|
|
|
On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
Newer games does NOT punish the player for loosing, ever. The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder".
I'll second that.
This isn't even that new, but unfortunately it's unlikely to change, the mainstream at least will not change for awhile.
Try getting someone who has grown up playing modern games, in particular console games like call of duty and tell them to play quake, first there's the large amount of people that care about graphics for some reason, they won't even play, the rest won't be willing to put in the effort when they're used to playing a game and "owning it up e z p z".
That's just the sad truth, for now it's hard for any difficult game to make it into the market because that's how it is for the supposed mainstream "gamer" these days. Even when you look at BW-SC2 its obvious that without the changes like multiple building selection, rally to minerals, unlimited unit selection etc, it would be much less popular.
I'm not gonna lie, it makes me worry about the future of the games industry.
|
there's plenty of things in life besides games that "build character", so why can't i just play a game to have fun? for some people games are a good way to relieve stress, just as sports are. i used to be uber competitive, and i ended up tearing my ACL in a silly pick up game. the result was a year of painful therapy, and recovery. when i start playing again, i won't care as much about winning or losing. i want to stay healthy. competition to a certain level is healthy. after that threshold, its not a good thing. also, you can make things as competitive as you want, but doesn't mean you have to do the same for others.
these things could be competitive or not, just depends if you want them controlling your life or not:
-sports (at your park, at your gym, at your school). you play to win or lose in a pick up game of any sport, and when you lose, you wait to play again cuz you get kicked off the court. furthermore, you don't have to WIN during practice. do you have to win when you practice your shot, or dribbling, or free kicks, or whatever? nope. you can shoot hoops by yourself, are you supposed to beat yourself? winning is just as rewarding as losing, and you actually don't need either for it to be rewarding. the enjoyment is sometimes the reward itself. if i watch my favorite team fight valiantly and they lose, i can still enjoy the loss.
-school. get better grades, get into better schools, get a better job, get more money, get more bitches, more sex, more cars, more toys... lots of competition, but honestly, you don't need the money, or beter job, or better school for the reward. money can't buy happiness.
if you want to keep track of your losses, why don't you do it yourself? competition is good to a certain level, but don't be too obsessed with it.
|
Won't we see tiered play and games then? The games for the casual, for the normal gamer and for the competitive gamer? Hard games are still popular and do sell decently, if not at the top.
Games like Demon's Souls, Catherine and similar games are still pretty hard, if not mind numbingly hard as some games used to be. The games that almost always are hard are the turn based strategy games. There the challenge is in finding a solution, there is nothing else really. These usually allow you to set up handicaps in order to get the optimal experience as well. Some action RPGs I would like to increase the difficulty up to the level of one hit = dead, yet the hardest difficulty is nowhere near there.
I play for fun, only when I go online do I care about difficulty. When I play single player I consider it a story. If the game is boring I cheat to get the story and cutscenes since the other elements of single player games usually aren't that interesting (with some exceptions that are worth it for the experience).
Online I agree with you, there it should be hard. If you face a better player you should die with a 95%+ probability. If there is only a 60-40 edge for a player that is approximately twice as good at the game, then it isn't a good online game. Team games it is harder to allow one player to shine since 5v1 is rare to win (but oh so fun), even in games that reward skill.
Something I look forward to is the next generation of player created content. Already in NWN you saw some pretty epic player created modules. These can cater to any demographic if it is easy enough to create new things in the game.
edit, something that annoys me more than this issue in single player games, http://8.asset.soup.io/asset/2265/4920_5aa5_500.jpeg boss fights you can't win. VtM werewolf for example, spent 30 minutes trying to kill it (one try)...
|
You can see your losses in Masters league and when you're below that I think you can just count your total games - wins. Not that it really matters how many wins or losses you have in bronze or silver. You don't need punishment to learn anything. A reward is just as effective.
|
Agreed. How long is it since a good RTS (besides sc2) came out? How long is it since a good shooter came out? Those new Battlefield and Call of Duty games are so bad and not-competitive. They make it easier with perks and other "cool" stuff, but this removes the possible competition from the game. Sad days 
|
On August 12 2011 18:28 Sotamursu wrote:
You can see your losses in Masters league and when you're below that I think you can just count your total games - wins. Not that it really matters how many wins or losses you have in bronze or silver. You don't need punishment to learn anything. A reward is just as effective.
Yeah we know it. It's the "idea" behind helping players, instead of punishing bad play - which should lead to people trying harder. Critical thinking... what did I do wrong? How can I avoid losses? etc.
Some youtube kids gave my blog 1 star.. I guess I hurt some feelings.
|
People don't want to get punished when they are playing a game. That's what real life is for.
|
I've been keeping a tally of my games, both wins and losses. It's on a piece of scrap paper.
120 games and still going strong. @_@
|
I want a platformer revival, and I want to go through $100 worth of controllers as I go through that.
Makes no sense as a business model though, because companies know that the hardcore nerdz who want that kind of stuff will still buy whatever is being pitched. Casuals are more hard to sell, and aren't gonna buy something that may potentially drive you insane
|
On August 13 2011 00:07 Hawk wrote:I want a platformer revival, and I want to go through $100 worth of controllers as I go through that. Makes no sense as a business model though, because companies know that the hardcore nerdz who want that kind of stuff will still buy whatever is being pitched. Casuals are more hard to sell, and aren't gonna buy something that may potentially drive you insane
Why would the hardcore nerds buy all this junk? I might be considered hardcore since I played most of the great games back in the 90s and fell in love with them, but I just can't waste such money on something I can't get my heart set on.
|
On August 12 2011 19:56 Qzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 18:28 Sotamursu wrote:
You can see your losses in Masters league and when you're below that I think you can just count your total games - wins. Not that it really matters how many wins or losses you have in bronze or silver. You don't need punishment to learn anything. A reward is just as effective. Yeah we know it. It's the "idea" behind helping players, instead of punishing bad play - which should lead to people trying harder. Critical thinking... what did I do wrong? How can I avoid losses? etc. Some youtube kids gave my blog 1 star.. I guess I hurt some feelings.
What? I don't get it...if it doesn't show your losses then you haven't lost? How do people make that connection when they just watched themselves lose the game? Your pushing of some kind of social engineering through video games is odd.
|
On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
Newer games does NOT punish the player for loosing, ever. The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder".
I'm sorry, but if you want me to take you seriously, you need to have subject/verb agreement (Newer games *do* NOT punish) and spell *losing* correctly.
|
Needing to restart the 11th NOD mission in C&C1 five times because I misplaced my obelisk, or forgot a bait unit for airstrike, or some other dumb mistake was plenty frustrating.
Stuff isn't like you remember it when you were a kid.
Trust me, we were plenty coddled compared to the generation before us. I think we turned out alright? Your kids are gonna complain about the world their children are going to be razed in as well btw.
|
I agree but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
If you think about it, games are only about pleasing the players immediately and completely. WoW is a good example.
What is happening is that they are turning a beautiful media and way of expression into nothing but a drug.
On August 13 2011 00:16 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
Newer games does NOT punish the player for loosing, ever. The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder". I'm sorry, but if you want me to take you seriously, you need to have subject/verb agreement (Newer games *do* NOT punish) and spell *losing* correctly.
Oh?
And do you speak danish, maybe?
Or do you speak french, spanish or german? Because I do. Now, be quiet please and leave your ethnocentrist bullshit for the national communities.
|
I tend to find games like that boring, there is no challenge and therefor no incentive to improve/devise new strategies. There is a fine balance though. If you've ever played spongebob boat-o-cross you would know that you can definitely err too far on the punishment side.
But then again, games like farmville are 100x time more popular than anything I play, so my opinion is probably not that of the majority, and that is who most developers will cater for. In the end, blame humanity not the games companies, they are simply making what sells best. I think in the future I will be relying on niche games that cater to the more competitive market, the blockbusters will likely stay punishment free.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Whats wrong with people playing games for fun instead of a challenge?
|
On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
Newer games does NOT punish the player for loosing, ever. The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder".
i'm still punished for losing, because i lost, i feel terrible, i was outplayed, and i want to win. just because other people don't see it doesn't mean i didn't lose or that it means nothing.
challenge and reward is more often an internal validation than an external one.
there are also plenty of games out there that maintain the principles of older games. you just haven't heard of them because they're not mainstream. mainstream moved in another direction, what was one mainstream is now a niche. but they're still available.
|
On August 13 2011 01:42 kainzero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
Newer games does NOT punish the player for loosing, ever. The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder". i'm still punished for losing, because i lost, i feel terrible, i was outplayed, and i want to win. just because other people don't see it doesn't mean i didn't lose or that it means nothing. challenge and reward is more often an internal validation than an external one. there are also plenty of games out there that maintain the principles of older games. you just haven't heard of them because they're not mainstream. mainstream moved in another direction, what was one mainstream is now a niche. but they're still available.
This, exactly. It's merely insult to injury if you take a look at your win/loss rate later and decide you're obviously not good enough to compete when every douchebag with a keyboard points and laughs at you.
It's the same exact reason hardcore players were TERRIFIED of the idea of switching races, even just a month after the game's release; your win rate would plummet and you'd be a laughing stock of the community.
|
Its pretty sad.
Perma death gets me off.
|
On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder".
...
You will NEVER learn Starcraft if you only count your wins and never compare them to your losses.
Obviously, if you ignore your losses you will not improve because you must learn from your losses, but to suggest that the Blizzard ladder system is preventing that is quite absurd.
Let me surprise you here. Blizzard doesn't need to show you your losses because chances are they are roughly equal to your number of wins. Ladder winrate is not a meaningful statistic in determining your skill in Sc2 (especially in low leagues). By removing winrate from your profile they are actually doing you a service by preventing you from getting caught up on meaningless statistics. What actually matters is the skill of the opponents you were winning against, so special attention should be paid towards ladder rank.
All a high winrate is indicative of is that you are on average not playing good enough opponents. That will impair your improvement.
Aside from that, I agree that games are becoming much easier. I remember when a game-over meant you had to start the game from the VERY BEGINNING. In a modern game like Halo, dying only sets you back to a place one minute earlier.
|
I don't agree that showing your losses to others is important. It's useful information to have for yourself, certainly. As long as the option is still available, it's all good.
Regarding modern games and challenges, I completely agree the majority of games out there simply are not challenging and rewarding. There are a few exceptions - most noteably, Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2 on Xbox/PS. Many people gave up on the first boss of NG 1 because it was "impossible" lol. You cannot Gods of War button spam your way through these games! To me, bosses should nearly always kill you on your first attempt at least, or force you to use rare/expensive items (healing stuff) when you make mistakes. If they don't, then why the hell are they a boss?
I think many gamers out there do not value the rewards from overcoming difficult challenges. They would rather farm 500 kills with X weapon for an achievement reward (whoopie). I love the satisfying and rewarding feeling I get from downing a tough boss after a lot of struggle. I may be swearing and tempted to chuck my controller through the TV during the challenges, but man am I fist-pumping when I overcome it! I just don't get that feeling from most games out there these days.
|
Have you even played God of War above normal difficulty?
|
Have you ever played Ninja Gaiden even on normal difficulty?
Gods of War is a joke at hard difficulty compared to NG on normal difficulty. I do not own a PS3, but have played Gods of War 3 on hard mode at a friends house. I don't know how far we got as I don't hang out with him anymore. but I remember I liked the Hades fight and it was a decent challenge to learn the patterns. Otherwise, I often thought "How is this hard mode?" as I mindlessly defeated mobs and bosses. Oh my god... especially those easy mobs. NG mobs were put in the game to kill you, Gods of War mobs were put in the game for you to kill.
|
If you want hard games, they're definitely still out there. As a bonus, you're more likely to run into games that are hard in a good way (see: Super Meat Boy, VVVVVV, Devil May Cry 3, God Hand for examples) as opposed to games that are hard because of bad controls or making you play the entire five minute stage again when you die at the end or something (Ninja Gaiden 1 on the NES, for the latter. Stage 7 is super fun, right? Oh and putting birds that did more damage than anything else over pits was pretty cool too, especially when you didn't even know they were there till you jumped. Or Karnov not letting you alter your momentum in mid air, that was pretty awesome too).
Many more games also have selectable difficulty levels, which means if you don't want your face smashed in you can still enjoy the game ... or if you do feel a bit masochistic you can go ahead and make the game kill you a lot. They're not always done well, but they certainly can be (Devil May Cry 3 did pretty well with its difficulty levels, for instance).
|
Doom 2 on Nightmare....nothing else can ever measure up.
|
On August 13 2011 07:43 crate wrote:
If you want hard games, they're definitely still out there. As a bonus, you're more likely to run into games that are hard in a good way (see: Super Meat Boy, VVVVVV, Devil May Cry 3, God Hand for examples) as opposed to games that are hard because of bad controls or making you play the entire five minute stage again when you die at the end or something (Ninja Gaiden 1 on the NES, for the latter. Stage 7 is super fun, right? Oh and putting birds that did more damage than anything else over pits was pretty cool too, especially when you didn't even know they were there till you jumped. Or Karnov not letting you alter your momentum in mid air, that was pretty awesome too).
(...snip...)
Ninja Gaiden 1 (NES) certainly was for the masochists in that last stage. The stage itself required such precise execution to avoid the many insta-death areas, such as the birds knocking you into the pit that you allude to. Memorizing the stage, locations of enemies, mechanics of enemy spawning/despawning, and enemy movements were all necessary to complete that last stage. (Oh, and you need a good deal of patience and perseverance too.) After making it through that nightmare, you were faced with a challenging 3-phase boss where whenever you die, you have to start over the whole friggin stage! That was one part of the game I really had issues with - of course it's simpler now on emulators where you can save state at the start of the boss. I could deal with the insta-death traps, but that last stage followed by a difficult boss (especially when you don't even know his patterns yet) with SEVERE punishment for dying on him was just too much.
|
On August 13 2011 00:16 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
Newer games does NOT punish the player for loosing, ever. The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder". I'm sorry, but if you want me to take you seriously, you need to have subject/verb agreement (Newer games *do* NOT punish) and spell *losing* correctly.
Hi, even though I might misspell a few words, I speak 3 languages - do you?
|
I don't think this is an issue at all, as yes, it hides your losses if you're below master's, but if you're striving to be the best you can and can't see your losses, its because you aren't good enough to be in masters, and that should push you enough without having to see a number representation of your losses.
A complete non issue in SCII in my opinion.
|
On August 13 2011 09:42 Qzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 00:16 mbr2321 wrote:On August 12 2011 16:47 Qzy wrote:
Newer games does NOT punish the player for loosing, ever. The gaming scene has taken a change from being challenging and rewarding to "You can't see your losses on ladder". I'm sorry, but if you want me to take you seriously, you need to have subject/verb agreement (Newer games *do* NOT punish) and spell *losing* correctly. Hi, even though I might misspell a few words, I speak 3 languages - do you?
Not to mention how shallow it is to not take someone seriously because of grammar/spelling on a public internet forum in the blog section...
|
At least some developers still know that "hardcore" gamers still exist and cater to them. What pisses me off however is how developers like Blizzard are screwing over their old and loyal fanbase by catering to the wider and richer crowd with ezmode gameplay and RMT and other money-grubbing methods. It's business, however, and there's nothing we can do about it when we're outnumbered by the new gamers by 3-to-1 or something like that.
|
On August 13 2011 09:40 EscPlan9 wrote:
Ninja Gaiden 1 (NES) certainly was for the masochists in that last stage. The stage itself required such precise execution to avoid the many insta-death areas, such as the birds knocking you into the pit that you allude to. Memorizing the stage, locations of enemies, mechanics of enemy spawning/despawning, and enemy movements were all necessary to complete that last stage. (Oh, and you need a good deal of patience and perseverance too.) After making it through that nightmare, you were faced with a challenging 3-phase boss where whenever you die, you have to start over the whole friggin stage! That was one part of the game I really had issues with - of course it's simpler now on emulators where you can save state at the start of the boss. I could deal with the insta-death traps, but that last stage followed by a difficult boss (especially when you don't even know his patterns yet) with SEVERE punishment for dying on him was just too much.
The thing is, once you do it a few times, it's easy.
I used to be able to beat the game on one life, and I'm not a great platformer player by any means.
I think one of my friends filmed another friend beating the game while looking through a mirror.
And then when you think about it, it's not a particularly deep game...
|
I was pretty angry when they removed the win/loss from lower leagues, so I played harder to get into masters league to see my record. Got masters in 2v2 last season, and this season masters 3v3, and today masters 1v1. I might not have been as competitive and played as hard to get promoted if the win/loss was around when I was plat and diamond, so I actually contribute some of my success to Blizzard implementing no losses shown in lower leagues.
|
On August 13 2011 07:26 EscPlan9 wrote:
Have you ever played Ninja Gaiden even on normal difficulty?
Gods of War is a joke at hard difficulty compared to NG on normal difficulty. I do not own a PS3, but have played Gods of War 3 on hard mode at a friends house. I don't know how far we got as I don't hang out with him anymore. but I remember I liked the Hades fight and it was a decent challenge to learn the patterns. Otherwise, I often thought "How is this hard mode?" as I mindlessly defeated mobs and bosses. Oh my god... especially those easy mobs. NG mobs were put in the game to kill you, Gods of War mobs were put in the game for you to kill.
I've finished all DMC on DMD. I've finished God Hand on hard. I havent played Ninja Gaiden but it's pretty common consensus that they are similar
By no means is God of War as difficult as those games, but to call it a button masher is just ignorant.
|
On August 13 2011 13:16 kainzero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 09:40 EscPlan9 wrote:
Ninja Gaiden 1 (NES) certainly was for the masochists in that last stage. The stage itself required such precise execution to avoid the many insta-death areas, such as the birds knocking you into the pit that you allude to. Memorizing the stage, locations of enemies, mechanics of enemy spawning/despawning, and enemy movements were all necessary to complete that last stage. (Oh, and you need a good deal of patience and perseverance too.) After making it through that nightmare, you were faced with a challenging 3-phase boss where whenever you die, you have to start over the whole friggin stage! That was one part of the game I really had issues with - of course it's simpler now on emulators where you can save state at the start of the boss. I could deal with the insta-death traps, but that last stage followed by a difficult boss (especially when you don't even know his patterns yet) with SEVERE punishment for dying on him was just too much. The thing is, once you do it a few times, it's easy. I used to be able to beat the game on one life, and I'm not a great platformer player by any means. I think one of my friends filmed another friend beating the game while looking through a mirror. And then when you think about it, it's not a particularly deep game...
I mean, I still beat the game. Just that I don't think that last stage was a good example of something being "challenging". It more was just a major pain in the ass. At least letting you start from the last portion of the stage or phase 1 of the boss would have been much more reasonable.
aha I knew I recognized you  I blogged about my experiences with NG NES and you responded in there too
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=203480
|
On August 13 2011 14:09 almond wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 07:26 EscPlan9 wrote:
Have you ever played Ninja Gaiden even on normal difficulty?
Gods of War is a joke at hard difficulty compared to NG on normal difficulty. I do not own a PS3, but have played Gods of War 3 on hard mode at a friends house. I don't know how far we got as I don't hang out with him anymore. but I remember I liked the Hades fight and it was a decent challenge to learn the patterns. Otherwise, I often thought "How is this hard mode?" as I mindlessly defeated mobs and bosses. Oh my god... especially those easy mobs. NG mobs were put in the game to kill you, Gods of War mobs were put in the game for you to kill. I've finished all DMC on DMD. I've finished God Hand on hard. I havent played Ninja Gaiden but it's pretty common consensus that they are similar By no means is God of War as difficult as those games, but to call it a button masher is just ignorant.
I really want to try DMC, but I only have XBox 360 and I hear DMC4 kinda sucks?
The combat in God of War isn't random button mashing so to speak. But there certainly is very little depth and most of the fights in the game can be beaten by tapping square a bunch.
And if you haven't played NG, you just cannot compare it frankly. I do not see the common consensus saying GoW's difficulty is even similar to NG difficulty. I cannot speak to DMC as I never played it.
|
DMC3 is on the PC too. I haven't played it on the PC and I think if you can get the PS2 version you should, but I hear it's not a terrible port. It does have the plus that you can actually turn off the music without nuking the rest of your sound (and then getting Lustercutted because you can't hear anything).
DMC1 is also very good and well worth playing. DMC1 has almost certainly better enemy design--especially the bosses--but gives you less freedom over Dante's actions; DMC3 is fabulously fluid but the enemy design is seriously lacking.
And re: Ninja Gaiden NES being easy once you've done it: Well, so are a lot of other things I'd consider "hard". The fact that it's so distressingly frustrating to even beat the stage once is a major turn-off and a great example of the bad kind of difficulty imo.
|
On August 13 2011 14:43 EscPlan9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 14:09 almond wrote:On August 13 2011 07:26 EscPlan9 wrote:
Have you ever played Ninja Gaiden even on normal difficulty?
Gods of War is a joke at hard difficulty compared to NG on normal difficulty. I do not own a PS3, but have played Gods of War 3 on hard mode at a friends house. I don't know how far we got as I don't hang out with him anymore. but I remember I liked the Hades fight and it was a decent challenge to learn the patterns. Otherwise, I often thought "How is this hard mode?" as I mindlessly defeated mobs and bosses. Oh my god... especially those easy mobs. NG mobs were put in the game to kill you, Gods of War mobs were put in the game for you to kill. I've finished all DMC on DMD. I've finished God Hand on hard. I havent played Ninja Gaiden but it's pretty common consensus that they are similar By no means is God of War as difficult as those games, but to call it a button masher is just ignorant. I really want to try DMC, but I only have XBox 360 and I hear DMC4 kinda sucks? The combat in God of War isn't random button mashing so to speak. But there certainly is very little depth and most of the fights in the game can be beaten by tapping square a bunch. And if you haven't played NG, you just cannot compare it frankly. I do not see the common consensus saying GoW's difficulty is even similar to NG difficulty. I cannot speak to DMC as I never played it.
DMC 4..lots of room for improvement..but definitely doesn't suck.
Not everyone likes to continue 10+ times just to beat a level. If you do though, God of War 3 still lets you challenge yourself in chaos mode.
When did I ever compare Ninja Gaiden's difficulty to God of War's? lol. My whole point was that it's not a button masher. Obviously you admire difficult games, but stop bashing a great game just to show your fascination with Ninja Gaiden.
|
My bad, I read "God Hand" and thought you meant God of War.
God of War is a fun game to play through. The story, graphics, and cinematics are much better than NG for sure. The challenge and depth is what I was critiquing since OP blog is mostly about the lack of difficult challenges and punishment for mistakes/losing in modern games.
Oh and I know not everyone likes to continue 10+ times just to even get to a boss, and then continue 20+ times to beat the boss (obv as you get better at the game you won't die even close to as much). I was not disagreeing with that. Gamers today expect to be handheld a bit more through the games so the difficulty isn't as frustrating (also alluded to in OP).
|
Reminds me of this article, "The Power and Peril of Praising Your Kids":
http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/
Love the George Carlin video too. I agree that the whole "self esteem" fetish and "everybody is a winner" philosophy is actually more damaging than good. Knowing how to deal with failure is a learned skill, and if kids are never allowed to fail then they can't get this skill and they suffer for it.
|
Why do you assume people need to put effort into learning the game? Maybe they just want to play it and enjoy it? That seems reasonable to me.
The people who actually care about winning and improving should be master already, and they can see their losses. I don't quite understand how people who put lots of effort into improving their play aren't in master, honestly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
