erragal said:
It's not about the difficulty or skill level at all. Obviously almost no games are challenging to play at a basic level; I feel like you're obsessing over the use of the word 'stupid' and taking it too literally for a translated interview.
Maybe you overestimate the average (Not core) gaming community/critical press? People will see that you -can- shoot, try the game out and be turned off by the lack of handholding. Those people don't buy the game and then you don't get a larger budget to make a more ambitious/detailed game that fits your vision even better. That's what this is all about.
I won't disagree that part of it IS competition. There's still NOTHING that says that people are actually stupid because they choose to play COD. It's meant to be a criticism of the game design being dumbed down and decreasing the players analytical/reaction skills; IE the game itself makes them less competent at playing HIS games. Maybe he feels he has to make his game less difficult so he can be successful; don't you find that to be a problem at all? If the general skill level of players is lower it's difficult to make games that require more demanding skillsets while still appealing to people that enjoy fast-paced fluid first-person games.
It's a bit of a tangent but my best example of this would be complex raid encounters in MMO games. They've become infinitely more complex mechanically since the Everquest days and yet more people engage in that activity than ever before; by progressing the average skill levels of players in the genre you've increased the cap of difficulty/complexity you can design an element thus giving you improved creativity and raise the expectations you can have for players.
I just don't see it. "Dumb" games have been made since gaming was invented, it doesn't detract from the fact "smart" games are being made. ME2 dumbed down? I didn't think so, I think they took out an archaic item inventory that can be streamlined more efficiently. The game itself was still a lot of fun and ME1 was never "complicated" in the first place.
It sounds like he's making excuses for why his game won't sell. Did Oblivion's complications make it so Fallout 3 didn't sell? Is the fact that Fallout 3 has a ton of things to do and explore along with an archaic inventory system stop people from wanting Skyrim?
I mean, I get what you're saying, but I don't see the correlation. People keep talking about the "dudebro" of gaming but it's been fairly easy for me to avoid that with my game selection.
The existence of easy games doesn't make his game more complicated and it won't hinder people's experience if it's actually a good game.
darkpaladinmfc said:
People enjoying it doesn't make it good.
Actually, yes it does. It doesn't make it good for you, but it does for them. One man's trash is another man's treasure and all that.
