old vs new

[Vagrant0]

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?

 

No, dunno where you got that idea. All I was saying that if the game is complicated to the point where people would have to spend a few hours reading through a manual, and familiarizing themselves with how things work, fewer people will play said game. Since a literate individual would likely go through the process quicker and easier than an illiterate individual, there are bound to be more literate people playing that game.

 

The game companies realize this, so tend to dumb things down so that you don't need all that complication, and can just start playing right out of the box. From a marketing standpoint, it makes the most sense. From a gamer standpoint, it means that if you want any real depth, you're going to have to do some searching for some of the few rare games being made.

 

Also, since the games only offer brief challenges, it means that it gets boring faster, which means that you need to buy another one sooner.

[thedark888]

... The game companies realize this, so tend to dumb things down so that you don't need all that complication, and can just start playing right out of the box. From a marketing standpoint, it makes the most sense. From a gamer standpoint, it means that if you want any real depth, you're going to have to do some searching for some of the few rare games being made.

 

I have to agree with that (sorry for interrupting). I'd like to go a bit deeper in the corporate aspect of developping and promoting "best sellers" game. A game wich is more or less linear, F.E.A.R. comes to mind, as almost no impact in the support department, since out of the box, you can finish the game withouth beign stuck and raise any questions in less than 12 hours at normal setup. No need for the developper to maintain help desk on "gameplay" related issues = more profits and since cheatcodes are implemented right away in the product, it offers anyone whith any motivation the possibility of beating/winning/cheating/finishing the game. How it's done is not important, but for the consummer to see the ending sequence, is for marketting. If somebody beated a game he/she appreciated, he/she will be more encline to buy a similar game, or the upcomming expansions. Hooking the customers who are not asking anything nor complaining, that's the best case scenario fot the corporations.

 

More over, any title product is a potential milk cow, since most probably, several expansions to the game should be release if the game is a hitter; deepening the plot, but still keeping the same linearity. This sounds like a series of horror movies, and you're right, the same marketting mechanics applies to it.

 

The era where we needed to share infos on how to complete Zelda II on NES is over. As long as the industry will make profits in sleek looking, playable out-of-the-box, easy to beat, easy to cheat and no question asked game, the fewer difficult/complicated game will be released.

 

I think that the serious gamer will stay away from most of the mainstream titles and stick to more versatile or vast games. Like some multiplayer shooters (BF42, BF2 etc.) where no game is the same if you play online. Or RPGs like Oblivion who is great for is open architechture allowing the player to install/use several plugings to increase the difficulty, realism, leveling, expand the world and get rid of the magic quest guiding arrows. Or some very deep stuff like silent hunter III, where nobody hold your hand while you charlenge the ennemy at sea and try to get your hide back to the base once your mission is failed or successfull.

 

There are a bunch of gamers outhere not falling for candy games from the mainstream, and there are serious developpers who will pursue on bringing good games for this silent mass of avid players who'd rather spend 14 hours/day playing on their dream machine than anything else.

[KzinistZerg]

I agree, to a point.

 

Many old games are harder because... wait for it... wait for it... they required skill!

 

Can you play tetris? It's fun! and you need skill. So was Diamonds, a really old game. That was quick thinking and pattern-recognition. Columns, Plague (but none of you ever played that last one, it was a disease-sim with little dot-bacteria and was insanely fun to play) Contraption Zach, Lemmings...

 

These were games with real problem-solving and thinking and some actual intelligence involved. Today you require very little thought to play games and quite a lot to mod or make them.

 

What I don't think Bethesda understands, is that they're not actually selling a game; they're selling the Construction Set. that's it, that's the appeal. Why else would morrowind still be popular? It's got comparatively bad graphics and a horrible rendering system. But the extra content and the well-done gameplay guarantee is relative immortality.

 

Raiden, Montezuma's Revenge, Bluemax, Tapper, and many others were interesting because they were puzzle-games. Zork, too was great for that reason.

 

Yes, games have been getting easier. A general rule of thumb is that the better the graphics, the easier the game. If the pixels rival M&M's for size, you're good.

 

Aaaaand Oblivion has NO replay value. I haven't even bothered to do very much at all, it was so lacking in content. C'mon modders, fix Bethesda's mistakes!

[Malchik]

I think we should be careful to compare like with like. Games may be puzzle based/hack and slash-shoot out/role play etc. Although there may be a few puzzles in any type of game they are really different genres. I play puzzle games and rpg (not plain hack and slash). I have not found any new puzzle based games recently (please advise me if they exist) so I assume they are less popular than they were. It means I cannot make any comparisons.

 

The term RPG is also rather vague. It should mean you have a high degree of flexibility in choosing your character and in the role played in the game world. But ideally this choice should have consequences. Most RPGs I have seen in recent years do not have this - perhaps it is too hard to script? IMO if you had joined the DB in Oblivion you should have been refused entry to at least the Fighters Guild and vice versa. Be that as it may let us assume for the debate that an RPG is a game in which your character choice is important. The rpg can then be more or less biased towards any one of the genre mentioned above. Many try to combine an element of puzzles and hack and slash.

 

To decide on whether or not one game is easier than another it is necessary to establish that the balance is INTENDED to be the same. I am not sure that MW and Oblivion are intended to have the same balance. Oblivion is far more concerned with levelled monsters etc.

 

Morrowind in itself was an easy game. Certain factors make Oblivion seem easier, the intrusive map markers being the most obvious, but I am not sure it really is. What makes it get boring more quickly than MW is the fact that it is so much smaller and less varied in terms of content. And it is much shorter. These combine to make it feel easier.

 

I am currently playing the rpg 'Gothic 3'. Under no circumstances can it be called easy. Indeed in some respects I feel it is too hard to make it replayable. It is long (no bad thing in my book) and has a complex and large world of a fair amount of interest. However it veers very much towards the hack and slash style of gaming. There are no puzzles as such but a great many hunts for needles in haystacks. When combined with an absence of detailed maps and no automapping facility to see where you have or have not been it does tend to lead to frustration.

 

Oblivion had crappy, though better, maps but you didn't need them because everywhere you needed to go was given a marker to which you could later fast travel. In G3 teleportation is possible between the 24 towns only (and then only if you can find the relevant stones). As a main quest item can turn up in an unmarked cave miles from anywhere it starts to make things feel impossible. It is incredibly difficult to be sure you have been everywhere.

 

G3 is not easier than older games though the difficulty does not have anything to do with the puzzle content.

 

I'm not drawing any conclusions from this because my experience of rpgs is by no means comprehensive. I would say however that some of the comparisons referred to in earlier posts do not seem to be comparing like with like.

[thejake1453]

you guys want a recent game thats hard? play final fantasy 10 (number 9 was the best to me)

its bloody hard!! what about the metal gear solid games?they were hard,the splinter cell games,

now c'mon you can NOT say they were easy.

 

lets think about old games,

the pac man games, easier then most

space invaders, (except for the very last space ship) pretty easy.

the zelda games, actually they werent easy they were trick but bloody fun

(the console ones not gameboy ones)

 

think about it new games arent all that easy, i mean some are and some have those parts that take you 5 hours to do and make you so mad you wanto snap the disk >:( (you know what i mean) ;)

 

but you know what the worst is? whan you play a great game like say age of empires 1 when it came out

and yuo love it then years later at modern day you play it and realise its complete crap! the graphics suck and you cant do many exciting things (i know this is sorta of topic but comon thats annoying)

[VaanicOne]

It's also important to note that games have different audiences now.

 

Back then, I don't know which demographic played video games the most - but today it's certainly mostly aimed at younger audiences, and mainly teenagers. Have you ever met a teenager that could do rocket science?

 

Not only that, but a lot of gamers these days do not conform to stereotypes. It's not just "Nerds" and "Geeks" that play them, it's people from all backgrounds. So games have to appeal to people who perhaps aren't that intelligent - but instead want to just have some mindless fun in a game and be happy.

[ninja_lord666]

I agree with you Vaanic, not all game players are geeks. Take my cousin for example. Except for his size...or lack there of :D , he is pretty much your typical sports playing jock, but he enjoys playing video games...of course sports related.