big games have lots of play testing and data to back up what they are saying. And because the games industry is risk averse, if a significant portion of the audience doesn't get 'it' (whatever the it is in a particular game), the devs have to change things. Sometimes there are tidbits put in, like ironman mode in Xcom or Borderlands2 permadeath switch for old skool types.

But game devs are loathe to put anything in a game that that even a small percentage might find frustrating. Just compare Skyward Sword's design to Ocarina.

I think it's a bit patronizing too but you probably play some games differently today compared to how you did 5, 10, 20 years ago. You lose some skills but gain others so people might need to be educated/reeducated... But don't think the learning curve is that steep.

It's patronizing that IO are deciding to let players decide how to complete levels?

I think it's patronizing that "The Modern Military Shooter" is so on-rails and unforgiving in terms of restricting user freedom.

I think what IO are doing is amazing.

"It's patronizing that IO are deciding to let players decide how to complete levels?"

Not what's being said here, rather that IO worries that players might not understand a little freedom. Tbh, I think it is something that would come naturally if they design the game more open, unless there is a "main path" with the freedom being taken on the sides I don't see how players could miss all the choices.

You've hit the nail on the head Joshua.... at least in so far as identifying the real motive.

Let them eat cake? It's not for the players' own good that so many games have become the heavy handed designed experiences that puts the player on rails through the content rollercoaster ride... it's for the companies own good. It all stems from the idea of managing the experience.. managing the triggering of those yummy yummy endorphines.

We can only hope that enough players grow tired of these types of games to make a difference. A steady diet of cake only goes so far before one begins to demand meat and potatoes. [citation needed]

To the extent that honest developers buy into the idea that it's all done for the player so they can have "fun" I think there's a ton of factors going on there. A little bit of projection, a little bit of defense mechanisms, a little bit of denial, a little bit of greed, a little bit of following the heard, a little bit of quit worrying and love the bomb...

Remember how just 12+ months ago a lot of designers were talking about how unfair it was to make a game that not every player could finish... that some of the content was effectively "locked away from players" and that, that was wrong. This was the mentality of the content rollercoaster design school graduates. It's the proverbial milk for everyone because the baby can't eat steak. And it wasn't even true. Players could figure it out but maybe they wouldn't like having to try so hard and maybe that would impact sales because some other game was racing to the bottom and eliminating the need for higher brain functioning to play their game... that was the real truth. (and can you believe Id software with Rage went from mazes and keycard and switch/lever hunting to roller coaster school?! but i digress...)

Of course the players are going to figure out these simple games. IO, Hitman Absolution looks really slick and cool and more sophisticated than your standard slaughter game but don't flatter yourselves too much. :) Players can figure it out easy. What really concerns you IO Interactive and co. is whether people will LIKE it and BUY it. Will they still insist on devil's food cake or will they start to appreciate just a little bit of that carrot cake they've just baked? Marketers I think would prefer to sell the devil's food cake than the carrot cake. It's the lowest common denominator marketing and it's an incredibly difficult thing to argue against if you're a business in it solely for the money. It can be done but it requires a lengthy education campaign.

p.s. Do you know anyone who played portal and didn't finish it because they got stuck despite the fact that there weren't all these overt hint mechanics in place to help players progress or progress faster...? What company other than Valve Software would take a portal mechanic and makea PUZZLE game! Praise be to Valve! Moderately diffciutly puzzles still have a place in FPS games.

@Joshua
I agree with your sentiment and yet can understand IOs trepidation on the topic...
First off, Dark Souls is my favorite game (of all time). So don't take this the wrong way please.

Dark Souls (much as its predecessor) is a niche game, and while I love it to pieces, there are many folks who picked it up, played till the Asylum Demon, got killed and thought "This game isn't fair" and gave up... or made it to Lordran, headed to the cemetery, got killed (a few times) by skeletons and gave up (then went online to complain how the game is cheap and bad).

But for the folks who stuck with it like myself (and the light finally goes off) they love the game and sing it's praises. I have (unfortunately) highly recommended this game to others, and on two occasions (out of 3) been told that they "hated" the game and never wish to go back...

The folks I recommended the game to are perhaps not "core" enough, but the fact remains that the game just is not for them, and although both of those who hated the game enjoy open world experiences (like Fallout 3, Skyrim, etc.) feel like they weren't informed on what to do, and hated the game for it (different strokes for different folks).

I guess we sometimes like to generalize and say "Gamers" want this or that, but there really is a wide spectrum of players, and (much as I want games to follow in the footsteps of Dark Souls) I just don't see the appeal reaching beyond a certain niche audience, and (for a big time AAA franchise like Hitman with many expectations heaped on it) can understand the devs needed to connect with players who are familiar with current mainstream game conventions (all those things you pointed out like quest markers, etc.) and the history of the game, otherwise (by omitting them) you can alienate many players and sales could suffer.

OTOH, I think it is brilliant what they are doing with "Contracts mode", you can tell the developers getting giddy behind the mode since it rewards players for skill, strategy and creativity... (which is rare for games in this day and age IMHO)

All those things you listed off are crutches for bad level design. If your average person can find their way through an Ikea or Disney World (and ya, they do have maps, but how many people do you see wandering around with their faces glued to the things) then I think developers could go far with not much more effort.

Now, somethings are excessive. But you're complaining about Journals?

I've never completed Morrowind because I had tons and tons of stuff written down and when I would go back to it, I'd have to figure out where and what I was doing.

Playing Fallout: New Vegas or even BioShock was a lot easier to get back into because I didn't have to devote a whole drawer to a single game. Everything was recorded.

When I got Morrowind I was heading off to college and wanted something I could play and work at, but it became more work and I just wanted to relax and take some enjoyment.

I'm not saying that is bad design, but what I am saying is that some systems like Journals are a good thing as games get bigger and more complicated.

I do think developers could implement more methods for the player to customize their experience. Not just disabling gore or blood, but curse words (for mommies and daddies), autosaves, and other systems a player may want to tweak.

I think Arturo Nereu said it best, "Our next challenge is to make the experience fits the player and not otherwise"

Maybe not all games follow that thought, but I think that is a very good challenge for developers, programmers, and designers in the next decade.

It's not about need on behalf of the player, it's need on behalf of the business. We can't be lulled into believing this is all done for the players' benefit.

I always struggle with the conflict between thinking like and artist and thinking like a merchant. Does the game industry partially thrive on people who don't really wan't to put any effort into gaming? Maybe, and that would be lamentable. However, some games that dared to expect things of their audience have sold very well, so what is the real deal? If linear games and forced tutorials disappeared tomorrow, would sales suffer noticably and long term?

I think the compromises mainly come in when those who are funding your game start to make their own demands regarding the design. You only have so much wiggle room with such a model.

One thing that I heard about the development of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls is that the big wigs gave the game's design director an unusual amount of creative freedom because they trusted his vision.

Sadly, thats kind of privelege is rare

As someone who has a limited amount of time to play games, I'm not a fan of the hide-the-ball style of game design/tutorials in something like Dark Souls. Therefore, I'm a big fan of the tutorial you describe, that gives the player an opportunity to see what type of options they have in order to play the game the way they want while simultaneously completeing objectives and exploring the game world.

As an aside, I think leaving a lot up to the player is always good (not a fan of the on-rails shooter experience) but it requires excellent level design. Nothing worse than spending an hour looking for a switch or key that is hard to find simply because it is poorly thought out.