I hear plenty of people talking about how much easier games are these days. Is it true? Well, it's not really that simple of a question. Games have changed so much since they first popped up, it's hard to even compare their difficulty. I think there are many different topics and questions related to the change in difficulty of games.
How have games evolved?
What makes a game difficult?
The state of the video games industry
Casual vs. Hardcore (don't worry, what I mean here is accessibility, and it is tied in with the state of the industry)
Can a game be difficult, yet accessible?
Why aren't there any new retro games?
...maybe more will come to mind as I write
I may or may not come back and write about each of these topics, but for now I'm going to talk about how video games have evolved, and how that has affected the difficulty in games.
When video games first emerged, they were small, skill-based games. There was usually very few game mechanics, and each level simply added something to the same base 'level', whether it be more enemies, upgraded enemies, new movement patterns, 'environmental' obstacles, or any combination of these (and others). I'll use Tetris as example, simly because it's a pretty universally known game. The game barely changes at all from when you first start at level 1. The only change that happens when you get to the next level, from a gamelpay perspective, is that the blocks now fall faster. Often times, games didn't even have an 'end', theu just kept getting harder. The whole point of these games wasn't to 'beat the game' or to play through the story, it was simply to get the highest score you could, and if you were really good, to get on the high scores list.
If you look back at early games, if they even had a backstory it was generally one or two sentences long, just to give the player some sort of context. A shift seemed to take place during the 8-bit era, fewer and fewer games had a score, and more and more games started to take on a more modern approach: You play as the protagonist in a story, and have to fight your way to the final boss to beat the game. As technology improved, video games became more and more viable as a form of storytelling then they had ever been. Today, with the power of the XBox 360 and the PS3, developers are able to create huge, immersive worlds, with lifelike characters. This really allows us a much more in-depth and immersive, and sometimes even emotional experience. Games like Half-Life and Bioshock really set the bar in this regard.
So now we aren't aiming for scores, we want to play through a story and that's all well and good. But just because a game is story-based, it doesn't necessarily mean it must be easy, right? No, it doesn't have to be. This discussion leads to even more questions and topics, specifically accessibility in games, and the state of the video games industry. Will I come back and write about that on another day? Maybe, maybe not. You'll have to wait and see.
Whether you agree or disagree, or have something extra to add that I have completely overlooked, leave a comment!
Have you eve finished the original Super Mario Bro's.?
No? You say? neither have I. The shit's hard.
Have you beaten most of the 3 dimension games you've played? Yeah.. you probably have. I know I have. I mean Star Fox 64 was kind of hard when it came out. Was it as hard as Star Fox on the super Nintendo? Fuck no.
The difference is all about budget.
Say your company spends a couple mil on a game. You are going to (hopefully) put an extra proportional amount into the ending of the game, throw in some expensive cg cutscenes, unleash your most expensive/time-consuming effects, etc. Now why make that game so hard (like the classics) that it is nearly impossible to beat? It is a waste of all that money they spent. Now in a good game there are always goals or achievements that are much more difficult to unlock, and hopefully that keeps the hardcore motivated.
there are a few "next gen" exception to this, and one of them is burnout. there are a couple of races that are fucking impossible, where you have to boost the entire race without crashing or touching the walls
Fast forward to Halo and you've got to hide behind a rock for 20seconds to recharge health? GAY!
Some thoughts I had were:
Devs dont wanna infuriate you and have you get stuck partway through the story
Games are big money these days. Publishers want a game that will be played by as many people as possible. If a game is too hard, the more casual market may not be able to get though it.
There have always been easy games: Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, Kirby's Adventure . . .
Early games were often hard simply because of poor programming/design. Games were a smaller market and tons of shitty games were churned out back then, it didnt take a team of 200 people to make a game.
Difficulty settings can be a godsend these days. Halo on Legendary comes to mind.
MAYBE GAMES ARE EASY FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN PLAYING THEM FOR OVER 12 YEARS!?!?!?
Way back when, arcade games were designed to devour quarters from unsuspecting kids. A more difficult game meant more money for whoever owned the arcade machine. When these games were ported to home consoles the difficulty was actually decreased or at least selectable.
In addition, the shift of gaming from a niche hobby to a mainstream phenomenon has also changed the expectations most people have for games. Similar to what Bahamut said but from the perspective of a gamer, if someone's going to devote 15-20 hours of their free time to a game, I think they tend to enjoy closure at the end of it rather than being emasculated by being unable to finish it.
Also, one reason can be attributed to game length. Due to limited storage media in the past, games were either ridiculously short, or repetitive. In order to partly get around the first workaround to the size limit, games were absurdly difficult. I believe this was done to extend play time.
Example:
I finished Super Ghouls and Ghosts on "normal" over the weekend. It took me about 2 hours. Now I didn't finish the whole game (fucking capcom...), which requires you to go through the whole game AGAIN, on the hardest difficulty level.
From my perspective, if I spent $50-60 on a video game and was able to finish it in 2 hours, those two hours had better be the best fucking 2 hours of my life, or I better want to play that game again. Granted it's taken me a long time to get to the point where I can beat the game in that amount of time, which is part of the charm of those older games, but still, 2 hours of total play time is pretty short.
BioShock on the other hand took me about 20-22 hours to complete on Hard. That game was absurdly easy, but I've probably got about as much play time in BioShock as all my combined hours of playing Super Ghouls and Ghosts. So there's an interesting balance.
If you want to play a game that's both long and difficult, play Odin Sphere. I don't think I've smashed a controller into the floor more times over that game than any other game combined...
Thanks for the comments guys, you just might have motivated me to follow up with a part 2 sometime ;)
Hell yea Super Mario Brothers is hard. I find it it that classic games are harder then games today.
:P