I, for one, was born in 83' and had my hands on an NES by the time I was two. I still have memories of playing Metroid and having absolutely no clue as to what to do with it, but eventually kicking the shit out of that game at a *very* early age. Regardless of the age you were when you played the incredibly difficult games of the first generation of home consoles, you likely have a skillset I would consider 'superior' to modern gamers, that is, unless you were never able to get over the peripheral challenge that came with PS2-era controllers.
Gamers indoctrinated at any point around say, the N64, have no clue how difficult games used to be, and if confronted with one, they would pull hairs out. I've actually seen this in many of my younger friends that had an older brother's NES and never got into it, but jumped right into the first Xbox easily. Likely because it looked better, and not much else... but I would definitely argue that simplicity/ease is the hallmark of the later generations of gamers, while those around at the inception of the industry will constantly search for something more challenging.
This is almost a chicken and egg scenario. Which came first, the dumbed down player or the dumbed down game. I feel it was the game dumbing down that came first.
You think most people are reading up on theorycrafting???
Wait, are you talking about "people" or are you talking about "raiders"?
The relative odds of person X or raider Y paying attention to theorycraft are going to be markedly different. Assuming raider Y is somewhat serious about the hobby and not just a PuG slug, anyway.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You think most people are reading up on theorycrafting???
Wait, are you talking about "people" or are you talking about "raiders"?
The relative odds of person X or raider Y paying attention to theorycraft are going to be markedly different. Assuming raider Y is somewhat serious about the hobby and not just a PuG slug, anyway.
Do you mean to say that raiders arent people???
And yes even among "Gear Treadmillers" its still a small percentage compared to the overall playerbase...
And yes even among "Gear Treadmillers" its still a small percentage compared to the overall playerbase...
Well hey, at least you acknowledge that there are some knowledge-based skills available in nearly any system.
Does kind of make a "no skills exist" viewpoint a bit more difficult to support, however.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Most gamers are ADD-idiots, that's why games are dumbed down. Used to be called the Sitcom-crowd. The larger the population, the greater the degree of acute "DUH" runs rampant.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
I think it all started when kids started getting trophies for losing.
I wonder how many of those loser trophies they have been awarded in their lives after public school? Did you find that being rewarded for failing is not quite the way the world works little Johnny?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Most gamers are ADD-idiots, that's why games are dumbed down. Used to be called the Sitcom-crowd. The larger the population, the greater the degree of acute "DUH" runs rampant.
Thats not true, by the strictest definition of "gamer" you would have to include the Farmville crowd with the super dedicated/obsessed. In other words, most gamers aren't "ADD idiots", they're 12 year olds and soccer moms, computer illiterate and ignorant alike.
Could go on but it truly is a case of games being marketed toward "everyone". When you do that, its just a matter of Lowest Commen Denominator as far as difficulty is concerned
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
Most gamers are ADD-idiots, that's why games are dumbed down. Used to be called the Sitcom-crowd. The larger the population, the greater the degree of acute "DUH" runs rampant.
Thats not true, by the strictest definition of "gamer" you would have to include the Farmville crowd with the super dedicated/obsessed. In other words, most gamers aren't "ADD idiots", they're 12 year olds and soccer moms, computer illiterate and ignorant alike.
Could go on but it truly is a case of games being marketed toward "everyone". When you do that, its just a matter of Lowest Commen Denominator as far as difficulty is concerned
On the other end of the spectrum, most gamers aren't these very divided groups, they are the outliers for the 21-35 year old players. Soccer moms mostly play "Words with Friends" and other social forms of classic board games. It is something they can relate to as a real thing. The facts are that the 21-35 year old generation are now in the working field and are able to feed into the gaming system, they can buy and play at their own leisure. The problem that people are having is that companies were thinking they could reach for the 12-19 year old group by dumbing down some elements of gameplay. The 36+ folks weren't really included in this target because they had little to no exposure to abstract gaming and fantasy in their youth. I really think the companies were trying to hook young players into something so they would be loyal customers when they reach working age. Gamers can be anyone now that the internet easily accessible and is embraced by public media forms.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
I remember in the days of EQ, playing a DPS wiz is extremely simple. There is VERY little optimizing. If you play a mage in WOW, optimizing your DPS takes a lot more work & know-how. Heck, even a different spec has a different optimized set of gear, rotation, and priority of casting.
But is that really difficulty? It may be for the first person, but everyone after that will keep following the same old path until someone discovers something new. Even the end-game raiding isn't hard, it's just repetitive scripts. I never got interested in raiding (or gear grinds in general) for the pure reason of it being easy. Maximising dps gives what? A boss that dies 2 seconds faster? And dodging/adapting to the same 7-8 mechanics every fight isn't hard, it's being able to use your memory.
Well, at least the person has to read up on all the theorycrafting and use tools like RAWR to optimize gear. That is 100x more work/complexity than the early EQ combat mechanics.
Or the Diablo 3 combat system is a better example. There is NO one single cookie cutter build that works. Just for myself, i alternate between a high DPS beam build, a medium dps/good survival arcane orb build, and a kiting centric slow but more survival blizzard build.
Go watch any D3 guide video on youtube . and there are more ways to play than the "use the biggest, latest nuke" system of EQ.
You think most people are reading up on theorycrafting??? Maybe a very tiny handful are but 99% of the people either copy the flavor of the month spec/rotation, or go in with a subpar spec and riddiculed by other players.. Its sad but true. Makes you long for the good old days when it was simplistic and your skill set you apart from other players rather than your ability to copy others.....
You can't have it both ways.
If most people are NOT reading up on theorycrafting and playing optimally, then it allows *some* to do that and stands out. Because of this, these new systems are much more sophisticated, with more depth than the old ones because the old ones does not even need theorycrafting because they are so simple.
And people complaining today's games are dumbed down? EQ combat mechanics is simplistic compared to WOW.
I, for one, was born in 83' and had my hands on an NES by the time I was two. I still have memories of playing Metroid and having absolutely no clue as to what to do with it, but eventually kicking the shit out of that game at a *very* early age. Regardless of the age you were when you played the incredibly difficult games of the first generation of home consoles, you likely have a skillset I would consider 'superior' to modern gamers, that is, unless you were never able to get over the peripheral challenge that came with PS2-era controllers.
Gamers indoctrinated at any point around say, the N64, have no clue how difficult games used to be, and if confronted with one, they would pull hairs out. I've actually seen this in many of my younger friends that had an older brother's NES and never got into it, but jumped right into the first Xbox easily. Likely because it looked better, and not much else... but I would definitely argue that simplicity/ease is the hallmark of the later generations of gamers, while those around at the inception of the industry will constantly search for something more challenging.
You might be on to something here... Little kidds are weak (not all ) but many.. they have no stamina...
By the way, everybody who complains about a lack of cartography in games should go buy a DS, and a copy of Etrian Odyssey.
Then buy 2 and 3.
Buy them all! Oldschool cartography dungeon crawlers, but instead of using graph paper, you can draw your map right on the screen.
A marriage of convenience AND old school difficulty. They will brutally destroy you unless you spend ridiculous amounts of time grinding and building a good party too.
Buy at least three copies. (I want Etrian Odyssey IV to come out).
There is definitely an age gap for gamers between those in their early 20s and those in their mid 30s. I have some younger friends that have basically said straight out that they have stopped checking out the games I recommend, because they "suck."
The last 3 games I recommended are:
DayZ
The Secret World
WURM Online
Meanwhile, the younger guys want to play:
Diablo 3
League of Legends
WoW
See the differences? I do. I think it all started when kids started getting trophies for losing.
Please don't act like it's a 20s vs. 30s thing. I'm pretty sure most players who played a ton of games growing up ended up on the latter half of your list.
Your "trophies for losing" statement is a little funny, considering it's actually more true of the games you like than it is of League of Legends.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
By the way, everybody who complains about a lack of cartography in games should go buy a DS, and a copy of Etrian Odyssey.
Then buy 2 and 3.
Buy them all! Oldschool cartography dungeon crawlers, but instead of using graph paper, you can draw your map right on the screen.
A marriage of convenience AND old school difficulty. They will brutally destroy you unless you spend ridiculous amounts of time grinding and building a good party too.
Buy at least three copies. (I want Etrian Odyssey IV to come out).
Cartography is not difficult .. just tedious.
I wouldn't say a game WITH graph paper cartography is more difficult than a game without.
1. Game developers are not making anything unique so all they need is to copy the code of another game.
2. The players are casual and dont want to play games for hours to learn to play the game and get little reward.
3. The industry just sucks and the main reason all mmo's suck is wow broke the industry and started a trend of everyone to copy them which practically every mmo has done is make wow clones.
There is definitely an age gap for gamers between those in their early 20s and those in their mid 30s. I have some younger friends that have basically said straight out that they have stopped checking out the games I recommend, because they "suck."
The last 3 games I recommended are:
DayZ
The Secret World
WURM Online
Meanwhile, the younger guys want to play:
Diablo 3
League of Legends
WoW
See the differences? I do. I think it all started when kids started getting trophies for losing.
Your "trophies for losing" statement is a little funny, considering it's actually more true of the games you like than it is of League of Legends.
Please explain as to why you think the games I listed are games where "everyone wins", especially WURM Online and DayZ.
Please explain as to why you think the games I listed are games where "everyone wins", especially WURM Online and DayZ.
Because they're the type of games where success can be achieved easily without skill by simply joining a big group of friends and/or accumulating power over a longer period of time than your opponents. Whereas LOL is flat-out a skill vs. skill check.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please explain as to why you think the games I listed are games where "everyone wins", especially WURM Online and DayZ.
Because they're the type of games where success can be achieved easily without skill by simply joining a big group of friends and/or accumulating power over a longer period of time than your opponents. Whereas LOL is flat-out a skill vs. skill check.
Fair enough. I guess I went wrong with my analogy, rather than what I had stated previously to it. I guess what it comes down to, as far as a age gap goes, is the younger crowd tends to want more arcade in their game, where as the older nerds want more world, or simulation, in theirs. LoL is a great example of this, because it's instant, small, and fast-paced. LoL is more of a sport than a game to me. I like my games to be more of a virtual world with game-like elements to it.
Fair enough. I guess I went wrong with my analogy, rather than what I had stated previously to it. I guess what it comes down to, as far as a age gap goes, is the younger crowd tends to want more arcade in their game, where as the older nerds want more world, or simulation, in theirs. LoL is a great example of this, because it's instant, small, and fast-paced. LoL is more of a sport than a game to me. I like my games to be more of a virtual world with game-like elements to it.
That's not always true either though. I've always enjoyed both types of games:
C64: For every Ultima 3 there was a Robotron
NES: For every Dragon Warrior there was a Gradius
SNES: For every FF3 there was a Street Fighter
PC: For every MOO2 there was a Quake; for every Alpha Centauri, a Starcraft. ..and for every MMORPG, a Planetside, LOL, TF2, or Tribes:Ascend
Being instantly accessible by no means affects how deep a game really is. Just about every game on the above list is fairly deep (with Dragon Warrior and Gradius being kinda on the fence, I guess.)
Even if we agree that maybe I'm unusual in being both older and still loving action games, it doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand because these games are far from "dumbed down".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Fair enough. I guess I went wrong with my analogy, rather than what I had stated previously to it. I guess what it comes down to, as far as a age gap goes, is the younger crowd tends to want more arcade in their game, where as the older nerds want more world, or simulation, in theirs. LoL is a great example of this, because it's instant, small, and fast-paced. LoL is more of a sport than a game to me. I like my games to be more of a virtual world with game-like elements to it.
That's not always true either though. I've always enjoyed both types of games:
C64: For every Ultima 3 there was a Robotron
NES: For every Dragon Warrior there was a Gradius
SNES: For every FF3 there was a Street Fighter
PC: For every MOO2 there was a Quake; for every Alpha Centauri, a Starcraft. ..and for every MMORPG, a Planetside, LOL, TF2, or Tribes:Ascend
Being instantly accessible by no means affects how deep a game really is. Just about every game on the above list is fairly deep (with Dragon Warrior and Gradius being kinda on the fence, I guess.)
Even if we agree that maybe I'm unusual in being both older and still loving action games, it doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand because these games are far from "dumbed down".
True
Still there is a place for both arcade, haevy-action, streamlined mmorpg's as well as more world-simulation ones.
Of course those first ones are more popular and there should be more or them since there is bigger demand, but imho there is a place for both of those.
Like there is a place for CoD & LoL AND Total War series & Civilization series or various Sim games.
Problem is aside of few very old, few indie one EvE Online, there is no games like that.
And people complaining today's games are dumbed down? EQ combat mechanics is simplistic compared to WOW.
Thanks, but this argument has been covered pretty thoroughly since 2004. Gamer rhetoric that has been well-used for long enough to become shorthand memes, smells like old socks.
Would it be worth any effort to pin down what "smarted up" games would be like?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Would it be worth any effort to pin down what "smarted up" games would be like?
Dwarf Fortress.
As for MMOs? Wurm, EVE and LOVE are incredibly "smarted up".
~and Sim City (2000-#4), which is likely being "dumbed down" as we speak by Maxis' parent company.
Oh wait, "smarted up" would mean a franchise where later installments are made MORE complex... and I just don't think that happens - ever. Even Civ 5 wheeled back a bit. Though, Sim City was getting more complex with each entry for a while, but I have no hopes for #5.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Would it be worth any effort to pin down what "smarted up" games would be like?
Dwarf Fortress.
As for MMOs? Wurm, EVE and LOVE are incredibly "smarted up".
~and Sim City (2000-#4), which is likely being "dumbed down" as we speak by Maxis' parent company.
Oh wait, "smarted up" would mean a franchise where later installments are made MORE complex... and I just don't think that happens - ever. Even Civ 5 wheeled back a bit. Though, Sim City was getting more complex with each entry for a while, but I have no hopes for #5.
Complexity does not ensure depth.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Still there is a place for both arcade, haevy-action, streamlined mmorpg's as well as more world-simulation ones.
Of course those first ones are more popular and there should be more or them since there is bigger demand, but imho there is a place for both of those.
Like there is a place for CoD & LoL AND Total War series & Civilization series or various Sim games.
Problem is aside of few very old, few indie one EvE Online, there is no games like that.
Eh, don't mistake my post as wanting action-intense MMOs necessarily (although I'm more hyped for Planetside 2 than I've been for any other game in about a decade.)
I'm just disputing any idea that older gamers are only looking for slower games, or that slower games are the only ones which can be deep.
Personally I see plenty of slower games out there nowadays but I suppose it's fair to say that there's some potential for MMORPGs in the same vein of Atlantica Online (albeit not as ultra-grindy) which chase a strategy game approach to their combat. I think overall I feel that the hybrid combat we currently have (typical tab-targeting is basically a hybrid of a turn-based combat system, done in real-time) seems to flow smoother while still keeping decisions tactical enough, but there are definitely new boundaries to be pushed with a more classic strategy-gaming-inspired combat setup.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
True, but in the sad state of this industry, it sure couldn't hurt.
And by default, (read this developers lol), the way something is designed predicts the type of community that will be drawn in. In other words, build a McDonald's and folks who are not health conscious will pull through the drive-through.
However...
Give us a restaurant that offers various dishes, where staff greet you warmly as you enter, and you can choose between a dimly lit white-cloth draped table or an open cabana. The food at this second choice of an eatery would require better trained chefs, as opposed to the girl that just boils the fries in grease.
You get the metaphor?
I am personally wanting the second option. Sadly, it hasn't existed since Dark Age of Camelot, Ultima, Asheron's Call and Everquest. Why do you suppose that is? Because cheap, easy, and simple, sells. McDonalds will always outsell that fancy restaurant I referred to. Teenagers and kids will always be attracted to JUNK food.
It doesn't mean I have to eat there however, or accept fast food as FOOD in the first place.
Most gamers are ADD-idiots, that's why games are dumbed down. Used to be called the Sitcom-crowd. The larger the population, the greater the degree of acute "DUH" runs rampant.
Comments
This is almost a chicken and egg scenario. Which came first, the dumbed down player or the dumbed down game. I feel it was the game dumbing down that came first.
Wait, are you talking about "people" or are you talking about "raiders"?
The relative odds of person X or raider Y paying attention to theorycraft are going to be markedly different. Assuming raider Y is somewhat serious about the hobby and not just a PuG slug, anyway.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Do you mean to say that raiders arent people???
And yes even among "Gear Treadmillers" its still a small percentage compared to the overall playerbase...
Well hey, at least you acknowledge that there are some knowledge-based skills available in nearly any system.
Does kind of make a "no skills exist" viewpoint a bit more difficult to support, however.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Most gamers are ADD-idiots, that's why games are dumbed down. Used to be called the Sitcom-crowd. The larger the population, the greater the degree of acute "DUH" runs rampant.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
I wonder how many of those loser trophies they have been awarded in their lives after public school? Did you find that being rewarded for failing is not quite the way the world works little Johnny?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Thats not true, by the strictest definition of "gamer" you would have to include the Farmville crowd with the super dedicated/obsessed. In other words, most gamers aren't "ADD idiots", they're 12 year olds and soccer moms, computer illiterate and ignorant alike.
Could go on but it truly is a case of games being marketed toward "everyone". When you do that, its just a matter of Lowest Commen Denominator as far as difficulty is concerned
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
On the other end of the spectrum, most gamers aren't these very divided groups, they are the outliers for the 21-35 year old players. Soccer moms mostly play "Words with Friends" and other social forms of classic board games. It is something they can relate to as a real thing. The facts are that the 21-35 year old generation are now in the working field and are able to feed into the gaming system, they can buy and play at their own leisure. The problem that people are having is that companies were thinking they could reach for the 12-19 year old group by dumbing down some elements of gameplay. The 36+ folks weren't really included in this target because they had little to no exposure to abstract gaming and fantasy in their youth. I really think the companies were trying to hook young players into something so they would be loyal customers when they reach working age. Gamers can be anyone now that the internet easily accessible and is embraced by public media forms.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
You can't have it both ways.
If most people are NOT reading up on theorycrafting and playing optimally, then it allows *some* to do that and stands out. Because of this, these new systems are much more sophisticated, with more depth than the old ones because the old ones does not even need theorycrafting because they are so simple.
And people complaining today's games are dumbed down? EQ combat mechanics is simplistic compared to WOW.
You might be on to something here... Little kidds are weak (not all ) but many.. they have no stamina...
By the way, everybody who complains about a lack of cartography in games should go buy a DS, and a copy of Etrian Odyssey.
Then buy 2 and 3.
Buy them all! Oldschool cartography dungeon crawlers, but instead of using graph paper, you can draw your map right on the screen.
A marriage of convenience AND old school difficulty. They will brutally destroy you unless you spend ridiculous amounts of time grinding and building a good party too.
Buy at least three copies. (I want Etrian Odyssey IV to come out).
Please don't act like it's a 20s vs. 30s thing. I'm pretty sure most players who played a ton of games growing up ended up on the latter half of your list.
Your "trophies for losing" statement is a little funny, considering it's actually more true of the games you like than it is of League of Legends.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Cartography is not difficult .. just tedious.
I wouldn't say a game WITH graph paper cartography is more difficult than a game without.
Well games dumbing down
1. Game developers are not making anything unique so all they need is to copy the code of another game.
2. The players are casual and dont want to play games for hours to learn to play the game and get little reward.
3. The industry just sucks and the main reason all mmo's suck is wow broke the industry and started a trend of everyone to copy them which practically every mmo has done is make wow clones.
The Arcade Corner
The Daily Exposition
Please explain as to why you think the games I listed are games where "everyone wins", especially WURM Online and DayZ.
Joined - July 2004
Because they're the type of games where success can be achieved easily without skill by simply joining a big group of friends and/or accumulating power over a longer period of time than your opponents. Whereas LOL is flat-out a skill vs. skill check.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Fair enough. I guess I went wrong with my analogy, rather than what I had stated previously to it. I guess what it comes down to, as far as a age gap goes, is the younger crowd tends to want more arcade in their game, where as the older nerds want more world, or simulation, in theirs. LoL is a great example of this, because it's instant, small, and fast-paced. LoL is more of a sport than a game to me. I like my games to be more of a virtual world with game-like elements to it.
Joined - July 2004
That's not always true either though. I've always enjoyed both types of games:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
True
Still there is a place for both arcade, haevy-action, streamlined mmorpg's as well as more world-simulation ones.
Of course those first ones are more popular and there should be more or them since there is bigger demand, but imho there is a place for both of those.
Like there is a place for CoD & LoL AND Total War series & Civilization series or various Sim games.
Problem is aside of few very old, few indie one EvE Online, there is no games like that.
Thanks, but this argument has been covered pretty thoroughly since 2004. Gamer rhetoric that has been well-used for long enough to become shorthand memes, smells like old socks.
Would it be worth any effort to pin down what "smarted up" games would be like?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Dwarf Fortress.
As for MMOs? Wurm, EVE and LOVE are incredibly "smarted up".
~and Sim City (2000-#4), which is likely being "dumbed down" as we speak by Maxis' parent company.
Oh wait, "smarted up" would mean a franchise where later installments are made MORE complex... and I just don't think that happens - ever. Even Civ 5 wheeled back a bit. Though, Sim City was getting more complex with each entry for a while, but I have no hopes for #5.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Complexity does not ensure depth.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Eh, don't mistake my post as wanting action-intense MMOs necessarily (although I'm more hyped for Planetside 2 than I've been for any other game in about a decade.)
I'm just disputing any idea that older gamers are only looking for slower games, or that slower games are the only ones which can be deep.
Personally I see plenty of slower games out there nowadays but I suppose it's fair to say that there's some potential for MMORPGs in the same vein of Atlantica Online (albeit not as ultra-grindy) which chase a strategy game approach to their combat. I think overall I feel that the hybrid combat we currently have (typical tab-targeting is basically a hybrid of a turn-based combat system, done in real-time) seems to flow smoother while still keeping decisions tactical enough, but there are definitely new boundaries to be pushed with a more classic strategy-gaming-inspired combat setup.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
True, but in the sad state of this industry, it sure couldn't hurt.
And by default, (read this developers lol), the way something is designed predicts the type of community that will be drawn in. In other words, build a McDonald's and folks who are not health conscious will pull through the drive-through.
However...
Give us a restaurant that offers various dishes, where staff greet you warmly as you enter, and you can choose between a dimly lit white-cloth draped table or an open cabana. The food at this second choice of an eatery would require better trained chefs, as opposed to the girl that just boils the fries in grease.
You get the metaphor?
I am personally wanting the second option. Sadly, it hasn't existed since Dark Age of Camelot, Ultima, Asheron's Call and Everquest. Why do you suppose that is? Because cheap, easy, and simple, sells. McDonalds will always outsell that fancy restaurant I referred to. Teenagers and kids will always be attracted to JUNK food.
It doesn't mean I have to eat there however, or accept fast food as FOOD in the first place.
I hope this helps
NIcely put