The same thing is happening in video games. There is a movement that could be described as "Smart Design" that is gaining traction. It somewhat started during the development of Halo 3, now famous for having behavioral scientists working on the campaign to tune it to maximum efficiency. The entire Call of Duty franchise is based on this kind of design, heavily relying on scripted events and triggers. These make very fun but often short single player experiences, and with the now common focus on multiplayer content it makes me wonder if it's even worth it.
So if tuning and precision is "Smart" then what is dumb? Painkiller and Serious Sam instantly spring to mind. These games have a tendency to put you in an arena type environment with lots of enemies and give you weapons and say "Go find the fun". It's the kind of design that made FPS games as great as they were. You were always given the same sort of weapons (pistol, shotgun, machine gun, rocket launcher) with some oddities added in (spinfusor, flare gun, rail gun) for spice. These games let you go with all the toys they crafted for you in environments roughly hewn to fit a battle and let mayhem commence.
So what's the difference, and indeed, what's the issue? The problem is that smart design does not trust it's player. It knows you're some stupid sprinting through the levels looking for something to shoot or kill and so if they leave you with an AI partner or a non player character you are supposed to protect you're supposed to protect you'll be trying to kill them or ditch them in minutes because who cares. So they guide and take control and say "no pay attention". Dumb design sometimes puts these things in but it's up to you to find them. You have to stop on your murdering pogrom to take a moment, and notice the delicate flower of a specially crafted death animation of a enemy shot in it's testicles.
The difference, as I see it, is that smart design does not trust the player, and that's bad. In example given the previously mentioned scenario, computer driven buddy with a non player character to protect. You are in some office building (naturally), and evil shooty men are trying to get in and kill all of you. In this situation you realize you don't want to protect the jerk so you shoot him in the head, Game Over. Designers see this and think it needs "fixing" so they make it so the NPC is immune to your bullets. Then testers complain they are tired of babysitting so they arrange a "cathartic moment" where the NPC is shot and killed anyway. If you are not a huge asshole then this is a really shitty moment. You spend your time keeping this guy alive just for him to die in a cutscene? That sucks!
The Dumb way of doing that is just let you get your dumb game over if you kill him. That's fine, maybe I hate this dude and just want to load up an old save to empty clips into him? That should be my choice. Dumb games trust the player enough for him to know when he's being stupid. Dumb design gives you ammo and gun willy nilly, because weapons are just weapons, one may be more effective than the other, but it's up to your play style.
That's what is missing, trust. With games more and more marketed to wider and wider audiences it feels less and less like game developers trust me to know what I'm doing. This is why single player shooters are dying, because they treat them like tutorials for playing the multiplayer. And in a worryingly large case, they are. There's barely any story to tell. I miss games like Breakdown that while not a great shooter, was a very interesting meditation on what a first person game could be. I don't want game designers to fine tune and automate their games to make sure I have the most fun like I'm some child on a field trip walking a yellow line. I want you to trust me enough to let me have my own fun. Thanks.
~H
