Slashdot Mirror
Are Games Getting Easier?
grumpyman writes "A Tom's Hardware article posits that game are getting easier and less satisfying.
From the article: 'I've had Super Mario Bros for about 12 years and every time I pass that final Bowser stage, I still get a great sense of satisfaction. In contrast, when I conquer a game from this era, I just feel relieved that it's over.'"
Yes, but who cares? just crank up the difficulty and set your own limits(try playing all the way through saving only at the beginning of each map, for example). People that do speed runs are a good example, you have to become almost godlike at a game in order to do a good speed run, it's challenging and competitive.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
The story has a bad example because Super Mario Brothers is one of the greatest games ever. It's like saying, "I just watched Star Wars again and that movie still gives me the chills, science fiction movies of today aren't as entertaining." I'm willing to bet that if you were to say "an average game from 15 years ago is harder than average game today" I don't think that is true. I can think of some really challenging games that are out now, super monkey ball 2 for the cube is tough, beating the developer ghosts on mario kart dd is hard, etc.
This reminds me of the poorly-written essays I wrote in high school. Some author gets the idea in their head that, after playing video games for 15 years, they've become "too easy", and sets out to tell you why. I can tell you that while I found Metroid Prime and Super Mario Sunshine to be fun but hardly insurmountable challenges, they are real struggles for my 10 year old, who can barely make his way through them.
The author needs to remember that he's a grown-up, and I'd prefer that it's reflected in his writing.
(And how could anyone say that the first Legend of Zelda is some immense challenge compared to any of the later ones?)
You know, for every person who beat Super Mario or whatever, there were half a dozen who just got frustrated and stopped playing because they couldn't make it past a certain point. I think to some extent, game developers have realized this and are targeting people who want to have a bit of a challenge, not drive themselves nuts.
... It _may_ be satisfying when you win, but it's very annoying to get there. Are 15 hours of frustration worth the rush when you win? Games 'back in the day' had a poor balance, often because of technological limitations.
Compare how many times you've thrown an NES controller in frustration to the number of times you've thrown an XBOX or PS2
And sometimes tedious repetition just because you keep flubbing one jump, or the boss uses cheap one-shot-kill tactics detracts from satisfaction. When you finally get past it, you're more irritated than triumphant, and you never, ever want to pick up the game again and have to get through that part.
Anyhow. Unrelated to the above, but related to my subject, the author has clearly never _played_ The Adventures of Cookie and Cream, if he thinks it's just some kid game. It's an innovative two-player game that requires coordination and a fair amount of puzzle solving and skill. Bosses require thought to figure out how to harm them, and the courses are timed; you can't just dally for an hour figuring out puzzles, or repeating it until you get it right. And it's quite exhilirating to squeak past the finish line before time runs out. If he hadn't dismissed it as a degraded platformer, he might've realized it's more or less everything he'd been looking for.
Judging from the article I'm a casual gamer (Despite the fact that I can and have played through HL 2 and Doom 3 as soon as the came out. Without cheating. I have also played a lot of very cerebral games. Rarely using a hint guide.).
I think it's good that most games allow me to save before important fights. I think end bosses are a stupid idea in the first place (Just like I laugh at any Pen&Paper GM who places them at the lowest level of the dungeon. Ridiculous.). I don't think the player needs to be punished when he makes a mstake, rewarding him when he does right is better. etc.
Well, I thought, he does sound like a very bitter gamer, who knows he's right and can't believe someone might disagree, but I don't think he should be left without games he likes. So maybe I'd suggest again the idea of having difficulty settings for allowing to save. Or hope that more publishers would carry what he called "old-school" games. A sensible compromise, based on the demographic, can surely be reached. Then, I read this:
"There has to be some kind of compromise that we can reach. We certainly need those casual gamers to add to the mix of the gaming community, but we can't let them dominate the kinds of games that are released."
Any you know what?
I think he's an asshole, because he thinks the overwhelming majority of players shouldn't be deciding what games get made in the majority? Don't tell me he believes there are more hardcore players than casual ones either, that would really screw the meaning of hardcore, y'know?
So, I conclude, choice is good and people like to play their games differently, so there ought to be more of each type + new and experimental ones, but having the hardcore gamers as target audience near exclusively, as he suggests, is dumb (Because it doesn't pay), arrogant (because he is right and the majority would get it wrong, because they like it wrong) and, foremost, insulting.