What is "consolisation" and why does it exist? Or Simulated Skill v Player Skill - by SubJeff
Eldron on 17/2/2011 at 10:32
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Uh, try page 1?
@Bakerman: Good points. I understand that most intelligence doesn't require context, but would most 13-year olds really get calculus if it's taught to them at that age? Sure, many would get the formulae if their capacity to memorise is good (so - a vague, blurry outline), but would they understand it, the theory of it?
Maturity and patience are certainly part of the equation. There are things that teenagers like, and certain things that wouldn't do anything for them. Bioshock's musings on a free market utopia would likely pass most teenagers by. Thief's commentary on religions as well. Most teenagers have little patience for the inordinately complex, so while Doom found a massive audience, it isn't surprising that SS1 didn't. And so on.
It's not so much about age, it's just that what people who have played shooters forever have it naturally imprinted into their brain that you crouch and jump with this and that button, but for someone who has not played shooters before, even the smartest kind of people, they don't even know the concept about jumping or crouching in shooters.
And if they'd pick up a game without any initial hints, contextual feedback for example, they'd put down the game after several scenarios of what we would call frustrating and not fun in other games.
Dooms massive audience is due to how brilliantly easy they made the game to play, (if we don't look at how good the game is), and ss1 being the disaster in that department, even with the hint system in place it just broke every rule out there on creating easy to use control schemes.
Sulphur on 17/2/2011 at 11:28
Yeah, I don't have stats but all I'm saying is, the younger you are, the less likely you are to enjoy something complex. Doom was massive and simple and appealed to everyone, young and old, but SS1 wouldn't quite cut it in the instant gratification/fun category for most 13-year olds.
There's a threshold for people in general between 'too complex to understand or be bothered with' <-> 'complex and engrossing', but that threshold generally moves a bit with age. It stops at different points for different people, but it's obviously there.
Eldron on 17/2/2011 at 11:59
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Yeah, I don't have stats but all I'm saying is, the younger you are, the less likely you are to enjoy something complex. Doom was massive and simple and appealed to everyone, young and old, but SS1 wouldn't quite cut it in the instant gratification/fun category for most 13-year olds.
There's a threshold for people in general between 'too complex to understand or be bothered with' <-> 'complex and engrossing', but that threshold generally moves a bit with age. It stops at different points for different people, but it's obviously there.
I think it's more niché related than age related, since the younger you are, the better you will be at doing complex realtime responsive tasks.
How eager you are to take the time to have to learn something like dwarf fortress for example is entirely related to how much experience you've had in dealing with things like it before.
The age thing might be related to the fact that people at a certain age grew up in a time where there were no science behind user-interfaces, people had to read manuals, so the whole age thing related to complex interfaces will keep shifting.
Papy on 17/2/2011 at 14:19
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Are we saying that most people in general aren't smart enough to get SS2's brand of complexity?
No, that certainly not what I'm saying. SS2 was not as simple as Doom, but it was not what I would call a complex or deep game either. Something like Falcon 4 could be qualified as a complex game, but not SS2. I saw my friend's son, who is 7 years old, play GTA San Andreas without any problem (I didn't approve it, but that's not the point) and I talked to people who said their kids (6 years old and 8 years old) were playing Oblivion. A lot of people think children are dumb, including their parents, but they are far more intelligent then what you seem to think.
Would most 13 years old be able to learn calculus? Probably not as most 13 years old kids don't have the abilities to fully understand that level of abstraction. But most 15 years old kids do. You said that when you were 15 you didn't get calculus. Was it because you were not intelligent enough or was it because you were not interested? Anyway, don't you think a comparison between playing SS2 and learning calculus is a bit exaggerated?
Quote Posted by Sulphur
and if consolitis were indeed where a game just follows the general trend, then Bioshock should have dropped any pretense of an Objectivist pretext because clearly most games in general don't give a toss about deep stories or incorporating Randian overtures into their narrative.
The story of BioShock was not deep, nor that intelligent. In my opinion, it was more interesting than the story of SS2 because of the political subject, and far more interesting than the typical CRPG story, but it was still a video game level story. I agree that most games in general don't give a toss about what you call "deep" stories, but that's also true for most computer games. Because of that, I think consolitis has nothing to do with the decor (which include the story) of the game.
Quote Posted by Bakerman
Where I disagree with Papy, though, is that some games rely on maturity rather than (or in addition to) intelligence, which is where I think the typical 13-15 year old fails. It takes a certain level of maturity to enjoy a measured, slow-paced experience that requires thinking and initiative. While I do agree that many a 15 year old is
capable of understanding a game like that, I just don't think many would
enjoy it. It's kind of like wine... kids hate it (and I still do!), but as you age your taste changes, and though you haven't become more able to taste the wine, you just enjoy that flavour more.
We mostly see and believe what we want to see and believe. Somehow, we all find a way to appreciate what we have. It implies that because of age, we probably see things differently, but that doesn't mean we can't all appreciate the same things. A 50 years old and a 10 years old won't see Shrek the same way, but they will probably both love it.
I'm guessing BioShock mostly worked for me because I'm 41, I love kids (I don't have any) and my desire for fatherhood is now at its peak. Caring for a child is now an instinct I feel I must fulfill. Ten years ago, this was certainly not the case. So from my point of view, a 30 years old male is too young to appreciate BioShock. This is of course false, people of all ages enjoyed BioShock, but each one of them probably enjoyed it for different reasons. So I agree a 13 years old probably won't appreciate SS2 for the same reasons as a 40 years old, but that doesn't mean he won't appreciate it.
Of course, knowledge also play a part in what I appreciate or not. For example, my taste for music changed a lot because I now know a lot more about music and the simple pop music is now mostly uninteresting to me. Knowledge influencing my taste is particularly true for games because learning (in a broad sense) is the basic activity of a game. I'd say Ultima Underworld was one of the best game I played, but the truth is if I played it now for the first time, I would say it's far too simple to be interesting.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
There are things that teenagers like, and certain things that wouldn't do anything for them. Bioshock's musings on a free market utopia would likely pass most teenagers by. Thief's commentary on religions as well. Most teenagers have little patience for the inordinately complex, so while Doom found a massive audience, it isn't surprising that SS1 didn't. And so on.
I think I read 1984 and Brave New Workd when I was around 14, maybe younger, and found them to be fantastic books. Both influenced me a lot. I remember inviting Jehovah's witnesses and arguing with them when my parents were not home. When I was 15, me and my friends were mostly idealists and we wanted to change the world (I'm now quite cynical). I was a strong atheist (still am) and I was never afraid to discuss religion with my friends. I think your vision of teenagers is wrong.
But I will take your argument the opposite way. My past experience with teaching people how to use a computer showed me that most kids can learn very fast, they can even learn basic programing without any difficulties, while with most adults I had to repeat the same things over and over simply to make them learn the most basic tasks. Most adults just didn't get it.
ZylonBane on 17/2/2011 at 16:54
Quote Posted by Papy
I think your vision of teenagers is wrong.
I think you shouldn't be used as a typical example of anything.
According to current research, normal humans hit their mental peak in their mid-twenties.
Papy on 17/2/2011 at 17:24
Yes, I know the current view is that the brain continues to develop up to the mid-twenties. Piaget thought it was 13. Of course, current research is more about the physical structure of the brain, while Piaget was mostly a psychologist. My point was based on the fact that 15 years old is about the age when people reach almost their maximum score in IQ tests. I know IQ tests do not measure "intelligence", but I'm sure you understand what I mean.
d'Spair on 20/2/2011 at 13:01
Reading these endless debates on whether BioShock sucked or not, I always get amazed about the fact that people criticize BioShock for it had no inventory and wasn't much about choices and cosequences, while Thief was exactly the same in that regard. While in the meantime, nobody says Thief was dumbed down and simplified in comparision with System Shock.
Briareos H on 20/2/2011 at 13:23
Bioshock sucked because the storytelling was an uninviting rehash of SS2, the narration completely in your face, the illusion of small choices felt ironically more arbitrarily restrictive than if it hadn't been there, there were invisible barriers everywhere, the shooting was either boring or imbalanced and everything was written on the screen in font 24 with an impractical UI for a mouse/keyboard/computer screen combo.
Not because there was no inventory or because the story choices didn't matter in the end.
d'Spair on 20/2/2011 at 17:24
Quote Posted by Briareos H
Bioshock sucked because the storytelling was an uninviting rehash of SS2, the narration completely in your face, the illusion of small choices felt ironically more arbitrarily restrictive than if it hadn't been there, there were invisible barriers everywhere, the shooting was either boring or imbalanced and everything was written on the screen in font 24 with an impractical UI for a mouse/keyboard/computer screen combo.
Not because there was no inventory or because the story choices didn't matter in the end.
Thief's storytelling wasn't exactly flawless (especially Thief 2's; there are many people here on TTLG who don't like the plot in Thief 2), physics was clunky, some levels were weird, fighting was horrible, and everything was made for the people who never played complex RPGs and were fans of shooters. And yet it was an immensely popular among the critics and quite successful among the fans. It's recognized as undisputed classics nowadays, and it's my personal favourite game of all time. But when people played Thief, they didn't pay attention to its flaws, while praising its strengths. With BioShock, it's completely the opposite here on TTLG. Yes, it might not be the deepest and the most complex first person game of all time in terms of game mechanics, but it has fantastic setting, wonderful story, brilliant atmosphere and design. It is an awesome game. Not flawless, mind you, but awesome.
Briareos H on 20/2/2011 at 17:44
Quote Posted by d'Spair
but it has fantastic setting, wonderful story, brilliant atmosphere and design.
Except for the story part, I more or less agree. But since for me, setting = design = atmosphere, basically Bioshock does exactly one thing right.
