You seem to be quite the Diablo enthusiast, which is cool. I'm not, I played both games until the end and then uninstalled them. So, in that regard maybe we are coming at this from very different angles. In any event, my Diablo experience was clicking things until they died and then they pooped out colored loot. I was never challenged and never discovered any deeper mechanics.
I used to be a great fan, yes. I also started out writing it off completely, as a simplistic mindlessly boring action RPG.
In any case Diablo is just an example, if you don't agree with it there are many others. The core point remains the same, that developers and publishers have been expanding the gaming audience for decades now, on every platform, and it's not a console thing. You seem to make pretty much the same point below, so other than disagreeing about Diablo being an example I don't know what else there is to argue about on this point.
I don't disagree that Diablo was streamlined from Rogue - but I considered it a natural consequence of taking an ancient concept to modern standards. I don't think the game suffered for it, and I don't think Blizzard catered to casual gamers whilst ignoring enthusiast gamers.
A happy mix, you could say. Blizzard used to be masters at it.
That's not a different kind of streamlining, that's one of the core tenets of streamlining. I didn't mean to say Crysis was a hard game, I said it required more player effort and thought. One of the most crucial aspects of streamlining is removing player effort and thought, focusing on the "fun" parts. This ignores the "hardcore" crowd who enjoy overcoming challenges and thinking through a complex or open part of a game.
Too semantic to waste our time on, I think. Basically, we agree on this.
Of course, but games have always been about profit. Even when they were made for 100,000 nerds instead of 10,000,000 mainstream gamers they were still about profit. As you say below, the only difference is who you are trying to make that profit from.
I think profit has always been a part of game development, as it is with any product.
What I think has changed, is that there's no longer room for true innovation without it being about profit FIRST.
I think the gaming industry was formed, originally, by nerds and enthusiasts - and as such the games were developed with a passion that matched that of the end-user. Greedy publishers were always a part of the picture, but I think they used to simply rely on the developers to meet audience expectations. These days, it seems the suits are the ones designing the game behind the scenes.
We can only speculate as to how big a part of the picture profit was - but it's my firm opinion that money wasn't always the focus in the past - where it's almost always the focus today with AAA titles.
I see the distinction in that the audience has changed and therefore the techniques to reach that audience have changed, certainly. I don't know who could miss that. Hence streamlining is used, the whole point of what we are talking about.
The distinction in itself might be obvious - but it's also the problem I'm having. I don't really give two shits about motivation - I care only about the end result.
Today, the end result is an endless line of samey "experience" driven products - and it used to be innovative and interesting games.
What are we debating here?
Not sure. I think we're debating how streamlining is different today than it used to be. At least that's the point I'm making.
I don't really know what you think we disagree on, other than the simple fact I seem to be able to enjoy modern games as well as prefer the older ones. On every forum I go to that seems to be a big divide between me and many others, the fact that I can say Fallout and Doom 2 are better games and deeper, richer experiences than most of what we get today, but at the same time I like what we get today anyway.
What makes you think I don't like what we get today?
Well, much of it I don't like - but I like some of it just fine. I'm as much a graphics whore as the next guy, and I like some shiny explosions.
What I don't like, is that the potential of games today is completely ignored in favor of the dollar.
Essentially, I despise what capitalism does for the human endeavour and condition in general. This goes for everything - but games happen to be my beloved passtime.
It's sort of similar to how I can love both an intense drama like Eyes Wide Shut and a silly action romp like Die Hard. They offer me different things and I love them both, just like I love the slow-paced Blade Runner and Alien as well as the fast-paced Aliens and Predator. Different styles, different movies, but both have something to offer. I don't get the people that insist one is good and therefore the other is stupid, or boring, or whatever else.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm not saying mainstream games are stupid or boring in an objective sense. They're just not what I want.
I love Fallout for its turn-based combat, rich dialogue system and writing as well as its great locations and atmosphere. I also love Fallout: New Vegas for its fun shooter combat, brilliant 3D open-world exploration and well-written dialogue. Is it different? Yes. Was it made to appeal to more people than an isometric turn-based RPG would today? Certainly. Is it bad? Hell no, just different. Similarly even though Crysis 2 is streamlined compared to Crysis I still like it, because it's a fun game. From Doom to Dark Forces to Hexen to Quake 2 to Duke Nukem to NOLF to Call of Duty to Farcry to Doom 3 to Crysis to Modern Warfare to Bioshock to Crysis 2, I don't understand why I can't like ALL of them, despite some being worse than others or more streamlined than others.
I'm not at all sure why you think that because others don't enjoy the mainstream mindset dominance, and the lack of true or sufficient innovation - you can't enjoy it.
Why would you let others influence you like that?
You don't mind that AAA games are what they are - then what's the problem?
So… to make a long post even longer, I guess my point about "picking my battles" is that I'll bitch when I don't like a game. I like Crysis 2, and a lot of other games people here and on other forums would call "streamlined console trash" or whatever else. Shortly before Crysis 2 came out for example I also really loved Bulletstorm, that game was 10+ hours of non-stop fun for me. Was it as good as Quake 2? Probably not, but when I was having a hell of a lot of fun playing it that direct comparison wasn't really the most important thing on my mind.
Ah. Well, to me it's not really about the games as they are - but what they could be.
So, I bitch about what's happening to games - and I bitch about them not being anything at all like what they could have been.
I bitch about money being the focus - rather than the games themselves being entirely bad or "shit".
Would I rather see more "AAA" games that play like the old days? Hell yeah I would. Is bitching and not playing modern games I still like going to make that happen? Nope. So why? I pick my battles, I enjoy games I enjoy. Some people can't like Crysis 2 and Crysis both, I get that, but I can.
This is where we differ. To me, our money and our voice is all we have to vote with.
So, I try to voice my opinion as much as I can - everywhere. That's how things change, even if you don't really notice it.
It's not important that I feel my own role in any change in the industry climate. I just like to do my bit, regardless of whether it's heard or not.
If it turns out that my opinion is not followed - or that my representation of the audience as a single individual is overlooked - then at least I've said my piece.