Do you think modern games underestimate the intelligence of their players?

[GundamSentinel]

Well, one of my design teachers used to tell us when designing anything, be it games, toys or vacuum cleaners, you always have to remember that the IQ of the average person is 100. That means that half of all people has an IQ lower than that. So yeah, a succesful product has to appeal to dumb people as well as smart people. Even more so, because dumb people are less likely to complain about it.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Defending Skyrim, the focus of the game was always the world. The dungeons for me were the most boring part, it makes sense to have easy puzzles so people could spend as little time as possible in them. Saying that I too was stuck on that puzzle, believing it to be much more challenging than it turned out to be.

But on the other hand we've got ridiculous ones like Runescape's Rocking Out quest which was just so, so stupidly challenging that you had to use a quest guide OR ELSE!

 

[Chris Tian]

Do you think modern games underestimate the intelligence of their players?

Nope. The average person is pretty damn stupid.

How stupid you ask? Well at job I had once I had to ask customers which Bundesland (basically something like the states in the US) they are from and I would get answers like: their city, "duh, germany" or "what do you mean" roughly 50% of the time. 50% of the people were not able to comprehend a question that was basically a version of "where are you from". Thats how stupid the average person is.

 

[The Feast]

Defending Skyrim, the focus of the game was always the world. The dungeons for me were the most boring part, it makes sense to have easy puzzles so people could spend as little time as possible in them. Saying that I too was stuck on that puzzle, believing it to be much more challenging than it turned out to be.

But on the other hand we've got ridiculous ones like Runescape's Rocking Out quest which was just so, so stupidly challenging that you had to use a quest guide OR ELSE!

To me, those draugr dungeon's puzzle are mostly there for quick puzzle entertainment and not really trying to challenge the player's mind. But Skyrim tends to lack the puzzling quest such as in Morrowind and Oblivion.

It's more of the same fetch quest and kill quest with an added charm to make it feels exciting, and the quest marker tends to reduce the finding challenge greatly. But understandable for the frustrated player and the physics that can make the important quest items fly somewhere else.

 

[Chris Tian]

To me, those draugr dungeon's puzzle are mostly there for quick puzzle entertainment and not really trying to challenge the player's mind.

I never understood the puzzels, I mean where is there even a quick entertainment from them? All you have to do is not be blind. I would get it if they were easy or very easy, but the answer is litteraly written on the wall next to them.

 

[Sheen Lantern]

Well, one of my design teachers used to tell us when designing anything, be it games, toys or vacuum cleaners, you always have to remember that the IQ of the average person is 100. That means that half of all people has an IQ lower than that. So yeah, a succesful product has to appeal to dumb people as well as smart people. Even more so, because dumb people are less likely to complain about it.

This is why Indie games are so hot right now. They don't need to cater to everyone in order to ensure enough revenue to justify their budgets.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Remember in castlevania lord of shadows, where there is a skip puzzle prompt? We need more of those .

I agree.

Remember that bitching Nintendo got when they installed that auto-resolve function a few years back in their latest Mario title? All the outcry that it would make the game too easy and whatnot? Turned out the game was actually harder than most modern Mario games were up until that point.

And it makes sense, it gives developers a lot more breathing space. Same goes for those skip prompts or, for instance, the way WoW is now handling difficulty in raids and dungeons. It's nonsense to cry out over them; they're optional, they make difficulty optional. Giving players more control is a good thing.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I've not read every post, but - after stopping myself laughing at that pic - I should point out that Skyrim is a particularly stupid and patronising game (I still love it, btw, even if Morrowind > every TES evar). Bethesda aren't exactly the brightest sparks in the dev box, when it comes to actual core design. Much better to turn your brain off completely, and RP a character.

Difficulty, and challenge, in game design is an extraordinarily hard thing to balance, seeing as everyone has their own tolerances and thresholds for both. Hopefully, Dark Souls will start having its own influence. We've also seen XCOM make a moderate impact, too, and both games champion fail-states to varying degrees; perma-death in one, and punishment for impatience and a refusal to learn in the other - and most players (and a lot of journos and other devs) recognise just how rewarding earning your 'win' is compared to being led by the nose.

 

[DoPo]

The dungeons for me were the most boring part, it makes sense to have easy puzzles so people could spend as little time as possible in them.

Then why have them in the first place? If the point of the puzzle is to not keep you long...really, what is the point of the puzzle again, and why is it not just removed instead? If some form of puzzle is needed, how about the old "fetch the key, then go and open the door" that has been around since Doom? it can work out easy enough - go into a dungeon take the left path, get the blue key (or pull the blue lever, if you wish), go back, open the blue door for the right path. And variations, of course. It works pretty much the same way but it doesn't make no sense for its existence. Also, I believe some of these were in Skyrim anyway.

Or, of course, just remove the puzzles altogether. I couldn't find much reason to really have them. Well, maybe except the ones that required the gold/whatever keys...still on second thought, having the key is by itself enough to bypass them, so why require a combination? I retract my statement, those ones were pretty stupid, too.

 

[seditary]

After how many gamers I've come across that don't even read what the game tells them on screen then get stuck on something it told them 10 seconds ago what to do I don't really get all that bothered anymore.

 

[Zhukov]

Reminds me of this:

I like the part where they mistake "Wounded Knee" for a Skyrim joke. Y'know, as opposed to the site of a real historical massacre that is included in the game's story.

Clearly the game was made for people smarter than whoever made that video.

 

[Arakasi]

Most of the time I just think they're written by stupid people.
Though the example you provided was basically the tutorial dungeon, so it isn't a particularly good example. Some of the other ones in Skyrim are a bit more difficult.

 

[MysticSlayer]

For starters, that actually seemed like a reasonable puzzle to start off with, even in a game with more challenging puzzles. That dungeon will likely occur very early in the game for most players, considering the two quests that take you there are probably both given to the player within the first one or two hours of play. Taking that into consideration, it was a decent way to introduce the way some puzzles would function without blatantly telling the player "You need to pay attention to the environment!" Even games with tough puzzles, such as Braid, start off with relatively easy ones.

Also, not every game has to be a mental challenge. Sure, it is nice when those games come around, but let's face it, not many people went into Skyrim wanting to solve challenging puzzles to get through the dungeons. They wanted to explore a large world, and having a few easy puzzles along the way complements that feeling of exploration, as it makes the dungeon feel more important, without taking away from that core desire because you spent thirty minutes trying to figure out a challenging puzzle. In the end, it isn't that they are belittling our knowledge. It is that they want the puzzles to complement another purpose, not be mental challenges for the player to overcome. If you want games like those, then play Braid or any other game designed to specifically challenge the player's ability to solve puzzles. It isn't like we have a serious shortage of those with both classic games and indie titles.

And for the record, I'm normally one to criticize Skyrim, but I really don't think it was a good example to talk about belittling player intelligence based off of that puzzle.

 

[pearcinator]

The way I see it, if puzzles are in the main quest of an RPG then I don't expect them to be difficult.

However, if there are optional sidequests then I don't see why you can't put a more difficult puzzle there!

For example;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6FcPCdpaE0[/youtube]

This is probably the hardest puzzle in the game but it's completely optional. There is some sweet loot to find if you solve it but it's not part of the main storyline. More games need to be like this! I don't care if the story puzzles are easy but please put some trickier puzzles elsewhere to make getting the loot more rewarding!

 

[DementedSheep]

A lot of puzzle in games are easy to the point of being completely pointless. The ones from skyrim might be the worst in that regard.

I was disappointed in the puzzles in Alice:MR. There quite a few of them but none of them are challenging. I can understand why developers would be hesitant to put in challenging puzzle when the game isn't actually a puzzle game though. Some people like them but it might break flow and cause frustration to those who don't.

Reminds me of this:


Yes, I think most AAA game puzzles have gotten a lot easier, and there is a lot more hand holding, and it does make me annoyed since you usually get the coolest level designs and interaction from the strangest puzzles.

Getting a videogame used to be a real proper investment in time. It took me years to beat Super Mario Bros because of the strict timing and level knowledge needed to pass the higher levels. It took me a full year to complete Medal of Honor Frontline because - even though I played on easy - the difficulty wasn't linear, but increased as you progressed through the game. halo CE took almost 2 years!

The difficulty with those games wasn't necessarily tricky puzzles, but that you needed to be a certain skill level to get through the game even on the easiest difficulty: It increased enemy health, accuracy and numbers as the game progressed to make sure you were improving in your own accuracy, speed, and knowledge of the game/maps.
I completed both COD: Modern Warfare 2 and the Medal of Honor Reboot on hard difficulties in less than 6 hours each - in one session - the very first time I ever played those games, and neither had any levels as challenging as the later levels of Frontline or Halo CE.

It's good that developers are moving away from the old infamous 'Nintendo hard' logic puzzles that made no sense whatsoever or limited lives with insane stepbacks on death, but having some level of actual challenge would be nice.

I'm playing through that now and I figured that card wasn't suppose to be a puzzle. At least I would hope it isn't meant to be one. It just that since Columbia is insular society they are going to have some code or anyone could just come a long. It more there for atmosphere.

 

[Artaneius]

Well...
They OVERESTIMATE the average gamer. By a lot. No, I am serious.
If you only knew what I have seen on World of Tanks and its forums... the cosmic horror... the emptiness.

Oh my god, the World of Tanks forums... Hell does exist.

To be fair, a lot of the people there (even the most obnoxious) are very intelligent, just completely insane. Why a game about tanks has to generate so much elitism, loathing, hatred and vile obscenities is beyond me. I had to quit because people were so weird about that game.

Again, plenty of people who were good at the game (and it's a hard game), but probably some of the most despicable examples of gamers on the internet. Social services should intervene or something.

Because it's common sense where the best players in online games are the only ones who should be winning. Losers and average players aren't suppose to win. What's the point of getting good in the first place if little Timmy who plays games once a week can win? Elitism is part of life and part of gaming. Adapt.

 

[OpticalJunction]

Perhaps they are not underestimating the audience's intelligence so much as their attention span. We're living in an age of abundant distractions, adding a complicated puzzle to your game wouldn't help.

 

[Something Amyss]

Patching after release was viewed as something to be avoided.

And look where that got us: a lot of broken games were never patched at all (And couldn't be patched on home consoles; when they "patched" a game they'd have to re-release it, often on proprietary carts). The "don't patch it" attitude led to broken, incomplete games with little hope of repair. Same was true of the 80s, really.

I'm thinking, why can't we get a few real, live authors into the development rooms, and just let them loose on the lore and on making the world function as its own entity. Enough with the lazy backdrop worlds that exist only to say loudly "We are being true to the realities of pirate life and history in this game, that's something we take very seriously here at Ubisoft." Oh, is that so? I apologize, I must have played the wrong game.

Because you're still beholden to programmers, and that leads to Skyrim/Mass Effect-esque bad storytelling that involves just dropping everything as info dumps and such. The game designers need to work on storytelling first, otherwise you end up with a Kingdoms of Amalura-style setup of thousands upon thousands of pages of data leading to a fairly generic in-game experience.

Video games are more or less bad storytelling 101 and I'm not sure why any author would want to bump up against that in its current form.

The thing about the Lowest Common Denominator, is that it doesn't mean dumbing down the game to the average user's level of knowledge, but about dumbing it down to the level of the overall userbase's shared knowledge.

Yeah, people seem to forget the "common" part of that. There's no point in making a game "dumb" or "low" enough for the masses if they're not going to play it in the first place.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

This is probably the hardest puzzle in the game but it's completely optional.

They used that exact same puzzle in Mass Effect 1, but since it solving it was required to move the main quest forwards, they put an omni-gel bypass option for those it was too hard for. I love that puzzle, not because I always solved it fast, but because it was (at the time) different from the usual kind of puzzles present in games.

Of course, games are dropping puzzles for quicktime events. That bothers me.

 

[AntiChri5]

Judging by the amount of people who couldn't figure out how to get past the "puzzles" and open the claw doors in Skyrim, yes they needed to make it that easy.