EPTCompanies like EA discovered they can target a wider audience if their games suck balls, and the actual GAMERS got boned.
why are games so easy - Page 4
| Blogs > ahrara_ |
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
Companies like EA discovered they can target a wider audience if their games suck balls, and the actual GAMERS got boned. | ||
|
Repertoire
Canada92 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
I think that I am suffering from sleep deprivation. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
| ||
TheYango
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.)? | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On January 02 2009 05:18 TheYango wrote: 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. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On January 02 2009 06:40 Frits wrote: 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. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
On January 02 2009 05:18 TheYango wrote: 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. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24493 Posts
On January 02 2009 02:56 TheYango wrote: 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. | ||
|
TheYango
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. | ||
| ||
