-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What is the line between "streamlining" and "dumbing down?"
- Thread starter ACE 1991
- Start date
Here is my definition.
Streamlining: Making a command easier to perform, or making the learning curve quicker. Examples: Equiping stuff in P3 vs. P4. Reducing/rearranging menus. Reworking control schemes. Context sensitive stuff especially when dealing with limited input buttons.
Dumbing down: Removal of a command or action from a game without substituting a similar mechanic. Examples: Removal of equipable items and inventories, removal of skill trees, removal of religion from Civ, etc etc.
I am not attaching a judgement to these definitions. Sometimes I think streamlining can hurt a game, though rare. Example: having a context sensitive button that always makes you do the right thing for that situation. And sometimes dumbing down is necessary, more common. Example: Many a jrpg I think is ruined by needlessly complicated crafting systems that take you out of the gameplay and story and involve ridiculous collecting requirements and require buying strategy guides. Perhaps dev time should be focused on what the game does well and nix the bad gameplay elements.
Streamlining: Making a command easier to perform, or making the learning curve quicker. Examples: Equiping stuff in P3 vs. P4. Reducing/rearranging menus. Reworking control schemes. Context sensitive stuff especially when dealing with limited input buttons.
Dumbing down: Removal of a command or action from a game without substituting a similar mechanic. Examples: Removal of equipable items and inventories, removal of skill trees, removal of religion from Civ, etc etc.
I am not attaching a judgement to these definitions. Sometimes I think streamlining can hurt a game, though rare. Example: having a context sensitive button that always makes you do the right thing for that situation. And sometimes dumbing down is necessary, more common. Example: Many a jrpg I think is ruined by needlessly complicated crafting systems that take you out of the gameplay and story and involve ridiculous collecting requirements and require buying strategy guides. Perhaps dev time should be focused on what the game does well and nix the bad gameplay elements.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
My post was clearly intentioned. If you didn't want me to expound on it, you shouldn't have asked me to. That's all.
Momo said:
Yes, I agree with this point. Bioshock is one of the most disappointing cases of dumbing down I've played in recent years. The expectations of a Ken Levine game + the legacy of System Shock really made it a lot harder to swallow. Bioshock is not a bad game at all, but it could have been so much better and so much more unique if they stuck to retaining the complexity of the original SS games. :/
Sorry to keep harping on this point, but since the game came out I have really been looking for a non-inflammatory place to have this discussion: What exactly about ME2 doesn't make it a better (or at the very least, equal) core RPG than ME1?duckroll said:
- I don't think you can make the argument that it's because statistical skills no longer affect your accuracy with weapons. In Tales or Demon's Souls (or [action RPG of choice]), right from level 1 a sword will swing exactly as accurately as it will at level 99, and nobody is saying that they aren't RPGs because of it.
- I don't think it can come down to a lack of inventory, because the inventory is there, and has more meaningful variety than the first game. The incremental upgrades that came from ME1's series of, say, Tsunami III versus Tsunami IX is intact in ME2 in the form of weapon damage upgrades. The weapons do not behave the same within a weapon type, so rather than having four weapon types with a huge range of highly-granular linear upgrades, you have somewhere in the area of 15~25 weapon types with a lower granularity of linear upgrades (not counting Heavy Weapons, which I think are a major point in ME2's favour over the first game).
Likewise, the linear upgrades to armour effectiveness are mirrored in upgrades to shields, health, regeneration, etc, through the upgrade terminal.
- I don't think you can boil it down to changes in the skill system. Once you remove the 'sink' ranks in skills from ME1, there aren't more than three or four actual tiers to each skill. Weapon proficiencies are mostly obviated by making the player's skill determine accuracy; armour proficiencies were kind of a nothing skill except as a prereq for other, worthwhile skills. Defensive skills completely undermined several other mechanics, like taking cover or healing, and removed depth from the game, so they were relegated to class and loyalty skills. Persuasion skills were an incongruity from day one; every other skill in the game was combat-related, and Mass Effect was never the sort of game where combat was optional; the bulk of Charm/Intimidate's purpose was shifted over to the dialogue/conversation part of the game where it actually had relevance, and the rest was folded into the bonus you get from raising your class skill. Once you take out the skills that are made irrelevant or moved into more sensible places within the design, Shepard has essentially the same number of skills available in ME2 as in ME1.
Individual squadmates definitely did take a hit to the number of skills available to them, but you had more than twice as many party members available to you, so this seems like a conscious design decision to remove emphasis from the "build" of your squadmates and put emphasis on the "build" of your party, so rather than taking the same two people through the entire game, you switched it up depending on who would be more useful.
- I don't think you can attribute it to the mission-based structure of the game. Similar to how you're 'locked in' to a certain set of weapons and squadmates once you start a mission, it's not uncommon in traditional games for you to be 'locked in' to, say, class or skill changes if you need to make those swaps at a specific building in a town (say, changing up which six Pokemon you have). Giving experience in a lump sum at the completion of a mission, and not awarding experience per-enemy-killed aren't non-RPG elements either; those things have been present in a wide variety of video games and tabletop RPGs for years and years.
I can't think of any gameplay elements involving actual "RPG"-ish decisions that aren't present in ME2 that were in ME1. The interface is different, for sure - instead of looting enemies during a quest and finding a gun with 80 damage to replace your 60 damage gun, you get an upgrade during the quest that upgrades your 60 damage gun to an 80 damage gun - but the actual effect on gameplay is essentially identical. Is it really just down to perception and tradition?
flyinpiranha
Member
Tain said:
But that's on a user level, not a game level. Like my Forza 3 example the driving line and rewind are additional options but I know a lot of people feel that it's "dumbing it down".
Same with GT5 if you look at the thread when people asked about rewind if it was in and there were a few answers of "I hope not" ... my question is why? It's an option. You don't have to use it.
I'm not sure I really understand your overshadowing comment as these options are usually left up to the user.
Yes, making a multi-dimensional game one dimensional. Introducing a mechanic that is more time efficient or more powerful than other mechanics in the game. An example would be putting an overpowered weapon in an FPS that specializes in a variety of weapons creating different tactical approaches. If there is no advantage to using the other weapons, then you have just made your game simpler.Tain said:
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
The overall best game possible would necessarily be streamlined. It would have a small learning curve for all basic functions of the game, yet would have a much larger learning curve for more complex and hardcore aspects.
The more complex stuff would in no way interfere with the more basic functions in the game, yet would add to the depth and give you an advantage when mastered.
Dumbed-down is just that...dumb. Simplicity that compromises quality.
The more complex stuff would in no way interfere with the more basic functions in the game, yet would add to the depth and give you an advantage when mastered.
Dumbed-down is just that...dumb. Simplicity that compromises quality.
Yeah, this is usually (or at least I've usually seen it referred to as) called degenerate design, where certain options or elements of the design render other options or mechanics useless, by making all other nuances of the system poor and useless in comparison to a single, dominant strategy.dionysus said:
I don't think I've seen a better textbook example of it in an actual game than Too Human (and I'm sure nobody's going to take offense if I say something in Too Human was bad). You had an entire character class called the Defender based around, well, defense. Wore huge, powerful armour, had passive and active skills all devoted to soaking up damage, and as a tradeoff, was probably the weakest class in the game offensively. The problem being that the standard roll-dodge, available to every class, was orders of magnitude more effective at avoiding damage, giving you invulnerability that let you roll through almost every single source of damage in the game without taking a scratch (even if you were poisoned, you were supposed to lose a certain amount of health every few seconds, but if you were rolling when that counter ticked down, you wouldn't take any damage).
So you had an entire character class, ostensibly supposed to come with his own set of strengths and weaknesses to balance him against every other class in the game, but because the balance of the game was so degenerate and the action portions of the game were so dominant over the statistical portions of the game, what you ended up with was just a character that was slower, weaker, and generally worse than any other type of character you could make. The game would lose no depth and would not be dumbed down in any meaningful way if the Defender had been omitted entirely*.
*
Actually had the game shipped with 4-player co-op the Defender's party-wide defensive skills may have multiplied enough across the group to make the character worthwhile as a support character, but, you know, would've, could've, should've.
Coxswain said:
Okay let's see. I think this can be tackled in a logical manner.
I agree, and I think that in all action RPGs when the player is giving control of combat in realtime, accuracy should be determined by skill and not dice rolls. This is very important, or the "action" part becomes undermined. Instead stats should determine damage, critical chances on normal shots, etc.
I think this can be argued for sure. Having an inventory does not determine if a game is a RPG or not. But removing the inventory in a sequel from a RPG which had one, is definitely a removal of a RPG function. Having an actual physical inventory with a space limit and having items which take up space creates a simulation of weight and volume. It is definitely a key component of role playing in feeling that you are able to carry X amount of items, and sorting through what you need/want and what you do not to create space for more.
The way this was implemented in ME1 was poor, and I don't miss it one bit in terms of it creating a good game environment. But when discussing the core RPG elements from ME1 to ME2, this was definitely one which was lost. It could have been improved and made more meaningful, instead it was disposed of entirely. So that makes it -less- of a RPG compared to ME1.
This is true. In this sense, ME2 pretty similar to FFXIII. The spread of skills across different party members meant that building a party and formation to have the balance you want for combat is more important than building an individual character. I don't really think the skill progression is a problem in ME2, but....
There is nothing wrong with the mission -structure- of the game in terms of being more or less RPG, but the way the mission structure is designed is actually a KEY component of what makes ME2 much less of a RPG than ME1. You get no experience at all for accomplishing any task outside of a mission. All character growth is tied to two things: money and experience. And all of these things are packaged up in pre-set rewards.
You get [x] exp for completing a certain mission, regardless of how you did it, regardless of how many enemies you killed, regardless of whatever the character individually did. This is not proper RPG character progression. You are not being rewarded for specific direct actions, instead it has been, alas, dumbed down to accomplishing major goals and getting fixed rewards for it. It does not feel like the character himself is progressing, rather than the story and game itself which progresses at a steady pace, and the character just happens to grow with that progression.
Krauser Kat
Member
to me streamlining is removing 3 out of the 5 clicks in getting to the same result. The inventory system in ME could have been streamlined to better accommodate the player. Removing it completely is dumbing the game down for people who like micromanaging and rpg elements.
Also dumbing down the amount of abilities able to used at once. It was really satisfying to cast all of you abilities a once. like lifting, smashing and then pushing fucking halfway across the map made you feel so bad ass in ME1. In ME2 to get the same effect you need multiple biotics which really added more micromanagement and did not stream line the fighting. Adding ammo in clips and removing ammo types was the biggest WTF for me, it would make WAY more sense to have a clip of explosive ammo and infinite normal ammo than clips of everything or infinite explosive ammo just with more heat up.
I guess i lost the feeling of being a badass at the end of ME2 because the enemy types were the same damn thing i fought in the beginning and they were marginally less difficult to fight, where in Mass Effect 1 you became a goddamn spectre and those weapons vaulted you into super badassery, making you feel like you really progressed. ME2 lost that.
Also dumbing down the amount of abilities able to used at once. It was really satisfying to cast all of you abilities a once. like lifting, smashing and then pushing fucking halfway across the map made you feel so bad ass in ME1. In ME2 to get the same effect you need multiple biotics which really added more micromanagement and did not stream line the fighting. Adding ammo in clips and removing ammo types was the biggest WTF for me, it would make WAY more sense to have a clip of explosive ammo and infinite normal ammo than clips of everything or infinite explosive ammo just with more heat up.
I guess i lost the feeling of being a badass at the end of ME2 because the enemy types were the same damn thing i fought in the beginning and they were marginally less difficult to fight, where in Mass Effect 1 you became a goddamn spectre and those weapons vaulted you into super badassery, making you feel like you really progressed. ME2 lost that.
I'm still in complete shock how the Final Fantasy series went from the awesomeness of FFXII to the joke which is FFXIII. I know the games are independent from each other, but that was unacceptable. I don't know how but Square even managed to outdo Bioware. These are examples of dumbing down at its finest.
I guess AAA RPGs are doomed these days, if they're AAA, they can't be RPGs proper.
I guess AAA RPGs are doomed these days, if they're AAA, they can't be RPGs proper.
Krauser Kat
Member
the Witcher 2 says hello, and will hopefully shows us the way to a real "stream lined" RPGFio said:
I played a Defender through that game. "Oh well," I told myself, "even if it is the worst class now it's going to be hot shit when Too Human 2 rolls around and people are going to want a tank." Motherfucker.Coxswain said:
I just read that article this morning and it's a really great point. I am just getting started in Assassin's Creed 2 and it's in line with how I'm feeling about the game. The first game had mountains of flaws but I loved how meticulous and sim-like it was. It's definitely an entirely different beast than later entries, and I think I'd have liked to see the series evolve differently than it has. That said, I think AC2 took the necessary steps for the series to survive as an Ubisoft flagship title, and it is a really great game in its own right. It was a fundamental changing of the formula more than a streamlining, though.soyboy said:
And yeah "streamlining" and "dumbing down" are just two phrases for the same thing, it's all just dependent on who you ask.
Confidence Man
Member
Coxswain said:
In both Demon's Souls and Mass Effect (and every other RPG that comes to mind) your character's stats contribute to the effectiveness of your weapons, whether it's Str and Dex increasing damage in the case of DS or individual weapon proficiencies in ME increasing accuracy and unlocking new abilities. In either case your character's stats are informing the core mechanic of the game, something ME2 lacks.
Probably more a point of preference. I happen to like getting gobs of incremental upgrades and fiddling with which ones I want to give to which party member. Not being able to tinker with party member's equipment was also a sore point.
Shifting skills like weapon proficiencies or hacking from being informed by the character's stats solely to the player is absolutely making it less of a role playing game. When it comes to distributing points there is less to consider and fewer choices to make, pretty much exactly what I would call dumbing down.
As far as persuasion, in many instances combat was optional. It was a worthwhile skill to offer the player to invest in at the expense of something else.
It has more to do with the reason they disallowed it in the first place, which was because leveling up during a mission was "distracting". That and the way it was presented with the whole summary screen. I don't think anyone would argue that it doesn't make the game an RPG or less of one, just that it compromised the immersion.
Streamlining is removing the excess fluff, which was taking away from the what the developer saw as the game's core focus.
Dumbing Down has to do with a sequel or follow-up removing core mechanics/features which were previously present, because the developer believes that the majority of the audience wasn't getting anything from it, and wouldn't miss it.
Mass Effect 2 is a prime example; Dawn Of War II is another.
Dumbing Down has to do with a sequel or follow-up removing core mechanics/features which were previously present, because the developer believes that the majority of the audience wasn't getting anything from it, and wouldn't miss it.
I know duckroll is hating on this, but I can't help but feel that this is what it comes down two, when the community is split over the changes which were made in a sequel.Mystic Theurge said:
Mass Effect 2 is a prime example; Dawn Of War II is another.
I kind of take issue with this. Having a limited inventory, I agree, can be a meaningful component of RPG gameplay. When I play Demon's Souls or New Vegas or something like that, I'm very mindful of how much weight I'm carrying with me, because the more stuff I pack with me, the easier of a time I'm going to have when I leave my storage hub, but I know that I'm also going to run into more stuff than I can carry that I'd like to tote around to bring back to town, either because it's a good, useful item that will help me, or because I can really use the money I get from selling it.duckroll said:
In Mass Effect, did you ever really feel as though you had to make that choice? Were you ever honestly thinking, "Jeez, it would help me to carry these twenty extra guns, but that means I'm going to have to turn another twenty I find into Omni-gel"? Because I honestly don't see how it's possible for that to happen; if I recall correctly, equipped items don't count against your inventory limit, and since there's pretty much always a 'best' weapon, armour, omnitool, etc for a character you tend not to need backups of anything but certain weapon mods (ie: Extra Tungsten/Shredder rounds). With 150 slots, I think even if you prepare for even the most remote contingencies you'll be left with 70-100+ free spaces for items. And even if you do fill up that space, when in the game are you getting any significant benefit from being able to carry everything you find at once instead of just turning excess stuff into gel? I don't think there's much of a window in the game where the money you'd lose from having to gel items is going to give you much of a benefit. I think it's an issue of perception, rather than reality. Inventory limits were never much of a crunch in ME1, aside from a vague 'feeling' that you were limited in what you were carrying.
I don't think it's really fair to start saying that because, in a hypothetical alternate-universe ME2 where they fleshed out and expanded the inventory into a more ever-present and meaningful gameplay mechanic, the inventory could have been a legitimate RPG mechanic, that the ME2 that exists is less of an RPG than the ME1 that exists. (I don't think you were really advocating this line of thought, but just to avoid the argument getting a little meaningless, the comparisons should remain between ME2 and ME1)
I don't really buy this, though. Neither ME1 nor ME2 has gameplay which rewards the player differently (in terms of experience) based on how they play the game. It would be different from something like a JRPG where there are respawning/random encounters that you can grind against as long as you like to raise levels, or if it were like Alpha Protocol or Fallout where there are non-combat means to gain experience. They gave you a small, token amount of experience for opening locked chests and things like that, but the lion's share of the experience came from killing enemies (who spawned in fixed locations, in fixed numbers, and were largely unavoidable) and the quest rewards at the end of the mission, which is a finite and constant amount of experience.
There are some ways to game the system to get a little more, sure, but do you really want to count getting out of the Mako every time you want to deal the finishing blow to an enemy, or spending five minutes shooting Geth one-by-one as they come out of a drop ship, as significantly different ways of playing the game? Does that really reflect a change in playstyle, or just in knowing the mechanics well enough to squeeze some extra efficiency from the way you're already playing the game?
In fact I think you could make the argument that you do get variable amounts of experience in ME2 based on how you play the game. Lots of areas in ME2 will spawn a series of enemies to attack you, until you kill X number of them or until you advance far enough to trigger the spawns to stop. If you play aggressively and barrel your way through the level, you might end up fighting half the total number of enemies that you do if you play through the game slowly and methodically. If you look at the end-of-mission experience as what you get for all of your actions throughout the entire mission, that means that as the aggressive player, each enemy you kill is 'worth' twice as much experience as the enemies that the cautious player gets. Since playing aggressively and always moving forward is generally a higher-risk style of play, I think you could make the argument that ME2's system is a more appropriate and deeper method of distributing experience based on playstyle.
Also, it's not directly part of the mission-structure discussion, but in terms of the player's progression being the result of direct action, I think ME2 is unquestionably the winner there. The methods of getting experience are probably a wash as far as that goes (ME1 giving smaller increments for smaller actions; ME2 averaging out to a different amount of experience-per-action based on playstyle), the larger component of player progression is done through equipment and upgrades.
In ME1, the bulk of your upgrades come from randomized drops and chests. In the early game, Grenade and Medi-Gel upgrades cost only a pittance, and a few static items like Scorpion IV/VI armour on the Normandy are worthwhile, but you don't have enough money to buy weapons that are better than the ones you're finding until you can afford Spectre weapons, at which point the weapon upgrade path basically stops, and in the late game everything is randomized (even the Colossus armour that you might actually buy from the shops only shows up there randomly). The player has no real agency over his equipment upgrade path. Either the items you want drop, or they don't; you're either far too poor to afford upgrades, or you have so much money that the bottleneck is whether the shops randomly stock what you want.
In ME2, everything is player-driven. The player chooses which weapons to upgrade; the player chooses to upgrade weapons at all versus upgrading shields. The player chooses the order to visit areas in the game, and therefore chooses which order to find blueprints and weapons. Items in shops are both useful and relatively affordable right from the beginning of the game, and yet you never (at least until the very, very end) have the funds to just purchase every single thing you could possibly use. The player is given almost full agency over his upgrade path, from start to finish. I think that aspect of the game is (justifiably) dampened by how dull the resource mining is, but I don't think that really takes away from the fact that the player is given more and deeper choices about advancement in ME2, compared to ME1.
Host Samurai
Member
duckroll said:
Off the top of my head.
1) Inventory placement
2) Placement of enemies (remember the room with the 2 bells and 2 blind guys where you had to shoot the bells to distract them?) stuff like that was not present in 5 where it felt a lot more like a typical TPS
3) Longer even had lite puzzle elements
4) The upgrade system and lack of Merchant was a bit toned down
5) Was a much easier game
6) No enemies that you that required a certain tactic. Blind guys where you cant walk and had to shoot their back or Regenerators where you needed the night vision to shoot off
his weak points.
7) No yellow herb to upgrade health.
Host Samurai said:
This is probably the most staggering recent example of dumbing down, at least for a big franchise. Though I suppose it's not really the developers intention to simplify things rather they didn't know what the fuck they were doing and that was the best thing they could shit out in time. It would be like giving the Godfather Part 2 to George Lucas. You'd have to expect a turd.
More Fun To Compute
Member
This is what I think of when I hear the two terms.
As to how they are used in terms of games then I am not so sure.
A streamlined game to me is one that uses less naive design and engineering choices in order to get more performance or bang for buck. It has nothing to do with broadening the appeal of a title although increased overall quality of experience is a good selling point.
Dumbing down is simply when games are made to demand less from the player. Designed with the assumption that the player can't understand and does not care about the complications in previous similar games.
As to how they are used in terms of games then I am not so sure.
A streamlined game to me is one that uses less naive design and engineering choices in order to get more performance or bang for buck. It has nothing to do with broadening the appeal of a title although increased overall quality of experience is a good selling point.
Dumbing down is simply when games are made to demand less from the player. Designed with the assumption that the player can't understand and does not care about the complications in previous similar games.
Streamlined to me means that features were implemented in a way that feels intuitive, fluid with the action of the game and consistent with its content. Dumbed down to me means that some features were noticeably limited in their scope or function in order to please the lowest common denominator, without giving the choice to the player of tweaking/configure them to his personal liking.
I knew this would turn into a Mass Effect topic after reading the thread title.
ME2 is a good example of both.
I do not want to get into it to much, because it looks like all the major points have been hit already in this thread. I will say that I found ME2 to be vastly superior to an already great first game in the series, but a few of the elements that they did dumb down kept it from even a higher level of greatness.
For example your inventory. It was just plain stupid in ME1 that you would find the same gun and inferior useless weapons a thousand times over, but they could have fixed that system without dumbing it down to a half dozen weapons per a character to use, and the modifications that you could add to your character being so streamlined that it no longer felt like you were creating a unique character. Not to mention the limited amount of currency that you could collect through the galaxy. It went from sort of Fallout to Final Fantasy in that way and I think there is a happy medium to be found there.
I think they streamlined space exploration in a good way, in that if there was nothing there, then you moved on, but if there was something there then they actually created a meaningful world to go explore. Unfortunately they had the terrible scanning mini game as well implemented into that system, and the rewards for those efforts were also streamlined into upgrades that felt completely preconceived and did not allow the sort of customization that you would hope from a WRPG. Really I wish they had just stolen from Star Control 2 here. If it is a meaningless planet you move on. If it has resources you, make a "fun" minigame where you go down and collect them but it is over in less then a couple of minutes. If your scan of said planet reveals something more, then you go down to the surface and play the action aspect of Mass Effect. And the reward for this exploration is that it opens avenues to customize your ship, your crew, and your abilities in a meaningful way with enough variety that it feels like you are creating a completely unique experience.
Anyway, that was more then I wanted to get into. I do hope that ME3 ups the customization, while adding to the fun, and not getting bogged down in the inventory management of the first game. I do think they did a decent job of streamlining leveling and stats though that did not dumb down the game. True I cannot make my character all that I want them to be, but it forced you to actually contemplate who your teammates were and how you initially build them up in order to compliment the strengths and weaknesses of your character. I would like to see more depth in the next game in this aspect, but I think they were just a skill or ability or two away from getting it right.
ME2 is a good example of both.
I do not want to get into it to much, because it looks like all the major points have been hit already in this thread. I will say that I found ME2 to be vastly superior to an already great first game in the series, but a few of the elements that they did dumb down kept it from even a higher level of greatness.
For example your inventory. It was just plain stupid in ME1 that you would find the same gun and inferior useless weapons a thousand times over, but they could have fixed that system without dumbing it down to a half dozen weapons per a character to use, and the modifications that you could add to your character being so streamlined that it no longer felt like you were creating a unique character. Not to mention the limited amount of currency that you could collect through the galaxy. It went from sort of Fallout to Final Fantasy in that way and I think there is a happy medium to be found there.
I think they streamlined space exploration in a good way, in that if there was nothing there, then you moved on, but if there was something there then they actually created a meaningful world to go explore. Unfortunately they had the terrible scanning mini game as well implemented into that system, and the rewards for those efforts were also streamlined into upgrades that felt completely preconceived and did not allow the sort of customization that you would hope from a WRPG. Really I wish they had just stolen from Star Control 2 here. If it is a meaningless planet you move on. If it has resources you, make a "fun" minigame where you go down and collect them but it is over in less then a couple of minutes. If your scan of said planet reveals something more, then you go down to the surface and play the action aspect of Mass Effect. And the reward for this exploration is that it opens avenues to customize your ship, your crew, and your abilities in a meaningful way with enough variety that it feels like you are creating a completely unique experience.
Anyway, that was more then I wanted to get into. I do hope that ME3 ups the customization, while adding to the fun, and not getting bogged down in the inventory management of the first game. I do think they did a decent job of streamlining leveling and stats though that did not dumb down the game. True I cannot make my character all that I want them to be, but it forced you to actually contemplate who your teammates were and how you initially build them up in order to compliment the strengths and weaknesses of your character. I would like to see more depth in the next game in this aspect, but I think they were just a skill or ability or two away from getting it right.
Mystic Theurge
Member
duckroll said:
Sorry. I thought my statement was self evident.
Trent Strong
Banned
I think most big triple A games these days are dumbed down/too easy. Ass Creed Bros and Red Dead are two good examples of ridiculously easy games. What is the point of recruting and upgrading a bunch of helper assassins when you can easily kill a thousand dudes by yourself without the slightest difficulty using the default hidden blade and default armor?
charlequin
Banned
Coxswain said:
Part of the trouble here is that you're commenting on how things actually worked in ME1 and comparing those directly to ME2. I think almost anyone who felt ME2 was "dumbed down" or became "less of an RPG" agreed that many of these elements were mishandled (sometimes to the point of being flat-out bad) in ME1, but when they formed their expectations for ME2 they weren't just looking at ME1 -- they were also looking at other RPGs where these elements work well and are developed in a fun and enjoyable fashion, and expecting ME2 to draw on those games for inspiration.
Trent Strong said:
Not sure about AssBro, but I died a ton in Red Dead. Not that any of the missions were particularly hard, but a couple took some work. And lets not get into the wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies. When you are looking at 30-40 plus hour games, do you really want them to be Super Meat Boy levels of extreme every 30 seconds? It is not a dumbed down game, it just does not significantly punish you for dying.
Red Dead is streamlined not dumbed down. You would be looking at a 100 hour plus experience if they did not have a map and waypoints, and the game indicating where you should go next, and you would find yourself wandering aimlessly through a giant world hoping to stumble upon the next mission. Even with all of that the game can be frustrating when trying to do side missions.
I don't think that's a problem on my part.charlequin said:
People are saying that ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1. I contest that. If people want to say that ME2 is less of an RPG than a nonexistent game that they imagined in their head and created lofty expectations for, based on nonspecific comparisons to other games that are roughly in the same subgenre, then they're free to say so and I won't argue with that for some pretty obvious reasons, except to say that, oh yeah, well, my imaginary game based on Mass Effect 2 that adds in expansive RPG elements the way I want it to is even better, so nyah nyah nyah. But if anybody says that Mass Effect 2 is less of an RPG compared to Mass Effect 1, I expect them to be able to defend that argument.
For me streamlining is optimizing and improving a game play feature or mechanic and removing the filler. Take Secret of Monkey Island pre cd rom. The games interface had too many options, and made the game harder than it actually is. You have these preset words that makes you think of so many ridiculous options that just don't work because some of those words are USELESS. It sounds like bad game design, but those guys mad the game they wanted to make, challenge included. When the CD rom version came out, they essentially streamlined the interface to only include the words that mattered. This took away the games false sense of challenge, and made it so people could actually enjoy the game instead of trying shit that doesn't work.
Dumbing down for me is essentially taking an idea that didn't work, or worked out, and removing it completely instead of improving it. Replacing it with a mechanic that isn't even on the same level or making it so mind-numbingly stupid that a 2 year old can play it. The best example is FPS games, and one button melee attacks. Pre Halo it was you taking out the melee weapon and you leaving your self completely vulnerable so you have a chance to embarrass someone. The risk was so high, but the reward was amazing. Now it's a "I Win button", with little risk involved with a very high reward.
Dumbing down for me is essentially taking an idea that didn't work, or worked out, and removing it completely instead of improving it. Replacing it with a mechanic that isn't even on the same level or making it so mind-numbingly stupid that a 2 year old can play it. The best example is FPS games, and one button melee attacks. Pre Halo it was you taking out the melee weapon and you leaving your self completely vulnerable so you have a chance to embarrass someone. The risk was so high, but the reward was amazing. Now it's a "I Win button", with little risk involved with a very high reward.
MikeE21286
Member
I would say for me the definition of "dumbing down" would probably be....
making the game less enjoyable (for me personally) via attempts at expanding the audience of the game.
It's a game-by-game and person-by-person thing...
making the game less enjoyable (for me personally) via attempts at expanding the audience of the game.
It's a game-by-game and person-by-person thing...
Trent Strong
Banned
C4Lukins said:
Maybe you're right that Red Dead is not that easy, and I definitely like a map and waypoints. I guess I brought it up because Red Dead is another game where you have the option to upgrade and buy better weapons, but you don't ever need them. If a game has some sort of RPG-like upgrading system, then make using that system necessary to pass the game. Otherwise what's the point?
onken
Member
Yeah I think on the face of it, it's clearly easy to make the distinction. Streamlining is making it easier to do something, dumbing down is removing "features" (and I use this word very loosely) in order to make the game more fun/accessible.
Not that there's anything wrong with dumbing down, I must say. Though obviously, it's a phrase that puts people's backs up, if I like something that's been dumbed down, that makes me dumb! I don't want to be seen as dumb in the eyes of others! But no, you can't just replace the term with "streamlined" with the aim of being more sensitive, they're not the same thing.
Oh how I wish this was permanently stickied to the first post of every single thread.
Not that there's anything wrong with dumbing down, I must say. Though obviously, it's a phrase that puts people's backs up, if I like something that's been dumbed down, that makes me dumb! I don't want to be seen as dumb in the eyes of others! But no, you can't just replace the term with "streamlined" with the aim of being more sensitive, they're not the same thing.
charlequin said:
Oh how I wish this was permanently stickied to the first post of every single thread.
I don't think this is a good explanation of the difference, and it's not just because I don't like the connotations of "Dumbing down". Thought experiment time:onken said:
We all know what Rock, Paper, Scissors is. Pretend that RPS is the sequel to "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Eye, Hand". The rules of RPSEH are pretty simple. Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, Paper beats Rock - and there's a second loop, where Scissors beats Eye, Eye beats Hand, and Hand beats Scissors. If Rock or Paper is drawn against Eye or Hand, the game is considered a draw and another round starts, the same as if Rock had been drawn against Rock.
Now, this is undoubtedly a more complex game than Rock, Paper, Scissors. There are nearly twice as many options for a player to choose from, and suddenly Scissors are the high-risk, high-reward option - there are two situations where Scissors will win, matched with two situations where Scissors will lose. And in total, there are 15 different matchups.
Rock, Paper, Scissors, our sequel that caters to the mainstream, is a massive reduction in complexity, with only three choices for a player to make, and only six total matchups - less than half! Clearly, this is a significant reduction in features compared to the original RPSEH.
And yet, when you look at the game mathematically, and assume that all tie games will be replayed, there's no more or less depth despite this reduction - Rock, Paper, and Scissors both still have a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of losing, which is the same chance that Eye and Hand had of winning and losing in RPSEH - in other words, despite cutting a player's choices nearly in half, and leaving the game with less than half the total number of outcomes, the strategy is unchanged. Features have been removed, yet the game is just as deep as its predecessor - except the game goes by three times as fast, because there are only three cases that require a rematch as opposed to nine.
Would you really say that Rock, Paper, Scissors is a 'dumbed-down' version of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Eye, Hand? I think it makes more sense to differentiate 'streamlining' versus 'dumbing down' in terms of complexity versus depth. It applies fairly neatly to how games are actually designed and iterated on, doesn't taint positive changes with a very negative framing (and doesn't allow for "oh pish posh, just because you like your games dumb doesn't mean that's a bad thing" condescension), and makes a clear distinction between two ideas that are frequently conflated in discussion of game design.
Yeah, Bioshock isn't bad by any stretch, however I never quite got over the disappointment of a ~shock title that offers so much less in the way of complexity.duckroll said:
The game I worry for most at the moment is Diablo III, I havent read much of the previews and hype in order to keep it new and fresh when I play it finally. Just hoping there's more streamlining than dumbing down in this one. One thing they really need to streamline is picking up loot. I'd rather not die because I'm surrounded by 5c pieces, missing the enemy as I accidentally click on loot :lol
charlequin
Banned
Coxswain said:
If you want to break it down, there are essentially two types of RPG gameplay: there's character-choice-driven world/story-exploration RPG gameplay and stat/character-build progression/customization/combat gameplay. Having a full-throated implementation of either alone is enough to make a game an RPG. ME1 quite thoroughly does both (but its specific implementation of the latter is fairly poor.) ME2 chops out the latter altogether and replaces it with shooter mechanics; that doesn't make it "not an RPG" (because the former is still present) but it means that it goes from, like, an 85/15 RPG/shooter hybrid to being something like a 50/50 RPG/shooter hybrid.
I think it's quite legitimate to describe that as "less of an RPG" in a certain sense -- now instead of using RPG mechanics to resolve story progression and combat and character progression and looting etc. etc., the story progression is still driven by RPG mechanics but the combat has removed the stat elements, the character building has removed stats from the picture altogether, the XP rewards are completely disconnected from your individual actions on missions, etc. The game as a whole is still holistically an RPG but far less of your time is spent on RPG gameplay as opposed to shooter gameplay.
But stats aren't removed from combat. They're removed from your chance to hit an enemy when you place your crosshairs directly over top him, yes, but that doesn't make it 'less of an RPG' unless you're using a very conservative definition of what is and isn't an RPG (see earlier examples regarding Tales or Demon's Souls). Stats still determine your health, the enemy's health, the damage you do, the damage you receive, the properties of one weapon versus another, the effectiveness of your skills and how often you can use them, etc.charlequin said:
The stats are likewise still in the character building. You don't have nine sink ranks of each skill that provide like a 1.2% increase in the duration of a 12-second skill, or whatever, but the character building, through skill points and the upgrade terminal, allows for essentially the same kinds of stat progression that were present in the first game, only with a different interface.
Experience rewards being decoupled from individual, specific actions isn't a less-RPG design. Apart from my earlier arguments about it being a better map to playstyle-versus experience, it's the way things are done in VtM: Bloodlines, and nobody is saying that isn't an RPG. Or for that matter, a tabletop D&D campaign where your DM doesn't want to do a bunch of meticulous bookkeeping, and just has everybody gain a level at the end of each session/adventure, is not less of an RPG just because advancement isn't being micromanaged.
There's maybe a slight decrease in the importance of raw statistics compared to the first game, but the differences are minute in comparison to all the areas where the statistics are used in the exact same places, in the exact same way, albeit pretty much universally more thoughtfully and well-conceived. There's a difference in presentation: weapon statistics are described qualitatively to the player rather than having a stat screen, but the underlying stats are still all there; character advancement is more heavily weighted toward the upgrade terminal than the skill point allocation screen, but for the most part all of the stats used are the same; generally speaking the game uses a smaller number of advancement points with more drastic differentiation from one state to the next, but that doesn't equate to a reduction in how many stats are used, or how important they are.
Essentially every "RPG" element of the first game was maintained. Action elements were added and expanded upon, and the overall proportion shifted, but evaluating the game purely on its RPG elements, there's very little practical difference besides the fact that ME1 is poorly designed and ME2 is not.
The differences are in interface (perception), not core design principles.