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.
You're kidding, right?
This thread itself illustrates your lack of understanding. Read the title. Yeah, that's you.
You don't understand how assembly is an aspect of innovation (called in post #141, 146)
You think early muds evolved into MMOs, despite obvious visible differences, and plain evidence to the contrary (which you supplied, and obviously didn't read) (called in post #143, evidence in #146) The simple logic that 'even if true- that would just be that one case' probably still hasn't crossed your mind.
You admit to using deconstruction, a philosophical tool, to derive your arguments (called in #143, again 146)
You repeatedly bias your 'rebuttals' with straw man arguments (called in post #143).
You make woefully inaccurate statements as if from a position of knowledge (called in post #146).
You use hypocritical assesments (intention fallacy- post 146).
You respond to other peoples statements after you've changed them to suit your argument (post 146).
And that's just some what I called in two of my posts.
If you're talking about someone, at least have the backbone to use names. In a 150 post thread, you're just at best alluding, but essentially talking to yourself.
It's also ridiculous to the point of being sad that you should respond to a post about 'Taking solid reasoning and expanding it into a ridiculous philosophy' and act like it wasn't you that was guilty of it all along- with your 'deconstruction', and 'motivation'-- and then to use the term 'apriori potential' without missing a beat. Yeah- no philosophy there. Clueless.
Even worse, the only solid evidence you brought to the argument proved you wrong. Talk about a person with fully loaded assumptions.
In short, this is your thread. You 'asked the question'- so you're the three year old. You even have the nerve to sit here and act like it wasn't you all along, with your (now clearly) troll bait post who was misbehaving. People being painfully patient with you as if you were just honestly uninformed doesn't make them guilty instead of you.
It's sad that people will see the lengths to which you will go to not learn. You nit-picked the hell out of my post and it got you nowhere but humbled. Not because of me- but you- you repeatedly attacked from a position of weakness and misinformation.
Learn from that.
Since verbosity has only lead to confusion, I'm gonna sum up my points and provide two examples to hopefully demonstrate wha you you aren't getting.
1) Complex interfaces and time sinks are not depth.
2) Streamlining an interface while retaining the core mechanics of a game is not "dumbing down"
Example 1 - Identifying items:
In Torchlight, and Diablo, you identify items by using identify scroll. To do this, you open your inventory, right click the scroll and then click on an unidentified object. Identify scrolls stack so they could have made it so that you just double click the stack and the system would automatically identify as many items as you have scrolls. Likewise, they could have made it so that you had an identify modes so that you could just click once on the scrolls and then click on the desired number of unidentified objects.
In games that use the character's lore ability to identify things, the game could just automatically attempt to identify every object that you pick up and mark the ones that your character isn't sure about. This mirror's reality nicely since if you aren't sure about something, you are aware of it. Notice that all of these ideas change nothing about the core mechanics of the game. They simply make the process of identifying items faster for the player so that they can get on with the rest of the game. This is streamlining, not "dumbing down."
Example 2 - Wargames:
Most wargames can be powered only a two button mouse. One of the best war games I ever played, it was originally developed for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, only used the mouse. This game had a crazy insane amount of information to wade through and the designers mad it easy to find exactly the stats and info that you would need, or have available. The game itself didn't need a gajillion buttons or menus that were 200 plus clicks deepl. It was made as a training tool and therefore kept everyting right on the surface. Accessability is not the same as "dumbed down."
The common use of the term "dumbed down" takes the complete opposite stance to these views. Not surprising when you consider that the term is just so much nerd epeen waving.
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.
It's more of design in accordance with outcome as it fit's the needs of the game's function or a matter of 'defining the constraints of play and building the tools accordingly'.
And I would agree, intuitive and depth can co-exist. Good luck assembling a crack squad capable of preserving such a design through development into implementation though. One or the other usually gets juggled and sacrificed in order for everything else to make it through though.
And generally due to how a game is built, you can tell much about it's potential pretty early on. The engine and programs used are a very effective give away of things before the game is even built, assuming you're familiar with the engine and programs that is. IT's merely a case of seeing how things work and understanding how they fall into place, the general ability of those utilizing it, and the general direction of it's design then you can pretty reasonably predict the outcome.
It ain't a priori, the information is there.
And I was implicating a complex crafting system could/would make a game more 'deep', but i was also qualifying it against the nature of each system. The Spore example has equal pros and cons, as it takes considerably more tactile and creative ability on the player's part to make a decent to good object that would otherwise take one click to make in a simpler 'timer' method. It however is quite impossible for the player using that 'timer' method of crafting to make anything anywhere's near as varied or potentially elegant as that which might come from a Spore type tool. It opens the game up to allowing he player to account for different kinds of materials and their effects, and letting their own choices dictate the outcome of what they make, rather than a preset list and a timer giving them predictable and finite result.
Now, you could marry the ability to specify materials to a simplified crating system, allowing more variance in stats and quality of an object, but yo will continue to lack the ability to adapt form or function, which can only be derived from opening the tools to a more complex layout.
The UI design inherently limits depth of function based on design. Either you can individually interact with an item, allowing you to potentially do many things with it, or you don't and that item only exists as a passive representation of something else.
Take your identify items example. The UI is designed so that one can open their inventory and interact with any objects therein. Ignoring that identify scrolls can be put on a hotbar in both games to expedite the process in your example, the Ui in which is a framework for the implementation of many forms of functionality of items to be easily integrated and dropped into the game so players can access multiple unctions from their menu.
Now, it's true that it could have been made quicker, but any further implementation becomes a highly specialized trait with very limited functional scope, which in turn means it's an added nicety that is incapable of serving any ulterior purpose.
Going the method of having an inherent lore trait, it does help streamline the process, and it is an overall improvement, but it also becomes a hidden factor that is otherwise incapable of serving any ulterior purpose. If it's an automated or passive trait, then you have sacrificed depth of function in favor of a streamlined process, because now it's incapable of being used in any other applications.
And if it is capable of doing more, the UI has to exist for one to be capable of such, thereby breaking the aspect of being 'streamlined'. Some of it's functions have moved, but the interface still persists.
It is however a decent compromise to depth versus complexity. A passive trait for doing mundane task in a semi-realistic fashion while preserving the option to utilize the trait directly through a menu is probably my most preferred route, if not one of more sophisticated design.
Or in summary, the complexity of UI is proportionately comparable to the potential range of functions available from a given singular item or ability, the exception being the addition of sensibly applied passive traits to replace otherwise nonsensically mundane tasks. The complexity of tools available also affects potential depth and variety in game play through the constraint put on UI controlling variables and game mechanics. The less options available, the less options the players have to affect the game world, be creative, or influence the quality and metrics of what is produced/done.
So in general I'd say yeah, we seem to agree on the subject somewhat. There's some caveats to that, but the gist of it stands the same.
"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
Your first issue is really a mater of cruft. There are less intrusive and more intuitive ways of dealing with telling the player where to go than a minimap. A compas display along the top of the screen with arrows pointing in the general direction of your next objective does nicely. Or a blurry spot on the horizon representing your character's knowlege of where they're supposed to go. Can't blame MMO developers for not being minimal in their interface designs when the rest of the computing industry is only just now begining to embrace minimalism. But there are ways to keep things accessible without sacrificing depth.
As for your second point... I'm going to be honest and admit that I have no idea what you're describing. I stopped playing WoW long before the two week trial was up so getting into a large party isn't something that I experienced. I have been in large parties in other games like Anarchy Online, City of Heroes, etc. In fact, I think that only MMORPG I ever played where line of sight meant anything was Asheron's Call. If I remember correctly, it was a bug but the player community liked it so it stayed. That would definitely spice up the MMORPG genre, and streamline the interface a great deal. Oops.... er...
I like how you tell me that streamlining is dumbing a game down and then introduce a concept that would add depth and make the games interface less complicated and therefore more accessible to new players. Hey mouth, I'd like you to meet foot....
What's more of a challenge: navigating a Tall ship with zero electronics, or navigating a modern computerized Frigate?
What is so hard to grasp here?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Thanks for your response to my comment Jimmy. I think we understand each other. Yes I think that some games have truly had some depth and complexity removed in an attempt to appeal to a different target audience. SWG was one example, and I'm aware of others.
At the same time, I think I understand where you're coming from. Does tedious gameplay with cumbersome interfaces = depth? No, I don't think it does.
If you're advocating for more fluid gameplay and a friendlier UI, I'm good with that, and I wouldn't refer to this as "dumbing down" per se. Probably others would, and I see why you might take issue with this.
At the same time, I prefer different games on my PC from my console. The PC games tend to offer a lot more options, simply because the PC hardware is conducive to this. My console games are faster paced but generally provide fewer options, fewer systems, less buttons etc.. I happen to enjoy both, and don't feel particularly elite about either type of game.
My PC games tend to require more analytical thinking and strategy. My console games tend to require quick decisions and good hand-eye coordination. Both are equally enjoyable for me, depending on my mood .
Simplifying an interface does not necessarily mean a game has been put into easy mode, but it is a good indicator of that happening.
I have had players who are healers tell my that they can hardly remember what the dungeons we have been in looked like as they spent all their time looking at coloured bars. In this example making the interface easier reduced both their enjoyment of playing in new areas and made it easier to heal. But I doubt all players who play healers would feel the same way.
But I do not think difficult controls are needed for challenging game play, it is just that we are moving to era in gaming where there are only easy controls and easy game play.
I like how you tell me that streamlining is dumbing a game down and then introduce a concept that would add depth and make the games interface less complicated and therefore more accessible to new players. Hey mouth, I'd like you to meet foot....
Here's your challenge- point out where I said that. Seriously. The posts have numbers. Find it, quote it- I'd be happy to know. Most of my posts are unedited- and all edits have dates, so it should be easy for you.
On the other hand, maybe this will be finally you realizing that 'what you think you heard' and 'what I actually said' really aren't interchangable'.
Hope you like sole food.
In post #155. You seem talk about how the interface simplifies gameplay, but ignore the fact that the simplification makes the process more complicated than it needs to be. It can be argued either way here since RPGs are derived from wargames which can be either tactical or logistical. WoW apparently went for the straight logistical route, but a more tactical approach would be easier from an interface perspective. It's the implication of absolutism that is the problem here. Sometime streamlining adds depth, sometimes it just generates cruft and other times it just eliminates needless repitition while leaving everything intact. But making all inclusive statements, which is what you seem to be doing with this paragragh, ignores the reall issue. Humans have an intuitive understanding of line of sight. It's the way that we interact with our environment. What you introduced in the following passage is a simpler, more accessible way to play which seems to be the opposite of what you've been advocating for. I'm sure that the same 7 year old would have no problem understanding how to heal people with a line of sight system. Whether or not she would be as effective is another matter. I'm assuming that she could be with enough practice, kids pick things up quicker than adults do, but she'd still be able to sit down and figure out exactly what to do with no explaination.
2. Streamlining as dumbing down.
With the 'group status interface, healers don't even need to 'know where people in their parties are" in most games- click the all-powerful status bar, heal- and wherever he is (if in range) done. I remember what used to be the fun chaos of combat- that learned coolness under fire and manuevering for line of sight to heal a guy. Some of that fun still exists, but mostly it's 'asset management'. I've actually had a 7 year old keep a party alive for me when she never played before. Yes- challenging gameplay. The interface replaces experience- colors tell you what fights you can/can't win. The interface removes complexity/confusion- quest objects/mechanisms don't exist unless you're on that quest. 'Tab' to auto target mobs in range. Targetted mob can never break/hide without spell/special ability- line of sight doesn't matter- I know you're there... Even the third person interface is easier (and gives you more info) than first person. Thieves are promoted to being invisible so they can backstab, rather than simply need to be sneaky and creep up behind you (which can't work on a third person view).
What's more of a challenge: navigating a Tall ship with zero electronics, or navigating a modern computerized Frigate?
What is so hard to grasp here?
This is not a good comparison at all. I can look at one of the old tall ships and see how it turns, I can follow the ropes and guidelines and see what connects to what. With a basic understanding of mechanics, physics and how wind and water forces act on the ship, all the mechanics for operating the ship are visible to see and therefore I can learn how it works.
If I were to look at a modern frigate I would see row after row of dials and buttons and scans. None of which may be labelled, I wouldn't have a clue as to which button does which so I wouldn't be able to run it.
So in answer to your question the frigate would be harder for me to navigate.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
"Dumbed down" is a term used by bored forum trolls who have no logical base for their arguments, they just like to use buzz words.
Other examples include - WoW clone, casual vs. hardcore, sandbox, theme park...
The greatest goal of innovation is either:
A) to do something no one else has ever done before
to do something better
Option B is more loosely defined, but when it comes to the MMO genre I like to think of it to mean simply that:
You take what "works" and refine it, trim off the fat so to speak, clean it up and re-present it in a way that is more appealing to the end user.
By this argument, would some then agree that Windows 7 is simply a "dumbed down" version of the Windows 98 operating system? I'd say that argument is completely illogical as Windows 7 contains functionality not present in 98, as well as a more refined, cleaned up, and polished presentation then most any previous Microsoft operating system release.
Would some then agree that modern 3G cell phones are simply a "dumbed down" version of their predaccesors? Despite the fact they are vastly more reliable, powerful, and contain complex functionality including internet and streaming video SIMPLY because they have a more refined, visually and asethetically appealing interface?
I think my point is made...
"Dumbed down" is ACTUALLY a term used by forum trolls who are themselves too dumb to understand the evolution of the MMORPG genre.
What's more of a challenge: navigating a Tall ship with zero electronics, or navigating a modern computerized Frigate?
What is so hard to grasp here?
This is not a good comparison at all. I can look at one of the old tall ships and see how it turns, I can follow the ropes and guidelines and see what connects to what. With a basic understanding of mechanics, physics and how wind and water forces act on the ship, all the mechanics for operating the ship are visible to see and therefore I can learn how it works.
If I were to look at a modern frigate I would see row after row of dials and buttons and scans. None of which may be labelled, I wouldn't have a clue as to which button does which so I wouldn't be able to run it.
So in answer to your question the frigate would be harder for me to navigate.
Venge Sunsoar
LOL I've Captained a Tall ship, as well as my own personal modern computerized Cabin Cruiser (wish it was Frigate). You can say whatever you want, but I know first hand which is more of a challenge. They aren't even in the same realm of difficulty.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
What's more of a challenge: navigating a Tall ship with zero electronics, or navigating a modern computerized Frigate?
What is so hard to grasp here?
This is not a good comparison at all. I can look at one of the old tall ships and see how it turns, I can follow the ropes and guidelines and see what connects to what. With a basic understanding of mechanics, physics and how wind and water forces act on the ship, all the mechanics for operating the ship are visible to see and therefore I can learn how it works.
If I were to look at a modern frigate I would see row after row of dials and buttons and scans. None of which may be labelled, I wouldn't have a clue as to which button does which so I wouldn't be able to run it.
So in answer to your question the frigate would be harder for me to navigate.
Venge Sunsoar
LOL I've Captained a Tall ship, as well as my own personal modern computerized Cabin Cruiser (wish it was Frigate). You can say whatever you want, but I know first hand which is more of a challenge. They aren't even in the same realm of difficulty.
You have experience in both. You need to step away and look as if you have experience in neither and see which one would be easier. I doubt you have the same experience in flying planes so use the analogy of flying one of the first planes ever (basically just a stick) and a modern day jet. Now which one do you think you would have more of a chance of flying?
You have experience in both. You need to step away and look as if you have experience in neither and see which one would be easier. I doubt you have the same experience in flying planes so use the analogy of flying one of the first planes ever (basically just a stick) and a modern day jet. Now which one do you think you would have more of a chance of flying?
I'm looking at this from the point of view of being new at both, you know because at one point I was. It was light years easier to figure out all of the electronic/computerized systems on my boat (amongst other things) than it was to learn everything involved with captaining an actual Tall ship. It was another thing entirely to get good at it. Also the Tall ship legally required a full crew whereas my boat does not. Note: they are virtaully the same size vessel.
When specific operations are already done for you and so much of the vessel is automated, yes it's far less of a challenge. Modern Tank operators/Pilots also agree that their WWI counterparts had to have far greater skills to accomplish the same tasks.
Even for these forums, I'm kinda surprised this isn't common knowledge.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I'll take your word for it because I haven't done either and so have no knowledge of them. But I do understand mechanics and applied forces and from my point of view (a complete novice) I can understand the tall ship way easier than the modern frigate. With some basic understanding of the computer system I'd probably think differently but right now it's easier to see how the tall ship works because I can literally see a response for each action, whereas on the frigate I flick a switch and trust the engineer that designed it.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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)
Thats par for the course for RPGS. The whole point is that even if you don't live in the world 24/7, your character does. They have knowledge you don't, and you should be able to draw on it. This has been done in PnP for 25ish years. You should have complained about the dumbing down in the 80's when all of this started. LIsting these as dumbing down misses the boat wildly.
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)
Thats par for the course for RPGS. The whole point is that even if you don't live in the world 24/7, your character does. They have knowledge you don't, and you should be able to draw on it. This has been done in PnP for 25ish years. You should have complained about the dumbing down in the 80's when all of this started. LIsting these as dumbing down misses the boat wildly.
Actually, this is backwards. It is not a case that the character has knowledge we do not, we have knowledge that neither they nor us should have. Some of it may be applicable in modern, near future, or futuristic games; but explain the game mechanics in a fantasy game in regard to satellites triangulating our position, eh? His post was one of the best posts about how it is pretty hard to buy into the illusion and suspend our disbelief.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I'll take your word for it because I haven't done either and so have no knowledge of them. But I do understand mechanics and applied forces and from my point of view (a complete novice) I can understand the tall ship way easier than the modern frigate. With some basic understanding of the computer system I'd probably think differently but right now it's easier to see how the tall ship works because I can literally see a response for each action, whereas on the frigate I flick a switch and trust the engineer that designed it.
Venge Sunsoar
Hmmm, considering your RL skills you'd probably be a lot of fun to teach with regards to Tall ships.
After thinking about this more carefully, I think the term "dumbed-down" is far too derogatory and inflammatory, it's just insulting really. When I'm on my boat I've never thought to myself "man this is nothing compared to that Tall ship, what a fracking joke, screw this! Anybody want a nice Chris Craft?"
Sure one is much easier to get used to (in my experience), but they're just so different. I guess what I'm saying is I don't look down on anyone who can only operate a modern vessel as opposed to one from the past. How foolish would that be. But nonetheless it is interesting to note the difference in the "learning curve" with respect to both technologies.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I'll take your word for it because I haven't done either and so have no knowledge of them. But I do understand mechanics and applied forces and from my point of view (a complete novice) I can understand the tall ship way easier than the modern frigate. With some basic understanding of the computer system I'd probably think differently but right now it's easier to see how the tall ship works because I can literally see a response for each action, whereas on the frigate I flick a switch and trust the engineer that designed it.
Venge Sunsoar
Hmmm, considering your RL skills you'd probably be a lot of fun to teach with regards to Tall ships.
After thinking about this more carefully, I think the term "dumbed-down" is far too derogatory and inflammatory, it's just insulting really. When I'm on my boat I've never thought to myself "man this is nothing compared to that Tall ship, what a fracking joke, screw this! Anybody want a nice Chris Craft?"
Sure one is much easier to get used to (in my experience), but they're just so different. I guess what I'm saying is I don't look down on anyone who can only operate a modern vessel as opposed to one from the past. How foolish would that be. But nonetheless it is interesting to note the difference in the "learning curve" with respect to both technologies.
Hmm, as a sailor myself, this is interesting I sail in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Texas coast.
The old method was "deduced reckoning", shortened to "dead reckoning", and that required a map, a compass, and thought. You had to actually pay attention and plot your route, taking into account tides, wind, current, etc.
"dumbed down" would be the modern chart plotter, with GPS, and auto-steering. Just point and click LOL.
Hmmm, considering your RL skills you'd probably be a lot of fun to teach with regards to Tall ships.
After thinking about this more carefully, I think the term "dumbed-down" is far too derogatory and inflammatory, it's just insulting really. When I'm on my boat I've never thought to myself "man this is nothing compared to that Tall ship, what a fracking joke, screw this! Anybody want a nice Chris Craft?"
Sure one is much easier to get used to (in my experience), but they're just so different. I guess what I'm saying is I don't look down on anyone who can only operate a modern vessel as opposed to one from the past. How foolish would that be. But nonetheless it is interesting to note the difference in the "learning curve" with respect to both technologies.
Hmm, as a sailor myself, this is interesting I sail in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Texas coast.
The old method was "deduced reckoning", shortened to "dead reckoning", and that required a map, a compass, and thought. You had to actually pay attention and plot your route, taking into account tides, wind, current, etc.
"dumbed down" would be the modern chart plotter, with GPS, and auto-steering. Just point and click LOL.
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one, and the point and click remark was bloody marvelous.
When I started reading this thread, the comparison of the two types of ships with MMO's that are "dumbed-down" or simplified, seemed to make so much sense to me.
No kidding about the paying more attention part; let's just say the Hull damage that I had to repair on my Chris' Bow 4 years ago wasn't exactly some freak accident. When you're sailing on a big ship and at the wheel, you most likely wouldn't be in the galley making a snack while heading directly for a shoal. I was lucky to have been quick enough to only sustain minor damage. Sometimes you can get too relaxed on these modern boats. Same goes for these games.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
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)
Thats par for the course for RPGS. The whole point is that even if you don't live in the world 24/7, your character does. They have knowledge you don't, and you should be able to draw on it. This has been done in PnP for 25ish years. You should have complained about the dumbing down in the 80's when all of this started. LIsting these as dumbing down misses the boat wildly.
Actually, this is backwards. It is not a case that the character has knowledge we do not, we have knowledge that neither they nor us should have. Some of it may be applicable in modern, near future, or futuristic games; but explain the game mechanics in a fantasy game in regard to satellites triangulating our position, eh? His post was one of the best posts about how it is pretty hard to buy into the illusion and suspend our disbelief.
Its not backwards. The characters do indeed have knowledge the players don't. You don't have to like it. But its true. Its always
been the case you could ask the GM if the character would know something that the player didn't. This explains almost all of his list. And in RPGs, you would just say, "we visit the healer.". That is how its done. These days, you actually have to run around looking for the healer. Things are tougher now than they traditionally were.
Of course, it is ALSO true that we have knowledge the character probably lacks, basic math, counting, computers, earth history, tv shows... None of which applies to the game of course.
The bottom line is that our extra knowledge is mostly useless, and the characters extra knowledge is useful.
Theres also the case where the characters eyesight could reasonably have a 160 degree view, whereas we have a 60 degree view due to the monitor size. But most people ignore that. And ignore the hearing differences, and smell, and touch...
The character more than likely knows mores about the world than we do. Now, need it be displayed like a radar? *shrug*, i don't know. No matter how you do it, there could be some innaccuracy. But to treat his post like its anything other than ignorance is wrong.
Comments
Since verbosity has only lead to confusion, I'm gonna sum up my points and provide two examples to hopefully demonstrate wha you you aren't getting.
1) Complex interfaces and time sinks are not depth.
2) Streamlining an interface while retaining the core mechanics of a game is not "dumbing down"
Example 1 - Identifying items:
In Torchlight, and Diablo, you identify items by using identify scroll. To do this, you open your inventory, right click the scroll and then click on an unidentified object. Identify scrolls stack so they could have made it so that you just double click the stack and the system would automatically identify as many items as you have scrolls. Likewise, they could have made it so that you had an identify modes so that you could just click once on the scrolls and then click on the desired number of unidentified objects.
In games that use the character's lore ability to identify things, the game could just automatically attempt to identify every object that you pick up and mark the ones that your character isn't sure about. This mirror's reality nicely since if you aren't sure about something, you are aware of it. Notice that all of these ideas change nothing about the core mechanics of the game. They simply make the process of identifying items faster for the player so that they can get on with the rest of the game. This is streamlining, not "dumbing down."
Example 2 - Wargames:
Most wargames can be powered only a two button mouse. One of the best war games I ever played, it was originally developed for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, only used the mouse. This game had a crazy insane amount of information to wade through and the designers mad it easy to find exactly the stats and info that you would need, or have available. The game itself didn't need a gajillion buttons or menus that were 200 plus clicks deepl. It was made as a training tool and therefore kept everyting right on the surface. Accessability is not the same as "dumbed down."
The common use of the term "dumbed down" takes the complete opposite stance to these views. Not surprising when you consider that the term is just so much nerd epeen waving.
It's more of design in accordance with outcome as it fit's the needs of the game's function or a matter of 'defining the constraints of play and building the tools accordingly'.
And I would agree, intuitive and depth can co-exist. Good luck assembling a crack squad capable of preserving such a design through development into implementation though. One or the other usually gets juggled and sacrificed in order for everything else to make it through though.
And generally due to how a game is built, you can tell much about it's potential pretty early on. The engine and programs used are a very effective give away of things before the game is even built, assuming you're familiar with the engine and programs that is. IT's merely a case of seeing how things work and understanding how they fall into place, the general ability of those utilizing it, and the general direction of it's design then you can pretty reasonably predict the outcome.
It ain't a priori, the information is there.
And I was implicating a complex crafting system could/would make a game more 'deep', but i was also qualifying it against the nature of each system. The Spore example has equal pros and cons, as it takes considerably more tactile and creative ability on the player's part to make a decent to good object that would otherwise take one click to make in a simpler 'timer' method. It however is quite impossible for the player using that 'timer' method of crafting to make anything anywhere's near as varied or potentially elegant as that which might come from a Spore type tool. It opens the game up to allowing he player to account for different kinds of materials and their effects, and letting their own choices dictate the outcome of what they make, rather than a preset list and a timer giving them predictable and finite result.
Now, you could marry the ability to specify materials to a simplified crating system, allowing more variance in stats and quality of an object, but yo will continue to lack the ability to adapt form or function, which can only be derived from opening the tools to a more complex layout.
The UI design inherently limits depth of function based on design. Either you can individually interact with an item, allowing you to potentially do many things with it, or you don't and that item only exists as a passive representation of something else.
Take your identify items example. The UI is designed so that one can open their inventory and interact with any objects therein. Ignoring that identify scrolls can be put on a hotbar in both games to expedite the process in your example, the Ui in which is a framework for the implementation of many forms of functionality of items to be easily integrated and dropped into the game so players can access multiple unctions from their menu.
Now, it's true that it could have been made quicker, but any further implementation becomes a highly specialized trait with very limited functional scope, which in turn means it's an added nicety that is incapable of serving any ulterior purpose.
Going the method of having an inherent lore trait, it does help streamline the process, and it is an overall improvement, but it also becomes a hidden factor that is otherwise incapable of serving any ulterior purpose. If it's an automated or passive trait, then you have sacrificed depth of function in favor of a streamlined process, because now it's incapable of being used in any other applications.
And if it is capable of doing more, the UI has to exist for one to be capable of such, thereby breaking the aspect of being 'streamlined'. Some of it's functions have moved, but the interface still persists.
It is however a decent compromise to depth versus complexity. A passive trait for doing mundane task in a semi-realistic fashion while preserving the option to utilize the trait directly through a menu is probably my most preferred route, if not one of more sophisticated design.
Or in summary, the complexity of UI is proportionately comparable to the potential range of functions available from a given singular item or ability, the exception being the addition of sensibly applied passive traits to replace otherwise nonsensically mundane tasks. The complexity of tools available also affects potential depth and variety in game play through the constraint put on UI controlling variables and game mechanics. The less options available, the less options the players have to affect the game world, be creative, or influence the quality and metrics of what is produced/done.
So in general I'd say yeah, we seem to agree on the subject somewhat. There's some caveats to that, but the gist of it stands the same.
"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
.
Your first issue is really a mater of cruft. There are less intrusive and more intuitive ways of dealing with telling the player where to go than a minimap. A compas display along the top of the screen with arrows pointing in the general direction of your next objective does nicely. Or a blurry spot on the horizon representing your character's knowlege of where they're supposed to go. Can't blame MMO developers for not being minimal in their interface designs when the rest of the computing industry is only just now begining to embrace minimalism. But there are ways to keep things accessible without sacrificing depth.
As for your second point... I'm going to be honest and admit that I have no idea what you're describing. I stopped playing WoW long before the two week trial was up so getting into a large party isn't something that I experienced. I have been in large parties in other games like Anarchy Online, City of Heroes, etc. In fact, I think that only MMORPG I ever played where line of sight meant anything was Asheron's Call. If I remember correctly, it was a bug but the player community liked it so it stayed. That would definitely spice up the MMORPG genre, and streamline the interface a great deal. Oops.... er...
I like how you tell me that streamlining is dumbing a game down and then introduce a concept that would add depth and make the games interface less complicated and therefore more accessible to new players. Hey mouth, I'd like you to meet foot....
What's more of a challenge: navigating a Tall ship with zero electronics, or navigating a modern computerized Frigate?
What is so hard to grasp here?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Thanks for your response to my comment Jimmy. I think we understand each other. Yes I think that some games have truly had some depth and complexity removed in an attempt to appeal to a different target audience. SWG was one example, and I'm aware of others.
At the same time, I think I understand where you're coming from. Does tedious gameplay with cumbersome interfaces = depth? No, I don't think it does.
If you're advocating for more fluid gameplay and a friendlier UI, I'm good with that, and I wouldn't refer to this as "dumbing down" per se. Probably others would, and I see why you might take issue with this.
At the same time, I prefer different games on my PC from my console. The PC games tend to offer a lot more options, simply because the PC hardware is conducive to this. My console games are faster paced but generally provide fewer options, fewer systems, less buttons etc.. I happen to enjoy both, and don't feel particularly elite about either type of game.
My PC games tend to require more analytical thinking and strategy. My console games tend to require quick decisions and good hand-eye coordination. Both are equally enjoyable for me, depending on my mood
.
.
Breaking news: Tools make things easier, this and more at 11.
.
Simplifying an interface does not necessarily mean a game has been put into easy mode, but it is a good indicator of that happening.
I have had players who are healers tell my that they can hardly remember what the dungeons we have been in looked like as they spent all their time looking at coloured bars. In this example making the interface easier reduced both their enjoyment of playing in new areas and made it easier to heal. But I doubt all players who play healers would feel the same way.
But I do not think difficult controls are needed for challenging game play, it is just that we are moving to era in gaming where there are only easy controls and easy game play.
.
In post #155. You seem talk about how the interface simplifies gameplay, but ignore the fact that the simplification makes the process more complicated than it needs to be. It can be argued either way here since RPGs are derived from wargames which can be either tactical or logistical. WoW apparently went for the straight logistical route, but a more tactical approach would be easier from an interface perspective. It's the implication of absolutism that is the problem here. Sometime streamlining adds depth, sometimes it just generates cruft and other times it just eliminates needless repitition while leaving everything intact. But making all inclusive statements, which is what you seem to be doing with this paragragh, ignores the reall issue. Humans have an intuitive understanding of line of sight. It's the way that we interact with our environment. What you introduced in the following passage is a simpler, more accessible way to play which seems to be the opposite of what you've been advocating for. I'm sure that the same 7 year old would have no problem understanding how to heal people with a line of sight system. Whether or not she would be as effective is another matter. I'm assuming that she could be with enough practice, kids pick things up quicker than adults do, but she'd still be able to sit down and figure out exactly what to do with no explaination.
2. Streamlining as dumbing down.
With the 'group status interface, healers don't even need to 'know where people in their parties are" in most games- click the all-powerful status bar, heal- and wherever he is (if in range) done. I remember what used to be the fun chaos of combat- that learned coolness under fire and manuevering for line of sight to heal a guy. Some of that fun still exists, but mostly it's 'asset management'. I've actually had a 7 year old keep a party alive for me when she never played before. Yes- challenging gameplay. The interface replaces experience- colors tell you what fights you can/can't win. The interface removes complexity/confusion- quest objects/mechanisms don't exist unless you're on that quest. 'Tab' to auto target mobs in range. Targetted mob can never break/hide without spell/special ability- line of sight doesn't matter- I know you're there... Even the third person interface is easier (and gives you more info) than first person. Thieves are promoted to being invisible so they can backstab, rather than simply need to be sneaky and creep up behind you (which can't work on a third person view).
This is not a good comparison at all. I can look at one of the old tall ships and see how it turns, I can follow the ropes and guidelines and see what connects to what. With a basic understanding of mechanics, physics and how wind and water forces act on the ship, all the mechanics for operating the ship are visible to see and therefore I can learn how it works.
If I were to look at a modern frigate I would see row after row of dials and buttons and scans. None of which may be labelled, I wouldn't have a clue as to which button does which so I wouldn't be able to run it.
So in answer to your question the frigate would be harder for me to navigate.
Venge Sunsoar
"Dumbed down" is a term used by bored forum trolls who have no logical base for their arguments, they just like to use buzz words.
Other examples include - WoW clone, casual vs. hardcore, sandbox, theme park...
The greatest goal of innovation is either:
A) to do something no one else has ever done before
Option B is more loosely defined, but when it comes to the MMO genre I like to think of it to mean simply that:
You take what "works" and refine it, trim off the fat so to speak, clean it up and re-present it in a way that is more appealing to the end user.
By this argument, would some then agree that Windows 7 is simply a "dumbed down" version of the Windows 98 operating system? I'd say that argument is completely illogical as Windows 7 contains functionality not present in 98, as well as a more refined, cleaned up, and polished presentation then most any previous Microsoft operating system release.
Would some then agree that modern 3G cell phones are simply a "dumbed down" version of their predaccesors? Despite the fact they are vastly more reliable, powerful, and contain complex functionality including internet and streaming video SIMPLY because they have a more refined, visually and asethetically appealing interface?
I think my point is made...
"Dumbed down" is ACTUALLY a term used by forum trolls who are themselves too dumb to understand the evolution of the MMORPG genre.
LOL I've Captained a Tall ship, as well as my own personal modern computerized Cabin Cruiser (wish it was Frigate). You can say whatever you want, but I know first hand which is more of a challenge. They aren't even in the same realm of difficulty.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
You have experience in both. You need to step away and look as if you have experience in neither and see which one would be easier. I doubt you have the same experience in flying planes so use the analogy of flying one of the first planes ever (basically just a stick) and a modern day jet. Now which one do you think you would have more of a chance of flying?
I'm looking at this from the point of view of being new at both, you know because at one point I was. It was light years easier to figure out all of the electronic/computerized systems on my boat (amongst other things) than it was to learn everything involved with captaining an actual Tall ship. It was another thing entirely to get good at it. Also the Tall ship legally required a full crew whereas my boat does not. Note: they are virtaully the same size vessel.
When specific operations are already done for you and so much of the vessel is automated, yes it's far less of a challenge. Modern Tank operators/Pilots also agree that their WWI counterparts had to have far greater skills to accomplish the same tasks.
Even for these forums, I'm kinda surprised this isn't common knowledge.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I'll take your word for it because I haven't done either and so have no knowledge of them. But I do understand mechanics and applied forces and from my point of view (a complete novice) I can understand the tall ship way easier than the modern frigate. With some basic understanding of the computer system I'd probably think differently but right now it's easier to see how the tall ship works because I can literally see a response for each action, whereas on the frigate I flick a switch and trust the engineer that designed it.
Venge Sunsoar
Thats par for the course for RPGS. The whole point is that even if you don't live in the world 24/7, your character does. They have knowledge you don't, and you should be able to draw on it. This has been done in PnP for 25ish years. You should have complained about the dumbing down in the 80's when all of this started. LIsting these as dumbing down misses the boat wildly.
Actually, this is backwards. It is not a case that the character has knowledge we do not, we have knowledge that neither they nor us should have. Some of it may be applicable in modern, near future, or futuristic games; but explain the game mechanics in a fantasy game in regard to satellites triangulating our position, eh? His post was one of the best posts about how it is pretty hard to buy into the illusion and suspend our disbelief.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
It can mean anything you want it to, basically. Just like "hardcore", "casual", "carebear", "sandbox", "rpg", "fps", "success", etc.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Hmmm, considering your RL skills you'd probably be a lot of fun to teach with regards to Tall ships.
After thinking about this more carefully, I think the term "dumbed-down" is far too derogatory and inflammatory, it's just insulting really. When I'm on my boat I've never thought to myself "man this is nothing compared to that Tall ship, what a fracking joke, screw this! Anybody want a nice Chris Craft?"
Sure one is much easier to get used to (in my experience), but they're just so different. I guess what I'm saying is I don't look down on anyone who can only operate a modern vessel as opposed to one from the past. How foolish would that be. But nonetheless it is interesting to note the difference in the "learning curve" with respect to both technologies.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Hmm, as a sailor myself, this is interesting
I sail in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Texas coast.
The old method was "deduced reckoning", shortened to "dead reckoning", and that required a map, a compass, and thought. You had to actually pay attention and plot your route, taking into account tides, wind, current, etc.
"dumbed down" would be the modern chart plotter, with GPS, and auto-steering. Just point and click LOL.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one, and the point and click remark was bloody marvelous.
When I started reading this thread, the comparison of the two types of ships with MMO's that are "dumbed-down" or simplified, seemed to make so much sense to me.
No kidding about the paying more attention part; let's just say the Hull damage that I had to repair on my Chris' Bow 4 years ago wasn't exactly some freak accident. When you're sailing on a big ship and at the wheel, you most likely wouldn't be in the galley making a snack while heading directly for a shoal. I was lucky to have been quick enough to only sustain minor damage. Sometimes you can get too relaxed on these modern boats. Same goes for these games.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Its not backwards. The characters do indeed have knowledge the players don't. You don't have to like it. But its true. Its always
been the case you could ask the GM if the character would know something that the player didn't. This explains almost all of his list. And in RPGs, you would just say, "we visit the healer.". That is how its done. These days, you actually have to run around looking for the healer. Things are tougher now than they traditionally were.
Of course, it is ALSO true that we have knowledge the character probably lacks, basic math, counting, computers, earth history, tv shows... None of which applies to the game of course.
The bottom line is that our extra knowledge is mostly useless, and the characters extra knowledge is useful.
Theres also the case where the characters eyesight could reasonably have a 160 degree view, whereas we have a 60 degree view due to the monitor size. But most people ignore that. And ignore the hearing differences, and smell, and touch...
The character more than likely knows mores about the world than we do. Now, need it be displayed like a radar? *shrug*, i don't know. No matter how you do it, there could be some innaccuracy. But to treat his post like its anything other than ignorance is wrong.