New Super Mario Bros. Wii To Include Official "Cheat" 275
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many games have a hard part that's too difficult to get through, so using this ocassionally doesn't seem so bad. I don't remember this much uproar when God of War let people play in "easy mode" after dieing a few times, and there are other games that do this as well.
I would have liked this option in the Jak and Daxter series. In the first admittedly easy but very fun game there is a fish catching mini-game which has absolutey nothing to do with the rest of the gameplay. In Jak 2 there is a mission where you
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing this happen in several titles now, and in my opinion it's just bad design. Where there is some ridiculous difficulty "spike" which is much harder than the content before it AND the content after it. The expected difficulty curve for a game starts low and goes high with maybe the occasional outliers (small outliers mind) for boss fights or the like. I don't have any issue with a small spike here and there, but if
Re: (Score:2)
I would welcome this - as someone who enjoys a good FPS but is not very good at them for example I loved the fact I could make myself invincible for 2 hard parts of Half Life 2, and then continue as normal. This meant I got to enjoy the rest of the game, unlike when I got stuck on Metroid Prime. For an FPS I'd still like to do that, though maybe its a different problem area to the Super Mario Bros jumping around puzzles that you have to defeat. But I'll stick to FPS on PC's over consoles for this reason.
I w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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, 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.
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".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:2)
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.. of course, some games do take the grinding too far in an effort to make things more valuable, but there will always be plenty of unemployed or people or kids willing to waste their entire holidays to get something and then the developers have to make the next reward even more difficult to get to keep it rare/valuable.. :s
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:2)
Fair enough, if the mini-game itself truly is that much fun. I guess I'm just wondering if the drudgery beforehand makes the game actually seem more fun whereas in reality the mini-game isn't much better than any other game, it only seems fun compared to the rest. I just don't know any games that have mini-games that are better than the actual game. Probably because I don't usually play games that take 25 hours of grinding to get anywhere, with the exception being a couple of MUDs and MapleStory.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, exactly, shouldn't it?
Uh... because when you're getting wrecked by those goddamn green hopping jerk bug things, you can't press "start," type in "Justin Bailey," kill them, turn the cheat off and then continue on.
For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?
Correct, it does not count. You can only activate it at the very beginning of the game, just like with Justin Bailey; you can't turn it on, pass a hard part, and then turn it off. That's what the summary is talking about.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How, in your opinion, does this concept extend into online play?
It doesn't. Online multiplayer, and offline single player are fundamentally different beasts.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] who's happiness should get preferentrial treatment?
That of whoever can get enough support for their voteban.
In single-player people can 'access' whatever content they please, online they will have to play by the rules of whatever server they are on or suffer the consequences.
Offline multiplayer (Score:2)
In single-player people can 'access' whatever content they please, online they will have to play by the rules of whatever server they are on or suffer the consequences.
Aren't you forgetting a third way: neither single-player nor online?
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't games made for entrainment as its primary goal. If the person is getting frustrated at one spot the game looses its entertainment values and because an obsession or not worth the time. Now they may loose the reward of actually getting pass that point. But that is up to them. Sometimes in games there are spots that you just can't quite get threw, say an action sequence in an adventure game, or that one spot where you can't make the jump. Having a cheat to get threw it is helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the marketing department will look at it that way too. /sarcasm
They're always going to do what they think sells best, period. And the video game market is speaking louder than it ever has before: right now, targeting video games at "casual" players sells.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Or, you know, gamers that play games for "fun" rather than "frustrating difficulty spikes that aren't fun at all to ascend."
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: (Score:2)
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.
When you play offline but upload your score online, such as achievements in Xbox 360 games, the line between single-player and multiplayer becomes blurred.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is an extremely easy to solve problem, especially when the cheat mode is official - just mark whether the score was reached with or without cheating, or even with how much cheating.
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.
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the implementation. (Score:2)
I think this could be used a lot differently than people are imagining. In just about any game with an "easy" mode it's already absurdly easy to play. The big problem as I see it though is there are probably a lot of people who can play on normal/hard who don't even bother. Past history has taught them that if they play on harder difficulties they'll eventually run into some nasty spot that was poorly designed and is so frustrating that they just want to quit. Thus a lot of people might choose more
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, if it keeps companies from watering down games, I'm all for it.
I think the better solution for this would be a "demo" mode that showed the player how to beat the stage and then let the player at it or an in game "ghost mode" that would show the player how to beat the stage as they play. Heck, even enabling something akin to the "rewind" in Braid or a retro NES "slow motion" mode might help alleviate some frustrations.
Games such as Mario Galaxy have proved that you can make games that appeal to cas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strider is a mediocre platformer with poor play control and we were all dazzled by it because it was pretty, had a big screen (Strider machines tended to have a bigger display than about anything else in the arcade for some reason) and you could get a near-perfect port on the Genesis... though I actually thought the NES game was more fun.
Re: (Score:2)
When I say playtime, I'm not talking about the length of one game. I'm talking about how long it took you to beat the game including all the Save/Reload or all the Game Over/Start Again you did before reaching the end for the first time. You don't beat Diablo (or Strider) on the first try, nor does your first victory happens in 3 min. Sure, there are people who can speed run games in a few min, but it took
Thumbs up... for kids games (Score:2, Insightful)
Two-fold situation. (Score:2)
Thus, on one hand, incorporating this system will promote more "thoughtless" solutions in areas where the game is actually supposed to aid in developing the mental capacity of the gamer. However, it's not like this doesn't exist alr
Back in my day... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Back in my day... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had major issues with the last level of Half-Life ("XEN!" moans the crowd in a weeping fashion) so I threw on a cheat code and beat the game. It was worth it. I got to face the final boss (which was annoying, but enjoyable in a weird way). When I went to play Half-Life 2, I knew what was going on.
Without the cheat code, I would have been stuck on one of those dumb jumping puzzles, and probably never have seen the
How about the Jazz Jackrabbit approach? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wherever the gaming golden rule that says "difficulty = fun" is, it should be erased. Hard games are simply a pain in the ass, and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns. Because I mean, yeah, you beat some really hard game; who gives a shit?
How about... (Score:2)
whatever it is ... (Score:2)
It isn't gameplay (or otherwise useful to the gameplay). Thus I'm not interested in paying for it.
Developers should remember that their audience is game buyers. I don't know about you, but I buy games to PLAY them.
Cheats should just be a proper menu item anyway. And sections of games should be openly accessible, so stuck players can just skip to them.
Logical Progression (Score:2)
* Power Pills
* Health Points
* Stealth Suits
* Respawn Points
* Save Games
* Freeze / Rewind Time
All of these give an edge to the poor slob on the couch who only has reflexes in tens of milliseconds. I cannot see how making an actual explicit mode is dissimilar to any of these.
What about an SDK (Score:2)
They're copying Braid (Score:2)
The Game Genie (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know...Eg: Street Fighter 4 (read) (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know if it's ok or not...but I think if it's needed then a game is not well balanced (against CPU I mean, not the game itself).
For example, if you play in the easiest mode at SF4 the final boss is able to destroy you anyway, while in all the other enounters the opponents are really...easy.
Now, I think that SF4 is a great game, well balanced etc etc. Really I stopped WoW to play SF4 PvP.
But as a single player game the fact the last boss is very hard even in easiest mode is a bit depress
Er, what? (Score:2)
They patented the Konami Code ?
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.
Self playing video games are quite old actually... (Score:2)
One of my friends from college was a game tester for Sega back in the day (still in the biz). I remember the conversation about the oddest stuff he saw during his tenure and his response was "Barney (for the Megadrive / Genesis) would self play" if there was no input from the user after a minute or so.
I wonder if that prior art is listed?
It's probably not that absolute. (Score:2)
Is this a good idea? I think the real answer is "it depends". But whatever you do, don't pull me out of the game! A cheat mode? This takes us out of the immersion. Find a way to achieve the same thing in the spirit of the particular game.
As a game designer, you should make decisions on what makes the game most enjoyable. If it's difficulty that makes the game fun, and accomplishment that makes it rewarding, then no. Don't do this.
If the levels themselves are fun and by making something too hard, you a
A better idea (Score:2)
Demo mode is certainly superior to a game which makes you grind through an overly difficult section over and over again. But using demo mode feels like cheating and is not a satisfying way to win.
I think it would be much better to have some mechanic within the game which makes a section easier when you die there repeatedly. If you fall in a pit three times in a row, or get beat up by a bad guy three times, a little angel could come along and add some platforms to make the jump easier, or start dropping powe
Could this mean harder games? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
It depends. (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:2)
THIS.
Some of the later levels in the genesis sonic games were cant-win-with-infinite-lives hard but they didn't come across as cheap shots like 2/3rds of Sonic Rush does.
New Super Mario Brothers (DS) for example is the same way, at least half the time I died in that felt like the game just saying "Whatever, close enough" and killing me even when I otherwise would've survived.
Re: (Score:2)
No child left behind?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
It's "no sale left unsold".
Very few "hardcore" players are going to just not buy a game because it has a "demo" mode like this, but many more "casual" players will buy it, because they know the whole game can be fun and not cause undue frustration. That is the whole point of videogames you know: fun. For some, an extreme challenge is fun. For others, it's not.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo commited the fallacy of assuming that people have different levels of patience and ability.
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Adventure games are like self-inflicted torture, but I love them anyway. I