Do you as computer users want more dumbed down games?

Or do you prefer to sometimes have to "tweak" your new game, example, editing a CFG file to turn vsync on or change aspect ratio. What I mean is would you prefer if devs just made sure this was done automatically like a console game, or rather that you might have to make some changes to get to where you want? Me personally, I loved editing stuff and tweaking, and much like I have for the past 13 years, I'd prefer to do it that way.

Everythings getting too dumbed down imo.

I think that's a false dichotomy. There's no reason you can't have a solid auto-detection (I'm not sure there are too many games anymore that don't do a good job setting their own defaults), and still let the user configure it the way they want.

I completely agree. I want games that 'just work' but still offer flexibility, should I require it.

ShuttleLuv said:

Or do you prefer to sometimes have to "tweak" your new game, example, editing a CFG file to turn vsync on or change aspect ratio. What I mean is would you prefer if devs just made sure this was done automatically like a console game, or rather that you might have to make some changes to get to where you want? Me personally, I loved editing stuff and tweaking, and much like I have for the past 13 years, I'd prefer to do it that way.

Everythings getting too dumbed down imo.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between dumbing something down (ie. it underperforms and there's nothing you can do about it) and apps simply getting smarter and offering settings that are useful in the UI and intelligently managing the rest of the more detailed settings based on that.

This is like Windows 7 vs. XP. XP offered and required lots of tweaking for some people. Some of these same people just can't leave Win7 the hell alone even though it does a fine job of optimizing, adapting to SSDs and the like.

Personally, I like to play a game without worrying that I haven't read the 20 page tweak guide of INI settings that I HAVE to change out of the box to get it to behave properly. The game is for fun and to escape from work and regular life. I don't need it to be more work. I expect to be able to tailor to my resolution, set some detail levels, AA, AF etc...

I'm not too picky about how I can do it as long as I can do it. It doesn't bother me to hit an .ini or a .cfg file to get the results I want. I'd rather have that than nothing at all.

The "dumbing down" I hate is the lack of having the options changeable from inside the game. I want the option to mess with all the graphics settings inside the game instead of having to be forced through a driver control panel or messing with some type of configuration file. If I can change it either way, that's fine as it's always nice to have options. Obviously, there are limitations to something like this. Some games don't have AA built into them and because of that, you obviously can't have an ingame control over that. That is a completely different story.

Short answer to the OP's question: NO!

Long answer to the OP's question: HELL NO!

RX3 said:

Short answer to the OP's question: NO!

Long answer to the OP's question: HELL NO!

Click to expand...

QFT, man! Personally, I'm all about tweaking and messing with config files (lately that is just trying to make SoftTH work with games).

I like lots of tweaks, but an auto-working game out of the box.
to repeat what others said,

I'd not say dumbed down, when my configuration settings are auto-detected. It's just question about efficiency. For example - C&C4, on setup from my sig, it set the game on 800x600, ultra low. Had to manually setup everything.

However, I don't mind having lots of options I can tweak, especially if something goes wrong with drivers compatibility. Also I ain't likin when I want to change something "on the fly", during race or mission and game tells me I've to restart for new changes to take effect.

I've been really unhappy with mouse acceleration in some recent PC FPS. If I have to spend more time dinking around with the mouse than I actually play the game I'd just as soon have auto-targeting or assisted targeting.

I'd like the games to feature all the cfg file's options in the option menu.. Its a pain to have to disable something in there when they could have added it into the options.

As PC gamers we are supposed to enjoy the frustrations that come with broken drivers, configs and random BSODs!

BTW, Parmenides, I love your name.

Fuck no, I want as many options available to me as possible in the options menu to tweak the game to my preference. I don't need the challenges of manually editing cfg files, it just needs to be included in an options menu with an intuitive UI.

I do not want more dumbed down games, but I would like to see more games that are usually console-exclusive appear on PC - i.e. more fighting games (like the well-ported Street Fighter IV) and racing games.

I just want to play my game. The game should work perfectly from the auto-configuration.

If you like screwing around in .ini files, skip the game and just play in notepad. You could write in all the tweaks you want, and then turn them on and off to your heart's content.

I don't mind editing cfg files. However some game launchers are well done and have all the necessary options before launching the game.

shor answer : Fuck no! .

I dont want them dumbed down, however I still want them to bloody well work. It ruins the immersion a bit if you have to keep fucking around with the settings config files to make a game run like it should have out of the box. But of couse you still want the freedom of being able to screw around with things yourself.

Yes sorry I wrote this quick half asleep. Yes I know what you all mean. You want the basic options to work out of the box as they fucking SHOULD, but you want lots of configurable end user tweaks. And we're losing that I'm afraid. I do not see any level of tweakability on the latets games that games like Quake 2, 3, UT, etc had. The last one I can recall was maybe Crysis.

Better question to ask is if we like the fact gaming consoles are dictating limitations in terms of thier proprietary hardware and that hardware's limitations over to our hardware, i.e. a console can't run aa in a particular game, the pc port doesn't get the option to run aa either even though our pc's hardware is capable.....stream lining inventory management or ui's because it better suites a game pad and the 10yr old booger eater using that game pad....loading time with a 8 thread processor and 1gb gpu makes yourself think WTF is going on, then you remind yourself the game is port from a mass marketed simpleton console and your hardware was never considered as part of the overall design process.

ShuttleLuv said:

Yes sorry I wrote this quick half asleep. Yes I know what you all mean. You want the basic options to work out of the box as they fucking SHOULD, but you want lots of configurable end user tweaks. And we're losing that I'm afraid. I do not see any level of tweakability on the latets games that games like Quake 2, 3, UT, etc had. The last one I can recall was maybe Crysis.

Click to expand...

Crysis config was a bit stupid if you ask me. The devs threw in heaps of features but instead of making them work together, just put them in a config for the users to figure out. There's no reason they couldn't have released good looking low/med/high/very high settings that actually ran reasonably to start with and would have satisfied 95% of users.

Dont get me wrong, I'm glad it had that level of customisation, but it was silly that users were forced to use config files to make the game run as it should have run out of the box.

When I read the thread title, I though you were talking about actually making gameplay simpler and more dumbed down, like Spellforce vs Spellforce 2, or SupCom vs SupCom 2, or Dawn of War vs Dawn of War II, among other examples.

I would like games to just work out of the box as far as settings go, but there should be plenty of room for customizing the UI, graphics options, keybindings, or anything else.

Either way, simpler games = worse games, IMHO.

ShuttleLuv said:

Yes sorry I wrote this quick half asleep. Yes I know what you all mean. You want the basic options to work out of the box as they fucking SHOULD, but you want lots of configurable end user tweaks. And we're losing that I'm afraid. I do not see any level of tweakability on the latets games that games like Quake 2, 3, UT, etc had. The last one I can recall was maybe Crysis.

Click to expand...

lol... don't write posts when you're half asleep! Of course, when I saw the title, I wasn't even thinking of ini files or tweaking. I am thinking of gameplay, and that is what really matters to me.

I hate dumbed down games and have been moving steadily away from them for years. Even the Bioshock titles which many of you love and enjoy, seem like nothing more than a step backwards for me after playing SS2 and similarly involving and immersive games.

I like my games complex, I enjoyed the X3 games even though I had to read through a 400 page pdf file to learn it. I enjoy the turn based games like Galciv2 and Sword of the Stars where the game can take days to finish and long-term plans can be made in advance. I play games like Men of War which seems to drive away the average RTS player with the interface and complexity it has.

When people talk about dumbed down games, I think of the deevolution of FPS games, Once there was thought and creative design in level development as well as accurate pacing to ensure the availability of health kits when they're needed. Now games have turned to a health regen system which allows for lazy design. Health packs no longer being required, and having no reason to go out of ones' way to search for something which may help you. I'm sure that many of you know what I mean, and that many of you probably don't mind these aspects of gameplay nearly as much as I do.

But I suppose that's not the point, is it? You're referring to dumbed down games in terms of configuration and settings. I like my games to work right out of the box. I'd rather not *need* to visit a site to get all the tweaks I need for a game to run properly.

I paid for the game to play it, not to spend time getting it to run well on my system. That said, I would still prefer to see games allow for the necessary tweaking and customizing (as well as modability) that allows people to customize their game to please themselves in the ways they see fit.

kelbear said:

I just want to play my game. The game should work perfectly from the auto-configuration.

If you like screwing around in .ini files, skip the game and just play in notepad. You could write in all the tweaks you want, and then turn them on and off to your heart's content.

Click to expand...

Haha, amen.

I buy the game to play it, not to play with tweaking or configuring it. Though that doesn't mean I won't dig into the .ini files and tweak the game on occasion.

I would like the option to edit things to add or change gameplay (like how you can mod the .ini file to change stuff in the old command and conquer games). But I don't want to have to edit a game just to make it run right.

No way, if I wanted that I'd buy a console!

i think the problem with games is they either make them too easy or too complicated. they forget the reason they play them. the fun. i was just looking at the hot deals thread and someone posted the link to active users on steam.

there is something like 72000 people playing CS and 84000 playing CS:S, i own them both i know they are not the same but basically they are the same style of game and are more closely similar then any other 2 games i could think of. infact the only game beating it is MW2. COD4MW has 221.

what on earth could be the driving force to keep such old games so highly played. it is THE FUN. the game play is VERY simple. other things are not so simple but the game play is very simple. that is why people keep playing it. a game can be deep and complex but ,the game play needs to be fun. if it isn't, the game doesn't have lasting power. MW1 just after what 2-3 years only has 221 people playing, a game five times older has 72000.

my opinion of achievements are side effect of a system that is not really that fun they have to create other things to build incentive to play. the incentive to play should be the fun, nothing else. the more you break away from it the less of game it is. in TF2 i have never gone out of my way to do an achievement. since the new system of getting weapons is not dependent on achievements i like it better. i laughed at people trying to get hats. is a hat going to make the game any more fun ? nope . it is just something to desire and shoot for give you incentive to play. the incentive should be the fun. if you want put hats on your character go play virtual barbi.

gesicht said:

i think the problem with games is they either make them too easy or too complicated. they forget the reason they play them. the fun. i was just looking at the hot deals thread and someone posted the link to active users on steam.

there is something like 72000 people playing CS and 84000 playing CS:S, i own them both i know they are not the same but basically they are the same style of game and are more closely similar then any other 2 games i could think of. infact the only game beating it is MW2. COD4MW has 221.

what on earth could be the driving force to keep such old games so highly played. it is THE FUN. the game play is VERY simple. other things are not so simple but the game play is very simple. that is why people keep playing it. a game can be deep and complex but ,the game play needs to be fun. if it isn't, the game doesn't have lasting power. MW1 just after what 2-3 years only has 221 people playing, a game five times older has 72000.

my opinion of achievements are side effect of a system that is not really that fun they have to create other things to build incentive to play. the incentive to play should be the fun, nothing else. the more you break away from it the less of game it is. in TF2 i have never gone out of my way to do an achievement. since the new system of getting weapons is not dependent on achievements i like it better. i laughed at people trying to get hats. is a hat going to make the game any more fun ? nope . it is just something to desire and shoot for give you incentive to play. the incentive should be the fun. if you want put hats on your character go play virtual barbi.

Click to expand...

I agree completely, I played TF2 just to be killing, not for the achievements, I quit caring about the achievements, because the system is so easy to abuse if you have a few friends and you're willing to find an empty server.

I play CoD 4 and CS S a lot, I have the original CS but don't play it at all. Both games area fun, know why? Cause you just fire it up, and the shit just works, there's no bullshit going on behind the scenes, no Murphy waiting to jump out and crash the game. Plus, with those dedicated servers, you can pick a server you like that has a map rotation or plays a single map that you like. You get a sense of community by seeing the same faces over and over again. You might get to know the admins, or become an admin yourself. Some of the good ones have Teamspeak/Vent servers and also online forums.

MW2 can't replicate that

Neither can L4D1 or 2.

TF2 can, BFBC2 can to an extent, but BFBC2 seems to be lacking that "something" that keeps me wanting to play it, and the shitty EA servers and that god awful server browser aren't helping things.

It sucks goat wang to refresh the server browser and wait 2-3 mins for it to load EVERY server it can find instead of it loading as it finds servers so you can jump in as soon as you see one you like.

Even worse, some of the pings I was quoted in the server browser weren't true at all.

I joined several servers that quoted me a ping in the low 30's

upon joining, everyone has a ping of 300-600.

what a load of shit.

What really grinds my gears is when devs do stupid things that you can't even tweak out in the INI. Like the horrible mouse acceleration in Ghostbusters. I'd like to play the game but it's completely without pleasure with the horrible acceleration. How hard would that have been to remove in a patch? But the devs don't care.

piscian18 said:

I've been really unhappy with mouse acceleration in some recent PC FPS. If I have to spend more time dinking around with the mouse than I actually play the game I'd just as soon have auto-targeting or assisted targeting.

Click to expand...

I second that. So many games have fucked up mouse input and it's usually crazy acceleration that's to blame. I hate mouse accel more than anything.

seriously?

I always turn on mouse filtering or mouse acceleration

I also play with my sensivity set to halfway or higher in every game, that just feels normal to me.

most people can't play with it cranked that high, but me, Using a MX518, I can!

Thats YOU! ^^^ Mouse acceleration is the devil imho (and many others).

the new AVP game really got me disappointing in new games... the only have ive actually bought in the past 2 years in BC2, not saying its the best thing sense sliced bread, but its a nice in between for CS:S and Unreal 3.

and to think i go back and have more trouble trying to beat one of the old mega mans or some crap compared to crysis or anything...

Speaking of all the setup things.

You don't know what is customising your game, unless you had at least 5 versions of autoexec and config, so you'd run all your games without memory problems, and without using things like memmaker.

Getting things like 618kb free, to play Harrier Jump Jet, that was a trick playing with things like mouse driver and such was a trick.

Sometimes I'm really happy that WIndows now does all those things for me, and I don't see the dreaded "Not enough memory to run xxxxx.exe"

ShuttleLuv said:

Or do you prefer to sometimes have to "tweak" your new game, example, editing a CFG file to turn vsync on or change aspect ratio. What I mean is would you prefer if devs just made sure this was done automatically like a console game, or rather that you might have to make some changes to get to where you want? Me personally, I loved editing stuff and tweaking, and much like I have for the past 13 years, I'd prefer to do it that way.

Everythings getting too dumbed down imo.

Click to expand...

No one knows what I want better than me. I want the freedom to set whatever I want.

No, I don't want more dumbed down games (regardless of platform).

I want more games with GOOD GAMEPLAY, like Subspace. Graphics are NOT the important thing.