Dumbed-down?

[Otogi]

I've seen this term thrown around hundreds of times, and while I think I've figured it out, what do you believe is a dumbed-down game?

[Avilan the Grey]

I've seen this term thrown around hundreds of times, and while I think I've figured it out, what do you constitute as a dumbed-down game?

Unfortunately this is one of those terms that are heavily abused on the web. 99% of the time it tends to mean "developer removed an unnecessary, annoying feature that some people that had mastered that feature in an earlier installment of a game series don't want removed, because that means that noobs will be able to enjoy the game so now they are raging".

There ARE arguable games that have suffered from real "dumbing down", meaning too simplified; Spore comes to mind.

[Toastkart]

I've always considered a game to be dumbed-down when features or complexity is removed purely to appeal to a wider audience, with the assumption that newer or more casual players aren't able to handle or enjoy the feature.

Guild Wars 2 is shaping up to be dumbed-down in some respects compared to GW1. Enchantments, hexes, shouts, and conditions are all being rolled into a boon/condition system. Weapon skills are tied to weapon type so that players can't make suboptimal or niche builds.

Making the game an mmo has also necessitated a slew of changes that appear to dumb down the game. Group dynamics, team building, and team synergy are all lost except for specific areas (dungeons and pvp). Monsters now use their own skillsets rather than drawing from the same pool of skills that players use.

Mass Effect 2 was also dumbed down in some ways, but at the same time, it's almost better for it. The gameplay was better, but the background systems like inventory, equipment upgrades, exploration, etc. were dumbed down so far they were cut entirely.

A game being dumbed-down doesn't mean its not enjoyable. Rather, it means that I see where they could have continued and improved the previous systems and chose not to in order to attract new players.

[Penguinizer]

I agree with Evrines classification.

For a fighting game reference, let's take a look at Blazblue and it's predecessor Guilty Gear. While I know they are two completely separate games, I'm going to use them as an example, largely since they were made by the same company and are similar. I shall refer to them as GG and BB respectively.

There are several major differences between the two. For example, they removed several features from GG when making BB. They removed several mechanics such as Forcebreaks (albeit they return as a character gimmick), False Romantic Cancels and Jump Installs among a few others. They also made combo inputs more forgiving. They also made attacks "safer" in a way.

I would consider this an example of dumbing down. They removed several complicated gameplay mechanics and made several things easier at a loss of depth. Combo inputs are more lax and the ground pickup time is significantly larger. Compared to GG, where if a character falls onto the ground, but does not groundbounce, the combo can not be continued. In BB however, there is still a significant window where one can use a low attack to re-launch them. This also lead to some balance issues, however, that is a completely different matter.

It does not apply completely here, largely as they are different games. I still chose to use them as an example as they are games I am familiar with. I apologize for possible lapses into jargon.

TL;DR: Removal of gameplay mechanics leading to a loss in depth of gameplay.

[Zen Master]

Any pc game in which you clearly feel the GUI was programmed with consoles in mind. In other words, in order not to exceed the limits of the console, you get a second-rate pc game.

There is of course also any game released by Obsidian - and others like them - where you can actually smell their fear of anything text based.

[AtwasAwamps]

Any pc game in which you clearly feel the GUI was programmed with consoles in mind. In other words, in order not to exceed the limits of the console, you get a second-rate pc game.

There is of course also any game released by Obsidian - and others like them - where you can actually smell their fear of anything text based.

That's not dumbing down. Those are just poor design decisions.

[Avilan the Grey]

Mass Effect 2 was also dumbed down in some ways, but at the same time, it's almost better for it. The gameplay was better, but the background systems like inventory, equipment upgrades, exploration, etc. were dumbed down so far they were cut entirely.

Just to beat the dead horse: Mass Effect 2 was not dumbed down; it was basically the game they wanted to make with ME1 but didn't dare to (they were not sure the RPG crowd would accept a game without inventory etc).
Also, just because a feature is removed. Of course one person's "Dumbed Down" is another person's "Optimized" or "Streamlined".

[Weimann]

This term is largely subjective and trying to find an objective definition of it probably won't happen. Sure, I can agree on "removal of gameplay mechanics leading to a loss in depth of gameplay" as a suitable description, but you'll have a hard time getting everyone to agree on when this is dumbing down or just streamlining (here used as a positively charged equivalent).

Look, for example, on World of Warcraft. Many complaints are raised about how it dumbs itself down to attract newcomers. Competitive raid progression, for example, has gone from being something you devoted your free time to to just another complimentary part of your game experience. Some people call this a loss, as it means that a larger part of the player base can access the high tier content and they lose the prestige of being at that level, while others call it gain since they can not experience when whole game and are not time-restricted to focus on one single part.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Any pc game in which you clearly feel the GUI was programmed with consoles in mind. In other words, in order not to exceed the limits of the console, you get a second-rate pc game.

Fear 2 took out leaning because the X-Box 360 controller didn't have a button for it.

Stupidest thing I've ever played.

[SITB]

There is of course also any game released by Obsidian - and others like them - where you can actually smell their fear of anything text based.

What are you talking about? What and where do Obsidian fear text?

[Yora]

I agree that Obsidian is a terrible developer, but text does not seem to be a major problem for them.

[Zen Master]

What are you talking about? What and where do Obsidian fear text?

Um .... yea, about that. Sorry, but I meant Bethesda - the authors of Oblivion. Which someone in my early morning, coffee deprived state got confused with Obsidian.

This, naturally, makes no sense. And in the case of Oblivion Obsidian, I meant specifically their use of recorded audio conversations - which likely feels more 'modern' to game designers, but comes with built-in limitations.

So ... yea. My bad.

Edited for further nonsense.

[warty goblin]

Um .... yea, about that. Sorry, but I meant Bethesda - the authors of Oblivion. Which someone in my early morning, coffee deprived state got confused with Obsidian.

This, naturally, makes no sense. And in the case of Oblivion Obsidian, I meant specifically their use of recorded audio conversations - which likely feels more 'modern' to game designers, but comes with built-in limitations.

So ... yea. My bad.

Edited for further nonsense.

You mean Oblivion, the game with a small library's worth of in-game books? Yeah, totally afraid of text.

[MoelVermillion]

Unfortunately this is one of those terms that are heavily abused on the web. 99% of the time it tends to mean "developer removed an unnecessary, annoying feature that some people that had mastered that feature in an earlier installment of a game series don't want removed, because that means that noobs will be able to enjoy the game so now they are raging".


I find this post extremely presumptuous and unfair. People get annoyed at the removal of features for other reasons than just "because that means that noobs will be able to enjoy the game" and what you consider an unnecessary feature other people might consider the heart and soul of the game.

As an example when creating Team Fortress 2 they purposefully removed the grenades that were present in Team Fortress Classic. Grenades were largely used in TFC as a way to propel yourself into large jumps rather than as a way to frag other players. Now its true that grenade jumping did have a bit of a skill barrier and it that it could give you a large advantage over other players who could not grenade jump. It is also true that by removing the grenades from TF2 the game did become more accessible.

However I preffer TFC to TF2 because TFC had grenades. I don't have a problem with the removal of grenades "because that means that noobs will be able to enjoy the game", allowing "noobs" to play grows the player base which is a pretty good thing for anyone wishing to have a match with players. I'm annoyed at the removal of grenades because grenade jumping was my favourite part of the game. I actually play TF2 frequently however for me it has never managed to give me a level of enjoyment comparable to what its predecessor did. Some people would argue that grenades were an unnecessary feature (valve certainly seemed to think so) however they were for me what made TFC "TFC", if you removed them then it wasn't really the same game anymore. Yes I'm complaining that they removed a feature even though removing it made the game more acessible, but I'm not complaining because it made the game more accessible I'm complaining because I liked the feature itself.

Penguinizer's BlazBlue versus Guilty Gear example is another good example of what I am talking. There are a lot of players who vastly prefer Guilty Gear to BlazBlue despite BlazBlue being newer with shinier graphics and a larger player base. Like Penguinizer previously mentioned many features from Guilty Gear were not present in BlazBlue and many of these features took a great deal more skill to utilize than the features that made it into BlazBlue. Now the Guilty Gear players don't prefer GG because it appeals to a smaller audience, they prefer GG because it has many gameplay features that they really enjoy being able to utilize that are not present in BlazBlue. If anything Guilty Gear players wish that their game appealed to a wider audience because with a small player base it can be hard to organize tournaments but most of these players would rather play the game that they love with a small player base than a game stripped of the features that they love with a large player base.

Maybe "dumbed down" isn't the nicest term for this as it certainly does give of an air of smug elitism however I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume that myself and other players who dislike the removal of these features only disliked it because it opens the game to a wider Audience. Some of us just liked these features because we felt they made game play more interesting and we resent their removal as we find the game less enjoyable without them.

[SITB]

Um .... yea, about that. Sorry, but I meant Bethesda - the authors of Oblivion. Which someone in my early morning, coffee deprived state got confused with Obsidian.

This, naturally, makes no sense. And in the case of Oblivion Obsidian, I meant specifically their use of recorded audio conversations - which likely feels more 'modern' to game designers, but comes with built-in limitations.

So ... yea. My bad.

Edited for further nonsense.

RE Obsidian: As opposed to Bioware and ME?

And I disagree with the view that Obsidian is a terrible developer.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

As an example when creating Team Fortress 2 they purposefully removed the grenades that were present in Team Fortress Classic. Grenades were largely used in TFC as a way to propel yourself into large jumps rather than as a way to frag other players. Now its true that grenade jumping did have a bit of a skill barrier and it that it could give you a large advantage over other players who could not grenade jump. It is also true that by removing the grenades from TF2 the game did become more accessible.

However I preffer TFC to TF2 because TFC had grenades. I don't have a problem with the removal of grenades "because that means that noobs will be able to enjoy the game", allowing "noobs" to play grows the player base which is a pretty good thing for anyone wishing to have a match with players. I'm annoyed at the removal of grenades because grenade jumping was my favourite part of the game. I actually play TF2 frequently however for me it has never managed to give me a level of enjoyment comparable to what its predecessor did. Some people would argue that grenades were an unnecessary feature (valve certainly seemed to think so) however they were for me what made TFC "TFC", if you removed them then it wasn't really the same game anymore. Yes I'm complaining that they removed a feature even though removing it made the game more acessible, but I'm not complaining because it made the game more accessible I'm complaining because I liked the feature itself.
One point here...can't you do this with the Soldier's RPG? So this would be a feature that was just streamlined to apply to a single class, and made practically a feature of that class. (Not to mention the Scout doesn't need it...)

[MoelVermillion]

One point here...can't you do this with the Soldier's RPG? So this would be a feature that was just streamlined to apply to a single class, and made practically a feature of that class. (Not to mention the Scout doesn't need it...)

Rocket jumping handles a little differently and was already possible in TFC so it is a removal of the grenade jump feature rather than a stream lining. Rocket jumping and demo pipe bomb (now sticky bomb) jumping survived the transfer but grenade jumping did not. Don't get me wrong though, TF2 is a good game and if it was identical to its predecessor then it would be a remake and not a sequel but I do miss my grenade jumps.

[Closet_Skeleton]

RE Obsidian: As opposed to Bioware and ME?

And I disagree with the view that Obsidian is a terrible developer.

It really depends on whether or not you hate NWN2. If you don't then you could say that Obsidian is okay. But as someone who doesn't like NWN2 Obsidian is terrible, KotOR 2 still being my favourite game of theirs and it being the mess that it is. I'm a bit behind though, so Fallout: New Vegas might have redeemed them a little.

Obsidian's Modus Operandi is making sequels to (other company's) RPGs they didn't like. Surely they can think of a better use for their supposedly good creative talent or at least get a decent producer who can secure a better publishing deal.

[Dogmantra]

TF2 Grenades
I'd argue that this is actually a case of "dumbing up" in the sense that it makes the game more complex by removing a feature. Grenade jumping would mean that every class had access to every part of the map, and all had similar mobility. In removing it, they did remove a feature that some players enjoyed, but it arguably made the game more complex, as classes began to interact in ways that would not have been possible with grenade jumping.

[Jahkaivah]

I'd argue that this is actually a case of "dumbing up" in the sense that it makes the game more complex by removing a feature. Grenade jumping would mean that every class had access to every part of the map, and all had similar mobility. In removing it, they did remove a feature that some players enjoyed, but it arguably made the game more complex, as classes began to interact in ways that would not have been possible with grenade jumping.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/SaxtonHale.png

Pretty much this.


This got summed up a while back, with those who felt that greandes were the bomb chose to stay with TFC or move to Fortress Forever, and will remain there untill they waste away.

Then one day I will unearth their corpses, chop off their heads, and recruit them as my grenade chucking headless soldiers in my mutant army as we travel into the past in an attempt to take over the world.

[Yora]

One game that feels really dumbed down to me is Final Fantasy XIII. I really love this game, and I think it looks and sounds great with lots of interesting character development.
But for the first third of the game, you don't do anything but pusshing X. It gets more interesting once you get the Paradigm Shifts and get a way to influence the combats, but it's still not that exiting. For most of the game, you are forced to fight with whatever two or three characters the game gives you. And while it's always the best choice to just select "use optimal attacks" for the primary character, the secondary characters do exactly the same thing without any player input. You don't do anything in the game except switching the paradigm AI-Sets for the characters when they get low on hit points.
FF10 was almost as linear as 13, but in that game you could at least take a moment and look through your spells and items to see if there's something else then "cause damage" and "heal damage",

[Dragonus45]

I always felt that dumbed down is just a way of saying simplified when you don't like the change. Sometimes its a good thing sometimes its not. A great example that comes to mind is the differences between Morrowind and Oblivion.

[Yora]

Actually I like lots of the simplifications in recent games. One thing is self-regenerating health that gets you back to full health within seconds.
We're not simulating actual armed combat, and med packs or health potions wouldn't be realistic as well. And when we want to redicolously slaughter 400 enemies single handedly, why bother with hit point management?

[MoelVermillion]

I'd argue that this is actually a case of "dumbing up" in the sense that it makes the game more complex by removing a feature. Grenade jumping would mean that every class had access to every part of the map, and all had similar mobility. In removing it, they did remove a feature that some players enjoyed, but it arguably made the game more complex, as classes began to interact in ways that would not have been possible with grenade jumping.


http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/SaxtonHale.png

Pretty much this.


This got summed up a while back, with those who felt that greandes were the bomb chose to stay with TFC or move to Fortress Forever, and will remain there untill they waste away.

Then one day I will unearth their corpses, chop off their heads, and recruit them as my grenade chucking headless soldiers in my mutant army as we travel into the past in an attempt to take over the world.

I want to preface this by mentioning that I don’t truly believe that I don't really feel like either game is more complex than the other or that TF2 is actually "dumbed down" or that "dumbed down" is even particularly a good term, I was just bothered by the idea that players will generally complain about the removal of high skill barrier features just because it makes the game more accessible.

What you said about TF2 being more complex than TFC just because the mobilities are more varied isn't really true. You gain interactions for sure but you definitely lose a bunch by removing it as well. It’s not like each class was as good at jumping as the other ones anyway as each class had different types of grenades(some which didn’t boost at all) and different amounts of grenades. The classes are also still diversified with running speed and other attributes (including armour which didn’t make it into TF2 either). It’s definitely not as simple as grenade jumps meant mobility was a non-factor in class selection. However grenade jumps did mean that complexity was added in that you now had to know the best ways to navigate a map for optimal grenade jumps, you need to learn places that other classes could jump to, you had to learn to ration your grenades properly because they weren't as easy to restock as ammo, so basically an entire expanded skill set based entirely on using grenade jumps.

Honestly I don’t think either game is truly more skilled than the other because both require such a hugely different skill set to the other. TFC is a lot faster over all movement wise and relies on being able to exploit physics loop holes in the engine where as TF2 has a lot more of the whole aiming thing going on. You're probably not able to make any clear comparisons about skill requirements though.

I mainly play TF2 nowadays though I still think TFC is the superior game but I feel that they're different enough that I don't even really think of them as related games really. They fulfill different purposes for me and while I enjoy TFC more I have roughly five hundred hours logged on TF2 so I don't exactly hate that either :smalltongue:.

But yeah basically I just don't like the notion that being bothered by the removal of high skill barrier features can only be motivated by wanting to feel elitist and the only reason that people are complaining that its removed is that it makes it more accessible. Sometimes we just like the features and the skill barrier has nothing to do with that.

EDIT:


Actually I like lots of the simplifications in recent games. One thing is self-regenerating health that gets you back to full health within seconds.
We're not simulating actual armed combat, and med packs or health potions wouldn't be realistic as well. And when we want to redicolously slaughter 400 enemies single handedly, why bother with hit point management?

I'm not even sure this is simplified in anyway, med packs force players to get good at scavenging and regenerating health systems force players to get good at retreating and covering. Neither is particularly more simple or complicated they're just... different...

[Dogmantra]

What you said about TF2 being more complex than TFC just because the mobilities are more varied isn't really true.

(I understand that it was ambiguous, but by "more complex" I meant "more complex than if there were grenades", not "more complex than TFC")

[SparkMandriller]

You mean Oblivion, the game with a small library's worth of in-game books? Yeah, totally afraid of text.

Weren't they all just copy pasted from other games?

[Ozymandias]

You mean Oblivion, the game with a small library's worth of in-game books? Yeah, totally afraid of text.

Almost all of the books from Oblivion were recycled from Morrowind and Daggerfall, I believe. Those were made by the same developer, of course, but it's something to consider.

Also: why all the Obsidian hate? Yes, they release buggy games, but it tends to be exaggerated a bit (e.g. New Vegas which really isn't very buggy on PC at all), and in any case people sing the praises of e.g. Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines or Arcanum despite them being incredibly unpolished.

They're a small-ish old-school RPG developer, in an industry where the level of polish expected of a game is huge, especially compared to how it used to be. If you really care about that sort of stuff, fine, but there are a large number of people (myself included) who are more than willing to put up with bugs (which in my experience aren't usually that bad, although you may have your own horror stories that color your opinions of them) in exchange for what is easily some the best writing in the business, so don't insinuate that they're incompetent just because they have flaws.

Except NWN2, which was just a huge misfire (from where I'm standing).

On topic, I don't like "dumbing down" when it refers to reducing depth but when it takes away needless complexity it's usually justified. Mass Effect 2 is generally a good example, although I wish they had kept in more weapons (maybe 4-5 of each type instead of 2-3).

[MoelVermillion]

(I understand that it was ambiguous, but by "more complex" I meant "more complex than if there were grenades", not "more complex than TFC")

Oh, yeah that makes sense :smallredface:.

Either way, in responding to you I mused to myself the idea of grenades in TF2 if everything remained unchanged and ...it wouldn't have worked :smalltongue:. TFC was built on various versions of the quake engine all of which were pretty much crying for you to exploit movement physics at every possible turn but the source engine really isn't like that. TFC was a soup of different movement exploits all of which tied together to make an environment in which grenade jumping really fits. TF2 is not this game though and it would end up a gameplay feature that clashed heavily with the rest of the game.

I only really posted the whole thing I guess is because grenades cause a huge "You only like them because you're elitist." "No you only dislike them because you suck." debate in the TF community and I just wanted to point out that these kind of things can be liked for other reasons. Admittedly there are a lot of players who act elitist to TF2 because it doesn't have grenade jumps and is a "cartoon baby game about hats" but I feel like everyone else who likes grenade jumping gets unfairly rolled in with the elitist crowd.

[Avilan the Grey]

I find this post extremely presumptuous and unfair. People get annoyed at the removal of features for other reasons than just "because that means that noobs will be able to enjoy the game" and what you consider an unnecessary feature other people might consider the heart and soul of the game.


I was exaggerating, since the Fan Dumb tend to scream the loudest every time anything is changed, or rumored to be changed... I remember / see daily the Fan Rage about fine games such as: ME2, Civ III, Civ IV, Dragon Age 2, Oblivion, Fallout 3 etc etc where one of the main complaints is the "It's Dumbed Down!!!".

I also point out that there is a big difference between the Fan Dumb Rage "Dumbed Down!" and actual Dumbed Down games.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Also: why all the Obsidian hate? Yes, they release buggy games, but it tends to be exaggerated a bit (e.g. New Vegas which really isn't very buggy on PC at all), and in any case people sing the praises of e.g. Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines or Arcanum despite them being incredibly unpolished.

Those games don't exactly have their flaws ignored either.


Except NWN2, which was just a huge misfire (from where I'm standing).

Also 50%+ of their output if you include the expansions.


On topic, I don't like "dumbing down" when it refers to reducing depth but when it takes away needless complexity it's usually justified. Mass Effect 2 is generally a good example, although I wish they had kept in more weapons (maybe 4-5 of each type instead of 2-3).

Mass Effect 2 has more guns than Mass Effect 1. 1 gave you varied stats, but 2 actually has ones with differant rates of fire and ammo capacity. Both games equally suffer from "there's always a best choice". What's the point in having 2 extra sniper rifles that aren't actually sniper rifles? Or a weak pistol that's replaced by a heavy pistol an hour into the game?

[Avilan the Grey]

Mass Effect 2 has more guns than Mass Effect 1. 1 gave you varied stats, but 2 actually has ones with differant rates of fire and ammo capacity. Both games equally suffer from "there's always a best choice". What's the point in having 2 extra sniper rifles that aren't actually sniper rifles? Or a weak pistol that's replaced by a heavy pistol an hour into the game?

...yes I agree with this. I read the numbers somewhere that ME2 has 19 different guns. I don't remember if it was including the FirePower pack DLC or not; if not it has 23 distinctly different guns (the Kasumi DLC and the Firepower DLC added to the 19).

[DaedalusMkV]

Also: why all the Obsidian hate? Yes, they release buggy games, but it tends to be exaggerated a bit (e.g. New Vegas which really isn't very buggy on PC at all), and in any case people sing the praises of e.g. Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines or Arcanum despite them being incredibly unpolished.


Not to be a nitpicker or anything, but New Vegas has more bugs than an ant farm. I normally make that argument about games that get held up as "too buggy to be good" (STALKER comes to mind), but Obsidian games actually do have a lot of issues. I've been hit by many bugs and glitches in New Vegas (Boone's rifle glitching out of existence, as well as over 10 CTDs and many, many graphical glitches, not to mention several "faction randomly decides it hates you and comes to kill you", as well as a few other, less drastic ones), which are basically ruining what is otherwise a far better game than FO3. NWN 2 hit me with a glitch that made the game Unwinnable (lost the ability to directly control the Githzerai Cleric) with no recourse but to restart the game. It's really a shame, because otherwise Obsidian are actually quite good at making games.
As to the Dumbed-down thing: It's really, really subjective. One person's streamlining is another person's dumbing down. Really, the only time it is objectively true is when PC game features are cut to facilitate a Console version (the Shadowrun FPS is a great example of this), but even then it's not necessarily a bad thing. I try not to accuse anyone of doing this; I'll complain about a feature I like being cut, but I'll never accuse companies of "pandering to the masses" or "dumbing it down for the console 'tards" (I hate that one more than most, actually). Doing so is just going out of your way to be an elitist jerk.

Then again, does the "casual market" shovelware count as dumbing down? Because I'll happily mock the companies who intentionally make bad, shallow games on the cheap to market them to people who don't know what they'll be getting. And the movie-tie-in people... :smallmad:

[Joran]

I'm not even sure this is simplified in anyway, med packs force players to get good at scavenging and regenerating health systems force players to get good at retreating and covering. Neither is particularly more simple or complicated they're just... different...

The difference between regenerating health and hit points is a design choice rather than one being better than the other. Deciding which one alters how the gameplay pacing feels and the tension points.

For hit points, the design choice forces the player to be more cautious with his gameplay, after all, even one hit reduces his life, and to explore more for health packs. It also leads to generating tension over a longer period of time. One prime example of this is Left 4 Dead where the hit point system leads to prolonged tension when the player is clinging onto 10 hit points and no health packs are in sight.

The regenerating health system allows the player more room to screw up, since hiding allows the player to get back to where he started in a few seconds. It promotes a more aggressive style playstyle with the player willing to take risks. Tension tends to ebb and flow in quick bursts here, but isn't prolonged since the player is either back to full health or dead within 10 seconds. One example is Gears of War, where the game rewards run and gun type play and chainsaws to the face.

The hit point system tends to favor gritty realistic games while regenerating health tends to favor more over the top shooters, but tweaking the values can change the feel. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 had regenerating health, but one good shot could kill the player, so it had more of a realistic feel while Max Payne had a hit point system, but with the bullet-time and ample health packs, it felt more over the top.

Props to BRC's friend who came up with this analysis:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9873997&postcount=1060

[Ozymandias]

Those games don't exactly have their flaws ignored either.

Sure, but (in my limited experience) people tend to eulogize Troika while coming down pretty hard on Obsidian.


Also 50%+ of their output if you include the expansions.

I actually liked the expansions (especially the first one). I think the only Obsidian game I really didn't like was the base NWN2 because I feel like it was unfinished, and unlike Kotor 2 what was there still wasn't very impressive.


Mass Effect 2 has more guns than Mass Effect 1. 1 gave you varied stats, but 2 actually has ones with differant rates of fire and ammo capacity. Both games equally suffer from "there's always a best choice". What's the point in having 2 extra sniper rifles that aren't actually sniper rifles? Or a weak pistol that's replaced by a heavy pistol an hour into the game?

I'm pretty sure Mass Effect has more guns although most of them are either completely useless or virtually identical. Certainly the different weapons in ME2 feel different from each other, which is good, but I wish they had a couple of different high-level options instead of, as you note, never using the old ones after a certain point (or never using certain guns at all because they're worse than what you already have).


Not to be a nitpicker or anything, but New Vegas has more bugs than an ant farm. I normally make that argument about games that get held up as "too buggy to be good" (STALKER comes to mind), but Obsidian games actually do have a lot of issues. I've been hit by many bugs and glitches in New Vegas (Boone's rifle glitching out of existence, as well as over 10 CTDs and many, many graphical glitches, not to mention several "faction randomly decides it hates you and comes to kill you", as well as a few other, less drastic ones), which are basically ruining what is otherwise a far better game than FO3. NWN 2 hit me with a glitch that made the game Unwinnable (lost the ability to directly control the Githzerai Cleric) with no recourse but to restart the game. It's really a shame, because otherwise Obsidian are actually quite good at making games.

As I said, it must really depend on the rig/chance because I didn't get any significant bugs in the three or four playthroughs I did of it. NWN2 was quite bad in that respect though.


Then again, does the "casual market" shovelware count as dumbing down? Because I'll happily mock the companies who intentionally make bad, shallow games on the cheap to market them to people who don't know what they'll be getting. And the movie-tie-in people... :smallmad:

Such is the nature of capitalism (although I don't imagine a state-run videogame industry would be much better).

Edit: Vis-a-vis regenerating health - I like mixed systems (Far Cry 2's being my favorite). Pure regenerating health turns most fights into "find cover duck" and pure not means you get to situations like "I didn't win that fight easily enough, better quickload" (although this is partly due to my OCD-esque playing style).

[Jahkaivah]

Either way, in responding to you I mused to myself the idea of grenades in TF2 if everything remained unchanged and ...it wouldn't have worked :smalltongue:.

Theres actually a server mod that implements them.

I did not stay on the server that was running it for long. :smalltongue:


I'm not even sure this is simplified in anyway, med packs force players to get good at scavenging and regenerating health systems force players to get good at retreating and covering. Neither is particularly more simple or complicated they're just... different...

Depends, the thing is that med packs can force the players to get good at scavenging and force them to get good at retreating and covering.

It often works to add new elements of tension to the game, be it periods in a single player game where you are low on health, or battles in multiplayer games where your trying to get your hands on the health before the enemy does.

Generally, I find regenerative health appropriate when the games focus isn't on the challenge of combat. Two games spring to mind, a classic one is Portal whose combat sequences were basically puzzles. And the other is Just Cause 2 (which kind Cogwheel gifted me), whose combat sequences are basically excercises in style and sadism as opposed to anything that should be taxing.

I'm sure one could find a way to make it beneficial for a game which does have a focus on challenging combat, but I notice alot of such games tend to suffer for it.

[warty goblin]

Almost all of the books from Oblivion were recycled from Morrowind and Daggerfall, I believe. Those were made by the same developer, of course, but it's something to consider.

Still a game with a lot of text in it.


Also: why all the Obsidian hate? Yes, they release buggy games, but it tends to be exaggerated a bit (e.g. New Vegas which really isn't very buggy on PC at all), and in any case people sing the praises of e.g. Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines or Arcanum despite them being incredibly unpolished.
NWN 2 is a turd in the flesh, as in, even if you remove all the bugs it would still be a terrible game. The only other game of theirs I've played is Alpha Protocol, which is extremely well written, but the basic game systems are often pretty horrible. Stealth comes down to 'the AI behaves like no human being in the history of the cosmos, but here's a button to make you invisible' the minigames can burn in hell, and the cover system is seriously spastic.




They're a small-ish old-school RPG developer, in an industry where the level of polish expected of a game is huge, especially compared to how it used to be. If you really care about that sort of stuff, fine, but there are a large number of people (myself included) who are more than willing to put up with bugs (which in my experience aren't usually that bad, although you may have your own horror stories that color your opinions of them) in exchange for what is easily some the best writing in the business, so don't insinuate that they're incompetent just because they have flaws.

I can forgive bugs and a general lack of polish if the game's pushing some sort of boundaries. STALKER and ARMA are some of my favorite games, and both are bugged to hell and back, but they also do more to create an AI driven (as opposed to scripted) world than anything else, and that's hard. But Obsidian really doesn't push any sort of technical envelope, so I'm much less willing to give a pass there.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Sure, but (in my limited experience) people tend to eulogize Troika while coming down pretty hard on Obsidian.

Its probably just that Obsidian games are more popular, so ironically you get a wider variety of opinions about them and more vitriol.


I actually liked the expansions (especially the first one). I think the only Obsidian game I really didn't like was the base NWN2 because I feel like it was unfinished, and unlike Kotor 2 what was there still wasn't very impressive.

I actually got further in pre-expansion NWN2. The expansion's change to the interface I found frustrating. I never got that far in either because my brother was the one who owned them and he moved out to live with his girlfriend, but they certainly didn't make me want to buy my own copy (me and my brother each had our own copies of NWN and the expansions so we could play online together).


I'm pretty sure Mass Effect has more guns although most of them are either completely useless or virtually identical. Certainly the different weapons in ME2 feel different from each other, which is good


I was being less literal and saying that the "differant" guns in the first game weren't differant at all and therefore shouldn't be claimed to count.

As far as I can see Mass Effect 1 had four differant guns that you could customise the stats of and one part of this customisation system claimed to be using a differant kind of gun and sometimes changed your weapon's appearance but was no more a differant weapon than choosing to use anti-Geth bullets was a differant weapon. In fact the ammunition choice seemed to make more of a differance than the "gun" choice.

The fact that you could turn all these guns into omnigel and put them in your pocket made the lie that you had a choice of guns even more obvious.


but I wish they had a couple of different high-level options instead of, as you note, never using the old ones after a certain point (or never using certain guns at all because they're worse than what you already have).

Except you do in Mass Effect 2. All the guns are equally viable at all points in the game because they all benefit from the same ammo powers and upgrades. Its just that most of the guns are worthless at any point in the game. I never used the high end guns (eg the Krogan Shotgun or anti-tank sniper rifle that Legion also gets) because I took that opportunity to get a new weapon type (sniper rifles) rather than just an upgraded version of a weapon I could already use. In Mass Effect 2 I used the basic sniper rifle because it was the only one-hit one kill one despite its rubish ammo, the second shotgun because the third one had too little ammo, the carnifex pistol because you get it so early its the one I got used to and the Kasumi DLC submachine gun because it was obviously better.

[Jahkaivah]

You mean Oblivion, the game with a small library's worth of in-game books? Yeah, totally afraid of text.

Strictly speaking those are optional boss fights.

In Morrowind you had to overcome great walls of texts presented by actual people with quests.

[warty goblin]

Strictly speaking those are optional boss fights.

In Morrowind you had to overcome great walls of texts presented by actual people with quests.

Which is all for the better. If I want to read a book, I've got a shelf of those...

[Thrawn183]

Generally, I find regenerative health appropriate when the games focus isn't on the challenge of combat. Two games spring to mind, a classic one is Portal whose combat sequences were basically puzzles. And the other is Just Cause 2 (which kind Cogwheel gifted me), whose combat sequences are basically excercises in style and sadism as opposed to anything that should be taxing.

I'm sure one could find a way to make it beneficial for a game which does have a focus on challenging combat, but I notice alot of such games tend to suffer for it.

I have to disagree here. I've found that games with a focus on regenerating HP tend to make each individual combat a fight for your very survival. On the other hand, when I have to go hunt down health packs, I'm always asking myself if I made it through the previous fight having taken too much damage or not. Regenerating HP leads to not only a more consistent level of difficulty and intensity, but also doesn't break my suspension of disbelief as much.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I can forgive bugs and a general lack of polish if the game's pushing some sort of boundaries. STALKER and ARMA are some of my favorite games, and both are bugged to hell and back, but they also do more to create an AI driven (as opposed to scripted) world than anything else, and that's hard. But Obsidian really doesn't push any sort of technical envelope, so I'm much less willing to give a pass there.

Yeah, Obsidian's games are all sequels. You can get the bugfree non-Obsidian experiance somewhere else. For other flawed masterpieces you have no alternative but to suffer the pain.

[Rob Roy]

A game being dumbed down or not depends on what you mean by dumbed down. A great example is Morrowind vs Oblivion. I'm not going to lie, I liked Morrowind better. Morrowind, despite its much smaller game world, had interesting quests, hell even going place to place felt like an adventure. Oblivion, however, was dumbed down in the world design and acting department. It had horrible acting which, while acting would have been an improvement to Morrowind, this made it worse. Oblivion seemed like it was designed for fast travel, so we got bland world design instead of and interesting game world. But Oblivion improved many things. First and for most was Morrowind's god awful combat. Oblivion made it decent. The point is, many sequels are dumbed-down, but also "dumbed-up" in many cases. In several cases just because a game is dumbed-down in some areas doesn't mean it isn't a good game. Oblivion is another prime example.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, Obsidian's games are all sequels. You can get the bugfree non-Obsidian experiance somewhere else. For other flawed masterpieces you have no alternative but to suffer the pain.

Well, Alpha Protocol isn't a sequel to anything. I mean it is for many purposes Mass Effect 2: Worse Gameplay Edition*, but it's not part of a series.

*Although weirdly I like it better.

[VanBuren]

Well, Alpha Protocol isn't a sequel to anything. I mean it is for many purposes Mass Effect 2: Worse Gameplay Edition*, but it's not part of a series.

*Although weirdly I like it better.

I like the fact that I was able to pull off a massive Xanatos Gambit and set myself up as one of the most powerful people in the world with a **** ton of allies.

The rest of it was pretty meh.

[Lord of Rapture]

I love Obsidian. KOTOR 2 and New Vegas are some of my favorite games ever. Sure, they make mostly sequels, but the ones I played so far were some really fun, entertaining, and well-written games that I can forgive that. And I must live in some weird, alternate reality, seeing as I only experience minor bugs with those games from time to time.

OT: Dumbing down isn't necessarily bad. If it makes the game more streamlined, less clunky, and more open to a wider audience, I consider it a good thing. That said though, there's a reason it's tossed around as an insult...

[Avilan the Grey]

OT: Dumbing down isn't necessarily bad. If it makes the game more streamlined, less clunky, and more open to a wider audience, I consider it a good thing. That said though, there's a reason it's tossed around as an insult...

Yes, but that is as someone pointed out not dumbing down.

Basically, unfortunately, we can summarize this discussion like this:
Dumbed Down is what people call streamlining when it makes changes they do not approve of.

[factotum]

Any RPG will suffer from "There's always a best choice" where it comes to weapons, realistically. Remember the Buriza-Do Kyanon from Diablo 2? Pretty much as fast as it was possible for a crossbow to be, did enormous damage, froze the mobs in place...the only thing it couldn't reasonably handle were Cold Immune Physical Immune mobs, and there were precious few of those around! Ideally weapons as overpowered as that should be extremely rare finds that require you to jump through multiple hoops to get them (unlike the Buriza, which could be found from Nightmare Mephisto with a reasonable drop rate).

[Zen Master]

You mean Oblivion, the game with a small library's worth of in-game books? Yeah, totally afraid of text.

That had absolutely no bearing on anything. Yes - that game.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I didn't have that many problems with bugs in KotOR 2 either. Only problems I had were the obviously unfinished bits and the boringness of Onderon compared to previous versions of it in the EU.

If KotOR 2 was Obsidians only game (which it was, so this is kind of true) I would quite like Obsidian despite the flaws.

[Lord of Rapture]

I didn't have that many problems with bugs in KotOR 2 either. Only problems I had were the obviously unfinished bits and the boringness of Onderon compared to previous versions of it in the EU.

If KotOR 2 was Obsidians only game (which it was, so this is kind of true) I would quite like Obsidian despite the flaws.

Well, blame LucasArts for the unfinished nature of the game. I know I did. Besides, with the fan restoration project, it became a much more cohesive whole. I guess I really didn't share the same experience with you, so my opinion is different.

Besides, up until this, KOTOR 2 was the only game I cared about from Obsidian. Fantasy RPGs don't really appeal to me all that much, so NWN 2 could suck as much as it wanted to, and I wouldn't care.

[Wargor]

That had absolutely no bearing on anything. Yes - that game.

You mean you want to have to read everything in games? How...retro. :smalltongue:

[Zen Master]

Dumbed Down is what people call streamlining when it makes changes they do not approve of.

This could be further summarized as: Streamlining is always good - though some people will dislike it despite it being good, in which case they will call it dumbing down.

I'm sure that's not what you meant. But it seems the logical conclusion to me :smallbiggrin:

Let me give an example. The game I consider the most dumbed down of all I've played is Fallout 3.

It's not the game I wanted to see - but that's ok, it could have been a great shooter. Only it isn't - it's a barely average shooter, with a lazy attempt at RP elements tacked on.

They've done several things with it that are just ... dumb. Like the super mutants, that are a major theme - and are in the DC area for reasons entirely unexplained. And have arrived there by means also unexplained.

There is the entirety of dialogue in the game. No good thing can be said about it - it's uninspired, shallow and poorly executed.

I could go on, but I think the points made. And of course, people who happen to like Fallout 3 can claim that I call it dumbed down because I dislike it.

[shadow_archmagi]

TEXT IN OBLIVION!?

One day I'll be so preposterously wealthy I can hire Liam Neeson and Morgan Freeman to come to my house and read all the text in Morrowind for me so I don't have to fight the text-walls myself.



GRENADES IN TF2?


I love it when Dogmantra comes forward and makes a reasonable argument that supports pretty much all the points I would like supported.



What is dumb?


One of the three sides of the coin.

Good=Streamlined
Neutral=Simplified
Bad=Dumbed Down

Spore is the champion of dumbed down. I mean, it's a game about EVOLUTION. Your job is to DEVELOP A CREATURE. That could be staggeringly complex! I mean, think about all the cool stuff in nature! Giraffes with their long necks, octopuses with their many arms, chameleons with their camouflage...

Hopes were high for this game. People said things like "I'm going to make a dragon! Just a straight-up dragon!" or "I'm going to make a moth with twelve arms that eats fungus!"

The reality is that the Creature phase of the game works like this:

You find skeletons laying on the ground and touch them to gain access to a new bodypart. You can add the new parts by spending DNA points, which you acquire through one of two methods: Killing enemies, and making friends. Yes, that's as bad as it sounds: your fledgling Giraffe, as an herbivore, will have to walk up to giant octopuses and sing. Or dance.

And it, uh, it doesn't get any more staggeringly complex or fascinating from there.

[warty goblin]

Spore is the champion of dumbed down. I mean, it's a game about EVOLUTION. Your job is to DEVELOP A CREATURE. That could be staggeringly complex! I mean, think about all the cool stuff in nature! Giraffes with their long necks, octopuses with their many arms, chameleons with their camouflage...

Hopes were high for this game. People said things like "I'm going to make a dragon! Just a straight-up dragon!" or "I'm going to make a moth with twelve arms that eats fungus!"


That's not the game being dumbed down, that's a bunch of people imagining playing a game that exists only in their head, then getting pissed off that Spore wasn't that game despite ample evidence before release that it wasn't that game. You can like or dislike what Spore is, but being surprised by that is more evidence of failing to do the research than the game being 'dumbed down.'

Personally I think the term is pretty much without value. The interesting question is whether or not a particular game is well made and has good gameplay on it's own merits, not how it compares to the games that came before it.

[Dragonus45]

I wouldnt say its without value. IF you take an established ip with three or four games and that have a reasonable fanbase. Then change up and simplify the system entirely to make it more marketable to people then dumbed down is a perfect term. A game can have good game play and and be interesting or have a great story or what have you, but if its a dumbed down sequel its a dumbed down sequel.

[shadow_archmagi]

despite ample evidence before release that it wasn't that game.

I guess I didn't follow all the pre-release information so I can't dispute your claim that it was obvious spore was going to be that straightforward.

However, my impression of it *was* that it was going to be a very complex game, and according to the interview transcripts I've seen, they actually planned to have it be big and amazing. Then they decided toddlers were worth more financially.

[Jahkaivah]

I have to disagree here. I've found that games with a focus on regenerating HP tend to make each individual combat a fight for your very survival. On the other hand, when I have to go hunt down health packs, I'm always asking myself if I made it through the previous fight having taken too much damage or not. Regenerating HP leads to not only a more consistent level of difficulty and intensity, but also doesn't break my suspension of disbelief as much.

I tend to not let the meta-game bother me too much, if I'm at low health and in need of med-kits I see it as all part of the fun.

And, while it still depends on the type of game, consistancy is not necessarily a good thing. Left 4 Dead's director is built on the philosophy that you need lows in order to make the highs seem higher (or vice versa depending on what you consider a low). It's generally a matter of how much control the developers want over the player. Too little control is definitely a bad thing. But too much can kill replayability.

[warty goblin]

I wouldnt say its without value. IF you take an established ip with three or four games and that have a reasonable fanbase. Then change up and simplify the system entirely to make it more marketable to people then dumbed down is a perfect term. A game can have good game play and and be interesting or have a great story or what have you, but if its a dumbed down sequel its a dumbed down sequel.

See, I'm not sure how it's relevant that our hypothetical game simplifies things from earlier games in the series or not. The questions that interest me are what sort of game it is, and how much fun it is. Comparisons to earlier titles are perhaps helpful, but not as good as a straight out description would be.

[Golbez]

A good example of a dumbed down game would be the commandos series. The first two were tough-as-nails strategic games where you had to carfully infiltrate enemy strongholds with a small team. Around commandos 3 they made the game more mainstream and thus paced faster. Totally ruining the unique old gameplay.

A bad example would be FF XIII, as the auto-skill feature was necessary to keep the gameplay fast paced while the class changing got more complex later in the game. It was actually one of the more strategic final fantasies. (once you get past the first 1/3 portion of the game)

[Closet_Skeleton]

Well, blame LucasArts for the unfinished nature of the game. I know I did. Besides, with the fan restoration project, it became a much more cohesive whole. I guess I really didn't share the same experience with you, so my opinion is different.

I was happy to blame Lucas Arts (at least partially) when Obsidian needed an excuse for one game. But Lucas Arts can't be blamed for their other games can they?

Obsidian isn't really that relevant since I don't think they ever dumbed anything down. My complaint about NWN 2 is actually the opposite. They made the toolset so stupidly complex that it became annoying or impossible to use. Its like they just didn't care about the things that people actually liked about Bioware's NWN. NWN had bad graphics because Bioware didn't want to make a game with good graphics, they wanted to make a game that let you create your own scenarios, post them on the internet for others to download and play them online with your friends. There were mods for NWN that let your customise your own clothes. NWN 2's toolset didn't even let you look at the clothes you were customising. NWN's toolset was a dumbed down baby's level design system that any professional would be insulted to use and that's what made NWN popular.

KotOR 2 also overcomplicated the weapon upgrade system allowing you to create brokenly powerful blaster pistols that could kill every boss in the game in under a minute. Mass Effect pretty much stole its system from KotOR, but balanced it better while making it less fun since you didn't get to make the bits yourself.

For some reason I never noticed before that NWN and its expansion packs all had female villains, though the last one has a twist.

[Dragonmuncher]

Dumbing down is when you remove game elements that require more than a basic understanding of the game, because people found them too difficult.

Streamlining is when you remove game elements that weren't neccessarily difficult, but they made the game less fun.



So, Deus Ex 2 (Invisible War) was a pretty good example of dumbing down, in an attempt to streamline.

They removed skill points, ammunition, and simplified hacking. They also drastically changed the augmentation system (in the sense that your choices were no longer permenent), and added in so many upgrade canisters that you could easily redo your choices.

This was an attempt to streamline (taking out things that were needlessly complicated/distracting), but most agree it just ended up becoming dumbed down (taking out things that were complicated at all).


Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, did it well. ME2 eliminated the annoying ME practice of selling off the dozens of unused guns. Some games have Loads and Loads of Guns, all with their different abilities and ammunition, and come off better for it. In Mass Effect, you were generally only looking at a few different abilities and ammunition, so there was no need to have 50 different guns at hand. So the whole weapon system was streamlined into what it was in Mass Effect 2.


Yes, it does sort of come off as "streamlined is when we like the changes, dumbed down is when we don't." But, again, I'll say that the difference is this: Streamlining removes things that are needlessly complicated- busy work, fetch quests, the things you hurry through so you can get to the good stuff. Dumbing down removes things that are just complicated at all.

[Airk]

The real definition of dumbing down, contrary to all the namecalling style definitions in this thread, is when a feature that is deep enough to enhance gameplay if introduced properly is cut instead of making a good effort to introduce it correctly.

People are capable of learning crazy complicated stuff. Even casual players. But it has to be introduced properly and in small steps to avoid becoming overwhelming to the average user. Sometimes, however, game developers don't want to take the time to properly introduce a feature and teach players how to use it - so they cut it instead. That's dumbing down, because a feature that could have had value to everyone is removed rather than integrated properly. If, on the other hand, there is no way effectively introduce the mechanic to new players that haven't played the past 6 iterations of your game, cutting the feature is probably a good idea - though it will definitely get you some zealots claiming the game is "dumbed down".

The GG/BB comparison is an example of the latter case - the features that were cut were only ever appreciated by a small portion of the player pool, and the games lacked any reasonably good way of gradually helping the player ramp up. There's a LOT of "hardcore" elitism in the fighting game scene, and then they look at their games and wonder why the audience is small. Even BlazBlue has a tremendous and daunting set of "system" features as well as unique character dependant functionality not present in GG, so it's still fairly intimidating to the newcomer. The tutorials are a nice way to get the ball rolling, but still suffer from information overload. CAN this information be introduced to people in "baby steps" fashion? Maybe, but the genre doesn't lend itself to the usual methods, and I can't think of a good method, so it's hard to criticize the developers for making the decisions they did.

And then of course, there is Master of Orion 3, which was a game in which many features SHOULD have been cut because the sum total made the game unplayable. Removing those features might have been called, by some, "dumbing down" but I would argue that since those features could not be effectively introduced to the player, that that would have been, in fact, good design to simply remove them.

[Penguinizer]

Even BlazBlue has a tremendous and daunting set of "system" features as well as unique character dependant functionality not present in GG, so it's still fairly intimidating to the newcomer. The tutorials are a nice way to get the ball rolling, but still suffer from information overload. CAN this information be introduced to people in "baby steps" fashion? Maybe, but the genre doesn't lend itself to the usual methods, and I can't think of a good method, so it's hard to criticize the developers for making the decisions they did.


The point about unique character dependant functionality is incorrect. Would you not consider Robo-Ky's heat and chargeable charge meter a character specific functionality? The same applies for Eddie, Bridgets yo-yo, Fausts randomized attacks, Zappa's spirits, Jam's charge system, Testament's traps etc. Each GG character has their own playstyle. This is also true in BB. However, they also chose to distill each character down to one or two gimmicks.

It would be like taking Guile from streetfighter and deciding "This character is now all about sonic booms." Yes, you can build around that. Howver, you now have a character who lacks flexibility. Consider Arakune. He has the curse meter. His entire playstyle is built around it. You either get curse and win, or you don't and lose. Litchi without her staff or Carl without Nirvana would not be the same. They're all based on one aspect.

However, I'm afraid I got sidetracked. I agree, there is no good way to introduce these. Getting started is hard. This is something that should be improved on. GG was released before they started adding specific tutorial modes. I doubt they'd release it without one if it was new. They have been taking steps in the right direction though. Tutorial modes, challenge modes and the easymodes in BB and the new MvC3. Sadly, there is no way to gradually ease into some mechanics. How would you ease someone into rapid cancels in BB?

However, making it easy can go too far. Take SF4 for example. To make it easier, they even made it so you don't even have to make certain inputs. They added shortcuts for those. Same with one button specials. Do you think this promotes learning? How do you let someone improve when you give them no incentive nor method. Do you believe someone will learn something when the beginner option just does it instantly?

There is something to be said about complexity and overcomplexity. It can be very hard to draw the line. One could however point at mechanics in games such as Quake (bunny hopping, walljumping with rockets and timing them) or any RTS. There are things that can not be easily taught. Does removing these things make it easier for a person? Yes. Does it make it any more rewarding? I do not see why it would. There is no feeling of accomplishment. There is no moment of success when you do finally succeed.

I apologize if this is longwinded and rambly.

[Airk]

The point about unique character dependant functionality is incorrect. Would you not consider Robo-Ky's heat and chargeable charge meter a character specific functionality? The same applies for Eddie, Bridgets yo-yo, Fausts randomized attacks, Zappa's spirits, Jam's charge system, Testament's traps etc. Each GG character has their own playstyle. This is also true in BB. However, they also chose to distill each character down to one or two gimmicks.

Sorry, but that's not the same thing.



It would be like taking Guile from streetfighter and deciding "This character is now all about sonic booms." Yes, you can build around that. However, you now have a character who lacks flexibility.

I don't find this comparison remotely accurate. Sorry.


Consider Arakune. He has the curse meter. His entire playstyle is built around it. You either get curse and win, or you don't and lose. Litchi without her staff or Carl without Nirvana would not be the same. They're all based on one aspect.

That's what makes the cast diverse and interesting. You go the other route and you get characters who are much more inherently similar because they DON'T have a unifying idea. Just a bunch of moves that someone thought were cool.



However, I'm afraid I got sidetracked. I agree, there is no good way to introduce these. Getting started is hard. This is something that should be improved on. GG was released before they started adding specific tutorial modes. I doubt they'd release it without one if it was new. They have been taking steps in the right direction though. Tutorial modes, challenge modes and the easymodes in BB and the new MvC3. Sadly, there is no way to gradually ease into some mechanics. How would you ease someone into rapid cancels in BB?

That's exactly my point, unfortunately. I can't think of a good way to introduce these sorts of mechanics. Which is why I feel that to a certain extent, removing them doesn't represent a dumbing down of the game.



However, making it easy can go too far. Take SF4 for example. To make it easier, they even made it so you don't even have to make certain inputs. They added shortcuts for those. Same with one button specials. Do you think this promotes learning?

Learning? No. Playing? Yes. I'm going to be brutally honest here - I don't think anyone is served by the current "standard" of fighting game controls. Yes, some people are used to them and can do a HCF, QCB in their sleep, but in terms of making this sort of game what they are? I think they're just a barrier.


How do you let someone improve when you give them no incentive nor method. Do you believe someone will learn something when the beginner option just does it instantly?

I don't even believe people should have to. Every fighting game fan agrees that the game STARTS being interesting when you STOP having to worry about your execution and combos. And that is exactly what things like beginner mode are trying to do away with. There's a huge barrier to entry that doesn't really do anyone any good. So yeah, I don't believe we should have to give people incentives to learn how to do fireballs and jump cancels, because the game isn't about being ABLE to do fireballs and jump cancels, it's about being able to apply fireballs and jump cancels at the right times and better than your opponent. All the special move baggage is like saying "If you want to use the rocket launcher, you have the spin the mouse in at least three spirals around the screen and end by clicking on your target, otherwise it won't fire." It's a needless piece of physical gymnastics. If people had to spend less time learning this sort of junk, there might be more time for them to learn more "deep" things like when to apply rapid cancels or counter assaults, or oki.

[Penguinizer]

Sorry, but that's not the same thing.

That's what makes the cast diverse and interesting. You go the other route and you get characters who are much more inherently similar because they DON'T have a unifying idea. Just a bunch of moves that someone thought were cool.


I'm rather confused by this. Would you clarify? I do not see how they are the same thing. The various character specific designs in GG are about as relevant as in BB in all but a few cases. Yes, they are not all there is to the character, however they are still a large influence. For example, Bridget's YoYo. It's rather similar to Nirvana. You use it in the same way. To set up sandwich combos with Punching Roger (the move in which the yoyo transforms into a punching teddy bear). This is one of her strong points and a focus. Same as with Carl. However, that is not the whole focus of her gameplay. She also has a good keepaway-strategy unique to only her (fast dashing attack as well as a zipline type move). This is what I was talking about. Each GG character has a design unique to them as well as secondary not as unique abilities. Each still retains their unique style. The major exceptions would be Ky and Sol. Being the generic shotos of the game, their styles only differ lightly.



That's exactly my point, unfortunately. I can't think of a good way to introduce these sorts of mechanics. Which is why I feel that to a certain extent, removing them doesn't represent a dumbing down of the game.

This is something I both agree and disagree with to a certain degree. Sometimes there are methods to introduce them, sometimes there aren't. In the end, the best way is to practice. A training function similar to BBs challenge mode is in my opinion the best choice. Along with step by step instructions in a video form. It still won't be the perfect method though. If they can introduce rapid cancels and various other mechanics in them, I fail to see how they could not use this method.

In the end, there will still be people who it will not help. This is true for any method. There are people who will never learn the intricacies of any system. Be it FPS, RTS, turn based strategy or fighting games.



Learning? No. Playing? Yes. I'm going to be brutally honest here - I don't think anyone is served by the current "standard" of fighting game controls. Yes, some people are used to them and can do a HCF, QCB in their sleep, but in terms of making this sort of game what they are? I think they're just a barrier.

This can cover a large amount of ground. I believe that unique inputs are necessary to a degree. You can only have so many buttons to which apply abilities. How would you map 4-6 attacks as well as unique skills without using inputs? It is, in a way, a choice between two evils.



I don't even believe people should have to. Every fighting game fan agrees that the game STARTS being interesting when you STOP having to worry about your execution and combos. And that is exactly what things like beginner mode are trying to do away with. There's a huge barrier to entry that doesn't really do anyone any good.

Such is true of all gaming. There will always be a skill barrier. In RTS, the person with the quick reflexes and the ability to play multiple areas at once will win. In FPS, it's the one with the quickest reflexes and the ability to react correctly at the right moment. In turnbased strategy, the winner is the one who knows the opponents plan as well as how to apply his own. In the ones I've played, this means knowing precisely HOW the game works. Anyone playing an RTS is at a significant disadvantage if they do not know how to rapidly set up an economy or how terrain affects their units. They are all skill barriers that have to be bypassed. All genres of games have degrees of memorization and physical finesse that have to be learned.



So yeah, I don't believe we should have to give people incentives to learn how to do fireballs and jump cancels, because the game isn't about being ABLE to do fireballs and jump cancels, it's about being able to apply fireballs and jump cancels at the right times and better than your opponent. All the special move baggage is like saying "If you want to use the rocket launcher, you have the spin the mouse in at least three spirals around the screen and end by clicking on your target, otherwise it won't fire." It's a needless piece of physical gymnastics. If people had to spend less time learning this sort of junk, there might be more time for them to learn more "deep" things like when to apply rapid cancels, counter assaults or oki.

I fail to see how input gymnastics could be removed. To me, it's like a game of football. It's as much about practice as the strategy. You can remove one thing and the whole is never the same. This is just a matter of opinion though. Even by making each attack it's own button and reducing combos to ABC. You might have a serviceable game. However, what you have is rock paper scissors.

Would you give incentives to learn how to do the deeper things? They are, more often than not, even harder. How do you teach someone yomi and such concepts in a simple way? It's all about knowing how the game works. Much of fighting games is metagame concepts. Once again, memorization is the key.

Sadly, this is an issue that falls much under opinion. There are necessary evils all around. You need to pick an evil and try to balance between difficulty and simplicity. You can never please anyone. To me, practice is a part of games. I don't feel accomplishment from having things handed to me. As for BB, I do believe it was dumbed down. I never said it was bad for it. In my opinion (as good and bad tends to be) it's bad purely due to taste reasons. I do not like the slower gameplay. It feels strange having lessened mobility. The balance issues are my second major gripe. When they are fixed I'll be likely to change my opinion.

As a quick addition. Games like Tekken, Virtua Fighter and Street Fighter 2 are more about what to do and when. The move inputs are simpler. The 3d games do tend to have more of them though. However, they are things to the tune of "Forward punch, down forward punc etc". Another thing about fighting games is you need to find a game you like.

[Airk]

This is something I both agree and disagree with to a certain degree. Sometimes there are methods to introduce them, sometimes there aren't. In the end, the best way is to practice. A training function similar to BBs challenge mode is in my opinion the best choice. Along with step by step instructions in a video form. It still won't be the perfect method though. If they can introduce rapid cancels and various other mechanics in them, I fail to see how they could not use this method.

It doesn't have to be perfect. As you point out, there are people out there who won't learn ANY given game, even if it's Plants vs Zombies. But there needs to be something and the more ridiculously specific the feature is, the harder it is to teach.

Some effort needs to be made to teach this stuff, and more importantly, the stuff should be teachable. I've spoken to a number of people who thought BB looked interesting and started with the tutorial and got as far as doing some basic combo input or suchlike, threw themselves against this TUTORIAL item for 30 minutes and then gave up in frustration.



This can cover a large amount of ground. I believe that unique inputs are necessary to a degree. You can only have so many buttons to which apply abilities. How would you map 4-6 attacks as well as unique skills without using inputs? It is, in a way, a choice between two evils.

I think quick specials are a start. An Xbox controller has a LARGE number of inputs that aren't used in BB and almost universally, pushing a stick in a direction or pressing a button is easier than doing an "uppercut" motion, for example. And lets face it - how many characters in fighting games REALLY have that many differentiated special moves?


Such is true of all gaming. There will always be a skill barrier. In RTS, the person with the quick reflexes and the ability to play multiple areas at once will win. In FPS, it's the one with the quickest reflexes and the ability to react correctly at the right moment. In turnbased strategy, the winner is the one who knows the opponents plan as well as how to apply his own. In the ones I've played, this means knowing precisely HOW the game works. Anyone playing an RTS is at a significant disadvantage if they do not know how to rapidly set up an economy or how terrain affects their units. They are all skill barriers that have to be bypassed. All genres of games have degrees of memorization and physical finesse that have to be learned.

I would argue against all your strategy game examples - things like build orders or knowing the opponents plan are exactly the sorts of things that disposing of unnecessary input barriers encourages. They are STRATEGY. They are PLAYING THE GAME as opposed the wrestling with the interface. Even in an FPS game, it's about reactions and precision timing and correctly second guessing your opponent, not in having to perform some sort of keyboard and mouse gymnastics. Consider:

You have a completely new player to an FPS game and a fighting game. How long does it take for the FPS player to learn to reliably shoot a completely stationary target? Now how long does it take the new player to reliably be able to hit a training dummy with a fireball? That is the difference between the barrier to entry of a high skill game and a excessively restricted game. Yeah, you'll come back and say "But how long does it take for them to hit a moving target" and then you can start comparing "How long does it take for them to be able to actually land that fireball on an active opponent." The point is that the time to go from "new" to even the most basic level of competency is higher in a fighting game than almost anything else. I know some people wear that as a badge of pride, but it's not good design.



I fail to see how input gymnastics could be removed. To me, it's like a game of football. It's as much about practice as the strategy. You can remove one thing and the whole is never the same.

Again, it's about needless complexity. You're not required to wear a glove that restricts three of your fingers to play football. The ball isn't greased. Anyone can pick up the ball and throw it. Can they throw it accurately? At the right time? To the right person? No, but those are the kinds of things that make the game fun and interesting. Practice will always improve you as long as there are deep mechanics behind the inputs - otherwise, people could stop practicing fighting games once they had all the joystick motions down. The challenge should be about playing the game, not interfacing with it.


This is just a matter of opinion though. Even by making each attack it's own button and reducing combos to ABC. You might have a serviceable game. However, what you have is rock paper scissors.

... Is an FPS game "rock paper scissors" because someone doesn't have to spin the mouse in a circle to fire the rocket launcher? Is an RTS game "rock paper scissors" because you just have to click to build a unit and don't have to type "Construct Ar****e Siege Tank" every time you want to build one? Is a fighting game played by high level players who never drop inputs "rock paper scissors"? I don't think you've thought that statement through. Is a game with a well designed interface worse than the same game with a crappy UI? Reducing input difficulty does nothing to reduce the actual depth and strategy of a game.

Do you really believe that the strategy and depth of fighting games comes from the dexterity involved in spinning the joystick a certain way?



Would you give incentives to learn how to do the deeper things? They are, more often than not, even harder. How do you teach someone yomi and such concepts in a simple way? It's all about knowing how the game works. Much of fighting games is metagame concepts. Once again, memorization is the key.

That's fine. They can memorize. It's no harder than "spikeweed pops tires on zombonies" in Plants vs Zombies, or recognizing that a certain pattern in Bejeweled means you can set up a certain type of combo. We don't NEED to teach them Yomi, or how to out think their opponent. That's the job of the player to figure out, because that's where the meat of the game is. I'm just interested in removing the "I knew he was going to do that, but I screwed up my uppercut" factor. Barriers to entry. Unnecessarily difficult inputs. The metagame stuff and matchups and what beats what are exactly the sort of thing I'm suggesting should be made front and center by removing all the needless joystick gymnastics. If these games are really as deep and complex and intricate as their fans (which includes me) would have people believe, then they don't NEED all the "DB,F,DF,D,DB,B,DF+Q" nonsense - that's actually standing in the way.



Sadly, this is an issue that falls much under opinion. There are necessary evils all around. You need to pick an evil and try to balance between difficulty and simplicity. You can never please anyone. To me, practice is a part of games. I don't feel accomplishment from having things handed to me.

Do you feel that the ability to fire the rocket launcher is handed to you? No. It's not an achievement to do a fireball. It's an achievement to use that move effectively. Essentially, the trouble here is a lot of people who learned to do this stuff and now think it has to be inflicted on everyone. This stuff grew up out of arcades, where the objective was to suck quarters out of people, and input difficulty was a critical part of that. That doesn't mean that if the objective is to make a deep and interesting game with a large, diverse player base, that complicated joystick motions are the way to go.


Another thing about fighting games is you need to find a game you like.

Because all other genres are about picking a game and sticking to it whether you like it or not, right? ;)

[Dragonus45]

See, I'm not sure how it's relevant that our hypothetical game simplifies things from earlier games in the series or not. The questions that interest me are what sort of game it is, and how much fun it is. Comparisons to earlier titles are perhaps helpful, but not as good as a straight out description would be.

Well Warty the problem for me is that its not fair to the hypothetical games fan base to change up the games they like, and get rid of the features they enjoy, to get other customers. Yes it can be a fun game but perhaps the fans of hypothetical game 1-3 wanted to play 4 not an almost entirely new game with the same names as the previous ones.

[warty goblin]

Well Warty the problem for me is that its not fair to the hypothetical games fan base to change up the games they like, and get rid of the features they enjoy, to get other customers. Yes it can be a fun game but perhaps the fans of hypothetical game 1-3 wanted to play 4 not an almost entirely new game with the same names as the previous ones.

See, I'm not sure why the company owes the fans another game just like the first three. Liking something isn't an entitlement, nor does purchasing something grant the right to more stuff just like it. You like it, that's great, and you bought it so you get to play it, that's it.

If the company wants to do a different game and thinks it a wise business move, that's entirely their right. Fans of the previous games can like it or not, but they hardly have a right to get upset at some sort of betrayal or anything like that.

[Dragonus45]

See, I'm not sure why the company owes the fans another game just like the first three. Liking something isn't an entitlement, nor does purchasing something grant the right to more stuff just like it. You like it, that's great, and you bought it so you get to play it, that's it.

If the company wants to do a different game and thinks it a wise business move, that's entirely their right. Fans of the previous games can like it or not, but they hardly have a right to get upset at some sort of betrayal or anything like that.

But it is, games get sequels because people were fans of the originals. Hypothetical Game 4: the vengeance would have never existed without the fans who played the first three. It is a betrayal to make a sequel that's dumbed down from the first game or games. If the company things a better business move is to make a different game then make a another game. But don't deny that its dumbed down.

[ChowGuy]

The real definition of dumbing down, contrary to all the namecalling style definitions in this thread, is when a feature that is deep enough to enhance gameplay if introduced properly is cut instead of making a good effort to introduce it correctly.

People are capable of learning crazy complicated stuff. Even casual players.

Yes, and I agree most of the "examples" given of removing favorite features aren't really dumbing down per sebut I'd go so far as to say that really "dumbing down" is when a developer removes or omits tactical or strategic features in favor of pure hack-and-slash, particularly in games with both an SP and and MP mode, because the the AI isn't capable of handling them. Curiously, when those features are present, the biggest player complaint is usually about "the brain-dead AI."

[Airk]

Yes, and I agree most of the "examples" given of removing favorite features aren't really dumbing down per sebut I'd go so far as to say that really "dumbing down" is when a developer removes or omits tactical or strategic features in favor of pure hack-and-slash, particularly in games with both an SP and and MP mode, because the the AI isn't capable of handling them. Curiously, when those features are present, the biggest player complaint is usually about "the brain-dead AI."

I read an interesting article on this; Sadly AI does tend to get short shrift in the development space, and many problems that people have with AIs can in fact be solved by programmers who know what they're doing with it, but there aren't as many of those out there with time and money to do what they want as we all might like.

AI _does_ sometimes cause features to get cut or redesigned, mostly for the above reason, but it can also result in interesting simplifications that make life easier for everyone. (The example I remember was a strategy game where, instead of having to micromanage transport ships (Which the AI wasn't dealing with), any land based unit that was moved into water automatically embarked on a ship that would disappear when they were moved back onto land, thereby eliminating a lot of tedious building and moving of noncombat units.)

Another interesting thing in the article (I think it was on Gamasutra, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it) is that really, people generally don't WANT a _good_ AI. They want an AI that provides a convincing show and then loses, so many behaviors than "improve" AIs actually make people like them less.

Food for thought.

[warty goblin]

But it is, games get sequels because people were fans of the originals. Hypothetical Game 4: the vengeance would have never existed without the fans who played the first three. It is a betrayal to make a sequel that's dumbed down from the first game or games. If the company things a better business move is to make a different game then make a another game. But don't deny that its dumbed down.

Again, it is in no way, shape, or form a betrayal. The games do not belong to the fans, nor does the company that makes them owe the fans anything. They sold a product, the fans bought the product, end of story. The developer or publisher owns the idea, they either had it, or payed a substantial amount of money for it. You and I did not create it, have not purchased it, and do not control it.

I realize this is an unpopular position, but liking something does not entitle you to any control of that thing. Be a fan of something, that's great. Don't think for a minute however that it in some way entitles you to any authority over it, your entitlement ends with the right to use the product you purchased. If you want control, get a job at the company, or buy voting stock.

It's sort of like saying a girl you have a crush on betrayed you by going out with another guy, even though you aren't in any sort of relationship with her.

[Dragonus45]

Again, it is in no way, shape, or form a betrayal. The games do not belong to the fans, nor does the company that makes them owe the fans anything. They sold a product, the fans bought the product, end of story. The developer or publisher owns the idea, they either had it, or payed a substantial amount of money for it. You and I did not create it, have not purchased it, and do not control it.

I realize this is an unpopular position, but liking something does not entitle you to any control of that thing. Be a fan of something, that's great. Don't think for a minute however that it in some way entitles you to any authority over it, your entitlement ends with the right to use the product you purchased. If you want control, get a job at the company, or buy voting stock.

It's sort of like saying a girl you have a crush on betrayed you by going out with another guy, even though you aren't in any sort of relationship with her.

That metaphor fails to capture what im saying here. Dumbing down in relationship metaphor is when the girl you like likes you back, but decides to change her hair and clothes to get some other guy to date her.

[VanBuren]

That metaphor fails to capture what im saying here. Dumbing down in relationship metaphor is when the girl you like likes you back, but decides to change her hair and clothes to get some other guy to date her.

Actually, it's more like she changes her hair and clothes because she thinks she looks better, and then you start complaining because you think you own her.

Then she dumps for the other guy, who actually respects her as an individual.

Er... got a little carried away there.

[Dragonus45]

Well the point of the metaphor isn't that i think i own her, or that a sequel belongs to the fans of the original. But its still a **** move to change the system and alienate fans of the work in order to appeal to a different audience.

[ChowGuy]

Another interesting thing in the article (I think it was on Gamasutra, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it) is that really, people generally don't WANT a _good_ AI. They want an AI that provides a convincing show and then loses, so many behaviors than "improve" AIs actually make people like them less.

Food for thought.

There's that too. Had someone on another forum complain that an AI was "cheating" and he could prove it. He'd seen one of it's scouts making a beeline for some location where he knew there was a town or some such but that that the AI side "shouldn't be able to see through the fog of war."

Which prompted one of the game's developers to point out that, given his stated position, he wouldn't know it was there either unless he'd played the map before, so why assume the AI hadn't :smallbiggrin:

It's a trade-off of course; if you make an AI that could, out the box, easily defeat an expert who'd played against it for months or years, it would never sell because let's face it everyone starts as a newbie and such a monster AI would put most people off before there were any such experts.

[VanBuren]

Well the point of the metaphor isn't that i think i own her, or that a sequel belongs to the fans of the original. But its still a **** move to change the system and alienate fans of the work in order to appeal to a different audience.

Or the company perhaps thinks that the game will legitimately be better for the changes.

[Dragonus45]

Or the company perhaps thinks that the game will legitimately be better for the changes.

Well that's where the term gets tricky. General im not saying it applies in every situation but it is still a legitimate complaint. In a situation like that its all about time and hindsight showing how well the series did after the changes.

[Setra]

The real definition of dumbing down, contrary to all the namecalling style definitions in this thread, is when a feature that is deep enough to enhance gameplay if introduced properly is cut instead of making a good effort to introduce it correctly.
What makes your definition 'real' though?

Generally speaking when I see people use the phrase, that's not what they mean. They mean "I don't like this change because it makes things easier".

Regardless of whether or not it's an actual improvement to the game.

Perhaps that's what it SHOULD mean, but definition tends to be a majority rules type of deal (see 'gay' and 'boner' for more details).

[Airk]

What makes your definition 'real' though?

It's correct. :smallwink: No, really, I mean it's objective. Or at least more objective than the usual metric of "I called it dumbed down when they remove a feature I liked."



Generally speaking when I see people use the phrase, that's not what they mean. They mean "I don't like this change because it makes things easier".

Regardless of whether or not it's an actual improvement to the game.

Perhaps that's what it SHOULD mean, but definition tends to be a majority rules type of deal (see 'gay' and 'boner' for more details).

HAH. Fair, but I don't think anyone in this thread is shooting for the "popular" definition.

I am in favor of things meaning what they are supposed to mean, not what a bunch of idiots people on the internet think they mean. ;)

Regarding AI that beats/challenges "experts" on day one, well, that's why it's critical for games to have difficulty levels. "Normal" difficulty should be enough to challenge an "average" player who is new to the game but probably not new to the genre. "easy" should put up just enough resistance to make a complete newb feel like he's being opposed. "Hard" is where you start pulling out the stops to let your AI challenge the "Experts". At that point, if people want to pick "hard" right off the bat and lose, they have only themselves to blame.

[Dragonus45]

I am in favor of things meaning what they are supposed to mean, not what a bunch of idiots people on the internet think they mean. ;)
.

I am in love with you, you are my new favorite person.