The "Dumbing Down" of Gaming

Spin-off discussion from the Fallout 3 thread. Posted here to prevent that one from going off-topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Don't even get me started on the whole "Why consoles are partially to blame for the dumbing down of gaming"...

---

Gentlemen, start your engines!

I agree with your statement simply because you said "partially." Consoles are good for short-term gaming. Yes, their rise in popularity has increased the focus of the market on that kind of gaming, but at the same time, consoles haven't actually decreased the number of PC gamers. Consoles are actually single-handedly responsible for turning video games into an acceptable pastime for adults. Without console popularity, the video games industry would be far poorer.

While we are currently experiencing a decrease in game quality as a result, many of those console gamers will move over to PCs and/or even begin demanding more 'serious' games for the console systems themselves. In the long-run, there will probably be much heavier investment in 'smart' PC games as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Pretty much all you need these days is a large chested female brandishing a gun and a sword, making a messy headshot on critter A while simultaneously decapitating critter B in some action-packed setting, swearing up a storm while doing so, with huge explosions in the background.

...

Exactly, dead on. The all encompassing absolute bottom line, profit. There was an editorial bit written not too long ago about the general state of gaming today, and how publishers will generally strive to maximize sales, and will 'dumb down'/simplify/whatever you want to call it to their games in order to try to reach the largest number of buyers. It made complete sense to me, I mean look at the market for REAL simulation games and even RPGs right now, it's pretty thin to almost non-existent. Heck look at what CA is doing with the TW series... The gist of the article was that despite this overall trend, there are still good numbers of gamers in all respective genres that would make putting together a 'niche' game a very viable prospect financially. The obvious problem is that while it would sell, it wouldn't sell say as good as Madden 2k8 or whatever, and hence why the Execs/Marketing types would do their utmost to force the product back into that generic Let's Try To Please Everyone role. Again it all makes sense to me, it'd be real nice to see someone take that to heart and take the plunge. Perhaps it's just me being obstinate and refusing to believe/accept that real RPG players and flight sim fanatics are a dying breed. :embarassed:

---

I think you're being a bit pessimistic here. I understand what you're saying and I definitely agree that we're seeing an upswing in the number of mega-corp video game developers who are pumping out simplified sequels rather than original content. I'm not convinced that this is a linear trend though. I've been gaming pretty much constantly from the early 80s until today, with 17-18 years of that exclusively on the PC. I've seen a lot of genres come and go and a lot of companies make it big and go bust. The only thing that seems to me to be consistent is the flux.

Startup companies emerge with fresh, new ideas and produce low-cost, quality games. They grow successful, increase in size, increase in ambition. Eventually the core team that had the 'vision' loses control as the company grows larger and less centralized. Most developers are gobbled up by a major publisher which uses them to pump out proven money-makers. Eventually the franchise is over-exploited or deteriorates in quality. The developer dissolves, and sometimes even the mega-publisher becomes defunct. (oh, Sierra, how I hate thee...)

The same boom and bust seems to happen to entire genres of gaming as well. Adventure games are the most prominent fatality in this department, but you have also pointed out the decrease in flight sims and classic style RPGs. I would toss turn-based strategy games and puzzle games into that pile as well. However, I don't think that any of these genres has permanently died. Just like with Hollywood and fashion, things disappear for a while and then suddenly burst on the market again.

I've seen plenty of genres nose-dive and then recover. DND games are the classic example. The glory days of the SSI Gold Box games sucked the DND name for all it was worth until people tired of them completely. After that developers wouldn't touch the DND name with a 10 foot stick for many years. Then Bioware brought the DND name back in a big way and once again it's a hot commodity, some good, some bad. You may dislike stuff like NWN2, but without the 'resurgence' you would never have gotten Planescape. Yet Planescape came along many years after people already thought the DND days were long gone.

Flight sims, which you previously mentioned, have come and gone from popularity almost more than anything else. They were some of the first games ever made for computers, but other than the consistent Microsoft offering, they were heavily neglected in the 1980s. When the 90s rolled around, advances in hardware spurred a huge number of combat flight sims which were then spun off into space flight sims. They were so popular that a joystick was considered an essential PC peripheral and many people even shelled out for yokes. After a good 10 year run, the gaming companies simply ran out of new ideas and the gamers were tired of the same old thing over and over again. Right now flight sims are a minor genre, but they are certainly not dead. I fully expect them to come back as a major genre once the public has had a nice, long break from them.

Even individual titles can recover after a decrease in quality. The Civilization series had serious problems after Civ 2, when the IP rights were split between three companies. Even though very decent SMAC was the 'real' successor, the market was flooded with mimics and even after the license was re-unified, Civ 3 generally disappointed. Firaxis reversed course though and pulled the Civ series out of the tailspin with Civ 4, surprising most players and critics alike. The same thing happened to Heroes of Might and Magic to a great extent.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think anything truly dies in the games industry. Genres simply become zombies, stalking the dusty CD racks of gamers until a new 'mad scientist' developer picks it up and reanimates it. It's sad to see our favorite titles and genres when they fade, but they will eventually be back and usually more glorious than ever.

Is dumbing down so bad? I many cases, yes, but in the best cases it's simply a streamlining of a game with the removal of all unnecessary clutter. No, Call of Duty 2 isn't as deep as Armed Assault, but that isn't what it sets out to be. Niche markets simply aren't as appealing to publishers now the costs of creating games has risen so much, but the promising thing is that more specialised developers will keep doing what they have been doing. Certainly I hope low-key developers make good use of such publishing means like Steam.

Generally speaking, for a game to sell to the highest number of people possible, it must cater to the Lowest Common Denominator and thus be vastly dumbed-down. Sad but true.

I hate when games are dumbed-down. I'd rather they just didn't tarnish good IPs with dumbed-down sequels. Better to simply not make the sequel at all and leave the legacy of the IP intact.

Most gamers are

a) teenagers, whatever the age rating says, they're still a huge market, they tend to like big explosions and big breasted women

b) adults, who usually play a game to unwind after a hard day's work. They have little time, and often little appetite for deep and complex games that drain hours just to learn.

I believe these two segments make up the majority of the market, therefor it makes sense that so many games are aimed at the instant satisfaction crowd, this isn't a bad thing, this is supply and demand.

Now considering two other genres: RPGs and strategy games, they have in common that:

a) they demand a lot of time, or can at least last quite a while (modern shorter CRPGs might be an exception)
b) graphics aren't as important so making them first day purchases is often not essential (Oblivion tried to 'fix' this)
c) they're generally considered 'hardcore' by the people who whine in these sorts of threads ( :jester: )

now a and b mean that they won't 'sell out' quickly when they're released and that they deserve a long shelve life, which often isn't warranted for the stores since they want stuff that sells on their shelves. Because they tend to be in low supply in stores, they don't sell much. It's a bit of an viscious* circle.


*that's the wrong word here isn't it ?

To summarize: money matters.

Actually, SSI came out with come great games, not just the craptastic clones. More specifically Stronghold, Eye of the Beholder (1 and 2), Dark Sun, and Dungeon Hack.
I'd take those games over the more modern dumbed-down modern games like Shadowrun any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Pretty much all you need these days is a large chested female brandishing a gun and a sword, making a messy headshot on critter A while simultaneously decapitating critter B in some action-packed setting, swearing up a storm while doing so, with huge explosions in the background.

---

That sounds a lot like the WoW banner/trailer :laugh4:

@topic: I think dumbing down of most games is temporary, soon we'll see a market with more challenging and deep games again. I suspect this will happen in around 3-5 years from now.

One problem is that dumbed down games are easier to market these days. Which game looks most impressive? One that has big explosions and plenty of action visible in the trailer, or one that has very good puzzles to solve and a toned down, realistic combat? You simply can't demonstrate good puzzles and tactical combat well in a trailer, but big explosions and graphics are very visible. The deeper games would benefit a lot from more players trying out game demos instead of looking at trailers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

@topic: I think dumbing down of most games is temporary, soon we'll see a market with more challenging and deep games again. I suspect this will happen in around 3-5 years from now.

---

GalCiv2 is quite popular, EUIII had a major release and is found in most retail stores, there still is a market for complex games and they are still being made, it's just that more non-complex games are being made, that segment of the market grew exponentially.

Are there really less 'complex' (and still good) games being made these days than 10years ago ?

Even if that were true, the open source and freeware community still provides us with the occasional gem, like Wesnoth.

I think we should recognise the difference between "dumbing-down" and re-envisioning a game...

For Shadowrun for instance, it was not dumbed-down, it was built the way it was always going to be. CounterStrike in the Shadowrun world (or something like it)... I would say it was designed to be simplistic and easy to get into. Groups A and B for doc_bean... This is not Shadowrun dumbed-down, in many ways it is not Shadowrun at all. It is the Shadowrun world re-envisioned for a CS style game. It is a case of buyer beware, if you are a long time Shadowrun fan, this is not what you are expecting it to be...

In most cases dumbed-down requires an orginal version (or standard in the genre) to be suitably complex that it can be dumbed down. So, and no offense meant here, it would be pretty hard to dumb-down the FPS scene considering it's roots in Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM...

However we have the Wargame and the RPG... Orginating from complex desktop games and orginally moving to computers because they could easily handle the rules and the dice rolling for you. And it gave you a player to play against. It could be argued that these have been subject to "dumbing-down" ever since (think RTS and the presently defunct adenture game), every time a development team has tried to make them more appealing to the general public rather than the existiung Wargame and RPG fans.

I suppose when we most take offense is when a developer claims to be making version 2 of a "good" game and it is going to be all things to all people. Just as much fun for the fan base, but also more accessable (one the the scariest terms you can utter to a hardcore gamer, right along with "also released on a console") for the general market.

The hardcore fan sees very quickly which elements of the design have been dropped in favour of development resources being spent in flashy effects and such like.

One point I think is correct is that this is an ever changing situation. If the popularity of gaming continues to grow amoung adults then those niche markets will not be all that small anymore and that will encourage developers to address them individually rather then build games to appeal to the everyone.

But then again, I guess there is an agrument the game always appeals the lowest dominiator in the target audience. Even in a niche wargame, built for complete wargaming freaks (again no offense intended :laugh4: ) there will be decriers claiming something is not deep enough, accurate enough or some vital feature is missing. I guess the accusation of "dumbing-down" comes into play when the previous version had these features and the developer chasing a larger market has dropped this items as unnecessary baggage.

The the question then, should it be the responibility of the developer to make clear that they are not making any updated version of the orginal, but are in fact re-envisioning the game for a larger audience. Or should it be the responsibility of us, the paying consumer to make ourselves aware of what we are purchasing?

I suppose the question in this is marketing. Where does marketing stop and outright lying begin?

Good topic, good posts - particularly the opening post. My two cents wouldn't be worth the copper they are minted from, but I hope we will see more contributions from experienced gamers and hopefully insiders to the industry. Is Captain Fishpants still around? I would surely appreciate a circumbobulation of the subject from his hand.

I'm seeing the opposite end of the spectrum lately. The independent developers seem to have access to more resources lately, and many of the games that I'm purchasing are what I would call grognard level. These are complex games that are made by strategy gamers to be played on relatively high-performance PCs.

These developers aren't making as much in sales, but they are getting support from mid-level publishers such as Matrix. They also benefit from a market niche with high loyalty and levels of cash (I think I paid $100+ for WITP). Folks playing these games grew up with Avalon Hill and are now professionals who want a serious game to enjoy.

We are also willing to put down some money for a good mod as well, such as Red Orchestra, to blow off steam. I appreciate this type of realism and don't think the game is dumb at all. If anything I think that RO levels my playing out as I can think a bit (use some tactics) and catch some of the younger more dexterous folks out (even with my Australian Ping on a 50 person server.

There will always be a place for "simple" games, as some games are made for kids and should be easy to play or relatively simple. Some people don't like getting bogged down in a game that is hard to understand. However, there are those of us who enjoy a complex strategy game and they are being made with some regularity.

Cheers,

I still owe you a thoughtful response GalvanizedBovine. Will do so soon.