Games on the PC getting dumber and dumber?

[MalazanEmpire]

Are you fellows fearing this trend?
Every year we step back from proper gaming into STREAMLINING experiences.
Don't you hate that word?

Whenever i watch an interview and they start talking about streamlining my face turns blue.
I got promptly cut off when we were doing a video call before diablo 3 was released. I asked the dev what does streamlining really imply for the game, and if it would reduce the hardcore experience. When he asked to get to the point and stop circling around i said something along the lines : I am afraid we will get a game made for the masses who pick up a game every 5 years. He said that is not true, and i was promptly removed from the call.

I see same experiences reported on the Angry Joe Show, he really chases them down with brave questions.

What do you think? IN 10 years our children wont be able to play a decent game. God forbid a game which could potentially change your outlook on life!

Remember that mass effect 3 ending?

 

[motsm]

This has been happening for years, but indeed keeps getting worse; it stopped me from buying countless new games for a while. There has been some push back lately from a few teams, and many KickStarter projects have potential, but the industry is just depressing to look at these days.

 

[Anteaus]

Not at all. Only if you focus on the big budget, mainstream games do you get jaded and bored. Big budget, big media games only make up a small percentage of what gets released every year, but those are the one everyone focuses on.

 

[WiseUp216]

Not at all. Only if you focus on the big budget, mainstream games do you get jaded and bored. Big budget, big media games only make up a small percentage of what gets released every year, but those are the one everyone focuses on.

Yep, I think this is a good point. Never has there been a time when making and distributing a game was easier than today. Hundreds (or thousands?) of games have been released this year that will never appeal to casual gamers.

A lot of developers, big and small, will try to cash in on trends but the good ones will almost always get the attention they deserve.

I think OP either didn't experience, or doesn't remember, how big of a pain in the ass PC gaming could be sometimes back in the 80s and 90s. Some degree of streamlining is just necessary progress.

 

[Dumac]

Not at all. Only if you focus on the big budget, mainstream games do you get jaded and bored. Big budget, big media games only make up a small percentage of what gets released every year, but those are the one everyone focuses on.

I think it is because there is a reference point to compare against.

Fallout 2 -> 3
Dragon Age -> Dragon Age 2
Mass Effect -> Mass effect 2
Diablo 2 -> Diablo 3
Daggerfall -> Morrowind -> Oblivion -> Skyrim
Resident Evil -> Resident Evil 4 -> Resident Evil 5/6
Everquest -> WoW

Those are some 'streamlined' games off of the top of my head.

You really have to dig into niche titles to get a more complex and compelling experience these days.

 

[Dankk]

Not at all. Only if you focus on the big budget, mainstream games do you get jaded and bored. Big budget, big media games only make up a small percentage of what gets released every year, but those are the one everyone focuses on.

+1

+1

+1

+1

New games come out on the PC almost everyday. People who complain about the "dumbing-down" of modern video games are people who only pay attention to the big-budget stuff, and fail to recognize some of the more low-key games coming out.

Intricate, deep, complicated games exist, and are still being made. They're never going to go away. You just have to look for them.

 

[MalazanEmpire]

It is easy, to provide an answer like " people who do this or that" like you have some kind of a database and you are speaking from a position of authority.
We are just discussing here. And those small companies?! what happens when they sell one good batch, and their shares get up and corporations buy them off.

The post above that mentioned how sequels get progressively worse is what i am talking about. Yes you have good "indie" titles that make original and intricate stuff.
What i was referring to is the majority of games. I would like to see 1 million dollars spent on a major AAA title that would blow our minds. companies tend to spend 950 000 on marketing and 50 000 on development.

Do not make this a personal thread, we are talking about A TREND in gaming that is taking sway. Nobody ever told that you cant find a good game anymore.
Thank you.

 

[homebrew2ny]

If you are looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror. "PC gamers" constantly demand bleeding edge graphics and continually improving eye candy. So much so that it has become the first and foremost priority on game developers as well as potential buyers want list. With so much emphasis put on graphics there is no real surprise that depth, storyline, and compelling content falls to the side. Couple that with the financial aspect of having to make games that support multiple platforms and it takes little guess work to see most game makers opt for a pretty looking, multi platform, pile of dumb.

 

[Soundmanred]

Still not "the majority of games".

 

[Bateluer]

Been happening steadily for years now, really accelerated with the launch of the X360 and PS3 though. Among big budget titles today, its almost entirely dumbed down crap.

 

[MalazanEmpire]

Yeah, my bad. I do not know what i was thinking really. I apologize for this thread, and i concede the point.
I will leave it with a conclusion that the majority of games are good, and most of them provide a good experience and personal character building.
I will also say that the new games that are pushed out each day are not easier to play than their predecessors.
They quite fit with the rest of human culture, as we seem to be upgrading our experiences to the better. This includes movies, music and other artistic venues. Every year provides better and better movies, with more depth and layers than your average onion.
Our music is mostly good, both uplifting and deeply touching.
You have rectified my ways as nobody ever expected.
I applaud your massive reasoning arguments and points which you made. Your examples illustrate your points, and leave no place to doubt.

And ofcourse, when pc gamers ask for better graphics with each iteration that would follow each new generation in the graphic card development, we also need to play complex tic tac toe games in HD.

Not only am i dumb for saying something, i am also asking for worse content each year.
Well, fuck me!
Rofl
stay well and cheers

 

[Revolution 11]

Play some games like the Paradox Crusader or Hearts of Iron games or a 4x space game like Galactic Civilizations 2.

There are plenty of deep, complex, engaging games out there. They just won't have the latest DirectX 18.46, Cryengine 7+, 16K resolution graphics.

Gamers don't like to admit this but either graphics > gameplay or gameplay > graphics. There is not enough development money to get the best of both.

 

[motsm]

Not at all. Only if you focus on the big budget, mainstream games do you get jaded and bored. Big budget, big media games only make up a small percentage of what gets released every year, but those are the one everyone focuses on.

This statement is just a half truth though, not explaining the entire situation. It's like telling people who loved Thief to play Mark of the Ninja, or fans of Jagged Alliance to buy Frozen Synapse. The indie scene certainly offers things the current AAA studios don't, but they sure as hell don't offer the kind of games AAA studios offered in the 90's. Almost all of those kinds of games have become the dumbed down titles that we are complaining about.

As I mentioned earlier though, crowd funding has certainly pushed things in the right direction.

 

[Soundmanred]

Not only am i dumb for saying something, i am also asking for worse content each year.
Well, fuck me!
Rofl
stay well and cheers

Thank God we ran that one off.
No more spamming in the PoE thread.

Edit: Wow, spammed the Dota 2 thread too.

 

[coldmeat]

I think it is because there is a reference point to compare against.

Fallout 2 -> 3
Dragon Age -> Dragon Age 2
Mass Effect -> Mass effect 2
Diablo 2 -> Diablo 3
Daggerfall -> Morrowind -> Oblivion -> Skyrim
Resident Evil -> Resident Evil 4 -> Resident Evil 5/6
Everquest -> WoW

Those are some 'streamlined' games off of the top of my head.

You really have to dig into niche titles to get a more complex and compelling experience these days.

This isn't exclusive to gaming though. It's a trend you can find in any form of media. Sequels tend to be shittier than the originals.

 

[dguy6789]

Yep. BF3 + 4 are massively dumbed down compared to 1942 and BF2.

 

[Zenoth]

For me it depends on a lot of different aspects in a game, be it a "triple A" title or an Indie one. The one thing I really dislike [hate] about "streamlining" is when the developers take the time and resources to actually insult my [our] intelligence by adding glowing door knobs because we're apparently too dumb to figure out that we need to take "that specific door" to leave the room we're in to move to the next part of the level.

It's a figurative example, but I got a literal and very recent one that comes to mind from the game Killzone: Shadow Fall. Just look at that video and skip to around 4 minutes. We can see that the enemy snipers gladly reveal their positions by making sure that their sniper rifles emit a clear-as-day red beam pointer at their target that of course the player can see. Do we need to take a moment to rush for cover after our teammate gets sniped and then try by ourselves to figure out the sniper's position? Nope, the developers think it's "better" if we don't have to think and just move our crosshair at the source of the beam and press the trigger. Not only that, but even the grenades that the player throws also emit a red light that shows the corresponding movement after being thrown just to make sure that the player remembers that he/she just threw a grenade, and not only that, but we also need to remember one second after we've thrown it where exactly we threw it just to make sure that we're not dumb enough to not recall we just threw a grenade only to have it end up falling back at our feet.

I could go back at Mass Effect 3's multi-player where a clear red grenade icon pops on your screen when the enemy throws one at you so you're not too dumb without said icon and can evade said grenade. Although, believe me, such an icon still isn't enough at times and people just stand there... come to think of it maybe there's some truth to that, but that'd be another subject. What about Saint's Row IV? There's a way to actually reveal all collectible items' positions in Steelport by showing them on the radar, reducing your "need to explore to find them yourself" by about 99%. All you have to do then is to just make sure to "move in the map" until it shows up on radar. Why? I don't know, saving some time for the 30 years-old busy father who doesn't have time to play and explore games but still bothers buying them? Not sure. But you know what, it's not recent. I also clearly recall 16-bit era side-scrolling beat 'em up games in which the developers took the time to actually point you toward the right side (or up, or down, or whichever direction you had to go) of the screen just to make sure that the player wouldn't be too dumb without said pointing arrow, or player would otherwise continuously walk against a wall perhaps wondering why the game isn't progressing anymore. At least some of those arrows had the word "Move!" inside it and the arrow itself would move or flash some light just to make sure... that or it was just a moment of inspiration from the dev team during development "hey, guys, let's give some style to those arrows!".

To me, streamlining isn't just reducing a game's features or making things "more simple" to "benefit" us (in the devs' eyes obviously) by not having to think too much whilst playing. It also includes blatant attempts at literally showing us the way and telling us what to do as a little kid being spoon fed and keeping a smile. Now with this said there's still a good number of games [devs] out there that try not to fall for it (for "streamlining"), or if they do they do it with some self-control and what I'd call "taste" (I.E. if it wasn't done to insult us but to genuinely prevent a game's feature from being essentially an otherwise waste of time). Unfortunately, however, I think that from what I've seen so far in the past few years those "exceptions" often happen not to be those big "AAA" dev studios that we'd probably love seeing attempting it. It's fun to see Indie teams going at it (not all of them embrace complexity in their games by the way, some of them too streamline things to the bones) but the wishful gamers cannot rely on them only to expect less streamlining when the gaming industry in general demands profits. To achieve that the big studios (which usually overshadow the smaller ones) know what they have to do, but it's not necessarily what they want to do.

 

[callaway86]

yes

 

[Firsttime]

I find it pretty funny the developers are made into criminals for developing games that people people want to play.

There are deep games released every year just like there are deep movies released every year. Just because we can't have genre defining entries every year doesn't mean the genre is getting shallower, just that it's more defined.

 

[dust]

I think the trick is to allow modding to happen. The community is going to squeeze every single drop of potential from that game. Stalker games come to mind.

Also, Hitman Absolution/ Splinter Blacklist can be very easy if you gun down every single soul, but becomes really difficult if you target the silent assassin achievement. So, there are developers that are still trying, but even they have to include the walk-in-the-park option, to secure higher revenues. Like it or not, most gamers are casual, they aren't looking for the highest challenge always, instead they just want to shoot something.

The same goes for some strategy games, the mechanics are very easy to understand, but they can be a pain to implement in real time, especially under pressure.

 

[thejunglegod]

I think the trick is to allow modding to happen. The community is going to squeeze every single drop of potential from that game. Stalker games come to mind.

Also, Hitman Absolution/ Splinter Blacklist can be very easy if you gun down every single soul, but becomes really difficult if you target the silent assassin achievement. So, there are developers that are still trying, but even they have to include the walk-in-the-park option, to secure higher revenues. Like it or not, most gamers are casual, they aren't looking for the highest challenge always, instead they just want to shoot something.

The same goes for some strategy games, the mechanics are very easy to understand, but they can be a pain to implement in real time, especially under pressure.

+1.
Very well said. I would also like to add that there are gems out there which are streamlined for a reason. Case in point is The Witcher. The controls for the first one was very very weird and felt very uncomfortable, though you tend to get used to it after a while. But Witcher 2 was so much better and in so many fronts. Glad they made it more "streamlined".

But op, I will agree to a certain extent with you, since I absolutely hate what they did to Splinter Cell.

 

[zebrax2]

While i do agree that some games are getting easier to appeal to casuals i do think some of the dumbing down can be attributed to better games overall (e.g. better ai, pathfinding, better ui, better game presentation, etc).

The market also has the ability to choose which games they like to buy. As long as there is a market for hard and complex games there would be games made for it.

 

[Sulaco]

The argument that "No they're not because there are still plenty of complex niche games" is silly and moot because there have ALWAYS (or at least in the past two decades) been complex niche games.



That proves nothing.

The question is whether the trend for the majority of games is towards dumbing down. The answer is almost an unequivocal yes, with the caveat that it is almost always based on popularity or sales. In other words, games that started out more complex a few years back, the longer the series goes, the more likely the original formula is going to be "streamlined" or simplified, with the hope of attracting more customers. Usually, at the expense of the things the fans and actual customers originally purchased the game for.

 

[EDUSAN]

streamlining isnt really a bad thing by itself

it is when its taken to an extreme.

you name Mass Effect 1 as a better game than ME2, but ME1 was pretty streamlined too, but it made it up with other good things it had going on

I normally enjoy streamlined games, because they are normally good experiences even though the part of it that is gameplay is dumbed down
thats why i play an indie game here and there to keep me sharp lol

 

[Anteaus]

Games like GTA and Call of Duty sell a ridiculous amount of copies because society has dictated that it prefers those types of games. Considering the volume of people who purchase these games, it's hard not to imagine that many of the same people who complain about how games are dumbed down are also the same people buying them. I can promise you that if the gaming community stopped buying these games, developers would stop making them. There were always dumb games. We were just younger then.

So the real question is, is it that the games are truly being dumbed down or is it that we as gamers are growing older and not represented as much. The target audience for Call of Duty is probably in the range of 14-23, who I can tell you are consistantly enthusiastic about the lastest rail shooter. When I was that age I must have burned through Rebel Assault II about 150 times, and trust me when I say that was about as dumbed down as it can get. I don't doubt that some franchises are definitely sliding downhill, but the sales numbers don't agree which says more about us than the games.

I think we are just getting older and more bitchy about games in general. Just like movies, game plots are completely predictable once you've played enough of them, and I think that is a factor in this. Like the person who eventually progresses from checkers to chess, if you keep playing the simple games, you can't complain about the simplicity.

If you want challenging games, there are challenging games out there. If you keep buying shooters thinking that one of these days you are going to be knocked off your feet, save your money. I buy them because the plots are as deep as Rambo and sometimes I want some dumb entertainment like that. I have Battlefield 4 installed right next to FSX, Distant Worlds, and Europa Universalis IV. Variety is the key.