Stream lined vs. Dumbed Down

[Benpasko]

And the streamlined approach kills roleplaying by removing character choice. The only factor that defines your character is race. So there are basically thirty possible characters you can play, because basically every warrior, thief, and mage are the exact same thing because the perk system throws way too many points at you so there are no meaningful choices. (Ten races, three class archetypes) Compare that to Oblivion, where there are basically infinite possible starting characters. If you can roleplay a character in Skyrim, it's because you're just putting a personality on a generic character, having choices that you actually have to make defines your character beyond just what you want them to be. A good character has to have SOME defining attributes of their own.

Congratulations, you just stabbed my little -Vampire: Masquerade- DM heart with that implication of "if it doesn't say it on the paper, it doesn't exists".

You can write whatever character you want, but if they're all the same from a gameplay perspective then it gets dumb. You can write five different personalities for generic joe fighter, but at the end of the day he still just plays like generic joe fighter. What if I want my character to play differently, to match a concept that I have in my head? Too bad, says Skyrim. And I'm just gonna say that tabletop rpgs and video games are completely different, in a tabletop game you have wiggle room, you can have your character perform actions beyond a strict limited moveset, not so in video games. This is a video game, if it doesn't say it in the code it DOESN'T exist.

 

[freedash22]

Streamlined is removing unnecessary elements to make things better across all levels of play. (Such as the removal of the broken stat system in Skyrim, or the removal of Dual Wielding which was impossible to balance in Halo: Reach)

Dumbed-Down is removing more complicated elements to make things more accessible to new/bad players. (Such as the removal of almost everything in Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon.)

^^^ Good post. This basically pretty much sums it up.^^^

I'd like to add however that in a more corporate setting, we use the word 'streamline' more often to convey the reduction of non-value adding elements/processes. So for a game, that would be the removal of elements that are at best, redundant, exhausting or found by the concerned fan base majority to only add tedium or require additional unnecessary effort.

When a game is 'dumbed down', you basically remove elements across the board to make the game require less effort to play and additionally, remove even those that are liked by the fan base to make the game easier and appeal to a wider, more casual audience originally unfamiliar to this particular game. So elements that make a game hard and require more skill and thinking, even if liked by the fans, are removed in dumbing down, whereas in streamlining, these elements are preserved, but simply made more efficient.

Hope this helps.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Generally speaking, I'm one of those dicks who feels "streamlining" is almost ALWAYS dumbing down even if it's just the tightening of mechanics.

Metro is the best example of this for me.

2033 had weak mechanics, tough enemies, poor aiming and extremely difficult stealth. Last Light tightened everything up and I feel it was worse for it. The shitty mechanics in 2033 perfectly reflected the harsh world of Metro. The knives were strong, but they were exceedingly tough to use as a result of the aiming. This made them worth learning and very rewarding when used correctly.

Some would say it was made better and streamlined.

Some streamlining I enjoy. Skyrim did quite a few things right in that department. Though I feel even that game didn't streamline perfectly. We lost the magic crafting system and the way the experience worked meant it was functionally impossible to change the way your character played late game.

I understand that it needs to happen, but that doesn't mean I'm going to like it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

FOREWARD
OK, so, what followed was pretty much the start of exactly the sort of "passive aggressive" argumentation I detest.

It's fine to have opinions, but please, if you're going to actually argue something, support your bloody argument. Don't beat around the bush.

And this is where we have the problem of dumbed down vs streamlined. To you, the new XCOM is dumbed down. To me it is streamlined. While I will agree that many things of value were lost in abandoning the old system, I would argue that many more things of value were gained with the new system.

You would argue it, except you offer absolutely nothing towards such an argument so...
You have no specific argument, so I have no specific rebuttals.

They dumbed it down. Someone can enjoy something that's dumbed down, it's not a crime nor does it make one an "inferior gamer" (or whatever stupid shit elitists claim), but that doesn't mean the game wasn't dumbed down.

Conversely, "Streamlined" as a euphemism is equally absurd, because "streamlining" occurs when the math or method for something is made more efficient WITHOUT LOSING ITS EFFECTIVENESS. The rules for taking derivatives vs f(x)-f(x-h) for example, is streamlining. Or in the context of gameplay, the addition or removal of depth with the addition or removal of features.

I can cite several examples of where Enemy Unknown streamlined the game, and examples of where it was just plain dumbed down. It's not a mutually exclusive process, but overall Enemy Unknown sacrificed "depth" for "convenience".
Which isn't progress or improvement except as a means of broadening appeal, and quite frankly, I don't give a fuck if a game appeals to the lowest common denominator.

(All evidence points to the new design stemming more from basing the controls on a gamepad than wanting to improve on the failings of the original XCOM, anyway. This makes sense since consoles are the AAA's bread and butter. It was dumbed down for the console market, and it's very good in spite of this because it CAN properly kick your arse.)

Of course, this is all just my personal opinion. And that is the problem. Streamlined to one is dumbed down to another.

*sigh* I apologize if this comes across as hostile, but I'm just frustrated with this "opinion-avoidance" business.

This sort of "Argumentum-Con-Opinion" is one of my internet pet peeves, and why I don't bother engaging in active discussions much on these subjects, (especially on these boards) because so often it inevitably degenerates into this:

"It's just, like, your opinion man. So I don't have to actually discuss anything. I took enough time to essentially claim that you're wrong, but I don't have to prove it because, I, like, totally changed the basis of discussion to opinions."

Since you're being respectful and aren't just wagging your fingers at me or my position for the sake of being contrarion (because nothing is more important than being "right on the internet"), I'll save you my full spiel and just say this:

I respect your right to an opinion, but I don't believe for an instant that everything just comes down to preference. Why?
Because if it does, that implies that appeal in design is purely arbitrary and is therefore meaningless to discuss.
And if design if meaningless, why even presume to discuss it?

That, and I've already informally distinguished the ideological differences between "dumbing down" and "streamlining".
It's not a formal definition, so you've got me there, but conceptually, I can tell the difference between trying to improve on mechanics (it's hard, and it only becomes harder the better the existing gameplay) and when something is dumbing its mechanics down to make way for a broader market appeal.

P.S. If you have not played it I would highly recommend Xenonauts to you. It is a very faithful recreation of the old XCOM system, time units and all intact. It have really been enjoying it.

It's on my to-do list. I have a lot of classwork to chew through this semester, but it'll get a once-over from me eventually.

 

[IronMit]

'Dumbing down' and streamlining is now such a broad term.

They're not the same but they are not mutually exclusive either.
Imagine a venn diagram.

Streamlining : for me is to make things more intuitive. For example the upgrade system in Mass effect 2. To have 15 little upgrade blocks per row on 15 different rows that slowly unlock incrementally better move sets needed streamlining. mass effect 2 improved on this.

Dumbing down : cutting content for a different crowd/ or from shere laziness. Mass effect 2 is another example of this; can't choose and customise companion armors that effects mission performance. Isn't that quite important for combat?

 

[gamer_parent]

snip *LoL to DotA comparison* snip

I would say that the primary factor that makes DotA a lot more difficult to play is really not the denying, but rather the consequences of abilities that you mentioned in the later part of your post. Things like denying or creep strength might augment the playing field, but in all honesty, I think the fact that DotA has really high consequence abilities which can easily swing the fight is what makes it so much harder to pin down. Like you said, LoL abilities are a lot more spammable but consequentially they also just don't have as much impact. So basically, in LoL generally gaining that first hand momentum and maintaining is what will determine the match.

In DotA though, maintaining momentum is SOOO incredibly difficult just because a single well placed casting can turn the entire skirmish which can then turn the entire match around. When you then add in the dizzying number of combinations of abilities you can come up with, DotA is just a much more potentially complex game to play.

LoL, on the other hand, is not nearly as difficult. Once you know what a hero's role is supposed to be, it's just a matter of adjusting your play style.

 

[Aircross]

Streamlining is the reduction of complexity or difficulty without the reduction of depth.
Dumbing down is the reduction of both complexity or difficulty resulting in a reduction of depth.

Dota 2's metagame is much more open and flexible than LoL's, so there is a reduction of depth when going from Dota 2 to LoL. Therefore, by the above definition, LoL is a "dumbed down" version of Dota 2...

...but that may not a bad thing. Dota 2 requires a lot of time to learn to play in order to appreciate its depth, but not everyone who wants to experience the Aeon of Strife gameplay has the time to learn to play Dota 2. LoL is a good game for those who want to experience AoS without having to go through Dota 2's learning curve.

In my honest opinion, Dota 2 is better for players who are seeking a highly competitive game that gives them many options to take down the opposition while LoL is better for players who want to experience something similar to Dota 2 without having to slog through the learning process.

 

[gamer_parent]

Streamlining is the reduction of complexity or difficulty without the reduction of depth.
Dumbing down is the reduction of both complexity or difficulty resulting in a reduction of depth.

Dota 2's metagame is much more open and flexible than LoL's, so there is a reduction of depth when going from Dota 2 to LoL. Therefore, by the above definition, LoL is a "dumbed down" version of Dota 2...

...but that may not a bad thing. Dota 2 requires a lot of time to learn to play in order to appreciate its depth, but not everyone who wants to experience the Aeon of Strife gameplay has the time to learn to play Dota 2. LoL is a good game for those who want to experience AoS without having to go through Dota 2's learning curve.

In my honest opinion, Dota 2 is better for players who are seeking a highly competitive game that gives them many options to take down the opposition while LoL is better for players who want to experience something similar to Dota 2 without having to slog through the learning process.

I dare say this is pretty much why LoL has 32 million players and still growing while DotA 2 is sitting on a shrinking 6 million.

 

[DrOswald]

And this is where we have the problem of dumbed down vs streamlined. To you, the new XCOM is dumbed down. To me it is streamlined. While I will agree that many things of value were lost in abandoning the old system, I would argue that many more things of value were gained with the new system.

You would argue it, except you offer absolutely nothing towards such an argument so...
You have no specific argument, so I have no specific rebuttals. (EDITED, because I did find somethin Enemy Unknown did better than XCOM, but overall I still found it to be largely dumbed down).

They dumbed it down. Someone can enjoy something that's dumbed down, it's not a crime nor does it make one an "inferior gamer" (or whatever stupid shit elitists claim), but that doesn't mean the game wasn't dumbed down.

Conversely, "Streamlined" as a euphemism is equally absurd, because "streamlining" occurs when the math or method for something is made more efficient WITHOUT LOSING ITS EFFECTIVENESS. The rules for taking derivatives vs f(x)-f(x-h) for example, is streamlining. Or in the context of gameplay, the addition or removal of depth with the addition or removal of features.

I can cite several examples of where Enemy Unknown streamlined the game, and examples of where it was just plain dumbed down. It's not a mutually exclusive process, but overall Enemy Unknown sacrificed "depth" for "convenience".
Which isn't progress or improvement except as a means of broadening appeal, and quite frankly, I don't give a fuck if a game appeals to the lowest common denominator.

(All evidence points to the new design stemming more from basing the controls on a gamepad than wanting to improve on the failings of the original XCOM, anyway. This makes sense since consoles are the AAA's bread and butter. It was dumbed down for the console market, and it's very good in spite of this because it CAN properly kick your arse.)

Of course, this is all just my personal opinion. And that is the problem. Streamlined to one is dumbed down to another.

*sigh* I apologize if this comes across as hostile, but I'm just frustrated with this "opinion-avoidance" business.

This sort of "Argumentum-Con-Opinion" is one of my internet pet peeves, and why I don't bother engaging in active discussions much on these subjects, (especially on these boards) because so often it inevitably degenerates into this:

"It's just, like, your opinion man. So I don't have to actually discuss anything. I took enough time to essentially claim that you're wrong, but I don't have to prove it because, I, like, totally changed the basis of discussion to opinions."

Since you're being respectful and aren't just wagging your fingers at me or my position for the sake of being contrarion (because nothing is more important than being "right on the internet"), I'll save you my full spiel and just say this:

I respect your right to an opinion, but I don't believe for an instant that everything just comes down to preference. Why?
Because if it does, that implies that appeal in design is purely arbitrary and is therefore meaningless to discuss.
And if design if meaningless, why even presume to discuss it?

That, and I've already informally distinguished the ideological differences between "dumbing down" and "streamlining".
It's not a formal definition, so you've got me there, but conceptually, I can tell the difference between trying to improve on mechanics (it's hard, and it only becomes harder the better the existing gameplay) and when something is dumbing its mechanics down to make way for a broader market appeal.

P.S. If you have not played it I would highly recommend Xenonauts to you. It is a very faithful recreation of the old XCOM system, time units and all intact. It have really been enjoying it.

It's on my to-do list. I have a lot of classwork to chew through this semester, but it'll get a once-over from me eventually.

You say that streamlining is when the method for something is made more efficient without losing its effectiveness. Well, here we run up against the opinion problem again. Because I think that Enemy Unknown is a far more effective strategy game than the originals.

The original XCOM was full of flaws. you spent tons and tons of time on minutiae. Rote memorization, counting steps, and cheap essentially random failure in particular are not my idea of a strong tactical system. Removing these things is not dumbing it down. Its fixing a broken mechanic.

Enemy Unknown, by comparison, is far less complex. But I find it much deeper. While there are less decisions to make each decision matters a great deal more. Enemy Unknown cut out pointless complexity in order to focus on what actually makes a strategy title deep: meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. It was streamlined.

To be clear here, this is not opinion avoidance, as you put it. I think you are dead wrong in thinking that the original XCOM is mechanically superior to Enemy Unknown. But I can see why you might not agree with me. Neither of us have a legitimate claim on objectivity here and, quite frankly, I have had this argument often enough to know exactly how it will go and I don't care much to go through it again. The problem of the subjective nature of art cannot be overcome by wishing it wasn't there. People like different things. It is not that everything comes down to opinion. But opinion does play a significant role in judging any subjective work and, like it or not, video games are subjective works.

 

[Chaud]

The original XCOM was full of flaws. you spent tons and tons of time on minutiae. Rote memorization, counting steps, and cheap essentially random failure in particular are not my idea of a strong tactical system. Removing these things is not dumbing it down. Its fixing a broken mechanic.

The problem is that you just said it's "broken", and that this isn't "your idea of a strong tactical system". But you don't explain *why* is it. Then, of course, it will remain as a subjective argument, since you don't say objectively what is wrong with them. It's just "I don't like it so it's bad". But game design is much more than that. People can (and do) talk about this in a objective way, it's just that you choose to not do so. Probably because in this way you can continue to argue that "it's all a matter of opinion" without supporting your points with proper theoretical basis.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm just going to ignore anything steeped in "opinion" because frankly, I'm done just nodding my head and going "Ayup/Nope".

The original XCOM was full of flaws. you spent tons and tons of time on minutiae. Rote memorization, counting steps, and cheap essentially random failure in particular are not my idea of a strong tactical system. Removing these things is not dumbing it down. Its fixing a broken mechanic.

Rote memorization? Of what? Time Unit costs? Most of the Time Unit costs are given right there on the buttons, and clicking to a location will give a countdown of how many TUs remain at that location.

Yes, Time Units had issues. Yes, XCOM had flaws.
A TU estimator for each move would have smoothed things over considerably while preserving the depth the system offered.
Better AI working on modern processors could have put into practice many things that only the player could attempt and abuse prior to that. There was room for improvement, I recognize that.

But instead of improving the system with known depth, Enemy Unknown threw out everything and forced all mission mechanics to work on a 2-action system. Which mathematically offers less action fidelity than the Time Unit system.

That, objectively, is the loss of depth in design space. The player now has less control over their situation, and the game is more limited in what it can provide in terms of tactical challenge. The potential skill ceiling was lowered, ergo "dumbed down".

You can try to claim it's meaningless, and busywork, but I have yet to hear a single utterance that explains how beyond "my preference vs your preference".

Notice how not a single thing I just said was "in my opinion".

Enemy Unknown, by comparison, is far less complex. But I find it much deeper. While there are less decisions to make each decision matters a great deal more.

Each decision may matter more, but entire strategies were eliminated in the process.

Worse, putting more emphasis on each individual action made the game FAR more luck-oriented because so much more is riding on each decision.
You can afford to miss a round or two of shots behind cover, but get that bad batch of attacks against a critical enemy (I've missed 7 times in a row at +75% hit; it does happen) and you can lose an agent or even the mission right there.

Even making smart strategic decisions, I've lost units (and missions) because of RNG wonkiness only to completely steamroll the same map on reload, doing the same thing, entirely because the RNG didn't dogpile me with encounters all at once.

And I get trying to eliminate tedium, I really do.
In XCOM 1-3, I hated having to manually rearm my agents between missions, or perform some of the more mundane base-centric busywork. Enemy Unknown improved a lot in those areas over its predecessors.

But the missions were where the decisions really mattered once you figured out the tech tree and what you really needed (in Enemy Unknown, you need Satellites, and you needed them yesterday), and it's in the missions where the most depth was lost.

Enemy Unknown cut out pointless complexity in order to focus on what actually makes a strategy title deep: meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. It was streamlined.

There's extremely limited terrain interaction beyond cover, extremely limited ability to ambush, and scouting is rendered largely moot due to both the small squad size, and the inability to get the jump on the enemies because they always get the Magical Reaction Cutscene that gives them a free turn to reach cover.

(all made worse during escort missions when Thin Men just fall out of the sky and get free turns to shoot at you, forcing EXTREMELY slow and tedious "Move 1-Overwatch" crap.)

To be clear here, this is not opinion avoidance, as you put it. I think you are dead wrong in thinking that the original XCOM is mechanically superior to Enemy Unknown. But I can see why you might not agree with me. Neither of us have a legitimate claim on objectivity here and, quite frankly, I have had this argument often enough to know exactly how it will go and I don't care much to go through it again.

You claim it isn't avoidance, and then you proceed to avoid it anyway.

*shrugs*
Whatever. I'm done.

 

[loa]

Streamlining is making features more painless to use, dumbing down is removing features.
Bioshock is a streamlined system shock 2. Skyrim is Morrowind dumbed down to hell and back.

 

[Signa]

In the FPS genre, we see both.

Streamlined: separate grenade button

Dumbed down: 2 weapon limits

 

[Olas]

I think the answer comes from an old quote I like:

"All the best games are easy to learn and difficult to master. They should reward the first quarter and the hundredth."

-Nolan Bushnell

Basically interpreted to answer OP's question: Anything that makes a game easier to learn without making it easier to master is streamlining it. Anything that makes a game easier to learn while also making it easier to master is dumbing it down.

Despite what I'm sure some people think, it is possible to make a game both simple in terms of rules, but but still have enormous depth. The tabletop game Go for instance has only 2 kinds of pieces and 1 basic objective, yet is considered to be more complex than Chess.

In the FPS genre, we see both.

Streamlined: separate grenade button

Dumbed down: 2 weapon limits

Weapon limits can add to the strategy of a game. Having to choose which weapons to take with you and which ones to leave behind adds a choice you wouldn't otherwise have to make. It does however streamline the actual combat because now you don't have to flip through half a dozen guns to find the one you want.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

The way that I look at it is:
If the game has been made more accessible by making complicated or hard to use mechanics easier to understand and make use of, then it's been streamlined.
If the game has been made more accessible by taking out mechanics that barely affect the game, then it's been streamlined.
If the game has been made more accessible by completely taking out complicated or hard to use mechanics that affect the game significantly, then it's been dumbed down.

I'll use EVs from Pokémon as an example:
In Pokémon X and Y, the Super Training feature made it easier to see and make use of EVs. It also let you see where your Pokémon's EVs lie at a glance. This streamlines the feature significantly.
If they had instead taken EVs out entirely, that would have taken a large part of the depth of competitive Pokémon out and overall dumbed down the experience.

 

[Signa]

Weapon limits can add to the strategy of a game.

can doesn't always mean it does. I think it rarely does. In fact, I think it really does dumb the game down, because every conflict is designed to be handled with any two weapons, meaning that because they can't predict what you are holding, they just throw things at you that you can handle with the basic starter weapons.

 

[captainballsack]

Can't really speak for LoL and DotA, but Elder Scrolls has definitely been dumbed down. Skyrim is a toy, not a game; there is essentially no challenge, only endless, misguided freedom. Morrowind was all about building your character, but in Skyrim, you can get unbelievably powerful items right off the bat because so much stuff scales.

The only way to really have a rewarding experience with Skyrim is to put that shit on hard and download mods that make the game more "hardcore" (I hate to use that term, but I can't think of anything else). Fast travel is also a big killer of the game side of things.

Not saying Skyrim isn't fun, it just isn't rewarding nor difficult enough to be considered not dumbed down, especially when you compare it to Morrowind. Of course, there are many things about the game that are streamlined, but I think in the Elder Scroll's case, they are two very separate things - Skyrim is dumbed down not because they were attempting to streamline it, but because they were intending to dumb it down to appeal to a wider audience. Nothing wrong with that, especially because I can just download mods that pretty much tweak the game to my liking, but it is what I consider to be the truth.

 

[Joccaren]

In DotA though, maintaining momentum is SOOO incredibly difficult just because a single well placed casting can turn the entire skirmish which can then turn the entire match around. When you then add in the dizzying number of combinations of abilities you can come up with, DotA is just a much more potentially complex game to play.

Oh god do I know this.
Almost every match I play my team generally starts off behind, as I'm not the best denier/CSer, and generally play a carry, and thus have few items, am under levelled, and in general drag the team down. But then the enemy team, so sure of their victory, decides to charge our last line of towers... as I stunlock their disabler, whilst the team nukes him, and our disabler disables the entire enemy team whilst the AoEs are launched. Suddenly I'm overlevelled with a fortune, as is the whole team. Game set match there and then most of the time. Except one round where we really failed, and took out everyone on the enemy team except one guy who nobody had targeted, and once we were all weakened from the team fight he AoEd and got an instant Pentakill. GG WP.

 

[Zeldias]

A lot of shit that I encounter in games is fucking stupid and I'm glad it's removed or fixed (it's rare that I meet the person that likes the inventory management in ME1 on console vs. the PC, yet there are people who claim the PC version is dumber for, ironically, having a smarter inventory system).

Maybe a better example for me is Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age 2. Many folks decried DA2 as being dumber (while often using completely outside-of-the-point measures like the battles not being pleasing to them aesthetically), but I found it to be far, FAR smarter in most respects. I no longer have to feel like a faceless yes-man to NPCs in order to boost their stats, so I'm more free to feel like I am legitimately able to roleplay. The trees were more satisfying to climb as I leveled, and I loved that different classes could do combos, and not just mages casting together because it made the battle system feel more together, for lack of a better term. I found the cutscenes more engaging and I actually found Kirkwall to be way cooler than Denerim, Lothering, or that other place with the possessed kid. There were no outrageously tedious sequences (I'm looking at you, DA:O Fade(. I couldn't equip each bit of gear on my companions, but frankly, I don't see how that's that bad; there wasn't exactly a plethora of choices if you wanted an effective character in DA:O, anyways. I did like changing what my allies wore, but as long as they look cool (and I thought everyone but Fenris did), then I'm happy, and I could play dress up with Hawke and pore over his stats if I liked. In design terms, the only thing dumb about DA2 is the reused environments.

I also don't really find Skyrim much dumber than Oblivion or Morrowind, but that's because Skyrim, IMO, removes a lot of shit that was just clunky, like thrust, slash sideways/overhead shit. I fail to see less weapon variety as a matter of smart/dumbness, because there could've been spears and flails and nunchuks and shit in the game and they all would've played pretty similarly. That failing is in the dumb nature of the Elder Scrolls combat, IMO, not Skyrim. I also hated repairs, so I'm just glad that's gone. Found it to be a pointless, tedious money sink.

Well, I kinda lied. I do find the fast travel in Skyrim to be sort of bullshit. I liked the whole "hike to town, ride the silt strider to X, then walk to Y," thing. But it was worse in Oblivion since that just let you fast travel to major towns right off the bat if I remember right.

Ultimately, though, I think dumbing down should be talking about making interesting systems less interesting. The trick here, though, is that gamers and devs see games differently. I think where a dev might see flab and pointlessness in the UI, a gamer might see the illusion of choice. I like to use ME1 and 2 when I talk about this. I like ME1 FAR more than ME2, partly because I like looking at all the loot you pick up. The ***** of it is, though, is that I'm not going to use the majority of that crap that I pick up; I'm going to sell it or turn it into lockpick jell-o. So the devs see this and go, fuck it, let's take that out, it's obviously just bullshit for the PC to wade through. But in taking that away, I feel like I get rewarded less for combat and I feel like I have less things to pick from to use. To them, it's a clean solution to what's basically a user interface issue. To me, it's stripping some of the world out of the game and making it more of a combat arena than a universe where baddies have guns and I loot them off their corpses.

Another good example is selecting your demon skills in SMT games when you create one. A lot of people saw it as a dumbing down, but Atlus probably just said "Those motherfuckers just reload the fusion until they get the skillset they want. Why not just cut the bullshit and make them pick?" Sometimes players like the feeling of that artificial difficulty, whereas I think most anyone who makes UIs for a living is going to see a problem to be solved, and not a feature of gameplay.