WHy did games get easier once the shift to 3D?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for too_much_eslim
too_much_eslim

10727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 too_much_eslim
Member since 2006 • 10727 Posts

I can only come up with checkpoints and A.I.

In the past there weren't really any checkpoints in a game. Each level just had to be beat. Now games gives you a checkpoint walking every 30 seconds and when you die you don't have to restart the level

Also A.I haven't evolved enough to impress anybody. In some games the A.I. have been really good, but I don't think there has really been a game where you really have to outsmart the oponents. WHy is this. I believe the technology is, but maybe developers think it will be too hard.

In terms of A.I do you think developers will program the A.I to replicate actuall people game styles. For Instance lets say in Gears2, the bots were really just replicas of certain people playstyles and statistics during certain modes. The tech is there because if Visual Concepts could do that for NFL2k5; then someone should be able to expand upon it.

Avatar image for mr_mozilla
mr_mozilla

2381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 mr_mozilla
Member since 2006 • 2381 Posts

Development budgets went up with 3D, so they had to target new audiences by making games easier. And yes, I got that theory from my behind. More likely they just realized that less frustration means more fun.

Avatar image for too_much_eslim
too_much_eslim

10727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 too_much_eslim
Member since 2006 • 10727 Posts

Development budgets went up with 3D, so they had to target new audiences by making games easier. And yes, I got that theory from my behind. More likely they just realized that less frustration means more fun.

mr_mozilla
Avatar image for Gun_Haze
Gun_Haze

1010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Gun_Haze
Member since 2007 • 1010 Posts
Range of movement ( makes for more practicallity and ease of movement as opposed to up/down, back/forward). Higher dev costs.
Avatar image for wooooode
wooooode

16666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 wooooode
Member since 2002 • 16666 Posts
3d was not when they got easier. They got easier when there was room to make games longer and add stories. If NES game were easy they would only last like a hour but the countless retrys are what made the worth owning.
Avatar image for too_much_eslim
too_much_eslim

10727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 too_much_eslim
Member since 2006 • 10727 Posts
3d was not when they got easier. They got easier when there was room to make games longer and add stories. If NES game were easy they would only last like a hour but the countless retrys are what made the worth owning.wooooode
There are many 2D games that have stories.
Avatar image for Il_Exile_lI
Il_Exile_lI

516

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7 Il_Exile_lI
Member since 2008 • 516 Posts
The only way to keep someone playing a 2d game was to make it so they had to play the hell out of it just to be able to beat it. Now with 100+ hour open world games, endless multiplayer and comunity components and cutscene filled narrative stories, there are other ways to keep the player interested as opposed to pounding them into submission i.e. Mega Man games on NES.
Avatar image for too_much_eslim
too_much_eslim

10727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 too_much_eslim
Member since 2006 • 10727 Posts
The only way to keep someone playing a 2d game was to make it so they had to play the hell out of it just to be able to beat it. Now with 100+ hour open world games, endless multiplayer and comunity components and cutscene filled narrative stories, there are other ways to keep the player interested as opposed to pounding them into submission i.e. Mega Man games on NES.Il_Exile_lI
honestly i don't mind short games. So games that are short should at least make it more of a challenge. Also the hardest difficulty shouldn't have to be unlocked.
Avatar image for Nintendo_Ownes7
Nintendo_Ownes7

30973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#9 Nintendo_Ownes7
Member since 2005 • 30973 Posts

I think the range of Movement because when it was 2D it could go up, down, left, and right. But with the switch to 3D they had to make it easier because you could easily get lost play a game that is in full 3D and no clues on were to go.

Avatar image for Cocacolacowboy
Cocacolacowboy

209

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Cocacolacowboy
Member since 2008 • 209 Posts
quite simple...most new gamers nowadays are drooling retards that want their hand held throughout the whole game.instead of actually using your brain.and its not just the gamers..i've even seen reviews of games in the past few years that have been slagged for being challenging..
Avatar image for VoodooHak
VoodooHak

15989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#11 VoodooHak
Member since 2002 • 15989 Posts

That's part of the evolution of game design conventions. Way back when, much of the mentality was still focused on bringing the coin-op experience into the living room.

That's why we see many console games of the era with terms like "credits" or # of lives and "continues". Part of that arcade mentality was to motivate people to feed quarters into a machine, so the difficulty was rather harsh. Of course, this didn't translate 100% to a home environment. In the arcade, you could buy as many "continues" as you wanted. If you got frustrated, you'd stop, but there'd be someone else to feed the machine.

But at home, since people owned that game, they could play for as long as they wanted. If they got frustrated, they'd stop playing. Maybe return or trade or regift it. A developer/publisher's revenue stream was a bit different now.

So eventually you saw devs gradually move away from the coin-op game design model to something closer to what we see today.

Avatar image for rhaigun
rhaigun

3019

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 rhaigun
Member since 2005 • 3019 Posts
There are various reasons. One was mentioned earlier: range of motion improved. Characters are now able to strafe from side-to-side and are not forced to just jumping over or ducking under projectiles. Also, depth perception has improved. Now we are able to judge distances to objects much more realisticly. Controls are also now more responsive. Characters move the way they are prompted to in realtime, and not half a second after you push the button. Now, some of these still don't hold true for all games even in this generation (I'm talking to you Sonic.), but for the mostpart, they do.
Avatar image for kakkarott23
kakkarott23

2134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#13 kakkarott23
Member since 2003 • 2134 Posts
Personally, I think it had to do with the society and the new generations of gamers coming into play. The generation you here all this crap of everyone is equal at everything, there are no losers as long as you try, don't put to much work or pressure on your kinds, if a kid can't do something it is a learning disability generation. Games have become easier to keep up with the attention span of gamers who can't handle difficulty and move away from games with difficulty no matter how good the game is.
Avatar image for too_much_eslim
too_much_eslim

10727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 too_much_eslim
Member since 2006 • 10727 Posts

That's part of the evolution of game design conventions. Way back when, much of the mentality was still focused on bringing the coin-op experience into the living room.

That's why we see many console games of the era with terms like "credits" or # of lives and "continues". Part of that arcade mentality was to motivate people to feed quarters into a machine, so the difficulty was rather harsh. Of course, this didn't translate 100% to a home environment. In the arcade, you could buy as many "continues" as you wanted. If you got frustrated, you'd stop, but there'd be someone else to feed the machine.

But at home, since people owned that game, they could play for as long as they wanted. If they got frustrated, they'd stop playing. Maybe return or trade or regift it. A developer/publisher's revenue stream was a bit different now.

So eventually you saw devs gradually move away from the coin-op game design model to something closer to what we see today.

VoodooHak
That makes sense, but it also sad. However, most of the 2D games that were on the NES,SNES, and Sega genesis didn't follow that module.