Opinion: A Case for Dumbed Down Games

I recently decided to revisit Minimum, a fun PC multiplayer shooter currently on Steam that I bought a few months ago. The game utilizes a unique “block-based” visual design and has a wealth of secondary features such as customizable weapons and loadouts, several different kinds of currency, unlockable blueprints, stat-based armor upgrades, and both permanent and per-match crafting options. It’s a lot to absorb, and I quickly found myself lost in a sea of confusion. Trying to recall all of Minimum’s various odds and ends inevitably got me thinking: why do so many multiplayer game developers feel the need to bog their players down with needless complexity?

The Forbidden City

I’ll admit, there is a certain thrill to be had when rolling with the proverbial “big boys” of complex competitive shooters such as Call of Duty or Counter-Strike. The elite players have taken a fun pastime and turned it into an art form, with feats of precision and skill that would make any other player green with envy. Through a combination of dedication, patience, intuition, and a dash of luck, these hardcore players have mastered all of their game’s complex systems and utilize that superior knowledge to dominate the opposition.

The problem I’ve found is that many games expect all players to put in that same amount of dedication, inevitably giving rise to a small, insular sub-culture of hardcore players that spend their time either fragging each other or preying on any newbies who dare enter their realm. Long standing multiplayer game like Counter-Strike or Call of Duty are becoming increasingly less approachable for new players, simply because they are often designed to cater toward a hardcore audience. If you aren’t willing to put in the time to learn proper strategies, memorize different map layouts, and hone your skills to a competitive edge over hours and hours of playtime, you might as well not even bother playing in the first place.

Even worse, this sort of “hardcore” high-aggression mentality leads many multiplayer fans to turn up their noses at games that aim to be more simplified - or “dumbed down,” as they like to put it. Personally, I find this stigma towards “dumbed down” games to be unfair, especially when you consider the fact that they have several advantages over their more hardcore ilk.

Sustainable and Accessible

When you break it down, the list of advantages dumbed down games, which include MOBAs such as Blizzard’s Heroes of the Storm, MMOs such as ArenaNet’s Guild Wars 2 and Blizzard’s World of Warcraft, shooters such as Nintendo’s Splatoon have over more hardcore competitive titles can be presented as a cyclical pattern of benefits. Even EA's Battlefield series is among the more accessible shooters around. A more accessible game appeals to a larger demographic of players, which in turn means it will likely sell more copies. Or, in the case of free-to-play games, attracting a bigger audience to try it. More copies means a larger community and more revenue for the developer. A larger community means the game is almost guaranteed to stick around for a while, giving developers a chance to implement improvements based on community feedback. Therefore, if the developer wants to change or add something to the game, it has both the funds and the creative input to go about doing so in the best way possible.

While the idea of being a part of the “elite” communities is appealing, the mere lack of many of the above qualities means such games have a much higher risk of suffering from a shorter shelf life. Even the most dedicated of players eventually move on and with a game that has too small of a community, that’s pretty much the end of the line. Even worse, if said smaller community is constantly driving other players away, that means fewer sales and a bad reputation. Two factors which all but kill any hopes of the game receiving content updates or sequel. You may feel privileged having put in the time to earn a place at the proverbial “big boy’s table”, but if that table is located next to a kitchen with no cooks or food in it, was it really worth the effort?

Popular Doesn’t Mean Accessible

You could say that my entire argument can be countered by the popularity of certain “hardcore” games such as Riot’s iconic League of Legends or Valve’s equally iconic shooter Team Fortress 2, but it’s important to remember that “popular” doesn’t always equate to “accessible” and, in some cases, a game’s name recognition can in fact be a bad thing.

Let’s take League of Legends for example. It is currently one of the most popular MOBAs in the world, and is almost solely responsible for turning the MOBA genre into a multi-billion dollar franchise spurred by the e-Sports phenomenon. It also has a reputation for having some of the most toxic communities of any online game, which is compounded by the game’s steep learning curve. I’d argue that League of Legends was able to become so popular so quickly because, back when it was getting off the ground, there were very few other games like it. The fact that it’s free-to-play likely helped as well. League of Legends may be popular and it may have a large community, but that doesn’t change the fact that it still remains virtually inaccessible to more casual gamers who aren’t willing to put in the time to master its complex systems or deal with its more abusive players.

Team Fortress 2 is another interesting example. There are elements within Valve’s venerable shooter that could lead one to classify it as either a “casual” (no permanent progression, goofy visuals and tone) or “hardcore” (in-depth trading/crafting/micro-transaction system, vast modding community and playerbase) shooter. A balance that is likely to be imitated, in some form, by Blizzards upcoming game Overwatch. While TF2 could technically be more accessible to a new player than, say, League of Legends, the game’s deeply-entrenched community, one that also has access to knowledge and resources (like more specialized weapons and other gear), would still likely make for a turbulent rite of initiation. If anything, TF2 proves that sometimes a game can come off as “hardcore” even when it doesn’t mean to.

Big-ticket franchises like Call of Duty also try to use their popularity as a smokescreen to hide the fact that they’re becoming increasingly exclusive in more ways than one. If you want to remain on the cutting edge of Call of Duty’s competitive scene, shelling out for each year’s new annualized release, not to mention the pricey season pass, is all but mandatory. Though, to be fair, shooters with more accessible gameplay mechanics such as EA’s Battlefield franchise are also guilty of this practice. I don’t know about you, but paying almost $100 a year for the “privilege” of being tossed into the lion’s den of competitive Call of Duty multiplayer doesn’t sound very “accessible” to me.

More to the point, there's a reason why Hearthstone essentially came out of nowhere and successfully overtook the long-standing Magic: The Gathering series as the online card combat game of choice. Its mechanics are easier to learn, the game is free-to-play, and it doesn't have a "hardcore" player reputation, which lowers the barriers for new players.

Sustainable Growth

As I mentioned at the very beginning of this article, throwing a lot of different features and gameplay systems at a new player is a surefire way to sap their interest. However, I’m also willing to acknowledge that a game which is too simplistic can be just as bad. As games are refined and updated, I feel it’s important for developers to pay close attention to how they go about easing new players in and make sure the new player experience isn’t overwhelming. I’m certainly all for adding on new features and layers to “dumbed down” games but I’d ask developers to do so at a more gradual pace rather than trying to pile on all of the shiny new innovations and/or additions during the game’s opening tutorial. Ease us in gradually, and we’ll be much better able to absorb everything that makes your game unique. Toss us into the deep end from the get-go, and you’ll just turn us off for good.

A Harmonious Coexistence

With this article, I’m not trying to say that “hardcore” competitive multiplayer games are all doomed to fail, and I’m definitely not saying that those with a competitive fire in their blood should stop striving to prove themselves to their peers. However, I do think it’s about time the more “hardcore” amongst us got off their high horses and acknowledged that what they may call “dumbed down” games are a vital part of the online multiplayer ecosystem. Good word of mouth, strong sales, and thriving communities are all essential in order to keep the good times rolling. Practicing exclusivity by driving new players away from hardcore games ultimately shrinks the community and everything else collapses with it. We’re perfectly fine sticking to our side of the sandbox, but if you keep throwing stones at our castles, you’re really only hurting yourselves in the long run.