|
With the current trend of games holding the players hands too much e.g prince of persia no deaths, virtua tennis 2009's majority of career with even traditional games getting easier like the skip level power up in mario and the easy first half compared to most of the other games in the series Has gaming become too easy for the average gamer!? |
are games too easy now!?
-
Rens11 1,861 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 13 years ago -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoYes.
Too many stupid, patronising tutorials. Too much dumbing down in the assumption that none of us can figure things out for ourselves.
Get rid of crap tutorials and bring back fat, heavy manuals. With little in-universe prose boxouts. -
DFawkes 32,785 posts
Seen 12 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoI definitely would say no to ALL games being too easy, difficulty isn't always related to how enjoyable a game is. Given very few of us are what would constitute an average gamer, it can be harder for us to judge.
There are still those games out there, like Dark Souls for a nice challenge, or Fusion Genesis if you don't like being spoon fed everything. -
Yes and no.
The levels skip thing in Mario isn't mandatory, and if you want to complete it 100%, it's a decent challenge.
Donkey Kong Country Returns on the Wii also has that level skip thing, but the actual game (especially the latter levels) is an old-school, unforgiving romp!
Vanquish on God Hard setting - say no more.
Online gaming gets damn competitive too, of course.
I think the addition of trophies/achievements introduces a meta-game that presents the true challenge of modern games. -
DUFFMAN5 26,890 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoYes and no I think.
I play games to have fun first and foermost, not to get stuck for hour after hour (I do not have the time)so tend to start a game on normal or easy. If I really like the game I may play through again on a hard setting, this is why I love Game+ so much.
I do still think some games are hard Dark,Demons Souls for example, however I do not see the reason they did not include an save feature in the true sense of the word, this did make the game harder of course but foir what reason. Games should allow the choice to change on the run. I used this a few times on Fallout 3, and will prob use it on KOA, as I did start on a lesser mode and up until now it has been too easy. -
Games have a lot fewer bullshit deaths designed to steal your 10p coins or stretch out a game that would normally be finished in a single sitting. Imagine getting knocked into a pit by a bat/eagle/medusa head in Gears of war 3 and having to start the entire game over 
-
Metalfish 9,191 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 16 years agoThere's nothing wrong with not dying in Prince of Persia style games if the platforming is suitably challenging. Failstates have long be a subject of game design debate. I don't begrudge fable 2/3 for not letting me die properly: there's nothing about that particular mechanic that is "easy" per say -it's how it interacts with the rest of the design. -
SolidSCB 16,771 posts
Seen 23 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoI think the problem is that there is hardly ever any middle ground. Games these days either hold your hand to the point where the majority of the game is a glorified tutorial (FFXIII, Skyward Sword to an extent), are hard to the point where the whole game is based around its difficulty (Dark Souls, Ninja Gaiden) or just throw cheap shit at you because the devs can't be arsed making it any more sophisticated (infinite spawning enemies in Call of Duty).
I've recently been playing the Metal Gear HD collection. Each difficulty adds new elements and obstacles such as enemy positions and routes, camera locations etc. From that it is very easy (no pun intended) to find a difficulty that caters to your skills, rather than just throwing 50 more enemies that take 6 more rounds to kill. THAT is how you get difficulty right. Wish more games took that care and attention to the difficulty of a game. -
oceanmotion 17,358 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years agoEasier settings but probably still some hard games though many are cheap rather than making it harder in a fun challenging way. I think games would be a lot easier if I had the patience to take my time, however I rarely do especially when a checkpoint or save makes it easier to try different approaches or generally see what's up ahead. -
No, because some people don't have 100+ hours in a month to play games. I have a job, a wife and a daughter. I'm lucky to get an hour a night.
Having said that, I do tend to play every game on it's hardest setting. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoSolidSCB wrote:
The best examples difficulty setting done right is Goldeneye, and the optional Hardcore mode in Fallout: New Vegas. They were tougher, but by introducing more mechanics or objectives, they encouraged players to push themselves and amend their playstyles.
I think the problem is that there is hardly ever any middle ground. Games these days either hold your hand to the point where the majority of the game is a glorified tutorial (FFXIII, Skyward Sword to an extent), are hard to the point where the whole game is based around its difficulty (Dark Souls, Ninja Gaiden) or just throw cheap shit at you because the devs can't be arsed making it any more sophisticated (infinite spawning enemies in Call of Duty).
I've recently been playing the Metal Gear HD collection. Each difficulty adds new elements and obstacles such as enemy positions and routes, camera locations etc. From that it is very easy (no pun intended) to find a difficulty that caters to your skills, rather than just throwing 50 more enemies that take 6 more rounds to kill. THAT is how you get difficulty right. Wish more games took that care and attention to the difficulty of a game.
I don't like "adaptive" difficulty because it tends to default to "I'm a retard" setting and never throws a real challenge at a player. I like a difficulty curve, not a diificulty flatline. And I resent having to sit through yet another copy-paste tutorial whenever I buy an FPS game that assumes I have never touched a game before and therefore need to be taught how to move the camera or take a step forwards. Stick that shit in an optional "I haven't played an FPS game before" thing at the start menu, not force it on veteran players. -
Games having long, tedious tutorials is a different matter to the game being hard, and smacks more of the devs struggling to integrate the stuff you need to know into the regular game.
I'd have to say no, games aren't too easy. Of the stuff I've bought, Demon's Souls, Contra 4 and Etrian Odyssey are nails. Depends on what you play- with 1,000+ games released a year on various platforms these days, any kind of sweeping statement is going to struggle. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoredcrayon wrote:
And they all have a reputation of being "old-school" game design, suggesting that their difficulty is far higher than what is generally produced today.
I'd have to say no, games aren't too easy. Of the stuff I've bought, Demon's Souls, Contra 4 and Etrian Odyssey are nails -
Depends on what you play and the amount of time you spend on it.
I remember only having Gargoyles Quest and Links Awakening on the Gameboy as a kid. Gargoyles quest was nails but I remember the satisfaction I felt completing it. Same with Dark Souls and Demon Souls, which like Gargoyles quest seem to make you examine patterns and not rush in like a fool.
Catherine, Dark Souls, Blaz Blue Continum Shift and Persona 3 PE have being my hardest/ favorite games of this generation. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoThe biggest problem really is excessive hand-holding. Developers dont have the confidence anymore to let players work things out for themselves. I suspect this has gone hand in hand with more linear, set-piece driven games where the player is very much on rails - like Uncharted, COD, etc. It seems to have led to severe chilling effect on treating gamers like educated adults instead of retards who just want a michael bay popcorn-a-thon. -
andywilkie35 5,327 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 16 years agoI still resent Prince of Persia being used as an example of "no deaths" etc, loads of games have the same thing both before and since it came out. All it has is a scene where he is saved, no different really to your character croaking it on screen and being restarted exactly where you were. Pah. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoA definite no from me. There are so many games in my collection I'd like to see the ending on, but I simply haven't the desire to get over the immediate difficulty bump.
On the other hand, I love my shooters and fighters and all those old-school genres that are deliberately hard. Difference is that in games with a story the story is the reward, but in those genres the challenge itself is reward enough. -
DDevil wrote:
This. I'm too old for constant retrys and just get frustrated. When I was younger I preferred a challenge though so I can understand the demand for games like Dark Souls.
No, because some people don't have 100+ hours in a month to play games. I have a job, a wife and a daughter. I'm lucky to get an hour a night.
Having said that, I do tend to play every game on it's hardest setting. -
Games have definitely grown up with their audiences and are more forgiving. As mentioned already, people don't have the time to play games as much anymore. I will say though, that it's the harder games that are the most rewarding to complete. The day I complete the original Castlevania I will probably cry with happiness. It'll be going on my CV too! -
convercide 6,530 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoI'd say that they're actually about the same still. It just depends which difficulty you pick.
I agree with Dale about the 'hand holding' though. Too many recent games ruin the immersion by having some bullshit tutorial first level.
"Follow me over this girder!"
Press A to jump
"Now under this tediously convenient debris!"
Press the right analog stick to crouch.
They should seriously scrap that. Something like in MGS2 is a good idea. You were called on the Codec when you had to do something new but didn't have to answer and could figure it out for yourself. You should also be able to turn tutorials completely off. Most games use a similar control scheme anyway. -
convercide wrote:
Can't say I agree with that statement at all. I can't recall a single game in the past 10 years that felt near impossible to complete on the hardest difficulty. I think TimeSplitters 2 was the last, in my book.
I'd say that they're actually about the same still. It just depends which difficulty you pick. -
convercide 6,530 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoRaiko101 wrote:
Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2?
convercide wrote:
Can't say I agree with that statement at all. I can't recall a single game in the past 10 years that felt near impossible to complete on the hardest difficulty. I think TimeSplitters 2 was the last, in my book.
I'd say that they're actually about the same still. It just depends which difficulty you pick.
Devil may Cry 1, 3 and 4?
Blazblue/Guilty Gear X/XX?
Demons/Dark Souls perhaps on New Game +++++++?
The Guitar Hero/Rock Band series on Expert?
Did you play Oblivion or Skyrim or the hardest settings?
So basically you're saying you can complete any of the above on the hardest difficulty settings or is it that you haven't played them? -
I'm not suggesting there aren't extremely difficult games out there today, because that would be rubbish. I would argue that difficult games were far more common in the 80's and early 90' though, with the most difficult of them far exceeding anything today. Fair enough some of them were cheap with how they went about making things challenging, but some were just flat out solid.
Nina Gaiden 1, 2 & 3, and Castlevania 1 & 3 are prime examples of a difficulty that is so high that most people who have played them would have never completed them. I'd find it next to impossible to believe anyone who claimed they had genuinely completed the third games in each series. Yet i've completed the Xbox Ninja Gaiden, seen a mate unlock every achievement on the 2nd, and quite a number of people have claimed to have beaten Demons'/Dark Soul.
I'm also one of many people I know, personally, to have fully completed the first two guitar hero games on all difficulties. I got bored after that, myself.
Edited by Raiko101 at 04:34:30 14-02-2012 -
TechnoHippy 19,245 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoPersonally I would rather that a game is too easy and I get to see the whole game than it be too hard and I give up in frustration. -
darkmorgado wrote:
So what is generally produced today is easy if we remove those with a rep for 'old school' design. Isn't that a foregone conclusion, then? They might have 'old-school' design, but they are still being produced today.
redcrayon wrote:
And they all have a reputation of being "old-school" game design, suggesting that their difficulty is far higher than what is generally produced today.
I'd have to say no, games aren't too easy. Of the stuff I've bought, Demon's Souls, Contra 4 and Etrian Odyssey are nails
EO and DS's difficulty is more to do with the needs of the genre rather than being old-school hard for the sake of nostalgia- if you aren't limping back to the town/save point after getting a bit further, then there is no sense of challenge, accomplishment or fear at all, and you know that you can always tinker with your character's setups to try again, or level up a bit more. That's the factor that makes their difficulty work- everything is within reach if you are prepared to experiment, I suppose that goes for RPGs in general.
I'm assuming that you've played lots of linear action/adventure games- is it not more likely that you've become quite good at them?
Agree with you on Fallout NV hardcore mode, I really enjoyed that. And I really don't like hour-long tutorials- like you say, an option to say 'I have played a computer game before' would be nice. -
Raiko101 wrote:
I agree with this- there are hard games today that are enjoyable to overcome with practice, but the 'hardness' of many games in 8-bit/16-bit eras was purely to increase the length, most of them you could play through in an hour once you had learned all of the boss patterns etc, which would take months of playing through the whole game again and again for another 3 cracks at a boss.
I would argue that difficult games were far more common in the 80's and early 90' though, with the most difficult of them far exceeding anything today. Fair enough some of them were cheap with how they went about making things challenging, but some were just flat out solid.
That isn't something that I want to see again, being able to play a game and pretty much guarantee that I'll see something new that evening is much better.
Edited by redcrayon at 12:59:24 14-02-2012 -
Dangerous_Dan 2,390 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 11 years agoGood Read on the topic:
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/116/1165614p1.html
So in that regard I guess there will always be a place for challenging games. -
Yeah they are, games back then meant more - every jump etc.
However, I hardly ever "finished" any games up until Mario 64 when it started getting a bit easier so, maybe its for the best as you get to see more games to the end as opposed to putting it down and never touching it again because you couldn't make "that jump".
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
