Games on the PC getting dumber and dumber?

[MalazanEmpire]

I just love to spark a discussion where i can learn a lot in the process.

And for the guy calling me a spammer, why are you so jaded my friend? Arent forums for sharing content? Was the content on the same topic?

Somehow you think you have the monopoly on anything?

Like i said, let us not make it personal. I gave some thoughts out, see what came out of it aside for your personal attacks, if you can call it that.

And if i am wrong in any statements, feel free to illustrate your points. Ad hominem attacks are really childish.

 

[darkewaffle]

Is "streamlining" this month's synonym for "consolization"?

If you want a ton of micromanagement, there's definitely games for it. But boundless trivial micro-choices to assuage the need to feel like a "hardcore gamer" is not my idea of a good time. It has it's place (probably mostly in RTS and sRPGs), but wanting it to be part of more games "because depth" is a serious step backwards and poor design because it simply doesn't belong sometimes.

"Depth" has multiple forms as well. The whole 'number-crunching min-maxxing character-building' aspect is but one side of it. To me, many of the games that offer a lot of "stats" (for lack of a better overall term) fall very short when it comes to depth of gameplay. A lot of [action] RPGs experience this imo; Diablo, PoE, Torchlight, Borderlands, FO3, TES games I feel are all plagued to some extent by very stale or simple gameplay. It's even a problem with Neverwinter Nights, which is one of my absolute favorites and the game that I think best exemplifies a balance of complexity and breadth and weight when it comes to 'number crunching'. But at the end of the day... actually 'playing' the game is a pretty simple and unengaging matter.

I think there's something to be said for titles like God of War or Ninja Gaiden or Bloodline Champions which don't have the character building, don't have the stat points or the gear variety or character customization, etc but make up for it by having stellar controls and fluid, intricate gameplay. Neither are a "wrong" approach, they're just different ones which appeal to different people.

 

[tential]

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.

Glowing everything is becoming MORE and MORE popular. I'm happy that some games have been smart enough to omit it and let gamers think for themselves but man it's terrible.

Another Streamlined game, League of Legends. Made me quit that whole genre pretty much.

 

[MalazanEmpire]

I guess to sum it all up. What we would all like to see is more dedication from the big shots in the gaming industry. We all have fun in different ways, and "depth" of a game is perhaps a subjective issue.
Just imagine if companies that have the money made games as they used to. Hired capable writers to make the plot deep and varied. Avoided tailoring everything so it can fit every console and the pc.
It is money driven game, instead of a product driven one. IT is not all doom and gloom, but as i said in my first post i fear that in the years to come we will see less and less of the AAA titles that leave a long lasting mark. You know, like the games that made these brands famous in the first place.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Consolization.

when the major game engines were finally designed to allow native development on both the PC and console platforms in parallel we entered an age where developers would make 1 game fits all platforms, and it brought all the shallow and mediocre console elements to the PC.

 

[MalazanEmpire]

Consolization. Is a term you made up? If so, you should patent it and become filthy rich! xd

Yeah, i would agree with something like that. Just to add one little bit. It did not just increase the shallow games on pc, but also did a disservice to the consoles too.

 

[nutingut]

I agree with PrincessFrosty, consoles introduced pc games to the masses. Before that, players where mostly nerds/geeks in their caves who rewarded games that had substance, complexity and longevity. The masses on the other hand, are mostly made up of casual players who are quite happy with short, light and shallow gaming experiences because they have, as it's commonly called, 'a life'. And so in consequence, as the masses are so easy to please and make profit off, mainstream gaming became what it is today. The good old days when most of the technologically leading games also provided a rich gaming experience, are sadly over. Though, due to crowd funding there is at least a hope that things may improve someday and I think that's also because, as we can observe with star citizen, the enthusiast gamers are willing to invest far more cash in a good gaming experience than the casual players.

 

[JamesV]

Consoles were around far before the modern PC. I got my first Atari in 1977 with Space Invaders; five-ish years later, I was playing my first PC game on a TRS-80 Color Computer, that was a 'text' adventure, read off a cassette tape.

So, I disagree with everyone claiming consoles ruined PC games, because great and deep PC games came out after consoles had been around for a long time.

While modern games are dumbed down for the PC, as a direct result of consoles, it is the money made that is the reason for this. Publishers care how much they can make, not how good a game they can produce, and if a large percentage of the market is console, then they are stupid not to tap into that. Rockstar's ROI on GTA 5 will be far higher on console sales then it ever will be for a PC version.

So do we blame the consoles themselves, the businesses for trying to make the most money, or other gamers for jumping on the console bandwagon?

What is puzzling to me, is the fact there aren't more developers/publishers filling the niche market with games PC gamers would love. It doesn't always take millions of dollars to make a great game, and the market is out there (I'd buy a Diablo 2 clone, or a X-Wing clone, or clones of numerous other old games if they were available). Of course they would have to be good, but the market is there.

 

[paul878]

It's a conspiracy of the gaming industry to get more of your money.
They are making games short and easy so you can finished it fast and go buy more. Back in the Atari and early console days you buy the game and play it for years. Now you buy a game finish it over the weekend and at most do it one more time and wanting something new.

 

[Falafil]

"Game doesn't have outdated graphics, poor AI, or nostalgic superficial features that make it tedious, therefore it's dumber".

PS: Consoles are just mid-range PCs.

 

[fixbsod]

Not true at all. It's companies who are focused ONLY on profits looking to score the biggest haul they can. Couple this with the fact that computers have become mainstream and so the target audience shifted from the geeks to the mainstream. The reason games were more intricate and detailed in the not so distant past is that nearly all the gamers at the time were nerds and desired this. Now that every tom dick and harry has a PC they can just focus on making it "accessible" and slap on some slick graphics and hope to make as much cash as possible. The situation is NOT that gamers want the highes graphics fidelity possible so they focus on graphics and then worry about mechanics/gameplay/story 2nd. They don't focus on gameplay because the whole point is to make it simple to get that mainstream appeal. (nutingut hit this nail on the head in the post right before mine)

I think everyone is so touchy because it can be very disheartening to see games that you treasure (especially in your youth) be bled to death by their new corporate overlords seeking to cash in on sequel after sequel and more and more crap DLC.

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.

 

[fixbsod]

Companies USED to care about sequels, and sequels were often better as the technology had improved to offer new ways to add depth

Portal 1-->2
HalfLife 1--> 2
(Valve being private is nice so not such a $$$ focused company)
The Elder Scrolls series
GTA
Diablo 1 --> 2
Starcraft 1--> 2

All the old Sierra quest series (Kings, Police, Larry, Glory, etc)

Movies are a completely different medium than games as there is no interaction/variation.

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.

 

[BladeVenom]

Play more indie games.

 

[Nebor]

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.

Try to shoot your way out of the train station in Hitman Absolution and tell me it's easy. I think I replayed that about 15 times before I was able to kill every cop & civilian in the level.

FWIW I played the whole game that way because I find the sneaking around stuff to be annoying. My scores were epically negative.

 

[nutingut]

Consoles were around far before the modern PC. I got my first Atari in 1977 with Space Invaders; five-ish years later, I was playing my first PC game on a TRS-80 Color Computer, that was a 'text' adventure, read off a cassette tape.

Yeah well, I guess that's true, but those were still niche products not yet adopted by the mainstream market. I think this only started to change with the introduction of PlayStation 1, but yes, consoles were probably not the only reason for the decline. The rise of the internet and the pc becoming every joe's tool also played a part.

 

[motsm]

While modern games are dumbed down for the PC, as a direct result of consoles, it is the money made that is the reason for this *Cut for space*

I agree, consoles were never the source of the problem, they were simply the best vehicle for publishers to tap into a much bigger market of potential gamers. They needed something that was easy to use and relatively affordable, and PC's didn't offer that at the time. I can understand why so many people blame consoles however, as it's easy to simplify it into such an argument if you don't dig very deeply into it. Not to mention all of the bad ports we get on PC brings plenty of animosity.

 

[Veliko]

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.

If the complex games that you crave so much are still being made, why does it matter what the trend is?

The game market is expanding at a very fast rate, yet there's only so many games that you can play in one year.

If there's still a dozen games that interest you, why does it matter how many there are that don't interest you?

 

[Soundmanred]

If the complex games that you crave so much are still being made, why does it matter what the trend is?

The game market is expanding at a very fast rate, yet there's only so many games that you can play in one year.

If there's still a dozen games that interest you, why does it matter how many there are that don't interest you?

Yup, it's like people who listen to rock complaining about how much rap there is these days.
Who cares if you don't listen to it? There isn't a finite amount of media that is able to be released every year.
These kind of discussions/complaints have been going on for YEARS.
Here's a great thread with some OLD discussions/complaints/rants.
Some of them are from decades ago and sound just like ones made today!
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=482425

Example on the abomination that will be Metroid on the GC:

I'm surprised no one is talking about the announcement that the new
Metroid games is going to be a first-person shooter...

I hope I'm not the only one extremely disappointed by this news. Even
worse is the fact that the game was being developed as third person
game but Nintendo forced Retro Studios to change it to a first person
shooter because they don't like the camera issues that pop up in third
person action games....last I checked Metroid was an adventure game
with more of a focus on exploration than button mashing.

Metroid is probably dead as a 'creative' line anyway. The driving
force behind the series who kept it all tied together to some overall
vision, has passed away. It's now just a license for Nintendo to
milk and farm out.

And the simple truth is that a FPS perspective will require the
loss of a lot of the things that define a Metroid game as a Metroid
game. (Well, the gameplay things that fit a 'Samus' game.
Technically you can make a Metroid game with only Metroid carrying
over and an entirely new protagonist who fights and controls
entirely different.)

That's why I say that it will probably be a good or even great game
but it just isn't going to be a Metroid game. They'd be better off
creating a new franchise if they want to create a sci-fi FPS/adventure
game. Hell, they already have Perfect Dark which is supposedly going
to be a launch title. That said, if they were still planning on making
a more traditional Metroid game I'd be all for a Metroid FPS in the
same way that it'd be cool to see Zelda turned into a fighting game
knowing that a proper installment is forthcoming.

Yeah, it turned out HORRIBLY, didn't it?

Other discussion topics:
"PC gaming will be dead in 1992." 1992!
"The new Zelda is a failure" Yes, A Link To The Past, the one on most console gamers top 5 lists.
"The death of fighting games (1993)" Sorry KI, you've been dead for 20 years.
My favorite - the sheer HORROR that Final Fantasy 7 will be on the PS-X, not the Ultra64.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

 

[MalazanEmpire]

Populous The Beginning. Find me a game today that can match the awe and excitement as when i first played it.
This is only a valid question to those who played the game when it first came out.

Or remember the feel of Black and White 1 vs B&W 2.

MY prediction is that when you die, and go to hell that the only game you get to play is the newest Duke Nukem.

 

[Albatross]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4yIxUOWrtw

 

[motsm]

These kind of discussions/complaints have been going on for YEARS.

Of course they have, and that proves nothing.

Games of the last decade or so have been getting dumbed down to appeal to bigger markets at a much faster rate than any time period before it. From your post, it sounds like you are just denying it, but you'd have to be down right stupid to not see the trend. Whether or not you think the direction of the industry is good or not is a different matter.

 

[MalazanEmpire]

Of course they have, and that proves nothing.

Games of the last decade or so have been getting dumbed down to appeal to bigger markets at a much faster rate than any time period before it. From your post, it sounds like you are just denying it, but you'd have to be down right stupid to not see the trend. Whether or not you think the direction of the industry is good or not is a different matter.

I agree with this. It is quite obvious really. Many games were awesome until their sequel arrived. And NO i do not mean that you cannot find great games, or that they are not being made. Remember when Call of Duty came out, epic ww2 missions with some heart in them. Look at it now. Every year the same crap.

 

[HeXen]

I rather like the modern games situation. But really it comes down to fun, even pac man was fun back then and Skyrim is fun today. There were tons and tons of games in the 80's and 90's that were just pure crap and nothing smart about them, I don't see how much has changed other than there are way more games released per month now and all you guys are looking at is the large, quick selling titles.
I'm pretty certain that games like Legend of Grimlock sold extremely well and that looks as oldschool as they ever got from what I've seen.

 

[Soundmanred]

Many games were awesome until their sequel arrived. And NO i do not mean that you cannot find great games, or that they are not being made. Remember when Call of Duty came out, epic ww2 missions with some heart in them. Look at it now. Every year the same crap.

7/31/92

Anyone notice
the amount of SEQUEL games in the latest issue of EGM? Especially noticeable on the cover. If I remember correctly it sort of went like this...

In this issue:

"generic game" 2
"generic game" 3
"generic game" 2
"generic game" 4
"generic game" 2
"generic game" 2
"generic game" 3
Am I complaining? I'm not sure. I realize that this issue has been discussed
to the point of boredom in the past, but I thought it was interesting.

This was in 1992. 21 years ago. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying nothing has changed, and nothing here is a new phenomenon. To think that any of this is new or just applies to today's games hasn't been paying attention.

Play the games you enjoy and support the people who make them, and don't play the ones you don't.
Complainers are a dime a dozen, praises are hard to find.