive to say that games today are immeasurably better than games of the game. Most of them are neither better or worse but simply very different, in my opinion (still subjective yes). There are some games that do distinguish themselves from others by their seemingly unequaled level of turdness but honestly there's been games like that all the time, dating back from even before I knew of video games to this very day.

So given a choice to play an AAA game of yesteryear and an AAA game of today which would choose to play?

 

[Ancalagon44]

I said playable when perhaps I should have said accessible. Its all very well to have an accessible game, but if there is nothing there, no depth, no substance, then what is the point? You have an accessible path to nothing at all.

 

[Veliko]

I said playable when perhaps I should have said accessible. Its all very well to have an accessible game, but if there is nothing there, no depth, no substance, then what is the point? You have an accessible path to nothing at all.

Which games are you referring to? Is there no depth to Mass Effect, BF3 or the new Deus Ex game? Hearts of Iron? Civilisation?

 

[Zenoth]

The innovation argument could go on and on for hours but a game is nothing without playability.

Never denied it. And playability was present in video games before, up to this day. You think a game like Ocarina of Time had no playability just because it's a couple of years older than Half-Life 2? I'm trying to understand the point of playability in this discussion. You think games today somehow have "more" playability? I'd probably have to ask what's your definition of playability, and if that definition changed over time (if you did play games many years ago, since I don't know if you did).

I don't find the playability of... say... Goldeneye 007 (which I play maybe an hour or so every now and then to burn some time when I plug my old consoles) any worse or better than the playability of RAGE. They're both "playable", difference being that I have fun in one of them for the time I play it, and I have some fun in the other for a portion of the time I play it, then I force myself a bit to keep playing to advance some of the story's progression. Some games are good, some are bad, some are okay, from all periods of video gaming's history, but they all had playability. Playability is completely separate and indifferent from the time periods and is only measured on an individual and very subjective basis, from one player to another, from one specific game to another.

 

[Veliko]

Never denied it. And playability was present in video games before, up to this day. You think a game like Ocarina of Time had to playability just because it's a couple of years older than Half-Life 2? I'm trying to understand the point of playability in this discussion. You think games to day somehow have "more" playability? I'd probably have to ask what's your definition of playability, and if that definition changed over time (if you did play games many years ago, since I don't know if you did).

Games today are overall better than the games of many years ago, yes.

I don't find the playability of... say... Goldeneye 007 (which I play maybe an hour or so every now and then to burn some time when I plug my old consoles) any worse or better than the playability of RAGE. They're both "playable", difference being that I have fun in one of them for the time I play it, and I have some fun in the other for a portion of the time I play it, then I force myself a bit to keep playing to advance some of the story's progression. Some games are good, some are bad, some are okay, from all periods of video gaming's history, but they all had playability. Playability completely separate and indifferent from the time periods and is only measured on an individual and very subjective basis, from one player to another, from one specific game to another.

I haven't played RAGE so can't compare it to Goldeneye. However you aren't comparing like with like - you would struggle to find a negative review of Goldeneye back in the day whereas RAGE has had a mixed reception.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Which games are you referring to? Is there no depth to Mass Effect, BF3 or the new Deus Ex game? Heats of Iron? Civilisation?

I never played Mass Effect, but I can tell you that the new Deus Ex game doesnt have as much depth as its prequels. Not as many branching storylines, little consequences to your actions, not really much of a global conspiracy compared to the plague in the first game.

As for BF3 - depth? Really? Depth? In BF3? Pokemon has more depth, and I'm not joking here. Its way more strategic.

When was the last time you played a game and didnt understand it?

 

[Veliko]

I never played Mass Effect, but I can tell you that the new Deus Ex game doesnt have as much depth as its prequels. Not as many branching storylines, little consequences to your actions, not really much of a global conspiracy compared to the plague in the first game.

It still has depth though. And what about Hearts of Iron or Civilisation?

As for BF3 - depth? Really? Depth? In BF3? Pokemon has more depth, and I'm not joking here. Its way more strategic.

Yes, BF3 has plenty of depth and your comment about Pokemon is asinine.

When was the last time you played a game and didnt understand it?

Depends to what degree you mean. There was plenty about BF3 that I didn't know about or understand at first.

 

[Zenoth]

So given a choice to play an AAA game of yesteryear and an AAA game of today which would choose to play?

Why only one? I never understood this philosophy. So you've "left" or forgotten about some or all games of yesteryear as you put it, just because they're... old? Can't cope with the aging graphics? I'm genuinely asking here. I'm the type of gamer who can enjoy both Turok on my Nintendo 64 for 4 hours non-stop, and enjoy Mass Effect for 4 hours non-stop. I will never be able to fully understand gamers who just... how do I put it... who just "move on" to other generations and sequels and leave behind the older or original titles or consoles. Their interest in specific games or consoles or visuals might be lost, I guess that's why it happens with many gamers, and if that's the case then fine it explains it.

But in my case specifically (like a few others around I hope? no?) I do consider myself a PC gamer and mostly play my games on my PC, yes. But I still like and honestly do enjoy most (not all) of the games I still happen to own on my "old" consoles (all of which except for one are second-hand ones I bought from e-Bay or at my local stores a few years ago). And yes they are old, I just don't link their actual age to how "bad" the games running on them must suddenly have become over time since their original release. The last "recent" console I've owned was the original XBOX (I owned a GameCube and PS2 before going with the XBOX, primarily due to Halo back then).

To me it's like saying that I cannot truly enjoy a piece of music from Mozart because that piece of music was composed more than 200 years ago, classic music is hundreds of years old yet people listen to it to this very day anyway, what's the big deal? There's some gamers who do enjoy games that were developed even before they were born, but still happen to play games on their 360 as well. Do we gamers like that (even if we are a minority) have the right to appreciate and love the games we play or not? Whatever their age is. Do we have the right to consider Super Metroid a triple-A title that we enjoy (possibly, as I do myself) as much as if not more than some games like Half-Life or Beyond Good and Evil?

But I will answer you, yes.

Which one would I chose if I could only play one, between one AAA title of the past and one AAA title today? The answer is I would have to know which games we speak of. If my choice is... Mass Effect or Donkey Kong Country, I'll go with Mass Effect. If my choice is RAGE or Super Metroid, I'll go with Super Metroid, thank you very much. It's just a question of taste, that's it.

 

[Ancalagon44]

It still has depth though. And what about Hearts of Iron or Civilisation?

If Civilisation were not a popular brand, it would never be made today. It was only made because it is the 4th sequel.

Some modern games have depth - like Hearts of Iron - but, on average, they have less depth than they did years ago. There is more to older games. Witness Starcraft 1 and its manual - do you know how many pages of backstory there were? Do you remember what it was like reading a manual?

But depth, or average depth, is not the only issue I have with modern games. I think its more the lack of innovation that makes so few games grab me. So few games make me think WOW this is awesome. Whereas I can happily player older games for hours. I dont quite know what it is, but I think lack of innovation is part of it. Developers are too scared to do anything different, hence the deep genre lines we have today.

Yes, BF3 has plenty of depth and your comment about Pokemon is asinine.

Why is it asinine? Have you ever played Pokemon? Do you know why people would choose an Infernape over a Blaziken despite the fact both are fire/fighting starter Pokemon and Blaziken has a higher base attack stat?

BF3... uh lets see, you run around and shoot, oh wait you choose a class first, and it has team play. Okay I'm not going to rip on it too much because I know its a great game. I'm sure if I played it, I would love it. My point is, its not what I would call deep. What is there to know about it? Are there stats tables to memorize? Is there a deep and involving storyline? Is there deep strategy and rock/paper/scissors gameplay?

 

[Veliko]

Why only one? I never understood this philosophy.

Stop procrastinating and just answer the question.

So you've "left" or forgotten about some or all games of yesteryear as you put it, just because they're... old? Can't cope with the aging graphics? I'm genuinely asking here. I'm the type of gamer who can enjoy both Turok on my Nintendo 64 for 4 hours non-stop, and enjoy Mass Effect for 4 hours non-stop. I will never be able to fully understand gamers who just... how do I put it... who just "move on" to other generations and sequels and leave behind the older or original titles or consoles. Their interest in specific games or consoles or visuals might be lost, I guess that's why it happens with many gamers, and if that's the case then fine it explains it.

Graphics are certainly part of it, yes. Turok was great back in the day but I would be bored long before 4 hours if I played it now.

To me it's like saying that I cannot truly enjoy a piece of music from Mozart because that piece of music was composed more than 200 years ago, classic music is hundreds of years old yet people today listen to it to this very day anyway, what's the big deal? There's some gamers who do enjoy games that were developed even before they were born, but still happen to play games on their 360 as well. Do we gamers like that (even if we are a minority) have the right to appreciate and love the games we play or not? Whatever their age is. Do we have the right to consider Super Metroid a triple-A title that we enjoy (possibly, as I do myself) as much as if not more than some games like Half-Life or Beyond Good and Evil?

No, it's nothing like rejecting Mozart. Games have been around for only a few decades whilst music has been around for millenia. Do you think music lovers in the 18th century would have been interested in listening to bongo caveman music from 8000BC?

I bought Beyond Good and Evil from XBL the other month. I hadn't ever played the original and I found it incredibly irritating and cumbersome to play.

But I will answer you, yes.

Which one would I chose if I could only play one, between one AAA title of the past and one AAA title today? The answer is I would have to know which games we speak of. If my choice is... Mass Effect or Donkey Kong Country, I'll go with Mass Effect. If my choice is RAGE or Super Metroid, I'll go with Super Metroid, thank you very much. It's just a question of taste, that's it.

So you would choose to play the modern game over the older game then. Once again, RAGE isn't an AAA title - as I have already pointed out it has received mixed reviews whilst Super Metroid was critically acclaimed when it was released.

 

[Veliko]

If Civilisation were not a popular brand, it would never be made today. It was only made because it is the 4th sequel.

Some modern games have depth - like Hearts of Iron - but, on average, they have less depth than they did years ago. There is more to older games. Witness Starcraft 1 and its manual - do you know how many pages of backstory there were? Do you remember what it was like reading a manual?

What depth was there on the 8-bit systems? It was all platformers.

And a strategy game having a backstory doesn't make the game deep. People still play the game today because of the multiplayer side of things.

But depth, or average depth, is not the only issue I have with modern games. I think its more the lack of innovation that makes so few games grab me. So few games make me think WOW this is awesome. Whereas I can happily player older games for hours. I dont quite know what it is, but I think lack of innovation is part of it. Developers are too scared to do anything different, hence the deep genre lines we have today.

You are also 15+ years older. Your tastes and priorities change.

I used to play Mario World on the SNES for hours at a time round a friends house but couldn't do that now.

Why is it asinine? Have you ever played Pokemon? Do you know why people would choose an Infernape over a Blaziken despite the fact both are fire/fighting starter Pokemon and Blaziken has a higher base attack stat?

BF3... uh lets see, you run around and shoot, oh wait you choose a class first, and it has team play. Okay I'm not going to rip on it too much because I know its a great game. I'm sure if I played it, I would love it. My point is, its not what I would call deep. What is there to know about it? Are there stats tables to memorize? Is there a deep and involving storyline? Is there deep strategy and rock/paper/scissors gameplay?

So you ask if I have ever played Pokemon but then go on to admit you have never played BF3.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Stop procrastinating and just answer the question.

He did.

So you would choose to play the modern game over the older game then. Once again, RAGE isn't an AAA title - as I have already pointed out it has received mixed reviews whilst Super Metroid was critically acclaimed when it was released.

The only thing that makes it a non AAA title is its review score, which is like AA. Its budget, though, was AAAAAA. So why is RAGE not eligible to be compared?

What depth was there on the 8-bit systems? It was all platformers.

True, but Megaman allowed me to equip different weapons, use them to explore the stage, and tackle the stages in any order I choose. And choose a stage based on A) whether I could beat the boss, B) what I would get from it. Thats a lot of depth for an 8 bit game.

And a strategy game having a backstory doesn't make the game deep. People still play the game today because of the multiplayer side of things.

But the multiplayer was deep. And the backstory just shows the thought that went into the game. It was more than just another title shovelled out according to the Grand Business Plan.

You are also 15+ years older. Your tastes and priorities change.

In ways I didnt think they would.

I used to play Mario World on the SNES for hours at a time round a friends house but couldn't do that now.

I've never been into Mario but I did spend hours playing Street Rod 2 recently.

So you ask if I have ever played Pokemon but then go on to admit you have never played BF3.

What does that matter? I've played BF 1942 and BF2. Are you telling me BF3 is so different as to be a completely different game? It sounds like you are grasping at straws to try to prove that modern games are superior in every way. I would think it would be easier for you to admit that BF3 isnt particularly deep but it has features that older games could not possibly hope to match, which is true. Older games could never have 64 x 64 multiplayer using different theatres of war on one map. Its impressive. The question is whether technology is enough to make a great game? I dont think it is, for me. Or rather, technology is not as important as some other factors to me.

 

[Sulaco]

It is 99.99% nostalgia. The good old days may have been great at the time but compared to what we have now the stuff we had to put up with was an utter turd.

Bullshit. I can think of innumerable examples to prove that is nonsense.

YOUR point, though, is correct about AVERAGE games. The AVERAGE games of today are probably more playable than average games of yesteryear, if only because they are newer and offer more "sensory stimulation".

Your problem is you're stuck on graphics and genres that rely on them. FPS are a perfect example. But when you factor in games that don't need stellar graphics or sound to be masterpieces, it's not nearly as cut and dry as you think.

The best strategy games of years ago are still going to hold up to whats out there today, because they rely on tight coding and great AI.
The best platformers of yesteryear will never get old and always hold their own against today's offerings because of near-perfect gameplay and controls.
The best RPGs and adventure games that rely on great storytelling and character development still hold their own (and often CRUSH) their modern counterparts. Period.

Note: I'm ONLY comparing games to other games in their respective genres, as trying to compare something like "Donkey Kong Country" to "Half Life 2" is an exercise in asininity.

But when you start comparing games that DON'T lean on graphics as their primary crutch, this becomes impossible to debate.
I'm not saying ALL, or even most, old games are superior to today's games. Not by a longshot. But the true AAA games are timeless, and often times, better than anything we've seen in the modern era of gaming.

 

[gothamhunter]

Black Ops was a AAA game. A friend asked me to play that with him yesterday. You know what I played instead? Super Metroid.

Super
Freaking
Metroid

You know why? Because even though it's an old game, it's a fantastic, hard to beat quality game. I've played it a bajillion times, probably hundreds of hours in that game. Know how many hours I put into Black Ops? 42 hours total, 4 on single player (didn't even bother finishing the SP), and 38 multiplayer. Considering the game, that's not a lot.

Just because it's a AAA game doesn't mean it's a game to remember or even care about later. I STILL sit here and think man, Super Metroid is freaking amazing. Why in the Hell don't we have another one yet?