Gamers today are sissies

[Maleficus]

http://www.escapistmagazine.co..._148/4874-Hard-Times.2

One of many articles talking about the demise of games that actually challenged the player. Now we are filled with World of Warcraft where skill doesn't even exist.

Itaki has to add dog mode to ninja gaiden so people can beat them, sad sad world.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Then I'm a sissy.

Games have changed a lot over the years, and one of the biggest things present in games today that was never present before is storytelling. There's more reason to keep playing games until the end now, and as such, I don't want to be prevented from doing so any more than the developers want me to.

Maybe it's because I didn't get into gaming until fairly recently (I didn't own a console until I got a GameCube five years ago), but I really dislike frustrating games. I don't like older games much because they lack depth and they're often so hard I can barely get anywhere with them.

The way I see it, making a game absurdly difficult isn't enough to keep things interesting anymore. It used to be, but now there are a lot of other reasons keep playing games. The other thing you have to look at is what makes various games difficult. Sometimes it's actually satisfying to get through a difficult portion of the game, but other times it's just stupid and doesn't make any sense.

Besides, I don't know why the "games are too easy!" people are so up in arms about this. If you want it to be harder, most games give you that option. If you choose to opt out of that option, it's your own fault and you shouldn't complain. Why bitch about "dog mode" in Ninja Gaiden? You don't have to use it if you don't want to. If it allows other people to beat the game when they normally wouldn't have been able to, then it's a good addition, not a bad one.

Actually, to be honest, I'm much more frustrated by confusing games than by hard ones. When I played Ninja Gaiden Black, I hit a roadblock when I couldn't figure out what to do or where to go next. About 80% of the game up until then I did on normal difficulty, but eventually I was forced to switch to easy because I couldn't get any farther. But what ended up killing the game for me was my inability to figure out where to go.

 

[BladeVenom]

Yea, anyone who hasn't played a game that requires a 200 page or longer instructional manual should just wear a dress and call themselves Loretta.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Games have changed a lot over the years, and one of the biggest things present in games today that was never present before is storytelling.

I would have said something, but...

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Maybe it's because I didn't get into gaming until fairly recently (I didn't own a console until I got a GameCube five years ago)...

That explains it.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Games have changed a lot over the years, and one of the biggest things present in games today that was never present before is storytelling.

I would have said something, but...

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Maybe it's because I didn't get into gaming until fairly recently (I didn't own a console until I got a GameCube five years ago)...

That explains it.

Yeah, I was about to jump on that too until I saw your post.

 

[WraithETC]

I haven't seen that "Game guide highly recommended" sticker on a game at EB's since Morrowind.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Maleficus
http://www.escapistmagazine.co..._148/4874-Hard-Times.2

One of many articles talking about the demise of games that actually challenged the player. Now we are filled with World of Warcraft where skill doesn't even exist.

Itaki has to add dog mode to ninja gaiden so people can beat them, sad sad world.

Apparently you havent played World In Conflict.

I promise you frantic, korean-style button mashing is NOT going to help you win a game. It helps a little, but you need to use some serious strategy if you wanna get through any mission. Its not quite grognard level strategy, but so few people even play those I dont normally mention them.

 

[Zenoth]

What about developers make sissy games instead of gamers being the sissy ones?

We gamers are the ones who need to contact developers like Valve to make more than just reducing the amount of health points given in their medpacks and the amount of damage received from enemy fire in their "Hard" difficulty settings in their games. Tell them to actually add more enemies, to create better A.I, to give those Combine soldiers more dangerous weapons, to create map designs that'll make you fall everywhere you try to jump and that will make it so not only it rains during the Buggy driving sequences but that the control of the vehicle be affected by the weather.

When that happens we'll have a challenge.

Until then we're forced to eat what they cook.

 

[Piuc2020]

I do miss difficult games but I don't dislike easy games, I do hate the Halo health in every shooter nowadays, now THAT makes thing a little bit boring, what happened to good ol' medkits and tight situations, on the Halo system there's never any survival moments.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Eh, you know, I was there back for those hardcore one hit wonders game. I'm amazed anyone can even romanticize 'challenging' games - like for say R-type, where one hit and you died, and since you lost all your power ups if you died, you then proceeded to die over and over and over again. It was essentially a one-life game, and it was not-fun.


Honestly though, if bad graphics and impossible gameplay are your thing, can't you just boot up the virtual console on wii, or go darkside and emulate? There are more old impossible games out there then easy old games. And you hardcore still haven't beat Battletoads, have you?

 

[ja1484]

I dunno. There's a lot of rosy-colored glasses that goes on when thinking about how things "used to be".

Games are more complex and have more content than ever really. Things always used to be better than they are now.

 

[Maleficus]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Eh, you know, I was there back for those hardcore one hit wonders game. I'm amazed anyone can even romanticize 'challenging' games - like for say R-type, where one hit and you died, and since you lost all your power ups if you died, you then proceeded to die over and over and over again. It was essentially a one-life game, and it was not-fun.


Honestly though, if bad graphics and impossible gameplay are your thing, can't you just boot up the virtual console on wii, or go darkside and emulate? There are more old impossible games out there then easy old games. And you hardcore still haven't beat Battletoads, have you?

I'll have you know I did beat battletoads and was pretty damn happy with myself after I did.

and I do routinely play older games, it bothers me immensely that I am relegated to games of days past because no one wants to bother actually trying/being good at games any more.

 

[Maleficus]

Originally posted by: ja1484

I dunno. There's a lot of rosy-colored glasses that goes on when thinking about how things "used to be".

Games are more complex and have more content than ever really. Things always used to be better than they are now.

I wouldn't call games more complex, i'd say they technology they use is, but not the games themselves. I won't disagree with the rosy colored glasses statement, but only to an extent, gaming really was about content back in the day, because graphics always were relatively poor. Also we had a lot more innovation, granted it was because gaming was still young, but that doesn't detract from it. Now we have games with 100's of awards like portal, for something so amazingly simple and old as the idea of creating teleports... I have to restrain my murderous rage when people talk about how great and innovative this game is. It is hardly even a game.

 

[Maleficus]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Maleficus
http://www.escapistmagazine.co..._148/4874-Hard-Times.2

One of many articles talking about the demise of games that actually challenged the player. Now we are filled with World of Warcraft where skill doesn't even exist.

Itaki has to add dog mode to ninja gaiden so people can beat them, sad sad world.

Apparently you havent played World In Conflict.

I promise you frantic, korean-style button mashing is NOT going to help you win a game. It helps a little, but you need to use some serious strategy if you wanna get through any mission. Its not quite grognard level strategy, but so few people even play those I dont normally mention them.

I am unaware of this so called 'korean button mashing'. IDK if you are referring to starcraft or what, but I assure you, SC is not button mashing, nor are the koreans known for it. Crazy MMO fanboyism as well as a national pride in Blizzard games yes, button mashing... no.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: Maleficus

Originally posted by: ja1484

I dunno. There's a lot of rosy-colored glasses that goes on when thinking about how things "used to be".

Games are more complex and have more content than ever really. Things always used to be better than they are now.

I wouldn't call games more complex, i'd say they technology they use is, but not the games themselves. I won't disagree with the rosy colored glasses statement, but only to an extent, gaming really was about content back in the day, because graphics always were relatively poor. Also we had a lot more innovation, granted it was because gaming was still young, but that doesn't detract from it. Now we have games with 100's of awards like portal, for something so amazingly simple and old as the idea of creating teleports... I have to restrain my murderous rage when people talk about how great and innovative this game is. It is hardly even a game.

The gameplay is alright but I think it was the writing that made it win so many accolades.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Yea, anyone who hasn't played a game that requires a 200 page or longer instructional manual should just wear a dress and call themselves Loretta.

How do you know how I spend my Friday nights?

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Maleficus

Originally posted by: ja1484

I dunno. There's a lot of rosy-colored glasses that goes on when thinking about how things "used to be".

Games are more complex and have more content than ever really. Things always used to be better than they are now.

I wouldn't call games more complex, i'd say they technology they use is, but not the games themselves.

You can do that, but it makes you wrong. Go back and look at Doom or Hexen, or the original WarCraft or Command and Conquer. Hell, CRPG as a genre didn't really *exist* in its *modern form* back in the mid 90s.

The point is, Wolfenstein 3d was a point and click game. Modern shooters maintain that base, but in many cases there is MUCH more going on (STALKER, for example). People just haven't noticed how many new features have come along in the intervening ~15 years because they were added slowly, 1 or 2 at a time.

I won't disagree with the rosy colored glasses statement, but only to an extent, gaming really was about content back in the day, because graphics always were relatively poor. Also we had a lot more innovation, granted it was because gaming was still young, but that doesn't detract from it.

What content? Did Doom even have a story? I guess if you counted that two paragraph setup in the manual. Warcraft only had two races, and they were practically mirror images.

You're right about the innovation being more noticeable because the industry was young, but it's also partially because no one had innovated much before.

Now we have games with 100's of awards like portal, for something so amazingly simple and old as the idea of creating teleports... I have to restrain my murderous rage when people talk about how great and innovative this game is. It is hardly even a game.

Yeah, because it's a new game mechanic that we haven't seen before. The "First Person Puzzle Comedy" isn't a genre that's exactly overcrowded right now. I can't wait for more Portal.

 

[skace]

I don't hate TF2, but I do think it's funny that I went from the days where most FPS battles occurred in midair to the days where a skinny nerd following a fat guy around the map at 2mph spamming bullets is considered "teamwork" and "skill". A lot has changed in gaming, I try not to bitch about it everyday because that makes me sound like a sour ass. All the same, a day doesn't go by where it isn't a conscious thought on my mind as to how much has changed.

 

[Modeps]

The reason why most games were designed to beat you was so the arcade they were running in would get the most quarters. That mentality was incorrectly carried over to the console systems. Everything was new then, so people just accepted it. Now, we demand more out of our systems than something that forces us to jump at exactly the correct pixel, or start the level over completely.

I've always played to be entertained, but my definition of entertainment has changed a LOT since I was a young boy with all the time in the world, vs today when I'm a grown man with a kid, a wife, and a house.

 

[Scrimmy]

Originally posted by: Modeps
The reason why most games were designed to beat you was so the arcade they were running in would get the most quarters. That mentality was incorrectly carried over to the console systems. Everything was new then, so people just accepted it. Now, we demand more out of our systems than something that forces us to jump at exactly the correct pixel, or start the level over completely.

I've always played to be entertained, but my definition of entertainment has changed a LOT since I was a young boy with all the time in the world, vs today when I'm a grown man with a kid, a wife, and a house.

Definitely a lot of truth to this in both paragraphs. The gamers who grew up playing games in the arcade are in their late 20's to early 40's now with a lot of more disposable than we had back in the days we were pumping quarters into a Pacman or Asteroids game but a lot less time. We're also old enough to be a lot more concerned with games being interesting and inventive than we are at just beating a difficult game. Not coincidentally, this is also the demographic of a lot of game developers now.

Look at Bioshock: as a game, it was really pretty easy, even on hard difficulty. You can run around, kill stuff, and burn through the game fairly quickly if you really wanted to, but you'd be missing out on a huge amount of material put in there by the devs. The storyline you got from following the voice messages was really pretty excellent, as was the overall writing and voice acting. Of the minor characters, I loved Dr. Suchong's story arc in particular; he was an awful human being with history of collaborating with pretty much anyone who had something offer him (Opium dealer for Japanese soldiers during their occupation of parts of China in WWII, among other things), so it was excellent when you finally got the tape where he gets killed. ("Papa Suchong! Papa Suchong! Papa Suchong! Papa Suchong!" *smack* *Big Daddy roars* Loved that.).

Anyway, little tangent there, but I think for a lot of game developers, game difficulty is more about setting up proper story progression than it is about just forcing the player to keep repeating relatively mindless tasks over and over until you get it right. I wasted many a night over platform jumpers when I was younger, but I just have no patience for them anymore.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Maleficus

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Eh, you know, I was there back for those hardcore one hit wonders game. I'm amazed anyone can even romanticize 'challenging' games - like for say R-type, where one hit and you died, and since you lost all your power ups if you died, you then proceeded to die over and over and over again. It was essentially a one-life game, and it was not-fun.


Honestly though, if bad graphics and impossible gameplay are your thing, can't you just boot up the virtual console on wii, or go darkside and emulate? There are more old impossible games out there then easy old games. And you hardcore still haven't beat Battletoads, have you?

I'll have you know I did beat battletoads and was pretty damn happy with myself after I did.

and I do routinely play older games, it bothers me immensely that I am relegated to games of days past because no one wants to bother actually trying/being good at games any more.

i agree here, i beat Btoads as well as it was almost as epic feeling as beating Super Gouls N Ghosts for the SNES. holy fuck that game was a challange
i wouldent call games now sissys just because games arnt made as hard as they used to be
however may people do want things to just be really easy

at least some games have a "hard Mode" that is challengingm Halo's Legendary mode is a great example of this

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The prevalence of broadband connections has just shifted the max difficulty gaming away from SP to MP.

I liked it when the games were really hard to beat, but if you didn't have the patience or skill to beat a game, you could resort to cheat codes. That way the serious gamers could get their fix, while the casual gamer could go God mode or something so they could just enjoy the play through, without the pressure involved in developing the skills, strategy, and tactics necessary to be successful.

I read a lot of criticism about how hard Far Cry was near the end, and how they resorted to cheat codes to finish the game. That is the best formula IMO. as opposed to the pussification of the game play to make it more accessible for novices and casual players.

 

[Xavier434]

More challenging does not always equal more fun which is what this is all about. Many of the older games were much more frustrating than they were fun despite being more challenging. There were many which I beat just to say I did it, but I had a lot less fun doing it than I do now completing many of today's hit titles.

 

[HumblePie]

Bah, I'm 30 and I like a challenge, but in no way do I like hitting my head against a brick wall anymore. I've played and beat most of the insanely hard games.

Anyone ever remember the retardedly hard game for the NES called Bayou Billy? 3 lives that is it No continues, no restarts, and if you die you start the whole level over again. Didn't take much to kill you either. It was a "Double Dragon" style game and even Double Dragon was hard but at least you got continues and didn't have to restart levels if you died AND could bring a friend along to help.

While I ended up beating Bayou Billy, the feeling I got from it was, "sheesh, that game sucked!" No real feeling of satisfaction. The only reason I even beat it was because I felt stupid wasting $40 on it in the first place and I couldn't even give the game away.

I still every so often play stupidly hard games when they come out. Take the game Shadow Grounds for the PC. Fairly recent game that didn't do so well in sells. Why? it was ridiculously hard with no save points at all. You die and that's it. Didn't take much to kill you either as well. Still I ended up beating it for some reason.

If the game Gauntlet came out today like it did back in the day no one would buy it or play it. The game was designed to suck down quarters and was hard for that reason only. I spend all day doing mindless repetitive at work, why would I want to go home and use my free time doing the same and PAY someone else to do it? Screw that. I want to play a game to be entertained and it's much more fun playing a game for it's story than how many times per second I can hit the X button.

Now, there is such a thing as challenging entertainment, and even some old games back in the day had that. One that springs to mind is an old game called Action Bike for the C64. Was hard but fun because the game was puzzle based hard with a dirt bike. Puzzle hard and puzzle challenging is acceptable entertainment, but having to hit the X button 45 times a second for 5 minutes to win is not acceptable for a fun challenge.

 

[Xavier434]

One of the best yet oldest concepts when considering how to design a successful yet challenging video game is to simply add the option of changing the difficulty level. This allows you to satisfy a much larger array of customers. The ones who love it tough on their first go at the game can set the difficulty higher while others who just want to progress through the content without being forced to repeat much of it due to failure can do so as well. I never understood why a lot of developers do not understand that there is a distinctive difference between a fun challenge and a frustrating challenge. Instead, they just tell the public that the game is not intended to be easy and that's that. I understand what it is they are trying to do, but I don't understand why many of them take the choice away from the customer. Just give us some easier difficulty settings and close the book on the issue so that everyone can get what they want.