The Perpetual Dumbing Down of Video Games

When will it end? I've read an article on the fall of rainbow six.

With the possibility of having up to 4 teams or 8 operatives under your command (though this varies between games) it was up to you to utilise their skills as best you could, the more time you spent planning how they would handle certain situations, along with choosing the right gear for their part in the mission, meant less time replaying the same scenario over and over again.

As for making mistakes, the AI left you with very little margin for error. Playing the game on the harder difficulty levels would mean if you did slip up, you would slip out for good, having to restart the mission if you played to keep everyone in the team alive. Razor sharp aiming and observations skills were a necessity.

It was punishing, sometimes frustrating, but the goal was to always learn from your mistakes. The game wasn't about giving you super powers or an "edge" over the enemy. The playing field was leveled. This was Rainbow Six...........

............For a game that was once so reliant on the player to overcome difficult situations by using their wits, Rainbow Six had now resorted to overly used gameplay mechanics such as health regeneration, a 3rd person cover system, corridor based levels and over the top action orientated gameplay. Health regeneration… in a Rainbow Six game? Blasphemy. At one time the playing field was leveled, now you were virtually invincible.........

........Is it worth mentioning that I was 12 when I first played the original Rainbow Six from beginning to end? Before that, Goldeneye on my N64 was the most complex FPS in my collection. The adaptation was hardly demanding.......

Phil

This guy greatly sums up everything why I do not want to pay $60 for any videogame coming out in the future, especially looking back at the recent final fantasy and call of duty 8333: Can 12 year olds properly aim with a joystick: Nope we need to put in a helper aim option and make sure it's on by default to not hurt their feelings.

With new technology and such, shouldn't games be a little bit more engaging? Considering that game mechanics have not changed at all as well. Call of duty 1 is the same as black ops with dumbed down AI and awesome blurry low res textures! At least in f.e.a.r, I had nice high res industrial pipes to look at!

Yes, yes, its all terrible. Stop gaming and start a stamp collection or something.

It is nice that the gaming industry is trying to appeal to a greater audiencebut as you can see from this generation that trying to appeal to such a wide group of people can hinder the quality of a game. This rainbow six franchise is just one of many victims dumbed down to appeal to the masses.

That's just a result of developers trying to meet the market's demands. A complex, strategic shooter like the Rainbow Six of old isn't something that would be successful in today's market, I think. Heck, any slower paced shooter like that probably wouldn't fair well. I'm sure they wouldn't have done that if they didn't have to, but when your trying to make a profit, you haven't got much choice but to meet the market's needs.

I'm sure complex shooters will eventually make a comeback somewhere down the line, though. Everyone just needs to get past the current obsession with fast-paced, trigger-happy style of gameplay that's all the rage currently.

The influx of COD titles are the main cause. After their success of "Glorifying" war FPS games have been dumbed down considerably. Its all about how fast things can happen and there is no pacing involved. Just moment after moment of eye candy. It looks great but you need to slow things down every now and then instead of keeping it at 11 the whole time. Thats why im hoping BF3 can remedy this as the trailers show some good pacing

That's just a result of developers trying to meet the market's demands. A complex, strategic shooter like the Rainbow Six of old isn't something that would be successful in today's market, I think. Heck, any slower paced shooter like that probably wouldn't fair well. I'm sure they wouldn't have done that if they didn't have to, but when your trying to make a profit, you haven't got much choice but to meet the market's needs.

I'm sure complex shooters will eventually make a comeback somewhere down the line, though. Everyone just needs to get past the current obsession with fast-paced, trigger-happy style of gameplay that's all the rage currently.

c_rake

There is a market for these kind of games as there was then, today more than ever considering the over-saturation of script heavy shooters that don't demand tactics or strategy from the player. It's just not in the 'highstreet retail' megabudget shooters, and it never was - Rainbow Six was always a game in a niche category.skrat_01

Perhaps, but that niche market isn't profitable enough for most developers to consider it worthwhile. Big publishers like Ubisoft, for instance, likely wouldn't risk catering to a niche market because the returns likely wouldn't be enough to make up for development costs. For them, a game needs to be successful above all else. Smaller developers could likely get away with it easier due to them not being held so closely to what the mainstream market wants, but unless they were to distribute it themselves, I can't imagine them having much success getting such games out the door on account of publishers not wanting to take too many risks.

It was probably easier back in the day for shooters of that kind to get made because videogames weren't such a booming business back then. Risky titles could easily get made and published because the "core" market was the main audience they were catering to. Now that things have changed, that's no longer the case, and therefore such titles have a harder time being green-lighted due to their uncertainty of success at retail. It's how business works.

I'm not as hung up on "hardcore" gameplay mechanics as other people. I like regenerating health and other "handicaps" because now that I have a job that follows me home I really don't have time to waste replaying the same 10 minutes of a level over and over and over again just to get past one part. Maybe some people find that fun, but I just find it rage inducingly frustrating. What I do hate is how games are getting more and more shallow. For example, compare Morrowind to Oblivion or Crysis 1 to Crysis 2.

I also hate how multiplayer in FPS games these days is just "whoever shoots first wins". While I love twitch FPS games, the older ones like Unreal Tournament and Quake at least required some skill to play. In those games while everything was fast paced the fights you would get into would normally go on for a lot longer than just half a second. Just because you got the jump on someone didn't mean you had already won. Sure, you had an advantage, but you then had to follow through and proceed to keep hitting him while avoiding his fire. With modern FPS games you may as well just roll the dice everytime you entire a match to see what your K/D will be. It's common for me in modern FPS games to go 20-0 in one match and then 3-15 in another one right after that. Don't even get me started on the horrible trend of killstreaks and perks that COD started.

i think the whole "dumbing down" thing gets overexaggerated. as others have said, atleast some games have been simplified for a wider audience. however, part of the perceived problem is nostalgia. i think deus ex, morrowind, and planescape are all atleast good games (i love deus ex and planescape is very good). but jesus, those are not extremely complex games. there are recent mainstream games like DAO that are comparable in terms of complexity.

even then, complexity is a quality a good game might have and not one it must have. its something a player could reasonably expect in a simulator or strategy game, but not every game should have it. i consider ico to be one of the greatest games of all time and its certainly not complex in terms of mechanics. the biggest thing you need to complete that game is human empathy.

Maybe you guys are just getting older and smarter.

This guy greatly sums up everything why I do not want to pay $60 for any videogame coming out in the future, especially looking back at the recent final fantasy and call of duty 8333: Can 12 year olds properly aim with a joystick: Nope we need to put in a helper aim option and make sure it's on by default to not hurt their feelings.

With new technology and such, shouldn't games be a little bit more engaging? Considering that game mechanics have not changed at all as well. Call of duty 1 is the same as black ops with dumbed down AI and awesome blurry low res textures! At least in f.e.a.r, I had nice high res industrial pipes to look at!

dmc333

Your argument is entirely unsubstantiated.

Rainbow Six was a niche type of game from the outset and regardless of whiny little Phil's laborious lamentations, had the franchise not seen adjustments it probably would have ceased to exist entirely. While it is certainly true that this particular game was simplified and placed into a traditional shooter construct, that fact alone doesn't prove the rest of the industry has followed suit.

As to Call of Duty, plenty of hardcore gamers play it at incredibly high levels of competition and while it's not something I care for the gameplay mechanics are hardly without skill or refinement. The COD franchise was one of the first to allow bullets to perforate and strike opponents through walls, floors, ceilings, etc and each iteration is a continued refinement of the perk system while striving for multiplayer balance. Again, it's not to my taste but COD is a quality offering and hardly a bastion for the casual gamer.And the latest Final Fantast got slammed both critically and commercially yet I don't recall the issue ever being one of the mechanics being streamlined or simplified. You seem to be putting forward two separate arguments on the state of gaming but neither is clearly defined. If stagnation is the primary concern, that is often the result of developers caving into the hardcore crowd and not looking to make a game more widely accessible. Yet by contrast you seem angry that games like Rainbow Six evolve and change because such alterations, at least in your mind, are a way to "dumb down" the mechanics.

So which is it? Because innovation will often incite pseudo-intellectual deconstruction and accusations of a franchise being "dumbed down" while not making changes to a franchise will usually elicit accusations of stagnancy.

Of course, none of this really matter because again, you've yet to make a cogent point. Three games are not proof of a decline in gaming IQ and like most lazy propagandists you have used a feeble foundation to erect a crass, monolithic generalization in the hopes that bombast and bravado alone will keep your structure from tumbling. However, you ignore the many, many challenging and complex titles available that reward skill and player dedication. If everything played like WiiSports and games like Demon Souls, Bayonetta, MvC3, Contra Hard Corps, Portal (1 and 2) Crysis 2, etc didn't exist you'd have a damn fine point but as it stands they do and you have nary a leg to stand on.

This doom and gloom perspective on the medium has gotten tiresome, especially when predicated on such poor logic.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]There is a market for these kind of games as there was then, today more than ever considering the over-saturation of script heavy shooters that don't demand tactics or strategy from the player. It's just not in the 'highstreet retail' megabudget shooters, and it never was - Rainbow Six was always a game in a niche category.c_rake

Perhaps, but that niche market isn't profitable enough for most developers to consider it worthwhile. Big publishers like Ubisoft, for instance, likely wouldn't risk catering to a niche market because the returns likely wouldn't be enough to make up for development costs. For them, a game needs to be successful above all else. Smaller developers could likely get away with it easier due to them not being held so closely to what the mainstream market wants, but unless they were to distribute it themselves, I can't imagine them having much success getting such games out the door on account of publishers not wanting to take too many risks.

It was probably easier back in the day for shooters of that kind to get made because videogames weren't such a booming business back then. Risky titles could easily get made and published because the "core" market was the main audience they were catering to. Now that things have changed, that's no longer the case, and therefore such titles have a harder time being green-lighted due to their uncertainty of success at retail. It's how business works.

How else do their pubished games like The Settlers 7, Anno and the recent IL2: Cliffs of Dover - or hell; the Silent Hunter series get releases?

Budgeting and knowing your audience, that's why these IPs are still around and focus on their specific player base.

The difference is now is that Ubisoft had the IP and the clancy license. It was a shooter IP - shooters are hot property right now. So they did what any company that wants to make dent with a shooter IP - make it for a very general market and cull the game to accommodate it.

Also keep in mind that the Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter games got specific PC releases as well, that were more tactically slanted than their console counterparts; despite following the 'Advanced Warfighter' theme.

This was never the case for Rainbow Six.

There is an audience and a market for it, it's just a matter of knowing your audience and budgeting your production appropriately. That's why we're getting to play Red Orchestra 2 in a day and age where shooters are about making everyone feel like a winner.

Game companies are in it to make money. There is money in the casual market.

There is also a lot of money in the core market, which is why we continue to get complex games along with the simple ones. And if it really is frustrating one to the extent that they want to quit playing new games, he or she could always play some terrific legacy titles until something they want gets released.

They're video games. They never required much thought to begin with. If you want to use your head, go play chess.

They're video games. They never required much thought to begin with. If you want to use your head, go play chess.

ROFLCOPTER603

That depends entirely on what you're playing. However I never thought that using your head was such a burden anyway...

[QUOTE="dmc333"]

This guy greatly sums up everything why I do not want to pay $60 for any videogame coming out in the future, especially looking back at the recent final fantasy and call of duty 8333: Can 12 year olds properly aim with a joystick: Nope we need to put in a helper aim option and make sure it's on by default to not hurt their feelings.

With new technology and such, shouldn't games be a little bit more engaging? Considering that game mechanics have not changed at all as well. Call of duty 1 is the same as black ops with dumbed down AI and awesome blurry low res textures! At least in f.e.a.r, I had nice high res industrial pipes to look at!

Grammaton-Cleric

Your argument is entirely unsubstantiated.

Rainbow Six was a niche type of game from the outset and regardless of whiny little Phil's laborious lamentations, had the franchise not seen adjustments it probably would have ceased to exist entirely. While it is certainly true that this particular game was simplified and placed into a traditional shooter construct, that fact alone doesn't prove the rest of the industry has followed suit.

As to Call of Duty, plenty of hardcore gamers play it at incredibly high levels of competition and while it's not something I care for the gameplay mechanics are hardly without skill or refinement. The COD franchise was one of the first to allow bullets to perforate and strike opponents through walls, floors, ceilings, etc and each iteration is a continued refinement of the perk system while striving for multiplayer balance. Again, it's not to my taste but COD is a quality offering and hardly a bastion for the casual gamer.And the latest Final Fantast got slammed both critically and commercially yet I don't recall the issue ever being one of the mechanics being streamlined or simplified. You seem to be putting forward two separate arguments on the state of gaming but neither is clearly defined. If stagnation is the primary concern, that is often the result of developers caving into the hardcore crowd and not looking to make a game more widely accessible. Yet by contrast you seem angry that games like Rainbow Six evolve and change because such alterations, at least in your mind, are a way to "dumb down" the mechanics.

So which is it? Because innovation will often incite pseudo-intellectual deconstruction and accusations of a franchise being "dumbed down" while not making changes to a franchise will usually elicit accusations of stagnancy.

Of course, none of this really matter because again, you've yet to make a cogent point. Three games are not proof of a decline in gaming IQ and like most lazy propagandists you have used a feeble foundation to erect a crass, monolithic generalization in the hopes that bombast and bravado alone will keep your structure from tumbling. However, you ignore the many, many challenging and complex titles available that reward skill and player dedication. If everything played like WiiSports and games like Demon Souls, Bayonetta, MvC3, Contra Hard Corps, Portal (1 and 2) Crysis 2, etc didn't exist you'd have a damn fine point but as it stands they do and you have nary a leg to stand on.

This doom and gloom perspective on the medium has gotten tiresome, especially when predicated on such poor logic.

No way... How can you say the industry has not followed suit?? COD, Mass Effect 2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Operation Flashpoint, Crysis 2, Civilization 5, Dragon Age 2, Resident Evil 5 and Killzone 3 are just a few of the games that have been shamelessly stripped of difficulty and variety. And then they use the term "streamlining" because most people don't realise that it's simply a sly way of describing a way of making something easier. A game doesn't have to be dumbed down to be more accessible but it is certainly the easiest way and that is the route that the industry is taking.

And the argument about COD can be used for anything. Sewing isn't the hardest thing in the world to do either but I'm sure I'd get pwned by 20 time world champion Gertrude because she's simply better at it than me. That doesn't make sewing "hardcore" at all.

I liked the article and really shows how far the R6 series has fallen. The only reason I ever wanted a PC was to play R6 after reading an article about it in the AJC many years ago. I enjoyed how it played and how it had someone use their head to play instead of just running around and shooting everything. I even got the Collector's Edition as it was something I enjoyed along with flight sims.

When RSE released GR I played the daylights out if it too. I also picked up Silent Hunter II and Destroyer Commander and iL2 Sturmovik, all published by Ubi. I followed up with SHIII and eventually SHIV and the ACEs expansion pack, Pacific Fighters, iL2 1946 and LoMac, again all published by Ubi. I won't buy anything else by Ubi as everything they have touched has become dumbed down (Cliffs of Dover excluded). Ubi moved to the cookie cutter game type market and did dumb down everything. You can see it in the Vegas 2 video with the low ammo pop ups (these are also in the latest Splinter Cell except even larger, think half a building tall letters) and the cheesy dialogue from all the characters. SHV even has torpedoes that can have their range magically extended.

Ubi used to have a corner on niche market games as evidenced by their catalog over the years to go with the games that would appeal to mainstream gamers and they made money at it (why else would they keep making SH games or continue to bankroll Oleg Maddox for iL2). Still, they took original series that were a cut above everything else and made them just like everything else.

Still, I have it on good authority that RSE was looking to make their games appeal to other gamers besides those of us hardcore gamers who like to use our heads. At least there is one person willing to take a risk and create a game that goes back to the roots of R6/GR that didn't have meaningless gameplay. The former lead level designer for R6/RS/GR has his own studio and is creating a game that will give us something that expands on what those first R6/GR games gave us.

They're video games. They never required much thought to begin with. If you want to use your head, go play chess.

ROFLCOPTER603

They're video games. They never required much thought to begin with. If you want to use your head, go play chess.

ROFLCOPTER603