I more or less agree. However, going beyond message board arguments, I think it just depends on your perspective. For instance, take a polarizing game like Mass Effect 2. If you fell into the camp after playing the first of feeling that the combat was clunky, item management was cumbersome, and wanted more of a third-person shooter mechanic, then you'll praise the sequel for greatly streamlining all of that stuff. If you were a long time BioWare fan from back in the day where they focused on making RPGs for the PC, then you probably fell into the camp that feels that they dumbed down the combat to placate the console third person shooter fans.webrunner said:In message boards however it's basically "Streamlining" = This is fun!, "dumbing down" = WTF SCRUBS ARE RUINING GAMING
:lolcommish said:Semantics battle.... COMMENCE.
Winner!McNum said:Streamlining = Improving accessibility (making actions easier to do)
Dumbing down = Removing gameplay depths or features
They're not mutually exclusive.
Billychu said:Streamlining: Mass Effect 2
The leveling up system in the first game bothered me because each trait had three milestones with a whole bunch of useless point sinks in between. What's the difference between 3 and 4 points in Throw? Not a whole lot. In Mass Effect 2 each time you increase the level of a skill it has a large effect.
Dumbing Down: Civilization Revolution
I think this game speaks for itself.
EDIT: I agree with everyone that Mass Effect 2's inventory was a dumbing down. Before you argue with me, I'm only talking about the level up/ability system.
Revolutionary said:If it were streamlined, these various elements would have been tweaked to be more easily accessible. Instead, they were removed.. therefore: dumbed down.
semiconcious said:you can make gameplay straight-forward, but still challenging, or you can simply remove any sense of challenge...
I guess it's really an example of both. Allocating points is streamlined, but the number of abilities you can allocate them to was dumbed down. But on the other hand, each class was more unique because they usually had at least 2 unique skills which I think adds more depth in which class you pick.Alucrid said:The ability system was pretty dumbed down. Before you could have access to numerous abilities, now you were stuck with five or so. Sure, it made it easier, but it also made it worse.
Ushojax said:So taking out rubbish like the awful inventory is dumbing down? Why would anyone want to be fiddling around managing their inventory in a game about shooting space Terminators and sexing up blue aliens? Some things just don't fit or get in the way of things, elements like the bike sequences in No More Heroes or the hub in Mario Galaxy were removed for a good reason. They were shit. I'm sure some strange people enjoyed them but that doesn't mean it was worth building on them.
F- See me after class.Solstice said:Here it is:
So do I get paid now or something?
Confidence Man said:The inventory needed to be streamlined, i.e. made more efficient. Easier to navigate, proper categorization, stacking items, and whatever else you would expect from a normal inventory.
Instead they just removed loot and items. They dumbed it down instead of streamlining.
The inventory is probably a better case for 'streamlining' versus 'dumbing down' than the skill system, though. The skill system changes removed extraneous (meaningless 'sink' ranks in each skill, condensing multiple skills that only give benefits in the form of tiny incremental percentage increases to stats into a single class skill, removing the incongruity of having essentially one kind of skill that isn't combat focused but draws from the same skill point pool as your combat skills) and degenerate (Barrier and Immunity skills which obviated several other core mechanics entirely) elements of the sytem, but it also removed the special weapon abilities like Carnage. (Weapon proficiencies were a stupid idea, but the skills attached to them added something, even if what they added is totally overshadowed by the increased depth to other aspects of combat).Billychu said:EDIT: I agree with everyone that Mass Effect 2's inventory was a dumbing down. Before you argue with me, I'm only talking about the level up/ability system.
It's also an RPG. Should Dragon Age not have an inventory because fantasy based hack n slash games exist? Completely removing a feature and not offering something that acts in a somewhat similar manner is dumbing down. It's not streamlined if its gone.Ushojax said:But removing the inventory altogether made the game more efficient. The loot was a big loss and they shouldn't have gimped that but the rest was pointless anyway. A game like Mass Effect, a conversational shooting game, doesn't need an inventory, it needs a weapon wheel and a loadout screen, that's it.
Ushojax said:But removing the inventory altogether made the game more efficient. The loot was a big loss and they shouldn't have gimped that but the rest was pointless anyway. A game like Mass Effect, a conversational shooting game, doesn't need an inventory, it needs a weapon wheel and a loadout screen, that's it.
How is the first game streamlined? Compared to what? It's the first game in the series. And how was 2 dumbed down? The first game's missions were so repetitive and mechanical. 2 completely fixed that and added variety. Unless you enjoyed "Do 3 out of the same 6 missions, kill guy, repeat" for the entire game.soyboy said:Assassin's Creed = Streamlined
Assassin's Creed II = Dumbing down
Billychu said:It's also an RPG. Should Dragon Age not have an inventory because fantasy based hack n slash games exist? Completely removing a feature and not offering something that acts in a somewhat similar manner is dumbing down. It's not streamlined if its gone.
Billychu said:It's also an RPG. Should Dragon Age not have an inventory because fantasy based hack n slash games exist? Completely removing a feature and not offering something that acts in a somewhat similar manner is dumbing down. It's not streamlined if its gone.
duckroll said:Dumbing down isn't always a bad thing, it can be a good thing when a developer realizes that the strength of a certain franchise lies in one area more so than another area, and chooses consciously to dumb down on area and polish up another.
Ushojax said:But removing the inventory altogether made the game more efficient. The loot was a big loss and they shouldn't have gimped that but the rest was pointless anyway. A game like Mass Effect, a conversational shooting game, doesn't need an inventory, it needs a weapon wheel and a loadout screen, that's it.
Rolf NB said:Both terms describe the exact same thing, only wrapped in a positive or negative light.
Streamlining = successful marketing
Dumbing down = failed marketing
DeaconKnowledge said:Streamlining - What console owners call it
dumbing down - what PC owners call it
Mystic Theurge said:I like the change = streamlined
I hate the change = dumbed down.
soyboy said:Assassin's Creed = Streamlined
Assassin's Creed II = Dumbing down
Confidence Man said:It made it more efficient at the expense of having options to equip weapons, armor, items, or mods on the fly. Same with not letting you level up in a mission or outfit your party.
Mystic Theurge and soyboy have to get Member status somehow :lolduckroll said:I know it can often be very easy to just go "haha this isn't worth discussing, it's the exact same thing!" but well, if you feel that way, you can either justify that argument with supported points which can be debated, or you can simply not post a reply to the thread. Extra noise isn't very meaningful.
I think this is often the case, but I think it only crosses the line towards dumbing down when the skill-based actions contributed significantly to what made the game enjoyable or marketable.duckroll said:There are various different sorts of examples when talking about streamlining vs dumbing down, I think I will tackle how I feel about interface and challenge in this topic.
Streamlining would be like adding continue to a game over screen, checkpoints throughout a level, ability to skip cutscenes, and possibly even an easy mode. The ability to pause at any time, and in RPGs the ability to save (or quicksave) anywhere, would also count as streamlining.
Dumbing down would be replacing actual skill based input actions with automatic actions (like instead of having a jump and/or evade button, using context sensitive auto-jump and QTE evasion).
Having zero penalty for failure is also a form of dumbing down. Games which streamline (continue, checkpoints, save anywhere, etc) can also be guilty of dumbing a game down if the challenge in the game is not designed to fit the streamlined functions. If it becomes easier for a player to want to keep playing because he is not punished severely for failing, then each instance or sequence in the game should be an interesting challenge of value to make up for it.
If you have checkpoints in an action game, the challenges between checkpoints should be significant enough that you actually feel like you earned the progress to the next checkpoint.
If you have save anywhere in a RPG, then the battles and progression in the RPG should remain interesting in each instance, such that poor players get the benefit of the retry features without feeling frustrated, but more experienced players still feel that the challenge is from each individual encounter, instead of a slow wearing down of the player's items and stats. The latter is a form of balance when save points are employed, but without save points the balance could be shifted to making each and every encounter more significant instead.
That's how I feel about this subject anyway.