How much streamlining is acceptable?

[Servo]

Let's talk about streamlining. How much is okay? Is there any type of streamlining that's okay? What are some examples of streamlining that you thought were done well or that you appreciated? What are the worst examples you can think of?

Also, if the player has the option to turn streamlined features off, does that make it okay? Take Thi4f for example: Using his focus ability, Garrett can see certain items which aid his thieving skills. Because he's so adept at this stealth thing, these ladders, pipes, windows and shit "pop out" and he notices them easily. Others who are not as aweshum of course don't see in the dark like he does. I can buy into this mechanic because it's justified from a narrative standpoint.

But anyone who played the previous Thief games, where it was up to the player to notice these items, is annoyed because this ability could make the game much easier. My question is: what if you could turn focus off? Would people still be complaining about it? If that's the case, then I would have to ask another question: why?

MOAR EXAMPLES: In Mirror's Edge, the game would highlight the same types of things - ladders, pipes - but you could turn it off. In Mass Effect 3, I heard you could turn off combat altogether, or not if you're into crappy third-person cover-based shooter nonsense. In New Vegas, your character might die permanently if you forget to stock up on rations, but only if you're hardcore a massochist.

Most games simply have a difficulty sliding, and I think of this as the same kinda. i.e., if a game is too easy on easy mode for you, why not crank the difficulty? And who cares if someone plays the game on easy mode?

 

[racofer]

Different difficulty levels should solely alter enemy AI behavior and nothing else.

A game should not make things easier or harder from a player's point of view, like visual aids and stuff. It should be up to the player to "get good" at the game: this ads challenge and ultimately makes the game more rewarding. If a game is "too hard" for a given player, then he should play something else instead of having the game cater to the player's inability to progress. Anything we do in our whole life takes a little effort to accomplish, gaming should be no different, and trying to appeal to the widest possible player base tuns an otherwise good game into something incredibly monotonous for others that want to feel challenged, and eventually makes the not so "talented" gamers bored.

In Thi4f's case, there should be no visual aids whatsoever. Repeat the same mechanics throughout the game if you must, but at least the player would play the damned game looking for those known situations he/she previously experienced or even attempt to be creative and see if something new could work. In this case, it's much better to have the illusion of different gameplay choices instead of having things popping at your face saying "over here!". But given today's people attention span, very few would pay attention to the game and this would shut off a large portion of the players.

Mirror's Edge is mostly a puzzle game, so no different difficulty settings should exist. Does Portal has different difficulties? Nope, because it makes no fucking sense, and although there's nothing stellar in difficulty to that game, it sure made a lot of people happy when they managed to beat it and it's still a popular title and fun to play from time to time.

ME3's possibility to skip combat (or make it retardedly easy) just shows that Bioware is not in the business of making games, but instead in the business of writing (bad) teenage novels. ME2/3 on the hardest difficulty is the only way to make the game a bit interesting, not because it makes enemies smarter (they are mostly dumb at any difficulty), but because they no longer die in one or two shots, and you have to strip down different layers of defense to take them out, with different skills.

However, dumbing down games is not going away because having every moron on the planet playing every game earns much jewgold to the industry. Indies and some kickstarters are probably the only source of "real" games left and even then one has to be skeptical.

I, personally, don't mind streamlined or dumbed down games as long as said games don't pretend to be more than that. When you make a dumb game like Skyrim and slap legendary difficulty on it, which only serves to bloat enemy hitpoints and nerf your damage output, and then have every retard on the planet saying that if you find Skyrim stupid easy, it's because you're playing it on normal, instead of admitting that Skyrim is heavily geared towards casual gamers and people not interesting at "getting good" at the game, because you know there are more challenging and interesting games out there, when you make a dumb game like this with a hoard of ignorant people blatantly ignoring the flaws and pretending their game is the pinnacle of gaming, its when I have a problem with streamlining. Because it's like developers are rewarding mediocrity, and it serves only to drag more games down into a spiral of shitness.

 

[Excidium]

Streamlining is good when it results in better gameplay.

Having an out-of-combat heal button that makes characters automatically cast healing spells, re-memorize them and rest then repeat until fully restored saves the player the annoyance of having to do all that crap manually. Or merging two skills which cover the same aspect (e.g Move Silently + Hide = Stealth) frees skill points the characters can use in more interesting ways. That's good streamlining.

Streamlining due to laziness or all those modern examples of games that cut away aspects of gameplay for the sake of making it more welcome for wider audiences, is obviously shit.

 

[Servo]

So would you guys say:

Streamlining related to difficulty = bad
Streamlining related to usability = good

This might be an oversimplification.

 

[SCO]

Usually. There is something autistic about rpgs. Even the inventory knapsack minigame can be enjoyable to the right person, taken in moderation as something different to do than the main gameplay.

Some usability problems can be endearing on their own way.
But looting is shit.

 

[Gregz]

Personally, I find streamlining...























UNACCEPTABLE!

 

[Abelian]

So would you guys say:

Streamlining related to difficulty = bad
Streamlining related to usability = good

This might be an oversimplification.

I think that's a fair assessment. For example, I liked how Warcraft had the auto-heal ability for some units since it helped improve the game flow. I didn't like how Lords of the Realm 3 removed the additional resource types, since the economy was one of the things I enjoyed in its predecessor.

In Homeworld: Cataclysm, the game speed could be increased to 8X, which greatly helped with resource collection. Homeworld 2 added a feature where all resources on the map would be automatically collected at the end of each campaign mission. In my opinion, this is overkill, since it makes it too easy for the player ("no pain, no gain" as they say).

 

[J1M]

Let's talk about streamlining. How much is okay? Is there any type of streamlining that's okay? What are some examples of streamlining that you thought were done well or that you appreciated? What are the worst examples you can think of?

Also, if the player has the option to turn streamlined features off, does that make it okay? Take Thi4f for example: Using his focus ability, Garrett can see certain items which aid his thieving skills. Because he's so adept at this stealth thing, these ladders, pipes, windows and shit "pop out" and he notices them easily. Others who are not as aweshum of course don't see in the dark like he does. I can buy into this mechanic because it's justified from a narrative standpoint.

But anyone who played the previous Thief games, where it was up to the player to notice these items, is annoyed because this ability could make the game much easier. My question is: what if you could turn focus off? Would people still be complaining about it? If that's the case, then I would have to ask another question: why?

MOAR EXAMPLES: In Mirror's Edge, the game would highlight the same types of things - ladders, pipes - but you could turn it off. In Mass Effect 3, I heard you could turn off combat altogether, or not if you're into crappy third-person cover-based shooter nonsense. In New Vegas, your character might die permanently if you forget to stock up on rations, but only if you're hardcore a massochist.

Most games simply have a difficulty sliding, and I think of this as the same kinda. i.e., if a game is too easy on easy mode for you, why not crank the difficulty? And who cares if someone plays the game on easy mode?

Adding particle effects or similar to today's 3D environments is almost required. This problem is caused by great visual detail with next to zero interactivity. Players need a visual queue when an object breaks the default rules of the world (which are basically "everything is static and nonreactive"). In older games, the same technique was applied in a more subtle fashion by not applying lighting to the object (Deus Ex) or by making everything reactive (Deus Ex). This trains the player to consider the environment malleable and worth inspecting.

Here is an example of the type of streamlining that I appreciate. In 4e D&D, they simplified the material component requirements for spells. Instead of every single spell having a different component, they created a generic component for each spellcasting type. Wizards used arcane dust, and clerics used small candles or whatever. There was also a generic component available that could be used by everyone, but it was obtained by destroying magic items. The prime restriction imposed by these components, which was a gold cost for impressive spells, was maintained. The tedious book keeping of bat wings, flawed pearls, and frog eyes was removed.

 

[Darth Roxor]

No compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

 

[JMab]

So would you guys say:

Streamlining related to difficulty = bad
Streamlining related to usability = good

This might be an oversimplification.

I think that's basically right.
I think difficulty should control opponent quantity and strength, that's it.
But in terms of usability, there are streamlining concessions that need to be made because you're trying to represent a "real" world on a relatively tiny screen. If you get your 2D/3D art right, your environment and items are often quite likely to share similar colors, shading, etc. - i.e. items shouldn't necessarily stick out like sore thumbs in their environments, and may be harder to spot at lower resolutions. In this case, I think a reasonable usability streamlining feature is to allow users to hold tab to highlight (i.e. make glow) all usable items in the scene, I think.
You don't want to make the challenge of the game a pixel hunt to find items in the scene..

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Different difficulty levels should solely alter enemy AI behavior and nothing else.

Extra powerups laying around in lower difficulties are a good alternative. A player that is not very skilled can still take on a difficult enemy if he's able to reach it with full health and ammo, etc.

I, personally, don't mind streamlined or dumbed down games as long as said games don't pretend to be more than that. When you make a dumb game like Skyrim and slap legendary difficulty on it, which only serves to bloat enemy hitpoints and nerf your damage output, and then have every retard on the planet saying that if you find Skyrim stupid easy, it's because you're playing it on normal, instead of admitting that Skyrim is heavily geared towards casual gamers and people not interesting at "getting good" at the game, because you know there are more challenging and interesting games out there, when you make a dumb game like this with a hoard of ignorant people blatantly ignoring the flaws and pretending their game is the pinnacle of gaming, its when I have a problem with streamlining. Because it's like developers are rewarding mediocrity, and it serves only to drag more games down into a spiral of shitness.

That's not a problem with streamlining itself, but with pride. Of course they're gonna believe the game that BLEW MY MIND BRO is the pinnacle of gaming, to think otherwise is to recognize that "game I like" is not necessarily the same as "good game". Even here people sometimes forget that.

Speaking of Skyrim, the streamlining of the stats and attributes into perks and skills is the best recent example I can think of. The system already felt tacked on in Morrowind, and it was just sad in Oblivion. While the abominable "raise skills by use" system is still in place, encouraging degenerate shit like hopping in place or repeatedly casting cheap cantrips at yourself, it's a little less masturbatory now.

 

[Trojan_generic]

Good comments already. Also:

Removing spears/other features because no one used them in the previous game = shit, why not make spears more interesting instead? (infamous example)

Streamlining related to difficulty = bad
Streamlining related to usability = good

Instead of difficulty, I would say: Streamlining related to overall complexity = bad. But one should remember that repetitive simple shit adds nothing to the gameplay, no matter how many different kind of simple shits there are to do - 99.99 % of minigames suck. By the way, the last enjoyable minigame was in Paradroid around 1985, and even that got boring after a while, but I was a kid then so I could bear it.

Streamlining by removing text because your average player cannot read anymore is also shit. I'm wondering why the main menu items in games nowadays don't use symbols instead of Continue/Options/Exit, because everything else has been changed already. No, I don't know intuitively what clicking your hand icon is supposed to do in the game, especially if there are 3 other hand icons on the screen in slightly different positions.

 

[Raapys]

Ye, I hate those changes where a prequel struggled with a poorly implemented feature and then the sequel just removes it entirely instead of trying to fix or improve it. Bethesda has been doing that with every game since Daggerfall.

Then again, I love complexity and options in a game as long as the extra detail doesn't add non-optional micromanagement. Simple, 'pure' games just don't hold much appeal to me anymore.

 

[racofer]

Different difficulty levels should solely alter enemy AI behavior and nothing else.

Extra powerups laying around in lower difficulties are a good alternative. A player that is not very skilled can still take on a difficult enemy if he's able to reach it with full health and ammo, etc.

Agreed, although I completely ignored such situations as games no longer feature such mechanics and instead everything has been streamlined into regenerating health and universal ammo.

I, personally, don't mind streamlined or dumbed down games as long as said games don't pretend to be more than that. When you make a dumb game like Skyrim and slap legendary difficulty on it, which only serves to bloat enemy hitpoints and nerf your damage output, and then have every retard on the planet saying that if you find Skyrim stupid easy, it's because you're playing it on normal, instead of admitting that Skyrim is heavily geared towards casual gamers and people not interesting at "getting good" at the game, because you know there are more challenging and interesting games out there, when you make a dumb game like this with a hoard of ignorant people blatantly ignoring the flaws and pretending their game is the pinnacle of gaming, its when I have a problem with streamlining. Because it's like developers are rewarding mediocrity, and it serves only to drag more games down into a spiral of shitness.

That's not a problem with streamlining itself, but with pride. Of course they're gonna believe the game that BLEW MY MIND BRO is the pinnacle of gaming, to think otherwise is to recognize that "game I like" is not necessarily the same as "good game". Even here people sometimes forget that.

Speaking of Skyrim, the streamlining of the stats and attributes into perks and skills is the best recent example I can think of. The system already felt tacked on in Morrowind, and it was just sad in Oblivion. While the abominable "raise skills by use" system is still in place, encouraging degenerate shit like hopping in place or repeatedly casting cheap cantrips at yourself, it's a little less masturbatory now.

Agreed as well.

When I read about the stats change in Skyrim, it was sort of good news to me that such an horrendous system as the one used in previous games was finally scratched in favor of something a little more coherent.

 

[DraQ]

The main question to be asked is "will this option cripple the game for those not using it?".

 

[Kaucukovnik]

Here is an example of the type of streamlining that I appreciate. In 4e D&D, they simplified the material component requirements for spells. Instead of every single spell having a different component, they created a generic component for each spellcasting type. Wizards used arcane dust, and clerics used small candles or whatever. There was also a generic component available that could be used by everyone, but it was obtained by destroying magic items. The prime restriction imposed by these components, which was a gold cost for impressive spells, was maintained. The tedious book keeping of bat wings, flawed pearls, and frog eyes was removed.

I don't like this particular example at all. It smells of that "didn't work well, so we removed it instead of fixing". And it's pretty much the same as the mentioned universal ammo.
This streamlining makes the game more bearable with a bad DM, but it limits the options of a good one.

Yeah, if your idea of a mage is "I pull out my fireball and waste the fucker" and components are there only to provide an "ammo" functionality, then it's a welcome change. Well, and what else is D&D 4e about?

 

[J1M]

Here is an example of the type of streamlining that I appreciate. In 4e D&D, they simplified the material component requirements for spells. Instead of every single spell having a different component, they created a generic component for each spellcasting type. Wizards used arcane dust, and clerics used small candles or whatever. There was also a generic component available that could be used by everyone, but it was obtained by destroying magic items. The prime restriction imposed by these components, which was a gold cost for impressive spells, was maintained. The tedious book keeping of bat wings, flawed pearls, and frog eyes was removed.

I don't like this particular example at all. It smells of that "didn't work well, so we removed it instead of fixing". And it's pretty much the same as the mentioned universal ammo.
This streamlining makes the game more bearable with a bad DM, but it limits the options of a good one.

Yeah, if your idea of a mage is "I pull out my fireball and waste the fucker" and components are there only to provide an "ammo" functionality, then it's a welcome change. Well, and what else is D&D 4e about?

I was talking about the reagent change specifically. Have you ever heard of someone that tracked detailed reagents in a tabletop game? If you are still managing limited spell slots, it isn't like universal ammo because difficult decisions still exist.

Mana is universal ammo.

 

[Ranselknulf]

Make built in game support for user created macros. Then there is no need to over think elaborate streamlining processes.

If a certain macro become so overwhelmingly common/used then maybe you could think about incorporating it into the game by default.

Bonus points if you make the macros easily shareable with other people.

 

[tuluse]

Streamlining is good when it means the game gets out of your way so you can play it.

Streamlining is bad when it means removing gameplay.

Focus is an awful idea in Thief because looking for loot was part of playing the game. Taking that out means there is less game.

 

[Servo]

Usually. There is something autistic about rpgs. Even the inventory knapsack minigame can be enjoyable to the right person, taken in moderation as something different to do than the main gameplay.

Some usability problems can be endearing on their own way.

I think you mean aspergistic (is that a word?). Autism is a form of mental retardation, but you're referring more to OCD tendencies. I have the latter in spades which causes me to obsess with inventory/quest management but I sure don't enjoy it.

But looting is shit.

Why?

 

[Kaucukovnik]

I must say I quite enjoy inventory tetris and such. I think these activities give the impression that I'm the one taking care of things, and not that everything is prepared for the ride and I just jump in for the flashy bits.
To me a complex (not necessarily difficult) game is simply enjoyable, while a heavily streamlined one is FUN!!!1! Paradoxically the latter tends to bore me very soon.

Maybe a little bit like movies with plenty of prolonged, static shots vs ones packed with action at all costs?