Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 6355541" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Interesting thing about Space Invaders - it was a thoroughly dumb game.&nbsp; Now, we have Candy Crush.So I'd say that video games had a golden age, around the King's Quest and Legend of Zelda days.&nbsp; King's Quest had a consequence for failure: you weren't allowed to progress in the game!&nbsp; Zelda required things like searching, resource management (do I use bombs to kill bad guys, or to look for weak walls?&nbsp; Should I try to get full hearts, so I can shoot the magic sword?), item limits, and open-ended gameplay.One big RPG change that I've seen is the increase in production value.&nbsp; What used to be thick, single-spaced, small-type, graphic-free content is now friendly pictures on every page.&nbsp; Arcane markings used to cover monochrome hex-grids, and now we have near-real-looking graphics printed under square grids.And yes, at least in AD&amp;D 2e, your character would have several combat stats and a single &quot;non-weapon proficiency&quot; (or more?) that explained what he could do out of combat.&nbsp; Social and puzzle encounters were up to the players, although it was probably still possible to make an ability check to get some help.&nbsp; 3e introduced the skills (system) that turned these encounters into character challenges, and 4e codified it with the &quot;skill challenge.&quot;&nbsp; Is that dumbing down?&nbsp; Not to players who have trouble with these sorts of things.It's possible that TRPGs will enjoy gaining more players from CRPG-dumbing down.&nbsp; If dumber video games means that smarter players lose options, well, they might just have to change media.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 6355541, member: 6685730"] Interesting thing about Space Invaders - it was a thoroughly dumb game. Now, we have Candy Crush. So I'd say that video games had a golden age, around the King's Quest and Legend of Zelda days. King's Quest had a consequence for failure: you weren't allowed to progress in the game! Zelda required things like searching, resource management (do I use bombs to kill bad guys, or to look for weak walls? Should I try to get full hearts, so I can shoot the magic sword?), item limits, and open-ended gameplay. One big RPG change that I've seen is the increase in production value. What used to be thick, single-spaced, small-type, graphic-free content is now friendly pictures on every page. Arcane markings used to cover monochrome hex-grids, and now we have near-real-looking graphics printed under square grids. And yes, at least in AD&D 2e, your character would have several combat stats and a single "non-weapon proficiency" (or more?) that explained what he could do out of combat. Social and puzzle encounters were up to the players, although it was probably still possible to make an ability check to get some help. 3e introduced the skills (system) that turned these encounters into character challenges, and 4e codified it with the "skill challenge." Is that dumbing down? Not to players who have trouble with these sorts of things. It's possible that TRPGs will enjoy gaining more players from CRPG-dumbing down. If dumber video games means that smarter players lose options, well, they might just have to change media. [/QUOTE]

Verification