Which games have been smartened up (as opposed to 'dumbed down')?

It's pretty often that someone claims a franchise has been 'dumbed down'; but which games have been the opposite - ie. franchises which have subsequently become deeper/more complex/more niche etc...?

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is X-Com: Terror From the Deep - Since the game is set both underwater and on land, you'll end up with some items that only work in one type of environment or the other; the tech tree is more complex than the original (unfortunately, that also leads to it being a bit buggy =/); there are some massive multi-part levels (eg. huge luxury liners); The game won't let you save during the final area of the game.

Victoria to Victoria 2 is the only one I can think of

I'm not sure I'd call it "smartened up", but I've heard that Devil May Cry 3 was much harder on the same difficulty than the previous games.

Dark Souls got harder than demon's souls. at least IMO

Street Fighter 1-2

Don't know if I'd call 3-4 smartening up or dumbing down. They're pretty equal.

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

Pretty much that. Anything that existed then is (generally) more complex now.

However, anything that was created in the 1999 - 2007 era by now has pretty much been streamlined, which isn't the same thing as dumbed down. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, if I have more fun with the "dumber" sequels then I really don't mind. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. I just like the second game's actual gameplay so much more.

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

In terms of business perspective - World of Warcraft was smartened up.

In terms of gamers perspective - World of Warcraft was dumbed down.

It's really matters where you're looking from. Oh, and I didn't know smartened was a real word until now :D

@believer258 said:

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

Pretty much that. Anything that existed then is (generally) more complex now.

However, anything that was created in the 1999 - 2007 era by now has pretty much been streamlined, which isn't the same thing as dumbed down. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, if I have more fun with the "dumber" sequels then I really don't mind. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. I just like the second game's actual gameplay so much more.

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

Going off of that note, which you brought up a great point, this reminds me of my DA: Origins vs. DA:2 debacle. Everyone around the world was hating on DA2 for it's changed style, streamlined game play, and whatever else gave them a wedgie. I enjoyed the second one a lot more than I did the first. I loved the lore of the first, much like the second, but the combat style and archaic design - in my opinion - that DA:O had just didn't latch me on.

IS ther@believer258 said:

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

In terms of amount of systems and activities, the GTA series has come a long way.

From Mario Bros. to Super Mario 64, every game was more complex than the one before it.

But, as a previous poster mentioned, there is a fine, sometimes blurry, line between dumbing down and refining.

@Dagbiker: there are only 13 buttons on a 360 controller, by the way.

Finding games that have become more complex isn't that hard; the Command & Conquer series, for one, has added a lot of new features and mechanics since the first one, which was really simple. Usually, however, I think the argument goes that games have got easier, and requiring less "skill", whatever that means, and the people who argue that, would probably say that C & C have gotten easier too, thereby "dumbed down".

you could argue that Mario games have become increasingly complex, too.

The football manager series is way more complicated than when it started, to the point where a dyed in the wool soccer fan like me finds them too in depth.

I'm not sure I'd call it "smartened up", but I've heard that Devil May Cry 3 was much harder on the same difficulty than the previous games.

Darksiders II looks to feature a great deal more depth over the original from what I can tell.

@AmatureIdiot said:

The football manager series is way more complicated than when it started, to the point where a dyed in the wool soccer fan like me finds them too in depth.

Agreed. Management/Tycoon games in general moved from accessible to niche.

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

You're underestimating the importance of analogue controls. There's way more than just 8 directions.

Hmm... That is a good question.

Maybe Batman: Arkham Asylum to Batman: Akham City. It didn't make the combat any harder though.

Portal 1 to Portal 2. Yah yah yah, there were less portal surfaces, but the inclusion of the different gels and hover fields made some of the puzzles infinitely more complex.

Bejewled ironically enough.

@Canteu: I dont know how you got 13, but:

1. Left dpad
2. Right dpad
3. Up dpad
4. Down dpad
5. R bumber
6. L bumper
7. L Trigger
8. R Trigger
9. Back button
10. Start Button
11. X
12. A
13. B
14. Y

@MysteriousBob said:

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

You're underestimating the importance of analogue controls. There's way more than just 8 directions.

The Xbox controlers have 4 directions on the analogs, but they can be combined into a North West like direction, so technichly they have 8 directions which would mean 16 over all

@LordXavierBritish said:

Bejewled ironically enough.

Yep; Bejeweled 3 is actually pretty damn amazing.

@Dagbiker said:

@Canteu: I dont know how you got 13, but:

1. Left dpad
2. Right dpad
3. Up dpad
4. Down dpad
5. R bumber
6. L bumper
7. L Trigger
8. R Trigger
9. Back button
10. Start Button
11. X
12. A
13. B
14. Y

Then it would be about 17 if you included the guide button and the L3/R3 buttons for when you click down the control sticks.

@SMTDante89 said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Canteu: I dont know how you got 13, but:

1. Left dpad
2. Right dpad
3. Up dpad
4. Down dpad
5. R bumber
6. L bumper
7. L Trigger
8. R Trigger
9. Back button
10. Start Button
11. X
12. A
13. B
14. Y

Then it would be about 17 if you included the guide button and the L3/R3 buttons for when you click down the control sticks.

Yes i forgot about those.

@believer258 said:

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

Pretty much that. Anything that existed then is (generally) more complex now.

However, anything that was created in the 1999 - 2007 era by now has pretty much been streamlined, which isn't the same thing as dumbed down. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, if I have more fun with the "dumber" sequels then I really don't mind. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. I just like the second game's actual gameplay so much more.

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

Too bad it's the worst of those three.

Dpad is not a button it's a direction, same reason why there are not an infinite number (or whatever angular resolution of the electronics) of buttons from an analog stick -- 13.

I'd say wrestling games have gotten more complex, still stuck being shit though.

@ABK_92 said:

@believer258 said:

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

Pretty much that. Anything that existed then is (generally) more complex now.

However, anything that was created in the 1999 - 2007 era by now has pretty much been streamlined, which isn't the same thing as dumbed down. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, if I have more fun with the "dumber" sequels then I really don't mind. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. I just like the second game's actual gameplay so much more.

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

Too bad it's the worst of those three.

As far as the multiplayer goes? Not in my opinion. I've been having more fun with it than either 1 or 2.

@believer258 said:

@ABK_92 said:

@believer258 said:

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

Pretty much that. Anything that existed then is (generally) more complex now.

However, anything that was created in the 1999 - 2007 era by now has pretty much been streamlined, which isn't the same thing as dumbed down. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, if I have more fun with the "dumber" sequels then I really don't mind. Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. I just like the second game's actual gameplay so much more.

Oh, and want an example that will blow your mind? Call of Duty. Yep, Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer has tons more options and depth than MW1 or 2. Chew on that one for a bit.

Too bad it's the worst of those three.

As far as the multiplayer goes? Not in my opinion. I've been having more fun with it than either 1 or 2.

Adding extra guns and maps doesn't make a game 'smarter'.

Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise was significantly smartened up in both depth and playability over it's predecessor.

yeah i agree with streamlined point. sometimes games are dumbed down but like mostly what you see now is game developers making it easier but adding just as much depth trying to make sure your not overburdened by menus and removing stuff that is just not fun.

good example is league of legends its alot more stream lined than dota but it has not lost any difficulty i would argue

It really depends what you mean. Because I don't believe in what a lot of people call 'dumbing down,' really. Most of what people call that is actually smarter design replacing less smart design.

Take Oblivion -> Skyrim for example. In Oblivion and earlier, the stuff you wear takes damage so you need to go and get it repaired if you want it to work well, which costs money, or you can learn to repair it yourself. Now that whole system is gone and it's tempting to think of that as dumbing down because where there was a certain level of complexity in keeping an eye on your equipment, that's no longer there.

Looking closer, though, there was nothing actually particularly 'clever' about that mechanic in the first place. Getting stuff repaired was usually too cheap to worry about, it was also easy, and so it served no function in the game except to ensure you had to detour to a blacksmith occasionally or spend time learning the skills yourself. In other words, it was just busywork.

Now, in Skyrim, there's optional smithing which can improve a piece of armour beyond its stats, but it never breaks or goes below its base capabilities. By moving the improvement of weapons to something that is optional, they've taken out the busywork and turned smithing into one of many possible things to do, and the armour you can make by mastering the skill, it give the player motivation to actually follow it up.

Yeah, I know, cool story. But I guess my point is: when someone tells me something has been dumbed down I treat that with caution, because on closer inspection, often it turns out that it's actually been smartened up. As designers get better at designing systems, they also get better at obscuring a lot of the clutter surrounding them, and I think this is often mistaken for loss of depth or 'dumbing down'.

@PenguinDust said:

I'm not sure I'd call it "smartened up", but I've heard that Devil May Cry 3 was much harder on the same difficulty than the previous games.

No, DMC3 was definitely a much deeper game in terms of the combat. They added the fighting styles system, which gave all sorts of different things that the circle button could do, primarily for the sword-master one, which gave you another attack button.

Streamlining is generally seen as a positive thing that strips away cumbersome mechanics that are not needed. Dumbing down is removing complexity in favor of simplicity. Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 was streamlining. What was removed was not core to the original's gameplay. Dragon Age Origins to Dragon Age II was dumbing down. The slow tactical combat of DA:O was eschewed for a faster more action oriented combat style. Much of the depth of strategy was lost in the translation.

This whole movement of dumbing down games seems to be a recent phenomenon. Not that all game sequels were made harder and more complex back then, but the systems were generally expanded upon. The trend now is much more obvious, as once thoughtful strategic games like many wrpgs are now basically becoming action games with stats tacked on. At least as far as combat is concerned. The truth is though that this really only holds true for the mainstream studios. There are numerous smaller teams still making rpgs for the hardest of the hardcore. And I'm not only talking about the Souls games.

MK9. Yeah, it's more forgiving, but it's an honest-to-Lincoln legitimate fighting game.

Also, Ninja Gaiden. It went from a brutally hard but simple game to a brutally hard and complex one. (but then, some would argue, it went back to "simple")

@Dagbiker: erm, the dpad is the only thing im not counting as buttons.

4 shoulders

4 Face

3 in the middle

2 Analog sticks

that's 13

@Canteu said:

@Dagbiker: there are only 13 buttons on a 360 controller, by the way.

I think he's counting the 4 directions on the Dpad as buttons.

Assassins Creed to Assassins Creed 2 is an easy choice.  Hell I'd even say AC 2 to Brotherhood was a major new upgrade

@BaneFireLord said:

In terms of amount of systems and activities, the GTA series has come a long way.

The Total War series gets more complicated every iteration.

GTA

@upwarDBound said:

Streamlining is generally seen as a positive thing that strips away cumbersome mechanics that are not needed. Dumbing down is removing complexity in favor of simplicity. Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 was streamlining. What was removed was not core to the original's gameplay.

Mass Effect 2 was dumbed down. You think the entire RPG leveling system was "not core?" Because they cut that right out. Mass Effect 2's leveling has all the depth of River City Ransom's. You level up a skill. That's it. No leveling your weapon specializations. The character building is incredibly limited, and until you max out certain skills, 4 of 6 classes (Soldier and Vanguard are the exceptions) play nearly-identically. Use your smg. Use power. Use smg, repeat. Until your Infiltrator's Cloak is worth anything and you have the Widow (half the damn game), until your Engineer can do anything other than create a wussy drone, until your Warp is fully leveled, get used to that damn SMG. The biotics in particular were completely dumbed down. Sure, in ME1 Singularity was overpowered as hell, and an Adept with bonus skills (shotgun in particular) and maxed Barrier/ Singularity would wreck everything, but at least it was fun. ME2 completely removed the ability of biotics to affect enemies until they were down to their last health bar. I can't even begin to describe how stupid this was. Let's not even get into enemy variety.

Rather than create an inventory system with organization, they stripped it out entirely, taking the entire weapon stats system with it. Not like it was utilized to its full extent in the first game, but that's what sequels are for. BioWare makes RPG's, and they would rather remove an entire crucial RPG element than refine it? I don't understand that at all. I played Mass Effect 3 times and I'm not done with it, I only played Mass Effect 2 once, and quit out of boredom halfway through every other time. I'm not even looking forward to Mass Effect 3.

@Dagbiker said:

well just look at controllers then and controllers now

That's not really "smartened up." There are games that are incredibly complex games that make use of an NES controller, while there are moderm games that make use of more buttons and yet couldn't be more braindead in their execution.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that FFXIII-2 seems to be possibly better than FFXIII in terms of gameplay problems the original had; fingers crossed they listened really well to concerns and criticism. I myself need to finish the first at some point.

STALKER CoP is more complex than STALKER CS, which is more complex than STALKER SoC. However if STALKER 2 ever comes out, I think we can expect it to be consolized to shit.
 
edit: @Dagbiker: NES had 4 directions on the d-pad and 4 buttons. 360 has 4 (FOUR, not EIGHT) on the d-pad, 10 digital buttons (11 counting the guide button, but games can't use it) and two analog sticks (each with 256 positions I believe) and two analog triggers (128 positions each, I think).

KotOR 1 - KotOR 2 added in many more abilities, prestige classes, character AI modes, character influence, upgrades, etc.

Say what you will about the bugs and story, but KotOR 2 played a hell of a lot better than the original.

@Sackmanjones said:

Assassins Creed to Assassins Creed 2 is an easy choice. Hell I'd even say AC 2 to Brotherhood was a major new upgrade

Why the hell didn't I think of this?