Editorial: Are Games Getting Dumber?

Kris Erickson • Oct 12, 2008 • Comments (4)

Somewhere between handily completing Assassin's Creed and breezing through nearly all of the missions in Grand Theft Auto IV, it struck me. Have games of today become dumber? This is not to suggest that the stories contained in these games are dumb: Assassin’s Creed and GTA have both been praised for their incredible storytelling. What I mean is that it increasingly feels as though game designers feel that we the players are dumb, that we need our hands constantly held throughout a game, lest we throw down the controller in frustration.

These two recent console games, while obvious examples, are not the only offenders in this recent trend of dumbing-down the challenge factor in videogames. The recently released Too Human features automatically scaling enemies so that players will never encounter any foe that is way beyond their level of experience. Fable II will include a “Breadcrumb trail” so that adventurers will never get lost while traveling from one objective to the next in its sprawling fantasy world.

A bread crumb trail leads the way in Fable 2.

Compare these modern examples with titles that – not too long ago – offered considerably more challenge and really tested both the reflexes and intelligence of players. I grew up with graphic adventure games like Kings Quest, The Secret of Monkey Island, and Conquests of Camelot, all of which are famous for placing taxing levels of difficulty on the player. In a text-based PC adventure game from the 1980s, a typical player interaction might go something like this:

Player: “Get ye flask”
Computer: “You probably can’t reach the flask”
Player: “Walk over to the flask and pick it up”
Computer: “Your legs are tired. Perhaps there is another way?”
Player: “For the love of God get ye $#!%#$ flask”
Computer: A lightning bolt appears and incinerates you. You have been returned to your last save point, made 4 hours ago.

Of course, modern developers have argued strongly that some retro conventions – such as text-only input and broken save systems, deserve to be laid to rest. But even beyond those technical limitations, games from that period placed challenges in the way of the player that are sorely missed in the current crop of adventure games. One of the greatest features of early PC adventures was their ability to make the player feel as though he or she were really exploring a new landscape. There were no overhead maps or radar screens, no invisible walls keeping players from wandering into dangerous territory. Gamers had to feel out the landscape on their own, in some cases even creating pen and paper maps in the real world to keep track of their location in the game. That was one of the reasons why we loved Etrian Odyssey, an RPG for the DS that uses the touch screen for mapmaking. But games like Etrian Odyssey are an increasing rarity in a market that seems to reward simplicity over challenge.

How did this happen? How did game developers arrive at the notion that what we really wanted all along was less of a challenge in our videogames? Part of the answer can probably be found in the massive economic success of the video game industry. As the digital entertainment market approaches the popularity of film, games have come to resemble Hollywood movies in many respects. Publishers seek to create games that will have massive appeal with the public -- a public that increasingly includes new and less experienced gamers, as companies seek to reach out to new consumers. The recent game Spore might not be satisfying to hardcore gamers, but it will undoubtedly sell millions of copies by appealing to more causal PC owners like my father, who has never played a real-time strategy game before. Adventure games have definitely suffered from this phenomenon. They are very expensive to make, because of their extensive use of artwork and voice-acting. Because of that, they must be able to appeal to a large enough audience to recoup the initial cost of development. Consequently, developers are taking less risks and designing their games for the lowest common denominator.

Modern adventure games are expensive to make.

All hope is not lost. A small but vocal resistance has formed, made up of hardcore masochists, completists and those who remember what games were like before they became mass-market commodities. These devoted thrill seekers will actually take great care to make their gaming experience as difficult as possible, even in “nerfed” titles like Assassin’s Creed. In that game, some hardcore fans decided that playing with the HUD activated was cheating, so they forced themselves to play without a radar map. By forcing themselves to actually hunt for the next objective, these players argue, the experience is improved, and actually approaches the level of difficulty found in earlier adventure games. The hardcore can also be found on YouTube. These are the ones doing speed runs in their favorite 2D platformers, trying to shave a few seconds off of their previous and untouchably fast performance. And of course, multiplayer shooters like Call of Duty 4 offer unlimited challenge, as gamers square off against human opponents that are just as skilled as themselves.

For a real, challenging adventure game, however, options are somewhat slim these days. I hope that some game designers remember the glory days of adventure gaming on the PC, and seek to implement some of the best features from that era in new projects. Give players a sense of control over their destiny, let them make mistakes and suffer the consequences, and let them explore the virtual worlds you create without limitation. Above all, force players to use their brains to interact with your game, rather than simply spoon feeding them cutscenes. Those things are what make gaming great, after all.

News
Games
Gear

Comments

Anonymous

- November 7, 2008 6:58 PM

SO I bought this new computer and went to download new games, all excited about the videos and screenshots... but as I play I start to ask myself the same question, so I googled for it and the answer is yes! either that or I'm getting old for games...

[Editor's response: I feel your pain. If you are into RPGs, try Fallout 3, I hear it is pretty hard and a good game to boot.]

Tens

- November 8, 2008 12:34 PM

The thing is, you have two types of hardcore players:
-experienced ones who play the same genre
-experienced ones who don´t play the same genre

The first kind seek their thrill in competitive play, the latter seek their thrill in an emotional rollercoaster.

The casual gamers are currently the largest part of the game consumer market thanks to a whole new generation of gamers. They are usually into games with added bonusses or relaxation enabling functions.
An automated catchup mode in which the losing party gets the benefits, (Need For Speed, Mario Kart, Final Fantasy 7), a default arcade mode (Fifa, Ace Combat, Soul Calibur), or a social party function in which to show off, laugh at eachother, or to pat eachother on the back.

That´s because all gamers everywhere have something thing in common: they want to feel special because they payed a heavty buck for their entertainment.
After 60 bucks they don´t want to feel like they suck at something. They don´t want their character to be epic loser who lives through nothing special or game decisive (like Vaan in FFXII, compare him to Solid Snake or a loser like Larry and ask yourself why Vaan is far less widely received, much like Tidus).
This is why games that make you powerful or different when you invest enough time and / or money in them are so popular. It puts the player in the director´s chair, without letting him or her break a sweat.

Players want to feel like they can kick some ass even when they have just started playing action games. So versions have to be made to appeal to the largest group of consumers.
And because it is not just lucrative to please these casuals, it is also cheap.
Dumped down versions appear with limited options for the player and for the opponent as well, to make them more predictable. Thus advanced AI and complicated programming is now avoided in most games ánd it pays off too!

Whilst other players, myself included, easily finish the original Devil May Cry 3 or Ninja Gaiden Sigma, the casual gamer needs an easy fix.

There are advantages to dumbing down though;
while catchup mode is invented to give losers a boost to let them keep up with more skilled opponents, be they AI or not, it also offers regular gamers an adrinalin rush thoughout their game. Even if they do screw up by crashing into a wall or letting their health bar reach critical, the boost they receive as well is a chance for them to save face and win the game after all.
After all: who really wants to put their opponents 2 rounds behind at the beginning of a race in Toca 2 all the time? Isn´t it more exciting for both losers and winners to battle side by side clashing at eachother until time runs out or someone gets the ultimate finisher?

Also, isn´t a game more rewarding if you´re able to withness final attacks or perform combos every once in a while without having to cheat? Or if you´re able to play whilst not completely ignoring your friends?

Still, if your gaming experience gets you kicked from an online multiplayer match in Warcraft 3 because people thínk you´re cheating, you might not want to answer these questions. The hardcore that don´t go around buying games every month won´t agree with the easy access to all content.

Truth is, I don´t like to pay 60 bucks for a game I might not be able to finish. Especially not with the anti-cheatcode mentality these days.

However, making a game easier does not mean you have to limit its options. That just has to do with lazy programming. Sure, child killing was not necessary in Fallout 3. However, leaving the option out completely gave the gamer less freedom and made it less ´real´.

And do games need well programmed AI opponents and NPC´s, or do we just provide a great many controlable character models and throw them online? Again, this trend is just lazy programming.

Commercial gaming is for everyone, unfortunatly only the minority of hardcore fans are the ones left with the disadvantage of having a title restricted in its options. The programming becomes easier and less expensive and it also opens doors to sellable DLC whilst more people will be buying the products. Win-win for everyone, except for the hardcore competitive player.

Armagh1098

- March 31, 2009 12:47 PM

It's quite the stretch to call the games dumb when the gaming community is the one that has lost its edge. How many times have any of use perused the boards to see post after post, thread after thread of gamers whining about difficulty, learning curve, or just a game not meeting their personal preferences.

Oblivion, which is a cross-platform title implemented enemy scaling (which was a deviation from the Elderscroll equilibrium) and it did dilute the game. Too Human (which is coincidentally an Xbox exclusive)does a similar thing but not to the same extent.

We can name game after game that may or may not be going down the path of least resistance, but we cannot deny these games are made in response to demand. Don't hate the game, hate the gamer.

p.s. I realize this is a Sony Playstation fansite, but to isolate two Xbox titles while refraining from mentioning some of the biggest offenders of your "case" which are cross platform or Sony or Nintendo exclusives betrays a potential hidden bias.

dz

- June 7, 2009 12:52 PM

Adjustably difficult options like System Shock would be a nice touch, ie Puzzle 0-3, Cyber 0-3, Combat 0-3, Story 0-3 (with a 7 hour realtime time limit if you choose 3 :) )

PS3 Informer

The GameFlavor Network