If you think Fallout 3 is the worst in the series, clearly you never played Brotherhood of Steel.

To say that a game is or has been dumbed down for this or that system is to imply that the people who choose to play or, god forbid, enjoy the game on that system are dumb. No matter how you try to justify it, accusing something of being "dumbed down" is nothing more than elitism.

I, for one, am very open to the idea of streamlining or even entirely revamping game systems to appeal to a broader consumer market. I started playing RPGs with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and many of the rules, modifiers, and techniques read like stereo instructions that made it so a lot of my friends were unable to play and enjoy the game with me. Over the years, the system has become simpler and simpler to the point where my parents can now sit for a game or two. I really enjoy the fact that you no longer need to be a nerdy shut-in like I was to enjoy these kinds of games anymore.

Videogames like X-Com simply don't need to be as complicated as they used to be. If you think that they do, then please let me apologize on behalf of everyone whose stupidity has held back gaming.

hazabaza1:
Now, Newbie has no idea what any of these symbols mean. He can grasp what's happening in the main game part, but most everything else is confusing as all hell.

Same argument can be made for the Age of Empires menus. You won't know until you try (or play the tutorials, I think AoE had tutorials...)

DrVornoff:
Then I guess you must really hate Half-Life 2, Portal and Psychonauts.

There is a difference between Portal and "Show me how to press the W button, Corporal Dick!"

In Portal you have total freedom of movement and the tutorial is integrated into the gameplay, instead of slowing it down.

Anthraxus:
Oh noes, it's THAC0, it's gonna make my head explode !

Now that you mention it, THAC0 could be a good example. With the later D20 rules, they managed to put almost every interaction into the same mechanic of d20 + x >= DC. With THAC0, you similarly have a value to improve (in this case by decreasing THAC0) in order to make your attacks more likely to hit, and a value (AC) that your opponent can improve to make your attacks less likely to hit. In D20 this is handled using exactly the same rule as with, say, Spot versus Hide. Is it not an improvement to have such events handled similarly and with a nice intuitive rule such as "bigger is always better"?

This is actually one of the earliest cases I remember hearing people complaining of rules being dumbed down, and honestly I've never understood it. Perhaps somebody can explain? What's possible with THAC0 that isn't with D20?

Burst6:
snip

I have never understood this. Having gimped controls for a horror game to make it scary is cheap. "Oh no i cant fight it because all i can do is walk into the wall -.-" If a game has to hang onto that to be scary, it porbably wasn't that scary to begin with.

As for dead space. Try jacking it up to impossible. You won't be carving them up then :P

And as for clunky fighting. Thats fair enough AS LONG as it doesn't force you to fight.

Thats what was wrong with the first metal gear. The controls worked for the stealth bits, but the boss fights were a pain. They improved the shooting in MGS 4 and peacewalker. And it was still as stealthy as ever.

I agree with splinter cell conviction being dumbed down though. i think that was more because the levels were more linear though.

DrVornoff:
Perhaps my point wasn't clear. Just because something is intuitive does not automatically mean that there is no skill involved. Pokemon is pretty damn intuitive and accessible. But it's a pretty deep rabbit hole strategically speaking. Similarly, it's hard to get more zen than a straightforward FPS. You hit the fire button and whatever is in your reticle dies. Hard to get more user friendly than that.

I don't play FPS or Pokemon. Not interested in those games.

Anthraxus:
It wouldn't be so overwhelming if they just.. READ THE FUCKING MANUAL, FOR FUCKS SAKE.

But I know that's a totally ALIEN concept for today's gamer. See what I did there ?

But the manuals of older PC games could be 100 pages long...

Im for tutorials. Just to explain the basic gameplay. Dropping you in the deep end without explanation just seems cheap to me. Plus tutorials only take 5 minutes, so no biggy.

hazabaza1:

Oooookay, maybe I did over-exaggerate, let me explain.

So, I'm talking as somebody who has only seen a couple of gameplay videos for the original X-com, so I'll take the role of "Newbie".
Newbie here launches up his game, and goes through all the introductory stuff, to discover this waiting for him.

Now, Newbie has no idea what any of these symbols mean. He can grasp what's happening in the main game part, but most everything else is confusing as all hell.
This is where the problem lies. Complexity isn't a bad thing so long as it can be easily conveyed, but to the newcomer, all these symbols and statistics could be overwhelming at first glance, and so give them a negative view of the game. Complexity is best when portrayed through gameplay, not a mass of "foreign" symbols.
I apologise for the hyperbole, but that's just generally how I speak. I hope I got my point across, because I'm going to be busy eating chips for the next few minutes so I can't reply that conveniently.

I think you are lacking the perspective of on-hands control. I had pretty much the same feeling first time I tried X-Com being too lazy to read the manual.

Then I went through something like this:
- What does all these buttons do? I'll just ignore them.
- If I click something on the map my guy moves there.
- If I click the gun and something on the map, my guy shoots there.
- If I click another guy, I switch to him.
- Ow, someone is shooting at me, can I duck?
- It's inconvenient to switch between squad members by clicking on them, can a button do this easier?
- It's annoying when I spend too many points by mistake, can a button help me with that.

Another approach is simply to click all the buttons and see what they do.

For a while I had no idea what some of the buttons did, simply because I didn't need them. It felt pretty intuitive using trial and error in 1995. To me that works better than ignoring a tutorial for 20 minutes, because trial and error feels more like playing a game and less like passive learning.
The game does have informal tutorial functionality. Player performance during the first month doesn't count for much so there is leeway to make a lot of mistakes.

My experience may be atypical though. When I'm faced with a new piece of software my first reaction is to press as many buttons as possible and see if I can break something. But some people react almost with fear when they see a button they don't know.

Kathinka:
well..if they get rid of the godawefull inventory system of ME1 and replace it with something slightly better like in ME3, that's streamlining and intuitive, and good (even though in that particular case it could have arguably been avoided if the devs wouldn't have made the PC version an awefull console port and implemented a non-retarded interface).

but if we take for example battlefield 3 versus battlefield 2. if they reduce the number of factions from four to two, get rid of native voiceover support, toss the commander, essentially squadleaders and the entire command interface, the commo rose and give us miniature CoD-esque maps, all because either technical limitations of consoles or mental limitations of some console players that couldn't employ teamplay or something resembling even basic tactics to save their grandmothers life, that's dumbing down, and that is bad.

i'm afraid your good points mean nothing, because your post drips of too much elitism :)

And i'm not sure where you're going with the battlefield comparison. The maps are bigger and have a larger player cap on PC anyway. Hardly been "dumbed down for consoles". More like dumbed down for gamers in general :)

lacktheknack:
Is there a problem with that? The original game was needlessly complicated and required either A. Ten failed games to understand or B. two hours on the wiki. Also, given the original's slow and tactical turn-based combat, it was BEGGING for some cinematic flair that the technology at the time just couldn't deliver. Now it can. Would Worms 3D/4 be the same without the ten different angles showing the squealing worm's arc as it sailed across the map?

ablac:
The game looks smarter than ever with the new mechanics because with todays technology we can do so much more. Why do people want carbon copies of old games? Its a strategy game with some innovation on an old game. That is great. Its nice to see they are doing this alongside the FPS which, while interesting, doesnt look anything like XCOM making me wonder why they chose to use the name. Its designed with consoles and PC in mind the control scheme is universal.

Yes, the guy that invented chess also actually wanted to make a game about mechs and monsters fighting each other with explosions and blood splatter all around, but it wasn't technically possible at the time, no way could he have intended for a thoughtful tactical experience. We need to make a game about mechs and monsters fighting each other with explosions and blood splattering all around and call it Chess 2.0.

Just as every game was actually meant to be a First Person Shooter, but they couldn't make it at the time and there's still people dumb enough to not manage to make them, lol at them. Also everything is better with cinematics and expensive CG, there should be more games with that.

And yeah totally, "universal control scheme", surely restricting the control method to the limitations of controllers without a proper UI will make for a deep tactically engaging experience and going after every frat boy and 10 year old as a target consumer base, aiming the base difficulty for their dog being able to play through the game and not fail will likely increase the depth and complexity of the game a dozenfold...

Also, the original had cover.

Unless you're telling me the time I spent crouched behind hay bales and half-walls that stopped bullets wasn't time spent in cover.

It had cover in the sense that you couldn't shoot through walls or objects etc. like for instance in every shooter when you stood behind a wall or crouched behind a object or something, it was a natural thing, but it didn't have a cover mechanic where you press a button and something a... err your character hugs and dry humps whatever object is near him.

Sirron Kcuch:
Fallout 2 was too complex for many people to get into it, but Fallout 3 managed to expand its fanbase. Is any of the two "dumbed down"? Not at all. FO 3 is way more simple, besides from being in first person, but it just works for a more enjoyable experience.

Complexity =/= good design.

What the f... are you even saying? Fallout 1+2 are infinitely better than Fallout 3 in about every single way, from the story, the world, the lore, the characterization to the gameplay and everything else.
I don't believe you know how silly what you just said sounds...

daveman247:

I have never understood this. Having gimped controls for a horror game to make it scary is cheap. "Oh no i cant fight it because all i can do is walk into the wall -.-" If a game has to hang onto that to be scary, it porbably wasn't that scary to begin with.

As for dead space. Try jacking it up to impossible. You won't be carving them up then :P

And as for clunky fighting. Thats fair enough AS LONG as it doesn't force you to fight.

Thats what was wrong with the first metal gear. The controls worked for the stealth bits, but the boss fights were a pain. They improved the shooting in MGS 4 and peacewalker. And it was still as stealthy as ever.

I agree with splinter cell conviction being dumbed down though. i think that was more because the levels were more linear though.

The clunky control is supposed to give off the idea that you are weak. You're just some guy who is dealing with something far beyond him. It gives the feelings that your character is a semi realistic human being. People generally aren't amazingly coordinated, nor can they beat monster to a pulp with a small pipe. This sense of weakness combined with a good atmosphere can cause huge chills.

As for dead space it just takes the horror out of me if i know that I'm actually meant to fight all these monsters. A large part of horror is the unknown. Dead space doesn't really have that. The way the game is designed pretty much tells me I'll be fighting something soon enough. It's a very certain game. You know something is going to try to kill you, you know pretty much exactly what it is, you know where they come from, and you know what you're supposed to do in every situation. It's just not very scary. One reason for this is that you know whatever comes up against you is beatable, and the game is designed to let you beat it efficiently.

I love dismembering those things. It's just not very scary.

And yeah, i agree that the first metal gear had horrible aiming, but the rest found the sweet spot. Clunky enough to maintain the stealth aspect but not too horrible when you can't use stealth.

The real fallacy is that games are getting "better" and more "intuitive" which I suppose if you are part of the brain dead brand zombie that the media industry mainly caters to then things are better and more intuitive....for the rest of us its shallow wonky crap.

Burst6:
snip

A normal person can still walk in a straight line :D

you can still make the character useless at fighting without having to make the controls silly. Such as low player health and damage output.

And i know deadspace isnt scary. The panic factor DOES go up when the enemies are more than lethal though.

Buretsu:
Intuitive is pressing a button to walk over to a gun, pressing a button to pick up a gun, moving a stick or a mouse to point it at the bad guys, and pressing another button to pull the trigger.

Unintuitive is opening a menu, selecting to walk over to a gun, pressing a single button to pull up another menu of what to do with the gun, select to pick up the gun, open another menu to equip the gun, opening a menu to select which bad guy to point the gun at, opening yet another menu to pull the trigger.

And people honestly believe the second one to be optimal...

People don't prefer unintuitive to intuitive - they prefer deep to shallow, and dislike it when developers make a game shallower in the process of making it more intuitive.

daveman247:

A normal person can still walk in a straight line :D

you can still make the character useless at fighting without having to make the controls silly. Such as low player health and damage output.

And i know deadspace isnt scary. The panic factor DOES go up when the enemies are more than lethal though.

If the games control is so horrible you can't walk in a straight line then yeah there's no excuse.

And low HP and damage output don't really do it. A lot of these horror games already have the low HP and damage output. If you lower them anymore and streamline the game at the same time it becomes a hack and slash where every enemy is a powerful boss.

Also in a way bad controls really do make it more immersive. If you walk into a terrifying situation at first you would be scared shitless but if you survive you slowly get more confident. Maybe that's what the bad controls do. You eventually get used to them, as a character would be more in control as they get used to their situation.

You can't do that by changing around stats unless you add RPG elements which doesn't really feel organic in a horror game.

Sirron Kcuch:

Complexity =/= good design.

It's conditional.
Depth as a result of complexity is good. That's the whole point of adding features and mechanics to the game.
But complexity for the sake of complexity is nothing more than a game pretending to have depth.

Mass Effect 1's gameplay, let's be honest, was stiff and uncomfortable, particularly on the PC. ME2's gameplay was a vast improvement, even if the cover system took a bit of getting used to. There's a difference between dumbing down and making something actually fun to play.

AC10:
What I've heard of the new X-Com certainly points to it being dumbed down.
To me, dumbed down means the removal of features which results in the reduction of complexity and strategy.

For instance, in the new X-Com you only get one base; that's it. In the old one, setting up 2 or 3 bases around the globe to maximize your coverage, response time, and fuel limits on your ships was an integral part of the game. You also had to keep each base stocked with troops and weapons. This was part of the X-Com experience and now it's gone.

I won XCOM with one base. I never needed more than one. Building a new base was a huge time sink that only served to weaken you. Especially if its mid game.

Dexter111:

lacktheknack:
Is there a problem with that? The original game was needlessly complicated and required either A. Ten failed games to understand or B. two hours on the wiki. Also, given the original's slow and tactical turn-based combat, it was BEGGING for some cinematic flair that the technology at the time just couldn't deliver. Now it can. Would Worms 3D/4 be the same without the ten different angles showing the squealing worm's arc as it sailed across the map?

ablac:
The game looks smarter than ever with the new mechanics because with todays technology we can do so much more. Why do people want carbon copies of old games? Its a strategy game with some innovation on an old game. That is great. Its nice to see they are doing this alongside the FPS which, while interesting, doesnt look anything like XCOM making me wonder why they chose to use the name. Its designed with consoles and PC in mind the control scheme is universal.

Yes, the guy that invented chess also actually wanted to make a game about mechs and monsters fighting each other with explosions and blood splatter all around, but it wasn't technically possible at the time, no way could he have intended for a thoughtful tactical experience. We need to make a game about mechs and monsters fighting each other with explosions and blood splattering all around and call it Chess 2.0.

Just as every game was actually meant to be a First Person Shooter, but they couldn't make it at the time and there's still people dumb enough to not manage to make them, lol at them. Also everything is better with cinematics and expensive CG, there should be more games with that.

And yeah totally, "universal control scheme", surely restricting the control method to the limitations of controllers without a proper UI will make for a deep tactically engaging experience and going after every frat boy and 10 year old as a target consumer base, aiming the base difficulty for their dog being able to play through the game and not fail will likely increase the depth and complexity of the game a dozenfold...

Also, the original had cover.

Unless you're telling me the time I spent crouched behind hay bales and half-walls that stopped bullets wasn't time spent in cover.

It had cover in the sense that you couldn't shoot through walls or objects etc. like for instance in every shooter when you stood behind a wall or crouched behind a object or something, it was a natural thing, but it didn't have a cover mechanic where you press a button and something a... err your character hugs and dry humps whatever object is near him.

Sirron Kcuch:
Fallout 2 was too complex for many people to get into it, but Fallout 3 managed to expand its fanbase. Is any of the two "dumbed down"? Not at all. FO 3 is way more simple, besides from being in first person, but it just works for a more enjoyable experience.

Complexity =/= good design.

What the f... are you even saying? Fallout 1+2 are infinitely better than Fallout 3 in about every single way, from the story, the world, the lore, the characterization to the gameplay and everything else.
I don't believe you know how silly what you just said sounds...

Wow Dexter. I have never seen so much immaturity. You know perfectly well we arent arguing for the things you use as a terrible analogy but your point doesnt stand if your reasonable because your trying to say that your subjective opinion is objectively correct. You ignore our arguments in favor of whatever will make us seem as facile as you. I wont try and de-construct what you are saying because you aint worth the time, uts like translating baby babble. Grow up man, we're optimistic and looking at the good whilst your stuck being miserable about everything. You shown yourself to be consistently immature every time you open your damn mouth but this is your finest hour.

Buretsu:
Intuitive is pressing a button to walk over to a gun, pressing a button to pick up a gun, moving a stick or a mouse to point it at the bad guys, and pressing another button to pull the trigger.

Unintuitive is opening a menu, selecting to walk over to a gun, pressing a single button to pull up another menu of what to do with the gun, select to pick up the gun, open another menu to equip the gun, opening a menu to select which bad guy to point the gun at, opening yet another menu to pull the trigger.

And people honestly believe the second one to be optimal...

Here, this is the best analogy of the majority of times a game is 'dumbed down'. Things dont need to be needlessly complicated and the challenge should come from the game itself not its controls.

Often it is a fallacy I'd say. Mass Effect 2 offers a stellar example. In streamlining, the game discarded dozens of skills and hundreds of items and people pointed and raged at this act. But the reality is that this change did not actually reduce complexity. Choosing armor had nothing to do with tactical trades - upgrades happened because one suit was better than another. Weapons were not swapped for any reason than there was another with higher stats. The choices being removed were not choices - they were tedium. That it was then replaced with actual choices that mattered seemed to be overlooked because the player was asked to make fewer decisions.

Consider this: the the sniper rifle category, you had a rifle that did enormous damage but fired one shot, or one that did less damage but had a long magazine. Choosing one over the other is a meaningfull decision that would alter how and when I'd use that weapon.

Most of the time, streamlining does not really reduce complexity - just perceived complexity. The important stuff remains. Dragon Age was enormously streamlined compared to Baldur's Gate yet you were asked to make just as many important decisions regarding character build.

Yes, there are examples of simplifying a system. The original Crimson Skies was effectively a flight sim. The mission where you flew through the O in the Hollywood sign required enormous skill to pull off. The Xbox game discarded any notion of a flight model in favor of an arcade approach. It threw away the idea that an aircraft could be customized and simply offered factory standard models to choose from. These are changes that significantly reduced the complexity of play.

ablac:

Buretsu:
Intuitive is pressing a button to walk over to a gun, pressing a button to pick up a gun, moving a stick or a mouse to point it at the bad guys, and pressing another button to pull the trigger.

Unintuitive is opening a menu, selecting to walk over to a gun, pressing a single button to pull up another menu of what to do with the gun, select to pick up the gun, open another menu to equip the gun, opening a menu to select which bad guy to point the gun at, opening yet another menu to pull the trigger.

And people honestly believe the second one to be optimal...

Here, this is the best analogy of the majority of times a game is 'dumbed down'. Things dont need to be needlessly complicated and the challenge should come from the game itself not its controls.

That example works fine for picking up a gun and firing it. But try to recreate a Mech on a battlefield with air and ground support and all of a sudden Intuitiveness is lost no matter what approach you use.
Try implementing a grand strategy game like Hearts of Iron by moving a stick. Or even a standard RTS like Starcraft.
The analogy only works because it is one of the most simplistic gameplay types possible.

Of course even a complicated UI can be implemented with various degrees of intuition, but it will never resemble Buretsu's optimal case. The only way to get that is to use simple gameplay.

Bostur:

ablac:

Buretsu:
Intuitive is pressing a button to walk over to a gun, pressing a button to pick up a gun, moving a stick or a mouse to point it at the bad guys, and pressing another button to pull the trigger.

Unintuitive is opening a menu, selecting to walk over to a gun, pressing a single button to pull up another menu of what to do with the gun, select to pick up the gun, open another menu to equip the gun, opening a menu to select which bad guy to point the gun at, opening yet another menu to pull the trigger.

And people honestly believe the second one to be optimal...

Here, this is the best analogy of the majority of times a game is 'dumbed down'. Things dont need to be needlessly complicated and the challenge should come from the game itself not its controls.

That example works fine for picking up a gun and firing it. But try to recreate a Mech on a battlefield with air and ground support and all of a sudden Intuitiveness is lost no matter what approach you use.
Try implementing a grand strategy game like Hearts of Iron by moving a stick. Or even a standard RTS like Starcraft.
The analogy only works because it is one of the most simplistic gameplay types possible.

Of course even a complicated UI can be implemented with various degrees of intuition, but it will never resemble Buretsu's optimal case. The only way to get that is to use simple gameplay.

I see where you were coming from though the analogy as a real case was not what I was thinking should be the cookie cutter of all games as you seem to have read. I simply agreed with the guy who came up with it (all credit of course goes to him) and said that controls shouldnt be part of the challenge and that making thme as easy to use as possible is optimal. That is not to say games should not have complex controls and that all games can get by on simple controls because thats simply not true. However many people seem to think that needlessly complex controls or simple faf in a game is part of the challenge when it isnt. However this does not extend to fighting games where the challenge revolves around mastery of the controls but that is not the case for all. Sorry if I was confusing but I never meant to say that games should be this easy to use universally or that it was even possible but more that the analogy highlighted the difference between needless complexity and intuitiveness. In the analogy the game isnt easier or harder but simply removes something creating artificial difficulty.

ablac:
I see where you were coming from though the analogy as a real case was not what I was thinking should be the cookie cutter of all games as you seem to have read. I simply agreed with the guy who came up with it (all credit of course goes to him) and said that controls shouldnt be part of the challenge and that making thme as easy to use as possible is optimal. That is not to say games should not have complex controls and that all games can get by on simple controls because thats simply not true. However many people seem to think that needlessly complex controls or simple faf in a game is part of the challenge when it isnt. However this does not extend to fighting games where the challenge revolves around mastery of the controls but that is not the case for all. Sorry if I was confusing but I never meant to say that games should be this easy to use universally or that it was even possible but more that the analogy highlighted the difference between needless complexity and intuitiveness. In the analogy the game isnt easier or harder but simply removes something creating artificial difficulty.

Oh I absolutely agree that controls should be as easy to use as possible. And this is especially of paramount importance in very complex games. You can get away with obscure controls in a simple game because there is little to control. But if you do that in a game with high complexity it becomes an atrocity. So in practice the most complex games often have the most streamlined UIs otherwise they would simply be unplayable.

I don't really see many people arguing that controls need to be complex, quite the contrary. Most people fear the word 'streamlining' as a marketing word for simplifying the gameplay mechanics as opposed to the controls.

I think good controls also apply to fighting games. The better the controls are the harder the game can be made, and this is true for most genres. Starcraft 2 is a game with very smooth controls and a very high skill ceiling. If a game has poor controls it isn't possible to be good at it.

endtherapture:
Sometimes things are dumbed down and you can't deny it.

Sometimes it's for the best (eg ME1 to ME2 could be argued, however ME3 hit the sweet spot),

Sometimes it's for the worse (Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age 2 FUCKING RUINED A PERFECT RPG GAME GRRRRR, and Crysis 1 to Crysis 2). It depends the level of dumbing down and whether it's needed. DA:O was streamlined enough to make sense and not have endless amounts of menus. DA2 took that, and absolutely ruined the charm of the original game.

Pretty much what he said. There is definitely some dumbing down going on. DA2 and Crysis 2 are perfect examples.

Adam Jensen:

endtherapture:
Sometimes things are dumbed down and you can't deny it.

Sometimes it's for the best (eg ME1 to ME2 could be argued, however ME3 hit the sweet spot),

Sometimes it's for the worse (Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age 2 FUCKING RUINED A PERFECT RPG GAME GRRRRR, and Crysis 1 to Crysis 2). It depends the level of dumbing down and whether it's needed. DA:O was streamlined enough to make sense and not have endless amounts of menus. DA2 took that, and absolutely ruined the charm of the original game.

Pretty much what he said. There is definitely some dumbing down going on. DA2 and Crysis 2 are perfect examples.

Crysis 1 and Dragon Age Origins were fine. You could play either game really casually, or immerse yourself fully.

I dont know why they dumbed down the games for their sequels it was just fucking retarded because the games were much worse.

ablac:
Wow Dexter. I have never seen so much immaturity. You know perfectly well we arent arguing for the things you use as a terrible analogy but your point doesnt stand if your reasonable because your trying to say that your subjective opinion is objectively correct. You ignore our arguments in favor of whatever will make us seem as facile as you. I wont try and de-construct what you are saying because you aint worth the time, uts like translating baby babble. Grow up man, we're optimistic and looking at the good whilst your stuck being miserable about everything. You shown yourself to be consistently immature every time you open your damn mouth but this is your finest hour.

Except you don't have a point or argument at all, you just have the misguided and mind stupid belief that the games of old apparently "suck" and were only made that way because it wasn't technically possible to turn them into First Person Shooters or Simulators of Casuality and you keep propagating that point as if you believe it to be universal truth.

Yet, a lot of games nowadays are just a few steps shy of wanting to turn most games into Kinecty jump-around experiences that infants can manage, it's certainly not for a lack of trying from certain companies: http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6318951/e3-2011-microsoft-incorporating-kinect-into-all-first-party-games

On the other hand we have an increasing number of people pissed off at that exact development, who spend 10 Million $ alone last month to get back these "Old-School" games with some degree of depth and complexity to them: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/19/over-10000000-given-to-kickstarter-games-since-march/ , if all was well in the state of Denmark surely they wouldn't need to do that...

But go right ahead and continue to jabber your utter nonsense.

DrVornoff:

More Fun To Compute:
I don't play FPS or Pokemon. Not interested in those games.

My point stands. Conflating elegance and intuitive design with a lack of challenge is foolish.

If that is your point then you should have just said that.

I don't think I said that making one thing more intuitive removes all challenge from the whole. I don't think that elegance and intuitive design are the same although if someone wants to make something more intuitive then I'd rather they do it well than badly. But saying that perceived elegance and accessibility are good does not mean they can never have side effects like removing good complexity or forcing a game to change entirely because a well loved game is no longer perceived to be elegant by the jack booted elegance police.