So, the term "Dumbing Down" has merit; however, it does depend on it's context. Perhaps not all ported, upgraded or future games have (or will have) followed suit, but the large majority of games (I dare not say the word "trend") are incorporating this disheartening strategy. When you make a game accessible, more people play; not more "good" people, just more people in general and more people means more money. I'm afraid we aren't going to escape the "dumbing down" effect anytime soon and the term is in no way invalid.
Who are the 'good' people? Who should be playing these games and who shouldn't? I am fairly sure that my definition will be way differnt than yours.
In the end it all boils down to what we want from games. I will gladly argue that the 'old school' MMORPGs were in fact the 'dumbed down' games in comparison to more modern games.
Heck, the iPod could be classified as a dumbed down version of a Walkman or a Discman.
I think that the conglomeration of legitimate points here amount to solid series of standard definitions for the phrase "Dumbed Down"; and although I don't believe that garnering a large group of responses necessarily validates a point any more than the phrase "everyone is doing it", I do have to state that the large majority of replies in this thread make many valid points that validate the use of the aforementioned term.
Dumbed Down (adj.):
2. Game Upgrades - I'll use the classic game Asheron's Call (AC) to provide examples of this form of "Dumbing Down." When I was first dumped into the world I had a letter from home and, well, almost nothing else. Now when you start the world you've got the option to progress through a tutorial. Mages used to have to find a character with high strength who could sell all of their loot and turn those very heavy pyreal coins into trade notes that they could then more easily carry around; but not anymore, coins miraculously no longer have any weight. At first, there were no quest logs in AC, if you wanted to record your adventures in-game you'd have to purchase a book and take notes manually (in game or IRL); however, in one of their latest updates there is now a quest log interface were, although you still have to enter everything manually, the notes you take are limitless and modified at will. All of these additions have dumbed the game down just a bit. I think most people would think having NO LOG is the dumb part. Its certainly is easier, but since when is something that SHOULD be easy to do, dumb? Is a TV guide dumbed down from writing out your own on a sheet of paper every week? Is a GPS dumbed down from a paper map on your lap? By implying its dumbed down, it means its not as well designed or better the old way. But good luck convincing ANYONE with a brain that writing down the quest text in a MMO in order to remember everything was a good thing;) It never took brains to take notes just to let you know. Removing TEDIUM is not dumbing the game down. Its about making games more intuitive and less tedious(BETTER) which is the whole point. Upgrades are a good thing, right? I hope.
So, the term "Dumbing Down" has merit; however, it does depend on it's context. Perhaps not all ported, upgraded or future games have (or will have) followed suit, but the large majority of games (I dare not say the word "trend") are incorporating this disheartening strategy. When you make a game accessible, more people play; not more "good" people, just more people in general and more people means more money. I'm afraid we aren't going to escape the "dumbing down" effect anytime soon and the term is in no way invalid.
Making a game more intuitive by removing tedium or excessive / unnecessary steps is a GREAT, GREAT thing. Its what basically encompasses good game design.
::: crosses fingers for Heroes of Telara :::
As a side note, if you want to play a difficult game that really isn't dumbed down yet (IMO) give Mortal Online a shot; frustratingly difficult (due to a bit of lag and lack of final game-play polishing) and yet a curious experience all-in-all. I was dumped into no-man's land with no tutorial and a simple help menu to get me through . . . I mean, I'm still trying to figure out what in the heck I'm supposed to be doing, and I love it, lol. Anyways, good hunting all!
Sounds like another game that's unfinished and backwards. A player not knowing what to do is lazy development. The developer has failed at the core if a player can't look at the screen and understand what he's supposed to be doing fairly quick. Difficulty due to BAD game design is certainly not something 99.999% of people want. Its just more tedium that needs to be thrown out.
Who are the 'good' people? Who should be playing these games and who shouldn't? I am fairly sure that my definition will be way differnt than yours.
In the end it all boils down to what we want from games. I will gladly argue that the 'old school' MMORPGs were in fact the 'dumbed down' games in comparison to more modern games.
Heck, the iPod could be classified as a dumbed down version of a Walkman or a Discman.
"Good" people is in quotes because we're in the MMORPG forums, hence "good" relating to being at least moderately familiar with or "good" at MMORPGs.
We are all arguing the opposite of your second statement. That is, 'old school' games (and here's where I could say that your calling many of us "old" when it's easy to derive, with a bit of common sense, that you're not) are the NON-dumbed down versions of the genre they're bring into fruition today.
An iPod wouldn't be a "dumbed down" version of a device from 1993; they are inherently more complex and more feature rich; so in the case of technology as a whole, it's not only more complex internally but also more feature rich and complicated to operate (though not "too" much so); that said, these generalizations you brought up are backwards and forwards and you can't converse about an incorrect analogy based on a backward interpretation of an expression and still come out with an accurate and understandable argument.
If I've offended everyone with my "good" statement, I apologize. I merely meant "good at MMORPGs" in general (or at least familiar).
Based on the above response, I can see where the original poster derives their frustration; individuals not having the common knowledge to understand that "dumbed down" relates to something that happens AFTERWARDS and not before . . . again, context, context, context.
Who are the 'good' people? Who should be playing these games and who shouldn't? I am fairly sure that my definition will be way differnt than yours.
In the end it all boils down to what we want from games. I will gladly argue that the 'old school' MMORPGs were in fact the 'dumbed down' games in comparison to more modern games.
Heck, the iPod could be classified as a dumbed down version of a Walkman or a Discman.
"Good" people is in quotes because we're in the MMORPG forums, hence "good" relating to being at least moderately familiar with or "good" at MMORPGs.
We are all arguing the opposite of your second statement. That is, 'old school' games (and here's where I could say that your calling many of us "old" when it's easy to derive, with a bit of common sense, that you're not) are the NON-dumbed down versions of the genre they've bring into fruition today.
How old do you actually have to be to be considered 'old school'?
An iPod wouldn't be a "dumbed down" version of a device from 1993; they are inherently more complex and more feature rich; so in the case of technology as a whole, it's not only more complex internally but also more feature rich and complicated to operate (though not "too" much so); that said, these generalizations you brought up are backwards and forwards and you can't converse about an incorrect analogy based on a backward interpretation of an expression and still come out with an accurate and understandable argument.
New MMORPGs are 'more complex internally' then older ones. Also a Discman was much more complicated to operate as anyone who tried to change a CD while standing on a crowded bus can attest.
If I've offended everyone with my "good" statement, I apologize. I merely meant "good at MMORPGs" in general (or at least familiar).
Based on the above response, I can see where the original poster derives their frustration; individuals not having the common knowledge to understand that "dumbed down" relates to something that happens AFTERWARDS and not before . . . again, context, context, context.
Yeah, I am too used to talkuing in relative terms. So to rephrase, WoW is a 'smartened up' version of older games like EQ or UO.
You should have stopped right there, and here's why:
If you make the game easier to play with less mental challenge then the game is "dumbed down"; regardless of whether or not the community agrees with the change. If you make something easier to accomplish it's "dumbed down" that's the only point I was making. I made NOT one statement of how things SHOULD be or whether other people would or wouldn't like the change, I was merely providing an example of dumbed down in an upgrade sense, which I did. You didn't like it, but not for the right reasons.
Your second statement in yellow about making games more accessible being a good thing is, again, your opinion and I'm glad you like it, at least someone does. I don't, but AGAIN that's my opinion, but I won't force that view on you. I like my games new, raw, complex, and difficult, but that's not the current "movement" in MMORPG development (so it seems).
Describing Mortal Online as being mashed and backwards is a little odd. What if being dropped in an open world with no one depending on you, no one screaming for a hero and no set path is EXACTLY what the devs had in mind? I find it refreshing and, bugs or not, I like taking part in the start of something along these lines. It's innovative thinking and although the mainstream and others like yourself may not like it, I do. You DON'T like the idea, so don't play. I respect your opinion and I understand why you won't sign up, but there's no harm done. Relax a bit and be careful when reading someone's post. I'm not shoving anyone into any MMO mentality, I was just commenting on the validity of the "dumbed down" statement based on the majority of posts in this thread, that's all.
Who are the 'good' people? Who should be playing these games and who shouldn't? I am fairly sure that my definition will be way differnt than yours.
In the end it all boils down to what we want from games. I will gladly argue that the 'old school' MMORPGs were in fact the 'dumbed down' games in comparison to more modern games.
Heck, the iPod could be classified as a dumbed down version of a Walkman or a Discman.
"Good" people is in quotes because we're in the MMORPG forums, hence "good" relating to being at least moderately familiar with or "good" at MMORPGs.
We are all arguing the opposite of your second statement.
Please don't speak for me. I'm not arguing that at all.
That is, 'old school' games (and here's where I could say that your calling many of us "old" when it's easy to derive, with a bit of common sense, that you're not) are the NON-dumbed down versions of the genre they're bring into fruition today.
You're right, they're anachronistic and clunky. They're the equivalent of driving a model T instead of a moder mid-sized sedan with an automatic transmission and anti-lock brakes. Given, driving a model T can still be a blast, but it isn't going to replace your family car any time soon.
An iPod wouldn't be a "dumbed down" version of a device from 1993; they are inherently more complex and more feature rich;
So are you saying that it's impossible to streamline without adding new features? Or are you saying that you are obligated to add features when you streamline? Both of the question seem a little shakey to me.
so in the case of technology as a whole, it's not only more complex internally but also more feature rich and complicated to operate (though not "too" much so);
So... Complexity is.... more valued to you than elegance?
that said, these generalizations you brought up are backwards and forwards and you can't converse about an incorrect analogy based on a backward interpretation of an expression and still come out with an accurate and understandable argument.
Translation: "It's my bat and my ball and if you don't want to play by rules then I'm just gonna go home!"
You're free to go, but the bat and the ball are public propertry in this case.
If I've offended everyone with my "good" statement, I apologize. I merely meant "good at MMORPGs" in general (or at least familiar).
You dismiss someone because they "can't converse about an incorrect analogy based on a backward interpretation" (could you add any more latin to that?) but we're supposed to forgive you for a poor word choice?
Based on the above response, I can see where the original poster derives their frustration; individuals not having the common knowledge to understand that "dumbed down" relates to something that happens AFTERWARDS and not before . . . again, context, context, context.
Yes, but I'm also frustrated by a minority in the game community that doesn't grasp the concept of depth over complexity which is exactly what Torik is getting at. The idea that a game is for retards unless it uses X number of buttons or Y number of items/abilities/monesters/etc. or wastes the gamer's time with mindless and repetitive tasks, is simply misguided.
{Insert random stream of off-topic, useless banter here.}
Nowhere in all of your incoherent babbling did you come anywhere close to anything that resembles an actual response. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
In other words, if you were on-topic with any ONE of your responses I could see dignifying an answer, but you weren't. I can't find one reply to any one of my statements where you were on-point, not one. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to ignore you.
Making a game less of a mental challenge is dumbing it down; whether or not the community likes it. You like dumbing things down for obvious reasons.
I'll not let you or your buddy waste any more of my time. I've posted my take on things and I could care less if you like it or not. The end.
P.S. - The next time you want to comment on someone's post, make it applicable. You're WAY off in left field and the the ball, crowd and other players are all in another stadium altogether.
Originally posted by biofellis To the 'There is no dumbing down' crowd. I don't know how it is you can't look at ANY game and not see it. Just look at the interface- I just moved to San Antonio, and when I walk the streets; I don't have an interactive GPS and compass, with highlights hot-indexed to whatever I want so I don't get lost and can find what I need. Any person that walks by does not have their name, political affiliation, or current state of mind indicated. People don't con or indicate current health by some device- so if I were a medical professional- I couldn't help. People who need things that I might be able to help with don't light up. My phone doesn't auto update with a potential job/schedule. I have to set it myself/remember to go. Items I pick up don't don't have relevant stats listed I can trust (except, to a degree, in the grocery) I could go on. Seriously. And all these 'futuristic adds' are for games that are mostly in a 'fantasy past'? Why? To 'help' players to not need to learn simple things, obviously- and this was just starting with the interface- I could cover so many aspects it would be more tedious than illustrative. The point should be clear enough with the above. Think what you want- the facts are clear. And to a greater degree- even if that weren't enough, the fact that so many games stay so close to the 'baseline'- refuse to move ahead, should tell you more. The difference between Everquest and WOW from a gameplay standpoint? How far a ahead is WOW technically? You want to say 'leaps and bounds', but most changes are things like the above, though instancing (server load cheating), battlegrounds (FPS gameplay) and other 'innovations' are 'progress', but the core game? Virtually unimproved. If enough companies don't innovate at the same time, then no one has to worry, right? People complain about 'nerfing' all the time, and 'the grind'- does this remove the significance of 'changes made for class balance' or the obvious 'breadcrumb' incentives that gamers design in? Is their any logical reason you shouldn't be able to ride a horse till level 40 (in WOW)- except to try to lock you into the game at least that long? 'Dumbing down' is real, and some people use it to be insulting, and some people just tell it like it is. It doesn't take a ton of imagination to see improvements- just a ton of money to implement your own change.
I rest my case. Beautifully stated. Thank you. :::: wipes tears :::
I don't know how it is you can't look at ANY game and not see it. Just look at the interface-
I just moved to San Antonio, and when I walk the streets;
I don't have an interactive GPS and compass, with highlights hot-indexed to whatever I want so I don't get lost and can find what I need.
Any person that walks by does not have their name, political affiliation, or current state of mind indicated.
People don't con or indicate current health by some device- so if I were a medical professional- I couldn't help.
People who need things that I might be able to help with don't light up.
My phone doesn't auto update with a potential job/schedule. I have to set it myself/remember to go.
Items I pick up don't don't have relevant stats listed I can trust (except, to a degree, in the grocery)
All of these things have been around since, at least, 1993.
Given, MUDs didn't have GPS style maps, but most newbies were given maps of the starting areas right out of the tutorial and it wasn't that difficult to set up macros to get you anywhere you wanted to go. Thow in the recall spell and you only had to set up you macros to get somewhere from the recall point. Clients like ZMUD have had automapping features forever. And don't forget that one of the first UI mods for Everquest was a minimap. Sony worked like hell to have those UI mods shut down as I recall. About 2000 we started seeing muds like AardWolf that had the map displayed with, or in place of, the room description.
I don't think I've ever played an online game that didn't have the player's name hovering over their head. MUDs also are the source of things like titles and clan tags. Even frigging Air Warrior had the player's names displayed over the air planes...
With the advent of color ANSI, many MUDs highlighted both NPCs and items that the player could interact with. Even before that, MUD admins would highlight those things with < > or [ ]
Not as many people had cell phones when UO came out. Unless you're talking about an in game messaging system and that kind of quest updating has been around for awhile as well.
This varied from game to game and I'm willing to bet that there will still be games that don't identify everything in the future as well. Personally, I don't see Identifying everything as more than make work. Click scroll or identify, click item, rinse, repeat, Unless you have to have an NPC or another character identify it and that just adds a whole other layer of boring backtracking and make work....
Ask the most basic question: What is the primary focus of this game?
With UO, it was to simulate a world. With EQ, it was combat and collecting stuff by grinding. With WoW, it was combat and collecting stuff by grinding. WoW cuts away all the tedious, mind numbing bullshit and focuses on the reason the players are there. EQ was just poorly copying a MUD that was long in the tooth with no consideration of WHY people enjoyed it.
Going outside of MMORPGs for a minute, it was an absolute blast to map the dungeon in Etrian Odyssey for the Nintendo DS. No surprise there because the game was primarily about logistics and exploration. The main quest of the game was to actually map out the dungeon! Likewise, I don't mind getting unfairly perma killed in Angband or Shiren The Wanderer because the focus of the game is trying to complete the game without dying. MMORPGs are about fighting and phat l00tz.
Making the system needlessly tedious is not intelligent. And deliberately exposing yourself to brainless, repetitive, inefficient interfaces and game design is even less intelligent.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe All of these things have been around since, at least, 1993. Blah blah blah, waste of time, waste of time.
Ever notice how WoW fans are as bad as or worse than Mac fans. It's like a new iMac comes out and everyone is stumbling over themselves to see technology that's 4 years old; and THEN they call it inventive and genius and will pay 400% more to have it. They'll literally defend the release with completely inaccurate and opinionated/personal statements, lol.
Anyways, l33t = more difficult = babies crying. There are some people in this forum who obviously need their n3wb diapers changed, lol.
All of these things have been around since, at least, 1993. Blah blah blah, waste of time, waste of time.
Ever notice how WoW fans are as bad as or worse than Mac fans. It's like a new iMac comes out and everyone is stumbling over themselves to see technology that's 4 years old; and THEN they call it inventive and genius and will pay 400% more to have it. They'll literally defend the release with completely inaccurate and opinionated/personal statements, lol.
Anyways, l33t = more difficult = babies crying. There are some people in this forum who obviously need their n3wb diapers changed, lol.
Didn't you declare that you were done with me about two posts ago?
Warning: This post is about to look like a rainbow. If I could split up this box into several smaller ones for readability I would. I can't so, I'm going to do this.
All of these things have been around since, at least, 1993.
Sorry, didn't know there was a 'timeframe' limit on the context of this discussion.
You were presenting these concepts as new developements. I was correcting you.
Given, MUDs didn't have GPS style maps, but most newbies were given maps of the starting areas right out of the tutorial and it wasn't that difficult to set up macros to get you anywhere you wanted to go. Thow in the recall spell and you only had to set up you macros to get somewhere from the recall point. Clients like ZMUD have had automapping features forever. And don't forget that one of the first UI mods for Everquest was a minimap. Sony worked like hell to have those UI mods shut down as I recall. About 2000 we started seeing muds like AardWolf that had the map displayed with, or in place of, the room description.
Getting a starter map. Wow. You completely invalidated my point, because maps haven't existed for thousands of years- and you still have to know how to read it/know where you are.
There are only ten directions in a MUD (North, South, East, West, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, down and up). Room descriptions also have a title. If you can read the title, you know where you are.
A user being able to set up macros? Hm. You can get kicked for that on some MMOs now. Being 'smart' can get you kicked. Yes, this is so proving your point.
Setting up a macro is not difficult. The fact that players are setting up macros should be your first clue that something is not right with your interface and/or game.
I don't think I've ever played an online game that didn't have the player's name hovering over their head. MUDs also are the source of things like titles and clan tags. Even frigging Air Warrior had the player's names displayed over the air planes...
FPSs mostly know better- they only 'name your team' (if anyone) or (in MW2) make it a perk to turn it off (I don't know the logic either). Eventually MMOs will 'steal' this too.
Wasn't always like that. Then again, there weren't always team FPSs either. <shrugs>
With the advent of color ANSI, many MUDs highlighted both NPCs and items that the player could interact with. Even before that, MUD admins would highlight those things with < > or [ ].
This is a gameplay issue with the nature of text. All decriptions need to be coded, or you should (kindly) make it obvious what is actually interactive. Strangely enough, MMOs for the most part don't have much environment interaction. Hm...
It's the text equivilant of highlighting objects or putting an exclaimation point over an NPCs head. You claim that being pointed to NPCs is a bad thing, but MUDs have done it for decades.
Not as many people had cell phones when UO came out. Unless you're talking about an in game messaging system and that kind of quest updating has been around for awhile as well.
You misunderstand- I was making an analogy to the quest log-- I'm sure I could have been more explicit- my apologies. And, yes- many things 'have been around for a while'- that's how the 'cookie cutter' MMO template got to be so identifiable.
Don't you mean RPGs in general? In ye olden dayze, this wasn't an issue because there was only one quest: "go to the bottom of the dungeon and kill the big bad." Later they sprinkled objects around the map and had NPC give hints about those objects locations, but there was no formal questing system. Then JRPGs mastered the art of giving you one thing to do at a time. it was only when we wanted to give the players a million little errands to run that things like logs were needed at all. Then again, some people are just really really attached to their pocket planner....
This varied from game to game and I'm willing to bet that there will still be games that don't identify everything in the future as well. Personally, I don't see Identifying everything as more than make work. Click scroll or identify, click item, rinse, repeat, Unless you have to have an NPC or another character identify it and that just adds a whole other layer of boring backtracking and make work....
Just because you don't see...
Look, is the 'joy of discovery' a completely foreign concept now? I mean- yeah, we're too wimpy (for the most part) to put traps on things, and 'curses' barely exist except as the occasional temp spell or dot. But no 'cursed items', 'poisons', 'items of varying outcome (look up 'wand of wonder'). This is all _removed_ challenge- to keep the core game 'clean'. These are all 'debatably', 'improvements'- but it is 'unusual' that the common theme is 'more thought'/skill required by the player.
I'll meet you halfway here, because I do understand the tension that comes from accidentally equiping a cursed item or drinking a potion that does bad things. This is part of the joy of the Rogue-Like. But in games without permadeath, this is just a waste of time that can be circumvented with a quick visit to Stratics or the game forums. Little things like that mark the difference between challenge and annoyance. We want to challenge the player, not irritate them.
Ask the most basic question: What is the primary focus of this game?
To make the manufacturer money.
No. That's the focus of the developer. The focus of the game is the core mechanic of the game that will keep people comming back and paying subscriptions. Honestly, you knew exactly what I meant here. Don't be thick.
With UO, it was to simulate a world. With EQ, it was combat and collecting stuff by grinding. With WoW, it was combat and collecting stuff by grinding. WoW cuts away all the tedious, mind numbing bullshit and focuses on the reason the players are there. EQ was just poorly copying a MUD that was long in the tooth with no consideration of WHY people enjoyed it.
I think stating your assumptions on various MMO developer's motivation is different from them being facts. This also has nothing to do with marketing, and little to do with design focus.
I'm not worried about the developer's motivations. I'm looking at the core actions that the player was expected to perform throughout the game. UO was about crafting and commerce. You can tell because you couldn't do a damn thing untill you had made 100 bazillion skull caps/iron ingots/arrow shafts/minor healing potions/etc. It could take weeks before you had the supplies and training to even take down a rabbit. With this in mind, it's obvious that the game was based on simulating a world and not glorious combat.
Now take a good long look at EQ and WoW and tell me whether or not you come to the same conclusions I did.
Going outside of MMORPGs for a minute, it was an absolute blast to map the dungeon in Etrian Odyssey for the Nintendo DS. No surprise there because the game was primarily about logistics and exploration. The main quest of the game was to actually map out the dungeon! Likewise, I don't mind getting unfairly perma killed in Angband or Shiren The Wanderer because the focus of the game is trying to complete the game without dying. MMORPGs are about fighting and phat l00tz.
Again, sez you. Maybe this is why you're so focused on your perception. How about you try 'playing the role' of someone who doesn't'?
How about you actually deconstruct the games to their bare elements? If all you base your conclusions on the parts and how they fit together, then it isn't just your perceptions.
Making the system needlessly tedious is not intelligent. And deliberately exposing yourself to brainless, repetitive, inefficient interfaces and game design is even less intelligent.
My, the adjectives! No bias there, huh? How about you cut out all the tedium? Just make an 'I win' button?
Isn't that what all RPGs are in the end? You hit the fight button every round and if the dice say you win, you get experience and loot, but if the dice say you lose then you get to do it all over again. It's all just a big XP and loot slot machine. You set the odds, the prizes are all fake, but they money you paid to play is real. RPG combat has come a long way over the years, but it's still just throwing dice and watching numbers get bigger or smaller.
At this point your intentional derailment into Muds=early MMO should be called into question.
EQ was based largely on the Diku source code. On the back end, MMOs ARE MUDs. The account, world, item, etc. databases are exactly the same and handled in the same manner. Everything that is a common element of modern MMOs is derived from Diku and CircleMUDs.
And water has been around for longer, as well as bottles- so 'bottled water' has been around forever too- or is 'integration/assembly' too innovative a development concept?
And is bottled water "dumbed down" from drinking straight from a pond or stream? That's your arguement. We've already established that downgrading happens later on. I what way are the elements you listed less functional than their MUD forerunners?
Waste of time? Says you. (and you're good for that keen bit of objectivity, hm?) Any cursed potion can be used against monsters in Rogue. Imagine equipping a cursed sword in your fav MMO for a repeated ganker to find when he kills you. More imagination -> Appreciating possibilities.
And this is where everything falls together. You're an FFA PvP supporter. This means that irritating other players is a core part of the satisfaction you derive from the game. The difference between an MMO and say... NetHack is that I never feel that I died arbitrarily. No matter what happens, I always have a sense that it was my judgement that lead to my loss. With other players, this goes out the window. Sure, we all like to think that we could never be tricked or ganked, but it's bullshit. We even think of ways that we could have evaded being victimized after we discover we've been had. It's all a delusion though, because hindsight is 20/20. In Dungeon Crawl, i can tell when I'm over my head and back away most of the time. Against other players, if they're any good at all, you won't even see it coming. Exhibit A
The developer normally is the primary force. You describe one of many potential means to accomplish what I said. I wasn't being thick, I was being accurate- You are the one assuming for all developers what you cannot reasonably prove.
I don't subscribe to the intention fallacy. This is an idea that comes from literary analysis. You have no way of knowing what a writer actually intended to say, so you have to work exclusively with the text. I'm doing the same thing with the games in question, using their parts and structure as a guide to determining what the emphasis of the game actually is as opposed to what the developers might have actually thought they were making. I can't know what the developers were intending to make, I can only see what they made.
As far as 'primary focus' goes, I honestly don't think any current MMO really delivers an immersive world with options and growth where people can 'escape' within reason.
Judging just from the way these games play, I don't think any of these games are really meant to do that. With the possible exceptions of UO, A Tale in the Desert, Sociolotron, pre-NGE SWG and Wurm Online, I can honestly conclude that most MMOs are meant to be games and not world simulators. If that's true, then it means that the developement of most MMO is incredibly half ass'd. the reason being that modern MMOs are based on a single player model, sans the story or purpose that would be present in a single player RPG. The whole experience could be used to filter the players to a RvR endgame, but most of these games either don't bother or poorly execute the task.
You're kidding right? I spent more time farming linen, then wool, then silk than I ever monkeyed with at all in EQ. Wow was a huge time-waster in comparison. (Hint to all- Tailors suck, Many of the secondary skills in WOW are 'broken')
Yeah, we had a miscommunication there. I wasn't saying that EQ had the same goals as UO. I was refering back to my original point that EQ and WoW were about the same thing. If you look at what the player is expected to do in both games, you will conclude that both games revolve around combat and grinding.
Everything with four wheels and an engine is a car? As if the intents, limits, and purposes of kiddy car, race car, dune buggy, street cleaner, police car, ambulance or firetruck were the same because of common elements?
Yes, they are all cars. But if you examine their parts and how they fit together you will understand the specific role that they were built for. The same can be said about games as well. Just from the handful of MMORPGs that have been listed in this thread, you can determine the core focus of each game based on what the player is expected to do in the game and the means that the game provides the player to accomplish those tasks. Anything that interferes with, or bogs down that focus should be eliminated completely. To triage in this manner is not "dumbing down" the game.
Hell, it's like some one took what I said in summary and expanded it with nonsense...
Did you just glaze over my commentary on accident or simply have no input towards/against it? I went out of my way to be clear on some of the points you ranted with long lists to Bio with too...
Ah well, straw men and loop holes seem to win over reason most days.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Taking solid reasoning and expanding it into a ridiculous philosophy has been with us since humans learnt to speak. I got lost when the thread started to use every colour of the rainbow.
yeah, talking to those two is like trying to answer the questions of a three year old. After about the third time they say "why" your answer has become so abstract that you've lost track of where it all started. The first one was just trolling, and poorly at that, but the other I couldn't tell. I don't like to believe that anyone is really that thick.
And I didn't mean to ignore Deivos's post. I pretty much agreed with everything that Deivos said, except the part about judging a game dumbed down from what it could be. Every game could be as deep as Go and intuitive as soccer. I don't think that judging a game based on apriori potential is reasonable.
I also wasn't sure if you were saying that a complex, in this case crafting, system made a game more deep or if the complexity of a given system is inconsequential or situational to the needs of the overall design.
If you alter the world to make the same tasks easier to accomplish then the game has been "dumbed down". By definition the word dumb means "not smart". Dumbed down means that whatever you're referring to takes less intelligence. It's easy to prove that a lot of things in games have become easier than before. Our opinions of these tasks matters little; if it's easier, it's easier and not everyone wants their goals handed to them on a silver platter.
It doesn't get any more clear than that. If that's my context for dumbing down a game, then that's what it means to me, and therefore dumbing down exists for me; regardless of anyone else's logic or reasoning; which would be useless to me. I'm NOT alone in this thinking, not by a long shot.
There's really no way to get around it. You'd have to be flat out retarded to reply to this post to say that making an objective much easier isn't "dumbing it down", retarded.
I love the signature . . .
Faith in humanity: 0% ||:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 100%
I think you miss understand see 'dumbed down" means a game thats easier, not as fresh or exciting and is shorter/noob friendlier then the previous title, Final Fantasy XIII is a very very good example of this. Final Fantasy XII although a different combat system then FFX and all the previous was loaded with content and had hours of gameplay and alot of grinding/thinking was needed or game over, it was only hated because it wasn't as easy as the previous titles.
But yeah what your saying dumbed down means a game that was ported from its original platform to another, this isnt what the phrase means it means a game that has become easier, shorter, more noob friendly of the title before it, "Lost its touch" can also be used. Again Final Fantasy XIII is a prime example. Spamming auto attack is great!
With final fantasy I wouldn't call that dumbing down a product. I call that changing the focus of a product. The game-play itself is still very much FF, the problem is they took away the world. That's doesn't make the game easier, it makes the game a different game.
I'm hard pressed to even call it an RPG simply because all it is now is a story and some combat.
That's not what is usually referred to as dumbing down a product, that's gutting one and making it something else.
Dumbing down or as I prefer to say streamlining a product means to adjust how systems work to cut down on micro management and tedious mechanics. Like I pointed out above with Mass Effect 2. Which is still very much the same game, it is just easier to manage everything. Does that mean it was smarter before, or required a higher degree of intelligence? No.
It means the developers found their design archaic, and thought they could make it better.
Yeah a friend of mine actually compared Final Fantasy XIII to Adventure Quest and I don't think he was too far off the mark on that. There's still plenty of coolness in the combat, but it's a different game now.
Comments
Who are the 'good' people? Who should be playing these games and who shouldn't? I am fairly sure that my definition will be way differnt than yours.
In the end it all boils down to what we want from games. I will gladly argue that the 'old school' MMORPGs were in fact the 'dumbed down' games in comparison to more modern games.
Heck, the iPod could be classified as a dumbed down version of a Walkman or a Discman.
"Good" people is in quotes because we're in the MMORPG forums, hence "good" relating to being at least moderately familiar with or "good" at MMORPGs.
We are all arguing the opposite of your second statement. That is, 'old school' games (and here's where I could say that your calling many of us "old" when it's easy to derive, with a bit of common sense, that you're not) are the NON-dumbed down versions of the genre they're bring into fruition today.
An iPod wouldn't be a "dumbed down" version of a device from 1993; they are inherently more complex and more feature rich; so in the case of technology as a whole, it's not only more complex internally but also more feature rich and complicated to operate (though not "too" much so); that said, these generalizations you brought up are backwards and forwards and you can't converse about an incorrect analogy based on a backward interpretation of an expression and still come out with an accurate and understandable argument.
If I've offended everyone with my "good" statement, I apologize. I merely meant "good at MMORPGs" in general (or at least familiar).
Based on the above response, I can see where the original poster derives their frustration; individuals not having the common knowledge to understand that "dumbed down" relates to something that happens AFTERWARDS and not before . . . again, context, context, context.
You should have stopped right there, and here's why:
If you make the game easier to play with less mental challenge then the game is "dumbed down"; regardless of whether or not the community agrees with the change. If you make something easier to accomplish it's "dumbed down" that's the only point I was making. I made NOT one statement of how things SHOULD be or whether other people would or wouldn't like the change, I was merely providing an example of dumbed down in an upgrade sense, which I did. You didn't like it, but not for the right reasons.
Your second statement in yellow about making games more accessible being a good thing is, again, your opinion and I'm glad you like it, at least someone does. I don't, but AGAIN that's my opinion, but I won't force that view on you. I like my games new, raw, complex, and difficult, but that's not the current "movement" in MMORPG development (so it seems).
Describing Mortal Online as being mashed and backwards is a little odd. What if being dropped in an open world with no one depending on you, no one screaming for a hero and no set path is EXACTLY what the devs had in mind? I find it refreshing and, bugs or not, I like taking part in the start of something along these lines. It's innovative thinking and although the mainstream and others like yourself may not like it, I do. You DON'T like the idea, so don't play. I respect your opinion and I understand why you won't sign up, but there's no harm done. Relax a bit and be careful when reading someone's post. I'm not shoving anyone into any MMO mentality, I was just commenting on the validity of the "dumbed down" statement based on the majority of posts in this thread, that's all.
Nowhere in all of your incoherent babbling did you come anywhere close to anything that resembles an actual response. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
In other words, if you were on-topic with any ONE of your responses I could see dignifying an answer, but you weren't. I can't find one reply to any one of my statements where you were on-point, not one. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to ignore you.
Making a game less of a mental challenge is dumbing it down; whether or not the community likes it. You like dumbing things down for obvious reasons.
I'll not let you or your buddy waste any more of my time. I've posted my take on things and I could care less if you like it or not. The end.
P.S. - The next time you want to comment on someone's post, make it applicable. You're WAY off in left field and the the ball, crowd and other players are all in another stadium altogether.
.
I rest my case. Beautifully stated. Thank you. :::: wipes tears :::
All of these things have been around since, at least, 1993.
Given, MUDs didn't have GPS style maps, but most newbies were given maps of the starting areas right out of the tutorial and it wasn't that difficult to set up macros to get you anywhere you wanted to go. Thow in the recall spell and you only had to set up you macros to get somewhere from the recall point. Clients like ZMUD have had automapping features forever. And don't forget that one of the first UI mods for Everquest was a minimap. Sony worked like hell to have those UI mods shut down as I recall. About 2000 we started seeing muds like AardWolf that had the map displayed with, or in place of, the room description.
I don't think I've ever played an online game that didn't have the player's name hovering over their head. MUDs also are the source of things like titles and clan tags. Even frigging Air Warrior had the player's names displayed over the air planes...
With the advent of color ANSI, many MUDs highlighted both NPCs and items that the player could interact with. Even before that, MUD admins would highlight those things with < > or [ ]
Not as many people had cell phones when UO came out. Unless you're talking about an in game messaging system and that kind of quest updating has been around for awhile as well.
This varied from game to game and I'm willing to bet that there will still be games that don't identify everything in the future as well. Personally, I don't see Identifying everything as more than make work. Click scroll or identify, click item, rinse, repeat, Unless you have to have an NPC or another character identify it and that just adds a whole other layer of boring backtracking and make work....
Ask the most basic question: What is the primary focus of this game?
With UO, it was to simulate a world. With EQ, it was combat and collecting stuff by grinding. With WoW, it was combat and collecting stuff by grinding. WoW cuts away all the tedious, mind numbing bullshit and focuses on the reason the players are there. EQ was just poorly copying a MUD that was long in the tooth with no consideration of WHY people enjoyed it.
Going outside of MMORPGs for a minute, it was an absolute blast to map the dungeon in Etrian Odyssey for the Nintendo DS. No surprise there because the game was primarily about logistics and exploration. The main quest of the game was to actually map out the dungeon! Likewise, I don't mind getting unfairly perma killed in Angband or Shiren The Wanderer because the focus of the game is trying to complete the game without dying. MMORPGs are about fighting and phat l00tz.
Making the system needlessly tedious is not intelligent. And deliberately exposing yourself to brainless, repetitive, inefficient interfaces and game design is even less intelligent.
Ever notice how WoW fans are as bad as or worse than Mac fans. It's like a new iMac comes out and everyone is stumbling over themselves to see technology that's 4 years old; and THEN they call it inventive and genius and will pay 400% more to have it. They'll literally defend the release with completely inaccurate and opinionated/personal statements, lol.
Anyways, l33t = more difficult = babies crying. There are some people in this forum who obviously need their n3wb diapers changed, lol.
Kill this thread. This thread is dumbed down.
Laudanum - Romance. Revenge. Revolution.
Crappy, petty people breed and raise crappy, petty kids.
Didn't you declare that you were done with me about two posts ago?
Why are you still here?
And when did I ever say I play WoW?
.
.
Arguing in this post makes me feel like the Director behind the camera during this SNL skit:
@Biofellis: The things you wrote are in cyan.
At this point your intentional derailment into Muds=early MMO should be called into question.
EQ was based largely on the Diku source code. On the back end, MMOs ARE MUDs. The account, world, item, etc. databases are exactly the same and handled in the same manner. Everything that is a common element of modern MMOs is derived from Diku and CircleMUDs.
And water has been around for longer, as well as bottles- so 'bottled water' has been around forever too- or is 'integration/assembly' too innovative a development concept?
And is bottled water "dumbed down" from drinking straight from a pond or stream? That's your arguement. We've already established that downgrading happens later on. I what way are the elements you listed less functional than their MUD forerunners?
Waste of time? Says you. (and you're good for that keen bit of objectivity, hm?) Any cursed potion can be used against monsters in Rogue. Imagine equipping a cursed sword in your fav MMO for a repeated ganker to find when he kills you. More imagination -> Appreciating possibilities.
And this is where everything falls together. You're an FFA PvP supporter. This means that irritating other players is a core part of the satisfaction you derive from the game. The difference between an MMO and say... NetHack is that I never feel that I died arbitrarily. No matter what happens, I always have a sense that it was my judgement that lead to my loss. With other players, this goes out the window. Sure, we all like to think that we could never be tricked or ganked, but it's bullshit. We even think of ways that we could have evaded being victimized after we discover we've been had. It's all a delusion though, because hindsight is 20/20. In Dungeon Crawl, i can tell when I'm over my head and back away most of the time. Against other players, if they're any good at all, you won't even see it coming. Exhibit A
The developer normally is the primary force. You describe one of many potential means to accomplish what I said. I wasn't being thick, I was being accurate- You are the one assuming for all developers what you cannot reasonably prove.
I don't subscribe to the intention fallacy. This is an idea that comes from literary analysis. You have no way of knowing what a writer actually intended to say, so you have to work exclusively with the text. I'm doing the same thing with the games in question, using their parts and structure as a guide to determining what the emphasis of the game actually is as opposed to what the developers might have actually thought they were making. I can't know what the developers were intending to make, I can only see what they made.
As far as 'primary focus' goes, I honestly don't think any current MMO really delivers an immersive world with options and growth where people can 'escape' within reason.
Judging just from the way these games play, I don't think any of these games are really meant to do that. With the possible exceptions of UO, A Tale in the Desert, Sociolotron, pre-NGE SWG and Wurm Online, I can honestly conclude that most MMOs are meant to be games and not world simulators. If that's true, then it means that the developement of most MMO is incredibly half ass'd. the reason being that modern MMOs are based on a single player model, sans the story or purpose that would be present in a single player RPG. The whole experience could be used to filter the players to a RvR endgame, but most of these games either don't bother or poorly execute the task.
You're kidding right? I spent more time farming linen, then wool, then silk than I ever monkeyed with at all in EQ. Wow was a huge time-waster in comparison. (Hint to all- Tailors suck, Many of the secondary skills in WOW are 'broken')
Yeah, we had a miscommunication there. I wasn't saying that EQ had the same goals as UO. I was refering back to my original point that EQ and WoW were about the same thing. If you look at what the player is expected to do in both games, you will conclude that both games revolve around combat and grinding.
Everything with four wheels and an engine is a car? As if the intents, limits, and purposes of kiddy car, race car, dune buggy, street cleaner, police car, ambulance or firetruck were the same because of common elements?
Yes, they are all cars. But if you examine their parts and how they fit together you will understand the specific role that they were built for. The same can be said about games as well. Just from the handful of MMORPGs that have been listed in this thread, you can determine the core focus of each game based on what the player is expected to do in the game and the means that the game provides the player to accomplish those tasks. Anything that interferes with, or bogs down that focus should be eliminated completely. To triage in this manner is not "dumbing down" the game.
.
Hell, it's like some one took what I said in summary and expanded it with nonsense...
Did you just glaze over my commentary on accident or simply have no input towards/against it? I went out of my way to be clear on some of the points you ranted with long lists to Bio with too...
Ah well, straw men and loop holes seem to win over reason most days.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Taking solid reasoning and expanding it into a ridiculous philosophy has been with us since humans learnt to speak. I got lost when the thread started to use every colour of the rainbow.
yeah, talking to those two is like trying to answer the questions of a three year old. After about the third time they say "why" your answer has become so abstract that you've lost track of where it all started. The first one was just trolling, and poorly at that, but the other I couldn't tell. I don't like to believe that anyone is really that thick.
And I didn't mean to ignore Deivos's post. I pretty much agreed with everything that Deivos said, except the part about judging a game dumbed down from what it could be. Every game could be as deep as Go and intuitive as soccer. I don't think that judging a game based on apriori potential is reasonable.
I also wasn't sure if you were saying that a complex, in this case crafting, system made a game more deep or if the complexity of a given system is inconsequential or situational to the needs of the overall design.
I can't see why this posting would go so far.
If you alter the world to make the same tasks easier to accomplish then the game has been "dumbed down". By definition the word dumb means "not smart". Dumbed down means that whatever you're referring to takes less intelligence. It's easy to prove that a lot of things in games have become easier than before. Our opinions of these tasks matters little; if it's easier, it's easier and not everyone wants their goals handed to them on a silver platter.
It doesn't get any more clear than that. If that's my context for dumbing down a game, then that's what it means to me, and therefore dumbing down exists for me; regardless of anyone else's logic or reasoning; which would be useless to me. I'm NOT alone in this thinking, not by a long shot.
There's really no way to get around it. You'd have to be flat out retarded to reply to this post to say that making an objective much easier isn't "dumbing it down", retarded.
I love the signature . . .
Faith in humanity: 0% ||:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 100%
.
Yeah a friend of mine actually compared Final Fantasy XIII to Adventure Quest and I don't think he was too far off the mark on that. There's still plenty of coolness in the combat, but it's a different game now.