Evolution of Games ?

[ComradeP]

I don't want to rain on anyone's regrets, but I think a lot of recent developments are very promising for people like me who like games that do what they can to get at real historical processes -- that's not even a niche, it's a vague expectation that someday there will be such a niche.  For example, Crusader Kings II, while being simplistic in some ways, does try to situate itself in some kind of historical world -- which has included the dreaded patches and steam and DLC and mods.
  For me the growing possibilities of fluid game systems of increasing sophistication that allow for collaborative mods completely outweighs all the other seemingly unfortunate changes in the dynamics of PC gaming.  I'm interested in the possibility that the day will come when one can say build a gamey-simulation of a Russian Army in 1943 from the POV of its commander as a role to be played.  I'm interested in the possibility that the day will come when one can construct gamey simulations of Levantine Kingdoms of the Bronze age -- complete with seasonal changes and deforestation and exploding volcanos as needed.

I agree that mods are also becoming more elaborate than they were a few years ago, at least for complex games. I have no problem with games being simplified or streamlined as long as it helps gameplay without damaging immersion or the core of the system. My main pet peeve is sequels being more "streamlined" than their originals, a development that has been quite the rage for a few years now in some genres. With every new game in a series, you get new features but they also take some of the difficulty away, or make the game less interesting by giving the gamer fewer options to choose from.

I'd say there are some promising developments in terms of the tools required to create games now being mastered by more members of the community, resulting in more mods and more indie games, but the indie avalanche also has its downsides in my opinion as I mentioned in another thread.

Overall, I don't mind games simplifying some part of the experience if that's how a developer wants to shape the game to what the team had in mind when they started. The UI obviously becomes better when it's easier to understand and use as well. I do mind arbitrary changes or simplification/streamlining as a euphemism for dumbing down.

[MengJiao]

I don't want to rain on anyone's regrets, but I think a lot of recent developments are very promising for people like me who like games that do what they can to get at real historical processes -- that's not even a niche, it's a vague expectation that someday there will be such a niche.  For example, Crusader Kings II, while being simplistic in some ways, does try to situate itself in some kind of historical world -- which has included the dreaded patches and steam and DLC and mods.
  For me the growing possibilities of fluid game systems of increasing sophistication that allow for collaborative mods completely outweighs all the other seemingly unfortunate changes in the dynamics of PC gaming.  I'm interested in the possibility that the day will come when one can say build a gamey-simulation of a Russian Army in 1943 from the POV of its commander as a role to be played.  I'm interested in the possibility that the day will come when one can construct gamey simulations of Levantine Kingdoms of the Bronze age -- complete with seasonal changes and deforestation and exploding volcanos as needed.

I agree that mods are also becoming more elaborate than they were a few years ago, at least for complex games. I have no problem with games being simplified or streamlined as long as it helps gameplay without damaging immersion or the core of the system. My main pet peeve is sequels being more "streamlined" than their originals, a development that has been quite the rage for a few years now in some genres. With every new game in a series, you get new features but they also take some of the difficulty away, or make the game less interesting by giving the gamer fewer options to choose from.

I'd say there are some promising developments in terms of the tools required to create games now being mastered by more members of the community, resulting in more mods and more indie games, but the indie avalanche also has its downsides in my opinion as I mentioned in another thread.

Overall, I don't mind games simplifying some part of the experience if that's how a developer wants to shape the game to what the team had in mind when they started. The UI obviously becomes better when it's easier to understand and use as well. I do mind arbitrary changes or simplification/streamlining as a euphemism for dumbing down.

  I can see what worries you, but I think the problem of maintaining interesting complexities is always a problem and it doesn't necessarily have much to do with the medium (in this case PC-games).  People in this thread have complained about the assumed social side of gaming, but in fact the social side is where the medium gets its best chances for moving into new areas of complexity.  For example, you would assume a good tutorial and a printed manual would be crucial to help me understand what is supposedly going on in a game like Battle of Stalingrad, whereas really my understanding (such as it is for an-as-yet-unreleased game) is based on playing RoF with lots of help from reading SimHQ and playing CLOD with lots of helg from the ATAG forums.  The social world propells the understanding of the game far more than manuals or official tutorials.  It's true there is a kind of growing gap between dumb games and the games that take some work to play, but that is more of a symptom of good developments than a reason to despair.