why did games used to be so complicated

things are much better now. everything is so much more accessible which means way more people get to play and enjoy them.

seems crazy that they used to be so overly complicated.

-------------

Discussion moved from System Wars to General Games Discussion.. - STAFF

i would have a flameshield cause those so called "harcore" or "purist" gamers are gonna come and baww.

Still i agree least i can enjoy a few more games outwith sports with my dad and a few other relatvies now.

I wouldn't say that. Back when I started gaming on the NES all I had to do was hook up my system to my TV, put the cartridge in and BAM..I was gaming. My console came with a game and the accessory gun. All I had to do to keep gaming was buy more games at the store with real money.

Now video game consoles are compatible with different TVs differently, if you want the best video quality you need to buy a certain TV and certain cables. Many games are made with online play in mind so unless you wanna miss out on most top games you have to hook up your console to an online source as well and some games are Downloadable only so you have to either buy it with a credit card on your console using a points system on XBL and Wii or buy games with a minimum amount of 5 dollars on PSN or buy a prepaid card to get the content. And now both HD consoles are coming out with add on's.

I don't think gaming is less complicated now but it definately gives the gamer more of everything if your willing invest the time and money.

Are you talking about the way people played games or the games themselves?

Are you talking about the way people played games or the games themselves?

Yangire

Wait what exactly did you find complicated? are you sure it isn't just that you are older now and you have been gaming long enough you have become complacent with the lack of change?

Ill take the bait ^^

The reasons I dislike the "streamlining" of games is because they lose all challange. I loved games back in the '90 You felt a feeling of achivement when you after 30 mins of running your head into a wall, figured out the subtle nuances of a game, youfelt a "Heureka" moment, as you grasped the world around you, learned theunwritten rules of the game. It was awesome. Alot of games nowadays, I dont even play half though because they wont give me a challange, and if they dogive as a "challange"is boiled down to a halfarsed puzzle a 2 year old could figure out.

The key here is that there are two kinds of gamers split on thistopic. Those whowants to feelempowered (through the game and the actions in it) And those who wants a challange (those who wants tofeel like they accompliched something when they finished a game, and wants the satisfaction of going headlong into impossible odds, and figure out a way to beat those odds, almost like chess)

There are a whole lot of games In general this gen I just look at, or try out, and think "If I wanted a cinematic effortless thing to do, id watch a movie"

So clearly I belong to the 2nd of those groups. I do notthink less of the first group, since it is also a very validreason to play games, It is just not my cup of tea.

Ideally gaming will be split intointo those two groups,which it allready kind of is, you hear the word "mainstream"get thrown around alot in these forums, aswell as Hardcore. They are the users own attempt to seperate those two groups.

All this is well and good, unless we take the 3rd group in account: The group who plays to have fun.

Aw snap, now it messed up the grouping I made ^^

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

Are you talking about the way people played games or the games themselves?

Vinegar_Strokes

Well back in the 1980's and 1990's that was generally because gaming had a very small casual market as compared to today. So a lot of complicated games were on the PC, because there was a market for it on the PC.

Personally I understand why a person would like how this generation is becoming more accessible to the average gamer, but to some people (including me) it's making it more boring. Gaming these days seems to revolve around major hits and large budgets for games that are easy to get into so it will sell millions.. That leaves gamers that do want to play a game fitted more to their niche left out.

**I'm talking about console gaming**

Even the games themselvers were less complicated back then, which isn't a good thing or a bad thing but just reality. Here let me break it down for you:

We used to game with these many buttons:

Now because our games are more advanced we have this many:

lol nintendo and snes games in no way, shape or form are more "complicated" than today's games.

lol nintendo and snes games in no way, shape or form are more "complicated" than today's games.

lazerface216

Mario games had no check points in the beginning.. when you die 3 times you start aLLL over...

Because depth is the enemy of profits.

Because depth is the enemy of profits.

foxhound_fox

Ill take the bait ^^

The reasons I dislike the "streamlining" of games is because they lose all challange. I loved games back in the '90 You felt a feeling of achivement when you after 30 mins of running your head into a wall, figured out the subtle nuances of a game, youfelt a "Heureka" moment, as you grasped the world around you, learned theunwritten rules of the game. It was awesome. Alot of games nowadays, I dont even play half though because they wont give me a challange, and if they dogive as a "challange"is boiled down to a halfarsed puzzle a 2 year old could figure out.

The key here is that there are two kinds of gamers split on thistopic. Those whowants to feelempowered (through the game and the actions in it) And those who wants a challange (those who wants tofeel like they accompliched something when they finished a game, and wants the satisfaction of going headlong into impossible odds, and figure out a way to beat those odds, almost like chess)

There are a whole lot of games In general this gen I just look at, or try out, and think "If I wanted a cinematic effortless thing to do, id watch a movie"

So clearly I belong to the 2nd of those groups. I do notthink less of the first group, since it is also a very validreason to play games, It is just not my cup of tea.

Ideally gaming will be split intointo those two groups,which it allready kind of is, you hear the word "mainstream"get thrown around alot in these forums, aswell as Hardcore. They are the users own attempt to seperate those two groups.

All this is well and good, unless we take the 3rd group in account: The group who plays to have fun.

Aw snap, now it messed up the grouping I made ^^

The Challenges your referring to from the 90s were cheap enemies, broken games, lack or resources for walkthroughs and limited lives/continues. Now because we can stop on level 8 and pick it up from there the next day games FEEL easier but the reality was back then games were short and you were expected to beat them in one sit down.Javy03

Games don't "feel" easier, they are easier, besides broken games all of those things are design choices that make games harder.

Going by game design everything is more complicated nowadays. Going by game mechanics themselves, old games offered way more with their design limitations than newer games with their advantage.

Wait, games were complicated "back in the day"? Whoa, news to me. I remember them being simplistic, moreso by today's standards.Skittles_McGee

things are much better now. everything is so much more accessible which means way more people get to play and enjoy them.

seems crazy that they used to be so overly complicated.

Vinegar_Strokes

Not all games of yore were complex... take this one for example:

Good old home pong machine. :)

[QUOTE="Maddie_Larkin"]

Ill take the bait ^^

The reasons I dislike the "streamlining" of games is because they lose all challange. I loved games back in the '90 You felt a feeling of achivement when you after 30 mins of running your head into a wall, figured out the subtle nuances of a game, youfelt a "Heureka" moment, as you grasped the world around you, learned theunwritten rules of the game. It was awesome. Alot of games nowadays, I dont even play half though because they wont give me a challange, and if they dogive as a "challange"is boiled down to a halfarsed puzzle a 2 year old could figure out.

The key here is that there are two kinds of gamers split on thistopic. Those whowants to feelempowered (through the game and the actions in it) And those who wants a challange (those who wants tofeel like they accompliched something when they finished a game, and wants the satisfaction of going headlong into impossible odds, and figure out a way to beat those odds, almost like chess)

There are a whole lot of games In general this gen I just look at, or try out, and think "If I wanted a cinematic effortless thing to do, id watch a movie"

So clearly I belong to the 2nd of those groups. I do notthink less of the first group, since it is also a very validreason to play games, It is just not my cup of tea.

Ideally gaming will be split intointo those two groups,which it allready kind of is, you hear the word "mainstream"get thrown around alot in these forums, aswell as Hardcore. They are the users own attempt to seperate those two groups.

All this is well and good, unless we take the 3rd group in account: The group who plays to have fun.

Aw snap, now it messed up the grouping I made ^^

Javy03

Im pretty sure we could save our games aswell back then *checks UFo: Defence* yep we could. The difference was that enemies were generally harder to overcome in most genres, and the resources at the players disposal were more limited, as in none regenerating lifes, none unlimited lifes and saves. Far better puzzle elements (Tak a good long look at the RE sereis to get a grasp of this).

The best pointer to what I said would be a game like Bioshock Contra SS2. Did you ever feel a sence of acomplechment in Bioshock? ofcourse not, you couldnt die, and everything was so streamlined that the only navigation the player ever had to do would be a "go left, or go right" unlike the scruffing through the spaceship in SS2 to find what you needed to stay alive, and keep equipment intact. I prefer SS2 by a large margin, because it is up to the player to stay alive, in a game world, that is relentless (but not unfair).

Most games these days go out of thier way not to let the player die, as in you really have to try to die. In Syndicate you could mess up a mission, and itd be tough luck, you had to proceed the game with the failure,meaning the rest of the game would be potentially harder, now you are not given the choice, and yes youcould saveat the start of each mission, if you were vain enough to complete each and everyone of them.

DMC was harder then GoW by a long margin, altho most dont consider them the same genre. I do not Consider DMC broken either you know.

RPGs in general is mindless easy now, play FO2 and Fo3, and tell me where it is easiest to get high damage weapons and ammo, (without using a guide, thank you).

Nope, back in the '90 the Devs gave room for failure, and not alot of handholding, Remember when a teammate could die in a teambased RPG? yeah now they wake up after getting riddled with bullets, as if nothing happened. Plain and simple, the games were not broken back then, most of those games I still play (and often buy) I am still to see a broken game, if it is duable the game is not broken, if the game goes out of its way to make sure you suceed, it IS broken.

The thing that is different, is that Devs make games nearly impossible to lose at now.

[QUOTE="Javy03"] The Challenges your referring to from the 90s were cheap enemies, broken games, lack or resources for walkthroughs and limited lives/continues. Now because we can stop on level 8 and pick it up from there the next day games FEEL easier but the reality was back then games were short and you were expected to beat them in one sit down.Yangire

Games don't "feel" easier, they are easier, besides broken games all of those things are design choices that make games harder.

I can't think of many older games I would call 'complicated' but the challenge used to be much greater because a lot of early games could be beaten in one sitting and the way people got value for money was because you had to master controls and learn patterns to beat the game. You'd feel ripped off if you bought a game and beat it in a day but most of the time you would buy a relatively simple game but get stuck at one of the harder levels and the challenge was in figuring out how to beat that part of the game so you could progress to the next level.

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="Javy03"] The Challenges your referring to from the 90s were cheap enemies, broken games, lack or resources for walkthroughs and limited lives/continues. Now because we can stop on level 8 and pick it up from there the next day games FEEL easier but the reality was back then games were short and you were expected to beat them in one sit down.Javy03

Games don't "feel" easier, they are easier, besides broken games all of those things are design choices that make games harder.

What do you mean by broken, cheap enemies, and poor level/game design? Also, enemies one hit killing you, no to little lives, levels that are created to kill you, and enemies that are actually difficult make the game hard, spin it however you like but it makes the game hard.

Anyways we are talking about old video games complexity, not difficulty.

if youre talking about difficulty/challenge, the old school era had that. though games at that time were mostly trial and error - ish. or "cheap". every time i would beat a game id feel satisfied with a sense of accomplishment. according to me 95% of the games on the market today is cakewalk. Meowmixxvi

These are key words in the overall difficulty argument. Good job mentioning them.

Its better to be too complex then too simple

Real gaming started this gen I think. The gens before were just prototypes. aaronmullan

Is this sarcasm? If not I at least want to know why you think this.

things are much better now. everything is so much more accessible which means way more people get to play and enjoy them.

seems crazy that they used to be so overly complicated.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]Real gaming started this gen I think. The gens before were just prototypes. Yangire

Is this sarcasm? If not I at least want to know why you think this.

i gotta disagree. older games, like nes and snes weren't complicated at all generally, they just seemed harder because more was thrown at you in a shorter time. alot of the games weren't cheap at all, you just needed good reflexes and a bit of memorization. ninja gaidens 1,2 & 3, super mario bros, wizards & warriors, castlevania series, contra. these all had great level design and while be short and difficult definitely weren't complicated and once you figured out the nuances of the games they were relatively fair.

Im pretty sure we could save our games aswell back then *checks UFo: Defence* yep we could. The difference was that enemies were generally harder to overcome in most genres, and the resources at the players disposal were more limited, as in none regenerating lifes, none unlimited lifes and saves. Far better puzzle elements (Tak a good long look at the RE sereis to get a grasp of this).

The best pointer to what I said would be a game like Bioshock Contra SS2. Did you ever feel a sence of acomplechment in Bioshock? ofcourse not, you couldnt die, and everything was so streamlined that the only navigation the player ever had to do would be a "go left, or go right" unlike the scruffing through the spaceship in SS2 to find what you needed to stay alive, and keep equipment intact. I prefer SS2 by a large margin, because it is up to the player to stay alive, in a game world, that is relentless (but not unfair).

Most games these days go out of thier way not to let the player die, as in you really have to try to die. In Syndicate you could mess up a mission, and itd be tough luck, you had to proceed the game with the failure,meaning the rest of the game would be potentially harder, now you are not given the choice, and yes youcould saveat the start of each mission, if you were vain enough to complete each and everyone of them.

DMC was harder then GoW by a long margin, altho most dont consider them the same genre. I do not Consider DMC broken either you know.

RPGs in general is mindless easy now, play FO2 and Fo3, and tell me where it is easiest to get high damage weapons and ammo, (without using a guide, thank you).

Nope, back in the '90 the Devs gave room for failure, and not alot of handholding, Remember when a teammate could die in a teambased RPG? yeah now they wake up after getting riddled with bullets, as if nothing happened. Plain and simple, the games were not broken back then, most of those games I still play (and often buy) I am still to see a broken game, if it is duable the game is not broken, if the game goes out of its way to make sure you suceed, it IS broken.

The thing that is different, is that Devs make games nearly impossible to lose at now.

Maddie_Larkin

Sounds like we are talking about TWO different "Back thens". I was referring to the NES, SNES and Genesis era. That's back then for me. Save states were not completely standard and you had to beat the game in one play through if you could save all your lives before fighting cheap Bosses that are impossible to beat without dying.

You seem to be talking about PS1/PS2 days. And to me honestly aside from more emphasis on multiplayer now I don't see a HUGE difference between then and now. I think you might be harping on certain games and certain franchises. Yes some franchises became more accessible over time in their sequels but I still don't see all this "holding your hand" people complain about. Tutorial levels were around back then just like they are now. I think you have to stop generalizing and just accept that difficulty and challenges should be judged on a game by game basis and every gen. had easy shallow games and more difficult games. Just because DMC, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil got easier and more casual over time does not mean it reflects all the quality of all the games for those gens.

MGS4 for one was a lot more complicated then MGS1.

Its better to be too complex then too simple

toast_burner

True. Once the game is complex it can easily have some settings to make it more simple. The other way around is more limited.

... The key here is that there are two kinds of gamers split on this topic. Those whowants to feel empowered (through the game and the actions in it) And those who wants a challange (those who wants to feel like they accompliched something when they finished a game, and wants the satisfaction of going headlong into impossible odds, and figure out a way to beat those odds, almost like chess) ...

So clearly I belong to the 2nd of those groups. I do not think less of the first group, since it is also a very validreason to play games, It is just not my cup of tea. ...

Maddie_Larkin

Very good point. I totally agree. It is easy for someone in one group to look down on another. But each different group has a different reason to play games. Post of the day for me.

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]Real gaming started this gen I think. The gens before were just prototypes. aaronmullan

Is this sarcasm? If not I at least want to know why you think this.

I hope this is just the second chapter of your sarcasm.:|

i gotta disagree. older games, like nes and snes weren't complicated at all generally, they just seemed harder because more was thrown at you in a shorter time. alot of the games weren't cheap at all, you just needed good reflexes and a bit of memorization. ninja gaidens 1,2 & 3, super mario bros, wizards & warriors, castlevania series, contra. these all had great level design and while be short and difficult definitely weren't complicated and once you figured out the nuances of the games they were relatively fair.

z4twenny

If he's talking about old games with complexity he would be talking about PC games like Anacreon: Reconstruction 4021, Lunar Commander 2, Capitalism Plus, Nethack, etc.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

Is this sarcasm? If not I at least want to know why you think this.

glez13

I hope this is just the second chapter of your sarcasm.:|

What do you mean by broken, cheap enemies, and poor level/game design? Also, enemies one hit killing you, no to little lives, levels that are created to kill you, and enemies that are actually difficult make the game hard, spin it however you like but it makes the game hard.

Anyways we are talking about old video games complexity, not difficulty.

Yangire

Watch any Angry Nerd episode. I am talking about the NES, SNES and Genesis era. It's the one most people look fondly of during their Nostalgic moments until they pick up an old Genesis game and run out of continues before beating the game. Back then devs made games with the old Arcade mentality in mind which was to make it pretty much impossible to avoid getting hit by certain enemies and in some case even losing a life. The way to get around this was to memorize certain patterns and just get to these Bosses with as much lives and as many continues as possible and then just muddle through the cheapness.

I am not spinning it that's just how it was and I wouldn't label a game more "complicated" because they have cheap enemies and poor level design that make it impossible for me to know what to do or where to go next. That's just poor dev choices fluffing up the difficulty. With Passwords which were prevalent back then due to such rampant cheap games when you plugged in the unlimited lives/continues code you ended up beating the same game in maybe a couple hours. That to me does not equal complicated.

As I also posted before, games have more dimensions now that 3D is pretty much standard for any game so it's impossible to say that on a technical level games are simpler because 3Dimensions, 8 buttons, d pads, two analog sticks, better physics, HD graphics, better sound, etc. all say otherwise and all have improved every gen.

Now some of our single player campaigns have been dumbed down mainly because some games spread their focus to add multiplayer but overall I wouldn't say the previous gens games are more compicated. It varies game by game.

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

What do you mean by broken, cheap enemies, and poor level/game design? Also, enemies one hit killing you, no to little lives, levels that are created to kill you, and enemies that are actually difficult make the game hard, spin it however you like but it makes the game hard.

Anyways we are talking about old video games complexity, not difficulty.

Javy03

Watch any Angry Nerd episode. I am talking about the NES, SNES and Genesis era. It's the one most people look fondly of during their Nostalgic moments until they pick up an old Genesis game and run out of continues before beating the game. Back then devs made games with the old Arcade mentality in mind which was to make it pretty much impossible to avoid getting hit by certain enemies and in some case even losing a life. The way to get around this was to memorize certain patterns and just get to these Bosses with as much lives and as many continues as possible and then just muddle through the cheapness.

I am not spinning it that's just how it was and I wouldn't label a game more "complicated" because they have cheap enemies and poor level design that make it impossible for me to know what to do or where to go next. That's just poor dev choices fluffing up the difficulty. With Passwords which were prevalent back then due to such rampant cheap games when you plugged in the unlimited lives/continues code you ended up beating the same game in maybe a couple hours. That to me does not equal complicated.

As I also posted before, games have more dimensions now that 3D is pretty much standard for any game so it's impossible to say that on a technical level games are simpler because 3Dimensions, 8 buttons, d pads, two analog sticks, better physics, HD graphics, better sound, etc. all say otherwise and all have improved every gen.

Now some of our single player campaigns have been dumbed down mainly because some games spread their focus to add multiplayer but overall I wouldn't say the previous gens games are more compicated. It varies game by game.

The Angry Video Game nerd tries to be funny by overreacting and finding shovelware games to get some hits, he's not an accurate representation of old video game design. Just as Calvin Tucker's Redneck Jamboree is not an accurate representation of current generation games.

Also, none here is calling those games complicated if you looked at other posts, maybe the TC is but I'm only calling old PC games complicated.

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]Real gaming started this gen I think. The gens before were just prototypes. aaronmullan

Is this sarcasm? If not I at least want to know why you think this.

You're serious aren't you? I really wish that was sarcasm because the insanely convolutedstory and long video were so distracting from the overal mediocre game play. When the first MGS came out I was afraid games were becoming too linear and not having much variety and IMO MGS4 is the pinnacle of that fear. IMO FF7 and MGS on the PSone were superior and I honestly wasn't big into last gen but every gen before it I was happy with. Heavy Rain on the other hand is great but not exactly what I would think of as a proper game.

The Angry Video Game nerd tries to be funny by overreacting and finding shovelware games to get some hits, he's not an accurate representation of old video game design. Just as Calvin Tucker's Redneck Jamboree is not an accurate representation of current generation games.

Also, none here is calling those games complicated if you looked at other posts, maybe the TC is but I'm only calling old PC games complicated.

Yangire

Well then it seems like we agree. My experience with old PC games is very limited so I never intended my comment to exceed anything above console gaming. My comment was directed towards the TC and a few other posters that look fondly on the yester year games through rose colored glasses.

things are much better now. everything is so much more accessible which means way more people get to play and enjoy them.

seems crazy that they used to be so overly complicated.

Vinegar_Strokes

Computers (PC in particular) used to be either way too expensive or out of reach of the masses. Most of those who used computers tended to be professionals and more technical types who demanded complex games. The masses got the consoles with simpler games. As the computers dropped in price and came within reach of the masses, the games adapted to suit the new audience.

I got no problems with games being simpler. I just go with the flow. What I don't understand are the so called "hardcore" gamers of today who complain games are being dumbed down when the genres they prefer were the casual/simpler games back then. Complex games are still around even in this age. They're just not in the huge "me too" numbers back then.

Man, Batman Forever had the most complicated Control Scheme. I hated that game, Thankfully Batman Arkham Asylum isn't as Complicated! :D

I also have to add that consoles have the opposite trend of PC games. They actually are increasing in complexity as new capabilities are introduced with each new generation. With PC games trending down in complexity and consoles trending up, they're bound to meet somewhere where we just won't care anymore because the separation between the two will be so small. We're already seeing it with the large numbers of multiplatform games.

I've been gaming since the C64 days.

Now if you were an expert mechanic with years of experience would you rather work at a factory, mass producing cars or would you want to create highly expensive custom veichles?

Gaming is just entertainment but it's the same damn thing in that aspect.

Edit: Scrath that, this:

Ill take the bait ^^

The reasons I dislike the "streamlining" of games is because they lose all challange. I loved games back in the '90 You felt a feeling of achivement when you after 30 mins of running your head into a wall, figured out the subtle nuances of a game, youfelt a "Heureka" moment, as you grasped the world around you, learned theunwritten rules of the game. It was awesome. Alot of games nowadays, I dont even play half though because they wont give me a challange, and if they dogive as a "challange"is boiled down to a halfarsed puzzle a 2 year old could figure out.

The key here is that there are two kinds of gamers split on thistopic. Those whowants to feelempowered (through the game and the actions in it) And those who wants a challange (those who wants tofeel like they accompliched something when they finished a game, and wants the satisfaction of going headlong into impossible odds, and figure out a way to beat those odds, almost like chess)

There are a whole lot of games In general this gen I just look at, or try out, and think "If I wanted a cinematic effortless thing to do, id watch a movie"

So clearly I belong to the 2nd of those groups. I do notthink less of the first group, since it is also a very validreason to play games, It is just not my cup of tea.

Ideally gaming will be split intointo those two groups,which it allready kind of is, you hear the word "mainstream"get thrown around alot in these forums, aswell as Hardcore. They are the users own attempt to seperate those two groups.

All this is well and good, unless we take the 3rd group in account: The group who plays to have fun.

Aw snap, now it messed up the grouping I made ^^

Maddie_Larkin

Edit: Not that I'm an expert gamer... I've just been at it long enough to be very susceptible to the "same old" feeling.

And if you are'nt already, you will be as well.

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]Real gaming started this gen I think. The gens before were just prototypes. aaronmullan

Is this sarcasm? If not I at least want to know why you think this.

things are much better now. everything is so much more accessible which means way more people get to play and enjoy them.

seems crazy that they used to be so overly complicated.

Vinegar_Strokes

They were not that complicated, but there was less fluoride in the water back then.