Volitions Advocate on 25/7/2013 at 10:11
The original Doom appealed to me too. I still play it, matter of fact.
Chade on 25/7/2013 at 10:39
Hey look, we can settle this one with a little reality! What an opportunity!
Gunny, based off your behaviour over the last 20 years, including such items as, oh I don't know ... fan site membership, perhaps ... would you say you were a bigger fan of ID and their games or LGS and their games?
TTK12G3 on 25/7/2013 at 19:00
Quote Posted by dethtoll
If you meant that to come off as really elitist, well, good job.
but i liekd dooom
polytourist97 on 25/7/2013 at 20:13
Quote:
“Sometimes people with slightly different skillsets but similar gaming-taste want to have as much fun as you. Is that so wrong?”
It's not wrong to want to have as much fun as "me". However, I do think it is wrong to
expect to enjoy similar games to the extent that I enjoy them without expecting to develop that skillset in the process. I love playing chess, but I couldn't always play chess. My nephew might want to love playing chess like me, but first he has to develop an understanding of the pieces and their movements, as well as the proper board setup, plus advanced situational moves like castling and such. This is not "elitist", it's part of the satisfaction of becoming actively involved with the game and its mechanics (much like what BH said previously).
One of the primary points of playing a game is learning how to interact with its systems and adapting and developing a new skillset that is unique to the game one is playing. This is not necessarily mutually exclusive to these elements which are being debated as "dumbing down" a game, however utilizing those designs inherently presents a player with less opportunity to be actually "playing" the game. If a game is founded upon exploration, then having a minimap with quest arrows and such is in conflict with its primary goal.
I think the dilemma that I encounter when discussing this issue is, if you are in favor of these "dumbing down" elements, are you actually wanting to play that game? If you want to experience the world and characters and story of a game, but don't want to be bothered with things like figuring out where to go next, managing an inventory, puzzle solving, or whatever other game mechanics might be present, then I would argue that you aren't looking for that particular game at all. Or if you are, then why would you be calling for ways to sidestep large portions of the actual game?
My position has always been there's room for everybody. Going back to my chess example, my nephew wants to love playing chess, but just giving him a chessboard and saying "figure it out" might not be fair to him. Nor could I just "dumb down" actual chess to the point where he could better grasp it, as that wouldn't be fair to the game or anyone else. So I bought him a neat game called "No Stress Chess" which has moves illustrated and dictated by drawing cards. It's a different game, but presents much of the core experience of playing chess while being able to be picked up much more easily, and learning chess is part of the game itself. This is an elegant solution that exists in all other mediums. You might love reading, but tackling Moby Dick as your second or third novel ever might be a tall order. Luckily, there are LOTS of different books that have similar stories and themes but are much easier to read. You might love movies, but I would never recommend watching something like Mulholland Dr. or 2001 unless I knew you had experience watching heavier "difficult" movies.
I would argue that any accusations of being "elitist" on this matter are confusing elitism with being pragmatic. There's nothing wrong with wanting to experience a game that doesn't require as much dedication and skill, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to experience a game that
does. The problem exists because instead of there being multiple games in multiple genres for multiple skill levels, all games seem compelled to cater to the broadest spectrum possible (with the best intentions I'm sure). However, in so doing it creates this dichotomy that really shouldn't even exist: casual gamers vs. hardcore gamers. There should be plenty of room for both, without either side stepping on one another's toes.
ZylonBane on 25/7/2013 at 21:20
Quote Posted by Yakoob
that's why Valve's design works, because you never notice those tricks 90% of the time.
It really does. There have been many times in the Half-Life series where I'm presented with some chaotic scene and I'm like, "WTF, where am I supposed to go, oh hell I guess I'll try going
this way first." and it turns out
this way is in fact the only way to proceed.
SubJeff on 25/7/2013 at 22:45
I kind of agree with polytourist - in many cases if you don't want to do what the game is asking you to do then that game isn't for you. I remember playing Soul Caliber or something and one of the guys playing just complained about the way the controls worked (he was losing). He offered no alternative though and had to concede that it just wasn't the game for him.
However there is also the obvious case, like Yakoobs, where adding an extra feature opens the game up to other people.
The important thing here though is that it doesn't take away anything from people not using it.
It's a complex issue - the example of Dishonored's objective markers in contrast to Half Life's lack of them is complicated by the type of game that they are and by Valve's design skills. Can you really call it dumbing down in Dishonored? Is this just facilitation? You wouldn't have it in Thief, would you? But is that just a sign of the times? I think it's a sign of what the designers want the game to be and therefore if you dislike it, doesn't that just mean that the game isn't for you?
If a game isn't for you by dint of the design choices is that even dumbing down? I think it's maybe just a matter of taste.
demagogue on 28/7/2013 at 01:50
Well another alternative is a sim, where wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) and it's not gamey. The more extreme examples are like the military sims on the mode militaries actually use (like Arma or some of the flight sims), which are practically unplayable as games in that form as I understood it.
People get impatient that the game isn't "going anywhere", so there always has to be a little gamey-ness because even the most pretentious gamer will insist on being pulled a little.
Ideally there's a sweetspot between the two, between a game of stale bread on one side (no real "game") & pure ham on the other (where it's gamey/dumbed-down way past the line of credibility), although the lines may vary by personality or even over time in the gaming culture.
TTK12G3 on 28/7/2013 at 15:39
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I kind of agree with polytourist - in many cases if you don't want to do what the game is asking you to do then that game isn't for you.
I'm glad you mentioned this. People really don't like it when one says this and start throwing around words like "elitist" and "snob".
Slasher on 29/7/2013 at 03:53
As graphics continue to improve and game environments become more realistic and cluttered, I don't think item highlight is an unrealistic compromise if it's done right. Far Cry 3 and Dishonored's Magic Glowy Fun Things effect was shit at keeping me immersed in the setting. To me, few things scream "you're playing a BIDEOGAME" more loudly than features like badly implemented pickup highlights. BS Infinite's method, like Thief's, of having pickups glow only when you were looking at them is so much more palatable.
Now that I think about it, Far Cry 3's item highlight was even less excusable since they went with a naturalistic art direction. Dishonored and Infinite took a slightly more abstract approach so at least in the latter's case it didn't violently clash with the aesthetic when something started glowing.
Chade on 29/7/2013 at 04:11
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I kind of agree with polytourist - in many cases if you don't want to do what the game is asking you to do then that game isn't for you.
This isn't the context in which I normally see the words "dumbed down" thrown around though. Generally it's the opposite situation: gamers complaining because they don't like design decisions made in an attempt to appeal to other people. In TFA, the context is Yakoob designing his game to appeal to different users, not users complaining that his game doesn't appeal to them.
