How modern gaming has made us into wimpy gamers

[Dreddz]

How modern gaming has made us into wimpy gamers | GamesRadar (http://www.gamesradar.com/f/how-modern-gaming-has-made-us-into-wimpy-gamers/a-2008091692920350041)

This is an article I just came across today and I have to completely agree with it. Modern gaming has become too easy and way too forgiving. And worst of all we gamers are happy about it.

I remember when Devil May Cry 3 came out and the outcry from its fans that it was too hard. PANSIES! I was really happy with the new direction Capcom was taking with the series but then Capcom slapped me in the face and made the series more noob friendly than ever with Devil May Cry 4. Probably scared the series would suffer the same fate as Ninja Gaiden and become a niche franchise. And the reason Ninja Gaiden suffered this fate is because gamers don't want a challenge anymore.

I also remember people praising the new Prince of Persia game because it didn't punish dying whatsoever. Its like they're happy they don't have to bother getting good at a game anymore because your never punished for being bad. What kind of sick joke is that!

So what does everybody else think. Agree? Disagree?

[NeoCracker]

I, for the most part, disagree.

People are pansies to begin with. Its just the fact that now a days, since more and more people are getting connected to the intenet, we are seeing more and more of how stupid people can really be. XD

And with gaming being larger now then ever before, there are far more people, and I think, in part anyway, that more people are getting into it because it's easier at times.

So I think it has more to do with games attracting more whimpy gamers then turning already existing gamers into whimpy ones. :p

[Levian]

eh wuteva. Super Mario is harder than ever. In the Super Nintendo era it was way easier to find games that kids could play, but whenever my cousins come over to play (10-12 years) I don't even know if I have any game they wouldn't fail horribly at besides Mario Party.

[Wolf Kanno]

I can't say I completely agree with the article as I feel he missed the point on a few things (interactive cutscenes and memory cards) but overall I agree the quality of difficulty has dwindled in the past ten years.

I do wish for a return to games offering challenge. Its not that I want them to be insanely hard like the NES days but rather I wouldn't mind seeing the game over screen a few times and having boss battles that require more than hitting X over and over again.

I feel NeoCracker is correct in that gaming is being designed more for the casual wimpy gamers instead of the more hardcore gamers. I do agree with the article in that alot of games are empowering the player far too much and destroying a true sense of achievement. Being good at DMC3 requires skill and dedication, being good at KH2 requires hitting the X button. I just wish we had balance and less making the majority of the game for people who really don't want to bother with the whole "game" aspect and make the challenging stuff some far off side quest that gets unlocked after you finish the game or towards the end when you don't care anymore.

[LunarWeaver]

I too long for the days when gaming was frustrating and irksome.

[scrumpleberry]

The way in which more difficult games are difficult has just changed. I couldn't play Street Fighter or the original Zelda to save my life, but I'm at least as good at more recent difficult games than a friend who's been gaming since pong. You just have to learn to adapt your style to the current trends.

Easy games are just there to appeal to a broader market, or more casual gamers (like me most of the time).

Also, can someone explain to me why people are so ready to believe the worst of themselves? "Videogames are too easy now, all gamers are rubbish compared with BACK IN YE OLDE DAYS (all of 30 years ago...)" "People are pansies to begin with..." Bull. Although I'm many things, I've never been a pansy. Nor have many of my friends. This is something that's really been bugging me lately. We're incredible creautres with incredible capabilities. What's up with all the self-depreciation?

[Monol]

Bagh i agree for the most part, our ambitions in gaming have certainly faultered over the years
Yet..

Challenges are relative me harteys.

If you want the game to be more difficult then do it yourself.

Games arent as tough as they used to be but its not so bad. Heck challenges are what makes classic games so enjoyable. :p

Dont worry though when I make videogames ill be sure to give this generation somthing to fear...muhahahahah!

[Lionx]

Apparently this is too hard:

YouTube - Chris, Its not impossible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58WAg_Yc-Qs&feature=related)

I never once felt that way even when i was 3 playing this game..once i avoided the seaweed i never died :D People were pansies then.

[scrumpleberry]

ehh...on the actual article i agree with everything apart from saving x( tbh the guy's a bit elitist if he thinks the industry can get along without saves, if he wants noone to enjoy games apart from HARDKOAAAARRRRR gamers who sit in the same position for 30 hours just to finish a game...

[KentaRawr!]

Something that I think is partly the cause of games being easier is the fact that games now have a lot more to them when it comes to story-telling, atmosphere, and making sure everything flows. When a game focuses on things like that, making the game tough as Megaman Death-Nails isn't a great idea, because then it would hinder the other pieces of the experience. The problem is that there are still games that focus on things like combat, so for them to be fun, they have to be challenging.

So, in Prince of Persia's defense, I'm going to say that not having a Game Over screen in a game like that is a good decision. During their presentations they've made sure to point out that the game is all about atmosphere, and not so much about surviving. But with a game like Devil May Cry, which ranks you on how well you did at the end of each mission, and during each combo you make, making the game easy is just a step in the wrong direction. You'd have to do more than a few things to DMC's formula to make it a good easy game.

[Old Manus]

That guy obviously hasn't tried Mile High Club on Veteran

[Wolf Kanno]

Something that I think is partly the cause of games being easier is the fact that games now have a lot more to them when it comes to story-telling, atmosphere, and making sure everything flows. When a game focuses on things like that, making the game tough as Megaman Death-Nails isn't a great idea, because then it would hinder the other pieces of the experience. The problem is that there are still games that focus on things like combat, so for them to be fun, they have to be challenging.

So, in Prince of Persia's defense, I'm going to say that not having a Game Over screen in a game like that is a good decision. During their presentations they've made sure to point out that the game is all about atmosphere, and not so much about surviving. But with a game like Devil May Cry, which ranks you on how well you did at the end of each mission, and during each combo you make, making the game easy is just a step in the wrong direction. You'd have to do more than a few things to DMC's formula to make it a good easy game.

I agree that the way games are made now differ and I agree that having overly grueling difficulty in a heavy story based JRPG is a bad choice, but I argue that most developers have taken it too far.

I can't say I enjoy the "Communist style" reward system many developers have latched onto, where pressing start at the title screen awards you all the benefits of putting some dedication into it. Its like playing a sport with friends. If you know you are going to win all the time, why bother? Sure you get to travel and have some camaraderie but you can do that without the hassle of playing the sport as well. It no longer offers a new form of stimuli to make it unique. We need challenge.

On the other hand, I'm not saying we need to make games only for some elite gaming super race. Games were hard back in the day cause of the arcade scene where a games income came from people feeding it quarters so they can get to the next level. Easy games made less money and a majority of games on the Atari and NES were ports of arcade games.

I just want some equal ground, make games more challenging but we don't need Contra difficulty, just enough to where a little more thought and skill is required.

[Dreddz]

I think gaming difficulty was most balanced around the Playstation and Saturn's lifetime. I think now developers are a lot more concerned over the games sales so they don't want to put off gamers by having an over-challenging game. Its really our fault that games have gotten this way.

From the looks of it gaming is only going to get easier from now. Microsoft said recently that they want to make sure that a casual player can always beat a game because it means they are more encouraged to get its sequel. Makes sense but I still think its wrong.

[KentaRawr!]

When it comes to some of Nintendo's franchises, I agree. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3 are just way too easy. When it comes to Twilight Princess, playing the game without picking up health upgrades really sounds like that puts it at just the right difficulty, while Metroid Prime 3 is one of those games where I only die if I meant to. >_>

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

See, I'm of the school of thought that a game should be fun before it should be challenging, and I support mechanics that allow for mastery if you wish but don't REQUIRE it.

Most of those mechanics apply to FPSes, if I'm not mistaken, which I'm not too huge on so I don't have a particular opinion, but this guy seems to advocate challenges that can be, quite simply, frustrating. A game that's really, REALLY hard tends to irritate a lot of people, myself included. I can't really immerse myself in the experience if the difficulty curve is so steep that it seems unbeatable, and I'm not bad at games by any particular margin. Further, since games are meant to appeal to people who like to do other things than hole up in their room with a game, there's an obvious demand for games that are beatable.

Which is why I say games should really just have a wide range of difficulty levels. That's the best way to make both sides happy.

[Bolivar]

I, for the most part, disagree.

People are pansies to begin with.

lol, this post wins.

Two points I want to make about difficulty in the "good" old days - Alot of games were difficult back in the day due to poor game design - watch any Angry Video Game Nerd video for proof of that. Wolf Kanno also brings up a great point - that it was the capitalism factors of the game industry that made games difficult to begin with back then, just as those factors are making games too easy right now.

As far as my opinion on the matter, I'm the first one to say that games that get too difficult, or require too much time in order to master a technique to beat a final boss are NOT fun. I'd rather pick up something else. However, I still have to wholeheartedly agree with the article that it's been taken to the other extreme.

Dreddz brings up a good point:


Microsoft said recently that they want to make sure that a casual player can always beat a game because it means they are more encouraged to get its sequel. Makes sense but I still think its wrong.

And it's appropriate that Microsoft's ONLY 2 notable exclusive console franchises were BOTH brought up in the article. I don't just blame them - I blame the further capitalization and Americanization of the gaming industry. The earlier problem is illuminated by the rampant stagnation that's going on now - even EA admits that games are looking like the ones from last year, which look like the ones from the year before. When a Spore or a Portal come out, it's all "OMG WTF!!!!" when in reality there should be more competitors on that level.

As far as the second problem, I leave you with a quote from the opening of the final season of the Sopranos:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people."

[Roto13]

Guitar Hero: World Tour lacks a 'No Fail' option - Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/03/guitar-hero-world-tour-lacks-a-no-fail-option/)

Read this article and the comments and weep for the state of gamers these days.

[Vermachtnis]

Guitar Hero: World Tour lacks a 'No Fail' option - Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/03/guitar-hero-world-tour-lacks-a-no-fail-option/)

Read this article and the comments and weep for the state of gamers these days.

Wow, complaining about difficulty is one thing. In fact it's kind of amusing. But complaining when they take away a safety net (I think that's what No Fail means. I haven't played Rock Band :p) is a little pathetic. I mean what's the point of playing a game right when you can just mash "Green" and still win.

[Roto13]

I think there's actually a mode in GH IV that only uses one fret button. People are complaining that they can lose at that. It's so sad.

[Momiji]

Modern gaming has made some people become hopelessly stupid when it comes to showing off.

For example, this moron claims that DoDonPachi is an 'IMPOSSIBLE JAPAN VIDEOGAME', and says that he plays a perfect level (according to him, no deaths, no bombs). Not only does a perfect round consist of perfectly chaining the stage for full scoring potential, he uses a bomb against the boss, does little to no chaining whatsoever, he tries to make himself look good by saying it's 'Impossible' when the first stage of DoDonPachi is laughably easy. (Later stages are really tough, though.) The really sad thing is, some of the people in the comments are amazed at what this guy does and how hard the game looks, let alone on the simple first stage. I left my own comment in there saying that anyone who thinks it's impossible needs to be shot. :p (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIGgBiabVY)

But seriously, 'modern gamers' fall apart when a game looks harder than it really is or doesn't have an 'easy' setting. :p

EDIT: For future reference, here is an example of someone doing it right. That's the final boss. Looks much harder than the first stage, doesn't it? So much for 'impossible'. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKKsgPpUrNk&fmt=18)

[Elskidor]

I tend to agree that most modern games make for weak gamers. The cry that FFIV for DS made me laugh. I remember a few old school Nintindo games being nearly impossible to beat, but nowadays everything is a sinch.

[LunarWeaver]

I don't see a difference between people whining a game should be nearly impossible to lose and people whining it should be nearly impossible to win.

Difficulty settings make everyone happy, so I don't see the big deal. That guy acts like because Gears of War has a regenerative health system you can saunter about, sipping lemonade and occasionally paying attention to what's happening. Play it on Insane and tell me how easy regenerative health makes it. It takes the fact there is no life bar into account in its mechanics.

RE4 was pretty tough, I guess, and it had no difficulty setting, and while I didn't really care, I... I don't see why they wouldn't just put it in -shrug- If someone wants an auto-win button, then I couldn't give a http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif less as long as there's harder options for me.

[Bolivar]

Guitar Hero: World Tour lacks a 'No Fail' option - Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/03/guitar-hero-world-tour-lacks-a-no-fail-option/)

Read this article and the comments and weep for the state of gamers these days.

It is a little sad, especially some of the comments, but at the same time I wanna give RB a pass (actually one comment iterated this) because you're inevitably going to get people who don't understand video games nor music that are going to want to play and not be all "hardcore".

Actually, I've been thinking, I never really heard the term "hardcore" gamer used in the current connotation until the last 1-3 years. Today's "hardcore" gamer is like yesterday's "casual" gamer. Hardcore used to mean 11 hours of gaming a day, grinding to max level on MMORPG's. I think the changing demographics of the gaming community is also a big part of the story.

[Moon Rabbits]

I too long for the days when gaming was frustrating and irksome.

[Yar]

This is one of the reasons I like simulation games so much. While games these days seem to become more idiot proof, simulation games strive for realism, rather than ease of difficulty.

Sim City 4 was one of the most complicated games I've ever played. I still play the hell out of that game, because of its realism and resistance to forgiving gameplay.

[Moon Rabbits]

Oh yeah, I'd also like to point out that indie games win again - some of them are fucking stupid hard:

rRootage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx9AXcIMDoM&feature=related)
Bonesaw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xZXAIXVB-w)
Rescue: The Beagles! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi8m3sAaWMo)

All of these games are pretty decently difficult, but not to the point of frustration. Except maybe rRootage. Fuck that noise.

[Momiji]

All of these games are pretty decently difficult, but not to the point of frustration. Except maybe rRootage. smurf that noise.

Many doujin shmups are ridiculously hard. :p

[Wolf Kanno]

Its not so much I want to see games become ridiculously hard, I just want a bit of a challenge. I just feel that many games nowadays lack the ability to give you a real sense of accomplishment like they did in the past. I remember even playing RPGs from the 16/32-bit era that made me feel good about myself cause I beat a difficult boss or solved a difficult puzzle. Sure it took a little effort but is utilizing effort so bad?

"Modern" society has become too fixed on instant gratification and the idea of putting effort into things is apparently too troublesome for today's people.

As for difficulty setting, I see a few problems with this:

1) Balance. What's the difference between Normal mode and Proud mode in Kingdom Hearts? Not much if you ask me. Slight statistical differences that do nothing more than prolong the inevitable. The enemies can take more abuse but they are still smurfing retarded. CC had a similar problem. Course there's the other side of this. DMC1's Normal mode is challenging but jumping up to Hard mode throws you into a world of massive frustration. Rhythm games like DDR and Guitar Hero suffer from similar problems with the jump in difficulty being so great that some people never move past the most simple and basic modes. Nowadays, Normal means Very Easy and Hard means Extreme Hardcore for some developers. Developers need to find a happy balance.

2) Defining Challenge. Going back to KH's difficulty modes, what went wrong? If the enemies have greater health and you take more damage from hits, should the game be fairly more difficult? In theory yes, in practice no. The problem is that if the AI is stupid, buffing stats doesn't alter difficulty you're just making battles more tedious. If you have an enemy that is designed to be killed in one hit and runs straight at you with decent speed, he's not too difficult, now in hard more it takes two hits to kill him instead but he still foolishly charges into your attacks. Is he harder? Not really. DMC3 is a game with a good example of difficulty settings, the AI actually gets smarter rather than relying on simple stat buffing.

3) Not All Genres are Created Equally. AI improvements can help an action game but what about RPGs and strategy games? Games that generally focus on thoughtful planning rather than quick wits and reflexes. Stat modding seems to be the easy way out but it falls into the problem I mentioned above. You're just making battles tedious, not challenging. Some genres are more difficult to design for in the challenging department.

Personally, I feel stat modding can work but instead of raising defense or HP, it should be weaknesses and strengths. In normal mode the dragon boss is weak to ice and resists fire; in Hard mode he should be weak to lightening and resist fire ice and physical. Perhaps he counters with a devastating attack if you don't hit him with the correct weakness. Basically, you need to switch up strategy and punish the player a little more for making mistakes but of course we need to keep point 1 in mind as well so the game stays fun...

I feel one of the real problems though, is that while I feel developers would want to implement these kind of settings, in a genre where everything is becoming more and more "shovel-ware" and the majority of buyers are extremely casual gamers. Its difficult to see a reason to support a group (normal gamers) who make up a small minority of the profit pie. My only real fear is that the gaming industry is getting closer to repeating the gaming industry crash from the early 80's. I sometimes wonder if this "extreme casual" crowd only see's gaming as a fad and will move on when its over? I only wonder, cause it just doesn't feel like the industry is doing its best to convert these former non-gamers into "gaming investors".

Just some food for thought...

[Apocalypse.Origin]

I agree on the boss section of the article the most. Its been far to long since I've fought a boss that actualy seemed like a boss. I almost never treat a boss any different then any other enemy in the game. maybe more time consuming do to needs a few more hits to go down, but thats not really a bit deal. Will its nice to sit back and play something easy once and a while, I want a bit more of a challenge in the games I play. I want to be accomplishing something, not just easily pushing a few buttons watching the story play out has I glide along. I'm not saying we need to make them crazy hard, but a lot of the games I've played recently need to give us more of a challenge then they are now. They can do that and still be fun. We don't need a smoot ride through something just to enjoy it. At least most people, anyway. I should not be able to go on 'insane mode' in a game and fine out that 'insane' really means 'insanely easy'.

I know they're trying to reach more people, but you can't please everyone with one thing. It just doesn't work. Make the game how it should be... if you worry more about trying to make the game for has many people has possable then at some point its just not the same game. The game should be what its ment to be, and if someone whants to play it enough they'll get better and manage it. It may sound wrong to cut people off from playing it cause they're not good enough at that type of game, but its just has wrong to ruin what it was, and to ruin it for the people who could have played it has that.

[Roto13]

There are a couple of dumb things in that article, though. Like what's wrong with tutorials? Yeah, they should be skipable, but the article is written as though tutorials make the game too easy (because that's what the article is about) and they don't.

What's wrong with correctly timed button presses in cutscenes doing extra damage to a boss as long as they're not too easy to pull off? Either way, you're pressing buttons to do damage. Either by aiming and shooting or reacting fast enough to a command on screen.

Checkpoints aren't bad if they're used correctly. They're used to break up long levels. Besides, they've been around since, like, the dawn of video games.

[Wolf Kanno]

I agree that the guy in the article is whining about things that are not part of the point. I don't mind tutorials but I would like if they were skippable or at least somewhat fun. Sly Cooper's tutorial was fun but FFVIII's was a pain cause it was long winded...

I also don't mind timed press events when they are done right. I feel they allow the player to finally interact with the story better and for once you can say you are responsible for the cool http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif happening in the game instead of saying it was a cool story sequence.

[ShunNakamura]

I feel sad with the current gaming releases. I mean when a VN company can release a better(difficulty wise) SRPG than the big names in that area... well something just isn't right. For those of you wondering I mean Utawarerumono. The first version of the game was quite awful. But they quickly released the DVD and PS versions which upped the ante by quite a lot.

I mean, you want insane hard? Play Utawarerumono on Hard Mode 3. Not only do they get boosts, but the AI gets smarter as you go up(they exploit elemental weaknesses and grouping, like fire emblem being near one another boosts your abilities). The game is insanely simple(basically you have move and attack and two get access to magic, and there is no equipment and only three stats), but it is quite fun to play due to the strategy involved.


Yeah, I want to see more games like Utawarerumono where the game becomes more complex, the AI smarter, and the enemy stronger as you go up in difficulty(by complex not all the hidden elements take effect in easy mode, thus you don't have to keep grouped together to avoid being raped... of course when enemies start spell casting staying together isn't always a good idea... and while they don't do it on easy, I have been spell raped on hard mode 2.... I can't even get to the end game on Hard Mode 3... and I am used to these types of games... talk about hard).


Also Utawarerumono has tutorials, but they are skipable, and it even tells you about the hidden values if you get farther in game(and if you opt to go see that part). So you can play without any tutorials, or any spoilers on what does what. Or you can use the tutorials and get the inside info(the tutorials and inside info are unlocked into the menu screen so other than a little pop up 'in-game' it doesn't disrupt the flow, you can opt to look at them at anytime, or revisit them if you want).



I think Utawarerumono for all its faults managed to do gaming right. Which is sad because when you think Visual Novel you don't generally think Excellent Gameplay.

[Big D]

That article makes some good points. After all - OLD PERSON MODE - back in my day, when you played a game, you got three lives and maybe a couple of continues. And with that, you were supposed to complete the entire game.

Of course, the games themselves are completely different now, so the new 'wussy' gameplay elements are often more to do with practical necessity (or added realism) than dumbing-down for a more stupid generation. Mid-level saves and checkpoints, for instance, simply prevent abysmally boring repetition. Remember games like Sonic 1 on the Master Sytem? Ever get to the Sky Base level, then accidentally lose half your lives by accidentally slipping off one of the floating platforms? I can imagine what it'd be like playing Metal Gear Solid with the same limitations, and how most people would quite rightly give up if it was that easy to ruin your game, being forced to re-start.

[Apocalypse.Origin]

Saves and checkpoints are one thing. I agree we need those, I get rather annoyed myself if I have to repeat too much. But things like bosses really need to be better. Give us the option to save whenever or lots of checkpoints, but give us a reason to use them. There should be something other then mistakes like slipping off a platform or having to quit for the night. I remeber quite a few older games were a save point was a much more apreciated sight. Luckily these things aren't completely gone yet, but I'm finding fewer and fewer reasons in games to care when the last time I saved was.

[Serapy]

Try to do the boss run in MGS3, which is quite complex. :(

[Rantz]

I dunno, I just like it when I can enjoy the game. I'm all for more difficulty settings, though.

[Markus. D]

It has gone down substantially.

There's not enough games these days that punish exploitation, spamming and overall-simplicity/ease.

and I agree with DMC4 (despite them doing a similar thing they did with DMC3: DA, SE)... The whole mechanics with Nero are way to easy to get use to and abuse (Max Act and the hand pulling thing...) and then there's this bastard I like to call Pandora... 'nuff said, made it far to easy.

This is why I also don't like Eye of the North's item additions to the game, Consumables have ruined what use to be a rather challenging Hard Mode (and despite people like me not-minding/loving PvE without them, 98% of the community demands them...)
You get to minus 60 DP... oh~ Powerstone that better and get a +10 morale boost!
Long skill recharges? Celerity that to hades!
Feeling glum for being a squishie and meeting death in a couple of hits Mr Warrior? WELL Grail and Salvs will fix all of those nightmaric dirtnaps.

[Captain Maxx Power]

And the reason Ninja Gaiden suffered this fate is because gamers don't want a challenge anymore.

You hit the nail on the head. The market is much different now than it was twenty years ago. There's still the hardcore market but the casual market is much bigger now, and therefore more likely to make money, and therefore more likely to be the types of games that companies make. Personally I'm not too fussed about the lowering of game difficulty over the years because inevitably it's about having fun, and sometimes getting your ass handed to you over and over again just isn't fun. Sometimes games can be excessive with their scaling back (paging Bioshock's infinite lives canisters), but other times they can be alright. Plus you can still find a challenge if you mess around with the difficulty sliders. God of War is an absolute bitch to play on God mode.

[Bolivar]

Personally, I feel stat modding can work but instead of raising defense or HP, it should be weaknesses and strengths. In normal mode the dragon boss is weak to ice and resists fire; in Hard mode he should be weak to lightening and resist fire ice and physical. Perhaps he counters with a devastating attack if you don't hit him with the correct weakness. Basically, you need to switch up strategy and punish the player a little more for making mistakes but of course we need to keep point 1 in mind as well so the game stays fun...

^ This is some good stuff.


My only real fear is that the gaming industry is getting closer to repeating the gaming industry crash from the early 80's. I sometimes wonder if this "extreme casual" crowd only see's gaming as a fad and will move on when its over? I only wonder, cause it just doesn't feel like the industry is doing its best to convert these former non-gamers into "gaming investors".

I'm really afraid it is a fad, partly because the wii and this casual market overall is relatively inexpensive, it's easier to get out of it. I honestly can't see this same trend continuing years down the road, maybe cell phone games as our technology catches up with Japan, but not in the console/handheld (ds/psp stuff) world. And when they do move on to the next thing, there's going to be a huge infrastructure with no one to sell to, it's not going to be pretty. "hardcore" gamers will be fine, because we have so much freeware and existing titles to catch up on, but it might take companies a little while to get back to making titles again.

Actually, a crash would be a great thing, because everything up to and including next gen consoles and games would be so cheap, we'd be able to build up our collections relatively inexpensively. Gamers of the world, unite!

[Tabris]

I might disagree with a few of you here, but that might be because we have a different view on gaming.

I usually play FF, TES or HP-games, and I play them to immense myself in the world and to enjoy a good story. Those are the main reasons I play games. I don't want them too difficult, simply because the challenge bit is not a major factor in why I play games.

So I guess this depends on at least two major factors - a) why you play games and b) what kind of games you play

[Wolf Kanno]

I'm really afraid it is a fad, partly because the wii and this casual market overall is relatively inexpensive, it's easier to get out of it. I honestly can't see this same trend continuing years down the road, maybe cell phone games as our technology catches up with Japan, but not in the console/handheld (ds/psp stuff) world. And when they do move on to the next thing, there's going to be a huge infrastructure with no one to sell to, it's not going to be pretty. "hardcore" gamers will be fine, because we have so much freeware and existing titles to catch up on, but it might take companies a little while to get back to making titles again.

Actually, a crash would be a great thing, because everything up to and including next gen consoles and games would be so cheap, we'd be able to build up our collections relatively inexpensively. Gamers of the world, unite!

You are much more optimistic about this than I am.

My only real problem with the idea of another industry crash is the realization that the gaming economy is not exactly stable as it is. We've seen some major third party companies enter into some mergers and buy outs in the last few years. Hell Square had to merge due to one bad movie at a time when it was king of the gaming industry so a total crash may see the end for alot of major developers. Not to mention that some developers are forsaking their fanbase in favor of the new super casual market *cough* Nintendo *cough* and so fan loyalty is not where it used to be.

If the industry crashed, I see a lot of third party developers being bought out by corporate powerhouses like Sony, Microsoft, and EA. We would also see some massive takeovers and mergers that makes the ones from a few years ago seem trivial. It may even take awhile for a stable business model to go into practice. The gaming crash happened in 83 but I feel most people would agree that gaming didn't really start to recover until the early 90's.


I might disagree with a few of you here, but that might be because we have a different view on gaming.

I usually play FF, TES or HP-games, and I play them to immense myself in the world and to enjoy a good story. Those are the main reasons I play games. I don't want them too difficult, simply because the challenge bit is not a major factor in why I play games.

So I guess this depends on at least two major factors - a) why you play games and b) what kind of games you play

I don't think its so much what games you play as much as the why. I actually play a large number of RPGs in comparison to other genres and I am all for increased difficulty. I do play the genre for story but I still recognize the genre as a game and I expect it to fulfill certain needs.

On the other hand, there are people like yourself who play the genre solely for story and the idea of making the game difficult may harm the flow of the plot. I personally cannot fathom this course of thinking (going back to my analogy of playing a sport with friends for company) but I feel that most would agree that a difficulty setting would allow us both to enjoy our games for our specific purposes.

I do feel that the shift to a strong narrative and storytelling aspects is a prime culprit in why gaming has become much easier in recent years but there are certain titles that fulfill both needs. MGS for instance offers an amazing story and some awesome challenges.

[Roto13]

If you're interested in the story that much more than the gameplay you should just stop playing games all together and take up reading.

[Rantz]

If you're interested in the story that much more than the gameplay you should just stop playing games all together and take up reading.

What if you just happen to like games with good stories? :p

[McLovin']

Isn't that what the difficulty setting is for? -_-

[Tabris]

I don't see the problem at all with playing games for a good story or to immense myself in a lovely world, Roto13. :)

[Roto13]

The problem is you're missing the point. Plus, if you like a good story, you're not going to find a whole lot of them in video games. Most game stories are crap. If they don't feel like they were shoehorned in around the gameplay, they're just there to give a context. For every good game story you can name, I can name at least ten books or movies that have better stories. Plus, they're cheaper and there's none of that pesky gameplay to get in the way.

[ShunNakamura]

If you're interested in the story that much more than the gameplay you should just stop playing games all together and take up reading.

Or Visual Novels.... they tend to have a bigger focus on story in general.


I like game with good story myself.... but if the gameplay is so damn easy that I can snore through it, I likely won't play very long unless the story completely blows away any book I ever read. And most of the time, the stories in video games are worse than those in books(in other words if you take a game with a strong story and compare it to a book that is good, the book will likely be better written overall... this is due to the fact that the book only has one focus, to tell the story).


Basically if the gameplay is worthless why should I buy a 50 dollar story that is subpar to the 8 dollar stories I can buy... in addition the 8 dollar ones don't have the annoying DRM stuff going on around them. I'll take my 8 dollar book thank you very much. The interactivity of games is what differentiates them from other story telling mediums. If that area stinks, than the game is more or less worthless. Visual Novels can have good interactivity(in a choose your own adventure way, or even in a game way) and they can also get a strong story. That is an example of a good game. Excellent story and excellent gameplay/interactivity. Of course a difficulty setting is always a plus, and I don't see any reason a game shouldn't have one.

[black orb]

>>> People dont have the time and energy to put enough effort in videogames these days..
most of the old games were targeted to no life adults who had all the time in the world.
So yeah, I think new gamers are.. different.

[Depression Moon]

I don't completely agree with that. Some of it is because companies are trying to attract more people, the other reason is because games are simply made better now. Games used to be too hard in the past because of some limitations like sparse save points or glitches.

[Tabris]

Roto13 - you are ignoring the part where I said I also play games to immense myself in a beautiful world, which is why I play TES-games. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" reason to play games, neither have I misunderstood anything. We simply play games for different reasons. (I also play other types of games, of course, those are just my main reasons).

[DMKA]

Play through Super Ghouls N Ghosts, then come talk to me, pussies.

[Slothy]

You know, I had a conversation with a friend maybe a year ago specifically about why games used to be so much harder (which isn't totally true. There were plenty of Mario Bros. back in the day for every Ghouls 'n Ghosts). There were a few reasons why games were so damn hard that makes complete sense. A lot of them were just poorly designed and/or programmed and managed to be fun anyway somehow. Ghosts 'n Goblins is a great example of this. There are points in the game where enemies and attacks are just plain unavoidable. If you could dodge them I dare say beating the game may be possible for the average gamer, but as it is they make the game an exercise in frustration.

There's also the simple fact that without ridiculous difficulty levels, most games back then wouldn't have had much replay value. Consoles of the day just couldn't support games with 80 hours of story and 200 hours worth of side quests and new areas to explore (barring procedural generation, but I digress), and unlockables were pretty much unheard of. There are more than a few old school games that wouldn't last an hour if you stripped away their difficulty and then you'd be left with no reason to ever touch it again. On the other hand, a challenging game would keep you coming back in the hopes of mastering it and be a much longer lasting and rewarding experience.

I'm not going to harp on about "casual games" this and "game crash" that now, because I personally don't see there being a shortage of challenging games. If anything, I think the shift in the industry to online multiplayer being a large part of gaming now has brought all new challenges to games now. Now the challenge isn't cheap AI or a limited number of lives; it's one players skill against another, and when it comes to online games, there are plenty of highly skilled players out there for those looking to be challenged and have to learn a game to test themselves against. I think most difficult games have simply become better designed so they're less of a baptism by fire and more, get you used to the game, then crank it up. And of course, there are plenty of indie titles that fill the niche of being so difficult right off the bat that they make you cry, and a few mainstream ones that do too. Try playing God of War on the highest difficulty and see how easy that is.

Personally, I don't think there are all that much fewer super difficult games out there as compared to the 8-bit days. As a percentage of the total market, definitely smaller, but overall? Maybe not. The market has grown tremendously since then and it's not all about us anymore. It just means if we want a challenging game we have to look a little harder, and maybe try cranking up the difficulty more often.

[darkchrono]

Roto13 I don't think most stories in games are especially bad but more along the lines that they are tailored towards a younger audience.

Most people who play games play them in their teens and pre-teen years and generally lose a bit of interest in them as they get older. That is slowly changing as the original NES crowd gets older but overall the average gaming age is still probably only 16 or 17 (at least for rpg's (other genres probably have a bit of an older crowd)). Therefore they are going to have to make stories that would interest people of that age and if you are older than that you are probably going to think the stories are pretty dumb.

And you know a solid way to avoid the mess that has been brought up in this thread is simply to make difficulty sliders commonplace and more intricate in all games. That way if you want the gameplay to be easy so you can concentrate on story you can do that. And if you want the game to be challenging you can have that as well. Simple as that.

Pretty much every sports game I have seen does have sliders. But I don't think it has become commonplace yet for adventure or rpg games to have them.

[Slothy]

That is slowly changing as the original NES crowd gets older but overall the average gaming age is still probably only 16 or 17 (at least for rpg's (other genres probably have a bit of an older crowd)).

Actually, the last I saw a year or two ago, the average age of gamers is early to mid 20's.

[Nifleheim7]

What really irritates me in some of today's games are the ones that are supposedly "hard" but for all the wrong reasons (poor design,terrible controls etc.)
I always say "give me challenging games" but i want them to be cleverly difficult not "cheaply" difficult.If the controls,battle-system or any other kind of gameplay is perfect and functional 100% then yes,by all means do try and make them as challenging as they can be.
For example,a game that doesn't reward you of having the option to save it after you have overcomed a hard part is not challenging,its poorly designed and cheap.If the Designers want to make them challenging but in a fair way,they have to think harder than that.

[darkchrono]

That is slowly changing as the original NES crowd gets older but overall the average gaming age is still probably only 16 or 17 (at least for rpg's (other genres probably have a bit of an older crowd)).

Actually, the last I saw a year or two ago, the average age of gamers is early to mid 20's.

That might be true for video games on an overall genre basis. But RPG's(which is what most of the people on this site are into) probably has a bit of a younger average.

You do have alot of adults who play sports games and those online adventure games. But I doubt to many adults are rpg players.

[Roto13]

Roto13 I don't think most stories in games are especially bad but more along the lines that they are tailored towards a younger audience.

I can't see them writing the stories in Grand Theft Auto or God of War for kids unless Jack Thompson is right. The problem isn't that they're written for kids. The problem is that they might as well be.

[Lynx]

For every good game story you can name, I can name at least ten books or movies that have better stories. Plus, they're cheaper and there's none of that pesky gameplay to get in the way.

i think thatd be more a matter of opinion. but then again your probably right cause the whole point of a book is to have a good story (despite some of them sucking). a video game can make up for lack of story for good gameplay. and yet sometimes you have games that have bad stories and boring gameplay.

as for game difficulty id say games will never be as challenging as they were. which disappoints me cause i love the old hard games. ninja gaidan, mega man, ghouls and ghosts even the first Mario caused headaches. games today are so easy i usually have to try and beat the games on extremely low levels just to make it challenging. and hard mode is a must if available.

[Roto13]

I don't think it's completely hopeless. Ninja Gaiden, Mega Man, and Mario all have recent (or near future :P) sequels that are pretty challenging. (Mario Galaxy might not be tough from start to finish, but if you want to collect all of the stars, there are some pretty damn tough ones.)

[Lynx]

i have no idea if the new ninja gaidan games are hard or not? mega man x's i found easier then the originals. and i havent played mario galaxy but i felt after mario 2 they were all easy. but theres still hope for the older games on new platforms.

[Dreddz]

i have no idea if the new ninja gaidan games are hard or not?

What rock have you been living under then.

[Lynx]

i have no idea if the new ninja gaidan games are hard or not?

What rock have you been living under then.

i hate X box

[Roto13]

i have no idea if the new ninja gaidan games are hard or not? mega man x's i found easier then the originals. and i havent played mario galaxy but i felt after mario 2 they were all easy. but theres still hope for the older games on new platforms.

I'm talking about Mega Man 9. :P

Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy both worked with the philosophy that a game should be beatable for people who aren't that good or don't enjoy too much of a challenge, but there are more rewards for testing your limits. The "secret" stages in Mario Sunshine were crazy hard sometimes (albeit a load of fun).

[Lynx]

i have no idea if the new ninja gaidan games are hard or not? mega man x's i found easier then the originals. and i havent played mario galaxy but i felt after mario 2 they were all easy. but theres still hope for the older games on new platforms.

I'm talking about Mega Man 9. :P

Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy both worked with the philosophy that a game should be beatable for people who aren't that good or don't enjoy too much of a challenge, but there are more rewards for testing your limits. The "secret" stages in Mario Sunshine were crazy hard sometimes (albeit a load of fun).

that is true i forgot about mega man 9. i must say i am looking forward to playing that. mega man games are my hope for hard games seeing as i cant beat the majority of them :D

[Wolf Kanno]

Roto13 - you are ignoring the part where I said I also play games to immense myself in a beautiful world, which is why I play TES-games. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" reason to play games, neither have I misunderstood anything. We simply play games for different reasons. (I also play other types of games, of course, those are just my main reasons).

We all do play games for different reasons, yet once again I might point out that I do find challenge to be immersive as well. XII has you face off against a few creatures that can easily kick your ass. I died consistently enough in the game to realize I shouldn't push my luck and I stayed far more attentive while exploring regions. I was greeted with a challenge and I Immersed myself with the realization that my party was not invincible. ;)

On the other hand, FFX was a game I wondered why they even bothered with gameplay. It had a good system in theory but poor design choices and lack of difficulty made battles tedious and a chore. I sometimes wonder if the designed team forgot to put in the button that allows you to skip the pointless "game" aspect and jump to the next cutscene (granted I don't like the plot or cast either). :rolleyes2

I guess I want gameplay to return as a major focus in RPGs cause I don't want people to repeat the mistakes of FFX and XSII where the game terrible cause they focused too much on the bad storyline and forsake anything fun about it. They were the equivalent of bad movies you sit through waiting for it to finally get better and yet never do.

[darkchrono]

Roto13 I don't think most stories in games are especially bad but more along the lines that they are tailored towards a younger audience.

I can't see them writing the stories in Grand Theft Auto or God of War for kids unless Jack Thompson is right. The problem isn't that they're written for kids. The problem is that they might as well be.

Are the video game ratings the same as those for the movies for the most part. If so then yes they probably do make Grand Theft Auto for kids (17, 18, 19).

The metal gear series would probably be a story more tailor made for the older crowd (less fantasy and a tad bit more of reality in the storytelling).



Roto13 - you are ignoring the part where I said I also play games to immense myself in a beautiful world, which is why I play TES-games. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" reason to play games, neither have I misunderstood anything. We simply play games for different reasons. (I also play other types of games, of course, those are just my main reasons).

We all do play games for different reasons, yet once again I might point out that I do find challenge to be immersive as well. XII has you face off against a few creatures that can easily kick your ass. I died consistently enough in the game to realize I shouldn't push my luck and I stayed far more attentive while exploring regions. I was greeted with a challenge and I Immersed myself with the realization that my party was not invincible. ;)

On the other hand, FFX was a game I wondered why they even bothered with gameplay. It had a good system in theory but poor design choices and lack of difficulty made battles tedious and a chore. I sometimes wonder if the designed team forgot to put in the button that allows you to skip the pointless "game" aspect and jump to the next cutscene (granted I don't like the plot or cast either). :rolleyes2

I guess I want gameplay to return as a major focus in RPGs cause I don't want people to repeat the mistakes of FFX and XSII where the game terrible cause they focused too much on the bad storyline and forsake anything fun about it. They were the equivalent of bad movies you sit through waiting for it to finally get better and yet never do.

You probably shouldn't include any of the xeno games into this. Everybody knows the xeno series focuses on story more than gameplay. It is one of the very few rpg's that can totally immerse you from the story alone.

[Roto13]

18-year-olds are not kids. :P The stories in GTA aren't up to snuff for anyone who expects more than "OH MY GOD I TOTALLY RAN OVER THAT WHORE!" I would hope any adult looking for a good story would have higher standards than that.

[Dreddz]

Roto13 obviously hasn't played GTA IV.

[Wolf Kanno]

You probably shouldn't include any of the xeno games into this. Everybody knows the xeno series focuses on story more than gameplay. It is one of the very few rpg's that can totally immerse you from the story alone.

Oh I know but I only mention XSII cause unlike Xenogears and XSI and III, it's plot is inconsequential and its gameplay is poorly executed. At least the game aspect of XSI was fun when the game decided you could play but not so much for II. I actually looked forward to story segments in XSII cause it meant I didn't have to play the game anymore and I had 20 to 40 minutes to relax. FFX was the opposite where I felt as bad as it was, the game side was the lesser of two evils in comparison to the story.

As for the age limit on stories in games. I feel very few are written with an adult in mind and the few that are really good are generally overshadowed by worthless bland muck that both the gaming, movie, and music industry tries to feed people everyday and convince them "it is good". I feel part of the problem lies in that people think Sex and Extreme Violence makes it adult which is http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif imo. Manhunt is a game an adult could not really enjoy on a sophisticated level. A twelve year old on the other hand could get extreme fun and pleasure from all its gory details. I find much of Rockstar's stories involving focusing on hot button issues and then letting the story go where it wants without ever giving proper focus to anything. The elements are there but plot doesn't address them more than they need to. I have heard GTAIV fixes these issues but I stopped caring about the franchise back in Vice City. So in essense I agree with Roto that GTA is written more for late teens than adults.

The average age of a modern gamer is in their mid-twenties. This is because most gamers hail from the days when Nintendo and Sega were duking it out. Younger gamers still come in and make the group larger but the big part of the demographic were people who grew up with the industry. The problem about story writing is that modern gaming hasn't caught up and the formula is still decidedly late 90's fair. Basically, the demographic grew up but not the formula. People who play RPGs are probably in the main demographic of their mid twenties but the gaming industry still writes them for a younger demographic cause that is how it has always been. Its why you see a few forums pop up asking for older main characters cause the writing is losing touch with the main demographic. Granted there are exceptions but I feel much of it gets overlooked in favor of pointless violence and kiddie fair. I personally feel Rockstar and Nintendo have done nothing to help the industry mature but rather keeps it dated and prevents it from being respected as an artistic medium.

[the AJman]

Man, is it good to know that there are still RPG gamers out there that still feel that gameplay is the most important part of a video game. In another forum that I used to go to when ever people asked what they loved about RPGs and everyone always said story and characters, I felt like the black sheep when I replied with gameplay. I love developing the characters, killing s**t, and exploring places, story and character is just an added bonus in my opinion.

[NeoCracker]

I know Xenosaga 2's gameplay wasn't great, but I still enjoyed it, so smurf you all. :p

3's was the best, in addition to having the best story of the three.

However I'm am completely off topic now, so Imma just walk off. :p

[Wolf Kanno]

I know Xenosaga 2's gameplay wasn't great, but I still enjoyed it, so smurf you all. :p

3's was the best, in addition to having the best story of the three.

However I'm am completely off topic now, so Imma just walk off. :p


My only major problem with it, is the fact that after awhile random battles can take forever in character mode (nothing but love for the E.S. mode though:love:). It takes me longer to get through random battles with normal foot soldiers than it does to get through boss battles against humans granted the power of god (Doth thou desireth the POWER?!). I just feel their is something logically wrong with this picture...

The battle system makes Boss fight amazing with good strategy and all but the random battles were made to be terribly tedious. Throw in the lousy level design that has you running through very small hallways with enemies everywhere, I sometimes wonder if they missed the point about letting you see enemies before encounters. Face it man, the game had terrible design. Though I agree III is the best :D

[NeoCracker]

I alreay admited it wasn't that great. XD

My big gripe was converting to a system that allowed every character to obtain any damn ability, which I've always had issues in which a character, story wise is seen as a wall of brute power, and other such things, and then you're able to turn him into a magical sorcerer with weak physique gameplay wise. :p

Though to keep this on topic, at least there are some fights in the Xenosaga games that actually do pose a challange, and require some legitimate thought to overcome. So while not really the hardest games out there, they do pose a bit of challange, which made me happy. :p

[the AJman]

Just to feel as though I added something to the conversation I guess I'll write how I feel about, "the dumbing down of video games".

Coming from the crowd that is in between a causal and serious gamer I can safely say that I don't think that things are all that bad in the video game industry, in fact I'd go so far as to say that I honestly believe its never been better. I know I'm just going to repeat what others have said, but one of the major reasons games are getting easier is because there are a far greater number of causal players now. Most of the players don't have the time, patience or interest to sit there and play a fairly challenging game. Most just want to sit done, unwind, and relax. Most players just aren't going to be able to play or beat games that are hard enough to you make break your controller or give you a brain tumor.

Another reason as others have said is that games a far better developed these days. Saving and checkpoints are a big example of this, during the SNES and Gensis era and below I've never beaten a game except fighting games, and one of the biggest reasons is that in order for me to beat a game I had to sit there for hours (I don't usually have that kind of patience), it also didn't help that I would die and than have to start completely over again. Now I can sit down for about an hour a day or so and save it when I get tired of playing and if I die all I have to do is load my game back up.

There is still games out there that are pretty damn hard in my opinion, of course I'm probably not as good as the average serious or hardcore gamer, but many games now do implement a difficulty setting (it would be nice if even more games did this). I see the game over screen a few times playing most of the Final Fantasy even X and that is of the easiest. I still die about once every ten minutes playing the diablo games. In most of action/adventure games I still die often (usually doing the obstacles), and in FPS especially online games I get my butt handed to on such a regular basis that the other players kill me just to get the easy kills and points.

[darkchrono]

18-year-olds are not kids. :P The stories in GTA aren't up to snuff for anyone who expects more than "OH MY GOD I TOTALLY RAN OVER THAT WHORE!" I would hope any adult looking for a good story would have higher standards than that.

Fifty years ago I'd say yes eighteen year olds would be fairly to somewhat mature. In this day and age eighteen year olds are still very kiddish (heck alot of eighteen year olds are still in highschool).

[Wolf Kanno]

18-year-olds are not kids. :P The stories in GTA aren't up to snuff for anyone who expects more than "OH MY GOD I TOTALLY RAN OVER THAT WHORE!" I would hope any adult looking for a good story would have higher standards than that.

Fifty years ago I'd say yes eighteen year olds would be fairly to somewhat mature. In this day and age eighteen year olds are still very kiddish (heck alot of eighteen year olds are still in highschool).

To be honest, I know gamers in their late twenties and early thirties that are pretty childish as well. Likewise, I know plenty of mature teens in High school.

Though I must say that even though the technology has improved, the maturity hasn't grown as much as it should. Not that we should get all "artsy and pretentious" but its rare for a truly mature game to get recognition in the mainstream while stuff that is labeled "mature" continues to damage gaming's reputation.

[NeoCracker]

I'd also like to point out, of course games are getting easeir for hardcore gamers. The reason they seem so easy to people who have been playing since the good ole days HAVE BEEN GAMING SINCE THE GOOD OLE DAYs!

WE tend to have far more experience in games then the newer generations, so it's much easier to adapt from game to game.

Not saying that its the only reason, but I think it's something to take into account. :p

[Bolivar]

18-year-olds are not kids. :P The stories in GTA aren't up to snuff for anyone who expects more than "OH MY GOD I TOTALLY RAN OVER THAT WHORE!" I would hope any adult looking for a good story would have higher standards than that.

I don't know, I kinda thought the conversation between Faustin's wife and Niko to be kinda.... human. For III and VC I would agree with you, but some stuff even in San Andreas was kinda poignant. Not the most academic social commentary you can find, but definatley more sophisticated than "OMG I TOTALLY RAN OVER THAT WHORE!"

[Roto13]

I'd also like to point out, of course games are getting easeir for hardcore gamers. The reason they seem so easy to people who have been playing since the good ole days HAVE BEEN GAMING SINCE THE GOOD OLE DAYs!

WE tend to have far more experience in games then the newer generations, so it's much easier to adapt from game to game.

Not saying that its the only reason, but I think it's something to take into account. :p

Go back and play those games that were tough when you were a kid and see how easy they are for you now. :P

I've been playing Mega Man 9 today. It... it's not easy. I managed to get through the eight Robot Masters stages and bosses. I've also stumbled my way through most of Wily's Castle, but the third level broke my spirit. And apparently if you stop playing anywhere in Wily's Castle, you have to start over. Just like the good ol' days.

[Jessweeee♪]

Yeah, but with like 90% of the "easy" games out there you can do something to make it harder for you (Kimahri Only challenge for FFX for example. I didn't try that one but the Tidus Only challenge actually made the game easier after I got past Mushroom Rock :p). I liked how you could customize the difficulty of TWEWY from cakewalk to OH MY GOD IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? at absolutely any time in the game.


So if you wanted a challenge, then you could make it harder for yourself, and if you just wanted to enjoy the game's story and other things without too much hassle, then you can play at a lighter difficulty.

[NeoCracker]

I'd also like to point out, of course games are getting easeir for hardcore gamers. The reason they seem so easy to people who have been playing since the good ole days HAVE BEEN GAMING SINCE THE GOOD OLE DAYs!

WE tend to have far more experience in games then the newer generations, so it's much easier to adapt from game to game.

Not saying that its the only reason, but I think it's something to take into account. :p

Go back and play those games that were tough when you were a kid and see how easy they are for you now. :P

I've been playing Mega Man 9 today. It... it's not easy. I managed to get through the eight Robot Masters stages and bosses. I've also stumbled my way through most of Wily's Castle, but the third level broke my spirit. And apparently if you stop playing anywhere in Wily's Castle, you have to start over. Just like the good ol' days.

I have. AND I kicked a their ass. :p

Pockey and Rocky, Megaman X 1-3, Link to the Past, and, obviously, all those old SNES RPGs. :p

Not to mention a few months back I beat Toejam and EArl 2 and Comix Zone, something I never did as a kid. (Mind you, that was because I had to rent, and never had teh time for that one when I did rent it. :p)

Its not always just about experience, but I'm sure thats definately a noteable factor. :p

[Wolf Kanno]

Yeah, but with like 90% of the "easy" games out there you can do something to make it harder for you (Kimahri Only challenge for FFX for example. I didn't try that one but the Tidus Only challenge actually made the game easier after I got past Mushroom Rock :p). I liked how you could customize the difficulty of TWEWY from cakewalk to OH MY GOD IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? at absolutely any time in the game.


So if you wanted a challenge, then you could make it harder for yourself, and if you just wanted to enjoy the game's story and other things without too much hassle, then you can play at a lighter difficulty.

My only problem with this train of thought is that I have to put in the effort to make the game fun and challenging which to my personal feelings, is what a game should already be. I'm adding elements to a game that should have been there to begin with. To me, its like writing your own ending to a movie cause the film just ends in the middle with no resolution or climax (Not that Hollywood is good about these elements nowadays anyway). I don't mind making extra challenges after I've played a game for a few years but lately I have to do it during a second playthrough, just because the game was so damn easy the first time through. I do not even consider myself a gaming master or anything nor do I believe in power-leveling. I find my skills are average at best and to see such a lack of challenge concerns me.

BTW, NeoCracker... just for a fun suggestion. Play Master Blaster or Nemo's Adventures in Dreamland ;)

[Roto13]

Nemo's Adventures in Dreamland ;)

I totally downloaded that movie yesterday. :P

Everyone knows Toejam and Earl 2 is easy. xP Go play Toejam and Earl 1. (Also, high five for Comix Zone)

[NeoCracker]

I know, but Toejam and EArl was like, one of my first video games ever. Of course it was hard for me back then. XD

[Big D]

Today's Zero Punctuation review looks at a couple of retro games available on the Xbox Live Arcade, and Yahtzee's got a few interesting points about the changes in gameplay and difficulty over the years.

Rather than quote or paraphrase, I'll let you see it for yourself - but take care, as the video contains smurftons of foul language and other non-work-safe content.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/222-XBLA-Double-Bill

[Wolf Kanno]

Today's Zero Punctuation review looks at a couple of retro games available on the Xbox Live Arcade, and Yahtzee's got a few interesting points about the changes in gameplay and difficulty over the years.

Rather than quote or paraphrase, I'll let you see it for yourself - but take care, as the video contains smurftons of foul language and other non-work-safe content.

The Escapist : Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : XBLA Double Bill (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/222-XBLA-Double-Bill)

That was funny. I love Yahtzee's reviews. Overall I agree that games have improved overall and perhaps the only reason why games have gotten easier is due to the removal or reform of gaming institutions like Lives and Password save systems (Curse you Hydlide!!!) yet I still stand on my belief that games are being made unnecessarily easy today. There are still challenging games but I feel the amount of "super-easy games" has been on the rise as of late.

[Madame Adequate]

Most games contain their own ways of increasing difficulty. Sometimes that's not so. I couldn't find a way to make Gears of War that hard, there were just a couple of particularly tough areas.

But put EDF 2017 on the highest difficulty and you're going to get raped.

Or try a Halo 3 Single Player Legendary All Skulls Campaign.

In truth I would personally like to just see more flexibility in difficulty, but also difficulty that's more intelligent. Adding more health doesn't make the game harder in any meaningful way, it just means you need to stock up more on potions or ammo or whatever before the fight.

[Mr Nice]

Whatever! The article is a load of nonsense, and you know it. The only reason you choose to agree is because you know as much as I do that controversy draws attention. There's too much negativity in the video game industry these days, it does my smurfing head in. If anything, we should be supporting the video game industry to our utmost. Smurfing amateurs!

[scrumpleberry]

Whatever! The article is a load of nonsense, and you know it. The only reason you choose to agree is because you know as much as I do that controversy draws attention. There's too much negativity in the video game industry these days, it does my smurfing head in. If anything, we should be supporting the video game industry to our utmost. Smurfing amateurs!

Truth.

[Wolf Kanno]

Whatever! The article is a load of nonsense, and you know it. The only reason you choose to agree is because you know as much as I do that controversy draws attention. There's too much negativity in the video game industry these days, it does my smurfing head in. If anything, we should be supporting the video game industry to our utmost. Smurfing amateurs!

Though I would agree the article itself was poorly done and probably speaks for only a minority of the gaming community I do feel the topic itself is valid. The industry is changing dramatically and a whole new group is being brought into the fold. Unfortunately, some of us feel that the gaming industry is catering too much to the new group than those of us who have gamed for most of the industry's existence.

For me personally I just want more equal ground from a design approach. Allow for a method to make it easy for newbies or those whose interest are not in the game aspect of it but at the same time create methods so those of us who want challenge to be pleased as well on a reasonable level. Not with cheap gimmicks but methods that actually challenge us mentally.

Though I do care about the industry, I see a potential within it that seems to always be just outside of reach for it. I'm one of those idealist that see games as an art-form rather than just a pleasure machine. Its bogged down by the business side of things and though supporting it sounds good, its difficult to take that seriously when we understand that the industry is a business first. They only cater to us when they know they can make extra money off of us by doing so. Their are strong exceptions to this rule but I feel its obvious that the Big 3 only care about our money.

[Mr Nice]

Their are strong exceptions to this rule but I feel its obvious that the Big 3 only care about our money.

Well, that's how we support the industry. I don't agree with most of the things you've said. I think that games already appeal to everyone, there's the Wii for the noobs and those who just want to have fun at an affordable price. Then there's the PS3 and Xbox 360 for the hardcore gamers. And I'm really impressed with the line up of games coming out on all consoles. So, there's really no valid reason to complain.

[Roto13]

The problem isn't that newer games aren't fun, it's that very few of them are challenging.

Also, the two hardest games I've played this generation were Wii games. (Granted, one of them is multiplatform.)

[Wolf Kanno]

Well, that's how we support the industry. I don't agree with most of the things you've said. I think that games already appeal to everyone, there's the Wii for the noobs and those who just want to have fun at an affordable price. Then there's the PS3 and Xbox 360 for the hardcore gamers. And I'm really impressed with the line up of games coming out on all consoles. So, there's really no valid reason to complain.

I disagree. I want the Wii to be more than a collection of WiiSports clones and cater more towards serious gamers. I don't consider the other two systems to be "hardcore". The 360 is the X-Box 2.5 and the PS3 is a paper weight. The PS3 had one game I was excited about and that was MGS4, I finally played it and though it was a good game, I can safely say I can live with the thought of never playing it again and being happy that I didn't buy a PS3 just to play it. The 360 does have the largest library of games that interest me right now but none of them I feel look so damn awesome that I feel the need to buy the system. I can safely say I could ignore this generation and probably live on cause the only games I care about are coming onto last-gen hardware like the PS2 and the DS. Hell even the PSP is starting to look like a better purchase than the current gen.

I just feel that lately, games have gotten significantly easy on all platforms and it disturbing me. I love story in my games but not if it means I have to sacrifice gameplay so little Timmy can reap the full benifit of his purchase without putting any effort of thought into it. It may seem fair to those who only care about the cinematic side of things but how is that fair to those of us who like to solve puzzle and seek challenges in our games? Sure we can create our own challenges but then why should I pay $60+ dollars for a product that doesn't satisfy me? I just want a happy medium and I feel the industry is kinda screwing gamers like myself cause the new majority is the ultra casual crowd who are afraid of putting effort into things. The industry fulfills their need cause thats where the money is.

[Roto13]

The Xbox 360 is more likely to end up as a paperweight than the PS3.

[Mr Nice]

The Xbox 360 is more likely to end up as a paperweight than the PS3.

This is very true.

[Madame Adequate]

The Xbox 360 is more likely to end up as a paperweight than the PS3.

In my case that's certainly true! Because I actually own a 360 to use as a paperweight.

I just thought of a challenging game that is challenging in all the right ways: skate.

[Mo-Nercy]

I used to be better at games when I was like 10 years old. Never really realised why until now.

I'm a pansy. =]