Why are video games getting progressively dumber? Should they

File: 1357050859130.jpg (397KB, 1206x1291px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1206x1291px

>>379043292
RIP
shonen

>Should they not be getting more intricate with time?
In a perfect world, sure
In our reality games get popular with each year, and popularity causes casualization and dumbing down

They reached peak intricacy then fell into the dark ages

>>379043292
Casualization

Because publishers learned how to appeal to journalist.
A journalist considers their time precious so long games are automatically bad. Ideal duration is 2-8 hours so it can be finished in an afternoon's work.
They also hate games that require them to learn something new, increasing their workload further. The mechanics should always be intuitive or based on previously understood mechanics from other games.

Yes and no.

Mainstream games seek to appeal to as large audiences as possible and that is most easily accomplished by taking out anything that might make the game unpalatable to someone (being found too challenging, too complex, too troublesome, too offensive, you name it). Since "non-gamers" are a major market, they don't even really need to compare favourably to older games, just be accessible to as big of a demographic as possible.

On the other hand, while it's not at all difficult to come up with examples of enthusiast game developers "selling out" and trying to appeal to the mainstream instead, it should be noted that the most complex and detailed games among those you might describe as "enthusiast games/genres" are recent.

Roguelikes are an obvious area to look at because it can be seen as a genre exclusive to enthusiasts (and with most of them being open source/free software, three decades old games are still receiving updates in projects that might be a fork of a fork of a fork): even legendarily difficult and detailed games like NetHack pale in comparison to its variants that have been updated more recently (I don't think there's a single NetHack variant that takes away stuff, so the more modern variants like Slash'EM are more complex and intricate pretty much by default, although it should be noted that doesn't necessarily make them the better game). To say nothing of newer wave of roguelikes (some of which admittedly are a decade old or older anyway, but still being developed with new stuff added every release), like UnReal World or Dwarf Fortress adventure mode.

But even in terms of genres where developers often defect, this progression is still visible. For example, in terms of strategy gaming, nothing really compares to games like Aurora, War in the East/West and Dominions. And if you add mods to the equation, the advancement is clearer.

kuuko is literally the only good thing about nyaruko

>>379043292
The basic problem with the video game industry (and many others) is that it's a business, most devs and publishers make games first and foremost to make money. As long as there is this tension between financial viability and muh artistic vision, every dev and publisher will have to compromise on their vision to survive, some do it more, some less.
The principal goals of devs/pubs and players are not the same, players don't really care about the financial future of the companies involved, they just want to experience something fun and compelling. Again, some games manage this balance act better than others, but to align the goals of devs and players completely, you'd have to remove the requirement for financial sustainability of companies, and that takes some doing.

>inb4 die commie
This is just what I observe and think so far, feel free to correct me or add your point of view.

>>379046349
Yeah, state sponsored video game development!

>>379046421
Or remove the sponsor altogether? The need for sponsorship is what compromises the vision.

>>379047259
But wouldn't that mean that we'd see even more preorder/early access bullshits?

>>379043292
They should become easier to use and simpler by design as the collective understanding of video games improves.
Or video game companies will merge, create monopolies and stagnate, as seems to be the tendency after long term capitalism.

>>379047259
>remove the sponsor altogether
Developers need to eat, family.

>>379047415
Why? I'm not even sure how a sponsorless vidya developing system would function exactly, but assuming that a dev studio has no need for a publisher that carries most of the financial risk or any other sponsor, I'm not sure why they would depend on early access or pre-orders instead. That would make the early backers the sponsor, no? The idea was to remove the sponsor completely and make vidya for vidya's sake with no financial considerations of any kind muddying the waters.

>>379043412
Fugg why did you remind me :'(

File: 1416784682593.png (43KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x400px

>>379043292
>tfw brainlet
No...

>>379047793
That is true, which is why this would probably never work in a capitalist system like nowadays. But IF you wanted to get as close to a "pure" product (no investor interest/demands, no board rooms designing games etc) as possible, I don't see a way around abolishing the need for financial viability. Capitalism drives a lot innovation and progress, but it simultaneously contaminates every product with the requirement that it be financially viable. This is all just hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals though.

>>379048268
Even in a communist state, resources exist. Which is why projects like the Soviet Space Program were sponsored by the state.
Money is just the manifestation of human time spent. Capitalism or not, it's a symptom rather than the cause of the problem which is resources.

You won't get what you want until the world creates a Star Trek-like replicator to eliminate basic human needs.

File: AgeofWondersLeprechaun.gif (42KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 128x128px

>>379043292

Complex and intricate games still exist but they're niche, as is the case with all mediums, and it's not like even /v/ spends a lot of time discussing them as opposed to the bigger and more marketed games no matter how this place pretends to be all hardcore. And let's not act like everyone was super into them before either, Myst was the best-selling PC game until The Sims specifically because it was designed to be family-friendly and playable by anyone even without prior video game experience.

Plus most gamers grew up and got jobs, started families and got other real life obligations. People's tastes don't get more hardcore over time but rather the opposite, simply because they no longer have the time to spend learning one game like they did back in their teenage years. When you only have a few hours per week for gaming, phone games and other lightweight titles which are easy to play are far more attractive than complex simulations or whatever.

People bemoaning the casualization of video games are pretty much always NEETs who got old but never filled their lives with anything but games.

>>379048516
States don't have to be either capitalist or communist, but I agree it's not something very practical as long as basic human needs have to be met. Concepts like basic income do shake up the idea of money = human time/labor though I think, even if it does not technically lead to unlimited resources or anything like that. I guess any system where basic quality of life is only assured through gainful employment is unfit for this kind of "pure videogames"-idea because as long as you depend on your work to secure your standard of living, you're not completely free to make just anything you want.