|
Originally I was gonna post this in general, but I realized I didn't want to write enough to make this OP general-worthy, so I decided instead on this 2 paragraph long rant about WHY THE FUCK ARE GAMES RELEASED TODAY SO EASY. Let me give you an example. I played Fallout 3 for about a few days nonstop until I reached halfway through the game, that is, about the time I reached level 20 and realized that I had more caps than there are bricks in the Giza pyramids and that my character was strong enough I could take on half a dozen deathclaws without a scratch. But not my companion. Dumb bitch kept running straight into a whole horde of deathclaw and getting killed before I could get a shot off. I then realized that I was having a harder time keeping my buddy alive than I was killing monsters, so I stopped playing because there hasn't been a video game story in a million years that was worth walking through an entire wasteland of tedium to find out the ending to. Oh, and this was VERY HARD mode.
God, and that's just FALLOUT 3. Don't even GET ME STARTED on Spore. Whatever happened to single player experiences that are so frustratingly difficult I had to buy additional controllers along with the game for when I smashed the first one out of frustration? Whatever happened to "SUPER SECRET INSANELY HARD WHAT ARE YOU NUTS" difficulty? Whatever happened to games that had to go into a second release with the suffix "Black" attached because there wasn't enough time to make the original hard enough? Even Gears of War and Crysis were a walk in the park if you've ever played more than a week of counter strike. (Again, on the hardest difficulty)
Ya, but that's just my opinion. I realize these games make millions of sales every year so there must be a lot of people who enjoy having their hand held while they're killing mutants. But dammit, I can't get any enjoyment out of a game when it's not challenging.
  
|
United States24673 Posts
They want everybody to buy them. Better to rule out the top 5% of hardcore gamers than lower 50%.
Occasionally they still make difficult games that provide you with a challenge, but often you just need to play 'challenge games' which you can do with many titles. For a quick example... beating final fantasy 10 using Yuna only with no summoning.
|
Because they appeal to the majority. And this majority isnt good at games/doesnt want to get frustrated. They think everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows.
|
|
|
I will venture myself into adding this :
Because in the past games were made out of passion, and today they are made for money.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
yoshi's island ds is bullshit!
|
On January 01 2009 09:25 Kentor wrote:
yoshi's island ds is bullshit!
seriously, it's like they added wario for shits and giggles
|
Beating Battletoads back in the day was one of my proudest moments in gaming. If a game like the original Battletoads was released today, everyone would hate it.
|
One of the most enjoyable gaming experiences I've had recently (by recently, I mean the past year) was playing the star control 2 remake. There was just something unbelievably exciting about spending hours tediously mining minerals in return for just a tiny tiny part of the story to reveal itself. And when it did, it was fucking awesome and scary and simple, not like that clusterfuck of a soap opera Metal Gear Solid (did anybody else tear up from laughter in half the scenes that were supposed to be sad?). It was just me and my trusty print-out starmap. It was the only game I've played in a long time that gave me a feeling of satisfaction from having finished it, not relief.
Then I played Mass Effect and its sorry as shit excuse for planetary exploration.
|
Majority appeal, casual gamers prefer a easy game as opposed to getting frustrated and the majority of people who buy games are casual gamers. Hardcore gamers will most likely buy a game regardless of difficulty just to try it out and such.
|
Because most poeple play games for fun not out of omfg i hate this mother fucking game but imma beat it for glory
|
Seriously. I agree with the OP. I almost never buy single player games that aren't part of some old series I used to enjoy because I know that it will be way too short and easy.
|
On January 01 2009 09:20 Divinek wrote:
Because they appeal to the majority. And this majority isnt good at games/doesnt want to get frustrated. They think everything is sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows.
That pretty much sums it up. Anyone who has been around a 6 year old playing video games knows what happens if god forbid, they lose. Those kids have grown up and are now the target audience of video games, yet still havent lost their inability to cope with losing.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
IWBTG! A Very Hard Game About a Boy and 8-bit Masochism!
http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/
I Wanna Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game is a sardonic loveletter to the halcyon days of early American videogaming, packaged as a nail-rippingly difficult platform adventure. Players fill the role of The Kid, a youthful, vaguely Megaman-esque protagonist on a quest to become The Guy. This inscrutable plot, however, is just a vehicle for a wide variety of inventive, well-designed and frustrating jump-and-shoot challenges that pay homage to many of the games you loved as a child. The ever-fragile Kid explodes in a shower of red pixels at the slightest brush from the game's many obstacles, from traditional spikes and bottomless pits to more unconventional killers, such as plantlife and puzzle pieces.
Using a multiroute layout not unlike a Metroidvania, the game grants a degree of deadly exploration, without those extraneous upgades meant to make life easier. The game provides players with a choice in terms of their deathrate, thanks to a variable difficulty setting that changes the number of save points from frequent to nonexistent. IWBTG is open to all players; knowledge of videogaming history is optional, and may not help against the frequently ironic and always sadistic deathtraps located herein. And so, the question is left up to you...
Do YOU have what it takes to be The Guy?
-- As Written by Forum Member Finale
You are welcome.
|
It's true, games nowadays are easier, which is a lot of the reason I personally don't play them anymore. The reason is simply sales; analysis strongly shows that casual games (such as wii fit) drastically outsell hardcore games. Developers are being pushed nowadays to make games easier (a friend of mine works at Konami and he confirmed this).
One interesting thing to think about is why games were originally so hard: the answer lies in gaming's roots in the arcade. Back then, developers aimed to make games hard enough that players will keep putting money in the machine, but not too hard to completely frustrate them. Nowadays, when a costumer has bought a game, they already own the game and thus will not keep paying to play it (aside from the online services).
|
No kidding, games are too short, too easy and way too fucking dull these days.. point of making a game if i can beat the game spinning around in a circle killing everyone.
I want to play a game where, you get the sense of achievement when you beat a part which you've failed and raged at 10 times before you finally beat it..
too many carebears.
|
On January 01 2009 09:54 D00dles wrote:
No kidding, games are too short, too easy and way too fucking dull these days.. point of making a game if i can beat the game spinning around in a circle killing everyone.
Okkk....don't dis Dynasty Warriors, that game is the shit.
OP is completely right, I remember playing Super Mario on the SNES, that shit was so hard. The amount of secrets that game had was ridiculous. Straight up beating the game only got you to like 30% completion so you had to go around looking for the huge amount of secret levels. My cousin somehow got to 99%...I have no idea how he did that. It must have been legit too since back when he did it the internet wasn't that mainstream loool.
|
On January 01 2009 09:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:IWBTG! A Very Hard Game About a Boy and 8-bit Masochism! http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/Show nested quote +I Wanna Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game is a sardonic loveletter to the halcyon days of early American videogaming, packaged as a nail-rippingly difficult platform adventure. Players fill the role of The Kid, a youthful, vaguely Megaman-esque protagonist on a quest to become The Guy. This inscrutable plot, however, is just a vehicle for a wide variety of inventive, well-designed and frustrating jump-and-shoot challenges that pay homage to many of the games you loved as a child. The ever-fragile Kid explodes in a shower of red pixels at the slightest brush from the game's many obstacles, from traditional spikes and bottomless pits to more unconventional killers, such as plantlife and puzzle pieces.
Using a multiroute layout not unlike a Metroidvania, the game grants a degree of deadly exploration, without those extraneous upgades meant to make life easier. The game provides players with a choice in terms of their deathrate, thanks to a variable difficulty setting that changes the number of save points from frequent to nonexistent. IWBTG is open to all players; knowledge of videogaming history is optional, and may not help against the frequently ironic and always sadistic deathtraps located herein. And so, the question is left up to you...
Do YOU have what it takes to be The Guy?
-- As Written by Forum Member Finale You are welcome.
TRY IT. I DARE YOU.
This is one of the funnest games I've ever played. I'm nowhere close to beating it, but FUCK ITS SO AWESOME.
You have probably never been as mad as you will be at points in this game. I guarantee it.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
ROFL so true
i have my hands full with sc and poker though, god these two games rape my soul endlessly
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 01 2009 09:48 nevake wrote:
Seriously. I agree with the OP. I almost never buy single player games that aren't part of some old series I used to enjoy because I know that it will be way too short and easy.
Its the opposite for me. A game that's part of an established series doesn't need to prove itself to make money. It can be an absolutely terrible game, and still sell copies off the name alone (case in point, Fallout 3).
A game that sells well off a new name is more likely to be legitimately good.
Also:
On January 01 2009 09:23 ahrara_ wrote:
but
but
but
NINJA GAIDEN
|
United States24673 Posts
I really don't think games are 'too short'... well some are. But I can easily put 100+ hours into a good game even nowadays.
|
well you see micronesia, that's because you are, what we call, "bad."
:p
|
It makes my life a lot better lol.
Being able to steam through games means I don't give my life away to desperately trudging through some impossibly difficult challenge. And if I want difficulty, I'll ask my friends round to play SSBM.
|
Well, the ninja gaidens have already been mentioned, also the ps3 resistance 2 co-op (split screen) mode was damn hard for me, especially when the 2nd player cant save his stats, such bullshit.
Hm and the final fantasy games seem to get harder with each "sequel", i actually died a lot of times in the twelfth one.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 01 2009 10:08 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2009 09:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:IWBTG! A Very Hard Game About a Boy and 8-bit Masochism! http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/I Wanna Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game is a sardonic loveletter to the halcyon days of early American videogaming, packaged as a nail-rippingly difficult platform adventure. Players fill the role of The Kid, a youthful, vaguely Megaman-esque protagonist on a quest to become The Guy. This inscrutable plot, however, is just a vehicle for a wide variety of inventive, well-designed and frustrating jump-and-shoot challenges that pay homage to many of the games you loved as a child. The ever-fragile Kid explodes in a shower of red pixels at the slightest brush from the game's many obstacles, from traditional spikes and bottomless pits to more unconventional killers, such as plantlife and puzzle pieces.
Using a multiroute layout not unlike a Metroidvania, the game grants a degree of deadly exploration, without those extraneous upgades meant to make life easier. The game provides players with a choice in terms of their deathrate, thanks to a variable difficulty setting that changes the number of save points from frequent to nonexistent. IWBTG is open to all players; knowledge of videogaming history is optional, and may not help against the frequently ironic and always sadistic deathtraps located herein. And so, the question is left up to you...
Do YOU have what it takes to be The Guy?
-- As Written by Forum Member Finale You are welcome. TRY IT. I DARE YOU. This is one of the funnest games I've ever played. I'm nowhere close to beating it, but FUCK ITS SO AWESOME. You have probably never been as mad as you will be at points in this game. I guarantee it.
Honestly, like 2 years ago this would have been true, but poker just made my tolerance level for frustrating bullshit soooooooooo much higher.
I have one regular boss and the final boss left to beat (although the boxer boss is sooo fucking annoying due to the super long entrance animation time everytime you have to restart because you died, that I decided I'm not gonna play it right now) but I barely even cursed throughout the game.
A lot of "ahaha that is so sick" tho (lol @ when the spikes in the floor start chasing you, or when the megaman character randomly drops on your head).
|
On January 01 2009 10:30 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2009 10:08 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On January 01 2009 09:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:IWBTG! A Very Hard Game About a Boy and 8-bit Masochism! http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/I Wanna Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game is a sardonic loveletter to the halcyon days of early American videogaming, packaged as a nail-rippingly difficult platform adventure. Players fill the role of The Kid, a youthful, vaguely Megaman-esque protagonist on a quest to become The Guy. This inscrutable plot, however, is just a vehicle for a wide variety of inventive, well-designed and frustrating jump-and-shoot challenges that pay homage to many of the games you loved as a child. The ever-fragile Kid explodes in a shower of red pixels at the slightest brush from the game's many obstacles, from traditional spikes and bottomless pits to more unconventional killers, such as plantlife and puzzle pieces.
Using a multiroute layout not unlike a Metroidvania, the game grants a degree of deadly exploration, without those extraneous upgades meant to make life easier. The game provides players with a choice in terms of their deathrate, thanks to a variable difficulty setting that changes the number of save points from frequent to nonexistent. IWBTG is open to all players; knowledge of videogaming history is optional, and may not help against the frequently ironic and always sadistic deathtraps located herein. And so, the question is left up to you...
Do YOU have what it takes to be The Guy?
-- As Written by Forum Member Finale You are welcome. TRY IT. I DARE YOU. This is one of the funnest games I've ever played. I'm nowhere close to beating it, but FUCK ITS SO AWESOME. You have probably never been as mad as you will be at points in this game. I guarantee it. Honestly, like 2 years ago this would have been true, but poker just made my tolerance level for frustrating bullshit soooooooooo much higher. I have one regular boss and the final boss left to beat (although the boxer boss is sooo fucking annoying due to the super long entrance animation time everytime you have to restart because you died, that I decided I'm not gonna play it right now) but I barely even cursed throughout the game. A lot of "ahaha that is so sick" tho (lol @ when the spikes in the floor start chasing you, or when the megaman character randomly drops on your head).
In the Tetris room when you get flattened by the massive pill after spending half an hour trying to just survive the falling blocks...I couldn't stop laughing for so long.
|
yeah
I loled when I read a review of mirrors edge (havent played it myself)
went like:
-Pros:
beautiful
innovative
good controls
well exectuded
-Cons:
too hard
rating: 7/10
like lol? too difficult? what a pussy reviewer
|
On January 01 2009 10:30 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2009 10:08 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:On January 01 2009 09:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:IWBTG! A Very Hard Game About a Boy and 8-bit Masochism! http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/I Wanna Be The Guy: The Movie: The Game is a sardonic loveletter to the halcyon days of early American videogaming, packaged as a nail-rippingly difficult platform adventure. Players fill the role of The Kid, a youthful, vaguely Megaman-esque protagonist on a quest to become The Guy. This inscrutable plot, however, is just a vehicle for a wide variety of inventive, well-designed and frustrating jump-and-shoot challenges that pay homage to many of the games you loved as a child. The ever-fragile Kid explodes in a shower of red pixels at the slightest brush from the game's many obstacles, from traditional spikes and bottomless pits to more unconventional killers, such as plantlife and puzzle pieces.
Using a multiroute layout not unlike a Metroidvania, the game grants a degree of deadly exploration, without those extraneous upgades meant to make life easier. The game provides players with a choice in terms of their deathrate, thanks to a variable difficulty setting that changes the number of save points from frequent to nonexistent. IWBTG is open to all players; knowledge of videogaming history is optional, and may not help against the frequently ironic and always sadistic deathtraps located herein. And so, the question is left up to you...
Do YOU have what it takes to be The Guy?
-- As Written by Forum Member Finale You are welcome. TRY IT. I DARE YOU. This is one of the funnest games I've ever played. I'm nowhere close to beating it, but FUCK ITS SO AWESOME. You have probably never been as mad as you will be at points in this game. I guarantee it. Honestly, like 2 years ago this would have been true, but poker just made my tolerance level for frustrating bullshit soooooooooo much higher. I have one regular boss and the final boss left to beat (although the boxer boss is sooo fucking annoying due to the super long entrance animation time everytime you have to restart because you died, that I decided I'm not gonna play it right now) but I barely even cursed throughout the game. A lot of "ahaha that is so sick" tho (lol @ when the spikes in the floor start chasing you, or when the megaman character randomly drops on your head).
You are able to skip cutscenes, I think it's pressing 'S' or 'R' if that's what you mean :o.
|
Ninja Gaiden is a nightmare to beat T_T
|
I think the problem is that competitive CS is ridiculously hard so if you're used to playing humans online there's no way any computer is going to stand a chance. It's like asking why all the single player modes on SC are easy - it's because you're used to such a higher level of play.
|
Imo, most of the final fantasy games are pretty hard, or at least take a lot of time to beat. The newer ones are a bit easier I guess but Sephiroth in 7 was ridiculous. And seriously, has anyone beat all the mobs in 12?
|
The first god of war's final endboss was very hard to beat on the hardest difficulty.
I'm talking about fighting the tonnes of kratos's.
|
Go play Freedom Fighters on very hard. Basically going around a corner at the wrong time = a one shot.
|
On January 01 2009 11:21 Ra.Xor.2 wrote:
Imo, most of the final fantasy games are pretty hard, or at least take a lot of time to beat. The newer ones are a bit easier I guess but Sephiroth in 7 was ridiculous. And seriously, has anyone beat all the mobs in 12?
I thought sephiroth was kinda easy :O
although the whole supernova/9998 damage combo was fun to play against.
ff8 would have been hard if it wasnt to easy to abuse hero/holy war (or whatever it was)
|
On January 01 2009 09:17 ahrara_ wrote:
God, and that's just FALLOUT 3. Don't even GET ME STARTED on Spore. Whatever happened to single player experiences that are so frustratingly difficult I had to buy additional controllers along with the game for when I smashed the first one out of frustration? Whatever happened to "SUPER SECRET INSANELY HARD WHAT ARE YOU NUTS" difficulty? Whatever happened to games that had to go into a second release with the suffix "Black" attached because there wasn't enough time to make the original hard enough? Even Gears of War and Crysis were a walk in the park if you've ever played more than a week of counter strike. (Again, on the hardest difficulty).
One main reason for thinking new games are easy is because we've all simply gotten a lot better. Over the years, I've gone back and played my childhood favorites on emulators, and I always find them much easier than I remember. GoW and Crysis are a walk in the park because we've played thousands of hours of FPS already, but I bet they weren't that easy to a new gamer.
Also, most hard old games were artificially hard because of terrible controls and limited lives/continues. The original Ninja Gaiden is a perfect example. If you had infinite lives, you would have finished it in 2 hours and never played it again. Difficulty created replayability back then, whereas now developers are more concerned with making a game fun on the first play through. Nostalgia influences us into remembering all these old games as great, but there's no doubt in my mind that today's games are, on average, far superior to most of the crap we played as kids.
+ Show Spoiler +Fallout 3 is a bad example because it just plain sucked.
On January 01 2009 10:29 Cloud wrote:
Hm and the final fantasy games seem to get harder with each "sequel", i actually died a lot of times in the twelfth one.
I definitely died more in FF12 than I did in FF1-10 combined, but a lot of those deaths were because FF12 gave you the freedom to wander into places you shouldn't be. Plus, running away was much more difficult than in previous games.
|
|
|
On January 01 2009 11:43 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2009 09:17 ahrara_ wrote:
God, and that's just FALLOUT 3. Don't even GET ME STARTED on Spore. Whatever happened to single player experiences that are so frustratingly difficult I had to buy additional controllers along with the game for when I smashed the first one out of frustration? Whatever happened to "SUPER SECRET INSANELY HARD WHAT ARE YOU NUTS" difficulty? Whatever happened to games that had to go into a second release with the suffix "Black" attached because there wasn't enough time to make the original hard enough? Even Gears of War and Crysis were a walk in the park if you've ever played more than a week of counter strike. (Again, on the hardest difficulty). One main reason for thinking new games are easy is because we've all simply gotten a lot better. Over the years, I've gone back and played my childhood favorites on emulators, and I always find them much easier than I remember. GoW and Crysis are a walk in the park because we've played thousands of hours of FPS already, but I bet they weren't that easy to a new gamer. Also, most hard old games were artificially hard because of terrible controls and limited lives/continues. The original Ninja Gaiden is a perfect example. If you had infinite lives, you would have finished it in 2 hours and never played it again. Difficulty created replayability back then, whereas now developers are more concerned with making a game fun on the first play through. Nostalgia influences us into remembering all these old games as great, but there's no doubt in my mind that today's games are, on average, far superior to most of the crap we played as kids. + Show Spoiler +Fallout 3 is a bad example because it just plain sucked. Show nested quote +On January 01 2009 10:29 Cloud wrote:
Hm and the final fantasy games seem to get harder with each "sequel", i actually died a lot of times in the twelfth one. I definitely died more in FF12 than I did in FF1-10 combined, but a lot of those deaths were because FF12 gave you the freedom to wander into places you shouldn't be. Plus, running away was much more difficult than in previous games.
You definitely have a point, and I'm obviously exaggerating a lot. But I don't think you can deny that the difficulty level of games in general have decreased noticeably. One look through my ROM folder and it's obvious... games like Goldeneye, Rtype, even sonic the hedgehog and the like are considerably more difficult than their like successors. The latest Prince of Persia, from what I hear, is an excellent example.
edit: so is bioshock vs system shock, both in sophistication and real difficulty. you practically trip over supplies in bioshock while in SS2, not so much.
|
Just one of the many reasons that I cannot stand single player non-simulation games. Having a good multiplayer completely solves the difficulty aspect.
|
|
|
On January 01 2009 10:28 HamerD wrote:
It makes my life a lot better lol.
Being able to steam through games means I don't give my life away to desperately trudging through some impossibly difficult challenge. And if I want difficulty, I'll ask my friends round to play SSBM.
For a second I thought you said SSBB because SSBB sucks big ass. Metaknight is fucking overpowered and fucking sucks. Bring back wavedashing and l cancel please, enough of the noob shit.
Oh and to the op, I usually get bored of the games nowadays, i played fallout 3 and I didn't finished it. I played crysis, spore, mass effect, and I still haven't finished them. The only thing that keeps me coming to those games are that they don't make me mad.
Losing on iccup makes me mad.  I just have to get better. 
|
I rarely do campaigns, I prefer online multiplayer pwnage.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 01 2009 11:21 Ra.Xor.2 wrote:
Imo, most of the final fantasy games are pretty hard, or at least take a lot of time to beat. The newer ones are a bit easier I guess but Sephiroth in 7 was ridiculous. And seriously, has anyone beat all the mobs in 12?
See, my issue with Final Fantasy games is that boss encounters are almost never intrinsically hard. Any difficulty in most Final Fantasy games is either from the patience of grinding more levels, or dumb luck. Other than Final Fantasy Tactics for the PSX, I haven't found a Final Fantasy game that was difficult because it made me think.
On January 01 2009 11:43 ShadowDrgn wrote:
One main reason for thinking new games are easy is because we've all simply gotten a lot better. Over the years, I've gone back and played my childhood favorites on emulators, and I always find them much easier than I remember. GoW and Crysis are a walk in the park because we've played thousands of hours of FPS already, but I bet they weren't that easy to a new gamer.
I just replayed Baldur's Gate, and I found it to be a more challenging game than either KotOR game, (though neither KotOR game is any shining example of difficulty), especially the encounters against spellcasters. I can say the same about Deus Ex and Invisible War. Some of it has to do with nostalgia, but there is a legitimate concern about newer games being easier than their predecessors.
|
Omg my list of recent games that I was like wtfthatsallwtfisthisIpaidgoodmoneyforachallenge
World of Warcraft
Too Human
Fable 2
Halo 3
Dynasty Warriors 6 (It was a joke compared to earlier versions which took me months to fully clear)
Gears of War 2
I have many others spinning around in my head but I can't think of them at the moment
|
agree with you OP
games nowadays suck hard and exist only to sell copies in any gimmicky way possible *cough* MIRRORS EDGE *cough*. Wow. Parkour. awesome....>_>
Just look at the titles out on the market right now. There are more sequels on the market today now than ever before, attempting to milk the hell out of dated franchises like Halo. PSN constantly releases crap like echocrome, the guy, pixeljunk monsters and other shit, half-assed games that take about 3 minutes of your attention span and then aren't worth the time it took to get them, and they are SELLING these damn things. Basically cell-phone games developed for a machine as powerful as the PS3. Things are headed for another market crash like in 1983.
what really sucks is you can see the decline happen sharply at the point that the PS3 hit the market in 2006. That's why we got shitty games like Haze out now. Sony, totally shameless in trying to get as much money for crap as they could, told gamers to give haze a second chance, and to go out and buy it anyway (!), blaming reviewers for bad press when it launched. Are you fucking kidding me? If you hear all over the place that something is crap, you've played the crap free demo they offered and weren't impressed by *another* FPS with a (horrible) gimmick, why the fuck would you be convinced to go buy it? because a major electronics company told you to?
What in the hell has happened to the video game industry anyway? It's all about money nowadays and NOTHING else. Games used to take years to develop, made by a small, crack team of people who gave a fuck about what they were making. Now they can be churned out in 6 months or less, easily, by huge teams and studios and they try to make you pay out the ass for extra shit after you already bought the fucking thing.
cue poughty face
|
|
|
I think what pisses me off is not so much that the difficulty has been lowered, but rather how poorly difficulty is being implemented. I remember how in games like DOOM, when you played harder difficulties, there would be more monsters, or they would do more damage - but the damage was always avoidable if you had the skill for it. For example; DOOM gave you monsters shooting fireballs you could dodge. Nowadays it seems like "difficulty" in games isn't so much making the game more challenging, but instead activating a bunch of variables that randomly and unpredictably kill the player. That's not difficulty, that's the illusion of difficulty. I find myself dying more often, but I'm still not being challenged.
|
On January 01 2009 14:54 Salv wrote:
Prove it. Gamertag?
me?
|
Baldur's Gate (especially the 2nd one should be fun and challenging) can try Icewind Dale as well, same game diff universe.
BG is more free-roam whereas Icewind Dale is more linear. But definately BG2 is the best out of all of them, should try it :D Even though it's a great game I think people don't like it because:
1 - It's difficulty
2 - It's Dungeons and Dragons (0mg nerdzzz!~)
3 - It has "rules" and stuff that are hard to understand by yourself, but easy to pick up if someone explains it, this is probably most off-putting
Once you get past all those points, you are seriously in for one of the best single player experiences ever. But yeah i think nowadays most gamers like to play multiplayer since everyone believes they are smarter than some programmed AI and games are easier because of the "casual gamer" market.
|
champions of norrath > BG
|
On January 01 2009 14:35 Ghost151 wrote:
agree with you OP
games nowadays suck hard and exist only to sell copies in any gimmicky way possible *cough* MIRRORS EDGE *cough*. Wow. Parkour. awesome....>_>
Just look at the titles out on the market right now. There are more sequels on the market today now than ever before, attempting to milk the hell out of dated franchises like Halo. PSN constantly releases crap like echocrome, the guy, pixeljunk monsters and other shit, half-assed games that take about 3 minutes of your attention span and then aren't worth the time it took to get them, and they are SELLING these damn things. Basically cell-phone games developed for a machine as powerful as the PS3. Things are headed for another market crash like in 1983.
what really sucks is you can see the decline happen sharply at the point that the PS3 hit the market in 2006. That's why we got shitty games like Haze out now. Sony, totally shameless in trying to get as much money for crap as they could, told gamers to give haze a second chance, and to go out and buy it anyway (!), blaming reviewers for bad press when it launched. Are you fucking kidding me? If you hear all over the place that something is crap, you've played the crap free demo they offered and weren't impressed by *another* FPS with a (horrible) gimmick, why the fuck would you be convinced to go buy it? because a major electronics company told you to?
What in the hell has happened to the video game industry anyway? It's all about money nowadays and NOTHING else. Games used to take years to develop, made by a small, crack team of people who gave a fuck about what they were making. Now they can be churned out in 6 months or less, easily, by huge teams and studios and they try to make you pay out the ass for extra shit after you already bought the fucking thing.
cue poughty face
what are you talking about? you pinpoint the release of the ps3 as the decline in gaming? i don't want to be mean but you're retarded.
the ps1 was the device to really sew the seeds of "graphics > *" but luckily it didn't really take over yet. the original xbox is where things really started to go downhill, suddenly for both ps2 and xbox games all that mattered was graphics. mass appeal hit all new levels with the disgusting "jump in" and celebrity endorsed "freedom" ad campaigns of the 360. then the wii proved you can own the entire market with gimmicky casual games with no substance.
how exactly is this the fault of the newest, least successful console? the ps3 would actually need to sell some units before it can ruin the industry. ;o
also, games take longer to develop now than ever before.
|
On January 01 2009 15:29 Lachrymose wrote:
the ps3 would actually need to sell some units before it can ruin the industry. ;o
hahahaha 
on another note...
a lot of games are going for story, like KOTOR I & II
the games were really easy, even on hard mode, yet i really had a lot of fun with them...
games are turning into things that can just be completed, like movies, and sadly are straying away from hardcore...
hopefully SCII can come in and have insane online
|
On January 01 2009 14:54 Salv wrote:
Prove it. Gamertag?
single player, genius. single player.
|
Go play STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. Also, STALKER: Clear Sky... but that was more difficult due to bugs and random annoying changes they made than due to it actually being hard (by and large). They abuse you, but only because they love you.
|
There is no real excuse, they could easily make the hardest mode optional but really tough.
I think that because much more casual gamers play games these days, the game makers get the illusion that most of their buyers can only handle so much difficulty and thus they won't even bother making a real hard option.
I don't like it either... the old games were quite difficult sometimes (making it more exciting and rewarding when progressing), the new games are almost all too easy (making it rather boring). At least when talking about singleplayer mode... multiplayer is of course another thing since you're playing vs a human who might or might not be strong.
|
omg spore...endless repetitive shit on space age. - -;
|
call of duty 4 was the last challenging singleplayer game I played
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 01 2009 15:55 liger13 wrote:
on another note...
a lot of games are going for story, like KOTOR I & II
the games were really easy, even on hard mode, yet i really had a lot of fun with them...
See, that would be all well and good, if KotOR I and II had an engaging original story. At the core, the plot of KotOR I is just a rehash of Baldur's Gate, and KotOR II borrows heavily from Planescape: Torment (you can even tell which NPCs are who). On top of that, the writing in KotOR I is pretty terrible (all your dialogue responses are pure good or pure evil. Its as if you don't know any of the shades of grey in between!). I won't go so far to say that they're bad games, but to say that the story is one of their strengths is silly.
|
I second the "IWBTG is hard and fun." Go play it
But, yeah. There's a lot of reasons that games are easier now. Remember that a lot of gameplay design patterns from previous eras had their foundation in arcade games. Arcade games had lives and game overs not to give a sense of accomplishment to the victorious player, but to make you put more money in. A good arcade game (financially) was one that was hard enough to make you continue, but not too hard (or too bullshit) that you gave up.
|
United States24673 Posts
On January 01 2009 10:22 Nitrogen wrote:
well you see micronesia, that's because you are, what we call, "bad."
:p
lol what a troll
Although honestly it takes 'skill' to make the second 50 hours worth it.
A few examples of difficulty in videogames...
Dante Must Die Mode in Devil May Cry 1
The Boss Emblem in Metal Gear Solid 4
Any high-difficulty challenge game in an rpg
etc
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 02 2009 02:35 micronesia wrote:
Any high-difficulty challenge game in an rpg
etc
The problem with those is that their difficulty doesn't come from requiring skill or strategy, but most of them just require sheer dumb luck (e.g. retry until boss X doesn't use spell Y). That's not difficulty. Thats just forcing you to save and reload a bunch of times just for the hell of it.
|
I agree I hate the stupid bullshit game industry we have going on today.
Companies like EA discovered they can target a wider audience if their games suck balls, and the actual GAMERS got boned.
|
Spores seem to cater for 10 year olds honestly. Can't believe EA came up with such a brilliant idea, took forever to make, and found a way to screw it up.
|
I read the title as "Why are games so sexy",..
I think that I am suffering from sleep deprivation.
|
This is why I only play multiplayer games these days. It's much more fun playing games with other people. Co-op is lots of fun with good friends and competitive games are more challenging against a human mind.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 02 2009 04:08 Durak wrote:
This is why I only play multiplayer games these days. It's much more fun playing games with other people. Co-op is lots of fun with good friends and competitive games are more challenging against a human mind.
Even then, aren't the "good" competitive games still years old (Starcraft, CS 1.6, etc.)?
|
On January 02 2009 05:18 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2009 04:08 Durak wrote:
This is why I only play multiplayer games these days. It's much more fun playing games with other people. Co-op is lots of fun with good friends and competitive games are more challenging against a human mind. Even then, aren't the "good" competitive games still years old (Starcraft, CS 1.6, etc.)?
I think counter strike is the gayest competitive game ever made. It's like watching paint dry I can't understand anyone not falling asleep watching that shit. And Im pretty sure a competitive game should be fun to watch, otherwise the fanbase will suck. (Then again lots of people watch those wow arena tournaments which is almost as bad.)
Actually now that I think of it sc is the only game Ive enjoyed watching other people play. So "good" is pretty subjective here.
|
Anyway to answer the OP: Easy = more profitable, the average gamer now is a lot different from the old days.
|
On January 02 2009 06:40 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2009 05:18 TheYango wrote:On January 02 2009 04:08 Durak wrote:
This is why I only play multiplayer games these days. It's much more fun playing games with other people. Co-op is lots of fun with good friends and competitive games are more challenging against a human mind. Even then, aren't the "good" competitive games still years old (Starcraft, CS 1.6, etc.)? I think counter strike is the gayest competitive game ever made. It's like watching paint dry I can't understand anyone not falling asleep watching that shit. And Im pretty sure a competitive game should be fun to watch, otherwise the fanbase will suck. (Then again lots of people watch those wow arena tournaments which is almost as bad.) Actually now that I think of it sc is the only game Ive enjoyed watching other people play. So "good" is pretty subjective here.
Counter strike might not be fun to watch but it's crazy fun to play...
Why do you think we all love starcraft so much? It's because it's one of the VERY few games that is truly fun to spectate, whereas most games are just fun to play (or not lol), but not to watch.
|
On January 02 2009 05:18 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2009 04:08 Durak wrote:
This is why I only play multiplayer games these days. It's much more fun playing games with other people. Co-op is lots of fun with good friends and competitive games are more challenging against a human mind. Even then, aren't the "good" competitive games still years old (Starcraft, CS 1.6, etc.)?
In my opinion, yes. Every new RTS I've tried has been boring. However, I haven't given a lot of them a chance to be good competitive games because they're all rehashes of old games with nothing new.
There are tons of unique strategy games to be played from 97/98. I still play Starcraft, NetStorm, Deadlock 2, and Lords of the Realm 2. Whereas I only played Red Alert 3 for ten minutes.
Edit: I guess anything can be a competitive game so this isn't quite fair. For example, Anno 1701 requires supply chain management skills to be really good but it's never going to be played on a competitive level like starcraft because it's not entertaining to watch. This discussion is really subjective so I don't think you can say only old games can be "good" competitive games. Hell, there's a scene for competitive Command and Conquer 3, which is a terrible game.
|
United States24673 Posts
On January 02 2009 02:56 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2009 02:35 micronesia wrote:
Any high-difficulty challenge game in an rpg
etc The problem with those is that their difficulty doesn't come from requiring skill or strategy, but most of them just require sheer dumb luck (e.g. retry until boss X doesn't use spell Y). That's not difficulty. Thats just forcing you to save and reload a bunch of times just for the hell of it.
I don't think this is mostly true. Yes there is a decent amount of luck, but that is only a part of it. Of course there are exceptions like when a guy had to try 250 times in order to defeat Shinriu in FFX in order to beat it without overdrives and sphere grid or something insane like that, but you can choose the level of difficulty to meet your needs.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 02 2009 07:18 micronesia wrote:
I don't think this is mostly true. Yes there is a decent amount of luck, but that is only a part of it. Of course there are exceptions like when a guy had to try 250 times in order to defeat Shinriu in FFX in order to beat it without overdrives and sphere grid or something insane like that, but you can choose the level of difficulty to meet your needs.
A no-level or no-sphere game by nature limits you to pretty much you start with. That's about 4 spells, and limit breaks. There isn't a whole lot of strategy you can make with that, especially since 3 of the spells you'd conceivably start with, Fire, Ice, and Thunder, only differ by element.
Either way, if you have to make challenges for yourself to get the same difficulty as games previously had, it means the games are becoming easier by design. Personally, I'd rather there be a harder mode to a game than have to construct obscene challenges for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
