Dumbing Up Gaming

[GameBanshee News]

Bit-tech.net has conjured up an article that looks at the current crop of video games and offers up some reasons why they all seem to be geared toward "drooling idiots."

You can take a lot of great game ideas, and then dumb then down to the lowest common denominator and make them boring and dull, that's a given. There are some great game ideas though that you just can't dumb down before they fall apart. Right now that means the game doesn't even get out of the starting gate.

I've heard of games flopping because the marketing sucked, budget problems, piracy and poor design but I haven't heard about any big games failing because they were too highbrow. Yet nobody is even trying to make those games.

In some ways it's all the fault of our old nemesis, the rocketing game budget. Rack up a four million dollar wage bill, and you need to sell a LOT of copies to break even. Selling just to biochemists won't cut it any more, you need to aim at the wider audience. But if you avoid the technology arms race and do a lower budget game, what kind of games could we make?

...

There was a game called Hacker when I was a kid, that my dad was into. I always remember him telling me with great excitement that when you got to a certain part of the game, in France, the game spoke to you in French. No tooltips, no help, you needed to know French. Pre-Internet, this was a considerable stumbling block. My dad bought a French dictionary and kept on playing. He also therefore learned a bit of French. Awesome idea.

You would never ever in a million years get a game like that past a publisher any more, which is a pity because I think there is a group of people out there who would love it. Games challenge our reflexes, our puzzle-solving skills, our memories and our endurance but they rarely challenge our knowledge. Why not? We aren't all drooling idiots.

This article sums up exactly how I feel about the current market, too. Unfortunately, I think it's going to get worse before it gets any better.

Thanks, RPGWatch.

[Xandax]

I remember in the "old days" being stuck in games for days on end because I had missed a clue a specific place or actually couldn't solve a puzzle.
The good ole adventure genre stood for hours and hours of entertainment. And they did so with little investment, "poor" graphics - but main focus on that little thing called game-play.

Now a days, a wet blanket could solve most mainstream games and puzzles.
I always argue that now, difficulty in games are based on the philosophy of facing 5 monsters instead of 3 or letting the monsters do double damage (that's just cheating and introducing frustration, and not actually difficulty).

It is a crime to challenge players and I think it suck. "We" are becoming a generation of lazy players who's attention span can only grasp games lasting 14 hours, which you can blaze through because of the catering for the lowest common denominator.
But what worries most is how many people actually get "stuck" in these puzzles and quests still. But of course not having been thought to think in games, why should they start to. Unfortunately it looks to be something of a trend in modern society.


Think I'll run off and launch my DOSbox and load up an old adventure game.

[Brother None]

Heh. I enjoy challenges and non-challenges both. A game doesn't have to be challenging to be fun.

Still, it is a bit insulting that all games absolutely refuse to be challenging. It's no longer fun anymore if you're never challenged. It's fun when lack of challenge comes as a relief.

Apropos of the topic, here's a "let's play" playthrough of Wizardy 4 in iron man mode.

[Xandax]

No - not every game needs to be - it would just be nice to actually have the choice again. Back in the "days", I could enjoy a fast paced FPS if I just wanted to blast aliens or what ever (which could be challenging enough with secret locations and what not), or a untraditional adventure game or a puzzle strong likewise. RPGs which could be both simple or not ..... well - I'm sure the point is clear, as I it is shared with many here

Now a days though, puzzles are so easy that my computer mouse solves them for me, and there is little choice anymore in the mainstream media, and you have to hunt indies for it.
It is all about the graphic and fast pace and unfortunately - it sells to many punters which is why it manages to stay that way.

Myself though - I'm down to buying about 2-4 games a year now, whereas when I was younger, I bought one every second month or so minimum, depending on how many hours I could squeeze out of them. And back then I gamed a heck of a lot more then I do now.

But there are just no money in challenges and not catering to the lowest denominator because of the huge focus on graphic over quality and because the cost for production have increased so immensely. (which I amongst other things blame on the huge focus on graphic)

[DesR85]

I don't care if you need a degree in biology to play the game because there are a lot of people with degrees in biology. Sell just to them, it's still viable.

Sell your product to the intended market. I agree, but it seems like there is this urge for quite a number of developers to aim at a crowd outside the target market. It doesn't make that much sense. If those people don't play your games, why bother trying to market to them?

A little bit off-topic, though, is the fact that console manufacturers also share this similar view. People who buy consoles use it to play games. End of story. Yet, Microsoft thinks that there is potential in attracting the 'MTV crowd' who never even played a single video game. Those people only listen to music, so why on earth would they buy your console? I still have no idea what is the logic behind this...

[Rein]

Well there are some games out that have a little of both (God of War). Which might be why the first one in the series was one of six games ever to get 10 out of 10 in Game Informer Magazine. What I don't understand is in order to play most of these high graphic games you need a decent computer. Now correct me if I'm wrong, you need money to buy a good computer now-a-days so either your parents are smart and have good paying jobs, or you yourself are intelligent enough to make enough money to keep up with the ever expanding hardware upgrades. Of course some meat heads can still get good jobs that don't require much thought as well. Lol! Makes me think that the smarter are getting smarter and the dumber are getting dumber. I can say one thing though, when Spore comes out I'm getting it!

[DesR85]

Originally Posted by Rein

Now correct me if I'm wrong, you need money to buy a good computer now-a-days so either your parents are smart and have good paying jobs, or you yourself are intelligent enough to make enough money to keep up with the ever expanding hardware upgrades.

Actually, you can save a lot of money by not upgrading your computer frequently. I don't see a need to always keep on upgrading when the current hardware you have is still working.