The Dumbing Down of Video Games

[Angerwing]

OP: One could argue that they are dumbing down modern literature.

Oh believe me I've noticed.

Anyway, I don't see my self rejoicing when art transitions from excellence to mediocrity. You're right, back in the 1995-2004 Video Gaming wasn't as mainstream, and when something becomes main stream it tend to get dumbed down for the masses.

Then you fail to understand my analogy. The amount of good games may not be going down, just the amount of 'bad' games going up. The game developers are playing to the market, and you can hardly criticise them for that.

 

[Pellucid]

Really? Did you use cheats? That definately couldn't have been the case with Arcanum, and I have a hard time seeing you just steam rolling your way thought Fallout. Sure maybe once you've played fallout through a time or two you could just roll through, but admit it, the first time through you got barbed by a Rad Scorpion or killed by one of those centauris didn't you? Baldur's Gate 2 may have been that way up until you fought your first dragon, but did you really just steam roll all the bosses in that game, dragons and all?

The first time I played Fallout I was 16 and wasn't that knowledgeable about powergaming yet, so yeah it was kinda hard the first time (kind of). It was a steamrollfest all the way through the second time. I've never played Arcanum. Well, that's a lie, I played it for about twenty minutes one time and then decided that the interface and gameplay was so clunky that I refused to stand for it anymore and stopped playing. I think I had a TPK in a Baldur's Gate game one time ever, although admittedly I did not play any of them to completion (again, interface and gameplay clunkiness drove me away, but it wasn't as bad as Arcanum so I played a reasonable amount of it).

 

[Manji187]

In my own personal experience the years 1994-2000 were the greatest (end of SNES generation to end of N64 generation). Yeah I guess I'm a 'console tard' but hey... that doesn't change the fact that consoles had a lot of great games. They had, what I like to call, functional beauty...everything served a purpose (with limited data space you had to be efficient and creative). Now everything is 'sandbox'. Freedom overdose.

Concerning the dumbing down issue: I think the system we're all living in causes it. With it's abundance of mis- dis- and non-information it's hard to select and analyse real information. Kids these days are likely to end up with some form of ADD. Also the whole promotion of the hedonic consumer life-style isn't helping.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Maybe we should ask for something more precise and constructive than some vauge standard of great writing that is assumed to be enjoyable to all but the knuckle-dragging "unwashed masses."

Perhaps your idea of an intelligent game are just too narrow.

 

[Valentine82]

OP: One could argue that they are dumbing down modern literature.

Oh believe me I've noticed.

Anyway, I don't see my self rejoicing when art transitions from excellence to mediocrity. You're right, back in the 1995-2004 Video Gaming wasn't as mainstream, and when something becomes main stream it tend to get dumbed down for the masses.

Then you fail to understand my analogy. The amount of good games may not be going down, just the amount of 'bad' games going up. The game developers are playing to the market, and you can hardly criticise them for that.

Ah, I see your point... The past couple of years have left me jaded about the industry, but then again the past couple of years the ecomony has been in the tank and companies are less willing to take any risk as a result.


...

Pellucid, you kind of made my point. 20 minutes of game play isn't enough for you to even get a feel for how Arcanum plays, you made a rush to judgment based on naught but first impressions. Arcanum's combat animations are clunky, but the controls are about the same as any Isometric RPG. There's just so much content and so many gameplay options that it's overwhelming at first and takes some experimenting with to get a feel for.

In other words, Arcanum turns people of largely due to it's complexity, which speaks to the very heart of my topic. You kind of, well, just stated that you don't know anything about it and that you were turned off to it because the controls took more than twenty minutes to get used to. Also Baldur's Gate 2 had an element on chunkiness to the party management but since you can use follow commands, group party move, and give all your characters AI scripts it can all be fixed within the game. There are also mod scripts that improve the interface and even make the game run great at higher resolutions than it was designed for.

 

[gamegod25]

All I'm going to say that complex doesn't equal intelligent.

 

[Valentine82]

True, complexity alone does not an intelligent game make, but what exactly does? The removal of all complexity makes a dumbed down game, and if you need examples see Peter "Liar Face" Molyneux's Fable series or EA's Spore. Sure, "dumbed down" doesn't mean "not fun" but it often does mean "Shallow, Without Depth".

Arcanum was a deep and sophisticated title as anyone who's played it past Shrouded Hills will attest, Arcanum was not so much a mere game as it was an open ended literary piece of interactive art with expertly written dialogues and interesting characters of all sizes and backgrounds. The problem is most people have no idea what they're talking about when the discuss the game because most people never get past the noob quests at the crash site and in Shrouded Hills.

It's like people discussing Baldur's Gate 2 who never made it out of Irenicus' Dungeon or Fallout 2 who never made it past Klamath, or Vampire the Masquerade who never made it past the beach. Then again, many people will comment on these titles without having played them at all.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Video games these days are definately dumbed down. They are nothing like the extremely deep and intelligent games of the previous generations, like err...

 

[Yokai]

Two words:
Console Tards

I agree, like most everyone else. The majority of console owners just want to kill things in pretty environments and care little for the storyline or even the gameplay. I have a feeling that if you made a game that was exactly like Halo 3 just with different weapons and a different setting, it would be a smash hit. Fortunately for us, not all developers have fallen to this level. Bioware, Bethesda, and Valve are among the few that haven't.

How do you justify clumping an entire market together just because you think you're superior? Perhaps the console gamers you are speaking of don't have the money to buy a top-end gaming system. Maybe they lack the money to update their computer everytime a bigger and better game comes out? If you actually DO think that wealth=intelligence, then good day sir.


OP: One could argue that they are dumbing down modern literature. Compare Pride and Prejudice to Twilight for example (for that is what you are effectively doing with your examples). Does this mean that society as a whole is becoming dumber because we are getting more Twilights and less Pride and Prejudices (relatively)? No. Literacy rates have obviously improved greatly since 1813, and I don't see the logic in criticising the intelligence of the human race as a whole because more people are reading than before. The reason books were all Pride and Prejudices and not Twilights back in 1813 is because (predominantly) the literate were the well educated, so the books were written FOR THEM. Since most of the world is now literate, books are now written for the less educated. I think we should rejoice that literacy rates are so high, not complain that every book to be released isn't to your educated, elitist standard.

Do you understand my analogy?

I think you misunderstood me. I never believed it was a question of wealth. The computer I use for gaming cost less than a PS3, because it was all I could afford. I'm well aware of the fact that money is an object for most people, such as myself, and I don't think PC games are superior because they're costlier. I don't necessarily think they're better at all.
I'm speaking from what I've seen and experienced of console owners. I know perfectly well they're not all morons. I have many friends who are quite intelligent and won't touch PC games, and judging by your standing on this issue it's pretty clear you play on a console as well, and you're obviously an articulate and comprehensive person. But when I get onto XBox Live, I'm flooded by ignorance, stupidity, and a shallow desire to do nothing more than blow shit up. I never hear Halo 3 players discussing the plotline or the characters of the game, just how awesome the battle rifle is. It seems to be the minority of console gamers who really care about games having a good storyline and innovative gameplay elements beyond fancier graphics and physics and better guns. It's what I see, and I think many on this site will agree with me. I apologize if you felt offended, but the fact that you put together the response that you did means that you aren't one of the ones I was targeting in my comment. I don't think PC gamers are superior by default to console gamers, but in the current games market, it seems as though more developers are targeting those of the "quick and easy explody time" persuasion. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

But when I get onto XBox Live, I'm flooded by ignorance, stupidity, and a shallow desire to do nothing more than blow shit up.

Go log onto WOW and turn on the trade channel. You'll see much the same type of behavior but instead of shooting aliens and blowing things up it's about begging for money and runs through low level dungeons. People act stupid on the internet. I wish I had the URL for penny arcade's comic about that fact. Many of you know the one I mean.

There's no rule written anywhere that every single game that comes out has to be a doctoral thesis that causes you to question your notions on all things under the sun. Some games are geared towards the very smart, others are geared at the mainstream. Here's the thing, though: the mainstream can afford to make games because they sell millions and millions of copies. The game may not be 'smart' or 'innovative', but it has that other quality that is so important to humans - it's 'popular'.

Like it or not, games have gone from being kind of a niche product back in the 80s and early 90s into a HUGE money making industry that every corporation on the planet would crap themselves with glee to get involved in. When you lose that niche status, things change. Games are now marketed to have a broad appeal across many different demographics and if that means that 10% of the most hardcore/most intelligent/best dressed/etc. of game players are alienated, then who cares? You can't please everyone and by trying to do so you will 1) fail and 2) lose money the whole time you're building up to that failure.

 

[ajb924]

You are grouping a whole generation together as if it is impossible for people who have just hit puberty to have played these games, a very negative stereotype but i will argue that another day. Sure some storys have been dumbed down for current generations but not all of them. Bioshock had a pretty complex storyline. But the example that will win me this arguement is The World Ends With You. This is the most complex game i have ever played and i beat both baulders gates and champions of norath, not to mention ocorina of time and majoras mask which i consider great storylines

 

[Angerwing]

I think you misunderstood me. I never believed it was a question of wealth. The computer I use for gaming cost less than a PS3, because it was all I could afford. I'm well aware of the fact that money is an object for most people, such as myself, and I don't think PC games are superior because they're costlier. I don't necessarily think they're better at all.
I'm speaking from what I've seen and experienced of console owners. I know perfectly well they're not all morons. I have many friends who are quite intelligent and won't touch PC games, and judging by your standing on this issue it's pretty clear you play on a console as well, and you're obviously an articulate and comprehensive person. But when I get onto XBox Live, I'm flooded by ignorance, stupidity, and a shallow desire to do nothing more than blow shit up. I never hear Halo 3 players discussing the plotline or the characters of the game, just how awesome the battle rifle is. It seems to be the minority of console gamers who really care about games having a good storyline and innovative gameplay elements beyond fancier graphics and physics and better guns. It's what I see, and I think many on this site will agree with me. I apologize if you felt offended, but the fact that you put together the response that you did means that you aren't one of the ones I was targeting in my comment. I don't think PC gamers are superior by default to console gamers, but in the current games market, it seems as though more developers are targeting those of the "quick and easy explody time" persuasion. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

I am glad to see you aren't the ignorant person I first thought of, but perhaps that mentality has more to do with the games you are playing on Live, rather than the console in general. If you want an example of that on the computer just hop onto Warcraft 3 Battlenet. You'll find the exact same idiocy.

I for one loved Bioshock. It took the regular linear gameplay ("Go do this" "YES SIR", "Open that door" "WITH PLEASURE!") and then made that very element the key plot point. I didn't think twice about doing everything they told me to do, because I had played enough linear games that there was never the slightest thought against doing what they said. When I realised I had been playing into the entire story, that blew my mind. Instead of telling the story through events, spiels and cutscenes (although this was happening aswell), you were actualising the story just by being there and playing it. Ignoring even the immersive environment, the idea of Rapture and it's core tenets interested me more than any other game has.

More edit: Fable was far too easy. The first time I played through the Lost Chapters when it came out (as a young, inexperienced lad of 14), I blitzed through it without a single problem or monster I couldn't kill with ease. There were money bugs that were ridiculously simple to figure out yourself, and combat bugs that ruined boss fight mechanics (Assassin Rush). That was my major discrepancy with Fable.