Have we now passed the trend of "dumbing games down to make them more accessible"

[Worgen]

Absofuckenlootly not have we not passed the trend of dumbing down games. Back in the day you had to worry about a game being bugged and unwinnable, or you doing something that would put you in a lose state that you wouldn't realize for another 3 hours, or some labyrinthian control scheme because devs hadn't figured out what works or action games that were unfair since they were designed around either taking as long as possible to win so you couldn't beat them in a rental or eating as many quarters as possible. Thats how games used to be, none of this wasd press space to jump bullshit. Back in the day if you lost the manual you were fucked, good luck figuring out how any of the game systems worked and you know what, we only put up with it since there was nothing else to do.

 

[wings012]

The thing with grenade and melee buttons in a PvP environment totally ruins a good chunk of decision making. Any shooter with medium to high health allows someone losing a gunfight to chuck a grenade at the last second to kill the person they just lost a gunfight to. Then close encounters in PvP result in both players mashing the melee button as they circle around. Having to switch from your gun to a grenade or melee forces you to think a step ahead.

I see this as a matter of preference and also different styles of shooters. Some people prefer a more methodical thoughtful experience, others prefer a more frantic reflex based experience. I personally would play FEAR Combat over CS any day.

I think melee/grenade buttons can be balanced in such a way that it doesn't always turn into a spammy shitshow. Make it slower to get the grenade out. Have grenade priming be a thing, so that a last minute grenade thrown isn't even going to explode anywhere near in time to matter. Have melee recovery be long enough so that you will absolutely get punished if you miss it.

And in a way, having grenades and melee available so quickly changes where the thinking happens. Knowing that someone could easily knife you or drop a grenade at your feet, you're going to have to think about how to decisively take someone down in an ambush rather than just being the first to open fire.

I also think having more options available to you at any one time can make for more complex interactions.

I don't see having these additional buttons as a particular dumbing down of mechanics. They can be used in such a way, but are not inherently so. It's a convenience I have gotten used to and would rather see stay.

You shouldn't be able to get everything in an RPG. It's what makes anything from say Boarderlands to Monster Hunter great to think of builds and how skills/powers/abilities/etc all interplay with each other. And, yeah, you should totally be able to Respec in any game so you can try out different stuff, but having all the stuff isn't good.

I agree only to a limited extent whether RPGs should allow the player to unlock everything. If it's to prevent the player from being a stupidly overpowered force of nature, yeah sure. In something like Deus Ex HR/MD, it's not too bad since you can't feasibly use all your augs at once anyway. They are mostly all just more options for you to solve problems with. Augs are kinda self regulating because of power requirements. Certain games are designed to accommodate the idea of builds, and others not so much.

Being able to respec is going to be the most elegant solution IMO. Monster Hunter actually fits my idea of having everything available to a player. Since your build is completely tied to equipment, which can be accumulated and swapped at will.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

*snippitysnap*This is crucial because it teaches the player to stop autopiloting and actually pay attention at how they land their hits. It teaches you how to think right and you want to learn that if you wanna get good at a game. When you remove that from a game you're not hurting the experienced players either, we know how to hitconfirm. No, you're hurting the people trying to learn in an environment that doesn't punish sloppiness.

...yeah, like I said, that's subjective. Adding a homework barrier doesn't inherently make actual play any better, "balancing" issues or no. (Though I don't see how making things more complex makes it easier to balance)

Dive kick has two buttons.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

*snippitysnap*This is crucial because it teaches the player to stop autopiloting and actually pay attention at how they land their hits. It teaches you how to think right and you want to learn that if you wanna get good at a game. When you remove that from a game you're not hurting the experienced players either, we know how to hitconfirm. No, you're hurting the people trying to learn in an environment that doesn't punish sloppiness.

...yeah, like I said, that's subjective. Adding a homework barrier doesn't inherently make actual play any better, "balancing" issues or no. (Though I don't see how making things more complex makes it easier to balance)

Dive kick has two buttons.

Any competitive game has that, the only difference is whether your homework is fun to do or not because if it is that's gonna motivate you to keep going and improve.

Divekick is a literal meme game with fgc jokes. It's not really something anyone is interested in seriously. Even when it had just come out people mainly either ignored it completely or messed around in it for like a month while focusing on their main games. (back then I was on BBCP and accent core +R I believe)

 

[Kwak]

Yes, because we've now reached the trend of 'programming base-game tedium and enforced grind so it can be solved by the miracle of micro-transaction game boosts and enhancers'.

 

[Meximagician]

Yes and No. On the one hand, someone, somewhere, always thinks they've built a better mousetrap; and sometimes they're right. Elegance without loosing too much versatility just happens to be one type of betterment.

But one form of dumbing down that does seem to be on the way out is publisher interference. Gone are the days when a publisher would say 'we love your new space game, but trim down the dynamic economy and shield/weapon types' (I'm looking at you, Freelancer). Unfortunately, the way most publishers did that was to simply stop publishing niche titles.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I really don't think games have been dumbed down at all. How complex was Super Mario Bros, versus Mario Odyssey?

I don't think that's a good comparison, that's two very different games altogether. Mario Bros. is "about" getting all the way to the right of the screen. Mario Odyssey is about a thousand different things. A better comparison would be Super Metroid vs. whichever was the last one. If you ignore the shitty blitzball spin-off, Metroid has always been about finding your way through a maze, with complexity being added to the same basic premise over and over.

By that logic you (or anyone) can't say that Fallout 3 is a dumbing down from Fallout 2. Because they are very different games right?

No, they're both first person shooters where you run around, point your gun and you shoot enemies. I wouldn't call them "very different", even if you can do more shit in 3.

Fallout 2 had an isometric viewpoint like the first one. Anyways, I remember reading dozens of Steam reviews of all these games back when I was mildly interested, and apparently the first two are the only ?challenging? or ?hardcore? games in the series. The turn-based combat was a big part of that along with just ?figuring things out?, and after a few hours with the original game I realized it required more patience from the player than the joy that it would give back in return.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I really don't think games have been dumbed down at all. How complex was Super Mario Bros, versus Mario Odyssey?

I don't think that's a good comparison, that's two very different games altogether. Mario Bros. is "about" getting all the way to the right of the screen. Mario Odyssey is about a thousand different things. A better comparison would be Super Metroid vs. whichever was the last one. If you ignore the shitty blitzball spin-off, Metroid has always been about finding your way through a maze, with complexity being added to the same basic premise over and over.

By that logic you (or anyone) can't say that Fallout 3 is a dumbing down from Fallout 2. Because they are very different games right?

No, they're both first person shooters where you run around, point your gun and you shoot enemies. I wouldn't call them "very different", even if you can do more shit in 3.

Fallout 2 had an isometric viewpoint like the first one. Anyways, I remember reading dozens of Steam reviews of all these games back when I was mildly interested, and apparently the first two are the only ?challenging? or ?hardcore? games in the series. The turn-based combat was a big part of that along with just ?figuring things out?, and after a few hours with the original game I realized it required more patience from the player than the joy that it would give back in return.

Whoops, sorry - I don't know why I read that as Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3.

 

[Silvanus]

I thought the MAKO sections in ME1 were pretty universally unpopular? The planet-scanning in ME2, though a bit rudimentary, was still better than the awful MAKO driving. In fact, ME2 was generally the better game, and I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I see this as a matter of preference and also different styles of shooters. Some people prefer a more methodical thoughtful experience, others prefer a more frantic reflex based experience. I personally would play FEAR Combat over CS any day.

I think melee/grenade buttons can be balanced in such a way that it doesn't always turn into a spammy shitshow. Make it slower to get the grenade out. Have grenade priming be a thing, so that a last minute grenade thrown isn't even going to explode anywhere near in time to matter. Have melee recovery be long enough so that you will absolutely get punished if you miss it.

And in a way, having grenades and melee available so quickly changes where the thinking happens. Knowing that someone could easily knife you or drop a grenade at your feet, you're going to have to think about how to decisively take someone down in an ambush rather than just being the first to open fire.

I also think having more options available to you at any one time can make for more complex interactions.

I don't see having these additional buttons as a particular dumbing down of mechanics. They can be used in such a way, but are not inherently so. It's a convenience I have gotten used to and would rather see stay.

You can have gameplay as really fast-paced without the said buttons. MGS4's online component is probably as fast-paced a shooter you'll see on consoles without melee or grenade buttons; it had small maps and gave each player 3 grenades. Outside of the initial fight for territory on the start of rounds, grenades weren't spammy because you had to decide if you were gunfighting or grenading, you couldn't do both at the same time. Whereas the 3x frags in COD4 is infamous.

I do agree you can make grenades not spammy with longer animations. MOH Warfighter (really fantastic MP actually) had noobtubes take a couple of seconds to "ready" via an animation, which stops players from noobtubing on a whim and what makes them so annoying in most games. The problem with fixing it with animations is that grenades and melees are using up precious buttons on a controller leading to the dreaded contextual actions. Weapon switching saves buttons that can be used for other actions like aforementioned leaning or some other mechanic to make your game unique instead of just playing exactly like every other shooter because the control scheme is identical.

I feel you still have to plan for the same number of variables as weapon switching came be instantaneous like MGS4 so the other player can melee you at pretty much any point but it takes that extra analysis of is it worth it to give up my main offense weapon for even just a second and/or have to utilize the environment / overall positioning to get a "worthy" window for a melee attack vs just pressing a single button and see what happens. At the heart of every competitive shooter is positioning as you want to put yourself in a better position than your opponent when you engage in combat regardless if that is simply shooting someone in the back or positioning on the much much more micro-level like leaning in the open during a gunfight to tip those odds of in your favor. To me, a depth of a shooter is how much there is to that micro-level positioning that you can do to tip those initial 50/50 odds in your favor to win that fight. That's why my favorite PvP shooters are rather unpopular games like MGS4's online, MOH Warfighter (leaning and sliding), Ghost Recon Future Soldier's cover system is a dream of positioning opportunities.

 

[CaitSeith]

I thought the MAKO sections in ME1 were pretty universally unpopular? The planet-scanning in ME2, though a bit rudimentary, was still better than the awful MAKO driving. In fact, ME2 was generally the better game, and I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

I heard several people say that they missed them in ME2 (or more specifically, they missed being able to explore planets in a freely manner)

 

[Satinavian]

Also, speaking of complexity, anyone ever played a game called "Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura"? Because I've tried several times and the sheer complexity of the stat and character screen, coupled with the difficulty of the starter area if you didn't allocate your stats correctly, has lead to me restarting again and again trying to build a decent, viable character. It's a game I'd love to play, but the interface and character skill upgrades are FAR too complex for their own good. It's no wonder the game ended up fading into obscurity.

Yes, played it through, still had the feeling of having probably missed the whole game. But considering it is about exploration, didn't waht to try with a guide or walkthrough.

I liked the complexity of the charater building but felt it did not do a god job at explaing the consequences of your choices for such important desicions in the beginning. And even later. It was always difficult to jusge what all the crafting would get you, how the results would compare to loot and wheather you would even find the materials to craft the stuff you just unlocked with your scarce build points.

But i never felt that the game was particularly hard.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I thought the MAKO sections in ME1 were pretty universally unpopular? The planet-scanning in ME2, though a bit rudimentary, was still better than the awful MAKO driving. In fact, ME2 was generally the better game, and I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

I heard several people say that they missed them in ME2 (or more specifically, they missed being able to explore planets in a freely manner)

And I am sure we were all expecting an improvement of the Planet Exploration/MAKO Driving. Make the planets less barren and actually have some life to it.

But no, we get Planet Scanning from the safety of the ship that feels even more tedious.

I don't know how Andromeda handled it though and that game is universaly panned.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I thought the MAKO sections in ME1 were pretty universally unpopular? The planet-scanning in ME2, though a bit rudimentary, was still better than the awful MAKO driving. In fact, ME2 was generally the better game, and I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

I heard several people say that they missed them in ME2 (or more specifically, they missed being able to explore planets in a freely manner)

I missed the MAKO like I miss getting punched in the balls. It handled like shit, its was balanced from a gameplay perspective like crap and its missions were guilty of the same copy-pasted cave bullshit that people like to lynch DragonAge II for.

Sometimes, as much as there might be a niche of player that enjoyed it, there are features that aren't worth preserving from installment to installment. Mind, the Firewalker in ME2 was worse so from that I personally perceive the lesson to be 'vehicle combat in Mass Effect is a waste of fucking time'.

 

[Dalisclock]

Also, speaking of complexity, anyone ever played a game called "Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura"? Because I've tried several times and the sheer complexity of the stat and character screen, coupled with the difficulty of the starter area if you didn't allocate your stats correctly, has lead to me restarting again and again trying to build a decent, viable character. It's a game I'd love to play, but the interface and character skill upgrades are FAR too complex for their own good. It's no wonder the game ended up fading into obscurity.

Yes, played it through, still had the feeling of having probably missed the whole game. But considering it is about exploration, didn't waht to try with a guide or walkthrough.

I liked the complexity of the charater building but felt it did not do a god job at explaing the consequences of your choices for such important desicions in the beginning. And even later. It was always difficult to jusge what all the crafting would get you, how the results would compare to loot and wheather you would even find the materials to craft the stuff you just unlocked with your scarce build points.

But i never felt that the game was particularly hard.

I'm sure it isn't hard once you get a good character roll going and get in the grove of things. I just never managed to get that far. I was still stuck in the "My combat skills are shit, I can't talk my way past the things I really need to to compensate and I can't get enough EXP/leveling to make up the difference either way" early game hell stage.

Kinda like Fallout 2 had but far more obnoxious. Fallout 2 penalized you if you weren't a melee unarmed fighter for the first couple hours due the lack of guns worth a damn(Fallout 1 allowed you to get some decent ranged weapons pretty quickly) but beyond that had a pretty good difficulty curve.

 

[MrBoBo]

Fighting games are more dumbed down than back in the ps3 days.

I wouldn't say that's a negative. It's now bigger than it's ever been where people focus more of strategy than gaining even a competent execution. Easy to get into, hard to master is a pretty good design motto.

Wouldn't put them in the same label as something like Fear 2 or Crysis 2 where the entire game is compromised.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Fighting games are more dumbed down than back in the ps3 days.

I wouldn't say that's a negative. It's now bigger than it's ever been where people focus more of strategy than gaining even a competent execution. Easy to get into, hard to master is a pretty good design motto.

Wouldn't put them in the same label as something like Fear 2 or Crysis 2 where the entire game is compromised.

Ideally, having variety is good. Something like the upcoming Granblue Versus which appeals to phone game people being simplified is fine since it aims to introduce the genre to completely green people. At the same time, I see no reason why something like Blazblue Cross Tag Battle needs to be dumbed down for the rwby fans since presumably the fans of all the franchises who comprise it outside of RWBY like them for how they played (I actually am a fan of all of them outside of Akatsuki Blitzkampf, yes even Arcana heart, so I know! )


So yeah, striking a balance is good, things are going towards the paradigm of misunderstanding easy inputs for easy game too much right now but the pendulum will swing the other way since no matter how easy your inputs are in fighters you still will need to know how to block and how to OS against fuzzy crossups and tech throws and what have you.

The single hope which is uncompromising is the upcoming under night in birth game. It looks just like how we love it. Here's hoping the new GG isn't too much like fighterz/granblue either. (Axl looking fine btw, finally using his time travel powers)

 

[EvilRoy]

The better word to use is streamlining. Since sometimes, it vastly improves the game. Like in the case of Mass Effect, streamlining is an improvement. One of the most criticized aspects of Mass Effect 1 was how horrendous the inventory system was. There was just way to many skills that could have easily been merged. Do I think the all or nothing approach was needed? No, but it was an improvement in my eyes when they streamlined it. I actually dislike Andromeda since they brought way too much of that stuff back.

What makes you think any of the unreleased games are going to be making a comeback to the "good 'ole days"? They look no different than what we have now.

Thank you for bringing that up. Every time I play ME1, I'm reminded how the Inventory system is a giant PITA and how much I appreciated ME2 changing it out for something better.

Also, speaking of complexity, anyone ever played a game called "Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura"? Because I've tried several times and the sheer complexity of the stat and character screen, coupled with the difficulty of the starter area if you didn't allocate your stats correctly, has lead to me restarting again and again trying to build a decent, viable character. It's a game I'd love to play, but the interface and character skill upgrades are FAR too complex for their own good. It's no wonder the game ended up fading into obscurity.

I haven't thought about Arcanum in friggin ages. It's definitely rough to start, although I seem to remember I found if you stat dump into one area you can just sort of smash through the early area and then come back. This is all decade old memories but I believe the game map is so friggin massive and there's so much garbage to do that its basically expected that you say "fuck it" to basically anything that doesn't come easy, and later on you can stat up enough to come back if you want. That said, a quick google search confirms that it actually can take 30 real world hours to cross the map, which explains why I never EVER went back to do shit.