Are Modern Games Too Easy? 179
bippy writes "Game critic Brian Crecente's weblog Red-Assed Baboon asks if modern video games are too easy. He argues, after playing the new Pitfall game, that what made the games from the '70s and '80s such as the original Pitfall! so much fun to play was 'because the game is so hard - brutally, temper-tamper inducing hard' - Crecente goes on to conclude: 'I'm not saying we should go back to the days of Donkey Kong and [the original] Pitfall!, but maybe developers need to worry a little more about challenging a gamer, instead of plopping them into something that is little more than an interactive movie'."
Games not Hard!?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dolemite
___________________
Re:Games not Hard!?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Games are what you make of them these days. You want hard? Load up Warcraft 3 and choose 11 AI, team them up against you... Now THAT is hard.
All this whining about games these days is nostalgia and nothing else. Don't get me wrong, going back to the old 8 bit days, games like Auf Wiedersehn Monty were INSANELY hard, but games have gone from being the obsession of the stereotypical loser geek in his bedroom to being a leisure pastime for the majority of people who play them now. If the games were as tough as they were back then, games would not be as big as they are today I don't think.
The fact of the matter is games are more well rounded these days and can be made excruciatingly hard if you want. (Try Doom on "Nightmare" level for an older example.)
It seems every few month some cranky old bastard comes out of the woodwork, rattles his walking frame at you, puffs on his pipe, adjusts his glasses and says "Games were tougher in my day sonny" as if that somehow makes them better than newer ones.
"Don't worry granpa, we'll get you all the help you need..."
Re:Games not Hard!?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you look at FPS games, the tendency has been in the opposite direction, with difficulty levels being removed from games and the "Nightmare" type difficulty levels almost completely gone. I think this is probably because these games are developed with the idea that multiplayer will make up most of the replayability, when in reality there are still plenty of people not playing these games online. If they focused more on replayability, that ability to change difficulty levels, and ramp it up to an extreme level of difficulty, could really help a lot.
Other things that have helped reduce the overall difficulty of games are mostly simple features that reduce the confusion for the players. Indicators for what you're supposed to do next, auto-mapping in the game, and so on. A game is more difficult if you have to map it out by hand or keep the map in your head, but this is an artificial difficulty.
Of course, arcade-style games also deal with the transition from coin-op, where you're trying to get people to pump more quarters into the machine by killing them quickly, but balancing that with a need to keep them playing. On consoles you don't need quarters, and the constant deaths either do nothing to slow down some players or turn them off of the game completely.
Re:Games not Hard!?!?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, multiplayer gaming isn't exactly a new idea, but the sheer scale induced by the Internet and the organisation behind it all makes for a different quality.
Re:Games not Hard!?!?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't be able to say exactly, because it's been a while since I replayed (or even played through) the single player of an FPS. In most cases the default difficulty is mind-numbingly easy or the game is just boring in general. On the other hand, the few I can remember had maybe 3 difficulty levels (which I wouldn't generally complain about), while older games li
Two more (Score:2)
Wipeout starts easy enough, but quickly gets harder than the previous games in the series. (Speaking as a long time Wipeout series player...)
Of course, it doesn't help that they fscked up the neGCon controller setup so you have to use the dual shock...
They still exist, just not in quantity. (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to have the time and focus to play games like Shadow of the Beast of the Amiga for hours, perfecting my timing. Today, I prefer something a bit less demanding. Prince of Persia was a hit with me due to the magic of the rewind feature: sure, you failed that jump, but you just pressed a button and rewound until *before* the failure, and tried again. Nearly instant "load game", without all the loading fuss.
Meanwhile, Ikaruga (or however it is spelled) is a great shooter, but I don't think I will be imitating the demo play with perfect *MAX CHAINS* through the level. (I'm in awe of the recorded demos... freaking amazing talent displayed). Still, I can have a blast in two player mode, just trying to *survive* a few levels...
Really, the reason the old games simply ramped difficulty up to the point of impossibility was they had *nothing else to offer*. With in game movies with semi-coherent plots, lots of variety in gameplay, cool levels and a bit of humor, why would I want to beat my head against the same level for hours on end? Games have moved on from challenge to entertainment, excepting the few titles (Contra for PS2 anyone) that specifically were designed for the hardcore "lets try that a hundred times" gamer.
Re:They still exist, just not in quantity. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lack of memory was often the reason why they was made like this. Sure, it would have been great to have tons of different levels and enemies in a game like Bruce Lee, but there just wasn't enough memory to support all that. Making games harder was the only way to prolong the experience, short of multiloading disks/tapes, which really were a pain in the a**.
Cinematic Trailers (Score:5, Insightful)
We've got to have something flashy there to keep the average consumer with a five minute attention span playing for a while!
Stupid question = stupid answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Easier games sell faster cause you have people reccomending games they beat.
Back in the old days, there wasnt 128MB gfx cache or 2GHz cpu's. You made the games tough as nails.
Re:Stupid question = stupid answer (Score:2)
I beat "Call of duty" after just a couple of days playing, and that was even though I didn't sit in front of my comp all the time. The game was great, but I was really disappointed about the lack of real challeneg in it. Also, FFX
I have not once actually died in combat in FFX, while older FF games would have you dead in a heartbeat if you ha
Re:Stupid question = stupid answer (Score:2)
Especially if you wern't reading along with a strategy guide to give you the hints/equipment setups/turn strategy
I've been playing RPGs for year. Every game has some tough bosses, FF X had just as many or more. FFIV had Odin, Bahamut, Borgan and Zeromus (if not playing the SNES US version where he was way toned down)
FFVI didn't have many tough bosses at all. More tricks than anyth
Different kinds of hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different kinds of hard. (Score:3, Funny)
this may be offtopic... but that Goddamn third level on Burger Time still pisses me off to this day when I think about it... How in the hell are you supposed to get the top bun all the way down? It's freakin impossible!
I have wasted many... MANY hours of my life and still have yet to see level four...
Re:Different kinds of hard. (Score:4, Insightful)
I do agree there's different kinds of 'hard', but in my opionion older twitch games (Paperboy etc) were more infuriatingly difficult than the modern twitch games, and the older puzzles and mystery games (Any Infocom, Magnetic Scrolls) games were also more infuriatingly difficult than the modern thinking and puzzle games. Two very different kinds of game, but both now a lot more approachable to the casual gamer.
Re:Different kinds of hard. (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, one of the earlier games I played was King's Quest 3, in it you had to give some gold over to a pirate to get passage on his ship. I had this figured out and tried every possible combination of english words that I could think of. In the end, I had to buy a hint book, just to get the exact right phrase to type in; once I got past that obsticle, the rest of the game was easy enough.
I don't think games are getting any eaiser, the interface is. Everything is now point-and-click, instead of read the programmer's mind and type the anwser. Also, with the move away from sprites, movment seems less choppy. For example, in the original Prince of Persia games, you eventually got a feel for how far the character continued to run after you pressed the jump button, before he jumped. In the new Prince of Persia the character is a bit more responsive, and won't wait intil the end of the run animation to start the jump animation. Also, most games now have automapping, which is a bit of a change (and a nice one IMHO), how many of us remember taking up page after page of graph paper mapping the cities/dungeons/etc in the Bard's Tale series? Better yet, if you played the Gold Box D&D games, try mapping the outside in Secret of the Silver Blades, it was a nightmare, and a rather silly contrivance to make the game more difficult.
As for the difficulty of FPS games, most of them simply involved making the monsters/enemies more accurrate or durable, or just added more of them, and this is still true today. Again, its just a quick hack to make the game harder, and is still done in some games, other have just decided to forego it.
Also keep in mind that those that tend to think that games are getting eaiser have probably been playing them for some time now, they tend to be better at getting through games, as they have learned to adapt quickly to a changing interface/enemies/siituation. So, in a way, the games are getting easier, because the players are getting better at games in general.
Re:Different kinds of hard. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Different kinds of hard. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Different kinds of hard. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Necessarily (Score:5, Interesting)
Money.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Games were simple back then (Score:2)
Perfect Dark (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially Challenges 25-30 in the "Combat Simulator".
Beating challenge 30 may be the most fun I've ever had playing a video game (or close to it).
Yes they are (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yes they are (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes they are (Score:2, Funny)
I spent a whole day on it, then let my dog chew it up. Later, I busted him trying to bury it in the back yard.
Re:Yes they are (Score:2)
Re:Yes they are (Score:2)
I did (Score:2)
You had to get the phone pieces from the pits, hardest part was getting OUT of them.. I forget if raising the flower was a requirement to finish, or if was just bonus..
Then gets to the part few know how to do, actually phoning home. You had to keep walking around, until the symbol at the top of the screen looked like a frog. It actually kinda looked like a hall monster from Venture. then you raised your head, and that phoned home.
You then went to a
Re:Yes they are (Score:2)
It was actually quite simple, really. Keep jumping in pits until you find all the radio parts, if you get low on health run around and collect the Reese's Pieces. Once you have all the parts, run around until you find the landing spot, then run around until you find the "transmit" spot, I forget the icon, push the button
Re:Yes they are (Score:2)
This is one of the biggest urban legends in nerd-gaming. E.T. is very beatable (and while it is a "bad" game, quite frankely it is nowhere near as bad as everyone whines). All you have to do it randomly run around in pits and find the radio parts and avoid the FBI. When you collect them all you call your ship, they pick you up, and you do it over.
It's about the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
Because a publisher wants you to buy the game, finish it within 3 months and then be buying a new game or (even better) the expansion pack. A publisher doesnt really care if you are challenged or not. They attempt to strike the perfect balance between "value for money" and "quick to complete". It works the same as Poker machines. You want people to shell out their money as quickly as possible, whilst still feeling like they are getting reasonable value for money.
A game which you play for 12 months before you complete is good value for you, but not for the publisher.
Re:It's about the money (Score:2)
Re:It's about the money (Score:3, Interesting)
My thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there are still lots of hard games around...I think some of the Myst-type games are tough, but maybe that's because I'm stupid
All in all though, I think it's just the price hardcore gamers must pay for having the gaming market "mainstream" (which is a very good thing for games, in the long run). Maybe the industry should adopt some sort of "difficulty rating" so people could see how hard a game was. Some major Japanese releases, such as Final Fantasy IV, were released in "Easy" and "Hard" Types. Perhaps that, too, could be a possible solution...but, really, I think (IMO) that it's a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist...it's not like I just breeze through all the games I buy. But then, I kinda suck at gaming, too
Arcade vs. Home Play (Score:3, Insightful)
When you are selling games that are to be played on the PC or console,
Who wants hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently played Contra: Shattered Soldier on the ps2 which is supposed to be an old school 'hard' game. I rather a fun experience than a game that requires me the practice in order to have fun. I have stopped playing games simply because of the stress some games create. Aren't games suppose to be a relaxing fun experience?
Re:Who wants hard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who wants hard? (Score:2)
For example in the FPS world Doom1 or Serious Sam. The former with "nightmare" mode and the latter with anything above "hard".
And well.. games like NetHack are hard, but people keep coming back, to try to finish it. If it was just frustrating, they won't have come back.
Re:Who wants hard? (Score:2)
maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
In terms of difficulty of the games these days, I dont really see much of a difference.Some games like rpgs,fps are a lot easier whereas other genres like adventure,strategy are quite tough.
Obviously you haven't played (Score:4, Informative)
There's nothing more satisfying than boosting ahead of #1 racer at the end of the third lap of half-pipe in Emerald on Master (!), or nailing the turns and jumps on Serial Gaps. Unlocking racers, parts, even AX tracks (from the arcade machine) if you don't get arthritis first... It's even more fun tweaking your racer until the speed, weight, boost and accel are perfectly aligned with you and the universe.
Ah, crap... I was going to go to bed too :) Who needs sleep anyway?
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern games are made more with the non-hardcore gamer in mind nowadays.
Modern games have much more complex controls thus requiring the game designers to focus more on a learning curve than brute challenges to keep the gamer occupied.
Modern games have much much more content than 128Kb cartidges thus they don't have to rely on insane challenges to extend a game's length.
Modern games have much more customizability to fit a gamer's skill level
Modern games have branched out to different genres that have different challenges. Challenges that don't rely solely on dying over and over to figure out some pattern.
And that's about all I have to say. If you still don't believe me try playing the original Devil May Cry on Dante Must Die mode then tell me that modern games aren't hard. Games with die-retry-die-retry challenges are still out there but they're shadowed by a ton of different options/genres/whatever. If you want to complaint about how new games are tough enough either change the difficulty or play a different game. I however enjoy the wide variety of games that are out there nowadays.
Re:BS (Score:2, Interesting)
Whereas alot of "difficult" games nowadays depend alot on chance, and timing, the challenge in older games tended to be a learning issue. If you could recognize patterns, you survived. The development of modern AI has created more realistic and believable enemies, but at the same time, removed a factor of pr
Video Games too easy? (Score:2)
Grand Theft Auto Vice City: 13 trillion analog buttons, and 15 analog joysticks (approximation)
Some games are just glorified interactive movies, but the good ones aren't. Remember Dragon's Lair. The amount of coordination necessary for most modern games is prohibitive. I have played video games all my life, and I still have trouble with some, especially games that use the Playstation controller. I have never been able to use 2 finger buttons for each han
Re:Video Games too easy? (Score:2)
I honestly really despise this trait. The analog sticks feel like a very hollow click and are quite difficult to push down on and get to respond with any degree of consistancy. Any game that makes me push down on them bugs the hell out of me.
But Anyway, buttons aren't always bad. I played an old Falcon game a while back on my computer that used the whole damn keyboard. Each button had some specific (and very rarely used) function. I had fun with it. Look at that X
Re:Video Games too easy? (Score:2)
The best use I have seen, is when the joystick that controls movement, also makes your player crouch when pushed. That just makes sense.
Hard games? (Score:3, Informative)
That game has stolen countless hours of my life away, and I refuse to move on to the sequels until I complete levels 39 and 50. So there.
content is inversely proportional to difficulty (Score:2)
With a game that consists of 3 or 4 levels each consisting of one screen of barrel lobbing monkeys course the game needs to be extremely difficult or else you will finish it in a few minutes.
But when a game has a humongous world spanning dozens of expansive maps it needs to be easier or the user will never see all of its content.
But they ARE difficult.... in context anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
Vintage game musings.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In contrast, back when I was playing "Infocom" games. I remember getting stuck in "hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" and having to go out to the public library to look in a computer-game-hint-compilation book to get past a point in the game. If the internet was available back then as a resource, it would have been a trivial solution.
and we walked up hill... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm just a little too young to remember Pitfall! and such, but I think simplying saying "yesterday's games were harder than today's game" is an insult to good designers. One of the author's complaints, that we can save every few seconds, is true in many games, but some games, Splinter Cell comes to mind, have preset save points. And it should, because the game is friggin' long. I doubt most people could finish Splinter Cell in one sitting, no matter how hard they tried.
Other's here on Slashdot have commented on joysticks and their bazillion buttons. They have those buttons because the real world has more control in it than one button can offer. For instance, Pole Position for Atari 2600 could get away with just the joystick because push forward you go accelerate, back to brake, left and right. And that was a fairly simplistic simulation. Project Gotham Racing 2 has accelerate, brake, hand-brake, upshift, downshift, horn, and view change, along with an analog stick for turning. Splinter Cell also uses both sticks well, one to control world coordinate motion, another so you can rotate Sam around, as well as crouch, open/use, turn thermal cam on, etc etc. They're not there to be useless.
Re:and we walked up hill... (Score:2)
It uses most of the buttons on the controller (except the pushing down of the joysticks and maybe the 'back' button) and puts all of them to good use. Even the much-maligned black and white buttons get used.
And this game IS hard.
Not hard in the same sense of Robotron 2024 was hard. That game had your blood pressure up by about level 5- which was about 2 minutes after putting your quarter in the machine.
But,
The effect of Loading Times on difficulty (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just personal observation, and your perspective may differ, but I think the loading times in games are what make difficult titles more unbearable.
A decade ago you would run off a cliff and the longest you would have to wait was for the screen telling you how many lives you had remaining to fade away. Instant death was around every corner back then. Today most designers caution against any pitfalls in a game that are unexpected to the player, and don't offer a way out. This is reasonable for easing the amount of frustration, but the frustrating element here isn't the difficulty of the game, as much as the duration of time it takes to get back on ones feet after death.
After looking over so many modern games this way, I really think we could get away with todays games having a much higher difficulty if we were able to load back into the level only a few seconds after dying and try again. I'd say that todays easier games are just a way to offset the frustration of the waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The effect of Loading Times on difficulty (Score:2)
Saved Games! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Saved Games! (Score:2)
"NES Hard" (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the difficulty of today's games, it's pretty obvious that it's lower in general. I don't think that necessarily makes modern games "too easy," though.
Rob
Hard games (Score:2, Interesting)
Pointless Article (Score:3, Interesting)
*Ahem* (Score:2)
psxndc
Games too easy? (Score:2)
No game balance is just hard to do right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course this is just how I experienced those games. Other players may rate them completly differently.
A good example is perhaps the C&C series. Despite the fact that it is now in its 1 millionth release the games still follows the exact same structure. First mission 2 units. Second mission 3 units. Third mssion 4 units. And so on. Frustating for seasoned players who already know how to play the game but needed to not alienate new players. Some games use tutorials for this. C&C wastes the first few missions on this.
I recently played the platformer Prince of Persia. Well partially. Upto the second timed bit. 2 tries and then I gave up. To fucking hard I am not a 12 year old boy anymore. That game for me was totally wrongly balanced. To much work to little fun. However the owner of that game had no troubles with it. Faster reflexes the timed bits were easy for him.
I seen only a handfull of games that really had good difficulty settings. Good difficulty settings go further then just easy normal hard. They allow you to say disable certain aspects of the game that you may find annoying. Flightsims are usually very easy to setup. Don't like blacking out? Disable it. No rudder? Disable drift. The ancient System Shock allowed you to alter the amount of puzzles vs combat vs exploring. If only some designer had thought of allowing me to disable timed sequenzes from Prince of Persia. Had thought of making the first game started in UFO Aftermath not to be on the highest difficulty level or even better have presented the selection screen to the user. Deus EX 2 is probably beyond saving.
Games that are to hard are usually the fault of the designers being unable to fathom that gamers perhaps do not have the experience with the game that they do. Games that are to easy are either trying not to alienate new players or just lack good coding to have effective AI.
Oh well thank god for the PC and modding. UFO Aftermath has a lot of mods out that rebalance the game. Making your weapons just a tad more powerfull and the aliens weapons just a little bit less. If you played it then you should be able to appreciate slower alien rockets with less power while your guns generally do more damage. The offical patches also address the game balance but don't go far enough. Perhaps this is the future? Rather then get it right out of the box games will be balanced by playtesting by the gamers?
Hard to do right universally... (Score:2)
I got stuck on the occasional bit - am now in fact, but I give it a break for a few days, go back and I can manage it. Even some of the puzzles - one in particular took me a bit of thought as to how to get through.
This is great, 'cause it means I don't complete it in a day.
Call of Duty also - fucking difficult on even regular in some places. It is a stunningly well balanced game, getting harded all through, but basing all the difficulties on how you handle situations.
The best of both worlds (Score:5, Interesting)
However, there were a decent amount of very difficult mini games(chocobo taming?) and all sorts of extra aeons, ultimate weapons, etc that entertained the hardcore gamer. I never bothered with most of this, but I know people who have just insane amounts of this stuff and can beat those monsters in the arena. I think that the main game should be easy, but there should be enough optional, challenging(and of course rewarding!) side quests/mini-games etc to satisfy the more hardcore gamer like this author.
Kudos to Square.
Re:The best of both worlds (Score:2, Interesting)
FFX-2, if you're not very good with your dress spheres or are just plain to slow, you'll get stomped very quickly.
I think i was killed more times in FFX-2 than any other FF series, including the original
oh, and want to talk about a hard game! the first FF !!
Hogwash! (Score:3, Insightful)
This does not mean they do not exist, just that modern games must cater for all types of players, and thus they are made scalable.
Has this person tried playing a multiplayer Warcraft III game against a single insane AI computer opponent? How about tried to beat all the Quake 3 Arena levels on Nightmare? There's hours of trying right there!
Most games have a Hard/Nightmare/Insane setting which is meant for pitfall/rick dangerous/aztec challenge -like games.
Also, does pitfall have a PvP setting? No! So once pitfall becomes too easy, where's the challenge? It's boring! I've had the remarkable pleasure of losing countless Quake games to awsome world-ranking players... wanna learn real anguish?
Anyhow enough ranting... I'm tired of people trying to cling on games "that they just don't make anymore" or "It's not fun" or "It has no story" or "Blah blah blah". Rubbish! Modern games are as good and in MOST cases better!
Sure I enjoyed finishing Mercenary, Druid, Bard's Tale 1-3, Elite and many more on my Vic20/C64/ZX Spectrum/Spectravideo/Acorn/BBC A/B/Amiga/Atari ST. But I'm happy those days are past and I could play competitive games like Quake/Counterstrike/Starcraft/Warcraft III/Ghost Recon/ etc etc.
Anyway... enough raving...
Old games were hard to make them last longer (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion this is a Good Thing, I certainly don't believe that Harder == More Fun. This is why I like different difficulty levels - you can tailor the game to the way you like to play. Those with lots of time and few responsibilities are welcome to spend five hours every night on 'Bastard Hard' - however, with a wife and three kids I just don't have that kind of time to play levels over and over again until I can do them. If I play at 'Normal' or 'Easy' I can still progress in the game with only a few hours per week.
Re:Old games were hard to make them last longer (Score:2)
By contrast, I just finished the most recent Prince of Persia. I clocked in at 15 hours, and I really don't think that I could get under 10 hours if I replayed the game start to finish. That's co
I don't agree at all (Score:2)
Hells Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
There are other types of games where the lack of difficulty ruins the game. But I must also note that the wrong kind of difficulty can ruin a game also.
Look at FF:CC. The game is great and all, but only because its multiplayer gameboy element makes up for what it lacks elsewhere. All the best items and secret happenings can only be found in stupid arbitrary ways. They aren't a puzzle you solve like in Wind Waker, they are something you have to know. Information you can't possibly have unless you read a FAQ or strategy guide or come across completely by accident.
Another thing I think is that sometimes game quality is not the top priority of game designers. Why make a great game that is hard? People will keep playing it and take all year to beat it, they sure as heck wont give up. If they're still playing that one why would they buy a new one? If people beat their games they'll stop playing them and buy new ones.
Pretty much I agree with this guy a whole lot. In my
Too easy and too hard... (Score:2)
One of my favorite games ever, Doom, is straightforward on the lowest difficulty setting. On Nightmare! (the highest), it's nearly impossible for mortals. I remember that someone at id Software (Romero?) even stated that he didn't think beating Doom 2 from start to end without dying on Nightmare! was possible. He was eventua
Maybe I'm old (Score:2)
One of the things I hated about the early games was the fact that they are so unforgiving. At some point
Hmm.. (Score:2)
Now for the time this game had amazing graphics, until you realzied the whole thing was a movie, and all you had to do was press up down left or right, and shoot a couple things the entire time.
Cheat Codes (Score:2)
I don't use cheat codes ('old school' gamer I guess), but my 12-year old son does. Whenenever we get a new game one of the first things he does is search the net for cheat codes. I alwasys ask him 'why do you want to cheat?' and his response is usually 'because the game gets too hard otherwise.' Sigh.........
Boredom with todays games (Score:2, Interesting)
I also really liked playing games on the Master system, games like Alex Kid were really quite challenging, the controller wasn't great, you had to have real good finger control on the D-pad to be able to get Alex to do a full height running jump, I remember spending literally hours playing that game with a group of friends and we all used to watch each other
Oracle (Score:3, Funny)
For an added bonus, the documentation is also one big puzzle full of twisty passages, all alike.
The fun just never stops...
(Somebody, please kill me. I hear they use Postgres in heaven...)
Re:Oracle (Score:2)
Of course "messages and codes" has its own puzzles, completely separate from the main game! I especially love those where it says "this error code is system specific, look in your platform documentation" (as if...).
I've been playing "Oracle" for a long time. Gameplay has undergone a lot of development during those years. For example, in the past I was playing on a Novell system which ran out of memory at th
My take (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm currently playing Final Fantasy IX (I'm a little behind the times still). If you're diligent the game is wicked easy, as you're gaining skills and abilities that make the party incredibly strong.
I'm also playing Earthbound Zero, which is incredibly hard as the random battles are fairly numerous, and there are a lot of modern conveniences not present in the game due to its age (1990).
But there are still some games with challenge. F-Zero GX is by far one of the harder games I've acquired recently. I would also put the Zelda: Oracles pair in there as well.
But in all honesty, I think difficulty is sacrificed for length or story. Who wants to try and beat a 40 hour game if it's going to take you 60 - 80 hours overall due to Game Over screens and reset button hits?
Viewtiful Joe (Score:2)
Re:Viewtiful Joe (Score:2)
Now, once you get to V-Rated, it's extremly difficult.
But I think the point of the article is that it kind of ignores difficulty settings. I think it's assuming that everybody plays on easy..
Blech..
Read Tex's article. (Score:4, Informative)
prince of persia was waaay too easy. (Score:3, Interesting)
back when I was in school I used to play 3 hours or more every day.
Now I havn't played properly on almost 3 years and was greatly looking forward to playing Prince of Persia after the glowing reviews it had received.
It was a walkthrough!
I don't mean to say that I never needed more than one attempt, but the jump sequences were ALL too easy. (I needed 6 attempts only once - the timed run with the collapsing floor outside the tower walls - for those who played it).
The riddles were not riddles but wastes of time... (who ever thought of having a character in the game tell you whenever you were gong wrong - like in the 'arming the palace' sequence).
I only needed ONE attemt for the last fight.
:-(
but I have not had so much fun playing a game for ages and I can't wait for a mission/add-on pack that is hopefully a bit harder.
cheers
AntiNeutrino
Nice Generalization (Score:3, Funny)
Here's a tip (Score:2)
too easy? (Score:2)
Well there is your problem... You played the new Pitfall game. Come on....
It's a clear case of PEBKAC
or in this case PEBCAC
thats console
Games today ARE different... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there was a time when arcade players loved being able to play forever on a single quarter. How many levels could you go on Donkey Kong? Could you get the high score on Galaga? Did SpyHunter ever end? Sure the levels became repetitive and often insane, but you could play as long as you could survive.
Games today have morphed into ones with 20 different "missions" or time runs with limited long-play appeal. Granted, there are specific games where this makes some sense because of the nature of the game (you reached the bottom of the mountain) but there's no reason why all games have had to go that route. Don't you love going to Jillians/D&B and blowing $0.75 for 1 minute of entertainment, as is the case with practically all arcade games these days? It's a shame that kids today don't appreciate pinball (what few pinball machines there are anyway), where skilled play usually awards players with a replay.
Of course home consoles with the ability to save your location have changed games considerably, but (as an example) SSX3 did an admirable job of taking the "race to the bottom of the mountain" concept and throw it on its ear. Lots of variety and ease of going back to the top to rerace as part of the game (instead of having to start over from the main menu) make it seem as if you're continuing one run.
Publishers need to take into consideration that there are some gamers who don't want games that end. Mission-based games, side-scrollers, and the like are only a subset. The Sims (and various Tycoon/sim games) is popular on the PC because the game is continually changing and infinitely replayable.
The original MYST was a huge seller for various reasons, one of which was that it took so long to figure out exactly what/how to do *anything*. With the Internet now and all the cracks/cheats/walkthroughs, MYST probably wouldn't have the same sales rate now as it did 6 years ago.
Should games have difficulty levels to make games harder for more skilled players? Sure. But GOOD games shouldn't need skill levels, cracks, cheats to make the games interesting to all players.
Difficulty vs. Intensity.. (Score:2)
No, I love intense games...give me games where I'm surrounded and overwhelmed and activty is everywhere..and when I actually have the firepower and the ability to fight my way through it..
Viewtiful Joe, Ratchet and Clank:GC, Destiny Warriors, F-Zero GX, Ikaragua..etc
What I don't like is frustrating games...and most of those older games are simply frustrating. They either rely on memorizing patters, or simple luck. As well, often times the controls are just not good enough to handle
Thief 1 & 2 on Expert (Score:2, Insightful)
Thief is extremely rewarding when you finish it on expert.
Rogue Spear - single player custom mission with 50 terrorists. Yeah the AI have sniper abilities with pistols, but it's also a lot of fun.
Temper-Tamper? (Score:2)
Games that get easier if you're not very good... (Score:3, Interesting)
For example in Broken Sword 3 I failed a small stealth puzzle (I've never been good at stealth) about 3 times so I got to see a cutscene of my character completing the puzzle without my assistance. And then in another game which involved memorising a sequence and then duplicating it, the sequence became increasingly simplified until it was virtually impossible to get wrong. Have any other slashdotters experienced this?
Games are too easy. (Score:2)
On my spectrum, I only ever completed ONE game, Nonterraqueous, and that took me, my dad and my brother, carefully plotting a map and playing for days on end.
Proof that Pitfall was tough (Score:4, Interesting)
definition of fun? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see that as fun at all. When a game is so difficult that I want to smash things, I typically do. If I'm angry, then I'm not having fun.
Frustrating != fun
Impossibly hard != fun
however, if you do want impossibly hard, MOST games have Easy, Medium and Hard modes. Try changing them. Some games have a Nightmare/Insane mode. I think that's what you're after. Quoting one game as being too easy and using that to justify your statement of all modern games being too easy is just bullshit.
Ninja Gaiden was just released... (Score:3, Informative)
(The best thing is how fair it feels, too.)
The problem is built-in cheat codes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most games have selectable difficulty levels - and for whatever stupid reason idiots like to pick the easiest one, cheat their way through it, and then cry about how much the game sucked because it was too easy.
As with most things in life, the problem is people are idiots.
Re:MDK2 (Score:2, Interesting)
...after a MONTH of trying.
I do agree somewhat with the article. The new Metroid (Zero Mission) is WAY too easy, because of the automap and the helpful "Hey, go here now" messages. Luckily, it has the original on it, so I can get butt-lost for days again.
Re:MDK2 (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
I dig that out on an emulator every now and then to see if I can still do it. More as a test of my age and reflexes than anything.
I used to be able to go through level after level of that in the arcades, but now I'm lucky to get past the third level!
To quote Maddox: "Save points are for pussies."