Are Games Getting Easier? 97
grumpyman writes "A Tom's Hardware article posits that game are getting easier and less satisfying.
From the article: 'I've had Super Mario Bros for about 12 years and every time I pass that final Bowser stage, I still get a great sense of satisfaction. In contrast, when I conquer a game from this era, I just feel relieved that it's over.'"
Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
And people do still care about this today. Witness the endless debates over hard-coded save points (ala Halo) vs. save-any-time. In fact, even in Halo, there's that differentiation in co-op mode between respawning once you're clear of enemies, and starting back at the save point once either player dies.
I do agree that games are easier in general, t
Easier? No. Boring? Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easier? No. Boring? Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easier? No. Boring? Yes (Score:2)
your 24 years old now... (Score:3, Insightful)
No. One word. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No. One word. (Score:2)
Re:Ikaruga as the rule? One better word: (Score:3, Informative)
Time Splitters: Future also cranked up the challenge near the end, on hard mode, but nothing like Ninja Gaiden.
Re:No. One word. (Score:2)
Radiant Silvergun is also hard.
Now, if Ikaruga is too easy, try doing dual play. That refers to a single playing playing with 2 controllers in 2p mode. Now _THAT'S_ hard.
Seriously, there are many hard shmups nowadays. All touhou project (shanghai alice) games, all old and new Cave games.
As mentioned by another, as for non-shmups, Ninja Gaiden is hard.
--------
Release the restrain device. Using the released power may result the possibility of destruction of the sh
Re:No. One word. (Score:1)
I almost died just reading that sentence, let alone imagining players who can do it. For me, Chapter 4 on Normal is more than enough.
Re:No. One word. (Score:2)
That video is currenlty impossible to get, tho it appeared on the official ikaruga website on Treasure's homepage.
Some double-play (again, NOT just 2 players), but without the stick views are provided here [ikaruga.co.uk]
Check out the other videos sections too!
RPG? (Score:1)
Re:RPG? (Score:2)
Re:RPG? (Score:3, Informative)
Dying doesn't mean dying and plays and integral part of the game. Dying is it's own experience as you're already dead.
Soul Reaver has a slight variation on "death" too.
Re:RPG? (Score:2)
That's what happens in some Zelda dungeons. I guess there are other games which use jails as gameplay mechanics.
In Monkey Island, there are several cases where you end up in jail, but in those games, it's part of the story.
Re:RPG? (Score:2)
Re:RPG? (Score:2)
Once you've been arrested once, though, they kill you.
And erase your save file?
Maybe not all that new, but not all that old eithe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe not all that new, but not all that old ei (Score:1)
bad example (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:bad example (Score:2)
Re:bad example (Score:2)
Re:bad example (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad example (Score:5, Insightful)
He doesn't sound like he's kidding. I have to agree. Star Wars is a very poor example of sci-fi. It's a brilliant example of cliched formulaic opera. You have a swashbuckling hero rescuing the princess from the evil villain. The villain is appropriately dressed in black with a cape; the only thing missing from his attire is the curly moustache. There's a love interest set against the backdrop of a war-torn Europe^Wgalaxy. You have two bumbling sidekicks that make you laugh while also explaining the narrative with their banter. Star Wars could just as easily have been Reluctant Hero Luke using Excalibur to rescue Damsel in Distress Leia from the Black Wizard Vader, riding his Flying Unicorn, with his companions a Dwarf named Artu Deetoo and a homosexual Elf named Seephree. It wouldn't have changed the plot one iota. The science is notably absent from the fiction that is Star Wars. Scientific devices like lasers and battleships are used, but they aren't fundamental to the plot, they are confetti sprinkled over the story.
Compare this against true sci-fi movies like 2001. It was only because Kubrick wielded so much clout that 2001 made it to the silver screen. Studios are reluctant to fund true sci-fi because audiences HATE the genre. Sci-fi has no need for heroes, villains, explosions, swordfights or punchups. Sci-fi aims to imbue you with a sense of wonder; to amaze you with a fictional world that might possibly exist due to miracle of scientific progress. Sci-fi recreates the feeling of elation that comes from exploration and discovery. Most people couldn't care less; they just want the hero to beat the villain.
Asimov himself wrote a short story that poked fun at this problem of operas pretending to be sci-fi. In the story, two children are listening to a robot that tells stories. The first child isn't happy that robot only tells fantasy stories. The second child records a new "noun reel" with sci-fi phrases like "battleship" and "laser" and "robot". However the children soon realise that the story-telling robot doesn't tell sci-fi; it's just telling fantasy stories with sci-fi nouns. The children lose interest immediately. I think Asimov was saying something quite profound about the state of sci-fi at the time, which was full of swashbuckling fantasy pretending to be sci-fi.
50 years later, nothing has changed.
Re:bad example (Score:4, Interesting)
Battlestar Galactica is a WW2 soap opera pretending to be sci-fi, and is one of the best shows to come out in years. Firefly was an old western serial pretending to be sci-fi, and was also one of the best shows of it's time. They're about the human condition, exploring what it means to be a person under duress. Nightfall, arguably one of Asimov's best short stories / novels, could easily have been set in a fantasy world, or a modern day world in a different culture. The Ender's series was a classic coming-of-age tale. Rendezvous with Rama wasn't about technology, but how different people react when their world is turned upside-down. It is the same story, basically, that was told in the movie "Cube," though with less blood. Hell, you can't get more human than I, Robot (the book).
Star Wars was an excellent example of sci-fi. It wasn't about technology, it was about people. It really was the personified hero story, a tale that has been told for thousands upon thousands of years. That it had poor writing and moments of Shatner-level acting yet became one of the most popular movies of all time just prove how much the story resonated with people. Just because it was a story older than Jesus, and exactly the same story as told in the Matrix, doesn't make it any less appealing to us as human beings, or any less important to our culture.
50 years later, we're still the same human beings.
Re:bad example (Score:2)
Your claim that "sci-fi isn't about sci-fi" is a nonsensical statement. Perhaps you meant to say "science fiction isn't about science", which is a popular quote but I doubt Asimov said it, because it would be the direct opposite of his actual opinion.
Re:bad example (Score:2)
Re:bad example (Score:2)
Your claim that "sci-fi isn't about sci-fi" is a nonsensical statement. Perhaps you meant to say "science fiction isn't about science", which is a popular quote but I doubt Asimov said it, because it would be the direct opposite of his actual opinion.
If it seems nonsensical to you, re-read it. Sci-fi isn't about Sci-fi any more than writing is about writing. If you forget that, you lose the essence of good writing.
I don't remember exactly where he said
Re:bad example (Score:2)
WW2? Nah, more like a thinly veneered biblical theme with a smattering of greek mythology thrown in. Commander Adama? Leading a sort of Exodus of the last remaining tribe of humans into the wasteland of space; pursued by blatantly Roman-esque oppressors? Humanity destroyed by a "flood" of robot killers, a handful of survivors escaping by ship? Totally biblical, man.
Re:bad example (Score:2)
Re:bad example (Score:2)
Ironically, the ones that do get made tend to do quite well... 2001, The Abyss (sure, the aliens do magic, but all the human tech is at least plausible), even Gattaca. They make money. Perhaps it's just that only good directors have enough clout to get them made...
Let Hooper-X Say it all (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's always some white boy got to invoke the holy trinity. Bust this! Those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother-man down--even in a galaxy far far away. Check this shit. You got cracker farmboy Luke Skywalker, Nazi poster boy blond hair blue eyes. Then you got Darth Vader, blackes
Re:bad example (Score:2)
I kind of like SF with both the sense of whatever and the action. Works that focus on either extreme tend to be either boring or shallow, respectively.
Re:bad example (Score:2)
There are individual games on the new
Re:bad example (Score:1)
The same is true about Star Wars. It's not the
Rayman (Score:2)
I'd say it's probably hit and miss, depending on the developer. The easy ones just tend to sell more.
Games sure get easy as you get older (Score:4, Insightful)
The author needs to remember that he's a grown-up, and I'd prefer that it's reflected in his writing.
(And how could anyone say that the first Legend of Zelda is some immense challenge compared to any of the later ones?)
Re:Games sure get easy as you get older (Score:1)
Re:Games sure get easy as you get older (Score:2)
The triforce hunt is long and boring, but not hard...
Re:Games sure get easy as you get older (Score:1)
15 years? (Score:1)
My view... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My view... (Score:1)
Re:My view... (Score:1)
Rose-tinted hindsight (Score:3, Insightful)
This article doesn't seem to realize just how bad some of the trends whose passing he laments actually were. A game that forces you to start over doesn't make the endgame sweeter- it just generates a sense of tremendous frustration as several hours of progress is now completely wasted, and makes the earlier segments of the game unbearable as the player sees them over and over and over again. And "determine what you need to do next with very little in-game help" usually meant "Methodically try every single item in your inventory, then every pair of items in combination, until it works for a reason that may not be clear even after the fact". Game designers have realized that their aim is not to defeat the player and force him to give up as Tom seems to think is ideal, but rather to give the player an interactive escapist experience to partake of for a few hours, nothing more.
Re:Rose-tinted hindsight (Score:3, Interesting)
If only I had a Kewpie doll to send out to you.
Folks forget that the early console game designers came out of the world of arcades where at least part of the design paradigm was to reduce the playtime per quarter. Videogames had a tendency to ramp up in difficulty quickly, and they would often force situations that were virtually impossible for the average player to surmount. This continued into the cons
Re:Rose-tinted hindsight (Score:2)
Speaking of Pikmin, I really liked their solution to the save / restore making things too easy. The time limit (long as it was) made for at least a little bit of tension, at least the first time I played it. (And that freakin' bird. Forget breaking the controller, I almost broke my damn TV after about the tenth time that stupid thing made me waste a day.)
Stupid cut & paste! (Score:2)
Re:My advice (Score:1)
Yes, someone made a comment like this a few stories back, but that person was also ME. And I'm going to keep at it until people stop saying "get a life"
Cookie & Cream for kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare how many times you've thrown an NES controller in frustration to the number of times you've thrown an XBOX or PS2
And sometimes tedious repetition just because you keep flubbing one jump, or the boss uses cheap one-shot-kill tactics detracts from satisfaction. When you finally get past it, you're more irritated than triumphant, and you never, ever want to pick up the game again and have to get through that part.
Anyhow. Unrelated to the above, but related to my subject, the author has clearly never _played_ The Adventures of Cookie and Cream, if he thinks it's just some kid game. It's an innovative two-player game that requires coordination and a fair amount of puzzle solving and skill. Bosses require thought to figure out how to harm them, and the courses are timed; you can't just dally for an hour figuring out puzzles, or repeating it until you get it right. And it's quite exhilirating to squeak past the finish line before time runs out. If he hadn't dismissed it as a degraded platformer, he might've realized it's more or less everything he'd been looking for.
Re:Cookie & Cream for kids? (Score:2)
Re:Cookie & Cream for kids? (Score:2)
My chiropractor could tell you.
Flying Squirrel Ninja Magic (Score:2)
I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's good that most games allow me to save before important fights. I think end bosses are a stupid idea in the first place (Just like I laugh at any Pen&Paper GM who places them at the lowest level of the dungeon. Ridiculous.). I don't think the player needs to be punished when he makes a mstake, rewarding him when he does right is better. etc.
Well, I thought, he does sound like a very bitter gamer, who knows he's right and can't believe someone might disagree, but I don't think he should be left without games he likes. So maybe I'd suggest again the idea of having difficulty settings for allowing to save. Or hope that more publishers would carry what he called "old-school" games. A sensible compromise, based on the demographic, can surely be reached. Then, I read this:
"There has to be some kind of compromise that we can reach. We certainly need those casual gamers to add to the mix of the gaming community, but we can't let them dominate the kinds of games that are released."
Any you know what?
I think he's an asshole, because he thinks the overwhelming majority of players shouldn't be deciding what games get made in the majority? Don't tell me he believes there are more hardcore players than casual ones either, that would really screw the meaning of hardcore, y'know?
So, I conclude, choice is good and people like to play their games differently, so there ought to be more of each type + new and experimental ones, but having the hardcore gamers as target audience near exclusively, as he suggests, is dumb (Because it doesn't pay), arrogant (because he is right and the majority would get it wrong, because they like it wrong) and, foremost, insulting.
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
So have I. However, I played the game on "Hard" - with the implementation of gameplay meta-rules, the game usually changed inio a save-reload cycle with no penalty. Remember - savescumming is not cheating unless it is intended to be prohibited.
If you want to have save-scumm
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
Blah (Score:4, Interesting)
San Andreas is another game that used this idea. Seemingly unimportant little missions rewarded me with techniques to simplify the more complex ones down the line. On the PS2 version of this game, manually aiming your gun is not a great experience with that controller. You end up relying on the targetting system to take care of your foes. One mission, though, was pretty obnoxious. You were standing behind a fence and you had to shoot out a fuse box or something to open it. That was mildly annoying, but not much later in the game I found myself taking advantage of the manual shooting in the game to take out enemy cars. Didn't like that mission, but I did like what I gained from it.
I don't miss the difficulty of games from earlier eras. They usually felt difficult because the control was clumsy, not because you had to be a master of technique to get through. Not all games fell into this category, though. Super Mario Brothers was a great ride. It was, however, an arcade game, not an adventure like Super Mario 3 was. SMB3's goal wasn't for me to hand over all of my quarters. SMB3 was arguably a much better game.
Modern games may have lost some of the appeal of older games, but is this really worth the bitching?
Re:Blah (Score:2)
Re:Blah (Score:1)
While I thought most of your post was insightful, I must respectfully disagree on this point. I grew up playing many of the arcade games of the early 80's, and one of my favorites, out of many, was Joust. That game was difficult, but not because of clumsy controls. It was challenging in the purest sense. The controls were not on
Re:Blah (Score:1)
I grew up playing many of the arcade games of the early 80's, and one of my favorites, out of many, was Joust. That game was difficult, but not because of clumsy controls. It was challenging in the purest sense.
At least to me, the Joust controls were clumsy compared to the controls of Nintendo's clone called Balloon Fight.
Tension (Score:1)
Oh, and of course, since some players are better than others, a good game needs difficulty selection, and it's gotta do more than give you less health and throw more enemies at you.
Yeah... (Score:1)
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Actually, that's not a recommended comparison. Zork is considered a large game because of a large dungeon with potentially complex interactions. Phototopia is simply a mini-IF that intends to tell a story (and was designed to be finished in 2 hours as per IF-Comp standards.) These are two completely different approaches.
It's better to compare Zork with "Sting of the Wasp". If you conside
mod parent up (Score:2)
I've been halfway through a Final Fantasy game when a memory card was wiped and I had to start over from the beginning. Yeah, that was a terrifying "game over" -- and I had to spend 20-30 hours playing through stuff I'd already played through.
Yeah, I know, Final Fantasy games are fun to play through, but not when you're forced to, and not more than once every few months.
Being able to save anywhere you like is probably a little cheap. But having checkpoi
End boss disappointment (Score:1)
On Average they are easier (Score:1)
Re:On Average they are easier (Score:1)
If by skills you mean "bombing every tile in the entire stupid game to find the entrance to the stupid room that you have to find because apparently giving you actual clues would make things too simple," then yes.
Back in my day... (Score:2, Funny)
You beat Asteroids (Score:2)
Just once? (Score:2)
Dynamic difficulties help a bit (Score:4, Interesting)
The author mentions strategy guides as one source of downfall - specifically, that bumping into a puzzle that's too difficult simply inspires players to go to the guide, so there's no incentive to make tough puzzles. That may be true of puzzles that are statically designed. My question is: is there a class of puzzle where the solution must be dynamically approached, and is therefore different every time based on comprehensible mechanics?
Maybe the guide can only tell you how to approach the solution while leaving the nuts and bolts of it to the player in his particular instance.
Not like I could program such a thing myself. Just askin'.
As for his gripe with RPGs: check the link below.
It depends on the age of the genre (Score:3, Informative)
Dig out Doom and give it a try again. I did a while back, and it was almost laughably easy.
Doukutsu Monogatari (Score:2)
Choose your games more wisely, Mr. Raby (Score:2)
I think what has really happened here is that Mark has become more skilled, has honed his talents over the years. So naturally the games have become easier. I'm not saying he doesn't have some legit
Easier...so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
More fundamentally, there's a reason why games today are less challenging. It's more than just catering to casual gamers -- the reason is that games like Pac Man and Asteroids were about introducing novel game play mechanics while games today are often about exploring a world. After playing a single level of a game from 20-30 years ago, you've already experienced practically everything the game has to offer. However, I perceive that game authors love creating new and wonderful worlds for gamers to experience. I'm betting that, having sufficient resources, game authors thirty years ago would have made worlds to experience just like game authors of today. Game creators want the player to *experience* their world, not slough through it. It's trivial to tweak a game's stats to make the play harder. But that doesn't give the player anything new to experience, so there's little motivation.
Robotron: 2084 (Score:1)
- IP
Games should be made for the people who buy them (Score:2, Interesting)
We see a lot of evolutions in games, some good, some bad. But, the one thing to think about is where do the money come from ?
The game industry is a business, there are clients who buy goods with earned money. If you don't produce anything who appeals to the ones who have money, you are then a dead company
The problem, as stated in this article about interstitial gamer http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050809/eilers_ 01.shtml [gamasutra.com] is the gap between the people who buy games and the people who evaluates games
Games are by no means getting easier (Score:2)
* Shinobi for PS2 is one of the hardest games I've ever played. Definite flashbacks of Ninja Gaiden and other such controller smashing games.
* Painkiller for PC has easy settings, but a siginificant portion of the levels aren't available to you unless you play on the hardest (intitially available) difficulty level. Anyone who claims they beat that game without dying many many many times is lying.
* The many Mega Man sequels are easily among the hardest games I've ever played, including the GBA an
Re:Games are by no means getting easier (Score:2)
When one looks at the more popular games that have been released lately though, I think the article's point surely applies. World of Wa
Re:Games are by no means getting easier (Score:2)
That doesn't mean hard games have gone the way of the dodo. If hard games are your cup of tea, there are plenty to choose from.
Old games were tough, but (Score:1)