Opinion: A Case for Dumbed Down Games

It seems like games are increasingly geared toward an elite hardcore audience, when things should be headed in a different direction to thrive. Nate makes the argument for dumbing down games.

23

I recently decided to revisit Minimum, a fun PC multiplayer shooter currently on Steam that I bought a few months ago. The game utilizes a unique “block-based” visual design and has a wealth of secondary features such as customizable weapons and loadouts, several different kinds of currency, unlockable blueprints, stat-based armor upgrades, and both permanent and per-match crafting options. It’s a lot to absorb, and I quickly found myself lost in a sea of confusion. Trying to recall all of Minimum’s various odds and ends inevitably got me thinking: why do so many multiplayer game developers feel the need to bog their players down with needless complexity?

The Forbidden City

I’ll admit, there is a certain thrill to be had when rolling with the proverbial “big boys” of complex competitive shooters such as Call of Duty or Counter-Strike. The elite players have taken a fun pastime and turned it into an art form, with feats of precision and skill that would make any other player green with envy. Through a combination of dedication, patience, intuition, and a dash of luck, these hardcore players have mastered all of their game’s complex systems and utilize that superior knowledge to dominate the opposition.

The problem I’ve found is that many games expect all players to put in that same amount of dedication, inevitably giving rise to a small, insular sub-culture of hardcore players that spend their time either fragging each other or preying on any newbies who dare enter their realm. Long standing multiplayer game like Counter-Strike or Call of Duty are becoming increasingly less approachable for new players, simply because they are often designed to cater toward a hardcore audience. If you aren’t willing to put in the time to learn proper strategies, memorize different map layouts, and hone your skills to a competitive edge over hours and hours of playtime, you might as well not even bother playing in the first place.

Even worse, this sort of “hardcore” high-aggression mentality leads many multiplayer fans to turn up their noses at games that aim to be more simplified - or “dumbed down,” as they like to put it. Personally, I find this stigma towards “dumbed down” games to be unfair, especially when you consider the fact that they have several advantages over their more hardcore ilk.

Sustainable and Accessible

When you break it down, the list of advantages dumbed down games, which include MOBAs such as Blizzard’s Heroes of the Storm, MMOs such as ArenaNet’s Guild Wars 2 and Blizzard’s World of Warcraft, shooters such as Nintendo’s Splatoon have over more hardcore competitive titles can be presented as a cyclical pattern of benefits. Even EA's Battlefield series is among the more accessible shooters around. A more accessible game appeals to a larger demographic of players, which in turn means it will likely sell more copies. Or, in the case of free-to-play games, attracting a bigger audience to try it. More copies means a larger community and more revenue for the developer. A larger community means the game is almost guaranteed to stick around for a while, giving developers a chance to implement improvements based on community feedback. Therefore, if the developer wants to change or add something to the game, it has both the funds and the creative input to go about doing so in the best way possible.

While the idea of being a part of the “elite” communities is appealing, the mere lack of many of the above qualities means such games have a much higher risk of suffering from a shorter shelf life. Even the most dedicated of players eventually move on and with a game that has too small of a community, that’s pretty much the end of the line. Even worse, if said smaller community is constantly driving other players away, that means fewer sales and a bad reputation. Two factors which all but kill any hopes of the game receiving content updates or sequel. You may feel privileged having put in the time to earn a place at the proverbial “big boy’s table”, but if that table is located next to a kitchen with no cooks or food in it, was it really worth the effort?

Popular Doesn’t Mean Accessible

You could say that my entire argument can be countered by the popularity of certain “hardcore” games such as Riot’s iconic League of Legends or Valve’s equally iconic shooter Team Fortress 2, but it’s important to remember that “popular” doesn’t always equate to “accessible” and, in some cases, a game’s name recognition can in fact be a bad thing.

Let’s take League of Legends for example. It is currently one of the most popular MOBAs in the world, and is almost solely responsible for turning the MOBA genre into a multi-billion dollar franchise spurred by the e-Sports phenomenon. It also has a reputation for having some of the most toxic communities of any online game, which is compounded by the game’s steep learning curve. I’d argue that League of Legends was able to become so popular so quickly because, back when it was getting off the ground, there were very few other games like it. The fact that it’s free-to-play likely helped as well. League of Legends may be popular and it may have a large community, but that doesn’t change the fact that it still remains virtually inaccessible to more casual gamers who aren’t willing to put in the time to master its complex systems or deal with its more abusive players.

Team Fortress 2 is another interesting example. There are elements within Valve’s venerable shooter that could lead one to classify it as either a “casual” (no permanent progression, goofy visuals and tone) or “hardcore” (in-depth trading/crafting/micro-transaction system, vast modding community and playerbase) shooter. A balance that is likely to be imitated, in some form, by Blizzards upcoming game Overwatch. While TF2 could technically be more accessible to a new player than, say, League of Legends, the game’s deeply-entrenched community, one that also has access to knowledge and resources (like more specialized weapons and other gear), would still likely make for a turbulent rite of initiation. If anything, TF2 proves that sometimes a game can come off as “hardcore” even when it doesn’t mean to.

Big-ticket franchises like Call of Duty also try to use their popularity as a smokescreen to hide the fact that they’re becoming increasingly exclusive in more ways than one. If you want to remain on the cutting edge of Call of Duty’s competitive scene, shelling out for each year’s new annualized release, not to mention the pricey season pass, is all but mandatory. Though, to be fair, shooters with more accessible gameplay mechanics such as EA’s Battlefield franchise are also guilty of this practice. I don’t know about you, but paying almost $100 a year for the “privilege” of being tossed into the lion’s den of competitive Call of Duty multiplayer doesn’t sound very “accessible” to me.

More to the point, there's a reason why Hearthstone essentially came out of nowhere and successfully overtook the long-standing Magic: The Gathering series as the online card combat game of choice. Its mechanics are easier to learn, the game is free-to-play, and it doesn't have a "hardcore" player reputation, which lowers the barriers for new players.

Sustainable Growth

As I mentioned at the very beginning of this article, throwing a lot of different features and gameplay systems at a new player is a surefire way to sap their interest. However, I’m also willing to acknowledge that a game which is too simplistic can be just as bad. As games are refined and updated, I feel it’s important for developers to pay close attention to how they go about easing new players in and make sure the new player experience isn’t overwhelming. I’m certainly all for adding on new features and layers to “dumbed down” games but I’d ask developers to do so at a more gradual pace rather than trying to pile on all of the shiny new innovations and/or additions during the game’s opening tutorial. Ease us in gradually, and we’ll be much better able to absorb everything that makes your game unique. Toss us into the deep end from the get-go, and you’ll just turn us off for good.

A Harmonious Coexistence

With this article, I’m not trying to say that “hardcore” competitive multiplayer games are all doomed to fail, and I’m definitely not saying that those with a competitive fire in their blood should stop striving to prove themselves to their peers. However, I do think it’s about time the more “hardcore” amongst us got off their high horses and acknowledged that what they may call “dumbed down” games are a vital part of the online multiplayer ecosystem. Good word of mouth, strong sales, and thriving communities are all essential in order to keep the good times rolling. Practicing exclusivity by driving new players away from hardcore games ultimately shrinks the community and everything else collapses with it. We’re perfectly fine sticking to our side of the sandbox, but if you keep throwing stones at our castles, you’re really only hurting yourselves in the long run.

Freelancer
From The Chatty
  • reply
    March 4, 2015 11:06 AM

    Nathaniel Hohl posted a new article, Opinion: A Case for Dumbed Down Games

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 11:45 AM

      Great games need to be easy to learn, but difficult to master.

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 11:46 AM

        And the truly great are difficult to learn and difficult to master. Mobas. Amrite?

        • reply
          March 4, 2015 11:47 AM

          Some what. I think MOBAs get a lot of their love from the incredible rush you get when you are successful in them.

          • reply
            March 4, 2015 11:50 AM

            I totally get that. But that rush comes imo because of the difficulty and the cooperation it takes to win.

            Ive been playing HoN for almost 6 years now. (Sheesh has it been that long.)

            Even though I don’t play as much as I used to, I still cant quit it completely.

            • reply
              March 4, 2015 2:42 PM

              i think the worst part is how negative people get at the start, a few mistakes here and there and there is almost always someone saying gg, please end, my teammate/s suck etc when the game is almost never decidedly over at that point

              • reply
                March 4, 2015 5:32 PM

                OH FUCK WE DIDN'T GET ALL TIER 1 HEROES I'M GOING TO AFK FEED DIPSHITS

            • reply
              March 4, 2015 2:43 PM

              I quit HoN after 3 years, the community was too damn toxic to stay.

        • reply
          March 4, 2015 11:48 AM

          I think being TOO complex from the start is a huge turn-off. I mean I love a challenge, but don't make me think that hard right from the start. Ya know?

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 1:45 PM

      On the exception of hardcore simulation games like DCS, there really is nothing on the market that needs to be "dumbed down" for teenagers and adults to enjoy. Like many have already commented great games are easy to play in the beginning, hard to master in the end. This means you need to actually set aside time to dedicate learning to better yourself and not just a brute-force playthrough. Great rewards and satisfaction comes from that final revelation and victory from hours of trying to better yourself. Anything less just cheapens the experience and, like many modern games of the era, are easily forgotten.

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 1:47 PM

      all these complicated games are pretty much a reaction to the opposite trend from the middle of the last decade. also weird that you call call of duty "complicated" because it's pretty much just an FPS slot machine. bunch a bad examples imho -- a lot of the games chosen in the article were all fairly simple games that became more complicated over time.

      but anyway this leads me to believe there's a complexity cycle to games where things get more complex and then they get simpler.

      personally I don't need to devil's advocate for simpler games for the most part, though. Also I think a better argument is that "dumbed down" games allow developers to blast away all the stupid/idiomatic design choices from particular genres and implement new, good design features. I don't think that's an argument against complexity, though. Also, communities can become incredibly insular without any real complexity. Complexity is what keeps people coming back.

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 2:21 PM

      System Shock 2 -> Bioshock ... Which did you like better?

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 2:39 PM

        System Shock 2 for the horror/isolation, ways to play, classes (or whatever combination I decide on), and for the atmosphere (music, visuals, sounds, DAMN SPACE MONKEYS). Bioshock for a better story twist, better resolution graphics, and interactivity between your weapons and the environment (electricity + water). That said, I prefer SS2.

        • reply
          March 4, 2015 2:42 PM

          Bioshock Infinite had a great story and fairly tight gameplay, but the combat became repetitive with such limited choices. The atmosphere was perfect for what they went for, but I don't care too much for that art style personally, but I did appreciate it for what it was.

          • reply
            March 4, 2015 2:56 PM

            Combat and atmosphere was all it had. I'm tired of interacting with cool worlds down a gun barrel.

            • reply
              March 4, 2015 3:29 PM

              Agreed. There wasn't any crafting, world destruction (both terrain, and objects), unique weapons, engaging melee combat (it was just bash, bash, bash...no blocking, parries, fatalities, etc. like in Skyrim or Dark Messiah of Might & Magic), unique weapon fire modes like Unreal Tournament, engaging movement (ok, there was some, but no wall jumping, prone, stealth, bullet time like in F.E.A.R.), physics (as in playable physics like HL2, etc. ), world interaction (pick up objects around the world to wield as weapons).

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 3:56 PM

        System Shock 1.

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 4:42 PM

        STOP COMPARING THEM. There is no 'better'. One of them I liked. Period.

        • reply
          March 4, 2015 5:33 PM

          No, SS2 is better EOT

        • reply
          March 4, 2015 5:34 PM

          Umm. They literally call bioshock the spiritual successor, and it is in direct alignment with the root post talking about a case for easier games. So, no?

          • reply
            March 4, 2015 6:04 PM

            They claim and want you to THINK it's the spiritual successor, but it is not the case.

            • reply
              March 4, 2015 11:53 PM

              There was an old interview with Levine where he said it started off as a direct successor to SS2, but they didn't start getting excited about the game until they started changing it up and making it more of a spiritual successor than a sequel. I think it was in a magazine, like GAME or something in 2007.

          • reply
            March 4, 2015 6:14 PM

            They called it that, but I don't actually see much of it in the final product.

        • reply
          March 5, 2015 6:17 AM

          [deleted]

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 7:45 PM

        I liked bioshock better. I am part of the problem I guess :(

        • reply
          March 4, 2015 8:19 PM

          You should not touch anything in Our Universe, you Negative Zone person you.

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 2:36 PM

      You never played complex games before if you're calling Counter Strike complex. Try X3: Terran Conflict on for size. Your brain will melt if you consider CS: S to be complex.

      I believe that there's a distinct difference in something being difficult to navigate (i.e. menus within menus, hard to find information, etc.) and complexity (layered, and interconnected choices, effects, scale, etc.). X3: Terran Conflict is a combination of both, which is what makes it so difficult to get into. The first is mitigated by streamlining information, and making it accessible or otherwise visible with minimal effort. The latter, well...think of it like this.

      Doom had one movement type...run, forward, backward, turn left, turn right, shoot, and a few guns. Then we had jumping (3D movement), then Decent with true 3D movement. Then add in swimming levels, now you have to navigate or interact with the world differently. Now add in aircraft, now you have the ground layer, then another layer of combat you need to be aware of. Planetary Annihilation, you have underwater layers (subs), water (ships), land (tanks), air (aircraft), orbital (spaceships, orbital bombardment) on EVERY planet, with multiple planet systems, along with 2 resource types and up to 10+ enemies etc. and dozens of unit types and combinations.

      Complexity is about having more options, more choices, being able to win by using a better strategy and outthinking your opponent. It's about having more ways to play, alternate ways to win, and almost effectively turning it into sub-games, or embedded games within the bigger game.

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 11:29 PM

        i pretty much was thinking all of this when i was reading the article. counter-strike / Q3A / UT are not games that are overly complex, people just have a lot of practice mastering a game that's easy to pick up.

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 2:48 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 3:15 PM

      I think the article conflates several issues. I had more detail written, but accidentally closed the tab, so I'll just summarize:

      - Grind isn't complexity. Grind is grind. A game with persistent advancement may require a lot of time investment, but that's not the same as requiring an in-depth understanding of complex systems.

      - DLC isn't complexity. DLC is DLC. Requiring players to buy a bunch of map packs doesn't mean the player has to understand complex systems, it just means the player has to have a fatter wallet.

      - A highly skilled player base is essentially inevitable for a multiplayer game with any depth and a long life. The only way to prevent it is to deliberately remove any depth from your game, which typically doesn't end well. Depth tends to give games long lives.

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 3:21 PM

        Also, I wrote this in response to a "games have an accessibility problem" article on Polygon, and I think some of it applies here:

        -----

        Does football have an accessibility problem? Baseball? Do board games and card games?

        Comparing video game mechanics to movie and book mechanics is a non-sequitur. Books and movies don't *have* mechanics; they're passive media. The implication seems to be that games need to be more like these passive media. Since games are largely defined by their interactivity, it implies they should be less game-like. That seems to rather defeat the point.

        On the one hand, I think it's entirely reasonable to recognize that, because of their interactivity, some people will never enjoy or be competent at video games. Video games are no different from football or basketball or board games or any number of other interactive activities in that sense. If someone wasn't introduced and taught the basics early in life, they're going to have a harder time learning later. Getting into the activity later in life is going to require a deliberate investment of time and effort. I think, because of this, passive activities will almost always be more popular and widespread than interactive ones.

        On the other hand, I think we need more introductory video games and a more graduated range of introductory video games for bringing people into gaming. Games that are simple and easy enough for novices to play, that are engaging and fun, and gradually introduce novices to common controls and tropes.

        The last part is critical and I think where many simple "introductory" games fall apart: Not introducing skills that carry over to other games is a major failure for a game that is supposed to bring people into the hobby.

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 9:52 PM

        Yeah, I don't think the arguments in this article were solid and it got off track a lot.

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 4:23 PM

      I'm not sure that Hearthstone is keeping that "doesn't have a 'hardcore' player reputation".

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 7:43 PM

        Yeah that example did not fit well, and actually I would argue that it does have a very 'hardcore' player base, the same as any CoD and most MOBAs

      • reply
        March 4, 2015 9:54 PM

        Hearthstone was easy and accessible at the start, but new players just get absolutely destroyed by anyone who's collected or bought cards. I consider Hearthstone to be hardcore now.

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 4:46 PM

      Then there are games which almost play themselves with an occasional button press by the viewer gamepad holder.
      I was watching the HUD in a game of Evolve the other day. It points out EVERYTHING.

    • reply
      March 4, 2015 4:51 PM

      Wave Race:Blue Storm. Great learning curve. Anyone can play and place, but if you are going for the gold you have to learn the craft. And the water makes it interesting every lap.

    • reply
      March 5, 2015 4:11 AM

      D3 > POE.

      • reply
        March 5, 2015 10:48 AM

        I wouldn't say that. They're very, very different games.

        • reply
          March 5, 2015 2:55 PM

          Yeah, one is fun, the other one isn't.

    • reply
      March 5, 2015 10:03 AM

      Unless I read this wrong this article reads like something from a casual only viewpoint and a lot of it I don't agree with. At times you (the author) seem to suggest that anything with any complexity outside of, let's say, Super Mario 3D World is hardcore. Halo CE is a very simplistic game that is easy to play and difficult to master. It has the largest and most competitive skill gap out of all the Halo games (possibly out of all console FPS shooters). It also has less complexity than Super Mario 3D World although I am sure many would assume the opposite. A game with added complexity that exist only to cater to lower skilled players, like Halo 5, is a case for a game that needs a lot of help in many people's opinion, so if that is what you meant then I agree if that complexity exist out of ignorance and dev stupidity. But from what I read it doesn't seem like you are suggesting that and are suggesting games lower the skill gap water itself down so that lower-skilled players can play with people uninterested in playing with and/or against them. Which is ignorant, no offense. 343's problem is that they add gimmicks and anti-Halo mechanics (and other bs) that hurts the game a ton. Complexity is fine if what is added actually works with the game. When it doesn't that is a problem, but then again that has nothing to do with hardcore players vs the world as you seem to suggest but instead deals with the bad practices and bad taste some of these decision making employees have at companies like 343. Which again doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article's point.

      For the record the only game you've mentioned that can be considered hardcore is LoL. COD is looked down upon by the hardcore (outside of those that play COD) for being too noob friendly where the "complexity" exist to make any random noob feel like a bad ass soldier.

      From what I've read your real problem seems to be that players in some games get frustrated enough to openly attack other players ultimately because of bad dev practices. No one cares if someone sucks or needs more time grasping the basics but when someone who is what you would call hardcore is forced feed to play with bad players in games where winning and/or performance actually means something, or when someone sucking has a negative impact on the enjoyment of the game by everyone else, then yes you will eventually get a lot of friction and animosity that plays a role in the development of toxic communities. Bad players can actually hurt the enjoyment for everyone tremendously (funny how they are the only ones that don't see or experience this). In pub play Battlefield some random sucking doesn't really matter but in games like Halo 1-3 someone without any idea of what they are doing can too easily give the other team major opportunities and set ups that hurts the rest of the players on the team in an immediate and profound way. If you put any weekly randoms that wishes to play basketball on their high school team, but they can't even dribble the ball then those that actually take the sport more seriously, regardless of their reason, long term goals, or general motivation, will have the experience of the game and what they are trying to accomplish dramatically impacted negatively for no good reason at all. The sport does not need to be dumbed down because "Timmy" wants a gold star for trying.

      The solution is for dev to do their job and teach players how to play. This has always happened in video games in its history but have become less and less of a "thing". That is a dev fail. Secondly players should be given the option to be matched with other players of similar mindsets and/or skill rather than forced fed with any random gamer that wants to "hang with the big boys" as you put it. A noob will never hang with the big boys without ceasing to be a noob, and watering the game down so they can convince themselves that they are doing this without actually learning or employing actual skill in a competitive game (whose sole purpose is this) is ignorant at best. No offense to the author. I can see how toxic people are bad but insecure bad players that want game hurting features and changes are just as bad and often more passive-agreesive in forums.

      On a related note, one game that was hurt in my opinion from mixing lower level players with higher level players was Warcraft 3 (talking about the RTS not the MMO). Once that patch forced players as low as 20+ but more so those of use near or at 50, to play with any random low-levels, killed the experience for a lot of players. Anyone who has ever made it that high knows how different and satisfying the game is once competent people are going at it. The same with games like Halo.

      Great games should be easy to learn and hard to master. Teaching is the devs job.

    • reply
      March 5, 2015 7:21 PM

      What is Nathaniel smoking? Games are the most dumbed down today than they have ever been before!

      • reply
        March 7, 2015 7:33 AM

        That's what the kids want nowadays, all video gaming being reduced to bus-travel time completion. I mean, look at Gone Home.

    • reply
      March 6, 2015 11:26 AM

      I don't know that I agree with the Hearthstone / Magic comparison. Magic is not a hard game to learn to play - none of the mechanics are particularly complicated. The overwhelming aspect of Magic is the sheer number of cards and possible interactions, which Hearthstone would certainly have were it a 20+ year old game.

      Working at a board game and card game store, the main comparison I hear between Hearthstone and Magic is that they're very similar, but Hearthstone's interface is far superior to Magic's online interface.

Hello, Meet Lola