
|
|
|
There was a time when most games didn't hold your hand, picked you up and patted you on your bottom. Where you actually had to figure things out for yourself without an in game hint scrolling on the bottom of your screen or blatantly just told to you by a supporting character within the game itself. Games that when you were shot you were dead. Gather round kiddies as we reminisce about a time when games were challenging and when beating a game actually meant a big deal. Is it just me or are games nowadays just being too much of a cakewalk?? Look around at most of the games out now and I'll bet you that you would be hard pressed to find one where you actually die before beating it. Think about that for a minute. That's crazy sounding. There has been a significant trend of simplifying our favorite pastime to the point of the games practically playing themselves. I know that sounds like an exaggeration of the ludicrous kind but I wonder where we will be at a few years from now. It's not just that the games are easier, which they are, it's that even when they pose a degree of difficulty out comes the prompt from the game itself telling you how to beat it or what to look for. Or ten feet before you meet a boss, magically there appears a depot, filled to the brim with health items and other assorted goodies to ensure that you survive and ultimately beat it without the messy thing called work or skill. It's getting to the point where whatever gaming skills we possessed are shrinking due to atrophy. I remember as a kid beating a game and it was like winning the Super Bowl. Back then an act like that was a stepping stone towards entry into your imagined Hardcore Gamers' Hall of Fame. Not so now. Games are being dumbed down to the point that everything is tailored for you to see it to the end. You will beat it. The game camera will show you where to go. The bullet lodged in your chest will miraculously disappear if you stay behind cover and remain prone. And if by chance you find yourself in a rough spot of the game and you keep having to do it more than twice, the game will adjust the difficulty on the fly to send you on your way. Ever catch yourself playing a retro game and thinking to yourself: Damn this game is hard!? Chances are it's not that it's that hard, It's that it's not stacking the deck in your favor like most games are now. It's requiring you to actually play it yourself. When you got game developers and companies starting to cater to an "everyman" or " casual " demographic and the masses are accepting it, don't be surprised for games to become even more simpler forgettable affairs. In the race for more of the almighty buck, it seems games are being distilled for a more level playing field for all involved. Lately there has been quite a few debates about hardcore gamers , casual gamers and what that means. Whatever you may think about these labels, one thing is certain: The game industry is molding what kind of gamers we are now. Through simplification processes, the dumbing down of games, ultimately it wont matter what we think we are. Hardcore or casual. We're all going to be the same. Soft.
|
|
|
|
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
|
Comment with FacebookClick connect and comment instantly! |
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds |
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

Follow
RSS
Contact
where they are becoming books to read instead of adventures to go on.
Whenever a market gets bigger, you're going to have to try to appeal to the largest number of people in it. For a lot of people, it's not a matter of playing hours and hours until they're good enough. Many don't have that kind of time to invest in a game, others simply won't be able to get good enough no matter how long they play. If developers catered only to the niche, the industry would have died out long ago.
Player One Podcast and GFW Radio covered this issue before and they both said they don't want to play a game that's so hard they have to retry over and over again.
This wasn't so difficult to do on earlier systems, as the controllers were easy to understand and game concepts were simpler. Now, controllers have eight to ten buttons, a pair of joysticks, a d-pad and still don't have enough control options to satisfy the needs of modern games, forcing designers to create button combos to accommodate them. It's no wonder the games are easier: the controls got harder.
It also relates to the change in how we get our games. So many of those early, hard games were ports from the arcade market. Arcade games needed a high challenge level to keep people pumping quarters into the machines. Where are the arcades now? On life-support.
Since developers are putting the games directly into our homes, essentially giving us free reign to play them when and as much as we like for a direct price-point, and without the allure of higher-quality games in the arcades for us to play, the dynamic shifts. There's little incentive to create a game that places an emphasis on challenge except for the niche market that really appreciates them.
In fact, I'd say the benefits of producing easy games are far greater than for harder ones. What do you do when you finish a game? You go out and buy a new one, right? Easier games mean faster completion time and more desire for new product.
Pay. Sit down. Experience story/action/drama/effects. Get up. Repeat.
Because no one accepts gaming as a good thing (and believe me, it's not good or bad, it's GAMING - a PASTIME) I think developers are being pressured into going soft, because they can't take a few billion criticisms that their livelihood is based around making people happy and letting them have fun.
We need to die more when we watch movies! Then games will steal from that idea, and make GAMES more like GAMES again.
When I was a wee child the fun was finally being able to turn the tables on the game for some forceful owning. I realize they are just games and getting a sense of accomplishment from besting them may seem silly. However that is where the enjoyment comes from me in games. Unfortunately those chilluns seem to have a louder voice in what kind of games get created. And Ninja Gaiden is ridiculously easy when compared to the original Ninja Gaiden. I fail to see how someone could fail to complete this game.
Arcades aren't gone, we're playing with their DOOMED SOULS
Even games that are intended to seem "Hardcore," such as Ninja Gaiden, are nothing compared to the games of old. You can beat Ninja Gaiden. The game throws so many save points, items, and over-powered techniques at you that even the final boss shouldn't prove much a problem. If done right, you can clear the game without seeing the Game Over screen once.
Retro games, on the other hand, were much more difficult, but I feel it was for the wrong reasons. They were hard because of a significant lack of depth. There's no weapon system in the old school Ninja Gaiden games. There's no levels to grind in Castlevania. The lack of depth meant players had practically nothing to work with, forcing them to rely on pure skill and nothing else.
If, however, I had to decide between playing through the same level over and over again till I got better, or abusing the mechanics built into the game in order to get ahead, I'd choose the later. I like the idea "outsmarting" the game, I like the idea of discovering tricks and secrets within that game that will allow me to progress without forcing me to "|2play."
So, while I DO agree that games are getting easier, I feel it is only because gamers are getting smarter. We're far simple, as we can pick up just about any modern game and play it efficiently without even touching the damn manual, regardless of how complex the game is. We know how to beat ANY boss the game throws at us, without a strategy guide. And we flash and clear a room so beautifully, even god damn SWAT teams are taking notes.
IGN (yeah I'm naming names) is notorious for this. They gave GodHand a poor score because it was "too hard", and one of their stupid reviewers gave a shmup a low score because he couldn't figure out how to play it.
I think it was Topher who wrote a scathing counter-review of the reviewer. I'm at work so I can't link to any of this stuff, but its easy enough to Matlock.
I had to use weapons sparingly to get to difficult positions, with very little chance to easily replenish them. If I used up Item 1, I was screwed. If I ran out of crash bombs, I was screwed. If I didn't have one particular weapon to beat the end boss, because that's the ONLY thing he's vulnnerable to.
Now a days, that would be considered poor design. I dare say Mega Man II would get low marks, as is, taken as its own product. I'm not too sure I'd agree with it, but as a statement, adding recharges to each level would make the experience more *streamlined*, which is generally good. But were they to change things like the puzzle aspect of the last few bosses, and the sheer skill requirement to defeat the final boss, that would be a great disservice to good challenege and style that's found in those games.
I personally agree that games are waay too easy. Most games now, if not an RPG, can be beat within a day...making those 60 bucks feel even more wasted. But I guess they don't expect us "hardcore gamers" to play all day or most of the day. It brings me back to Zone of the Enders when it hit. The game is awesome. But the original can be beat in a matter of 3 hours top if you knew what to do. the sequal was alittle longer thanks to the cutscenes and a bit more to do with it, but overall the game was still short. I'm always buying games but most of the time I hold off because I already have things to finish. (which actually take time.) But I do feel as the current gen systems get settled in, games are feeling rather boring and easy.
(# 21) on 05/30/2008 17:03
what they said.
*nods*
I remember playing that game when I was younger so I bought it for $5 on ebay. I had to look on the internet as the what the hell I was supposed to be doing as I was completely lost.
I do agree that video games are much easier to finish when compared to their older counterparts. Mega Man is another good example as dying was what you had to do (tons of it) before you could master some of the levels, or find bosses weak points. Conrad holds a good view as if you get pissed off and frustrated at a game there is very little chance you will buy a sequel.
Although, SunTzu, I would like to comment on your Ninja Gaiden statement.
Most retro games that were difficult, were designed that way. The limitations of the hardware and software necessarily weren't to blame for high difficulty curves. The limitations held back the more complex systems that are in place today, but that doesn't always equate to increased difficulty.
Games were originally designed to be challenges. Looking at the arcade games of the generation preceding home consoles will show you the direction that the first series of games to come out emulated.
A good example of this is the first Mega Man game. The original game has a score counter, the rest of the games in the series do not. This could be used to show the shift from games being challenges, to becoming experiences.
As the tech increased, the depth of the experience games also increased. The public, you and I, wanted better looking and more in depth games, so companies responded to that. To stay profitable, though, there games had to appeal to newcomers as well -- hence the easier difficulties and mandatory "first level is always the tutorial" nonsense of today.
Essentially, the older games have a tendency to be more challenging because they were made for a different market than today's. And, conversely, games made today are easier for the same reason.
At least that mah' 2¢!
that's as much as I have to add, anything more and I would be repeating what everyone else has said
Dyson pretty much summed it up though. Since we have the technology to make games pretty AND actually do all the junk we wished for back then, games are alot easier due to that. You can't have both awesome graphics and good hard gameplay all the time. Sadly the difficulty suffers over pretty games.
There's also the unavoidable problem of us all getting old. I mean, I played games that were hard as fuck when I was a kid, but know I'm an adult they aren't so hard. The game hasn't changed, I have. I've become more skilful and (slightly) smarter.
It's a catch 22 situation: experienced gamers become better and better at games every time they play. But there's always someone out there who's playing for the first time. A game has to be at least accessible and carry the promise of achievement. Otherwise that person won't carry on, give up on gaming and the industry will stagnate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQZuidKexBQ&feature=related
This is what I see myself playing 5 years from now.
very nice read... Yeah I know what you mean, but honestly I'm not too put off by all that... I like that most games have a difficulty-setting, like a game that I'm not too interested in but do want to see the story from, I'd play on easy, but then more intrigueing games on Hardcore or higher :-)
I really noticed with gears of war that it got better with every rise of difficulty level... Insane is easily the most enjoyable of them all, and the game is good enough to allow it to rape you like that :-)