Gamers today are sissies

[BladeVenom]

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.

What new game has as much content as Baldur's Gate?

Most of the old D&D type RPGs had large parties 6-8. How many characters do you control in the latest RPGs?

Combat flight simulators and wargames use to be mainstream games. Do you see games like Longbow and Falcon on store shelves anymore? Or Third Reich, Steel Panthers, etc. ...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

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.

What new game has as much content as Baldur's Gate?

Most of the old D&D type RPGs had large parties 6-8. How many characters do you control in the latest RPGs?

Combat flight simulators and wargames use to be mainstream games. Do you see games like Longbow and Falcon on store shelves anymore? Or Third Reich, Steel Panthers, etc. ...

There are always exceptions, but generally speaking ja1484 is correct.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Wow! Old news is so exciting! Read any list of "Hardest video games ever made" and you'll find some really easy ones in those lists. The Mega Man (classic and X) games have never been hard. It seems that any game that you have to try again to beat a stage is considered hard. The only way the Mega Man games were hard were if you just went in there and started blasting. You had to think ahead of time. Which boss do you fight first? How are you going to get past this obstacle? Which weapon should I use so that I'm not in the way of enemy fire? And so on...

There is also a difference between challenging, hard, and frustrating. A game with bad controls and camera angles (or where your character is on screen) is frustrating and gimped. I also think that games should have the ability to save anywhere (a feature that keeps me with PC games). There's nothing that pisses me off more than going on your last life, doing really well through the stage, dying some crappy death (ie. enemy comes out of nowhere and kills you), and then having to start the whole level (or game) over again.
A bad save feature can ruin a game. A prime example of this is Contra 4 for the Nintendo DS. The save feature is just a bad idea, both on paper and in implementation. You can quit the game anytime you want and the game will be saved. When you load your save game, you start at the beginning of the level you ended your game. The bad part is, you have to give up one set of continues to use this feature. What's the point? Contra is a short game. This game only has nine levels! Why would I want to give up one of my continues, when I could just start from the beginning and work my way back to the level?


I also think that the Lives System is just plain outdated. It works for arcade games because it keeps someone from putting in a quarter and playing forever. For PC/console games, it's not a good idea. Ditching the lives system would allow players to experiment more with how to take out the enemies more effeciently. Another benefit would be players will no longer have to fear the dreaded Game Over screen and can look down that pit for a secret.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX
I also think that the Lives System is just plain outdated.

The only games that I have seen as of late, that have a "lives" system, are straight up arcade-style games. Can you please provide an example where this concept is being used incorrectly?

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: Modeps
Can you please provide an example where this concept is being used incorrectly?

The game that comes to mind right now (I know that as soon as I'm away from a computer I'll think of more) are the Mega Man X games after X5. The lives system in that game was just a hinderence. After you lose all of your lives, you go to a screen that asks if you would like to go back to the Stage Select screen or if you would like to continue. What's the point? Why not give me the option of leaving the stage whenever I want and getting rid of the screen instead of having me just kill myself over and over again to leave the stage? In X8, you even get the choice to leave the stage whenever you want making the Game Over screen even more frivolous.

I do realize that X8 does not have "1-ups" but the retries act almost the same way, when you die, you come to a screen that asks if you want to quit or continue.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX

Originally posted by: Modeps
Can you please provide an example where this concept is being used incorrectly?

The game that comes to mind right now (I know that as soon as I'm away from a computer I'll think of more) are the Mega Man X games after X5. The lives system in that game was just a hinderence. After you lose all of your lives, you go to a screen that asks if you would like to go back to the Stage Select screen or if you would like to continue. What's the point? Why not give me the option of leaving the stage whenever I want and getting rid of the screen instead of having me just kill myself over and over again to leave the stage? In X8, you even get the choice to leave the stage whenever you want making the Game Over screen even more frivolous.

I do realize that X8 does not have "1-ups" but the retries act almost the same way, when you die, you come to a screen that asks if you want to quit or continue.

Modeps was asking about recent titles which I cannot recall any that use a lives system with exception of new arcade games. I think the point is that system has been extinct for a while and probably for many of the reasons you mentioned.

 

[imported_Imp]

I welcome this 'pussification of games'. While I could use a bit more difficulty, most of the stuff way back when was plain too hard.

I remember playing Mortal Kombat 2 on the console, and could never make it past the 4th level. After a while, I just turned god mode on from the start and stopped playing. The concept of "lives" was the stupidest idea ever invented, and like others have said, only worked to eat your change. Well, there's no change deposit on the console, so it only served in breaking controllers (guess that translates into money). Another great example is Lethal Weapon/Lethal Enforcement (multiplatform in Sega CD era: game with gun controller). Always got to near the end, saved up all our lives, two players. Kept shooting the last boss, he'd never die and to this day, it remains unfinished. Lots of fun that was... Same goes for Doom I and II. It was hard, get killed, start again from the beginning of the level over and over and over. Just ends with 'idkfa' and 'idgod' being typed at the beginning of every session.

Games like Bioshock are a bit too easy, as is GTA 4. You can die and you get all your weapons (unless you get arrested in the latter) back, most progress stays there. You'll hear no complaints from me though. A challenge is nice, but if it's this versus 'needing' to use godmode every 5 minutes, I'll take this.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Also, the degree of difficulty that people want or need varies not only from gamer to gamer, but from genre to genre for each person. Many people have major difficulty with racing games, unless it's super easy like Need For Speed. I sometimes enjoy something a bit harder, but I sometimes want to kick back and just race for fun too. Meanwhile, I have to play most FPSs at their lowest difficulty setting. Even though I'm pretty good at multiplayer FPSs, I'm usually awful at the single player bits unless I use the super easy mode.

And then there are RTSs. Oh boy. I think strategy games are the only ones where I can cheat and still lose (in skirmish mode at least). When I'm doing an RTS's single player missions, I generally stick to the easiest difficulty and it works out fine, because I can't keep track of where more than one group of units are at a time, much less manage a whole bunch of different units all doing different things in and out of my base.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Modeps was asking about recent titles

What is considered recent? I consider anything from Dreamcast to now recent.

Some examples of games using the Lives system in the past two years are Yoshi's Island DS and the Sonic Rush series. I understand that since these were the latest entries in a classic gaming franchise, the devs would want to make the games similar to their predecessors, but the Lives system being removed should be considered an "improvement" and not an "impurity." The lives system was really an annoyance in Yoshi's Island DS as the later levels are filled with spikes, endless pits, and other instant deaths. Also, after each and every death, you are asked if you'd like to go back to the map screen.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Modeps was asking about recent titles

What is considered recent? I consider anything from Dreamcast to now recent.

Some examples of games using the Lives system in the past two years are Yoshi's Island DS and the Sonic Rush series. I understand that since these were the latest entries in a classic gaming franchise, the devs would want to make the games similar to their predecessors, but the Lives system being removed should be considered an "improvement" and not an "impurity." The lives system was really an annoyance in Yoshi's Island DS as the later levels are filled with spikes, endless pits, and other instant deaths. Also, after each and every death, you are asked if you'd like to go back to the map screen.

Well, I guess imo I would consider anything from the beginning of the PS2/XBOX/Gamecube era and on to be recent. When considering the ages of your average business industry, the gaming industry has only recently matured. It really wasn't all that long ago when the existence of the "casual gamer" was practically unheard of. You either made it one of your top 3 preferred hobbies or you didn't. Therefore, it only makes sense that the majority of video games that you see on the shelves during the last decade or so contain reasonably balanced game play. Many of them may still not be what your average consumer considers to be a quality title, but that opinion will forever change.

In regards to the DS and PSP, those are good example I suppose. Today's hand helds are pretty much following the same rules as older consoles used to follow. Obviously, there is still a huge market out there for them though so I don't blame devs for producing the games.

 

[irishScott]

One thing that really pisses me off is the notion that RTS games should be "balanced". Personally, I love the thrill of coming back from behind. Only in the total war games and CoH have I truly been able to use tactics to beat a far superior force.

As for storytelling, it's all but dead. Deus Ex (and it's sucessor) had an awesome story line. System Shock 2 had an awesome story line. Star Control 2 has an awesome story line. Planet's Edge and Wasteland, from the early 90s/late 80s, have story lines, interactivity, complexity and character development that I have yet to remotely see in any modern game. Awesome stuff.

Best thing about them, when the characters die, they stay fucking dead. Theres none of this Gears of War "walk over, scream "Fight Through the Pain!" which magically cures a bullet wound in the guy's chest" shit. You can acquire new members, or clone a member in the case of Planet's Edge, but even then the cloned member will have different attributes that you'll have to adapt to/use.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=830
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=2425

That said, the Myst games had an excellent story and lasted until 2004 IIRC (there are 5 of them). They take forever, but they're some of the most intriguing and well designed puzzle game's I've ever played, and there's a lot to them if you're into Literary/Art Analysis. The Environments are simply breathtaking in the later games. But they're an exception. By and large the story line in most modern games consists of:

Good guy A has to take out bad guy B
A has a traumatic past that somehow turned him into God.
A goes after B.
B disappears right before A can get to him.
A is knocked out.
A wakes up with a desire for vengeance and justice.
A starts his quest, kills a few monsters, and meets sidekick and/or hot chick F
F is good with guns/weapons.
A&F embark on a quest of daring intrigue where random bad guys CDEGHJKLIMNOSPUZ pop up out of nowhere to provide "twists and turns" to the plot, but ultimately don't do much and just slow down the game.
Huge Boss fight between A (and possibly F) and B occurs. B now has a device that makes him nigh invincible.
A&F destroy B, F possibly dies in the process (causing A to become extremely constipated and shoot lighting out of his ass)
Assuming F is a hot chick, F never puts out.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Both Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy had lives. I honestly don't know why (Yahtzee mentioned this in his review of Galaxy), but Nintendo is really, really slow to change I guess. From what I've heard, it doesn't even make much difference if you run out of lives, and you get tons of extras, so it's not like it's too hard of a game. It just relies on an antiquated old game mechanic that has been crudely adapted to work in today's gaming world.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

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.

What new game has as much content as Baldur's Gate?

Most of the old D&D type RPGs had large parties 6-8. How many characters do you control in the latest RPGs?

Combat flight simulators and wargames use to be mainstream games. Do you see games like Longbow and Falcon on store shelves anymore? Or Third Reich, Steel Panthers, etc. ...

How do you define content? If it's simply "play hours", sandbox games like the Sims or open RPGs like Oblivion can go toe to toe with anything.

If it's some other method well...let me know and we'll discuss it.

Simulators and wargames were never mainstream. They were titles that game companies could make money off of in the mid-90s to 2000s because of three reasons:

1) Content creation was much cheaper.
2) Broadband had horrible penetration.
3) No-one had invented P2P yet. (technically Napster was around, but it didn't matter because of #2)

The first obviously points out that game production was just plain cheaper back in the day. That's why all the companies are merging these days - bringing a title to launch with competitive features now requires a budget on par with lower level hollywood productions. AAA titles may equal a Hollywood blockbuster. You can't recoup that kind of scratch in a niche market, and you certainly can't recoup it in a niche market on an install base as small as PC gaming. Thus, those genres faded from the shelves.

The second two obviously have to do with piracy. While the piracy problem is overstated by developers as a reason to leave the PC platform, it does genuinely exist and does affect income. The bottom line is developers and publishers make more money on consoles right now, and with games so expensive to make, they *have* to make money to stay alive.

 

[Imaginer]

Originally posted by: Modeps
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.

I have that same mentality now as well. I do like a good challenge but first and foremost I play a video game to have fun and not play to be pissed off. If a game is not fun, there is no point then as a form of entertainment. There are pleanty of things in this world now that would piss me off and I rather not have video games add to that list.

I am specifically looking at you MMORPG genres in ANY INCARNATION. You developers think grinds and grinds and the e-penis fest of gear grabbing and oh did I mention the goddamn timesink to enjoy the story of the game or environments you need to get to... And don't even get me started on in-game crafting timesinks...

But yeah I do think back then there were some challenging games. This may not be too far back in terms of games, but I found myself playing a round of SNES mario kart and can't fathom how I managed to gold all the way to 150cc special.

 

[Eeezee]

I don't like games that are needlessly challenging. I like games that are fun.

If you want challenge, play multiplayer. There you will be challenged in the best way possible - against others also seeking a challenge.

 

[Lithan]

There are still challenging games... they just dont get press because MOST gamers these days dont want a challenge unless it's in the form of A: selectable (FPS multiplayer where I can join a noob server when I get my ass whooped) or B: braggable (I play rock star on expert OMFG WTF! I'm so awesome!)

Hell, I just reinstalled cod:uo, played 3 minutes on Insane (beat this game in a matter of hours when it was released, on insane... total of 3 deaths if I recall). I died at least seven times in these 3 minutes. I'm so used to modern games where even on highest difficulty I still take 5-10 shots to kill. 1-2 hits from the 20 guys shooting fairly accurate rounds @ me in the intro scene of UO and I'm reloading. Hard AND popular games are probably a thing of the past... I don't play halo, but I can imagine that you can walk up to your enemy and tickle him while he's shooting you for a minute or two, then kill him when you get around to it. That's just a guess though.

 

[Zebo]

This is a pretty good thread and something I've been thinking awhile but never brought up. nothing like system shock2 or nethack but FarCry was probably the last real challenge I had, on hard - had to reload about 6x at the labs. I do miss the 40x reload to beat bosses or challanging sections of games e.g. Final Doom. I don't really even understand why harder difficulties don't scale more sharply. Seems a simple enough solution for developers to implement and painless too for thier bottom line since 'normal' could be for the masses they are selling to and hard..well hard. Just strange.

More I think about it I think it's a reflection of society as a whole in America as of late to guarantee equal results and/or passing everyone though. We hear and see stories all the time of grade inflation, group grading and of course passing virtually everyone who shows so no one feels like a failure that they are, some schools and universities dont even give grades anymore. In the professional world there is also a move towards not being to critical in written evaluations, as if there should even be such, giving employee time to correct his/her incompetence. Overall the games are just a reflection of society which has been largely pussified and overtly PC. I guess I'm just oe of those mid thirties sour asses who was raised with winners and losers defined around them and given instruction how to become the former. Whether that instruction was right or not remains to be seen. I think there is some value in getting people though whatever experience they are involved with - at the same time how will their taught mediocrity play out in the real world? Not bad I suppose if everyone else accepts a lower bar. I do know it wont work so well in the Army where one shot really is one kill like the old games used to be.

 

[Dumac]

There is a certain balance.

In the beginning of gaming, everything was so overly shallow and frustrated, I felt like I could do things better in real life.

Then things got better, and games started to add depth and actual difficulty. There are so many games that came out in the last decade in a half that include a perfect level of complexity and functionality that make the game simply amazing, both to play and to remember.

However, nowadays games skip out on the challenge part. Most games seem to lack an actually deeply challenging attributes. Many are just easy, and the rest are simply challenging because the controls/UI/optimization/etc. suck balls. But it's all simply due to the way gaming marketing thrives now. Case in point, WoW.

There are a few exceptions of course, but those exceptions usually are unpopular or bitched about.

And not every game needs an outstanding level of difficulty. It just provides a unique sense of accomplishment sometimes.

 

[irishScott]

For those of you who want a nice modern truly challenging game:

Try Company of Heroes on Expert. Have fun taking St. Fromond.
Empires Total War also looks extremely promising.

Can't say much for shooters.

 

[Borealis7]

(Woohoo! finally i found the password for my account...)

That is why i only play RPGs and TBSs. i love TBSs because they dont rely on motor skills, but rather they make you use your brain. sometimes even RTSs are no more than a "who has the bigger army" competition like StarCraft used to be.

the last TBS i played is "Fantasy Wars". such a great game (and good graphics too!) and on normal difficuly it was challanging because your performance in each mission impacts what you will be able to do in later missions (you have to keep all your units trained, find treasures, acheive goals etc').

Also part of what i enjoy is the feeling you get when your plan/tactic comes to fruition. because you know you've "outsmarted the machine".

 

[StrangerGuy]

Eh, you know, there are people out there that like games but have far more important things to do than "ZOMG I BEAT TEH HARDES GAMEZ THEREFORE OTHERS ARE SIZZIES!!1111"

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Imp
I welcome this 'pussification of games'. While I could use a bit more difficulty, most of the stuff way back when was plain too hard.

I remember playing Mortal Kombat 2 on the console, and could never make it past the 4th level. After a while, I just turned god mode on from the start and stopped playing. The concept of "lives" was the stupidest idea ever invented, and like others have said, only worked to eat your change. Well, there's no change deposit on the console, so it only served in breaking controllers (guess that translates into money). Another great example is Lethal Weapon/Lethal Enforcement (multiplatform in Sega CD era: game with gun controller). Always got to near the end, saved up all our lives, two players. Kept shooting the last boss, he'd never die and to this day, it remains unfinished. Lots of fun that was... Same goes for Doom I and II. It was hard, get killed, start again from the beginning of the level over and over and over. Just ends with 'idkfa' and 'idgod' being typed at the beginning of every session.

Games like Bioshock are a bit too easy, as is GTA 4. You can die and you get all your weapons (unless you get arrested in the latter) back, most progress stays there. You'll hear no complaints from me though. A challenge is nice, but if it's this versus 'needing' to use godmode every 5 minutes, I'll take this.

This is gonna make me sound like an ass (people pretty much always knew that anyway) but you do realize Doom had 5 difficulty settings dont you?
I know it gives people a huge boner to go straight for the hardest setting but thats totally unnecessary. If you get killed the game is obviously too hard for you.
Go down a notch.

Of course, if you get spanked on the easiest level theres nothing I can do for you. I can only assume you suck at Doom and should probably go back to reading books or watching TV.
I'm a shitty player and even I can beat Doom on the middle setting without cheating.
Though I suppose I do agree with your point about fun. Video games are games and should be enjoyable. If they arent then cheat codes have a chance to make them fun. But if you need invincibility and unlimited gold/ammo/hearts just to play the game normally then it probably isnt going to provide much entertainment.

 

[Pelu]

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.

Company of Heroes > World in Conflict

 

[Pelu]

Originally posted by: irishScott
For those of you who want a nice modern truly challenging game:

Try Company of Heroes on Expert. Have fun taking St. Fromond.
Empires Total War also looks extremely promising.

Can't say much for shooters.

lol in Expert All levels of CoH are tuff...

 

[manowar821]

There are also super sensitive retards who get all homophobic/upset when they see a funny dick spray on the wall (counterstrike source). I was hoping that's what this thread was going to be about, but oh well. I agree, anyway, I know 4 people who have "uber gear" in MMO's, but cannot for the life of them clear the second world in Super Mario Brothers 3.