phlack writes "Yahoo Games has an article describing a new mode in Nintendo's upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii that will allow the player to activate a 'demo' mode to get out of a hard situation. Nintendo plans on incorporating this into future games. Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"
They actually patented this system as well.
Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.
True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game. For example, in one WWII game (Medal of Honor?) I was stuck at this one point where I was in a town with a sniper. I tried everything I could to get the guy and he just kept nailing me. After hours of game time spread over a few weeks of realtime, I finally activated a god mode code and went outside and looked for him where a walkthru said he would be. Even with all that, he was hard to see. Once I nailed him, I switched off the cheat and enjoyed the rest of the game. If I hadn't done that, I would have simply given up.
I recently have had an experienece in a game where I was really frustrated by the final battle. I looked it up and it turned out I simply wasn't strafing around that much, I was trying to use cover, which didn't work. That was cheating too, to get the strategy, but it's the same thing... I gave it a good try of many, many attempts and finally gave in and looked up a cheat.
Ultimately, looking up a strategy or using a code isn't as satisfying as doing it on your own, but sometimes you just want to move on and see the rest of the game.
Part of the problem is that they need to find a balance between hardcore gamers and casual gamers. A level like he's describing from MoH would have me, a casual gamer (well, except for Warcrack) saying "fuck this" and finding a different game.
Assuming I'd even pick up the game in the first place, which I probably wouldn't.
The problem is that in order to appeal to the casual gamers, the game has to be easy enough that most hardcore gamers won't touch it. By adding the "demo" mode, they can make parts of the
What were the hard parts on HL2 you're talking about? I generally thought the game was pretty well designed. But there were two areas that did give me trouble too, though. There is one area where you have to shoot off a certain lock. I didn't know this and flailed around forever trying to figure out how to get past the area before I finally looked it up in a walkthrough and realized I was supposed to just shoot off the lock. Another part was the part where you have to take down the helicopter in the speed b
"Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'." - lighten up, Francis.
1. - A game is software. Good software gives you options and the more customizable, the better it is. God mode is just another option. If the user likes the option, it is good.
This is no different than having adjustable difficulty level. If you don't like it, don't use it.
2. - It's not cheating. It's users entertaining themselves. It would only be cheating if it was multiplayer and one of the players did it unbekno
I would count on this damaging gameplay experience. Gran Turisimo 3 includes an auto-pilot mode. When you first start playing the game it's not infeasible that the auto-pilot is a better race car driver than you... So you might end up using it a bit and before you know it, you can only use the auto-pilot because you're not good enough to compete on your own at the current difficulty.
Personally, when this happened to me I went back and restarted without using B-Spec mode on a race I hadn't already won at lea
I would count on this damaging gameplay experience.
Did idgodmode ruin Doom? Of course not. Did being able to get Castle-9 lives in Super Mario Brothers ruin it? Even today I still can't beat World 8 without a healthy stack of lives going in.
What about updownupdownleftrightleftrightabab in umpteen million other games for extra continues, ammo, whatever, etc?
How is this really any different? I mean idgodmode made you invincible with unlimited ammo.
I consider myself the "poster child" for the term "casual gamer". Having enough frustrations in meatspace, I don't want to the attempt to finish a game to be anything like work. I have a handful of Playstation II games and the closest I've got to a finish is "Kim Possible". My kids had to get me past the agility test early in Kingdom Hearts, and a similar test early in "Ghost in the Shell" has ended my progress in that game (my teen girl has no interest in the game and my 7yr old is too young too see such graphic violence).
Really, it's play, I don't wanna work that hard. There are serious sports players and there are "beer-belly" leagues where overweight men hit softballs and sorta jog around the bases - to each his own. If "Ghost" had a demo mode, I might actually know what's in the rest of the damned game nearly two years after I purchased it.
My other console is a Wii, and the types of games I have purchased for it, Wii Play, Playground, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Music, Cooking Mama, Game Party, Endless Ocean; further demonstrate I purchase games to have fun, not increase my frustrations. Perhaps this is why some of the few meatspace sports I do enjoy are tennis and softball - it seems easier to find casual players for these than say basketball or football which seem to be dominated by guys trying to relive their high school glory days or at least prove they "still got it".
You have a very valid point, as do others who have said the same thing about other games. However, as also stated by other commenters, such highly difficult and frustrating parts are signs of a poorly design game.
It's one thing to look online for "cheats" or walkthroughs to aid you in overcoming some unreasonably difficult part of an otherwise enjoyable game, which you already purchased; you probably couldn't tell such challenge was part of the game until you encountered it, and therefore had no recourse except that, or stop playing altogether and forfeit part of your investment in the game.
It is another thing entirely to build this facility into the game itself--in essence making "cheating" part of the experience of playing, ab initio. At such, the game designer has little incentive in correcting his practice and invest resources into making a better gaming experience for the user. They are, to all intent and purposes, accepting as a matter of course that the game experience is going to irritate or frustrate you, and so it is easier to offer you a crutch or "cheat" than to actually improve it.
I would call you someone who doesn't have any empathy. You apparently can't conceive that someone might want to "play" in way that is different from the way you like to play. Some people like to play full out and backcountry ski down mountains, risking their lives every second. Others want to relax with a bit of solitaire or bejeweled. The level of challenge that you want in your "play" is by definition something personal. I've "played" by running marathons, so I know something about challenging myself, but I don't consider you to be apathetic if you haven't run a marathon.
You have a very narrow-minded view of games. Games are only about 2 things? Problem solving or competition? Really?
Have you ever played a sandbox game? I don't think that me driving around in GTA aimlessly is either problem solving or competition. The bottom line is that games are supposed to be FUN. And as you yourself admitted, a person's sense of fun is subjective. If people find that they have fun "playing" some sort of weird autopilot version of a game, then I have no problme with it.
Playing games is either about solving problems, competition, or both.
I thought playing games was about having fun.
You seem to confuse the means by which a goal can be achieved with the goal itself.
Walking isn't about putting one leg in front of the other, it's about going somewhere. Eating isn't about moving your jaw and swallowing, it's about getting nutrition in your body. Gaming isn't about solving problems or competition, it's about having fun.
For casual players (I consider myself being one too (at least in context of consoles)) it is important that game just flows, either guiding you or making you to explore the possibilities. It is bad game where you hit a bump - "demo" mode wouldn't solve it.
Only thing "demo" mode would achieve is to solve an ancient puzzle of hard core games when you buy an expensive game but get stuck in the middle. It is hard to justify the situation provided that you forked a pretty hefty money for t
Getting rid of the stupid moments and rushing towards the fun ones. Hope they include a 'unlock-all-so-i-dont-have-to-just-to-play-the-whole-game' cheat as well.
Way to many games assume that i want to grind 25 hours to get that tiny little game mode which just happens to be the most fun part of it all.
But I'm interested in the value of the the reward itself. I don't care about meaningless value attached to it because I worked for hours. While the sense of accomplishment is sometimes nice, I play for fun. If I want a sense of accomplishment, I'll do something that's actually meaningful.
Rereading my post, I see how it was a bit ambiguous. I don't usually play games that require that kind of work to unlock things. If the game is fun in its own right, then I'll play it, but I generally refuse to put hours into something if I'm not enjoying it.
I think for some people, the work they put into achieving high levels or unlocking things in games does make it more fun. However, I think that's partially because many of them don't get enough of a sense of accomplishment from the rest of their life
You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.
The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.
It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?
That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode. I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.
Or you could complain to the game manufacturer about your experience, and if enough users do, they would probably listen to you and improve the gameplay on a sequel.
This is pretty much what happened with Boom Blox for the Wii; the game was primarily a single player game with a "party mode" tacked on. Although innovative and fun, the single player game required you to go through repetitive stages in order to advance to other levels, and after a while it became boring. However, the "party mode" turned out t
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 19, @05:06AM (#28387207)
I did my grind through Super Mario Brothers. I dropped a missile or twenty on mother brain. I actually beat Tyson after a couple of months. I flipped through contra, shooting my red, oversized, round bullets the entire way. Kid icarus was my bitch. It was all hard as balls, and I didn't have any built in cheats (Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.)
It makes my elitist heart warm knowing that now I can add one more example into my video game "get off of my lawn" play-book.
Why, exactly, shouldn't it? For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?
There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.
I want my games to be not very challenging but spectacular looking and amusing interactive movies, little more. Really hard intricate challenges is what work is for (well I'm lucky enough to have one of those).
If other gamers want to derive a sense of achievement from really hard-to-master games, good for them - but with this, Nintendo is reaching another market, namely people like myself, who couldn't care less about whether it's 'cheating' or not because 'winning' is not the reason why they play games at
Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"
Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.
But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.
(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me.:p )
I agree with physicphairy, even though many users will see this "demo" option as a cheat option that will diminish the game, its a nice idea for those who choose to use it. There have been so many games I have played for weeks, got stuck on a single level and not played the game again for years due to bordem and frustration. What about those times you lose your game saves by accident and want to make a quick journey back to the stage you reached in the game?* I say this is a good idea, cheaters can use it to cheat, genuine players have the option to bypass a stage that ruins their gameplay experience.
*Obviously, some games that are more involved with choices and "collectable" itmes may not be this straight forward, but hey, its better than having to go all the way back to the begging after losing your gamesaves!
But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.
If you think of content as just the graphics, or the levels, then I suppose this lets you access all the content. But if you think of content as the gameplay, then rather than letting you access it, this is taking it away from you (if you let it of course).
I certainly understand the sentiment though. I've seen enough games with ridiculous difficulty spikes (usually when a boss appears) where I used cheats as well - or simply gave up.
The reds aren't "getting closer"; they're already here. Tetris, the greatest Commie plot ever to hit the video game industry, has been on Nintendo platforms for two decades.
Having kids (5 and 9), I would have to say this is fantastic. Games like Super Mario Galaxy are too hard for my youngest, and I constantly have to step in and help with the levels. Now, Super Mario Galaxy is quite fun, but any game gets quite dull after having to go through the same stuff over and over. Let's have cheat/demo modes and let the kids have fun.:)
By the way, my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids. Maybe it's the controller?
I would be worried myself rather than celebrating it.
Game with 'easy way out' can make children expect something like that later in their life subconsciously and become frustrated.
There is big deal made out of fact that most games expose children to very fast and very direct and simple reward-effort situations, that makes them less able to handle distant rewards.
But again, kids were playing games before computers were around and Deferred gratification was there before computer games too.
Heck, I'm 39, and after being killed by Rift Entities one too many times I decided to go to "Casual" mode in the Ghostbusters video game. You know why? Because I don't care anymore...
This is because after a hard grueling day of work (or for a child, school), I don't want to come home to a hard/grueling video game, and never did.
We challenge our kid by making sure she keeps her grades up, if she wants to play Cooking Mama in her free time, that's her own affair.
For the hard-core gamer I'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.
However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.
There are games out there with very in-depth stories and as the game progresses and gets harder, many find that a particular section is flat-out beyond them and the only way they'll ever get to see the end of the story is to look up cheats, walkthroughs...or now this new system.
There are times when I've asked someone to get me through one little annoying section that I've tried for hours to defeat...at times even WITH the walkthrough. Being told how to do something is not the same as being able to do it with some of the "twitch" games out there where the solution involves precise timing that many hard-core and/or avid gamers develop. I get help with that "one" spot and I'll beat the rest of the game on my own in my own time.
This is a good thing and it gives an option and a choice for the players. They can choose to beat the game on their own, or they can choose to get a little help. Let the game give these options and let the players decide. It's the best way.
Just like that. With a link. FROM THE EDITOR. Just an offhand reference to something they happen to remember, right? WRONG because it belies the fact that THE EDITOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE!! Where am I, engadget? What is happening? Who did this? It must be Taco, right, he's the only one who takes Slashdot for journalism. Nope: the editor is "soulskill". W...T...F
I have to go for a walk, air out my mind a little. This is some serious shit going on right here.
... especially for casual gamers and kids. I have a young daughter who loves the original SMB that I downloaded through the VC, but her frustration level can get to the point where she doesn't want to play it anymore. Something like this would be nice for her and casual gamers if implemented properly. But I also think they should also insert some sort of bonus ending or perk for players who don't need to cheat to win.
Is it fair to give her an advantage when I didn't have one myself at her age? I think so. At least maybe she won't start throwing nintendo controllers across the goddamn room like I used to.
I wonder if that's actually something against it. Say what you like about games, but at least they teach children that if you persevere at something you'll eventually succeed.
Although I guess my relentless practice and eventual awesome skill with quake didn't translate through to relentless revision and eventual awesome skill with exams. Which is why I failed most of them and am now unemployable.
Assuming it's a 2D platformer, I think one of the most elegant solutions would be alter the level layout after repeated failures, or if you're on your last life.
It's what I'd do if I were making a platformer. It's really easy to implement and levels the playing field a bit. Perhaps literally!
When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.
In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it? Seriously, that's like saying your favourite poet can only be read in candle light on a stormy night, because doing it any other way would ruin the atmosphere.
No, "cheating" does not describe this at all. There's no party that is being cheated on, after all.
In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it?
I agree, but there are some jackass gamers out there who feel that the very presence of such a cheat option is something offensive and terrible. It's not enough to challenge themselves, they must force everyone else to take on the same challenge.
Then again, that's why those idiots have no friends.
Is this really a completely new idea, or just an extension of what Valve games have done for ages?
In all the HL2 series (and maybe before that) you've been able to change the general difficulty between the three levels mid-game. I normally do fairly well on "normal" settings in games, but I did once find this feature useful (in HL2, the prison complex, I forget exactly where on the level) for getting past a frustrating point so I could stop banging my head against it and get on with enjoying the rest of the
And most games picked it up from Nethack as you could use the Wizard Mode to change into invulnerability and complete the game. You couldn't keep your score but that's never stopped people from using it.
If this means game companies can stop worrying about frustrated casual gamers and start making their game harder and longer then I say "go for it".
I'm sick and tired of both the debilitating trend and shortening trend in the video game industry. I've got a friend which enjoys video game but isn't good at it and even him was disappointed that he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours. I thought it couldn't be worse, but I've been proved wrong with a test I saw on the latest Terminator video game : apparently, you can finish it in 4 hours (and I'm not even talking about the price/hours ratio). Sure theses two games use well-known licenses, but this trend is occuring for almost every video game serie.
On the other hand, I'm currently playing Ninja Gaiden Black, which is reputed for its difficulty. I'm at the 2/3 point, it took me 30h to get there, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.
I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined gaming. Easter eggs and hidden levels are fun and add some dimension to the games. Cheat codes, continues and even the prospect of getting unlimited extra lives have taken game skill levels to a new low. If you have to cheat you obviously aren't good enough to win. Most of us who played years ago, beat the super hard levels, by A) having great skill at the game or B) got really lucky. Either one is fine with me, but entering in a cheat proves that you don't have either. I say remove the cheats, keep the Easter eggs and hidden stuff, increase the gameplay and quit making games disposable. It's cheaper to rent the game for 2 weeks from the video store, solve it and give it back than buying it. You're going to find the sales figures plummet for marginal games. There needs to be a change in the industry.
Cripes, people; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.
You cannot save progress that the game makes for you. It's right there in the patent, explicitly specified in no uncertain terms. When you turn off the demo mode, you're dropped back where you left off, not where the computer did. The computer can show you a path, but you still have to take it yourself. Except in puzzle games, knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things, and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design.
This is very similar to what I've been seeing out of Blizzard, but the opposite approach (and I think Blizzard has this right). Instead of pushing the "Easy Button", how about making all the content easy and making hard modes that you can do for mad props/cool cut scenes/phat loot/self gratification.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 19, @05:23AM (#28387309)
Extended frustration isn't good when playing videogames. Most people play them to either relax, have fun, or spend time with friends/family.
I don't care about this Demo mode, because I won't use it. If someone actually has to use it, then I'm glad it enhanced their game experience. If someone is foolish enough to use it to get to the end quicker when they didn't have to... then thank goodness they'll never have enough patience to get good at the online games I play.:)
The need for such a feature at all is a design failure in itself though. A game can still be difficult and not frustrating because of it. Instead of this feature, Nintendo should be going back and looking at what they did wrong and fix that instead.
But what a 7 year old or someone who is 60 and has never played games finds frustrating may be pretty easy for a 30 year old who has played games off and on since they were a kid.
This would allow the game to occasionally present a challenge to the 30 year old and give the 7/60 stuff to work against. If it's too hard, they can use it to "skip" that one moment.
How many people here have had a brother/sister/friend get through a "hard part" of some game for them?
Extended frustration isn't good when playing videogames
The most intriguing part of the patent for this "demo mode" was how it was activated. The Wii-mote will detect when it is thrown against the wall and Implement Demo-mode for you.
Imagine for a moment that your DVD player didn't have a fast forward button, after all you should watch the movie, not skip through it to the end for instant satisfaction.
Doesn't sound to great, does it? With video games its the same thing. Sure a challenging game is fun, but being forced to play through those challenging parts is not. It should be the users choice of how he wants to enjoy the game and if books and movies are any indication, it works quite fine when the user has instant access to the end of
Only for casual gamers (Score:2, Insightful)
Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.
I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.
Re:Only for casual gamers (Score:5, Insightful)
Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.
True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game. For example, in one WWII game (Medal of Honor?) I was stuck at this one point where I was in a town with a sniper. I tried everything I could to get the guy and he just kept nailing me. After hours of game time spread over a few weeks of realtime, I finally activated a god mode code and went outside and looked for him where a walkthru said he would be. Even with all that, he was hard to see. Once I nailed him, I switched off the cheat and enjoyed the rest of the game. If I hadn't done that, I would have simply given up.
I recently have had an experienece in a game where I was really frustrated by the final battle. I looked it up and it turned out I simply wasn't strafing around that much, I was trying to use cover, which didn't work. That was cheating too, to get the strategy, but it's the same thing... I gave it a good try of many, many attempts and finally gave in and looked up a cheat.
Ultimately, looking up a strategy or using a code isn't as satisfying as doing it on your own, but sometimes you just want to move on and see the rest of the game.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that they need to find a balance between hardcore gamers and casual gamers. A level like he's describing from MoH would have me, a casual gamer (well, except for Warcrack) saying "fuck this" and finding a different game.
Assuming I'd even pick up the game in the first place, which I probably wouldn't.
The problem is that in order to appeal to the casual gamers, the game has to be easy enough that most hardcore gamers won't touch it. By adding the "demo" mode, they can make parts of the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. - A game is software. Good software gives you options and the more customizable, the better it is. God mode is just another option. If the user likes the option, it is good. This is no different than having adjustable difficulty level. If you don't like it, don't use it.
2. - It's not cheating. It's users entertaining themselves. It would only be cheating if it was multiplayer and one of the players did it unbekno
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would count on this damaging gameplay experience. Gran Turisimo 3 includes an auto-pilot mode. When you first start playing the game it's not infeasible that the auto-pilot is a better race car driver than you... So you might end up using it a bit and before you know it, you can only use the auto-pilot because you're not good enough to compete on your own at the current difficulty.
Personally, when this happened to me I went back and restarted without using B-Spec mode on a race I hadn't already won at lea
Re:Only for casual gamers (Score:5, Interesting)
I would count on this damaging gameplay experience.
Did idgodmode ruin Doom? Of course not.
Did being able to get Castle-9 lives in Super Mario Brothers ruin it? Even today I still can't beat World 8 without a healthy stack of lives going in.
What about updownupdownleftrightleftrightabab in umpteen million other games for extra continues, ammo, whatever, etc?
How is this really any different? I mean idgodmode made you invincible with unlimited ammo.
Parent
Re:Only for casual gamers (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, it's play, I don't wanna work that hard. There are serious sports players and there are "beer-belly" leagues where overweight men hit softballs and sorta jog around the bases - to each his own. If "Ghost" had a demo mode, I might actually know what's in the rest of the damned game nearly two years after I purchased it.
My other console is a Wii, and the types of games I have purchased for it, Wii Play, Playground, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Music, Cooking Mama, Game Party, Endless Ocean; further demonstrate I purchase games to have fun, not increase my frustrations. Perhaps this is why some of the few meatspace sports I do enjoy are tennis and softball - it seems easier to find casual players for these than say basketball or football which seem to be dominated by guys trying to relive their high school glory days or at least prove they "still got it".
Parent
Re:Only for casual gamers (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a very valid point, as do others who have said the same thing about other games. However, as also stated by other commenters, such highly difficult and frustrating parts are signs of a poorly design game.
It's one thing to look online for "cheats" or walkthroughs to aid you in overcoming some unreasonably difficult part of an otherwise enjoyable game, which you already purchased; you probably couldn't tell such challenge was part of the game until you encountered it, and therefore had no recourse except that, or stop playing altogether and forfeit part of your investment in the game.
It is another thing entirely to build this facility into the game itself--in essence making "cheating" part of the experience of playing, ab initio. At such, the game designer has little incentive in correcting his practice and invest resources into making a better gaming experience for the user. They are, to all intent and purposes, accepting as a matter of course that the game experience is going to irritate or frustrate you, and so it is easier to offer you a crutch or "cheat" than to actually improve it.
-dZ.
Parent
Re:Only for casual gamers (Score:5, Insightful)
I would call you someone who doesn't have any empathy. You apparently can't conceive that someone might want to "play" in way that is different from the way you like to play. Some people like to play full out and backcountry ski down mountains, risking their lives every second. Others want to relax with a bit of solitaire or bejeweled. The level of challenge that you want in your "play" is by definition something personal. I've "played" by running marathons, so I know something about challenging myself, but I don't consider you to be apathetic if you haven't run a marathon.
Parent
Re:Only for casual gamers (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever played a sandbox game? I don't think that me driving around in GTA aimlessly is either problem solving or competition. The bottom line is that games are supposed to be FUN. And as you yourself admitted, a person's sense of fun is subjective. If people find that they have fun "playing" some sort of weird autopilot version of a game, then I have no problme with it.
Parent
Re:Only for casual gamers (Score:4, Insightful)
Playing games is either about solving problems, competition, or both.
I thought playing games was about having fun.
You seem to confuse the means by which a goal can be achieved with the goal itself.
Walking isn't about putting one leg in front of the other, it's about going somewhere.
Eating isn't about moving your jaw and swallowing, it's about getting nutrition in your body.
Gaming isn't about solving problems or competition, it's about having fun.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.
I wouldn't count on that.
I have to agree.
For casual players (I consider myself being one too (at least in context of consoles)) it is important that game just flows, either guiding you or making you to explore the possibilities. It is bad game where you hit a bump - "demo" mode wouldn't solve it.
Only thing "demo" mode would achieve is to solve an ancient puzzle of hard core games when you buy an expensive game but get stuck in the middle. It is hard to justify the situation provided that you forked a pretty hefty money for t
Sounds like a good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to many games assume that i want to grind 25 hours to get that tiny little game mode which just happens to be the most fun part of it all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I'm interested in the value of the the reward itself. I don't care about meaningless value attached to it because I worked for hours. While the sense of accomplishment is sometimes nice, I play for fun. If I want a sense of accomplishment, I'll do something that's actually meaningful.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Rereading my post, I see how it was a bit ambiguous. I don't usually play games that require that kind of work to unlock things. If the game is fun in its own right, then I'll play it, but I generally refuse to put hours into something if I'm not enjoying it.
I think for some people, the work they put into achieving high levels or unlocking things in games does make it more fun. However, I think that's partially because many of them don't get enough of a sense of accomplishment from the rest of their life
Re:Sounds like a good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.
The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.
It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?
That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode. I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could complain to the game manufacturer about your experience, and if enough users do, they would probably listen to you and improve the gameplay on a sequel.
This is pretty much what happened with Boom Blox for the Wii; the game was primarily a single player game with a "party mode" tacked on. Although innovative and fun, the single player game required you to go through repetitive stages in order to advance to other levels, and after a while it became boring. However, the "party mode" turned out t
Good idea (Score:3, Funny)
I did my grind through Super Mario Brothers. I dropped a missile or twenty on mother brain. I actually beat Tyson after a couple of months. I flipped through contra, shooting my red, oversized, round bullets the entire way. Kid icarus was my bitch. It was all hard as balls, and I didn't have any built in cheats (Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.)
It makes my elitist heart warm knowing that now I can add one more example into my video game "get off of my lawn" play-book.
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.
Why, exactly, shouldn't it? For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?
There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.
Parent
Great idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
I want my games to be not very challenging but spectacular looking and amusing interactive movies, little more. Really hard intricate challenges is what work is for (well I'm lucky enough to have one of those).
If other gamers want to derive a sense of achievement from really hard-to-master games, good for them - but with this, Nintendo is reaching another market, namely people like myself, who couldn't care less about whether it's 'cheating' or not because 'winning' is not the reason why they play games at
Both (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"
Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.
But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.
(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me. :p )
Re:Both (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
What's "content"? (Score:3, Interesting)
But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.
If you think of content as just the graphics, or the levels, then I suppose this lets you access all the content. But if you think of content as the gameplay, then rather than letting you access it, this is taking it away from you (if you let it of course).
I certainly understand the sentiment though. I've seen enough games with ridiculous difficulty spikes (usually when a boss appears) where I used cheats as well - or simply gave up.
THE REDS ARE GETTING CLOSER!!!! (Score:2)
In Soviet Nintendo, game plays you!
... and laughs all the way to the bank.
The reds have been here for decades (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though (Score:5, Funny)
Fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids. Maybe it's the controller?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be worried myself rather than celebrating it.
Game with 'easy way out' can make children expect something like that later in their life subconsciously and become frustrated.
There is big deal made out of fact that most games expose children to very fast and very direct and simple reward-effort situations, that makes them less able to handle distant rewards.
But again, kids were playing games before computers were around and Deferred gratification was there before computer games too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Up-Down-Up-Down-Left-Right-Left
Help Me
Heck, I'm 39, and after being killed by Rift Entities one too many times I decided to go to "Casual" mode in the Ghostbusters video game. You know why? Because I don't care anymore...
This is because after a hard grueling day of work (or for a child, school), I don't want to come home to a hard/grueling video game, and never did.
We challenge our kid by making sure she keeps her grades up, if she wants to play Cooking Mama in her free time, that's her own affair.
I'll ad
I like options (Score:5, Insightful)
For the hard-core gamer I'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.
However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.
There are games out there with very in-depth stories and as the game progresses and gets harder, many find that a particular section is flat-out beyond them and the only way they'll ever get to see the end of the story is to look up cheats, walkthroughs...or now this new system.
There are times when I've asked someone to get me through one little annoying section that I've tried for hours to defeat...at times even WITH the walkthrough. Being told how to do something is not the same as being able to do it with some of the "twitch" games out there where the solution involves precise timing that many hard-core and/or avid gamers develop. I get help with that "one" spot and I'll beat the rest of the game on my own in my own time.
This is a good thing and it gives an option and a choice for the players. They can choose to beat the game on their own, or they can choose to get a little help. Let the game give these options and let the players decide. It's the best way.
w...t...f (Score:5, Funny)
So I'm almost finished reading the article summary, already thinking up my response and about to post, when as I get to the end of the summary I read
Just like that. With a link. FROM THE EDITOR.
Just an offhand reference to something they happen to remember, right? WRONG because it belies the fact that THE EDITOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE!! Where am I, engadget? What is happening? Who did this? It must be Taco, right, he's the only one who takes Slashdot for journalism. Nope: the editor is "soulskill". W...T...F
I have to go for a walk, air out my mind a little. This is some serious shit going on right here.
Probably a good thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
... especially for casual gamers and kids. I have a young daughter who loves the original SMB that I downloaded through the VC, but her frustration level can get to the point where she doesn't want to play it anymore. Something like this would be nice for her and casual gamers if implemented properly. But I also think they should also insert some sort of bonus ending or perk for players who don't need to cheat to win.
Is it fair to give her an advantage when I didn't have one myself at her age? I think so. At least maybe she won't start throwing nintendo controllers across the goddamn room like I used to.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if that's actually something against it. Say what you like about games, but at least they teach children that if you persevere at something you'll eventually succeed.
Although I guess my relentless practice and eventual awesome skill with quake didn't translate through to relentless revision and eventual awesome skill with exams. Which is why I failed most of them and am now unemployable.
Never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's what I'd do if I were making a platformer. It's really easy to implement and levels the playing field a bit. Perhaps literally!
Lego series works pretty well (Score:2)
I have to admit I like the way the Lego Indiana Jones series does it. You die, but, you immediately respawn fairly close to where you died.
"cheating" (Score:5, Insightful)
When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.
In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it? Seriously, that's like saying your favourite poet can only be read in candle light on a stormy night, because doing it any other way would ruin the atmosphere.
No, "cheating" does not describe this at all. There's no party that is being cheated on, after all.
Re:"cheating" (Score:4, Interesting)
In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it?
I agree, but there are some jackass gamers out there who feel that the very presence of such a cheat option is something offensive and terrible. It's not enough to challenge themselves, they must force everyone else to take on the same challenge.
Then again, that's why those idiots have no friends.
Parent
Is the really that new? (Score:2)
Is this really a completely new idea, or just an extension of what Valve games have done for ages?
In all the HL2 series (and maybe before that) you've been able to change the general difficulty between the three levels mid-game. I normally do fairly well on "normal" settings in games, but I did once find this feature useful (in HL2, the prison complex, I forget exactly where on the level) for getting past a frustrating point so I could stop banging my head against it and get on with enjoying the rest of the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Might be good (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sick and tired of both the debilitating trend and shortening trend in the video game industry. I've got a friend which enjoys video game but isn't good at it and even him was disappointed that he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours. I thought it couldn't be worse, but I've been proved wrong with a test I saw on the latest Terminator video game : apparently, you can finish it in 4 hours (and I'm not even talking about the price/hours ratio). Sure theses two games use well-known licenses, but this trend is occuring for almost every video game serie.
On the other hand, I'm currently playing Ninja Gaiden Black, which is reputed for its difficulty. I'm at the 2/3 point, it took me 30h to get there, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.
Back in my day... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Back in my day... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
More like a tip video than a cheat.. (Score:5, Informative)
Cripes, people; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.
You cannot save progress that the game makes for you. It's right there in the patent, explicitly specified in no uncertain terms. When you turn off the demo mode, you're dropped back where you left off, not where the computer did. The computer can show you a path, but you still have to take it yourself. Except in puzzle games, knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things, and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design.
Similar to Blizzard's new content (Score:3, Interesting)
This is very similar to what I've been seeing out of Blizzard, but the opposite approach (and I think Blizzard has this right). Instead of pushing the "Easy Button", how about making all the content easy and making hard modes that you can do for mad props/cool cut scenes/phat loot/self gratification.
Re:Instant Satisfaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Extended frustration isn't good when playing videogames. Most people play them to either relax, have fun, or spend time with friends/family.
I don't care about this Demo mode, because I won't use it. If someone actually has to use it, then I'm glad it enhanced their game experience. If someone is foolish enough to use it to get to the end quicker when they didn't have to... then thank goodness they'll never have enough patience to get good at the online games I play. :)
+1 Insightful for you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The need for such a feature at all is a design failure in itself though. A game can still be difficult and not frustrating because of it. Instead of this feature, Nintendo should be going back and looking at what they did wrong and fix that instead.
Re:Instant Satisfaction (Score:4, Insightful)
But what a 7 year old or someone who is 60 and has never played games finds frustrating may be pretty easy for a 30 year old who has played games off and on since they were a kid.
This would allow the game to occasionally present a challenge to the 30 year old and give the 7/60 stuff to work against. If it's too hard, they can use it to "skip" that one moment.
How many people here have had a brother/sister/friend get through a "hard part" of some game for them?
Parent
Re:Instant Satisfaction (Score:5, Funny)
The most intriguing part of the patent for this "demo mode" was how it was activated. The Wii-mote will detect when it is thrown against the wall and Implement Demo-mode for you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine for a moment that your DVD player didn't have a fast forward button, after all you should watch the movie, not skip through it to the end for instant satisfaction.
Doesn't sound to great, does it? With video games its the same thing. Sure a challenging game is fun, but being forced to play through those challenging parts is not. It should be the users choice of how he wants to enjoy the game and if books and movies are any indication, it works quite fine when the user has instant access to the end of