A Unity ID allows you to buy and/or subscribe to Unity products and services, shop in the Asset Store and participate
in the Unity community.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Game Design' started by Aiursrage2k, Feb 10, 2015.
No wonder that games are getting so dumbed down that they practically play themselves
I agree with them. Their games are too hard for their executives to learn. Clearly the solution is to dumb down the games rather than simply get new executives. Right?
LOL alot of newer games in general, are waaay too basic (boring for me)... but yeah i get it for like older people i guess?? .. and people that dont really play games at all, oohh or i guess the smartphone market
like my dad, he asked me for games to play, but theyre all too complicated for him....
.. although he LOVES anno1404 .. but hes not incredibly good at it... hes decent.. he can never figure out how to use the automated shipping lanes thingy (pretty easy for someone that uses computers.. but i see how its complicated)
he LOVED settlers series .. (well the older ones) .. and heroes of might and magic 2,3,4
Um, older people? LOL
Trust me, we like a challenge. If your dad doesn't get it, it is more because he is not a gamer, not because he is older. Us older folks grew up when games where hard and challenging. The old Dungeons and Dragons was a LOT harder than DnD 4.0, which they admit was created for the "video game generation".
In truth, easy games are probably easier to make and have a much larger mass audience so sell easily..at first. But then people are bored with them and post bad reviews and the sales go down or they don't buy the 2nd iteration. Sims 4 is a great example of a dumbed down EA game. I have talked to dozens of people who bought every The Sims title and not Sims 4, myself included.
EA just wants to pump them out, get that initial rush to buy before REAL reviews are posted by REAL players and then move on to the other stupid dumbed down game. That is how they make money. So now they want to convince us they they are doing it because games are too hard? Ha!!
Alternatively, you can just interpret this as EA being completely out of touch.
It's not like EA is actually targets self-identifying gamers though. Their targets are casuals and people who aren't actually aware they even play games. This is the company that owns PopCap. Chances are high your mom has played an EA property.
I look at EA games and they have games like titanfall, battlefield, command and conquer upcoming games like starwars battlefront (they dont seem like casual games)
They are a far cry from being niche. They are still aimed at a mass market audience, it just happens to be a male demo. Throw Madden, FIFA, and the rest of their sports lineup on to the list and it'll start looking a hell of a lot more casual.
Their statement is that the games are difficult to learn, not that they are too challenging. You can have a challenging game without it being difficult to learn.
I didnt want to make a new thread for this but heres a video about the new evolved game cost $215 to get all the content. It just seems like the AAA gaming industry is going in the wrong direction, and I wonder if it will lead to another game crash
I think there are a lot of people who will (over time) end up buying every option for it. All of those FPS fanatics and, of course, the so called "whales" that just have to have everything they gotta get the premium best of the best. I think it is all good. First, players can better understand the value of games. Second, nobody is forcing players to get any more than the most basic edition of the game. If they don't want to spend the money then don't. I can go to buy a car and just because the options are there and available doesn't mean I should get them for the base price. I think these people look at it backwards really. The game is $215 for the full decked out experience. If a person only wants to spend $100 they get the $100 version. If they only want to spend $60 they get the $60 version. If they only want to spend $40 they wait 6 to 8 months after release and buy the basic version. I see it as more of a way to provide options to the people who are willing to "do without".
Only if those options have good value. If I pay for the $60 basic version it better be at least as good as a $60 game.
Of course. I figured it is like any other $60 AAA game. Bunch of FX and sizzle with solid basic game play.
The DLC reviews stopped me from purchasing. At a massive $60, there should not be $DLC$ upon release.
The best we can do, I think, is just watch what happens. 6 months from now we will have a much better idea of gamer acceptance or resistance to their pricing model. I wouldn't buy it because it is not my kind of game. D3 on the other hand I preordered the game had it on release day. Then bought the expansion in first week of release. Next expansion I will buy and I have no idea what or when it might be. I am guessing they're targeting the gamers who are into FPS to that same degree. Not everyone is their target market.
It makes me sad, but I think there might not be another expansion. I hear they gutted the Diablo 3 team and moved them all over to the Heroes of the Storm and Overwatch teams. There's just a skeleton crew working on D3 now.
I will have to keep playing the current version. Or check out Path of Exile assuming they finally released the official game. I found it years ago before D3 was released when they put out early development versions. It looked like it had a lot of potential although was pretty basic at the time. I will have to check it out anyway. If they never did complete it I will find another. There is always someone somewhere making the kind of games we like.
I'll keep playing it... currently approaching para 500...
Awesome. You are higher than me. Been spending all my free time in evenings working on games and playing an MMORPG with my girlfriend. Basically just an RPG to us since we rarely play with anyone else and refuse most friend requests. Lol But it is free and she is a big gamer so is cool to play something together. Anyway my monk is only paragon 305 or something like that. It is an awesome game though. Need more free time. I really need to get D3 with expansion for her. Hmm... Valentine's Day is almost here...
Right but in the past you would get the whole game for 1 price now are heading towards this "tiered" content. It seems to be happening piece by piece until the consumer simply accepts the new reality unless there is a full scale revolt
Yeah, my wife and I bought the expansion for each other for Christmas...
Something's got to happen. The cost of making AAA games keeps going up, but people aren't willing to pay more... so the risk goes up, and up, and up.
AAA publishers are doing it because they need to find a way to make the money off the people who will pay several small payments but balk at a big payment.
I was about to reply with the same kind of thing and noticed you already had. Lol
This is it in a nutshell though. All of these phenomenal graphics, movie quality music, voice acting and so forth that gamers seem to expect these days is incredibly expensive. Cannot keep spending more and more and more money making games while selling them for the same price. New games have debuted at $50 to $60 on average for the past couple decades or more. Even if they were not spending more money to produce bigger more presentation impressive games they would still be losing money as each year everything else increases in price yet they charge the same amount.
Also I think it is a great thing to increase the price. Instead of like mobile where they have basically created a market where game devs have to explain why their game is worth 99 cents!
Well, there is a revolution in progress in gaming. As better tools are developed and made accessible, indies are empowered with the opportunity to relatively easily make excellent and innovative games. These devs are the ones who can change the trend by not jumping on the DLC/microtransaction bandwagon. As it is, large game studios are exclusively a business venture, while an indie is more likely to bring a bit of passion into it. Someone who makes a game because they want to make a great game, as opposed to wanting to make a lot of money, will be a lot more concerned with making a game fun than profitable. Don't get me wrong - of course indies want to make money. I just think they might be less focused on cheesy monetization techniques. And also of course, there's plenty of indies only in it to make a quick buck. But there is hope.
From what I have seen Indy's are just as focused on the money (perhaps more so even) as the AAA companies are than they are on making something original or making a great game. Even when a person says I have had an idea for a great game for a long time now it is almost always immediately followed by a comment about making money. I am sure there are exceptions but I think the vast majority do it with money on their minds. It takes no more than seeing an up front cost, ads or IAP in a game to see that money came into the picture at some point.
In fact, I think an argument could be made the people working at the AAA companies are probably the ones doing it for passion more than money. Not the managers or bean counters but the artists, programmers and designers. For them it is their job. Sure they get paid but it is likely their passion that keeps them in those jobs working under tight deadlines, office politics and so forth.
At one time when there were far less Indys I think a lot of them did it truly for passion just for fun. As news spread about a few people making a lot of money and tools like GMS and Unity came along tons of people came over to claim their share of the gold.
Haven't heard that one before. There are much easier ways to make a buck than being an Indy dev.
Understatement of the year.
ooof i have not played a AAA title in a long time, due to them being easy. really easy. plus the stupid prices for a little game that needs DLC
the last game i played that i felt that it was so hard, but great, was ninja gaiden. that was hard, but great. loved it
i guess in some ways, that is why i have been making my own, because most games are just too easy. not all mind. indie titles have made there way to start having difficult games. not in a bad way. true some index devs have just really used this to make money by just rehashing the same bullshit. but those devs will be driven out leaving people who just want to create. make a bit of cash to just live, but at least to keep on making more fun and original games.
Part of the fun of a game is learning the rules. If you're doing it right.
Hah, good point, "quick buck" was a very poor choice of words. I should have said "exclusively in it for the money"
You guys are right, I just think it's more likely that indie devs will stay away from a microtransaction/DLC model. Although I'm probably wrong, I have nothing real to base that opinion on. I just prefer to pay for my game, so I guess I'm pinning my hopes on being able to keep doing that in the future on indie devs.
I have noticed this too but I don't think this is the vast majority of Indie developers. I think it is just the grumpy folks who dislike newcomers. It seems to be a subculture here, not everyone and not every post. Most of us simply don't post when someone says they have a great idea because really, ideas are a dime a dozen. I usually only post on those threads after I see a lot of folks cut down the poor OP. A lot of us just wait to see more before we give our opinions about someone's game.
According to a poll someone put up, something like 75% of the indie developers here are not doing it for money. That seems right to me.
I would say it is more likely that 75% of the people who participated in that poll are not doing it for the money. Most who are primarily doing it for the money would probably not participate. I think people see it as "just in it for the money" is something bad. Yet at the same time I think the vast majority of roughly probably 1 million people who are currently working on a game having just started sometime in the past year primarily came into it because they read an article some place, or otherwise found out, about a case where someone made a large amount of money making games. This is my honest belief on it. And I think once the next "gold rush" happens and it is something that is easily accessible to nearly everyone we will see far less people so eager to make a game. The current moneymaking gold rush just happens to be in games and more specifically in mobile games.
But heres the thing do they. Suppose something like ID said we are going to make doom5 and its going to use the doom2 engine and romeros back designing the levels that it wouldnt sell.
Wasteland 2 did pretty good.
This is her new favorite game I think. She just hit level 13! =)
Broadly speaking, why not? I agree that it shouldn't be a money gouge, but if the product is worth its asking price in its own right then what's wrong with having expansion content, functionality, etc. if it's also worth the asking price in its own right?
If I like a game and am willing to pay $15 for an expansion why would I care whether it's released along with the game compared to being released later? Presume, for the sake of discussion, that we're not talking about "Horse Armor" here, but something meaty worthy of attention in its own right (I wouldn't buy it otherwise in any case, personally).
Well, you could if your audience was growing and, assuming that the profit margin stayed constant you'd not only have bigger budgets but also make more money. I suspect that's why there's so much focus on casual games these days - the audience of people who don't consider themselves "gamers" is way bigger than that of those who do. Plus they don't have the same expectations, so it's a win-win for developers... if they can crack the market, and if the market hasn't rushed too far to the bottom.
Casual games are a double win or at least have the potential for sure. Less money to develop and a far bigger potential audience. I agree. I was thinking of the more traditional style games your "real gamer" games so to speak. FPS, RPG, RTS and so forth. It's obvious the presentation production values are massive for these games especially the FPS and RPG genres.
I think people shouldn't say there's a learning curve to gaming until the games in question actually innovate in some way... If you're new to gaming, every game will take time to learn. If you've been gaming since N64 and before, it doesn't take more than a few minutes (or seconds) to become familiar with the games coming out every single day.
I'll accept the idea that games are hard to learn when each company has a completely different idea and technology for playing the game. Like the new VR tech and ideas that will be possible because of it.
That... actually validates what the exec said. You're saying games are easy to pick up... as long as you've had 10 years experience. It's very difficult to grow an audience (see my last post) if you're restricting your products to whatever your audience was 10 years ago.
If games can't reach new audiences then, at best, they're doomed to a slow and drawn out death by suffocation. The old audience won't last forever.
Plus, there's perfectly good design reasons to keep all of the non-unique parts of your games as uniform as possible. People who complain that all games are the same seem to be willfully ignorant of their differences. Anyone can pick similarities between two things. Did you know that Mario 64 and Killzone 3 are the same? Both have the player using a thumbstick to move around 80+% of the time and involve jumping and <... list all other similarities here>. Skyrim has a lot in common with Call of Duty, they must be the same too!
Or, to put it another way, if Assassin's Creed used different basic movement controls to GTA that wouldn't be "innovation", it would be "annoying". I'd have to re-learn how to move for no real reason, it'd distract from whatever else I'm doing in game at the time, and it'd add nothing to the game. It's arguably superior that they used the same basic movement as every other game and just added some new bits for free-running on top of that. I knew the basics as soon as I saw an over-the-shoulder camera, and all they had to do was point me at a corridor with some obstacles and tell me to "RT to free-run" to teach me all I needed to know to get started comfortably with the new mechanics. Can you convince me that's a bad thing?
The fact that there are common elements is not evidence of a lack of innovation. A lack of new elements would be evidence of that, and I can think of very few games that genuinely have no significant new elements (and the ones I can think of off the top of my head are all N'th entries in franchises).
@angrypenguin haha I guess I did, oops. I probably could have rephrased that as easier games exist already for people wanting to get into gaming. If they ever truly come to appreciate gaming they'll feel terrible for being the casual scrub that brought gaming down to the skill level of potato because all companies catered to the lowest common denominator and then complexity vanished entirely from the game industry.
I see my point was unclear. I was talking about things being dumbed down mechanically. Instead of systems being built up from previous iterations, they're all being homogenized. D2 --> D3. So much has been lost in order to make the console port easier.
But to that point, I would mention at dying light. I can't think about how many times I walked off a building because the jump controls break convention.
What about D3, compared to D2, is "dumbed down" in a way that will make console porting easier? Heck, they're both pretty darn simple games, and I thought D2 made it to consoles anyway?
There are plenty of examples of games getting, ahem, "dumbed down". (I'd rather call it "streamlined", myself, since simpler controls does not necessarily mean a simpler game.) But there are also plenty of examples of games building on rather than stripping out. Assassins Creed and Far Cry both spring to mind as ones I've played recently that seem to both keep the basics consistent and add new and interesting stuff.
We're talking about games now being as accessible as film, and this (along with films) means that the more mass market the audience, the simpler it has to be to digest.
Dumbing down is kind of the wrong way to look at things. I like to look at it as being more accessible. If it means tweaking the game so more people enjoy it - but not at the expense of hardcore players, then I think that's a lofty goal I'll happily aim for.
Some games don't bother and create a niche audience - for example dark souls (hardcore), civ (strategy) and so on.
Other games go to extremes. World of warcraft attempted to court all kinds of gamers but in the end had to accept it was a casual title. The flaw with world of warcraft was of it's own making, it couldn't be possibly hardcore and casual without giving casual a sense of the rewards available to the hardcore. This is because it's by large become a loot-oriented game.
I haven't played in several months so the only one I can remember is the skill slot limitations. If you're actually interested, it's covered in great detail on the diablo 3 forums.
@hippocoder several Diablo 2 stats were condensed into 3. Elemental damage types survived because they make good eyecandy for masses, but they have zero meaning gameplay wise as resistances from diablo 2 were lost. It's very clear and very depressing that the team that put 3 together has no idea what they are doing and the recent updates (recent as in barely anything in the past year) show no sign of improvement. I hate when people lose control over an IP and some other team screws it up :/
I could go on with examples of systems in D2 that have been destroyed to be casual friendly, but I don't think my heart could take it
I miss mercs being useful and not overly talkative. I miss runewords. A white item - the lowest quality above broken items - with the right number of sockets - not just maxed sockets - can be the best item in the game. The fact that this blows WoW and D3 player's minds is a problem. The fact that DPS > all is a problem, and D3 sees that now with the only gem worth socketing being crit damage.
I'm sorry I just can't talk about it at length ;_;
I don't see anything wrong with this either. Audiences are getting younger and kids aren't taught critical thinking skills anymore so games need to target them.
However, like anything else, if you only make games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, you are going to lose in the end. Even casual gamers and kids often graduate to a more complex taste for games. Could be that we will see a division, if we don't already, between dumbed-down casual games that look hardcore and the really hardcore games.
Casual games are the entry level but there needs to be something to move onto when those games become too repetitive and too easy. I happen to love certain types of casual games but when I play a game that appears to be complex on the outside only to find it is simple on the inside, I am always disappointed.
That's the thing, though - you call it "destroyed" at the same time as accepting that it's been made more accessible. So it's moved away from your tastes and towards someone else's. You accuse the team of screwing it up, but perhaps what they've done is in fact exactly what they intended? Like Hippo says, WoW has been getting increasingly more casual over the years too. The difference is that it's happened gradually over years, where the changes from D2 to D3 happened far more noticeably over a small number of large releases.
So explain that one, then.
I suspect that over the last 10 or so years we've seen an increase in accessibility to cater for the fact that games have been becoming more mainsteam, and an increasing number of players have been new players - so more games have to help more people get on board more easily. Just like Tomnnn says about gamers from 10 years ago being able to pick up new titles easily, in another few years mainstream audiences will have similar levels of skills. Hopefully, as that happens even games aimed at mainstream audiences will be able to do more immediately complex things, because more of the target audience will be pre-equipped with relevant skills.
You could go on and on about things you think were ruined...
I could care less. My wife loves D3... we've played hundreds of hours.
The game is accessible enough that she understands how to make strong characters... it's accessible enough that she feels like she can experiment with builds without making a mistake, it's accessible enough that SHE LOVES IT.
Her paragon level is higher than mine.
To me, that's more golden than rune words... or any specific system involving the last game.
It's accepted by all reviewers and everyone I've talked to or read about, that the console versions of D3 are significantly better, in fact the best version of diablo, primarily because the controls are great on joypad.
I haven't tried them... so I have trouble understanding how that's possible... how do you aim a meteor?
Right on! Games are about the sum of their parts, not any individual thing, and when it comes to long term play I'd much rather something I can enjoy with other people than something I can't.
To me, as someone who hasn't played more than maybe 20 hours of each Diablo game, I don't actually know what's been "dumbed down". Both games feel the same. I don't care about how complex the numbers behind the scenes are since it doesn't make much, if any, difference to how I play. Bashing things up, upgrading, and collecting loot remain fundamentally unchanged. If the inner workings of those things can be made more accessible I don't see the issue. (I'm not saying there is no issue, clearly to advanced players there is one. I'm saying that people like me don't see it, and the game might be aimed more at people like me.)
Diablo is probably still too hard for me.