No Depth! No Difficulty! Graphics Only!

[QUOTE="wackapacka"]

[QUOTE="dog_dirt"] but surely its also a stereotype to say all modern games are too easy with no challenge. delta3074

My words exactly.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="wackapacka"]

My words exactly.

Gundamforce

Agreed with dog_dirt on the stereotyping. And for delta3074 and all the old skool gamers, do you like elements like checkpoints?

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="wackapacka"]My words exactly.dog_dirt

[QUOTE="Gundamforce"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]not if you hail from the 80's gaming scene, like i said before, there where no save games,and no checkpoints, if you lost all your energy or lives in agame, then you had to start the game from the very beginning, i completed about half the games i played on the spectrum, commodore 64, these days ,thanks to checkpoints and save games, completeing a game in a reasonable time frame is pretty much an inevitibility, even for people with very little skill in gaming, so yeah, from a certain standpoint games are less difficult now than they used to be, games are deffinitly not as challenging as they used to be,try getting to lvel 99 on manic miner then having to start from level 1 again cos you lost all your live's, very frustarting indeed.delta3074

Agreed with dog_dirt on the stereotyping. And for delta3074 and all the old skool gamers, do you like elements like checkpoints?

Yeah, i've played some old school and arcade games (mainly 2d shooters and platformers) and those deaths can be really demorializing. I think checkpoints are a great intention too. Although i can see why some nostaglic gamers don't like it (they're used to it or something).

[QUOTE="KRaDOSIV"]This may often be true of mainstream games but there are many instances in which it is certainly not true, including MANY in the mainstream. See Super Mario Galaxy, generally called the best game of the generation by critics. IT has very nice graphics for Wii, very colorful and pretty with a nice art direction. But why is it a good game? It's certainly not because of the graphics! If that was why Banjo & Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts would be the best platformer this generation, but it's not even considered CLOSE to such a title, not with Super Mario Galaxy, LittleBigPlanet, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and some others exist. It's great because of excellent game design and because it manages a decent difficulty curve that will have some very challenged, and the ones who find it easy can take on the challenge modes. Beyond beating the game there are STILL 40-60 (can't remember which) stars to be collected, many with new twists, and then you unlock Luigi to play the levels as. This is called depth, a game you an beat and still have things to do. A different type of this would be Demon's Souls, Gamespot's Game of the Year. The graphics were beautiful and created an amazing atmosphere, but was this why it was praised? Definitely not, if graphics were what won last year Uncharted 2 would've won as it was expected to. It was the innovative DEEP, DIFFICULT, game design that made it a success. The game allows infinite New Game +s (to my knowledge), has many things to collect, and has an absurdly high level cap. Plus you can interact with others. Then there are side quests, many well concealed, as well as the simple fact that there are so many different ways to take on the challenge this game provides, and you'll get a very different experience (switch between Thief, Magician, and Knight, the game will feel VERY different). That's a game that is great because of its depth and difficulty. Even games in the mainstream like Call of Duty MW 2, which while, IMO, having ugly graphics, sell like "hot cakes lodged in copies of an unreleased Harry Potter book set during Hermione's bicurious phase." Why? The mainstream gamer finds the instant gratification, quick learning curve, and all around fun of the game appealing. Now I personally don't like Call of Duty, but do you think people like it because of graphics? No, they like the shooting. If it was graphics they all wanted they'd be trying to play Crysis, but they are totally happy buying a new CoD game every year because they find them fun. Mainstreamers like Halo because of the fun multiplayer, which while many would pass off as boring and stupid, to anyone really playing it, they'd have fun with how customizable games really are in MP. I'm not a big FPS fan at all, I only play Valve games and Killzone 2 (not so much KZ2, mostly TF2) consistently, but I find the multiplayer to be very fun, off or online. It has huge open maps and a lot of fun ways to customize matches, right down to the gravity level. This is why people like it, not because of its graphics, God no the graphics in Halo 3 are by no means good. Simply, this is not true. There are some games I would argue are all flash no substance, but these games often aren't received very well. Crysis is largely graphics, but the Nanosuit provides a decent sense of innovation and depth, so while the game may feel a bit generic, it has other things going for it. Shattered Horizon is generally said to have amazing graphics, but critically it was not well received, getting only a 72 on Metacritic. So obviously Crysis has something to make it stand out and get an average AAAE score. I don't think it's that great a game, I've tried playing it without the good graphics to say if that was all that was good, but it isn't 100% graphics. And thus begins me posting on here. Hi!Gundamforce

I think you said it perfectly. Welcome to Gamespot and System Wars. You'll do fine here.

Nice post

SMG was excellent in terms of difficulty, I'd take Luigi's harder to control physics over crap like enemies hit harder / have more HP. Smartest move in a platformer ever made, also it worked because you had those incredibly fun levels which you want to come back to and replay as Luigi. If you look at statistics, you'd see that I died more times as Luigi although I am familliar with all the levels at this point, evidence showing that it is in fact harder, in a very very good way.

CoD:MW2 is considered a fail by many, because they mainstreamed the game making it reflex based and not aim, this means it's no longer a skill-oriented game, but more like a fun party experience such as Mario Kart Wii, and as proven this concept sells, how can it be fail I don't see that, just because it isn't made specifically for you? I for example, loved MW1 and won't play MW2 because of this, but I see that this concept is loved by many others, and that makes me happy even though it's my loss.

Btw, I thought the general consensus was that UC2 is 2009 goty? Awesome game, one of the best games this gen, the gameplay is amazing, I couldn't care less about story / graphics.

There are still amazing games being released today. The only reason developers care about graphics so much is because of us the consumer. Many consumers make it sound as if all they care about is graphics.millerlight89

you here a lot of 'graphics king' threads around here too!

[QUOTE="millerlight89"][QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

poor game design was far more common than good game design. I lived it... i know the truth.

moistsandwich

If you lived it, then you would know it IS true.

Agreed with dog_dirt on the stereotyping. And for delta3074 and all the old skool gamers, do you like elements like checkpoints?delta3074

poor game design was far more common than good game design. I lived it... i know the truth.

moistsandwich

Really? I don't think I ever played a retro game that was as badly designed as Resident Evil 5.

Bioshock 2, L4D, ME2, and a BUNCH of wii games. In short, gaming still has some heart.

Punjabiking101

Modern Gaming! (Not final destination yet).Temporius

I think as the fan base has broadened, developers have evolved to the customer. Difficult games only cater to the dedicated gamer who wants to test their dexterity to wits end. Developers are more focused in making fun accessible games and I applaud them for it.

I notice everyone is mentioning Demon's Souls. That game is not hard, just buggy. My final playthrough had 19 total deaths, of which 15 were suicides in the nexus, and the other 4 were due to falling through the ground. It is harder than most games today, but when I go back and play even kingdom hearts 1, I find a harder game. You at least had to fight the enemies and bosses in kingdom hearts, unlike demon's souls, where the enemies quite capable of killing themselves, and the bosses are so laughably easy that I have killed all of them without having even been hit. The fact that demon's souls is considered so hard strengthens my point rather than refutes it.

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

[QUOTE="Yandere"]

That's a stereotype, only a few games have been difficult because of glitches/poor game design.

millerlight89

poor game design was far more common than good game design. I lived it... i know the truth.

[QUOTE="Punjabiking101"]

Bioshock 2, L4D, ME2, and a BUNCH of wii games. In short, gaming still has some heart.

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

Games back in the day, were difficult because of poor game design

Yandere

That's a stereotype, only a few games have been difficult because of glitches/poor game design.

I think as the fan base has broadened, developers have evolved to the customer. Difficult games only cater to the dedicated gamer who wants to test their dexterity to wits end. Developers are more focused in making fun accessible games and I applaud them for it.

richsena

You want to know why games are easier these days. Check points, and infinite lives.

You want to know why games are easier these days. Check points, and infinite lives.

zarshack

You want to know why games are easier these days. Check points, and infinite lives.

zarshack

I've actually been thinking about this lately while plaing Dragon Age first play through on Nightmare. The game forces you to use cheap tatics ie.. hit and run on regular mobs. Also Ninja Gaiden 2 had the worst difficulty scaling I've ever seen in a game and yes I beat it. Bioshock and Deadspace had good scaling not once did I have to resort to some cheap trick just to get threw a stage. In all I think it comes down to the developer some got it some don't. Ona side note older games where hard because you could not save not because they had more depth. Play old school Ninja Gaiden on a emulator with save states and it doesnt seem so intimadating.

infamousxii

Bioshock 2, L4D, ME2, and a BUNCH of wii games. In short, gaming still has some heart.

Punjabiking101

ME2? lol

Trial and Error is awful. It totally breaks the fun.

[QUOTE="Yandere"]

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

Games back in the day, were difficult because of poor game design

SaudiFury

That's a stereotype, only a few games have been difficult because of glitches/poor game design.

It's not my fault you bought bad NES/SNES games.

Hmmmm..... Demon's Souls, Monster Hunter Tri, and Ninja Gaiden.... those 3 are enough to discredit your argument....oldkingallant

You should look at Temporius's post about Demon's Souls a few posts above yours.

I notice everyone is mentioning Demon's Souls. That game is not hard, just buggy. My final playthrough had 19 total deaths, of which 15 were suicides in the nexus, and the other 4 were due to falling through the ground. It is harder than most games today, but when I go back and play even kingdom hearts 1, I find a harder game. You at least had to fight the enemies and bosses in kingdom hearts, unlike demon's souls, where the enemies quite capable of killing themselves, and the bosses are so laughably easy that I have killed all of them without having even been hit. The fact that demon's souls is considered so hard strengthens my point rather than refutes it.

Temporius

I think this topic is somewhat true. Back in the day I was usually forced to play on normal or easy mode. Now I ahve to play on the hardest mode the game has possible to even have a somewhat decent time. And even then it is relatively easy. Demon's Souls was the only recent challenge, and even that could be conquered without much ado with a bit of elbow grease and some logic. Vandalvideo

No depth or difficulty compared to what era/gen?

No depth or difficulty compared to what era/gen?

gamecubepad

I assume generations before this one.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

No depth or difficulty compared to what era/gen?

Yandere

I assume generations before this one.

The previous two generations have been pretty much the same as this one. Maybe he's referring to the 2D era compared to the 3D era?

[QUOTE="Yandere"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

No depth or difficulty compared to what era/gen?

gamecubepad

I assume generations before this one.

The previous two generations have been pretty much the same as this one. Maybe he's referring to the 2D era compared to the 3D era?

The previous two generations have been pretty much the same as this one. Maybe he's referring to the 2D era compared to the 3D era?

gamecubepad

Yes he is.

[QUOTE="Temporius"]

I notice everyone is mentioning Demon's Souls. That game is not hard, just buggy. My final playthrough had 19 total deaths, of which 15 were suicides in the nexus, and the other 4 were due to falling through the ground. It is harder than most games today, but when I go back and play even kingdom hearts 1, I find a harder game. You at least had to fight the enemies and bosses in kingdom hearts, unlike demon's souls, where the enemies quite capable of killing themselves, and the bosses are so laughably easy that I have killed all of them without having even been hit. The fact that demon's souls is considered so hard strengthens my point rather than refutes it.

ioannisdenton

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The previous two generations have been pretty much the same as this one. Maybe he's referring to the 2D era compared to the 3D era?

Gundamforce

Yes he is.

I see 2D era games as being more difficult in general, but also lacking in depth compared to modern games. This obviously stems from limited storage capacity and general lack of save devices on consoles. They basically made the games really difficult and that's where the replay value would come from. PC games were usually the ones with both depth and difficulty. Certainly exceptions like Chrono Trigger exist. Also, this is a massive generalization.

[QUOTE="Gundamforce"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The previous two generations have been pretty much the same as this one. Maybe he's referring to the 2D era compared to the 3D era?

gamecubepad

Yes he is.

I see 2D era games as being more difficult in general, but also lacking in depth compared to modern games. This obviously stems from limited storage capacity and general lack of save devices on consoles. They basically made the games really difficult and that's where the replay value would come from. PC games were usually the ones with both depth and difficulty. Certainly exceptions like Chrono Trigger exist. Also, this is a massive generalization.

Yeah, like what was discussed earlier, elements like checkpoints and saves were quite an innovation and a lifesaver for the rest of us.

i agree w tc out side wii ds psp ps2 , i dont see manygames that didnt claim to be graphics kings ,,

and youknow what else is lame about this gen just about every game is a first person shooter especally on 360

and now they want silent hill to be a fps

whats next

could final fantasy turn fps

couldgta turn fps i odnt know but what ever has gotten into the developers heads that theycAN LEAve racing games and etc out ,

heck most racing games such as bl ur try to put shooting elements inthem

so ya um theres other game f ranchises that need a revival , but havent seen one

spyro

crash

and whens the last timewe had a good need forspeed game

or mortalkombat ,or a maxpane type game , a proper 007title quantum was good but felt like codwaw in the bond universe ,its appearant ,

and what about split screen 007 game on a hd console ,

it just seams like in the n64 days where nintendo got the split screen version the others got singleplayer only besides the online play -which isnt free on 360 and less people play it onpsn

so ya um ,when the heck are we ever going to see some split screenfpses that didnt bare the name halo or call of duty!and isnt on wii (could be on wii but what i meantit only on wii) quantum of solace=the good example

No change for me. They're as hard as ever..... at least in my favorite genre.

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]Hmmmm..... Demon's Souls, Monster Hunter Tri, and Ninja Gaiden.... those 3 are enough to discredit your argument....Yandere

You should look at Temporius's post about Demon's Souls a few posts above yours.

i agree w tc out side wii ds psp ps2 , i dont see manygames that didnt claim to be graphics kings ,,

and youknow what else is lame about this gen just about every game is a first person shooter especally on 360

and now they want silent hill to be a fps

whats next

could final fantasy turn fps

couldgta turn fps i odnt know but what ever has gotten into the developers heads that theycAN LEAve racing games and etc out ,

heck most racing games such as bl ur try to put shooting elements inthem

so ya um theres other game f ranchises that need a revival , but havent seen one

spyro

crash

and whens the last timewe had a good need forspeed game

or mortalkombat ,or a maxpane type game , a proper 007title quantum was good but felt like codwaw in the bond universe ,its appearant ,

and what about split screen 007 game on a hd console ,

it just seams like in the n64 days where nintendo got the split screen version the others got singleplayer only besides the online play -which isnt free on 360 and less people play it onpsn

so ya um ,when the heck are we ever going to see some split screenfpses that didnt bare the name halo or call of duty!and isnt on wii (could be on wii but what i meantit only on wii) quantum of solace=the good example

mariokart64fan

Oh this old topic...

Once again we fail to realize that at the time we found games so challenging we were JUST A KID.

But why oh why as an adult am I not as simple-minded and find the same things so challenging as when I was so young!!

Games are as they always have been + they do have more depth. Really, Doom had more depth than modern FPS right? Ocarina of Time had more depth than multi-classed Dragon Age, RIGHT?.

++Most of em do offer a challenge. What's changed in every situation is the player's age. Pls turn on brain next time we start this thread pls

Oh this old topic...

Once again we fail to realize that at the time we found games so challenging we were JUST A KID.

But why oh why as an adult am I not as simple-minded and find the same things so challenging as when I was so young!!

Games are as they always have been + they do have more depth. Really, Doom had more depth than modern FPS right? Ocarina of Time had more depth than multi-classed Dragon Age, RIGHT?.

++Most of em do offer a challenge. What's changed in every situation is the player's age. Pls turn on brain next time we start this thread pls

Phacet

I don't think you have a lot of experience with old games, judging from your post.

Most games I think of today usually provide a significant challenge on their hardest difficulty setting, which would maybe please you more if you set it up higher. For example, the last sequence of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune on crushing difficulty, Bioshock on Survivor, Demon's Souls (no difficulty setting but the game more than difficult as it is, though not that its a bad thing), Call of Duty Classic on Veteran difficulty (yeah, good luck on that one...), and countless other games I could mention but don't feel like adding. Point being ifyou feel a game is too easy, up the difficulty and quit complaining.