Slashdot Mirror


Are Games Getting Easier?

An anonymous reader writes "I can't help feeling that this generation of games for both consoles and PCs are getting increasingly dumbed down and easier to complete. There's no challenge in today's games, most of which can be completed on the day of purchase. Triple A titles such as Halo, Modern Warfare 2 are the worst of the lot. The whole reason for this article is Medal of Honor, this can be completed within hours of purchase. Where's the fun in that?"

33 of 854 comments (clear)

  1. Where is the fun? by weachiod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In multiplayer.

    1. Re:Where is the fun? by jaymz666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, there's nothing more fun than being teabagged by some jerk who has no life or job so they spend 24/7 practising so they can feel their life has meaning when some wage slave logs on to go find some fun for a few hours.

    2. Re:Where is the fun? by mark72005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      I hate how game companies today are shoving everyone toward online play - though I understand, because it frees them from having to... you know... create content for the game.

      Some of us want to be able to play single player in exchange for our $60... it's not too much to ask.

    3. Re:Where is the fun? by abigor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fully agree. That said, you just have to pick your games: Assassin's Creed 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA4 and many others offer extensive single player content. I love stuff like the Modern Warfare games, but I make sure to buy them used and cheap.

    4. Re:Where is the fun? by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish I had mod points now. I'd often rather not have MP at all, for I barely ever do multiplayer. There isn't a whole lot of fun to getting shot at by people you don't know who'll rub it in your face in the typical well-mannered way a 14-year old can.

    5. Re:Where is the fun? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      got it... jerks don't deserve fun.

      Sure they do. I'd just prefer it if their fun wasn't had at my expense.

      why don't you make your own games?

      Because I already have a job. I don't want to spend my few leisure hours trying to code up a video game. I want to relax and enjoy myself.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    6. Re:Where is the fun? by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know. My all time favorite multiplayer FPS is Starsiege: Tribes. It was only multiplayer and it was hard as hell to play. I was never one of the greats, or even really good but I always found it fun. Thing is the game is absolutely full of content. The multiplayer was amazingly complex for its day. Even though it had no multiplayer it was still seeped in Starsiege lore. You don't need to know any of it to play the game, but they did put a lot of time into it. So it's not like content and multiplayer are mutually exclusive.

    7. Re:Where is the fun? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except for the fact there is a difference between simply losing and being told you suck repeatedly from people who have no life other than the game.

      The problem is, unless you are part of the "community" and can devote a lot of time to a game, you aren't going to have fun because the majority of people online are assholes.

      There is a line between simply being bad at a game and 14 year old kids cursing you out because you can't devote 8 hours a day to the game.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    8. Re:Where is the fun? by nschubach · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't mind multiplayer. In fact, I encourage it... but I don't do PVP. Most people equate multiplayer to competitive and that's where I think multiplayer gaming gains a big red "x" for some people. What we need to do is encourage developers to develop a storyline and allow jump-in cooperation from people you approve.

      Personally I feel like MP games need to break a bit from the linearity of single player gaming (and I know people will disagree with me on this.) I'd love to be completing storyline missions in one town and let my friend go off and sell loot from our last mission or whatever they like (even if it's breaking form the party and exploring that cave over there.)

      I spend most of my time investigating the cooperative aspects of games so that I can log in and play with friends and complete objectives.

      I don't have nearly as much fun in games when it's just me.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:Where is the fun? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how do you get better if you die every few seconds? Does every multiplyaer game have segmented ability-based collections? If I'm awesome at one weapon, can I go to the n00b leagues and try getting better with another one?

      I letigimately don't know. what I do know is I played COD 2 for about 10 minutes at a friend's house and got shot a milliion times, and had no desire to ever play the game again. How do I get better? Just walk around and hopefully someone misses so I can fire my weapon once?

    10. Re:Where is the fun? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm really sorry to say this. But you are completely full of shit.

      Two things need to happen. First up, matchmaking desperately needs a better way to match players of similar skill.

      Second, whoever came up with the "play for X hours, get 'experience points' to unlock all the uber fucking gear" for Call of Duty, that every other goddamn FPS-multiplayer has been mimicking ever since, needs to fucking die. It's already bad enough that the lifeless basement-dwellers ruin the game for anyone else coming on to play for fun, now they get an extra advantage in more body armor and deadlier weapons too?

      No. Thank. You.

      I gave up on playing anything multiplayer on Xbox Live for one simple reason: I can't go on to anywhere, find a "new players" server, and get comfortable in the game. No, all that's available are the deathmatch and ctf-playing 14-year-old fatsos who live in their parents' basement, never see natural light, and scream "faggot" into their headset constantly if you don't do everything picture perfect and have a goddamn photographic memory for every little fucking nook and cranny and weapon respawn time so that you're standing right on the rocket launcher the moment it comes back up from their using the ammo up and dropping the last spawn.

    11. Re:Where is the fun? by davev2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What gets me is that they are making gaming into a social event. If I wanted to be social, I would not be at home on a computer. I would be at a LAN party. I would play golf, or softball, or just go to a gym. I would go to a restaurant, bar, or club. I would go to a bookstore or coffee shop. I would take a class. I would do something, anything other than sit in a room alone and "socialize" on my computer while playing a game.

      When I want to be social, I go be with other people and socialize. I really don't want to be forced to socialize with others in order to play a computer game at home.

    12. Re:Where is the fun? by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suck at FPS. So what? I don't have time to become good at the genre or memorize the maps. Just put me on a server with a bunch of other guys who don't know the maps and suck. We'll all have fun, while you guys who are good at it compete for the real glory.

    13. Re:Where is the fun? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm really sorry to say this. Most games are competitive.

      These days that's largely true. Which is part of my complaint. Cooperative and/or single-player games are getting harder to find. Which is a problem, if I don't feel like playing something competitive.

      If you're not having fun, you probably suck.

      I'm very willing to accept that I suck. I don't have hours to devote to practicing enough to become good. And I'm ok with that. You aren't going to insult me by telling me that I suck. I know this already.

      But simply losing at a game can still be enjoyable - if the people you're playing with are not jerks.

      There's a difference between playing a friendly match and losing to somebody who is a good sport, and playing with somebody who is screaming random obscenities and insulting you every time you die.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    14. Re:Where is the fun? by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the days before RS-232 we had current loop, which was basically the same idea, but used "current flow"/"no current flow" instead of RS-232 +15V/-15V to signal zeros and ones.

      MIDI 1.0 is a current loop serial port that runs at a bizarre baud rate 31250 bps. Yet it uses a nice standard async protocol of 8N1 just like a serial port.

      Depending on the peculiar non-standardness of your serial port, it might, with minimal hacking, be made to work MIDI.

      Take a UART chip, add a RS-232 level shifter like a MAX-232 or those ancient 1489 1488 level shifters, add a DB-25 and you've got a RS-232 port. Take the same UART chip, add some optoisolators and resistors, wire to a 5 pin DIN jack, and you're got a MIDI port. Not as different as you'd think. The software is a bit different of course.

      Or working the other way around, on the Atari ST, the MIDI ports could be connected in a "MIDI null modem"-ish cable, and you could play multiplayer games, although I never owned a ST.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:Where is the fun? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      What a coincidence..thats how I like my women!

      You mean because they give you extensive single-player content?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Where is the fun? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep, there's nothing more fun than being teabagged by some jerk who has no life or job...

      Are you saying it's more fun being teabagged by some nice millionaire with a lovely family? I'd think that would make it worse. "Not only is he better than me at this game, and his virtual nuts are in my virtual dead face, he's better than me at LIFE!!!"

    17. Re:Where is the fun? by parlancex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is compounded by the new fad of including permanent progression in almost every online game now, so I can go online in Red Dead Redemption or Call Of Duty and get killed instantly by people like that who have 10 times more health and do 10 times more damage. What kind of sane adult has the patience to suffer through it for countless hours just to cancel that out?

  2. More players = More money by Manos_Of_Fate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a business decision, pure and simple. The more people your game is accessible to, the more copies you sell. Why spend a lot of time developing a game 5% of the potential market will want when you can spend the same effort appealing to the other 95%?

    --
    Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
  3. Difficulty Settings! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... Halo, Modern Warfare 2 are the worst of the lot. The whole reason for this article is Medal of Honor ...

    I can't speak for Halo but I'm pretty sure MW2 had difficulty settings and I know Medal of Honor has difficulty settings because I played that piece of shit game last night. Easy and Normal maybe but I think that Difficult would take more than a couple tries on most levels.

    You're just mad because it doesn't mean anything to beat a game anymore. Sure, on XBox you can get gamer points or achievements for beating it on the hardest setting but it bothers you that others can experience the same rewarding progress dopamine that you get. Well, that's never going to change. By the very nature of how that is rewarding to you is the fact that you're a select few of maybe ~10% of the population that can beat the game.

    So Craptivision can either shutout some of their content to the vast majority of players or introduce difficulty settings so the toddler across the street can mash the controller in order to beat the game in easy mode. That drives profits and the only thing they see as a sacrifice is the rare super gamer that feels a bit miffed he or she just forked over $60 in order to autopilot through a game.

    You know I still played through all the levels of difficulty in Goldeneye on the N64 and didn't feel cheated. When I ran that train level on 00-Agent difficulty night after night after night I can still think back to those rare times when I would laser the engineer room hatch open with my watch and then drop down with Natalya only to have to run down the length of the train with people shooting at our backs. One bullet in either of our backs and we were basically dead. That goddamn bitch always died. Always. I swear to Christ when I eventually passed that level it was by sheer bug alone that she did not die. So after that cruel Sisyphean task that my friend and I worked together strategizing and getting through it, I was rewarded and will never forget some of those levels.

    Games are getting easier but I ask you what does it matter? You will have your difficulty settings (usually) so play only on the hardest setting and enjoy your Contra III style impossibilities. The era of earning progress through a game has largely come to pass unless you look at the end game material of WoW at any one moment. Final Fantasy XIII was a travesty in this respect. And profit dictates it will stay that way.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Difficulty Settings! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Halo gives you the options to make the game incredibly difficult - not only are there the 4 difficulty settings but there's a whole slew of skulls you can activate to make things harder (Limitted Ammo, Enemies like to use grenades more often, and of course Iron mode (any death by you or a team mate if you are playing co op means you restart the whole level, no checkpoints).

      So if he is complaining about Halo 3 or Reach not being difficult enough, I challenge him to legendary with all skulls on, and try beating that in anything less than 6 hours and I will bow down and call him the gamer king.

      He is just reminiscing the days of difficult platformers where every moving object on the screen was trying to kill you, and one touch meant you were dead and lost a life, and you only got 3 to start.

      Don't get me wrong, games ARE getting easier, but that's not a bad thing. When I first played the new Halo Reach - it was with a buddy of mine and we were trying it on Legendary, no skulls. We got about half way through in one night - and its only because we've played all the halos through since the DEMO of Halo 1 - so our skills in those games are rather refined. When I was playing the game for myself, I wanted to jump in on multiplayer as soon as possible, but I also wanted to finish the campaign, just for the storyline - I would do Legendary another time when I felt like the challenge. Being able to breeze through the campaign on easy was a good thing, like an added feature to the game. When a game is storyline driven, as most games try to be now-a-days, its not a bad thing to have an easy difficulty setting where you can progress the game more like a movie.

  4. Easy or Stupidly Difficult by VoiceInTheDesert · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems the way to make AI these days is to make it really stupid and easy for the player to beat, unless the player turns it on hard mode, in which case, they see you from 5 miles away and one-hit you before you were aware the map had finished loading.

    Studios are under a lot of pressure to churn out games as fast as possible these days and AI is suffering. The solution to making games challenging is to make them either never miss and insta-kill the player or to just give them tons of health and attack power, but keep them stupid. Neither strategy is entertaining and it would be nice to have actual care put into building intelligent, challenging AI instead.

  5. Profit! by aapold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just like planned obsolescence in other products, there's less money to be made in something that will keep a customer challenged and occupied for months. Better to let them finish it quickly and back to purchase another game (or some DLC to extend it).

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  6. Re:*yawn* by khallow · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know. This Slashdot game is pretty hard. I still haven't made it past level 1 where I get dogpiled by FP trolls. And I've been playing since 2001.

  7. It's adult gamers by Derkec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey we're busy. We really don't necessarily all want to struggle with games. We want something fun, that's a little challenging that we can get through. 12 hours of content for 60 bucks? That's about even with a movie.

    Personally, I gravitate to the games I can play over and over again, rather than big story games, but I get it.

    And the games we do play a lot are usually more social these days. The author complains about a short story in Halo or Modern Warfare. Well duh. Most people are paying for the multiplayer experience which infinitely re playable. The single player parts are a sideline. Is a 5 hour single player worth the money there? No. But that's not what people are buying anyway. It's like complaining about hugely expensive veg and potatoes while ignoring the steak that came alongside.

  8. Hate the mind numbing "Boss Battles" by cruff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really enjoy games with interesting puzzles and goals, until I get to those damn boss battles at the end of a segment. Who finds that any fun after the second time around? Really, do I need to die 30 times before I manage to hang on long enough to get past it?

  9. I'm not sure... by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not sure - I haven't played a new game in years. Still working on Myst. I hope to have it completed by 2015, and then I'll move on to Riven. I may just finish this series before I die...

  10. Re:*yawn* by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then play it in Lawrence of Arabia mode.

    "The trick is not minding that it hurts."

  11. ROI by Ryvar · · Score: 5, Informative

    (All opinions expressed herein may not reflect the views of my employer, and in fact we try to avoid falling into this trap but it's a pretty prevalent attitude in the industry right now):

    I work as a game designer on big-budget shooters for a living, so here's my take:

    Game companies are consciously making the decision to do this for two reasons:
    1) Easier games have broader markets, by increasing the likelihood and rate at which the user receives validation we increase sales, and much more importantly:

    2) It's unusual for more than 50% of the people who beat the first level of your game to beat the last level. Money spent on later levels is generally money wasted, and shortening the experience altogether is a function of the increasing development cost per hour of gameplay and ROI of even having more than 10 hours of content at all. If 95% of the people who bought the game complete the first level (as tracked by developers through achievement systems) but only, say, 35-40% finish the game, that necessarily influences how you invest your limited development funds.

    --Ryv

  12. A Rather Terrible Analogy, There by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article:

    Imagine if Tiger Woods just gave up the first time he swung a golf club because he didnt get a hole in one? What if Michael Jordan gave up because he couldnt dunk straight away? Both Golf and Basketball are games just like any other game, you play because its fun and in time you learn to play better and improve.

    Well, if Tiger Woods had to play his first ever game of golf against Jack Nicklaus, he probably would have been so frustrated with the experience that he might have considered not bothering. That is how multiplayer (your favorite FPS here) is for many people. That is exactly why I only played the first Quake for about an hour - and the rest of the series not at all. People who are new to the games end up in multiplayer games against people who play it 16 hours a day and hence find themselves annihilated faster than they can even figure out which button opens a door and which button changes weapons.

    People aren't giving up games quickly because they are hard - more often they are giving up because there is no point in trying to compete when there are no new players around. It would be as it there was no such thing as amateur boxing, everyone had to get started by fighting Mike Tyson; many people wouldn't even consider it out of fear of immediate death.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  13. Re:*yawn* by jarbrewer · · Score: 5, Funny

    What I wouldn't have given to only have to walk up hills. Everything was mountains in my day. And the 'game' was called Getting Poked In the Eye With a Stick. And we were grateful.

  14. Re:*yawn* by tool462 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a cheat code:
    Unix Unix Dem Dem Linux Repub Linux Repub Broadcom Apple Sun Start

    Instant +5, Insightful and positive Karma.

  15. Starting above your 1 rep max by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The same way you build muscle by lifting weights until exhaustion.

    But you don't start with a weight that you can't lift for even one repetition.