Streamlined. Allowing players to pick up gold by just walking over it in Torchlight. Fucking genius and up to that day I cannot imagine why more ARPGs didn't figure it out earlier.
Stream lined vs. Dumbed Down
- Thread starter KazeAizen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bingo.SKBPinkie said:
Actual definitions are fine and good, but when it comes to a post on the internet, odds are it'll boil down to:
Did I like the game?
Did I like the previous game more?
Did the new version bring in a large number of new fans with more intuitive features?
Am I upset that the series is now appealing to a broader audience?
If the answer to question 1 is no, or the answer to questions 2-4 are yes, it's been dumbed down.
This is not true for eSports, and Starcraft is a bad example.Thedutchjelle said:
I will give you a hint, you said it doesn't dumb down the strategy aspect of it, which is true (even that's debatable but for the sake of the argument...), but the genre is called Real Time Strategy, and usually, especially in Starcraft, the emphasis is on the Real Time, not on the Strategy.
This is what turn based strategy fans often hate the most about RTS-es (at least from my experiences), because they don't understand that time is one of the most important resources you have, what they often call "zomg you click faster than me stupid genre".
Similar example:
"zomg deny in DotA so stoopid ludonarative dissonance"
I don't want to write a novel, but I have a good IdrA quote about Starcraft 2 buried somewhere in my notes which strengthens my point.
To put it this way:
To me, (European) football is very much about fighting the game's mechanics - because you can't even use your hands!
The logical fallacies in that video make my brain hurt. An average PC you can buy today at retail for the same price as a console will not match the specs of a console. Period. I have done a lot of research on this fact. If you build it yourself? Yes, you can easily outstrip console power for the price of a console (assume $300 is your budget). But the pre-assembled consumer-level products? No, you just can't match that power. A 299.99 computer at frys won't even let you play GTA: San Andreas at the highest settings, let alone Skyrim at console settings.Nazulu said:
Also, those graphs? You're comparing the top-end GPUs to the console specs. However, that's not a fair comparison. What you SHOULD be comparing is the average owned GPU of all people who own a PC against the console power. Because as it stands, you are making a highly biased and misleading graph.
Back on topic:
I love streamlining. For example, I love how god damn accessible Civ 5 is, and the more I play it, the more levels of depth I find. So I don't see what anyone is complaining about. If more people can enjoy what you enjoy without sacrificing the things you love about what you enjoy isn't that better? I'd rather have it that way all the time.
However, what I don't like is when a game removes features because "the minority of the players were using it". Like clothing layers, the hugely varied NPCs, and many, MANY easter eggs of Saints Row 2. That's an example of "dumbing it down" to me. I agree with the sentiment that as long as they improve on what's there and make it less of a slog to deal with, GO FOR IT! I HATED Oblivion. With its psychic guards, REALLY shitty level scaling, and conversation system that only very few first-time TES players could make sense of and did nothing to add to the immersion and playability of the game. For all games looking to be entertaining, FUN should always top COMPLEXITY/REALISM. Most of us play games to escape reality, not be reminded of how crushing and complex it is.
From what my friends who have played LoL first then DotA have said, I'd agree LoL is dumbed down not streamlined, but in terms of skill rather than thought. Well, maybe thought and tactics too, however I play MOBAs casually, so I rarely play games where heavy tactics are important unless all my friends are online and I'm ranked up from lvl 3 matches to level 80 matches.
Basically, DotA is harder and less forgiving. In a single player game you can chalk this up to difficulty settings. In multiplayer all it does is lower the skillcap, and reduce the extent of differentiation you can achieve between players.
For example, in LoL apparently all hero auto-attacks are quite fast. No 0.5+ second animations. This may not sound like it makes a difference, but it really does. Last Hitting creeps is made that much easier as you can suddenly just attack at any time and get the kill. I have heard friends talk about only getting 60 CS [Creep Score, last hits on creeps] in the first ten minutes of a LoL game. Getting 60 CS in a whole match of DotA is decent. More CS means more gold, which means more items to make your life easier.
Additionally, DotA has denies. Killing your own creeps/towers so that your opponent doesn't get the gold. Denies, generally, should be a reasonable % of your CS count. I.E: For 60 CS, You'd want at least 15 denies too. My friends often have 22 minimum. That's 22 less CS the opponent has, let alone taking out a Tower through denial, removing 10 creeps worth of gold from their potential income.
Then there's the fact that creeps are apparently much less a threat in LoL than in DotA. In Dota, even if you're level six, the second you get attacked by a creep your teammates start asking WTH you are doing. Creeps can do a fair amount of damage in DotA, and until lvl 10 or so you have to worry about fighting creeps as well as fighting players - ignoring either will lead to your death. Still likely at the hands of a player, but if you run away on 1/5th health from a player into a swarm of their creeps there's no guarantee you're making it out, even if the player doesn't chase you. Lvl 10 onwards creeps become more trivial, but still aren't to be completely ignored.
Then there's the lower max mana pool and higher mana costs that are apparently in DotA. You can't spam your abilities. It is considered blasphemy to use any ability on a creep. Even if its a wide AoE high-damage that seems meant for killing creeps, you either don't level it as its not useful in a hero fight, or do level it because its useful in a team fight but don't use it as you need the mana pool. From what I've been told, in LoL its possible to basically spam abilities, and some heroes have abilities with such low mana cost and cooldown they are basically used in place of the auto-attack. There are similar heroes in DotA, but even they don't use such abilities out of team fights, as the mana drain would leave them in a less optimal position were one to occur.
I've heard there's some difference in ward mechanics too, but I never really investigated to find out. I generally leave warding to my friend who plays support as a carry, 'cause somehow he's just boss with them.
The Elder Scrolls games are an interesting case. They are dumbed down, streamlined, and anti-streamlined at the same time. Depth is removed from the game in favour of easier entry for newbies, however some annoying menues are made easier to use. The easy to use menus, however, are made IMO harder to use as a lot of the functionality is removed from them. This is especially noticeable in the PC Skyrim's interface, where the mouse barely works, and everything is in massive long lists you have to scroll through, rather than tiled for convenience, with images taking up half or more of the screen space, as opposed to useful information on the item. It really is a pain.
Basically, DotA is harder and less forgiving. In a single player game you can chalk this up to difficulty settings. In multiplayer all it does is lower the skillcap, and reduce the extent of differentiation you can achieve between players.
For example, in LoL apparently all hero auto-attacks are quite fast. No 0.5+ second animations. This may not sound like it makes a difference, but it really does. Last Hitting creeps is made that much easier as you can suddenly just attack at any time and get the kill. I have heard friends talk about only getting 60 CS [Creep Score, last hits on creeps] in the first ten minutes of a LoL game. Getting 60 CS in a whole match of DotA is decent. More CS means more gold, which means more items to make your life easier.
Additionally, DotA has denies. Killing your own creeps/towers so that your opponent doesn't get the gold. Denies, generally, should be a reasonable % of your CS count. I.E: For 60 CS, You'd want at least 15 denies too. My friends often have 22 minimum. That's 22 less CS the opponent has, let alone taking out a Tower through denial, removing 10 creeps worth of gold from their potential income.
Then there's the fact that creeps are apparently much less a threat in LoL than in DotA. In Dota, even if you're level six, the second you get attacked by a creep your teammates start asking WTH you are doing. Creeps can do a fair amount of damage in DotA, and until lvl 10 or so you have to worry about fighting creeps as well as fighting players - ignoring either will lead to your death. Still likely at the hands of a player, but if you run away on 1/5th health from a player into a swarm of their creeps there's no guarantee you're making it out, even if the player doesn't chase you. Lvl 10 onwards creeps become more trivial, but still aren't to be completely ignored.
Then there's the lower max mana pool and higher mana costs that are apparently in DotA. You can't spam your abilities. It is considered blasphemy to use any ability on a creep. Even if its a wide AoE high-damage that seems meant for killing creeps, you either don't level it as its not useful in a hero fight, or do level it because its useful in a team fight but don't use it as you need the mana pool. From what I've been told, in LoL its possible to basically spam abilities, and some heroes have abilities with such low mana cost and cooldown they are basically used in place of the auto-attack. There are similar heroes in DotA, but even they don't use such abilities out of team fights, as the mana drain would leave them in a less optimal position were one to occur.
I've heard there's some difference in ward mechanics too, but I never really investigated to find out. I generally leave warding to my friend who plays support as a carry, 'cause somehow he's just boss with them.
The Elder Scrolls games are an interesting case. They are dumbed down, streamlined, and anti-streamlined at the same time. Depth is removed from the game in favour of easier entry for newbies, however some annoying menues are made easier to use. The easy to use menus, however, are made IMO harder to use as a lot of the functionality is removed from them. This is especially noticeable in the PC Skyrim's interface, where the mouse barely works, and everything is in massive long lists you have to scroll through, rather than tiled for convenience, with images taking up half or more of the screen space, as opposed to useful information on the item. It really is a pain.
The distinction I draw between the two:
"Did the player lose agency? Or tedium?"
Like with XCOM.
Enemy Unknown is a good modern adaptation of the older classic, and I appreciate the brevity that comes with two-action combat, but the loss of Time Units and ability to manually fire through terrain (save for rockets and grenades, which have far more limited usage) turned most of XCOM into a goofy stop-motion variant of a cover based shooter.
It was very much dumbed down. Mainly so that it would be playable using a gamepad without driving the average gamer into a Clockwork Orange state of madness.
But to claim that the only thing lost in the transition was tedium is just plain wrong.
Every major mechanic that Enemy Unknown emphasizes was in the original series (XCOMs 1-3 specifically) and worked just fine in Time Units. Timed explosives, preparatory actions (kneeling, prone), cover fire and running to cover...these added depth to the game and all of them are either missing or have been mechanically paved over to fit the new, "leaner" system.
(I'd love to see a version of XCOM with an upgrade to the Time Unit interface.)
And I must emphasize, that I ENJOYED Enemy Unknown, but I'm under no illusions that mechanically, it's just a more shallow game than its predecessors (even if base management did get a little needlessly tedious in 1-3).
"Did the player lose agency? Or tedium?"
Like with XCOM.
Enemy Unknown is a good modern adaptation of the older classic, and I appreciate the brevity that comes with two-action combat, but the loss of Time Units and ability to manually fire through terrain (save for rockets and grenades, which have far more limited usage) turned most of XCOM into a goofy stop-motion variant of a cover based shooter.
It was very much dumbed down. Mainly so that it would be playable using a gamepad without driving the average gamer into a Clockwork Orange state of madness.
But to claim that the only thing lost in the transition was tedium is just plain wrong.
Every major mechanic that Enemy Unknown emphasizes was in the original series (XCOMs 1-3 specifically) and worked just fine in Time Units. Timed explosives, preparatory actions (kneeling, prone), cover fire and running to cover...these added depth to the game and all of them are either missing or have been mechanically paved over to fit the new, "leaner" system.
(I'd love to see a version of XCOM with an upgrade to the Time Unit interface.)
And I must emphasize, that I ENJOYED Enemy Unknown, but I'm under no illusions that mechanically, it's just a more shallow game than its predecessors (even if base management did get a little needlessly tedious in 1-3).
It's pretty simple. Streamlining something is making it better by removing features. For instance, simplifying your squad leveling in XCOM Enemy Unknown. Rather than you have to have your dude do specific things on the battlefield to improve that, every dude now improves linearly with you choosing abilities at each level. The leveling up and choice is still there, but you're no longer blowing missions because you needed Sergeant McJoe to get a shot that Lieutenant McBob should've been taking to level McJoe's relatively-close-but-still-kind-of-far-away-whilst-standing-on-grass-with-one-foot-and-on-gravel-with-the-other-shooting skill.
Dumbing down is making something worse (or at least less mechanically complex and satisfying) by removing features, usually while attempting streamlining, or to achieve "broader appeal". Getting an example from XCOM, the multi-base and multi-Skyranger aspects of that game, which were completely scrapped in Enemy Unknown, resulting in you not having much to do in the base-building mode once you built enough satellite nexuses.
Of course, there's no clear line between the two. It's all personal opinion, but the way I try to distinguish it if the advantages gained from a mechanic are still there after cutting, with the disadvantages gone, it's streamlining. If the advantages are lost, it's dumbing down.
I apologize for not specifically referring to LoL/DotA2 or Skyrim, but I haven't played the first two enough to judge, and I have this huge amount of bile at "streamlining" in Skyrim that I prefer not to let loose.
Dumbing down is making something worse (or at least less mechanically complex and satisfying) by removing features, usually while attempting streamlining, or to achieve "broader appeal". Getting an example from XCOM, the multi-base and multi-Skyranger aspects of that game, which were completely scrapped in Enemy Unknown, resulting in you not having much to do in the base-building mode once you built enough satellite nexuses.
Of course, there's no clear line between the two. It's all personal opinion, but the way I try to distinguish it if the advantages gained from a mechanic are still there after cutting, with the disadvantages gone, it's streamlining. If the advantages are lost, it's dumbing down.
I apologize for not specifically referring to LoL/DotA2 or Skyrim, but I haven't played the first two enough to judge, and I have this huge amount of bile at "streamlining" in Skyrim that I prefer not to let loose.
I have to say that Disgaea D2 is probably the most streamlined in the series.
But it's stream lined in the right way IMO. You can adjust enemy levels by simply going to the cheat shop and adjusting them there rather then having to pass stronger enemy bills over and over. You can throw diagonally now without having to pull if off via hitting throw while transitioning into a different direction. The mentor and apprentice system is tweaked to make it so that you can assign apprentices to whomever you want instead of just the person who created them in the assembly.
All of these (plus others I haven't mentioned) are able to achieve the goal of making things more accessible for new players while still keeping the depth Disgaea is known for. And whatever that was in previous games that didn't get into this one was replaced with something else. For example, mounting has replaced magichange, and the Demon Dojo replaces the Classroom from D3 and Cam-Pain Map and D4. Sure, the Chara world is gone, but frankly, I never really liked the chara world. Too much hassle just for a bunch of aptitude increased in random areas..
NIS did a fantastic job at improving the game and making sure it stayed true to it's roots and makes me wish more companies did that. Looking back, games like Bioshock Infinite took out some features that I kinda missed from Bioshock 1 and 2. Like the tonics and weapon mods ect.
But it's stream lined in the right way IMO. You can adjust enemy levels by simply going to the cheat shop and adjusting them there rather then having to pass stronger enemy bills over and over. You can throw diagonally now without having to pull if off via hitting throw while transitioning into a different direction. The mentor and apprentice system is tweaked to make it so that you can assign apprentices to whomever you want instead of just the person who created them in the assembly.
All of these (plus others I haven't mentioned) are able to achieve the goal of making things more accessible for new players while still keeping the depth Disgaea is known for. And whatever that was in previous games that didn't get into this one was replaced with something else. For example, mounting has replaced magichange, and the Demon Dojo replaces the Classroom from D3 and Cam-Pain Map and D4. Sure, the Chara world is gone, but frankly, I never really liked the chara world. Too much hassle just for a bunch of aptitude increased in random areas..
NIS did a fantastic job at improving the game and making sure it stayed true to it's roots and makes me wish more companies did that. Looking back, games like Bioshock Infinite took out some features that I kinda missed from Bioshock 1 and 2. Like the tonics and weapon mods ect.
The issue many players had with the map markers was that they were the only way possible to complete the majority of the quests. No directions, no clues or proper names, just a "follow the giant pointy arrow". It wasn't that the players wanted to get no guidance at all, (that's currently what we have without map markers - most quests don't even give you placenames, some not even an 'I'll mark it on your map', an NPC says "I lost this thing" and an arrow appears for you to go get it.) Players wanted better guidance from NPCs telling us where the cave or fort was so we could follow directions towards it.Fox12 said:
Boom! Headshot!Pink Gregory said:
Of the Elder Scrolls series, I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim, and I think calling Skyrim "dumbed down" is rather stupid. Getting rid of the stats was great since Oblivions' was confusingly broken. The streamlined approach for Skyrim put role-playing on the forefront, and it ended up being a lot more fun. This is coming from a guy who loves to play with math/stats in video games, too.
LOL! Yes I've tried EVe Online. I found myself playing other games to kill time... while playing Eve online. Get a quick match of Desktop Defender in there while I'm mining etc. Eve Online is more of a job than a video game. And the MASSIVE amount of time you need to develop the skills to do anything cool... I didn't renew my subscription. :\Qvar said:
I am in the camp that I see more stream lining as a greater focus on the game with out filler to pad it out versus what I would call dumbing down.
I see this argument a lot in RPGs especially about quest markers. I feel you should have a adventure while on your way to the goal not being lost while trying to get there. I also appreciate that more RPGs make grinding an option and not a way to extend game time. so viva la streamlining.
I see this argument a lot in RPGs especially about quest markers. I feel you should have a adventure while on your way to the goal not being lost while trying to get there. I also appreciate that more RPGs make grinding an option and not a way to extend game time. so viva la streamlining.
I'd use this metric. Stripping a feature completely probably shouldn't happen often. Retooling is definitely a worthwhile process, though. A bad enough feature probably should be pulled, and if your core audience hates it, it should probably go.Qvar said:
But that brings up the other pat: dumbed down tends to happen when you remove features specifically to appeal to the broader audience. Like appealing to the Call of Duty crowd by making it more of a shooter (and tbf, CoD is fine, but making every game a samey brown shooter with similar mechanics is patently unnecessary).
I fucking agree so much. I can't think if the last time I played a game where I thought "you know what this game needs? Half assed fluff that makes the game seem more hard core than it really is".Zhukov said:
Elder Scrolls is the prime example. The only streamlining in that series that concerned me was when they took out spell making, but then I realized how pointless spell making in Oblivion and Morroind was in the first place. All your spells did X effect for Y seconds over area Z. Every single spell was that simple and all leveling up did was give you more x's and Y's. You start with 25 points of damage and by the time you reach master you can do 100. Yay. In Skyrim you start off with the ability to shoot some lightning bolts and end with ability to fire a Dragon Ball Z style lightning torrent.
So yes, I find "dumbed down" is used way too much. I'm not saying you can't have and enjoy complex games but they aren't inherently better than "simpler" games
That's not why I brought up the video. I'm just talking about comparisons in the Elder Scrolls games. Unless you're trying to discredit the video altogether with that point, I still agree with the points he brought up when he shows everything that's been changed/cut out.Azaraxzealot said:
I am a big fan of both XCOM and turn based strategy is my favorite genre. And personally, when comparing the two, the original comes off as a bloated mess. It is a really good game, amazing for it's time and still very enjoyable now, but man is the time units system broken. In particular that is the one area where I feel the greatest improvement was made.Atmos Duality said:
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. The time units system was by its nature unintuitive, overly complex, and, for lack of a better term, caused rampant bullshit. Starting over from scratch was necessary. The new XCOM system is something that can be built on to make a greater game. The time units system would have always been a bloated mess no matter how many things got added to it. It is true that the old XCOM was deeper, but not by much and it hardly justifies the bloated and often pointless complexity of the game. (All of this is in comparison to the new XCOM. I really enjoy the old one and think it is a really good game. Just not as good.)
Of course, this is all just my personal opinion. And that is the problem. Streamlined to one is dumbed down to another.
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.
People keep saying Oblivion's stat system was confusing or broken, that sounds like you just didn't know what you were doing. The attributes provide a flat bonus to one of your statistics, and attribute growth was based on what skills you used to level up. How is that confusing or broken? It only required a tiny amount of thought, the people calling it confusing make me want to spit hatred at them.rasputin0009 said:
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.
And if you still think Skyrim has better roleplaying, you must not play a mage. Every mage knows the exact same spells by the time you get to the end game, because they removed spellmaking. You could make a mage in Oblivion that only used illusion magic and succeed, or a mage that only used conjuration. Homogenizing magic is the biggest 'wtf' flag you could ever raise to me. Sure, you can tap into the arcane forces of the universe, but they only manifest in these set ways. Forget that they had the ability to make spells in the past. The fact that anyone tries to defend it and say it isn't dumbed down makes my fucking head spin.
This isn't to say you can't like it more than Oblivion, but don't try to say it's actually better from a roleplaying standpoint. It has better melee combat, and it looks nicer. Beyond that it's a giant downgrade from previous Elder Scrolls games.