Evolving VS Selling out?

[KingHodor]

I consider "accesible" to be different from "easy".
Civilization IV is an extremely complex and (depending on the difficulty level) challenging game, yet it is also "accesible" because you've got an intuitive interface, optional in-game advisors, helpful tooltips appearing when you hover over an icon, and an in-game guide to pretty much every unit, building, terrain type, political action, etc. you'll encounter in the game.

On the other hand, "The Witcher 2" had poor accessibility for me because your first quest involves taking on 5 well-armored enemies without much of a tutorial on how to use life-saving potions and confusingly-named spells. After you've gotten the hang of it, the middle of the game becomes ridiculously easy with things like the upgraded Quen spell that completely absorbs damage AND reflects it back onto several enemies at once AND leaves them wide open for a counter attack. Of course, the game doesn't allow you to spend any points on these actually useful abilities before you're Level 6 (yeah, you can learn to throw daggers, which would be nice if you actually had those in the prologue)

 

[Rack]

Oh I wouldn't put HR aside. That's why we disagree, you see. You see a certain level of dumbing down as acceptable; a necessary evil. I don't.

Not a necessary evil, so much as an absolute good. What you call "dumbing down" I call "strong design"

Removing stupid options, wildly imbalanced options or strictly directional upgrades, poorly defined options, removing obfuscation in the interface and clarifying goals are all good things, they aren't dumbing down because I would either never be so stupid to fall foul of these or they are traps that have absolutely no correlation with intelligence. Removing them just closes me in on the interesting decisions that games have. 99.99999% of the time gamers claim games are "dumbing down" they are referring to the removal of these kinds of non-options. But for me it's a good thing, the greater the density of interesting, difficult choices I have to make the smarter a game is.

 

[KingHodor]

Oh I wouldn't put HR aside. That's why we disagree, you see. You see a certain level of dumbing down as acceptable; a necessary evil. I don't.

Not a necessary evil, so much as an absolute good. What you call "dumbing down" I call "strong design"

Removing stupid options, wildly imbalanced options or strictly directional upgrades, poorly defined options, removing obfuscation in the interface and clarifying goals are all good things, they aren't dumbing down because I would either never be so stupid to fall foul of these or they are traps that have absolutely no correlation with intelligence. Removing them just closes me in on the interesting decisions that games have. 99.99999% of the time gamers claim games are "dumbing down" they are referring to the removal of these kinds of non-options. But for me it's a good thing, the greater the density of interesting, difficult choices I have to make the smarter a game is.

I dunno, I enjoy having the option to create a character with an unconventional skillset - I'm currently playing through Morrowind again, and I've realized that I'm having more fun with it than I ever did with Oblivion.
Having extra options is a good thing, although I do believe that a game should be balanced in such a way that the most basic character classes and skills that intuitively seem useful actually *are* useful in the game.
Somebody playing Fallout for the first time logically wouldn't expect playing as a knife-throwing gambler would be just as easy as a gunslinger of catlike agility, but given its post-apocalyptic setting, I found it inexcusable that the "Repair" and "Science" skills were equally useless. Baldur's Gate 2 atleast had the courtesy of informing you during character creation that your vision of a dual Katana-wielding badass may be hampered by the fact that Katanas were exceedingly rare within the game's Western fantasy setting.

As for holding your hand with quest markers à la Oblivion - in Morrowind, having to ask your way around town to find a specific person actually felt pretty immersive. However, spending ages looking for a door in a hillside leading to a smuggler hideout was generally extremely irritating, especially since the directions tended to be very vague ("to the northeast of X" could mean anything from "right next to X" or "far to the north-northeast, on the other side of this impassable chain of hills"). And it didn't help that dungeons in Morrowind had such recognizable names as "Addadshashanammu", "Assurnabitashpi", "Nchurdamz", "Nchardumz" and ...."Milk"?
So yeah, they may have gone overboard with marking quest NPCs, but I see nothing wrong with having a quest-giver mark a specific place on your map.

 

[theheroofaction]

You guys know about the Sistine chapel painting right? Famous, regarded by many as one of the best paintings of all time.

It wouldn't have happened if someone didn't sell out. Because as it turns out, the guy who made it hated painting.


Just thought I'd put it out there.


Besides, if Skyrim sells well, as we all know it will, people will start putting more options in the game.
Because here's what's removed in Skyrim: pants.
And here's what's added: hand choice in weapons, multiple weapons, new type of magic, more complex leveling, actual stealth mechanics.

The thing is, a lot of people think accessibility is the opposite of complexity.

 

[PonceyMcTosserFaic]

If I like the changes, then it's evolution.

If I hate them, then they sold out.

OMG THIS. SO MUCH THIS.

 

[krazykidd]

tl;dr: No, they've simply evolved to respond to the changing needs of the market, which in recent years, has become more and more mainstream and less niche. Thus, requiring increased accessibility, which shouldn't be mistaken for being made easier.

This is complete NONSENSE. Increasing accessibility literally means making games easier. Think about what the hell you're writing.

Haha i'm glad you said it because i couldn't have said it in such a funny way . I whole heartedly agree.

OT : the complete opposite of what yosharian said . They evolved in a way to make it easier and more accessible. Easier games sell better because more people can finish them without much effort. Most people ( not all ) play games for fun and don't find challenge fun , which is why games where you can't turn off your brain ( figuratively speaking ) don't sell as well ... Unless your lucky (demons's souls). Software took a big gamble with demons's and dark souls and came out on top ( mainly because theres almost no modern games as difficult so they took advantage of that). But they will lose sales on the casual crowd . It's just not profitable to make hard games ... But it's very profitable to make easy games . Yes they are difficulty setings but the game as a whole isn't hard , just you have a bigger handicap.

 

[Rack]

I dunno, I enjoy having the option to create a character with an unconventional skillset - I'm currently playing through Morrowind again, and I've realized that I'm having more fun with it than I ever did with Oblivion.
Having extra options is a good thing, although I do believe that a game should be balanced in such a way that the most basic character classes and skills that intuitively seem useful actually *are* useful in the game.
Somebody playing Fallout for the first time logically wouldn't expect playing as a knife-throwing gambler would be just as easy as a gunslinger of catlike agility, but given its post-apocalyptic setting, I found it inexcusable that the "Repair" and "Science" skills were equally useless. Baldur's Gate 2 atleast had the courtesy of informing you during character creation that your vision of a dual Katana-wielding badass may be hampered by the fact that Katanas were exceedingly rare within the game's Western fantasy setting.

Was that option ever really removed? Oblivion consolidated a few skills so you couldn't take a character equvalent to Long Blade, Short Blade, Axe, Blunt, Spear, Heavy Armour, Medium Armour but you could still make whatever oddball mix you felt like. Now Skyrim is removing Hand to Hand which in some ways is a pity but it doesn't make the game any dumber, just more inflexible.

As for holding your hand with quest markers à la Oblivion - in Morrowind, having to ask your way around town to find a specific person actually felt pretty immersive. However, spending ages looking for a door in a hillside leading to a smuggler hideout was generally extremely irritating, especially since the directions tended to be very vague ("to the northeast of X" could mean anything from "right next to X" or "far to the north-northeast, on the other side of this impassable chain of hills"). And it didn't help that dungeons in Morrowind had such recognizable names as "Addadshashanammu", "Assurnabitashpi", "Nchurdamz", "Nchardumz" and ...."Milk"?
So yeah, they may have gone overboard with marking quest NPCs, but I see nothing wrong with having a quest-giver mark a specific place on your map.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what they are doing for Skyrim? The magic compass in Oblivion was certainly an over-correction but I see its inclusion as an over-correction to a genuine problem rather than a pervasive ideal of removing anything that might tax someone's intelligence.