Are today's gamers, on average, dumber?

[Signa]

Yeah, I've been seeing the same trends. They wouldn't bother me if there were still good games being made with any reliable frequency, but it seems like my only hope for an enjoyable and complex game is from an indie dev, and most of those guys have a hard time putting out good ideas that don't look like unpolished shit.

And to whomever mentioned Doom earlier, I would like to point out that while Doom was simple in mechanics, the levels, enemies and weapons all balanced into what feels like more complex gameplay than what is standard today. Sure, you don't have to aim up or down or reload, but by removing (or lacking) those common features, the player is allowed to focus on the ultimate run-and-gun experience. Situations can change in an instant, and worrying about an empty clip or watching to see if you landed that headshot before pulling a 180* to blast the next monster probably would have detracted from the experience. Doom may be the mother of the modern shooter, but it's such a different breed now that it's not even fair to compare them. FPSs have changed to the point where Doom feels new again just because the design is unique compared to everything else.

 

[Vibhor]

I'm not arguing that SHOOTERS have become less complex. I could try to make that point, seeing as today's FPSes are in general much more linear, have regenerating health and little challenge. Also note that doom was constrained technically - if you remember the "will it run Crysis" jokes then it was pretty much like that with Doom 1.

Nope. Doom 1 had fairly low system requirement for that time. In fact one of the upper edge of doom in terms of competition was that it could run on almost anything. See Magic carpet for evidence.

 

[Hamish Durie]

*ahem* sorry to point out the obvious but those games you showcase are
first i have no idea

second a real estate game with a horrible interface

the 3rd is an rpg and you know what other rpgs have come out in this *stupid era* oblivion,witcher 2 and soon skyrim all of them really really good(not counting morrowind or Kotr because there a bit old....sorry)


now the moderen games that you show are
action
action/horror
action/driving
action/in space

now do you see what all the moderen ones have in commmon *THERE ACTION HEAVY GAMES* meaning there not meant to have complex gameplay.

now if you want a modern game that's fun and mentaly challenging PORTAL 1 AND 2


edit: i know that there will be a comment saying that portal 2 was dumber then portal 1 to which i say
how many people have been introduced to gameing because of portal 2 and how many people where introduced to gameing because of portal 1

 

[Blackpapa]

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

I would, but the 4X genre hasn't, surprisingly, been hit as bad. The inertia of Civilization games resulted in civ5 - 2010. And the latest space 4X I remember was GalCiv 2 with it's latest expansion pack in 2008.

On a sidenote I think MOO3 is a pretty interesting case. MOO2 couldn't get any more complex because computers wouldn't handle it - in essence video games became more and more complex as computing power was available. MOO3 followed this trend and ended up a game overly complex. It's about this time that computing power stopped being a limiting factor in the depth of gameplay design.

 

[Sir Boss]

Larger player-base, more people, statistically speaking, people are idiots. Gaming used to be the ultimate nerd hobby, nerds as a general rule are smart (or they at least think they are) Or maybe it's just on-line multi-player has brought the lack of intelligence of our peers to our attention. Two completely opposed opinions, take your pick.

By the way... can someone name the old games in the OP?

 

[Hagi]

You're comparing old RTS and RPG against current day FPS and TPS....

While your comparison is horrible as an actual comparison I do think it's one of the closest I've ever seen to the well-known apples and oranges comparison.

He's comparing the popular games of the past to popular games of today. What's there not to understand?

Doom wasn't popular? Duke Nukem wasn't popular? Quake wasn't popular?

Dragon Age: Origins isn't popular? Total War isn't popular? Civilization isn't popular?

He's cherry picking games. What's there not to understand?

 

[James Crook]

By the way, I do think it's quite amusing that you mention ARMA 2, as I do believe this to be one of the most involving and mind-taxing FPS games around, simply because of its huge scope compared to corridor shooters, and the combined-arms approach to the game.

Actually, when the OP mentioned "clever hybrids of all of the above" amongst the list of game genres we had back then, and ARMA 2 as an FPS, I chuckled a bit. ARMA 2 isn't actually an FPS, it's actually one of these "clever hybrids": it's an FPS, a simulator, a third-person shooter, a strategy game, a flight simulator, and a driving simulator (but, however, to a lesser extent).

 

[Blackpapa]

You're comparing old RTS and RPG against current day FPS and TPS....

While your comparison is horrible as an actual comparison I do think it's one of the closest I've ever seen to the well-known apples and oranges comparison.

He's comparing the popular games of the past to popular games of today. What's there not to understand?

Doom wasn't popular? Duke Nukem wasn't popular? Quake wasn't popular?

Dragon Age: Origins isn't popular? Total War isn't popular? Civilization isn't popular?

He's cherry picking games. What's there not to understand?

DA:O - RPG
TW - RTS
Civilization - 4X

The games I mentioned are, tactical, economical, tycoon and sim games. As you noticed, luckily we're not limited ONLY to action games. In order of descending popularity we still have RPGs, RTS and 4X games.

Mass Effect and Fallout proved RPGs aren't going anywhere soon. RTSes are pretty much a fringe genre but still tackled by mainstream developers. 4X is Civ and little else.

 

[Signa]

After reading the whole tread, I think this thread is evidence of the OP's argument. I mean, why the hell is anyone even arguing this? If there is any chance at all that the OP is right, cherry-picking data aside, why are we as gamers not trying to support his observation? We should ALWAYS be demanding more from our games, not just deciding that we have it better than the past and asking for nothing more. I tell you all, ASK FOR MORE! The worst that could happen is that you actually get it.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Just to say old games were more complex because they had bad game mechanics and UIs is not only false but damn wrong.
Lets look at a nice ol series called Wing Commander. A space shooter. nice cinematic story but basically you flew through space shooting at other things in space. 95% action.
BUT complex in its possibilities. There were nearly no keys in your "cockpit" aka keyboard that couldnt be used to manipulate the game. You could just fly around shootin' but the real fun was learning step by step which modifications and controls were best for each situation in the dogfights. Channeling energy from this system to that one, adjusting shields, enpowering weapon systems, using a mix of afterburners and glide systems to max out your manouverability.
*sigh*
it was a perfect example of : easy to learn, hard to master. And this is a quality almost lost.

 

[SageRuffin]

I must say, I love the fact that fighting games almost never make it into these kind of topics, probably because they haven't really changed much in years. As far as I can tell, fighting games have been made for, well... fans of fighting games. While a newcomer can get into fighting games, it's gonna take a considerable amount of dedication to become a "good" player. And just like the RTS' and RPGs of old, if that never appealed to you in the first place, it's not going to.

Hmm... I wonder if Evo is streaming yet...

 

[veloper]

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

I never played any of those games. But this isn't about those specific games it's about games in general, of which the ones I played mostly had shitty controls.

The games mentioned sofar in this thread were THE games of those lost genres we're just talking about.
You can't credibly dismiss them without having played them.

So I have to stick to the games in the thread? Then I have no idea. Since the OP was severely overgeneralising I thought I might be allowed to draw from the experiences of the games I did play.

Other 4X games like Master of Magic or even Civilization will also do, though Civ is more mainstream. It's usually MOO2 or AC because those games were the best.

Incubation is another TB squad tactics game, but we usually talk only about JA2 and the first XCOM game, because those 2 are considered the best of the genre.

Then there's more management sims like Theme park and Railroad Tycoon, but I never was very much into that genre. myself.

This should give you an idea.

 

[Mischa87]

It's not just an decrease in gamer intellect, it's a decrease in technology-user intellect, everything's gotten more and more user-friendly. Anything to do with computers used to be the realm of people with above average intelligence. Now that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can get online and do whatever they're doing, of course the average has dropped. Why do you think it's more acceptable to be a "nerd" now? Because almost everyone is able to use technology. I'm sure some of the more experienced nerds here can see this, or even some of the less experienced ones that cared enough to have a look into our history. Keep in mind this may all not be a bad thing, sure, I personally dislike the influx of people screaming hateful bigotry into mics, spewing their hate across the internet like some sort of plague, all because technology has gotten user-friendly enough for not-so-friendly people to use it... That's my two cents on that

 

[Hagi]

DA:O - RPG
TW - RTS
Civilization - 4X

The games I mentioned are, tactical, economical, tycoon and sim games. As you noticed, luckily we're not limited ONLY to action games. In order of descending popularity we still have RPGs, RTS and 4X games.

Mass Effect and Fallout proved RPGs aren't going anywhere soon. RTSes are pretty much a fringe genre but still tackled by mainstream developers. 4X is Civ and little else.

We still also have games like Tropico, Fate of the World and Cities XL.

And how is that different from the past? Such games never were the mainstream.

currently shooters and previously platformers have been the mainstream.

Tactical, Economical, Tycoon and Sim games never were mainstream. There's always only been a few of them.

There's just as many tactical games now as there were then. The only thing that's changed is the total number of games which has increased dramatically.

 

[Luis Magalhaes]

I'd say it's not about gamers getting dumber, it's actually about gamers growing up and having less time to play games. Actually, make that less time to learn how to play a game.

While I enjoyed a lot of complex titles on my old Amiga 600 and DOS / Windows 95 PC, I never happened to try X-Com. I recently did ( it was offered by a friend).

I loved every minute I played... but!

It simply requires a time investment that I'm not able to commit to these days. I'm no more the kid that could waste away hours retrying missions in Syndicate or mapping every corner of every map in Ishar 2.

Even with a FAQ in hand to delve into the finer mechanical nuances of X-Com, it's a hugely time-consuming process.

I am loathe to champion the merits of instant gratification, but I simply don't think most of the classics of yesterday are compatible with a modern lifestyle.

On the other hand, I am physically unable to play Fallout New Vegas for less than 4 hours straight, so what do I know?

 

[Zantos]

The TS did hurt his argument with that example (he should have posted a shot of Alpha centauri and MOO2), but you guys are cherry picking.
And none of these games had dodgy controls.

I never played any of those games. But this isn't about those specific games it's about games in general, of which the ones I played mostly had shitty controls.

The games mentioned sofar in this thread were THE games of those lost genres we're just talking about.
You can't credibly dismiss them without having played them.

So I have to stick to the games in the thread? Then I have no idea. Since the OP was severely overgeneralising I thought I might be allowed to draw from the experiences of the games I did play.

Other 4X games like Master of Magic or even Civilization will also do, though Civ is more mainstream. It's usually MOO2 or AC because those games were the best.

Incubation is another TB squad tactics game, but we usually talk only about JA2 and the first XCOM game, because those 2 are considered the best of the genre.

Then there's more management sims like Theme park and Railroad Tycoon, but I never was very much into that genre. myself.

This should give you an idea.

Ah Theme Park, now we're on my wavelength. I preferred theme hospital but they were both great.

Yeah, although they weren't the worst I played, user friendliness has definitely improved a lot since those days.

 

[Neonit]

no, you are just not looking in the right direction. nowadays we have games that are much more complex than 10-20 years ago.

dwarf fortress isnt that old, now is it?

 

[cameron196789]

How come you did not show the modern games that you do have to use your brain for, all you showed were shooter games.