• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why the need to dumb down games?

T

TTUVAPOR

Banned
Let me preface this by saying that I have a hobby/interest in researching game design/development and why things are designed the way they are. This topic started back when Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare released, and actually, it started the day this video was released:
COD4 - Deep Impact Multiplayer Perk Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN_bRbMmCYU

Prior to watching that trailer, I was a huge COD fan, played a ton of LANs at my college with COD1 and COD2 and couldn't be more excited for COD4, up until that trailer hit.

Two things in the trailer peaked my interest: 1. The zero lack of recoil on the M249 SAW when fired at the hip and ads, and 2. The white hit marker being shown as bullets are going through walls/objects.

I immediately thought...why? Why is there no recoil? COD1 and 2 had it, especially on the BAR, when fired full-auto, that thing had kick that you had to compensate for. Soon after that I went to the forums and raged on IW for doing this dumbing down thing to COD4. During the summer of 07 I was engaged with the IW devs via the beta forums and had even made friends with one of the map makers. Long story short, one time during the beta of COD4 I asked him, where in the hell is the recoil on the guns? He said he thought it was there, but after he asked some questions around IW office, found out that the recoil was originally in the mutliplayer build but was removed via a request from the suits at Activision. Really? Executive management from the publisher is now directing game design? I couldn't believe it.

When asked why the removed it, their reply was, "our focus group testing came to a conclusion that the recoil made the game less fun, so our solution is to remove it."

One thing to note, if you play COD 4 single player campaign, the recoil is there, it's very obvious, take any full-auto gun and hold down the trigger and you will see a vertical life in the muzzle, this is NOT in multiplayer.

COD4 went on to sell millions upon millions of copies, it became the best selling game of all time, and at that time I saw a drastic 180 degree change in the game industry. This wasn't just with first person shooters, it had an effect across the board on all genres. Accessibility became the new buzz word and when at the drawing table for a video game, the first thing that was thought out was, how do we make this game accessible for anyone to pick up and play, ya know, in hopes of getting a piece of the COD$$-pie.

Take a look back of all the games since 2007, Halo 3, Halo Reach, the yearly COD release, story-driven single player experiences, Gears of War, Battlefield, all of them effected by this dumbing down experience. More hand-holding in games, more quick time events in games, more linear experiences, more cut-scenes to act as filler to the lack of gameplay, more auto-aim, more sticky-aim, more perks, more instant spawns, zero recoil, etc, etc, etc.

Then the unthinkable happened on August 27, 2014 to a game that many consider the chess of FPS, Quake Live. It got a title update. The reason behind the title update was to prepare it for its launch on Steam. This update made some subtle changes to the gameplay mechanics, but luckily the classic Quake still remained. These gameplay changes intentionally dumbed down the game in order, or hopes is more like, that noobs to Quake Live would somehow enjoy their experience more because the barrier of entry into the game had been lowered. The interwebz raged hard and still continue to. The classic ranked games of Quake Live got turned into unranked games. The dumbed down gameplay changes made their way into the ranked modes of play.

Why? Why this need to dumb down games? Are developers and publishers this desperate and scared to make great games anymore? And why oh why do we continue to see this need to chase the success COD4 had back in 2007? It's been seven years, no game yet has been able to match or exceed the success the COD franchise has had...so why continue to chase it?

I remember another great game that was asked to be dumbed down by Microsoft, a little game called Braid by Jon Blow. In several news stories, he stated that he was asked by MSFT to add hints into the game because the game was too hard and that people may not be able to figure out the puzzles. His response was that if he were to put hints in the game, it would destroy the integrity of the game and there would be no point to release it.

I agree. And the game is fantastic without hints.

http://www.gamespot.com/videos/jonathan-blow-how-mainstream-devs-are-getting-it-w/2300-6365133/ Johnathan Blow interview on how mainstream developers are getting it wrong.

"When you build an entire game that's Ill tell you what to do and you do it, ok you're not going to lose a player, but you've prevented that player from having any joy of discovery at all." - Johnathan Blow
 
E

ElTopo

Banned
Well said. I don't think the challenge in games will ever fully go away -I think the Souls games are kind of a reponse to this- but I don't see the big AAA games changing any time soon.
 
T

Tagyhag

Member
Bigger audience, difficult and/or complex games can sell a lot as well, especially if they have their specific audience, but you can reach quite a lot of people if your game is easy and quick to pick up and play.

Netherscourge said:
I'm going to have to disagree with CoD ever being a challenging game, in SP or MP.
Click to expand...

COD 2 MP on the PC was pretty challenging.
 
C

Coffee Dog

Banned
Money. You have to understand, casuals (of any artistic industry) dont want "the joy of discovery". instant gratification is the name of the game.

nynt9 said:
Lower barrier to entry -> less frustration for casual audience -> larger audience -> more money
Click to expand...

This post lays it out rather well.
 
Z

Zombie James

Banned
My hatred of completely unnessesary button prompts is reaching new heights lately. If, for example, a game tells me I need to press circle to climb a ladder the first time, fine, but I don't need to be told how to climb a ladder every single time I go near one. I'm not a fucking idiot.
 
D

DeliciousDoc

Member
audience is getting older. People with less time and more money. They want games they can still finish in 1 or 2 weeks even though their gaming time is a fraction of what it was. Older people also have lower reflexes but still want to feel good. By subtly (or not so subtly, if you follow games) adapting features people who enjoyed games in their teens can feel like nothing has changed in their 30s.

source: I'm in my 30s.
 
V

Vaporak

Member
I think you need to be more specific, what you are saying isn't true across the board in the games industry. For instance, the top 5 played games on Steam at the moment are:

1) Dota 2
2) Counter Strike: G0
3) Team Fortress 2
4) Civilization 5
5) Football Manager 2014

That doesn't paint a picture of mass casualization being the path to success. The truth is that you are primarily following console games, and are just now realizing that the console audience is in general more casual, when they always have been.
 
T

TTUVAPOR

Banned
DeliciousDoc said:
audience is getting older. People with less time and more money. They want games they can still finish in 1 or 2 weeks even though their gaming time is a fraction of what it was. Older people also have lower reflects but still want to feel good. By subtly (or not so subtly, if you follow games) adapting features people who enjoyed games in their teens can feel like nothing has changed in their 30s.

source: I'm in my 30s.
Click to expand...

I'm in my 30s too, 34 to be exact, and I can't for the life of me enjoy shooting games that have in-game crutches up the wazoo.

I still think back to Jonathan Blow's quote of the act of discovery is being seen less and less in games today. That's really sad.

Half-life 2 is a great game to reference to where the game encourages discovery and to this day when I replay the game over and over, it's still very entertaining and enjoyable to still have to remember those things in the game that make you go...ohhh that's how it's done. Those moments are incredible and I think if Half-life 3 eliminates that element of discovery, it'll be a really sad time for gamers.
 
C

Coffee Dog

Banned
TTUVAPOR said:
I'm in my 30s too, 34 to be exact, and I can't for the life of me enjoy shooting games that have in-game crutches up the wazoo.

I still think back to Jonathan Blow's quote of the act of discovery is being seen less and less in games today. That's really sad.

Half-life 2 is a great game to reference to where the game encourages discovery and to this day when I replay the game over and over, it's still very entertaining and enjoyable to still have to remember those things in the game that make you go...ohhh that's how it's done. Those moments are incredible and I think if Half-life 3 eliminates that element of discovery, it'll be a really sad time for gamers.
Click to expand...

It's not as if games with learning curves are entirely dead. They're just lower budget and dont have as much marketing.
 
H

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
The answer to the question is: Because a lot of people are dumb.

Now more than ever, (big) games need to sell to a lot of people. The more people you include in your target audience, the more of the intelligence bell curve you need to appeal to. Consider the shocking fact that 50% of people have below average intelligence.

Jonathan Blow is a person of above average intelligence, and not coincidentally he enjoys being challenged and feeling a sense of discovery. Most people don't, or at least don't to the same degree as he does. Mainstream games cannot, by definition, cater to an elite crowd. If you have more experience with games than the average person, more intelligence than average, or more whatever than average, you will not be targeted by the biggest, most expensive to produce games.

Fortunately, lower budget games are thriving and provide a wide array of experiences.
 
T

Tye The Czar

Member
Game designer here, studying at Digipen. What you mean by "dumbing down" is often described among developers as reducing a game's complexity.

A common goal for game designers is to provide the most depth and fun while having the least complexity. This can be referred to as Elegance.

Elegance = Depth/Complexity
Go is an easy example. Its rules are: place your piece on any unoccupied space on the board; surround the opponent's pieces with your own. And yet its depth almost remains unrivaled and schools have been founded based entirely on this game.

The Art of Game Design and Characteristics of Games are great at answering these questions. These two books should be essential for any game designer and enthusiast.
 
O

Opiate

Member
It's important to point out that "dumbing down" is often really just "reducing complexity," which is not inherently dumb.

Go is a game with one mechanic. Literally. And yet, the game is so deep that it takes a lifetime (or more) to master.

A game may have lots of features and a tremendous amount of content, but if that content can be mastered in a week, then I'm not sure that makes it a "smarter" game than Bejewelled is, let alone Go. It makes it a more complex game, with more bells and whistles, but not necessarily a game that takes longer to master.
 
R

Razzer

Member
Tye The Czar said:
Game designer here, studying at Digipen. What you mean by "dumbing down" is often described among developers as reducing a game's complexity.

A common goal for game designers is to provide the most depth and fun while having the least complexity. This can be referred to as Elegance.

Elegance = Depth/Complexity
Go is an easy example. Its rules are: place your piece on any unoccupied space on the board; surround the opponent's pieces with your own. And yet its depth almost remains unrivaled and schools have been founded based entirely on this game.

The Art of Game Design and Characteristics of Games are great at answering these questions. These two books should be essential for any game designer and enthusiast.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do developers sometimes wonder if they sacrifice too much possible depth in the quest for lack of complexity though? There will inevitably be some ideas and mechanics that, if reduced in complexity would also lose significant depth. It's nice to strive for elegance, but sometimes you can't have both of it's components.
 
P

Palehorse

Member
I think it's a good thing.

This 'dumbing down' let the industry grow even bigger. More and more people jumped on board the game train when they found games that were easy enough to jump into.

More people playing games means that indie developers have more people to sell to. The number of indie developers has grown to match the growth of the industry. Indie devs innovate, they try stuff out. AAA developers see the innovation, they see what works and incorporate it into the mainstream games.

A bigger industry means more jobs in developer studios to create, we get more ideas and more viewpoints to get even more diverse experiences.

I was definitely against dumbing down when it first started occurring but now I can see the silver lining and I can also see new games emerging that scratch that old itch while retaining modern sensibilities.
 
manzo

manzo

Member
Because games want instant gratification. The game needs to entertain them, not cause frustration.
 
T

TTUVAPOR

Banned
Tye The Czar said:
Game designer here, studying at Digipen. What you mean by "dumbing down" is often described among developers as reducing a game's complexity.

A common goal for game designers is to provide the most depth and fun while having the least complexity. This can be referred to as Elegance.

Elegance = Depth/Complexity
Go is an easy example. Its rules are: place your piece on any unoccupied space on the board; surround the opponent's pieces with your own. And yet its depth almost remains unrivaled and schools have been founded based entirely on this game.

The Art of Game Design and Characteristics of Games are great at answering these questions. These two books should be essential for any game designer and enthusiast.
Click to expand...

When you say least complexity, could you give an example? Would say a simple down, down/forward, forward + A to execute a fireball in Street Fighter be considered a complexity?
 
R

RM8

Member
To appeal to soft gamers who want cinematic stuff in exchange of basic gameplay like automatic platforming.
 
T

TTUVAPOR

Banned
Opiate said:
It's important to point out that "dumbing down" is often really just "reducing complexity," which is not inherently dumb.

Go is a game with one mechanic. Literally. And yet, the game is so deep that it takes a lifetime (or more) to master.

A game may have lots of features and a tremendous amount of content, but if that content can be mastered in a week, then I'm not sure that makes it a "smarter" game than Bejewelled is, let alone Go. It makes it a more complex game, with more bells and whistles, but not necessarily a game that takes longer to master.
Click to expand...

I've tried to teach my wife the game of Chess, her immediate reaction is the game looks complicated. I too shared the same view a long time ago before I learned what each piece does. The complexity isn't the actual execution of moves in the game, though that is probably the most difficult thing to do, the actual decision making of what piece to use, but more over the remembering what each piece's move rules are to begin with. It's like learning to swim right? Naturally over time you just do it.

Chess is a mentally complex game, not physically. I don't mind a video game being less complex physically, e.g., you can have zero recoil if you like in your first person shooter, but the game better be damn mentally challenging/complex to make up for that.
 
B

BigDug13

Member
Tagyhag said:
Bigger audience, difficult and/or complex games can sell a lot as well, especially if they have their specific audience, but you can reach quite a lot of people if your game is easy and quick to pick up and play.



COD 2 MP on the PC was pretty challenging.
Click to expand...

COD 2 was primarily a PC game sequel to CoD1 that happened to come to 360 and blow up in popularity. That's a bit of a different animal as it was basically the final CoD prior to extensive publisher and focus-group meddling for the later releases.
 
I

ironmang

Member
Whatever they did was very much worth it for them. Annoying a few to turn an average shooter franchise into the most successful one seems like a no brainer.
 
T

TTUVAPOR

Banned
BigDug13 said:
COD 2 was primarily a PC game sequel to CoD1 that happened to come to 360 and blow up in popularity. That's a bit of a different animal as it was basically the final CoD prior to extensive publisher and focus-group meddling for the later releases.
Click to expand...

That just makes me cringe.
 
G

Glass Shark

Banned
I think it's fair to say that certain genres and franchises have been streamlined or even "casualized", but consider that we still have incredibly complex games like Dark Souls and Dota 2 being developed at the same time. I would hardly call it an industry-wide problem.
 
R

Razzer

Member
TTUVAPOR said:
When you say least complexity, could you give an example? Would say a simple down, down/forward, forward + A to execute a fireball in Street Fighter be considered a complexity?
Click to expand...

I may be a little off here as I am not a designer, but it would appear that complexity is the amount of different things to do in a game, whilst depth is the different ways that they can be employed, or create unique situations. So the GO example would mean it has no complexity (1 move) but incredible depth (that 1 move can be applied in hundreds of different situations). So the fireball move itself isn't complex, but it adds to the complexity of the game. I don't play Street fighter either (real expert here), but a developer would have to look at how many different (and fun) ways that fireball move can change the game, and that would determine how much depth it adds. The desire of developers is to balance this scale, and add features that they consider to add enough depth for their complexity. Or at least, that's my take on it. I could be wrong.
 
R

RooMHM

Member
Because people supposedly don t have time to learn and dig deeper than the surface. They want instant fun that is short term only and a weaker feeling than getting to master a game and learning hard games.
 
S

Superflat

Member
You're playing fast and loose with the interpretations of "dumbing down", citing multiple examples that don't really relate to each other. Some things are worth keeping, some things are not. We've shed tons of mechanics since even the PSX/N64 era because they were deemed no longer fun.

A recent example is having a button press instigate going in and out of cover. Recent notable TPS games like TR and TLOU dropped it in favor of soft cover, and most people were happy for that.

The resurgence of fair and challenging games is also on the rise with indie and modestly budgeted games. If the hardcore only wanted easy experiences, how do you account for the myriad of survival, puzzle, roguelike, and "Souls" styled games that came out in the past couple years with great success, and continue to come out with plenty of hype?

Shedding mechanics does not always equate to dumbing down. With every mechanic they streamline, with every button they free up, they are potentially able to introduce other elements they couldn't before.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
games cost more money to make

thus they need to sell lots of copies

depth alienates a larger audience -- it might sometimes pay off, but it's a risk

starting last gen most games started reporting data to devs about what percentage of people finished specific levels or the entire games and when that percentage was low that suggested the games were too hard
 
J

John Caboose

Member
MCN said:
Because games cost more and more to make, and need to sell to more and more people.
Click to expand...

This is very much it. If you spend more you need to sell more to make a profit.

I disagree with OP that CoD4 was the first step towards the "No gamer left behind" mentality, it was just a very successful implementation of it and such became the template to use in future games. Sort of like there being tablets for 10 years before the iPad.
 
Z

Zornack

Member
If games need to be dumbed down for the casual audience in order to sell more then how do you explain LoL, DotA, CS, Minecraft and Day Z? These are some of the fastest selling and most popular games and they are all quite complex and not easy at all to get into.
 
V

Vaporak

Member
TTUVAPOR said:
When you say least complexity, could you give an example? Would say a simple down, down/forward, forward + A to execute a fireball in Street Fighter be considered a complexity?
Click to expand...

If you want a rigorous definition, then "Depth" as it is being used in this thread means size of the game search tree, aka the number of nodes in the directed graph. While "complexity" means the number of rules of inference that are used to determine legal moves, aka the minimum number of rules required to completely determine all the edges in the directed graph.
 
R

Robdraggoo

Member
As someone wo loves hard core games but doesnt get that much time to play anymore with family and fulltime job, I like easier games becuase I dont have to spend an infiinte amount of time on them becuase its hard to find time to get better at them. (exception something like mario or donkey kong country). The levels are short so after 20 miutesyou can get the ahng of any level.
 
T

TomRL

Banned
This "dumbing down for the filthy casuals" reminds me of right wing politics. Right wing game design philosophy.

Low skill floor and high skill ceiling is where it has been going in recent years. And that's a good thing, not a bad one, stop complaining.
 
N

NYYstateofmind

Neo Member
cod 4 was a double edged sword. a fantastic, revolutionary game that had major influence over the entire industry. add to the fact that the graphics last gen were finally appealing to the masses, and now you have a formula to market a whole new demographic.

then you had the success of the wii... which microsoft is trying to chase with the xbone. so, you know where the money is at..

everybody keeps chasing the "cod crowd" but in my opinion. those guys wont play another game. so when cod finally ran into the ground by activision, all those gamers will leave.

sorry for my rambling post. hungover from a huge drinking binge this past week
 
C

collige

Banned
Vaporak said:
If you want a rigorous definition, then "Depth" as it is being used in this thread means size of the game search tree, aka the number of nodes in the directed graph. While "complexity" means the number of rules of inference that are used to determine legal moves, aka the minimum number of rules required to completely determine all the edges in the directed graph.
Click to expand...

That definition of depth has nothing to with depth as is being described in the thread especially traditional search trees are near useless at giving any meaningful information about actual video games. People are using the term to refer to the amount of emergent strategies that arise as a result of the games' rules.
 
S

SonyToo!™

Member
I think marketing is a big challenge for unique & challenging games, Story, eye candy & setting are much easier to sell than mechanics, difficulty and depth (most reviews don't even mention difficulty settings). So big dumb shooter with a good story is successful while all the mechanically unique games get overlooked and appear LTTP threads.

Other than that the death of the middle market dumbed down alot of series because they needed to become AAA to survive.

EDIT, Miyamoto stating that he is ignoring "passive gamers" was music to my ears
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[PSBlog] Introducing Community Game Help, a new enhancement for Game Help powered by user-generated content
News
6
618
Fake replied
Dusk Golem: First Details on Hideo Kojima's OD
Rumor
8
823
Darkmakaimura replied
Former Senior Public Relations Manager at Microsoft on Games Pass and the Activision
Social 2 3 4 5
205
11K
SHA replied
Devolver co-founder talks about competing with live service AAA titles for players' time and why indies may have a harder time on Xbox and PlayStation
Opinion Business Game Dev
10
784
Hypereides replied
LTTP: Call of Duty: World at War (PS3)
10
698
Operations66 replied
Top Bottom