WOW, reading these posts is a sorry indication of how low the IQ of the average PC gamer has become. Then again, that is also reflected in far too many games and their "communities"; I never thought I would say it, but I long for the days of dos, 5 1/4 inch disks, UNIX command prompts, and being called a nerd.

Perhaps I am being overly arrogant, but I cannot imagine how anyone could be remotely challenged by a game, any game. They are nothing more than bubblegum for the brain, a mild distraction from the vagaries of life, an environment where one does not have to think about anything much at all. To be challenged by such is laughable or perhaps even pitiable and does not bode well for the future of this pastime. As the average IQ drops off, so does the need for playable interesting content; far too many developers have a tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

 

Originally posted by Hexcaliber

WOW, reading these posts is a sorry indication of how low the IQ of the average PC gamer has become. Then again, that is also reflected in far too many games and their "communities"; I never thought I would say it, but I long for the days of dos, 5 1/4 inch disks, UNIX command prompts, and being called a nerd.

Perhaps I am being overly arrogant, but I cannot imagine how anyone could be remotely challenged by a game, any game. They are nothing more than bubblegum for the brain, a mild distraction from the vagaries of life, an environment where one does not have to think about anything much at all. To be challenged by such is laughable or perhaps even pitiable and does not bode well for the future of this pastime. As the average IQ drops off, so does the need for playable interesting content; far too many developers have a tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence as far as "being intelligent or 'not'"

It has more to do with how the individual processes information, what type of things are natural to them as opposed to things that they are not wired for.

My personal opinion, and I've mentioned him before in other posts, is that Howard Gardner is "right" and there are multiple "intelligences" at work.

This is why you have someone who has mastery and control over their body while another is very adept at reading social situations and social clues and while another is good at gathering, remembering and processing bits of information.

so yeah, in that light, I think you are being arrogant. By your post you say you long for the days of Unix command prompts and 5 1/4 disks and being called a nerd. So I imagine you are into computers at some level.

Therefore your mind is very adept at processing bits of info, looking at code perhaps and honing in on minutae that would make the average person cry.

But that's you and how you are wired. I would be very curious to see where you lack in other types of intelligence (if we are to go by Gardner's assessment) and how in one arena you might be superb where in another you could very well be subpar.

So back on topic, the "challenge" of these games (and I assume you mean video games as games like Go or Chess can be very challenging when played at higher levels of understanding) arises because these games present the player with a certain amount and a certain level of minutae that is seemingly thrown at the players when they might not be interested in minutae at all. They might not be wired to process it in a meaningful way quickly enough to maintain interest.

someone like you is naturally wired to look at such things and "it's there". someone with a higher social intelligence or visual intelligence or physical intelligence might look at that minutae and it just swirls before them because they aren't wired to make sense of it quickly; because they aren't interested in the many small and seemingly dusty details of any game. They might be more interested in other aspects of games.

EvE is the perfect exampe of this as it's just a lot of details that don't readily resonate with players if they are not into remembering all the different names of skill and items and "whatever" and  for some seem like an endless laundry list of "stuff". But for others this has meaning and grants the game depth.

Originally posted by Hexcaliber

WOW, reading these posts is a sorry indication of how low the IQ of the average PC gamer has become. Then again, that is also reflected in far too many games and their "communities"; I never thought I would say it, but I long for the days of dos, 5 1/4 inch disks, UNIX command prompts, and being called a nerd.

Perhaps I am being overly arrogant, but I cannot imagine how anyone could be remotely challenged by a game, any game. They are nothing more than bubblegum for the brain, a mild distraction from the vagaries of life, an environment where one does not have to think about anything much at all. To be challenged by such is laughable or perhaps even pitiable and does not bode well for the future of this pastime. As the average IQ drops off, so does the need for playable interesting content; far too many developers have a tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

 

Well, having lived though the age of the command line, I can't say that I really miss all of its "challenges"... ^^  Technology(hardware/software) has moved on. So has the demographic it targets.  One of the more ironic aspects of those who use the term "IQ" is that there isn't any *clear* definition of just what that is.

I also question your use of the word "challenge". In what context are you applying it?  Games can be quite challenging within the terms of their own reference frames. Note I said "can", as this depends on both the game and the person involved.  As for pandering to the LCD, that doesn't seem to have harmed Blizzards profits(more than 12 million players in a soon to be 6 year old game...).

Finally, the phrase "learning curve" is subjective as well as projective, with all of the implications inherent in that reality.

Originally posted by Hexcaliber

WOW, reading these posts is a sorry indication of how low the IQ of the average PC gamer has become. Then again, that is also reflected in far too many games and their "communities"; I never thought I would say it, but I long for the days of dos, 5 1/4 inch disks, UNIX command prompts, and being called a nerd.

Perhaps I am being overly arrogant, but I cannot imagine how anyone could be remotely challenged by a game, any game. They are nothing more than bubblegum for the brain, a mild distraction from the vagaries of life, an environment where one does not have to think about anything much at all. To be challenged by such is laughable or perhaps even pitiable and does not bode well for the future of this pastime. As the average IQ drops off, so does the need for playable interesting content; far too many developers have a tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

 

HAA. Not sure if you are being arrogant or not. You may in fact be right about some gamers. However, I quite enjoy the 'bubblegum for the brain' sometimes. I work as an attorney, sometimes I have to make arguments in court that have major implications for people's future. I don't need a harsh death penalty in a game to be stimulated. I see people hauled off to jail regularly, or loose their children forever.

I don't mean to be overly dramatic. But I don't think my perspective is that unusual. I imagine we have teachers, medical types, law enforcement, military, and so on that have real drama in their lives...worse than I see...and RPGs are a type of escapism. frankly, one I think is quite healthy compared to the booze and brothels my gramps enjoyed. I don't think that is pitiable.

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Hexcaliber

WOW, reading these posts is a sorry indication of how low the IQ of the average PC gamer has become. Then again, that is also reflected in far too many games and their "communities"; I never thought I would say it, but I long for the days of dos, 5 1/4 inch disks, UNIX command prompts, and being called a nerd.

Perhaps I am being overly arrogant, but I cannot imagine how anyone could be remotely challenged by a game, any game. They are nothing more than bubblegum for the brain, a mild distraction from the vagaries of life, an environment where one does not have to think about anything much at all. To be challenged by such is laughable or perhaps even pitiable and does not bode well for the future of this pastime. As the average IQ drops off, so does the need for playable interesting content; far too many developers have a tendency to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

 

Well, having lived though the age of the command line, I can't say that I really miss all of its "challenges"... ^^  Technology(hardware/software) has moved on. So has the demographic it targets.  One of the more ironic aspects of those who use the term "IQ" is that there isn't any *clear* definition of just what that is.

I also question your use of the word "challenge". In what context are you applying it?  Games can be quite challenging within the terms of their own reference frames. Note I said "can", as this depends on both the game and the person involved.  As for pandering to the LCD, that doesn't seem to have harmed Blizzards profits(more than 12 million players in a soon to be 6 year old game...).

Finally, the phrase "learning curve" is subjective as well as projective, with all of the implications inherent in that reality.

Agree!  To focus on one bit of the equation:

The interface of a game should be as little of the challenge as possible.  The challenge should involve knowing WHAT to do, not which buttons to push to get the game to do it.  This, I think, is why you see a trend toward touchscreens and kinect/wii type interfaces.  It has little to do with the "dumbing down" of games, and more about making the controls more intuitive.

In discussions like this, I think about games like "Karate Champ", where you had 2 joysticks which, when used in certain combinations, made your character do different things.  I loved the game at the time though it was frustrating, but the most of the game, due to the lag and lack of intuitiveness of the controls, was more about learning to deal with the interface than it was knowing that the best counter to a high roundhouse kick was a leg sweep, for example.  A game can only get better when it's more about knowing what to do, than how to do it.

As it goes to the actual "challenge", I think back to old Gabriel Knight games.  As much as I did like them, I no longer think of them as having been challenging, at least not challenging outside the realm of reading the mind of the designers.  Buying a coo-coo clock and positioning it so that it knocks on a door to distract a doorman while you sneak in?  Really?  Again, that's not intelligence, that's clicking the crap out of everything, "using" the crap out of everything, "combining" the crap out of everything to figure out what the designer will let you do.  There were TONS of other things you could have done in reality to get into the gentlemens club in my example, they just didn't have the tech to let me do it, so I had to do it their stupid way.

That's not challenge, that's tedium.