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.
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.
He doesn't sound like he's kidding. I have to agree. Star Wars is a very poor example of sci-fi. It's a brilliant example of cliched formulaic opera. You have a swashbuckling hero rescuing the princess from the evil villain. The villain is appropriately dressed in black with a cape; the only thing missing from his attire is the curly moustache. There's a love interest set against the backdrop of a war-torn Europe^Wgalaxy. You have two bumbling sidekicks that make you laugh while also explaining the narrative with their banter. Star Wars could just as easily have been Reluctant Hero Luke using Excalibur to rescue Damsel in Distress Leia from the Black Wizard Vader, riding his Flying Unicorn, with his companions a Dwarf named Artu Deetoo and a homosexual Elf named Seephree. It wouldn't have changed the plot one iota. The science is notably absent from the fiction that is Star Wars. Scientific devices like lasers and battleships are used, but they aren't fundamental to the plot, they are confetti sprinkled over the story.
Compare this against true sci-fi movies like 2001. It was only because Kubrick wielded so much clout that 2001 made it to the silver screen. Studios are reluctant to fund true sci-fi because audiences HATE the genre. Sci-fi has no need for heroes, villains, explosions, swordfights or punchups. Sci-fi aims to imbue you with a sense of wonder; to amaze you with a fictional world that might possibly exist due to miracle of scientific progress. Sci-fi recreates the feeling of elation that comes from exploration and discovery. Most people couldn't care less; they just want the hero to beat the villain.
Asimov himself wrote a short story that poked fun at this problem of operas pretending to be sci-fi. In the story, two children are listening to a robot that tells stories. The first child isn't happy that robot only tells fantasy stories. The second child records a new "noun reel" with sci-fi phrases like "battleship" and "laser" and "robot". However the children soon realise that the story-telling robot doesn't tell sci-fi; it's just telling fantasy stories with sci-fi nouns. The children lose interest immediately. I think Asimov was saying something quite profound about the state of sci-fi at the time, which was full of swashbuckling fantasy pretending to be sci-fi.
50 years later, nothing has changed.