Average age of gamers rising. Average complexity of games dropping. huh?

[Skwink]

[citation needed on 2]

 

[Slowpoke]

[citation needed on 2]

No idea what 2 refers to

 

[Skwink]

2. The average complexity of games, especially noticeable in strategy games due to their inherent complexity, is dropping. This can be debated if it is a fact or not, but i'm pretty sure most of us agree. UI enhancements and streamlining is great, less mouseclicks to do the same thing for less effort (right mouse button to move and attack, rather than hit a redundant "move" and "attack" button on the UI). Great stuff.
However the thing im talking about is of course the gameplay mechanics, the variety and thought required.

This two.

 

[Slowpoke]

Streamlining and UI is basically a fact in newer games, no references needed. If you're referring to the variety and thought needed, it's almost as obvious too. The highest difficulties in pretty much all games now are no longer rediculous, it's acheivable by anyone so they can "feel smart" or whatever (unfortunately leaving those playing at that level easily with nothing to work on). As for variety... really do you want 100 references to series which have become simplified?

 

[vlkm]

It's debatable whether Civ5 is more or less complex than Civ4, but I think everyone will agree that it's more complex than Civ1. So I don't think that the complexity of games is dropping in the long term.

It is not more complex. Civ 5 plays itself pretty much and all you do is press end turn. Sure if you want to min/max and micro everything and play at the best you can, to win. Problem is you don't actually need to do that.

 

[Skwink]

The highest difficulties in pretty much all games now are no longer rediculous, it's acheivable by anyone so they can "feel smart" or whatever (unfortunately leaving those playing at that level easily with nothing to work on).

You see, I don't game much, and if we're going to have a real discussion, I would like some opinions from sites like IGN etc.

 

[Pojman]

It's debatable whether Civ5 is more or less complex than Civ4, but I think everyone will agree that it's more complex than Civ1. So I don't think that the complexity of games is dropping in the long term.

I would be more than willing to debate the fact that Civ1 is far more complex than Civ5..

 

[Slowpoke]

Well, I'll just look at some of the series I've played recently

XCOM-Started off cool, dumbed down to junk over the ages
Advance Wars Days of ruin-One difficulty setting for the game? Lol?
Half life 2- Some people can beat Hard with a crowbar. Except of course the two or three parts where you need a rocket/GG (still an awesome game in spite of it).
Spore-No words needed.

Anyways these are just the games I've played recently.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Why is the gaming age increasing and the complexity of the games going down?

Simple

The game makers are going after the television watching crowd who are now getting into playing the simpler games.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

So I guess the moral is, if you want to make complicated games, go gameboy? I mean advance wars graphics looks like pre SNES, and the music is crappy, yet it's awesome and sells well in spite of that.

Well, some have said Square's position is biased by its need to justify its large imaging department. Remember that the company released a feature film that was completely digitally rendered. It didn't do very well.

Some executives may simply blame their recent games' linearity and oversimplification on an alleged consumer mandate for high-level graphics/animation for reasons other than the whole truth.

But I do think a large number of gamers are often worried about graphics first and gameplay second.

As for Final Fantasy VII... It had some tremendous strengths but was a highly flawed game as well. For instance, it couldn't decide whether to be gritty or childish. It started with mature themes, even placing the player in the moral dilemma of being seen as part of a terrorist group. That is commendable. But, it was followed by the cop-out that is "save the planet from the bad guys who are controlled by a monster" boilerplate. The third disc is almost throw-away; the first disc is the "real game". There is a giant marshmallow with a megaphone-wielding cat riding it as well as other absurdities like a tiger of sorts being a player character and supposedly being part of a civilized race.

It also had a huge development staff and budget, which enabled it to have more depth than later games in the franchise but which did not prevent it from having significant flaws. Some have suggested that Square has been weakened by the poor performance of its film(s) and that is why its development has been less, but the series became increasingly infantile before that (FF IX, for instance). And FF IIX was quite linear and so dull I never managed to get half way through it.

Pretty graphics with nothing underneath may draw in suckers, but most gaming veterans won't be fooled for long -- at least I hope not. But, I do read review after review for graphics cards that obsess about how "pretty" shooter games like Crysis can appear, reviews that equate frames per second and visual settings with advances in gaming. Who cares about how lovely the foliage is when the entire point is to shoot people? I find this sense of aesthetics peculiar!

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I think one issue with Civ V is indeed that the developers wanted to make it simpler and more accessible. Of course, what they should have done instead is to stay confident in the knowledge that those who aren't interested in, or have the time for, a challenging game can stay on the easy levels whereas the mountain climbers can start climbing towards Deity. Even so, I think Civ V is a good game, and with some very needed tweaks and balance adjustments, (such as a true difference between the difficulty levels) everyone can play at their preferred level, happy to know just as much about the game mechanics as they feel a need for.

That said, I do like Civ V. It's a pity it was botched, partly (as I believe, redeemably) out of an exaggerated fear of scaring off possible customers by being too complex, and partly because it was rushed onto the market before it had been properly tested and implemented.

As others have said, I don't think the age factor is too important, though it is true that kids have more time on their hands than grownups.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I would be more than willing to debate the fact that Civ1 is far more complex than Civ5..

I'm amazed by what you say. I played Civ I, and it was most definitely less complex than any sequel, including Civ V. Well, I couldn't speak with certainty about Civ Revolutions since I have never played it. But I did play Civ I, and loved it. However, by present-day standards it was very primitive, in spite of the ingenious ideas behind it which are the reason why a new version of Civ appears every fifth year.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I am ready to debate that Civ4 is a dumbed down version of the gem that was Civ1!

 

[Iranon]

I don't think this is directly linked to age, but I think it's inevitable. In a newly established medium, you have a market made up mostly of enthusiasts who can take a challenge and won't mind if things get a little fiddly. If you're willing to tinker with your configuration files to make a game run on something that's not supposed to run it, chances are you'll also be forgiving towards innovative if slightly rough gameplay. And possibly bored if things get too easy.

When the technical aspects are under control, most of the money is in the casual audience. The best-selling books, movies and music are usually not the most groundbreaking, deep or artistically significant either... why should games be different?

Game makers have been holding back for a while. If you strip away presentation or things that exist mostly to enable more pleasing presentation (e.g. relatively detailed physics used more for eye candy rather than simulation of anything gameplay-relevant), few games really use the power of modern systems or the ability of designers to make the most complete game they can. You can do something that's good enough with the standards of 10+ years ago, anything more is being nerdy for the sake of being nerdy. It just makes no sense to waste money on something that can easily scare customers away and will be harder to fix if it turns out to be broken.

Streamlining usually goes too far for my tastes, but I accept that it can be a good thing... what I find more worrying is that apparent attempts to 'trick players into having fun' are becoming more common.
In some ways, an illusion of a challenge is better than a challenge from a designer's point of view: The player gets the thrill of struggling with it and the enjoyment of overcoming it, without a risk of undue frustration. Clunky mathematics that match the expectations of people without an aptitude for it (the expected majority of customers) can be preferable to something more elegant. Sometimes, supposed randomness isn't, as a design choice: randomness doesn't feel random to most people so there will be complaints of bias. It may be more uniform or stacked to favour the player.
All of this is still relatively benign compared to games which aren't games... no or trivial decisions, in favour of a set of stimuli and rewards that conditions players to keep going and experience satisfaction.
There are incentives to make shallow, broken and manipulative games that hide their deliberate flaws behind a screen of gimmicks and spectacle. Aspects of these will creep into less cynical titles if it turns out be good business practice and developers figure that's what their audience wants.

 

[Reginleif]

It is because of the rise of casual games that this was taking place. When the Devine Wind was in charge, games were complex. However when the Devils entered the arena the flooded the market with simple, casual games that attracted inner city children like Halo, Gears of War, GTA, etc, all of whom are simple (hold r), cookie-cutter games designed for casuals.

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Fistalis]

One wonders, therefore, whether the curve is just shifting right, that video games were a product of an age, and that population who likes them is just getting steadily older...

I've gotta say you hit the nail on the head. There will always be a market for them but I think of other forms of entertainment in general when i look at them. There was a time when almost everyone read books for entertainment. There was a time when almost everyone went to the movies for entertainment. There was a time when almost everyone stayed at home to watch tv for entertainment. And there was a time when almost everyone played video games..
People still do all of these things.. but you'll notice each had its own "golden age" if you will.

 

[Danei]

i mean, who doesn't like to line up three things in a row and see flashing lights?

Very true. This has been the basis of slot machines for decades, and people are willing to spend all kinds of money on them.

 

[BomberEscort]

In a nutshell, the average age of gamers is increasing, while the average age of the game designer is decreasing...

 

[taylor_cu]

Now, i'm not going to make jokes about how old age makes people less quick in the mind, or how little kidz (actual kids, not the online i'm-better-than-you derogatory term) are incapable of dealing with actual strategy, neither of which i believe.

I am however just going to simply and quickly state two facts, and my confusion around that.

1. The average age of people playing games is rising, in the early days of gaming (civ 1-3, super mario, etc) it was around 15 or something like that, kids played games, some teens with nothing better to do, and if adults played games they were viewed as degenerates and "you should know better sir!!".
Today, everyone plays games. The average age is around 30 now, think about that for a moment..

2. The average complexity of games, especially noticeable in strategy games due to their inherent complexity, is dropping. This can be debated if it is a fact or not, but i'm pretty sure most of us agree. UI enhancements and streamlining is great, less mouseclicks to do the same thing for less effort (right mouse button to move and attack, rather than hit a redundant "move" and "attack" button on the UI). Great stuff.
However the thing im talking about is of course the gameplay mechanics, the variety and thought required.


So now, why is this? Why are developers still so desperatly (almost with a pathetic look, due to how desperate they appear) trying to appeal to the gaming audience that is NOT the mainstream? (remember, the mainstream average gamer isnt 15 years old anymore, he / she's in college or an adult).

I mean, shouldnt the games become MORE complex, with the more adult gaming market? Shouldnt the games strive to become more intelligent and rather flatter the adult gamers intelligence with its intricate gameplay, instead of insulting the adult gamers intelligence with its ridiculous CLICK HERE !!! THIS CITY HAS GROWN!!! *SHINY ORB TO ENHANCE THE ONLY CITY ON SCREEN IN CASE YOU MISS IT* ??

I dont get it........ It's like the publishers are out of their minds..
Here, in the year 2011 (soon), you have a consumer audience composed of mainly college students and adults, and yet you try to focus on the now minority ages 5-15 audience?

It is financial suicide.. It's like trying to sell tampons to men, when there's a sea of women out there craving one.

That such average civ players age rising is False. Just in case, it is an inertia effect , started with civ IV.
Civ V is for children.

 

[taylor_cu]

In a nutshell, the average age of gamers is increasing, while the average age of the game designer is decreasing...