273 Views | 11 Comments

ImRage: How ‘Dumb’ Is ‘Dumbing It Down’?

ImRage: How ‘Dumb’ Is ‘Dumbing It Down’?

In the beginning, there were games… and they were incredibly hard. If you consider the era of the original Sony PlayStation to be the starting point of where gaming entered the mainstream, then you’ll remember that gaming wasn’t really for everyone. It wasn’t widely accepted and I don’t like to believe that it was because gaming was ‘hipster’ or for ‘no-life losers’. In fact, I think a more likely cause was that games in general from that era were so prohibitive. Take a look at the best games on the PS1 such as Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo 2, Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 3, Soul Reaver, Resident Evil 2, Tony Hawk’s 2 and Castlevania and then compare them to their modern day incarnations: the games of old were not only more difficult to play, complete and enjoy than their successors but also more difficult to learn too. In today’s column, I’m going to discuss the change in focus of modern games from being prohibitive to being accessible and give a few thoughts on the topic of ‘dumbing games down’ for modern audiences.

angry-birds-for-android

Angry Birds: Simpler doesn’t always mean worse. Some games with very simple designs are tremendous fun.

So fast forward a decade or two and we’re in the PS3/360/Wii era where gaming has changed drastically from its humble roots. Technology has improved, the industry has become as lucrative as the movies and gaming has become a common and mainstream form of entertainment for teenagers and young adults. Some gamers who’ve been playing for years will tell you that gaming is better than it’s ever been: we’re long past technical limitations and some games look better than real life. More cynical gamers from the old days would argue the opposite: that gaming has deteriorated into a shallow mockery of its former self and, like the superficial characters from Gossip Girl, games nowadays look impressive from the outside but are hollow and devoid of substance on the inside.

As is usual with a topic of widely conflicting opinions, the truth is much harder to discern. Games nowadays have certainly become a lot easier than their ancient counterparts. They’re easier to play and easier to learn and the buzzword here is that they’ve become more ‘accessible’. And what happens when things become more accessible? Well more people access them of course! That’s certainly what the intent has been and that’s probably one of the main reasons that gaming has grown so much in the last two generations: it doesn’t take a genius to figure them out or enjoy them anymore. Few can deny that gaming reaches a much wider audience than it previously used to and this is probably the main driver of gaming’s progress in the last decade or so.

But the flip side of that, of course, is that making them easier can remove the challenge or, in some cases, diminish the worth of the game entirely. As much as marketers would love to simplify everything into an easily-sellable concept, sometimes it just isn’t possible. Sometimes, the beauty of something lies not in its simplicity, but in its complexity. Take Neverwinter Nights for example: NWN is awesome because of nearly limitless character customization options. It’s awesome because you can be anything from a dual-sword archer to a fire-balling cleric and, within those customizations, there’s even more room for individuality still. The game is great fun when you’re on the gravy train and you’re a sorcerer who can morph into a fire-breathing dragon but there’s just as much chance that you botch up your character irreparably and, twenty hours into the game, you have to start from scratch because you messed it all up and are getting killed by weak lizard-men. That’s probably the reason why games like Neverwinter Nights are dead; relegated to the annals of history to collect dust along with Crash Bandicoot and his ilk. The closest thing to another NWN or Baldur’s Gate in the last few years was Dragon Age: Origins and even that, which was already a much simplified version of a classic RPG, got neutered completely in its sequel and became a mediocre hack-and-slash. No, the modern day RPGs such as Mass Effect are nowhere close to the complexity of old and odds are they never will be again.

Neverwinter Nights: The sad thing about gaming becoming simpler is that we may never see another came as beautifully complex as Neverwinter Nights

Neverwinter Nights: The sad thing about gaming becoming simpler is that we may never see another game as beautifully complex as Neverwinter Nights.

So making things simpler and more accessible isn’t always the most elegant of solutions. You only have to take a look at the disappointment surrounding Diablo III this year. Diablo II is widely considered to be one of the best games ever made, being played for over two decades since its release. Diablo III, on the contrary, has managed to bore its fanboys in under a year. Is it then, a mistake for games to become simpler? No that doesn’t seem to be the case either. Relics such as the lives system, save points and complex inventory management are game elements that are better off dead. That’s not say that it’s all bad either. Tekken Tag Tournament 2 still retains all of the intricacy, if not more, from its previous incarnations and it happens to be one of my favourite games but have you ever tried teaching someone to play it? It’s easier to teach someone about the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics (I know, I’ve tried to do both). TTT2 is perfect as it is and any attempt to simplify it would probably ruin it (more tutorials couldn’t hurt though) but the downside is that a game like that will only really be played by a small niche in today’s environment and games of its kind seem to be getting fewer and fewer as the years go by.

It really is a contentious issue this whole ‘dumbing down’ business. On the one hand unnecessary complexity prevents a game from being enjoyed like it should be. Take Gran Turismo 5 for instance: the controls for that game are so involved and complex that you’d have a more fun time driving a real car. But then on the other hand, removing the complexity can kill the soul of a game entirely. Dragon Age 2 is case in point in this regard. A nice balance is, of course, ‘Easy to learn, hard to master’ but most games seem to miss one of these two elements. Either they’re easy and stay too easy or they’re hard and not easy to get into. Few games have managed to get the balance right although two that come to mind are God of War and Street Fighter IV.

Mass Effect 3: Yes games have become a lot simpler over the last decade or so, but simpler doesn't necessarily mean worse. Because of its high production values, good voice acting and stellar writing (minus the ending), ME offers one of the most cinematic gaming experiences around

Mass Effect 3: Yes games have become a lot simpler over the last decade or so, but simpler doesn’t necessarily mean worse. Because of its high production values, good voice acting and stellar writing (minus the ending), ME offers one of the most cinematic gaming experiences around.

So what should actually be done about this? If you’ve got any ideas, tell me below. As for me, I look forward to playing the new DmC quite soon and seeing just how far they’ve managed to ‘dumb down’ my favourite action game. I’m looking forward to beating the entire game by repeatedly mashing one button…

See you in two weeks time…

If You Liked This, You Should Try These!

Name: Imran Amien
Location: Cape Town
Position: Columnist

  • http://twitter.com/MatuMikey Michael Matusowsky

    How dumb is dumbing down? Watching Connor double assassinate two soldiers with MULTIPLE moves after a double counter-attack. You’d have hoped they would have added quick time events to something like that but nope. You get to watch Connor rape two soldiers just by pressing a simgle button once.

  • Adam Meikle

    You want difficult play some old school arcade games. You’ll cry.

    • Trebzz

      Yeah and when you die you go back to level 1 o.O

    • Adam Meikle

      Games were made to be difficult in order to use up your money.

  • Alessandro Barbosa

    This was a really big talking point during my first year of game design. I started noticing throughout the year that it wasn’t a matter of over-simplification or over-complications, but rather the depth of your gameplay.

    For example, take Chess. It’s extremely in the sense that you can teach the mechanics of it to anyone in a matter of minutes, but the depth of it’s mechanics ultimately makes it an engaging and complicated affair when playing against someone with more experience This is something that a lot of developers are struggling with I think, because through trying to make they’re game more accessible they’re ripping away fundamental mechanics that lend themselves to the game’s depth.

    Personally all the games I designed last year were fairly simple and straight forward, and I must saw I did often look around at other students games and wonder if I was miles behind them. The truth is that the simplicity of the mechanics I designed allowed me to refine and balance them perfectly, which was much harder to do for a full blown war game with a booklet of rules. In the end, I was able to create a game with a lot of tactical depth while keeping it simple, and that’s what developers should aim for when creating a game nowadays.

    We benefit from fantastic U.I design to that games don’t have to be over complicated in order to be tactically deep, but there has to be a balance. Assassin’s Creed does it wrong, for instance, because through simplifying combat they have ripped away the essential mechanic that allows it to be challenging, whereas Mass Effect streamlined gameplay more so that you spent less time in menus (because that boring) while retaining gameplay that did not suffer from the change.

    Making games accessible is the way forward, and developers should be encourage to do it when ever possible, as long as it does not rip away the gameplay’s depth.

  • http://egamer.co.za/author/cavie Caveshen “CaViE” Rajman

    I personally think that ‘the older generation’ is a bit overrated and while games were indeed difficult, it wasn’t because they were in fact difficult but because we were new to gaming, they had no idea what they were doing, and of course, gaming as a whole had no idea where it was going at the time.

    We still have difficult games around. Dark Souls is usually the go-to for this argument, but try playing MvC3 on the highest difficulty, or Gears of War 3 on insane. Yes we have checkpoints and other things to make gaming easy, but maybe it’s not about making games easy but attempting to evolve gaming as a whole? Maybe it’s a misrepresentation of what is gaming attempting to find its feet?

    But I won’t for a moment argue that some games are not dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Of course they are. That’s why Assassin’s Creed III, Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Mass Effect 3 sold so well, last year. That’s why Skyrim and Gears of War 3 sold so well in the previous year. Checkpoints, quick-time-events, button-mashing victories. These exist. Yes. So depth must be found elsewhere.

    We cannot be happy for gaming’s growth and then turn around and slam the reasons for its growth, in one fell swoop. We must respect that gaming has to ‘go there’ in order to achieve wider appeal. And it’s working, for fuck’s sakes.

    I don’t think we’ve reached the point of alienation yet. I wouldn’t call the new DmC, for example, ‘easy’ but rather ‘accessible’. That’s a huge difference. And the same can be said of many games releasing today. Far Cry 3 was an easy game with loads of quick-time events, checkpointing and the lot. But was it a bad game, nor one without challenge? So goes my point.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=602797306 Imran Amien

      You missed the point. It wasn’t about difficulty, it was about complexity. Two very different things. Accessibility is nice. Depth is something else.

    • http://egamer.co.za/author/cavie Caveshen “CaViE” Rajman

      I was addressing you *and* the comments with my comment. :P I saw your point. :)

  • Dougiedonut

    Games have become watered down big time. Average length of single player game campaigns is around 6 to 8 hours. You have so many visual prompts and pointers for when to attack/defend or whatever, that actual skill isn’t required anymore.
    By making games more “accessible” to the masses, the soul of gaming has been sold out.
    It’s the equivalent of FIFA deciding that to increase viewing numbers for football games, they’re going to make the goals twice as big and tall. Whilst new fans will be rejoicing at score lines of 54-67, real fans will be slowly leaving the sport totally disenchanted.
    Meanwhile the new dumbing down is being declared a massive success and declared as the model for future endeavours.
    Bring back real games for real gamers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jack.banks.374 Jack Banks

    One example is Final Fantasy. Back in the day, I would level up to at least level 10 before going to the Temple of Fiends to beat Garland. When I played the psp version, I was only level 4 when I beat Garland in 3 turns. I then went onwards to Elfheim and was only level 8. When I first played this game on psp, I was put off by how easy it was. I quit playing it and went on to other rpgs. I finally went back to this one about a month ago and beat it. For some reason almost every rpg that I play on psp or ds, I can’t seem to get past level 58. I keep winning.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vishaan.pillay Vishaan Jitters Pillay

    Anyone ever play a game called “Kid Chameleon” back in old Sega genesis days. No save points….played for over 5 hours, then dad came in and turned the power off to tell me to go outside….never got over it. Still that game was beyond mad in terms of difficulty for its time.

    I do miss that insane challenge that old games use to offer. Commandos being a case in point. Forced a rage delete several times, but also kept forcing me to come back. Which games do that these days for you guys?