Stream lined vs. Dumbed Down

[CardinalPiggles]

To me, it's subjective. What one person considers to be dumbing down, another considers to be streamlined.

You might say for example that denying is useless and removing it has streamlined the mechanics, but others say that it adds depth and challenge to the gameplay, and removing it would dumb down the game. Both are valid points and correct in their own way.

Another example would be the new Xcom game, Enemy Unknown, and it's removal of managing ammo. Some say it's taking away from the complexity, but others say it was a useless feature to begin with. (I would tend to agree with the latter, and the fact that you still have to manage reloading your weapons is evidence enough that it's not dumbed down).

 

[CardinalPiggles]

it's rare that I meet the person that likes the inventory management in ME1

*Raises hand*

Spoiler: Come at me bro

I can't really defend it, but I did enjoy going through loads of bits and bobs for each squad member because it gave it a nice level of customisation, or at least the illusion of one.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

In the FPS genre, we see both.

Streamlined: separate grenade button

Dumbed down: 2 weapon limits

Grenade buttons are so horrible. You shouldn't be able to pull a nade out your ass and chuck in a moment's notice (in an competitive online environment). There needs to be some premeditation to throwing a grenade. Metal Gear Online was just wonderful without a grenade button; in fact, you moved around with your grenade in hand as you ran faster then switched to a gun to shoot. Weapon/item cycle system is way better than having a weapon switch button, a grenade button, and a melee button as that results in wasting buttons that can be used for another things and new mechanics to make the game even deeper.

2 weapon limits can be fine in games like say Uncharted, but don't work as well in say Bioshock. Vanquish did just about everything right and it had a 3 weapon limit, which worked out great for the game.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Devil May Cry 2 is an example of dumbing down. Devil May Cry 4 is an example of streamlining.

The second game was way too easy. Once the third game revitalized the series, the fourth game took what the third did and streamlined it.

 

[scorptatious]

Disgaea D2

I've been ninja'd!

Haaaahahahahaha!

That's what you get for underestimating the power of an overlord!

 

[scorptatious]

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.

Really? Cool. The whole EV thing in later Pokemon games always did perplex me. Maybe I can actually figure out how to raise my team around it now so I can actually get into the multiplayer scene.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Just to point out that the term "dumbing down" is immensely misused, and has nothing to do with making things easier.

"Dumbing down" refers to the process of replacing educational or factual content with more entertainment-focused content, particularly lowbrow or crude entertainment. For example, if a TV channel has a long history of producing groundbreaking documentaries and then suddenly starts cutting those in favor of Celebrity Pets in Rehab Gone Wild, it might be accused of dumbing down.

In gaming terms, the allegation of dumbing down generally makes no sense since very few games are educational in the first place. Simply being difficult or "deep" is not sufficient to qualify. Dwarf Fortress, for example, is like the deep sea angler fish of games, but it wouldn't be possible to "dumb down" because it's not in any way educational.

If I make a drama show with a deliberately obtuse or incomprehensible plot, or which is physically hard to watch (due to extreme gore, for example) and it gets cancelled in favor of some generic sitcom, that's not dumbing down. Simply being hard to watch or understand does not make my show educational.

 

[votemarvel]

I'm a fan of streamlining in most of the cases.

Mass Effect 1 had mountains of useless "options" that didn't add to the game in any meaningful way, and the combat was absolutely terrible. Mass Effect 2 reduced it to a handful of options that meant a lot more in the long run, and the gameplay smoothed out to make it actually enjoyable to play. Mass Effect 3 took it just a hair farther and improved the combat a whole lot more.

Dragon Age: Origins often had like 3 dialogue lines that amounted to the same thing, and it's combat was absolutely abysmal on consoles. Dragon Age 2 (despite other, far larger problems) actually improved the combat by leaps and bounds, and improved the chat options somewhat.

Here's the odd thing for me. I may ramble a bit so fair warning.

Dragon Age II has the same combat system as Origins. Play the PC version or turn on auto-attack for the console incarnations and you can play it exactly the same way as in the first game.

Now don't get me wrong, it is certainly a lot better looking and animated in the combat but the system itself is the same thing. You don't do any more damage by hammering the A button than you would by letting Hawke attack on his own.

So Dragon Age II essentially gets praise for hiding the dice-roll behind a faux hack and slash.

Yet Mass Effect which hides the dice-roll behind a faux shooter is lambasted for that choice.

Personally I far prefer the combat in the first Mass Effect and a lot of that is that I like that the stats play as big a part as my ability to place a cross-hair.

Now that that ramble is over onto the next part. Yes the lines in Origins could amount to the same thing but it was how they were written that helped you define your Warden. In essence it was not what you said but how you said it.

I was disappointed that they went the Mass Effect route for the dialogue in two, I can understand it as in that a voiced protagonist is better for 'cinematic' story-telling. Yet I never felt as involved with Hawke (or indeed Shepard) as I did my Warden

 

[Madman123456]

Stream lined and dumped down are the same thing, most stream lined things will come off as being dumped down to some people and there's no real definition to distinguish the two, except the first is a bit friendlier.
As of now...
"stream lined" has become something of a dirty word in my own vocabulary since many game companies stream line their stuff by cutting things out instead of trying to improve them.
Mass effect had vehicle sections and an inventory which weren't too well received and in the next game, they're gone.
Unlimited ammo mechanics where rather exploitable (install two good heatsinks in your late game gun and you can fire forever), so they're gone as well.
Mass effect 2 has cover based shooting which has to hold up the entire game, making the game parts of the game a bit boring at times.

"We streamlined this new game!" says the developer in an interview. Which elicits a groan from me nowadays because i know they'll cut out some features and replace them with something that is already well known from games that i've already played.

So, just wait for a bit longer and those words will be absolutely interchangeable.

 

[lunavixen]

To me, streamlining a game is trimming the fat essentially, it's removing some of the needless work to get to the same result. Streamlining makes games more efficient without compromising difficulty.

Dumbing down is removing the options entirely or adding features that over simplify something (like auto aim or aim assist where it's not needed), dumbing down reduces the difficulty without sufficient reason to.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I'll use the Deus Ex Series as a subject for an explanation.

Streamlining is making something that is clunky and unwieldy more fluid and precise and ultimately improving a working formula. See Deus Ex (Original) RPG elements to HR's.

In Deus Ex, you had exp you earn from arbitrary tasks and completing quests to put into skillsets, most of which were near useless and also Upgrade units to upgrade Augmentations which came in 2 varieties, one that allows you to choose from 2 augmentations and another that only allows you to add points to chosen Augmentations.

In HR, all the rpg elements revolve around Piraxis(?) points, which you get by completing missions, discovering stuff, or collecting/purchasing piraxis upgrade kits. Skills and Augmentations are rolled into 1 rather then 2 distinct Tech trees with a single resource cost rather then several. It makes more sense narratively, makes the most of fewer options (less diluted, more concentrated) and also drastically affects playstyles in the early game (late game gets a bit samey... HR wasn't perfect after all).

Dumbing down is taken away things that damages more then the sum of the parts removed. See Dues Ex Invisible Wars universal ammunition.

The concept was easy to grasp: make it so any choice of weapons is valid for any play style, since all ammo is pooled. However doing so took away strategic and tactical elements that made the originals relatively weak ass combat more thoughtful and engaging, and instead left you with a thoughtless combat system that was just weak ass. On top of that it marginally diminished the value of exploration since there was only one ammo type and the game was lousy with them.

It also removed some flavor. No reload sounds or animations... relatively minor but it does make combat aesthetically dull.

Not only that, but it didn't even achieve its intended goal. The universal ammo system made certain weapons completely invalid. Sniper Rifles would waste a "clip" in 2 shots and you had a limited pool to draw from (I think it was 9 units which were consumed at varying rates depending on weapons used). Automatic weapons were out and anything that couldn't deal with a target quickly and precisely was a miss too. What's more, due to having only 1 pool, you couldn't even fall back on a secondary if your primary ran out since they both shared the same ammo. It didn't help that Melee was an even bigger failure meaning a shortage of ammo would make the game worse for gameplay.

 

[DrOswald]

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".

This is going to be the only part I respond to because this is the root of the issue.

Complexity does not result in depth unless that complexity is well utilized. In fact, complexity that is not well utilized results in a reduction of depth. And XCOM is highly complex but that complexity is not effectively utilized. The key, as I have been saying all along, is meaningful decisions.

Lets take a specific example, the time unit system. Yes, there are mathematically dozens more decisions or outcomes to the time unit system compared to the two action system. But generally speaking you accomplish the same things in both. In fact, the amount of meaningful decisions are reduced because there are so many options.

Lets look at one specific case where this happens. In the two action system, attacking an enemy out of sight requires you to break cover. You must make the decision of leaving your unit in a safe position or moving them to a more vulnerable position but allowing them to fire. In addition, choosing where to fire is important. The optimal firing position is rarely the safest one, and so we must make another meaningful decision: Safety vs Firepower.

In the time unit system all of this goes out the window. It is easy to take a step out of perfect cover, fire, and move back into perfect cover. You don't need to make a tactical decision of safety vs taking a shot. In addition, deciding where to fire from is a far less important decision. You can move after you shoot so where you are when you fire is much less important. The overall process has far more options available but is also less meaningful.

In this case the most important decisions in a strategy title, deciding when and how to attack, are less deep in the time unit system because there are so many options available. A tighter more limiting system forces more interesting and meaningful decisions.

And there are dozens of cases like this. Deciding how to outfit your troops, for example, requires far more meaningful decisions in Enemy Unknown because there are strict limitations.

Greater fidelity mathematically results in more options but having more options can itself be a barrier to depth.

 

[hermes]

Streamlined is possitive, dumbed down is negative. That is pretty much it. It has become one of those buzz words people use when they don't have a large enough vocabulary, like epic, awesome and overrated.

If a game sequel removes something you like, it is dumbed down. If it removes something you didn't like, it is streamlined. The difference is pretty much subjective and, of course, different people might consider any change a proof that they streamlined it, or dumbed it down.

 

[lithiumvocals]

It's "dumbed-down" when you don't like it. It's "streamlined" when you do.

 

[Qvar]

In the FPS genre, we see both.

Streamlined: separate grenade button

Dumbed down: 2 weapon limits

I see, so characters not being able to carry with them ridicolous amount of weigth in weapons is to dumb down a game. Sense not found.

 

[Hargrimm]

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".

This is going to be the only part I respond to because this is the root of the issue.

Complexity does not result in depth unless that complexity is well utilized. In fact, complexity that is not well utilized results in a reduction of depth. And XCOM is highly complex but that complexity is not effectively utilized. The key, as I have been saying all along, is meaningful decisions.

Lets take a specific example, the time unit system. Yes, there are mathematically dozens more decisions or outcomes to the time unit system compared to the two action system. But generally speaking you accomplish the same things in both. In fact, the amount of meaningful decisions are reduced because there are so many options.

Lets look at one specific case where this happens. In the two action system, attacking an enemy out of sight requires you to break cover. You must make the decision of leaving your unit in a safe position or moving them to a more vulnerable position but allowing them to fire. In addition, choosing where to fire is important. The optimal firing position is rarely the safest one, and so we must make another meaningful decision: Safety vs Firepower.

In the time unit system all of this goes out the window. It is easy to take a step out of perfect cover, fire, and move back into perfect cover. You don't need to make a tactical decision of safety vs taking a shot. In addition, deciding where to fire from is a far less important decision. You can move after you shoot so where you are when you fire is much less important. The overall process has far more options available but is also less meaningful.

In this case the most important decisions in a strategy title, deciding when and how to attack, are less deep in the time unit system because there are so many options available. A tighter more limiting system forces more interesting and meaningful decisions.

And there are dozens of cases like this. Deciding how to outfit your troops, for example, requires far more meaningful decisions in Enemy Unknown because there are strict limitations.

Greater fidelity mathematically results in more options but having more options can itself be a barrier to depth.

You call it interesting and meaningful, I call it stupid.
Going back into cover after shooting is not some esoteric exploit, but common fucking sense. If you told a soldier he should keep his ass in the firing line after shooting to make it more interesting, he'd call you a retard.
Safety vs Firepower is just a false dichotomy, if you play smart you can have both, but that takes some skill because of reaction fire, which you conveniently ignored in your example.

In the old X-Com, taking a step out of of cover could trigger reaction fire which would almost certainly get your guy killed. In fact every action in the enemies LOS, even just turning around, could trigger reaction fire. You don't get a big floating "Overwatch" that tells you when it's dangerous to move in your enemies LOS.
This also forces you to play smarter than the aliens, since you almoat always lose direct confrontation with the aliens. You have to outmaneuver them, and make good use of explosives.
Incidentally, in the new XCOM there are far less enemies armed with explosives. In the original even simple sectoids packed some grenades that were far more powerful than your own, which could wipe out your entire party if you were stupid.(see Spoony's TFTD video for an example) In the new XCOM, you only really have to worry about that in the mid- to lategame, at which point your soldiers are likely to have enough HP to survive such an attack.

Removing the inventory also takes away such simple decisions as leaving your sidearm at home in exchange for a couple grenades, or even taking nothing but grenades(if you so desire). It also robs you of an opportunity to salvage a mission that has gone bad.
In the original games, if things went badly, you could still gather up some alien gear or corpses to study/sell, which could turn a total failure into a minor or even major victory in the long run, depending on what you salvaged.

Picking up ammo/medkits/grenades from your fallen or unconscious comrades - yet another common sense action - is also sorely missing, as well as tossing around equipment from soldier to soldier as needed.

Greater fidelity mathematically results in more options but having more options can itself be a barrier to depth.

Interesting statement. Can you back that up?

EDIT: Just to summarize my point: Forcing you to take a risk or make a scrifice with a decision doesn't make it more intersting or meaningful by default. It could just make it stupid by preventing you from taking common sense actions.

In the FPS genre, we see both.

EDIT: Just to summarize my point: Forcing yout to take a risk or make a sacrifice doesn't make a decision more meaningful or interesting by default. It could just make it more stupid if it prevents you from taking a common sense actions.

Streamlined: separate grenade button

Dumbed down: 2 weapon limits

I see, so characters not being able to carry with them ridicolous amount of weigth in weapons is to dumb down a game. Sense not found.

I see, so characters not being able to carry more than two pistols is not dumbing down a game. Sense not found.

 

[Bad Jim]

In the FPS genre, we see both.

Streamlined: separate grenade button

Dumbed down: 2 weapon limits

I see, so characters not being able to carry with them ridicolous amount of weigth in weapons is to dumb down a game. Sense not found.

Guns aren't actually all that heavy. A loaded M16, for example, weighs about 9 pounds. Ten weapons of that weight would weigh 90 pounds, which is heavy, but still within the lifting capabilities of a soldier.

 

[Signa]

In the FPS genre, we see both.

Streamlined: separate grenade button

Dumbed down: 2 weapon limits

I see, so characters not being able to carry with them ridicolous amount of weigth in weapons is to dumb down a game. Sense not found.

Ah, the age-old confusion between gameplay mechanics and """""""""realism."""""""" (did I put enough quotes around that everyone?)

 

[Zeldias]

it's rare that I meet the person that likes the inventory management in ME1

*Raises hand*

Spoiler: Come at me bro

I can't really defend it, but I did enjoy going through loads of bits and bobs for each squad member because it gave it a nice level of customisation, or at least the illusion of one.

I'm actually in agreement with you. I meant more the interface itself being a true pain in the gonads. I liked the whole loot and gear deal, but actually dealing with that mess on the 360 was nightmarish. Works way better for me and actually manages to be enjoyable when I play the PC version.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

it's rare that I meet the person that likes the inventory management in ME1

*Raises hand*

Spoiler: Come at me bro

I can't really defend it, but I did enjoy going through loads of bits and bobs for each squad member because it gave it a nice level of customisation, or at least the illusion of one.

I'm actually in agreement with you. I meant more the interface itself being a true pain in the gonads. I liked the whole loot and gear deal, but actually dealing with that mess on the 360 was nightmarish. Works way better for me and actually manages to be enjoyable when I play the PC version.

I don't remember the 360 version's interface being a pain (I played both versions too). It was never on my radar for problems with that game.

Oh well, maybe it was dreadful and I just didn't care. Ignorance is bliss after all.