old vs new

[Demon88]

i remember back in the day when all that we had was a standard A, B, Select, Start and a 4 direction keypad (some may remember the NES ;)) i could remember how easily i had got from the start of the first Zelda game, through the first dungeon, and collecting the first triforce piece without being hit.

 

then we go up the timescale, SNES, PS1, N64, PC, PS2, Gamecube, XBOX, and we all thought that these games gave us a chalenge. so did i until i downloaded that very same zelda game that i had played many years ago and i must say... it was harder than any game that i could imagine. no telling where you had to go to, cant go near where you think is the end and get the ultimate pwnage weapon to easily complete the game like some people do...

 

some may call me a noob that i cant play the older games as well as i used to, but in those days, i/we had to rely on instinct (Star wars on the NES, from the conveyor belt, up the wall, not too high to hit the spikes, just right to land on the platform, over you die, under you die...)

 

then we come upto now day games...

 

"right, that box said that i have to go....... here, and do this, that and, done that. la de da, oh, i completed it..."

 

or, "bang bang bang bang bang bang, reload, band bang bang. got to save this person, bang bang bang, all dead, missi... oh game complete..." about 3 christmasses ago, got an xbox, halo 1 and fable. completed them BOTH within 2 weeks after christmas.

 

now, tell me, is games getting far too easy or are they harder than the older games???

 

 

(those that wanted to download the old zelda, go to www.zeldaclassic.com)

[Vagrant0]

Look at it this way, when companies make a game, which makes more sense; a game that takes a short time to complete, and get bored with, or a game that takes months to complete, and has tons of replay value? From the company standpoint it's the first one since the player gets the most immediate satisfaction from it, and then has to buy another game to keep with something entertaining. The shorter game is also easier to produce and test since they don't have to code all that extra content. This means that they have a cheaper product that hits the market sooner, gets bought, then leaves the customer wanting something more right away.

 

Although really, older games aren't much better, they just added more filler (level raising, spending hours collecting stuff) to make the game seem longer. Even abnormally long games like those in the Final Fantasy series go by rather quickly once you get rid of all the leveling stuff. Xenogears (not Xenosaga) however is a long game no matter what, it's also hard to get a hold of for exactly that reason.

[Malchik]

There were older crap games and there are newer ones. I think you have to remember that there are many kinds of player with different likes/desires. Those of us who grew up with older games are also more tolerant of what is now considered inferior graphics. All the same I am inclined to agree that Oblivion has dumbed down to the point of making it totally unreplayable. (This is a personal opinion, I know others disagree.) So where the future? Reputation will only sustain a company for so long. It will depend on the market. If enough kids are happy with Oblivion look-alikes, marketing will mean that's what we get. But a new company will find something better some day. In the mean time look at the work the modding community is doing! Try Povuholo's mod on Elemental lighthouses. You won't find that too easy.

[Tiberiu911]

Depends what game you're talking about.

 

I didnt grew up in that age so I dont really know. Ive only played a couple of old games myself and didnt found them extremely difficult. It had alot less user suport though, very little clues as to what to do and where to go. Perhaps thats what makes older games more difficult. Perhaps it is because gaming companies just started, and they didnt knew what was easy or difficult, so they just made something realizable. As time passed, new functions, engines, ideas came out and it shaped gaming, making it more easy to understand, to play.

 

So you where good back then because you knew no other solution, or should I say, alternative. All of the games where like that, it didnt seem hard at the time. But for the present you, having played other new games, switched your brain understanding of gaming, adapting to new styles. So when you decide to play something older and completly different...

 

Thats what I can think of however, I didnt played lots of old games.

 

All the same I am inclined to agree that Oblivion has dumbed down to the point of making it totally unreplayable.

 

I agree to that as well, Malchik.

[Abramul]

Back in the days of Windows 3.x, pretty much the only games I played were:

A) Arcady games

B) Falcon 3 and (I think, might have been on 95) Need For Speed 1

 

Not the sort of thing I'd dignify with the term 'Gaming'.

 

Incidentally, I happen to have a copy of Windows 3.0 sitting around...

 

Since then, I've tried out a few of the classics, and while they do seem more focused on gameplay, I do think a rudimentary HUD would probably have helped.

 

(One of the 'classics' I refer to is Zork. Recently, I was reading the Penkovskiy Papers, and noticed that Ch. 2 was titled "The Dark World of the GRU"")

[Switch]

As Tiberiu says, it all depends on the game. There are some developers that still try to create games with depth, which don't take your hand and walk you through everything. Problem is, they tend to get stamped on by the PR of the larger mainstream titles. Gothic 3, for instance, has had next to no press coverage at all outside of Germany from what I can see. Not even the UK PC Gamer has mentioned it. And yet, it has far more depth and fun to it than Oblivion ever did I'm finding. And it's certainly more challenging, without the ridiculous levelling issues of vanilla OB, and there are no magic icons telling you where every quest can be completed, and every place of interest found.

 

I think there's still hope for games with depth and more "old school" features, you just have to look to the smaller/indie developers for them. The mainstream titles will always go with what marketing tells them.

[Landsknecht]

The only reason the old games seemed hard is because you were less experienced when you played them. When I played Yoshi's Island for SNES when I got it, I beat it (evenutally), but the scores where not perfect. Now over the couple of weekends, I beat Yoshi's Isand, perfect scores, only a few things gave me trouble, but not like when I was playing it in 5th grade.

 

It has more to do with skill improving then it does with game design. As for the situation with the games you downloaded, well, it takes time to get used to the controls, keyboard, things like that.

[Demon88]

but that was just the one game tho, sure there was easy games like the dventures of mighty max (about 5-6 when i played it, completed that in 2 weeks) but then there was games like super probotector, which is more commonly known as contra. loads of enemies, but one hit on you and you die... sure, it was linear, but the bosses proved to be something completly different. also the final fantasy games, anyone who has tried to defete ruby and emerald weapon on 7 knows what im talking about. they were one of the hardest bosses that i have ever encountered. i know that final fantasy is not that old, but is kind of in between old and new if i had to put it somewhere. some parts were easy others was hard.

 

metroid was hard too, on the SNES when you had to defeat ridley and you diddnt know that you was going to be fighting him. draygon was hard too (only if you diddnt know the easy way of killing him :P) see, games like that were difficult because you had to look at things constantly, not just yoursel and where the enemies were coming from.

 

games of skill are probably the best ones to prove my point tho, i mean, look at games like:

star wars (NES) (the spike/leap of faith jumps, millenium falcon and xwing parts at the end of the game are the main ones, also the fact that you can miss out parts of it if you diddnt want to bother with it)

super mario bros (NES) (having to go wither over or under bowser to drop the bridge at the end of some levels. he can jmp higher than what you can normally + brick ceiling doesnt help)

captain planet (which i still yet to complete (NES)) (DAMN ****ING PENGUIN!!!!)

goof troop (SNES) (refering to the part where you had to push the blocks a certain way to open doors and stuff, not the whole came tho)

 

just playing those, you can see that games have gotten easier in comparison to games like:

fable (xbox) swing sword, swing sword, bit of magic here, swing sword)

final fantasy crystal chronicals (GC) (basically the smame thing over and over)

halo 1 & 2 (talking about the XBOX version, not sure about the PC version) (well, just keep shooting)

tony hawks american skateland (DS) (same things over and over, took me about 1 week of playing it to complete it (inbetween college and studdying)

 

and as much as i dont want to say it, i feel as though oblivion is easy as well, just following the quest markers and you compleye the main quest. BUT, i must say there are things that you can do to make the game harder like turning off the instant traveling, but even so, its just attacking and stuff...

[Vagrant0]

I admit, there does seem to be a good deal of dumbing down going on with most games. Most people just want a game they can play without having to read through a manual to get even the basic controls worked out. You can blame people for being lazy I guess. This is also probably why windows keeps getting more "user-friendly", and also why there are people who still prefer DOS commands. If you make something complicated, you're not going to have as many people willing to go through the trouble of learning how to use it. Have to remember, most of the games out there are geared toward 12-15 year olds (despite ESRB) or younger. As such, not much reading (or thought) needed to play them.

[Abramul]

I admit, there does seem to be a good deal of dumbing down going on with most games. Most people just want a game they can play without having to read through a manual to get even the basic controls worked out. You can blame people for being lazy I guess. This is also probably why windows keeps getting more "user-friendly", and also why there are people who still prefer DOS commands. If you make something complicated, you're not going to have as many people willing to go through the trouble of learning how to use it. Have to remember, most of the games out there are geared toward 12-15 year olds (despite ESRB) or younger. As such, not much reading (or thought) needed to play them.

You mean if a game has an interface that's difficult to learn, but is easy to use once one learns how, the spelling and grammar of its users will automatically improve?