Are games getting dumber?

[Skarvey]

Games these days are like being a rock band. In the beginning, you have to play what they want to hear so you can get the money and the fans and the record deals. Then, when you have a solid base, you can branch out and play what you've always wanted to play.

Same thing with the industry, it seems they all have to grind out the crappy games that people will emphatically love before they can start doing fun stuff. Of course there are indie developers, but they don't get that much publicity and lets face it, "cult classic" isn't really a badge of honor for a game to wear when the sales figures roll in.

If anything though, the industry is constantly changing because of what the public demands of it. A couple years back it was realistic shooters, and we still really haven't gotten off that whole kick yet, but give it time, I think we've seen a few pioneers ready to break the cycle yet.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

find games You like, even if its not mainstream

 

[MistAlchemist]

Lol mario.. . .
Anyway, intelligent gaming is kinda difficult to find.
Are you referring to puzzle/mazes/twist related games?

Have you played Morrowind?

 

[J-Man]

Uhm... do you consider Halo, perhaps the most commercially successful game yet, to be thought-provoking or have a rich story? You may think I'm throwing out good meat, but all I'm asking for is some lobster with our daily portion of gruel.

Says the guy with the Team Fortress 2 userpic. Deep, meaningful story there...

(And yes, I do find Halo thought provoking... and though the in-game story is not in itself terribly deep, the back story of the series (as revealed by incidentals in the game and by fiction in the novels and on its website) is very rich and holds a great many themes surrounding the use of power, the dangers of dogmatism, and the hazards and necessities that come from posessing free will.)

-- Steve

I love TF2 because of the brilliant characters and art DESIGN. I don't necessarily want an incredible story in a game, art design comes into it also. All I want is a game with brains and either a decent story/design.

And regarding Halo... oh come on. You're making a game where you bunnyhop round shooting comedy aliens sound like a book by Nietzsche.

 

[Syphonz]

Maybe games are getting dumber, or maybe its just because we're all slowly getting mentally lazy. We probably COULD figure out and make a good puzzle, engaging storyline .etc. But as one person told me 'Life is more fun when you're not thinking' he probably has a point. And thus, we're all slowly getting lazy and can't be bothered to do something properly all the time.

Even Richard has had slip ups where he just didn't want to take the time to sarcastically comment on someone's stupidity.

 

[Gotham Soul]

I figure that intelligence in a game is measured by simplicity. For example, it's not hard to grasp the skills of a shooter game (no offense to shooter gamers out there) and it's fairly intuitive, opening the games to most demographics (within the ESRB rating of course).

RPG layouts, for example, and the various combat concepts integrated into this genre can be difficult to get hooked on if you're not used to such things though. Watching people new to gaming play games like Call of Duty and other such is not as embarassing as watching a new gamer try and play something like Dungeon Siege or Neverwinter Nights.

I don't believe that a good story necessarily defines an intelligent game, the same way I don't think a good book defines an intelligent person.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

And regarding Halo... oh come on. You're making a game where you bunnyhop round shooting comedy aliens sound like a book by Nietzsche.

Halo has brains, it just doesn't push them into your face at every turn to make certain you know it. If you just want a straightforward game with loud explosions, it can do that. If you want the smart story stuff and you're willing to look for it, it can do that too... look at what Ascendant Justice [http://blog.ascendantjustice.com/] has unearthed, for one example. If you want a deep multiplayer experience, you can tweek the multiplayer into a finely-balanced professional game; if you want to shoot up your friends, its custom game lobby is tailored for that.

There are games with that same versatility out there... they're the ones that hang on, and there's no "golden age" with more of them in gaming's past than there are today. So no, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that gaming today is in any worse shape than it was a decade ago. This perception is concentrated nostalgia cut with an admixture of jaded cynicism, and is toxic.

-- Steve

 

[shiajun]

I don't really believe the games themselves have become dumber. I think that the variety of gameplay styles has become myopian. That is why Mirror's Edge, Braid, Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Ico or even PoP:SoT seem to stand out. In older days, there were tons of different genres and quirky games. They weren't all smart, but most were witty. That's the difference. Gaming industry has become completely bland, as a whole. Citing our much too cited ZP, back in the "golden age" (a term I really think is out of place) you could make your game about a chef that had a gun that shot raptors AND IT WOULD BE GREAT. That kind of twisty logic is no longer available. Earth Worm Jim was mentioned in this thread. That game, and even more in EWJ2, was completely out there and it was exactly that characteristic that made it a classic. It had style, flair and humor. The mechanics behind the game were not that different that any other platformer, it was the context (playing inside an intestine, whose boss is a renegade duodenum?). Well, the bungee jumping was way cool, and it was something I hadn't seen.

Games had attitude. Now they seem just complacient. I too blame the hunger for graphics where you can see every pimple on your adversaries' faces for the systematic attrition of charm. All that focus on just one aspect of games has completely eroded innovation in the others. The Wii seemed all fascinating at first because it seemed it would bring back that dynamism to game mechanics. It all failed in the end because you have a midly schizophrenic control scheme that ended up being more gimmicky than inspirational. It's not just story that makes a game smart. It was the fact that most of the time you had to get to know the game, learn a bit of a different approach, tilt your head if I may. Now, the game this year is just the same as last year's. You can pick up the controller and chances are you will know EXACTLY how to control the avatar or whatever. You'll know that'll you find this or that powerup or gun at some point, you'll know exactly how the quest nods will be structured and the type of mission you'll be sent on. In fact, most properly funded games today are either FPS or MMORPGs. That, my friends, is a very depressing bias. We're being sold smokes and mirrors.

There's tons of crap now and there has always been tons of crap. Terrible movies, empty music, dull tv series, cheesy books and lousy games. Time is the filter. Most of the time we don't remember them because they aren't worth remembering. Only the very good things stand in memories. It's just that most games coming out that cram the shelves don't even hint at longevity.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I love TF2 because of the brilliant characters and art DESIGN. I don't necessarily want an incredible story in a game, art design comes into it also. All I want is a game with brains and either a decent story/design.

And regarding Halo... oh come on. You're making a game where you bunnyhop round shooting comedy aliens sound like a book by Nietzsche.

By those standards Guitar Hero and Wii sports are also intelligent games. And your dismisal of Halo's presentation is all the more hypocritical.

 

[J-Man]

By those standards Guitar Hero and Wii sports are also intelligent games. And your dismisal of Halo's presentation is all the more hypocritical.

I dismiss your spelling! (just kidding, I'm not a grammar nazi)

I guess this topic is all down to personal taste. I, for example, am a "cynical nostalgist" (according to Steve/Anton P. Nym, who should probably stop making such bold statements), while others will find modern games just as intelligent as the oldies.

 

[Signa]

I think all the evidence this argument needs is:

Oblivion < Morrowind.

'Nuff said.

 

[Solo508]

Its quite hillarious that you think Call of Duty: World at War takes skill. I sort of agree with you about todays games in general, but its just that way because there has been a graphics race recently, games will start getting more interesting soon.

 

[J-Man]

I think all the evidence this argument needs is:

Oblivion < Morrowind.

'Nuff said.

True dat.

 

[likalaruku]

Blame the people the developers borrow money from. They suckingly get to call the shots; they give them budgets, set deadlines, force them to releace bug-ridden games if they don't meet said deadlines, close the studios for making poor first-quarter sales because of the bugs & take no responcibility for enforcing an unrealistic deadline, they don't like their developers to take chances with games & make them stick to "tried & true," reguardless of how plaid-out it's become, they force content-cut to meet ESRB standards so walmart & Target will sell their games, they buy-out independant developers who need the money, cancel thair plans, tell them what they can & can't work on, & then lay everyone off so they can focus their funds on developers who make them more mony. :okes Microsoft with an Ensamble stick::