Slashdot Mirror


How Strategy Guides Affected Gaming

Heartless Gamer writes "2old2play has another great story up looking into how games have become more complicated due to strategy guides. From the article; "Strategy guides have affected gaming by making games harder for all of us. That's right, it's not a typo — strategy guides have created more difficult games. Lend me your eyes and attention spans, and I'll explain. Admittedly, it may be a rambling explanation, but bare with me and we should get there eventually." Ya know I always find a strategy guide for things like Final Fantasy just because some puzzles are just ridiculous and I have no interest in trial & erroring for an hour when I'd rather kill monsters. But there really is somethign to this.

18 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Follow the money? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    strategy guides have created more difficult games.

    Strategy guides have been with us for a very long time indeed, almost as long as we've had games. I did a little research, and the earliest reference I can find to what I think qualifies as an 'official' strategy guide, are the 'hintbooks' published by Infocom in support of their adventure games.

    I remember those, form the early 80's. When you had to buy Invisi-Clues to solve InfoCom games. It struck me that some of these puzzles were so far from obvious you were going to fail without the booklets and their magic markers (which made the clues visible.) Why would I put this object in there? Where's the in-game hint there I should try such a thing? After all, there were probably 1.07e22 possible combinations...

    I don't remember a strategy guide for Space Invaders, but one for patterns to Pac-Man was a near best seller.

    Ya know I always find a strategy guide for things like Final Fantasy just because some puzzles are just ridiculous and I have no interest in trial & erroring for an hour when I'd rather kill monsters. But there really is somethign to this.

    Well, you seem to have hit the nail on the head with the video games -- you're getting pretty poor return on your entertainment dollar if you beat the game the day you bought it, thanks to a guide which tells you where to get the Spear and Magic Helmet you need and where the wabbit is hiding so you can kill him. Everyone is in a big hurry these days. Some is just impatience ("I want my reward, now!") and some of it is competitive ("George has already got the magic carpet from the Genie? Crap! I need to catch up to him!") I thought a Simpson's episode did a bit of fable (complete with moral) where Bart wanted some video game incredibly bad, then when he could just about get the game, some rude kid shows up in a shop and tells his mother the game is passe and he doesn't want it, he wants something else now. There's something about traveling in the herd which makes people need to succeed and buy these things.

    I'm so happy to be out of most of these newer games and having lots of fun with old games (even infocom invisiclues can now be found in the internet :-)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Follow the money? by legoburner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At least nowadays we have gamefaqs to save money on overpriced gaming guides. Although most games are more fun without gaming guides, every now and then there is one puzzle in a game where something has been missed along the way and a little help is needed. I find gaming guides most useful if I play a game for a little while, then dont play it for a few months and cannot remember some of the smaller details needed to get past puzzles once I pick the game up again.

    2. Re:Follow the money? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is that lots of games are fun as they are, and can be completed without finding everything, but if you want to experience certain parts of the game you'd have to be fucking insane to actually get there without help. I mean think about Vincent's ultimate weapon in FFVII... In order to even get to that quest, you have to race your chocobos enough to level them up, then feed your chocobos weird food, then get them to breed. You need to go through two generations of breeding (minimum) in order to even get the kind of chocobo you need to get to where his quest is. Or how about that place on the railroad tracks you have to just sort of spontaneously turn and go up a rock wall to get? There's no visual clue whatsoever that there is a place to climb up there. NONE. And if you go past it and don't get it the first time you're there, it's not there the next time you go by, either.

      Basically, games are designed to sell strategy guides. What more proof do you need?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Follow the money? by packeteer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off let me say i am a video game tester for a living and have played every single xbox and xbox 360 game to ever come onto the market (and many that never made it). Let me tell you video games are not getting harder, they are getting easier. The trend in video games is to make them into an interactive movie.

      The biggest money makers in video games are sports games, second to that are the titles based on movies. I realized this one time when I was testing Ninja Gaiden. I realized that there was a single attack button that you just hit over and over during combat. The game made you do all kinds of cool looking moves including decapitations and wicked slashing combos. You as the player did nothinhg but hit 1 button and watch.

      Another game that was just an interactive movie was the xbox King Kong game. The game was extremely linear and the combat was based of learning a gimmick that once you knew you would not die. There was no difficulty in finding your way around becuase the game resembled a tunnel and all the fights were so easy that as i said before, you were simply watch a movie and your controlle rwas along for the ride.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    4. Re:Follow the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      [This post has been deleted by a GameFAQS moderator]

  2. somethign by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have no interest in trial & erroring for an hour when I'd rather kill monsters. But there really is somethign to this.

    Well, it's clear that you're not spending the time working on your typing skills.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. Bare What? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Funny
    but bare with me...

    It's hard to take someone's comments seriously when they display such an obvious lack of spelling and grammar.

    Or are we supposed to be doing this naked? That's an M-Rating for sure.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  4. Benefit of Strategy Guides by Innova · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reason I use them is because I appreciate how much time is put into making a modern game. I want to make sure that I don't miss any parts of the game.

    Usually I will play through the game once on my own, but then use the strategy guide to go through a second time and hit all the side quests.

  5. Can't write a procedure guide by w33t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why I would like to see more procedurally generated games.

    Games where the actual story is completely different - with different characters generated for each instance.

    Imagine a murder-mystery game, for instance. Which takes place in an actual-sized city. Your character waits around the precinct until the call comes in. You travel to the murder scene and it's completely random what happened and how it happened.

    In this case, no strategy guide could say, "you should always look for a knife or a gun" because the murder weapon could have been any physical object - instead of a particular "murder_enabled" object. Maybe the murderer used a microwave oven to bludgeon the victim.

    A procedural AI would do it's best to cover its tracks, and would learn your particular style of deduction so that the next murderer is even more thorough at cleaning-up.

    With the advent of a good physics engine and procedural map-generating algorithm you would have a completely different murder scene every time, in a completely new location.

    This could apply to all kinds of games. RPGs where the decision interaction between nobles and generals would dictate political climates and trickle down to direct the individual actions of the NPC AIs.

    I certainly hope that Spore is going to be the "Wolfenstein 3D" of the procedurally algorithmic games of the future.

    1. Re:Can't write a procedure guide by w33t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is a good point.

      But a good deal of what makes a story great are the characters.

      Perhaps with good enough AI the idea of writing a "story" will be less about the story-line, and more about the detailed crafting of individual personalities.

      This way only half the "story" work is being done by the algoritm. The "drivers" of the story would be exquisitely crafted by writers/designers.

      Think about Han Solo, for example. I think he's a fantastic character, and many many stories can stem simply from him as an entity and from the decisions he would make and thus the situations he would find himself in.

      I could see then a game where you know the attitude of certain characters, and get to know them as "people". But perhaps with good enough AI, quality procedural stories can emerge simply on account of the strength of the character design.

      In fact, I think in this kind of environment where individual actions and decisions affect the "story" that the players own personality would likely have a large impact on the flow of the game. This type of impact would be much subtler than choosing the A-D answers from a menu which make your character simply become more "evil" or "good". The ability to have your personality impact a story would make the game have many shades of personal depth that a human writer could only achieve if he or she knew you personally.

      Writing this kind of software?...well, that's what I believe theoretical physicists refer to as, "an engineering problem" ;)

  6. Ye olde standby... by Dread_ed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok it goes like this:

    1) Make a game people like to play.
    2) Toss in some incredibly hard puzzles that no sane person can figure out.
    3) Sell the answers in a "Strategy Guide"
    4) PROFIT!

    Nothing like making your own market.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  7. Having just been Dugg... by Strolls · · Score: 4, Funny
    From TFA:
    Having just been Dugg, our servers are buckling under the load. Sorry for the inconvenience.
    2o2p Magazine Issue #5 mirrored here.
    Oh, the irony!

    This makes me feel old... erm... or something.

    Stroller.

  8. i'll show you strategy! by jjeffries · · Score: 4, Funny

    up up down down left right left right B A select (I have a brother) start!

  9. No Death by XanC · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think not being able to die in Monkey Island (and other Lucas adventures) was a big part of this. It limits the problem domain. In some of the Sierra adventures, if you hadn't done just the right thing early, you could literally be trapped with no way to proceed and no way of even knowing this was the case.

    Space Quest 2 was the worst offender that I can recall. In the first scene of the game, if you don't notice a particular item and grab it, then at the end of the game you're screwed, with no idea why. You have to start over. From the beginning.

    The LucasArts adventures were just so well-written and well-executed. Solvable but challenging puzzles and not being able to die are both aspects of this.

    Come on, LucasArts, give us more!

  10. Strategy Guides have killed the Manual by joinder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't necessarily have anything against strategy guides, (in fact I find most I've gone through to be very enjoyable reads with high production values), I do fear they've had a direct effect at cheapening the actual content in game manuals. It seems like most pack-in manuals with games are not much more than installation guides/or control layouts. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but the days of comprehensive pack-in manuals seem in the past.

  11. Re:They remove responsibility from developers by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

    What? There was the Chocobo Sage plus the girl/boy at the Chocobo ranch to give you hints and clues. As per the actual locations of WHERE to find the various Chocobos, that wasn't hard at all. Capturing chocobos was easy if your party was high enough level!

  12. I remember when... by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...most games came with books the size, or at least information content, of most modern "strategy guides". They were called "manuals", and took up the space inside of the box instead of just having a disk and a cardboard insert.

    For many games, the separation of what used to be expected in a robust manual into a separate "strategy guide" with the manual, if any, included with the game often little more than a basic introduction to the UI seems to be more of a way of restricting nominal price increases (as more of the work and cost is separated out into a different product) and narrowing the manufacturer's activities to their core competencies, than an excuse for making games more complex.

    Sure, games are more complex, because newer computers can handle more complex games, and there is a market for them to fill. But its not strategy guides that have caused this,

  13. Re:A 5.8 megabyte PDF. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > Um, were you expecting a 5.8 megabyte PDF containing a strategy guide or something? It doesn't take that many words to get this point across.

    My point was that whoever submitted this to Slashdot linked to a 5.8 megabyte PDF in order to talk about an article that was 3847 bytes long... A 1663-to-1 bloat factor has gotta be near the top of the charts for bandwidth wastage, even by our standards.

    About the only thing more wasteful would have been linking to a 60-minute HDTV broadcast, in order to talk about the 30 seconds of talking-head "editorial video" starting at 22:17 and ending at 22:47. Seriously not cool.