OH!
Completely retarded Duffy moment.
I completely forgot Deus Ex is due this year...
I CANNOT WAIT FOR THAT!
/end excitement.
Yeah, they're a bloody joke compared to before
Nah, they're just the way they should be
Games are fucking hard, man!
OH!
Completely retarded Duffy moment.
I completely forgot Deus Ex is due this year...
I CANNOT WAIT FOR THAT!
/end excitement.
While complaining about the good old days can help with a sense of nostalgia, I think the industry is exploring its new capabilities. Favoring powerful engines to stun the public with graphics, cell shading(whatever that is), and overall design over their long used concepts and strategies, which were essential because they couldn't wow us with the thrill of seeing a realistic bonfire consuming most of a city.
I played Black once, after renting it from a blockbuster. I damn near collapsed from the sheer scope, clarity, and sensory overload of the damn thing. I entered a forest with a rifle, and as I progressed through the level I got lost. Somehow I ended up underground, creeping and shooting past armed guards who were smoking around a campfire and chatting in various languages. It literally felt like I was running in circles for hours due to the whole atmosphere of it all. As far as plot, I just ducked, and shot, and thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Bayonetta. A game where you play a witch/stripper whose major attributes are entirely fan service. Our heroin wanders around with guns as high heels, attitude, and every time she does something impressive her clothes dissolve to transform into whatever instrument of doom is appropriate for the situation. This is one of the games that sold above most others in 2009, and with good reason.
God of War was designed to be a pleaser for everyone. Easy controls, a clear non-convoluted plot, a few side dishes thrown here and there, but the main course was the level of violence. Yes, it could be beaten in a day or two, but you'd have nightmares from the sick horrible grim dark ass kicking you just dished out to everything that could bleed or break... or just die. It was a hit.
Most shooting games that were very short in story mode are short because these are games we are expected to play on-line and in a group. Ever since online gaming has come around its a given that it comes with the package.
My point, after all that, is now that we've suddenly gotten these new capabilities, old fashioned trends are old fashioned trends. Difficulty is moderated by choice of levels usually ranging from easy to OMG WHY DID I DO THIS, NOTHING I HAVE FACED UP UNTIL NOW CAN COMPARE!? This is the future, get to loving it. On the bright side, when the masses get sick of the new found flash we'll see a new flux of innovation as developers try to challenge our starved intellects.
Anyone here played Fallout? I've been wanting to try number 3.
Last edited by Knave; 05-23-10 at 08:39 PM.
Return the ill-verse to the anvil. ~ MEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Depending on who you place in the same situation, the characteristics of said incident change kaleidoscopically. In other words, there is one incident. However, there are as many stories explaining it as there are people involved in it.
— Gustav St. Germain
Well... I dunno...
Maybe I'm just retarded, but FFXIII is definitely not easy. The random encounters are pretty stupid easy, yes, but the boss battles I've encountered so far (I'm not done yet) have been controller-throwing hard. After an eilodon threw me up in the air and pummeled my helpless body into a mutilated corpse sending me straight from full health to game over screen for the 27th time in a row I wanted to strangle something.
Yes, sometimes I miss not being able to control all the characters. I've definitely been in the situation where Vanielle wouldn't cast raise. But 90% of the time I don't miss it. Once I set a paradigm they generally do what I want them to. Does it make the game too easy? Maybe, but it's also makes for a lot faster paced battles than say... FFX, and also keeps me from getting bogged down in the boring details.
As for other games, they probably are getting easier. That's a shame about Splinter Cell. I've never played any of them, but when it becomes so easy that it loses the game's stealth focus, that's total failure.
However, am I the only one that doesn't mind a linear single player mode? I enjoy progressing in the story and finding out what happens next. Just because I can't make choices about where the main characters go next doesn't mean it isn't challenging or rewarding, and I think it can make for a better experience in certain games.
Take Modern Warefare 2 for example. Yes it was ridiculously short and very linear, but it played like an action movie and coming from someone who likes action movies, I thought it was pretty sweet. FFX is still one of my favorite games of all time, and it was almost completely linear. Same for FEAR. There are still good games out there that aren't linear like Fallout 3 or the Elder Scrolls games (thanks Bethesda!). But I think the best way to tell a good story is for the game to be linear. No one complains about the linearity of movies or books (barring the choose-your-adventure-turn-to-page-83 kind). They just enjoy the ride.
So in conclusion... yes?... and no? I dunno... I honestly just rambled on here for like 20 mins. Here's a pretty funny IGN spoof on Borderlands vs. mainstream games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmUJrKGN3C0
The difference between video games and movies is supposed to be interactivity. In games, you're supposed to be able to control the story and thus the eventual outcome. Silent Hill, the original, may have been linear, but at least you had options.Originally Posted by Sorahn
In everything from the first FF to 12, you've had the option of going back in time and going over things, doing side-quests, breaking away from the story altogether and just going out to various places for nostalgia, or to make sure you didn't miss that once in a lifetime chest you found out about in the walkthrough. The shops, the shops that sold different things at different points in the game were my favorite (now missing) thing in the games... Do you want to buy this new sword? Yes, yes, I do. Thank you, have a nice day. Upgrading weapons... especially like they do on XIII, has turned me off of my fair share of games.
Not the best example in the world. First Gran Turismo had a lot of casual appeal. It had the flashy graphics that every body loves, lots of cool cars, and it was fairly easy to pick up and play. It had yes it had a ton of depth for the hardcore fans and yes you needed to fucking master it if you wanted to get the best possible times but it was still one of those games you the average person could rent and have fun with for a weekend. Also as far as racing Sim's go, up until the release of the Forza it didn't have any real stiff competition.
You are right about one thing go it is easy to make a shitty game that appeals to the lowest common denominator, bonus points if it has a name brand slapped on the box somewhere. However, those games usually sell big for a couple weeks (usually around the release of whatever hit movie/tv show/pop culture icon/toy line their based off of) but then after awhile sales plummet. A good casual game will continue to sell and those are hard to make even if the average "hardcore" gamer doesn't particularly care for them.
There's a big difference between a casual game and a shitty game.
I'm confused are you complaining about games being shorter now or simpler because that's two different arguments? With Modern Warfare 2 yes the campaign was short but it was by no means bad. It was still intense, and challenging, and while it may have had a few plot holes it was enjoyable. Like Sorhan said, it played out like a big budget action flick (it was also heavily advertised as the video game equivalent of a big budget action flick).I can't completely agree with this. Yes, the part of the game length was about the repetition, but all of it or even most of it? I wouldn't say so. Compare the previous Final Fantasy games with the last couple of them and they most clock in around the same, depending on your dedication to the game. Compare the first Call of Duty with the last one, and you get a hell of a lot more gameplay from the first one. I finished Modern Warfare 2 in ONE FUCKING AFTERNOON! And that game is like 16Gb or something.
Also as you pointed out the single player was not the main focus of that game, the multiplayer was. That said multiplayer was fairly deep and well done (even though I personally hate the community). There are plenty of upgrades, skills and weapons combos. Several different modes, all of which actually require different tactics and the levels we're all well designed. Yes it was easy to get into but there's enough content to satisfy hardcore gamers.
Yes thats an amazing idea. Lets alinate several costumers, reduce the sales of our games and our profit margins by potentially huge amount just so a small group of people can feel smug about "making the cut". From a business standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.I honestly enjoy more when there are no difficulty levels to choose. So you either make the cut and beat the game or you don't. What difficulty level do in 90% of the games is just give you less health and more to your opponents (and more opponents in general). The AI is still equally dumb, you just need two or three bullets instead of one. Which is just annoying really.
Besides you still get that smug feeling just that instead of "u r a n00b, u kudnt beet teh game" you get "u r a n00b, u use ez mode". Difficulty settings just allow more people to enjoy the game. For instance lets take my girlfriend and I and God of War III. My girlfriend, she's into greek mythology so she loves the story of God of War, but she's terrible at action games, so she set it on easy and was able to play through the game and enjoy the story. When I like a good challenge and wanted white knuckle action game so that I could feel like a bad ass. Had it been stuck on easy I wouldn't have enjoyed the game so instead I cranked it up and was thus able to get the experience that I wanted. Everybody was happy.
Eh, I still enjoy renting the mortal kombat games from time to time but yeah I agree. Just don't ever take those games online, you will get murdered.I have to agree on the fighting games. That genre at least hasn't really gotten caught up in the dumb tornado. I tried playing that BlazBlue game or whatever and I got my ass kicked hard. But then again, I never was a fan of fighting games, so that's not that surprising. Also, Street Fighter 4. Got my ass kicked there too. Last fighting game I was any good at was like Tekken 4 or something. :P
This just reads as "boohoo I'm upset becomes some games don't cater to my personal tastes, somebody please care". How is some games becoming multiplayer focused affecting "your single player experience"? Modern Warefare 2, and Modern Warefare 1, and Call of Duty 2 & 3 we're all heavily focused on multiplayer (though not as much as the Modern Warefare ones) as has damn near every shooter since Golden Eye and especially since Halo. Hell with MW2 it everybody new it was multiplayer focused, every add, preview, interview with the creators, ect said there was a huge multiplayer component and that the one player mode was just there to make you feel like the star of your personal action flick. If you don't like it then play another game. There are plenty out there that cater to what you want, just because one doesn't does not mean its a shitty gameAs for the shooting games, man, don't even get me started on the "online component". Modern Warfare 2 is pretty much built for that and that purpose alone. They should advertise it as such though, a multiplayer game with a shitty singleplayer campaign. Just so people know what they're getting for their money. Good thing I didn't pay for the fucking thing. I understand that people like that, that people enjoy playing the same levels over and over again, shooting people over the Internet and wasting their time. I know people who put in over a thousand of hours in games like Battlefield. To each their own. But when that starts to affect my gaming singleplayer experience, then I'm starting to get pissed off.
I do agree with this though it varies from game to game. Some games have really gimmicky achievements where as others do them well. I don't think it's replacing real content since most of the games that just to distract you would be shitty games with or with out them. Besides it gives internet nerds something to brag about and in the end isn't that all that maters?Achievements, I'm still kind of iffy about. It seems pointless for me to chase most of them just so I get a little entry, telling me that, yes, I killed 50 people with a headshot, yes, I killed someone with a rotten egg, yes, I beat the game with A rank or whatever, yes, I got all the ultimate weapons. I'm partially OCD about some things, but not the achievements. They're just a gimmick to make you waste more time, in my opinion, something that's supposed to replace lack of real content.
On this we can agree. In fact I believe it to be a universal truth.Diablo 3 is going to be the shit! Can't fucking wait.
It's basically a more mature version of Oblivion with guns. Rather or not that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your personal tastes.Anyone here played Fallout? I've been wanting to try number 3.
Last edited by grim137; 05-23-10 at 08:57 PM.
I put fine as is. The reason? Because I feel that there are games for those of us who wanted a challenge, and games for the casuals alike. You have to understand that gaming has changed a lot from the old days. With the death of the local arcade, and the birth of online gaming, things just aren't as they used to be. You could literally argue till you're blue int he face but the gaming culture shifted towards online and away from going out and meeting other gamers.
Lets take the fighting game scene, one of the few scenes that THRIVED based on arcades. Nowadays you have the ability to go online and face some of the better players in the game, and so the arcade loses a lot of its allure. However, does that mean the arcades had to go? Not really, there are a number of reasons to play arcade games vs. their console cousins (lag being the one that immediately jumps to mind).
But, the loss of arcades has changed the play scape. Now they need to offer something else to bring the gaming community together. Lets face it, games were fun in their day, but the ability to enjoy your game after you've played the hell out of campaign has to occur, or its just a one hit wonder. Its why they created achievements/trophies. Its why they offer online play. They are there so players can try to get the most out of their games, without a lot of hassle finding new challenges for themselves.
Now, have they dumbed down certain aspects of gaming simply to cater to casuals? Possibly. The answer isn't as set in stone as one would like to say. Games such as Prince of Persia (The new story, not old one) seem to speak as much. I would challenge that they are more likely to represent an artistic game, more than a challenge. Those that went in expecting something akin to warrior within or sands of time, was in for a disappointment. However, in reverse Ninja Gaiden for X-Box was notoriously difficult to the point some people replayed through the first few levels after getting halfway through the game, thinking they wouldn't have enough items for the second half.
I know that it can be difficult to not take a game at face value, but you need to look under the hood and make sure what you wanted, and what they designed match up. If you don't, you're in for a world of disappointment. I think there are harder games out there for fans, but it certainly doesn't help when you get famous game makers like Miyamoto saying (sic) "Making game for hardcore fans is too difficult. Much easier to make a new generation of gamer."
However, appreciation of what comes out now, only builds appreciation for what came before. I know this is true, because as sad before in this thread Blazblue caters to both the casual and hardcore crowd. The game is arguably more technical than Street Fighter 4 (a debate that can easily be taken to another thread should anyone wish to debate the merits of this thought), and has a depth and breadth of life that I find refreshing in a fighting game. It's not everyday that the story of a fighting game not only works, but makes the entire experience more enjoyable. When you find out the little things about the characters you fight and play as, it's entertaining to laugh or feel awe at how they evolve.
However, if you know the Guilty Gear Series, you wouldn't be surprised to find out that Blazblue and Guilty Gear have the same creators.
Back in the old days you trusted the brand and went with it for the long haul. Now, the people who develop games have become miniature celebrities in the community, and so its hard to develop brand trust. Now, you develop trust in the creators, rather than the brand on the front. For instance, the aforementioned Bayonetta was created by the same folks who made Devil May Cry. That may pique the interest of some Devil May Cry fans, because they thought those guys were still with Capcom.
Not the case apparently.
Is the name of the game changing? Not really.
Is the way its played changing? Oh Hell Yes.
How something is said, is just as important as what is said. -Anonymous
If you liked Oblivion or Morrowind, or if you like a vast open worlds in general, you'll probably like 3. I did. But if you expect the same feeling you got from the first two, it's sort of a mixed bag. Like Grim said, it probably boils down to personal preference. I know people who love the first two and absolutely hate 3. And yet, I worship the first two as the crown achievement of modern gaming and I still liked 3.
One can only hope that this is the direction the games will take in the future, that this shoot-from-the-hip approach to the games is a fad that will wear out. But what if it's not and this is just the beginning of a downwards spiral? I hope I'm wrong and babbling nonsense, but with the amount of dumb out there, you never know.My point, after all that, is now that we've suddenly gotten these new capabilities, old fashioned trends are old fashioned trends. Difficulty is moderated by choice of levels usually ranging from easy to OMG WHY DID I DO THIS, NOTHING I HAVE FACED UP UNTIL NOW CAN COMPARE!? This is the future, get to loving it. On the bright side, when the masses get sick of the new found flash we'll see a new flux of innovation as developers try to challenge our starved intellects.
Well, it happens. I mean, admittedly XIII is probably the FF game in which I died the most, but it mostly happened because: a) I forgot that if the leader falls, the battle is over, or b) I brought the wrong combination of paradigms to the fight (I usually had like three for most of the game :P). But once I got that under control, it was a breeze. Eidolons can be a pain in the ass until you realize what you need to do. I found that most responded better to like status effects and healing/buffin your own members than straightforward attacking, but it depends on the Eidolon.
I don't mind linearity of the story. I mind linearity of gameplay. In previous FF games, you had an option to explore if you wanted to, level up when you wanted, how you wanted, discover secrets. Like MetalDrago said, you had options. In XIII you were set on the tracks and had to play the game one way and one way only. Hell, there aren't even any secrets to be found. Most of the treasure is right on your path and there's really nothing to explore. Just continue with a story. As an interactive movie, XIII is awesome, but as an RPG... Not really.However, am I the only one that doesn't mind a linear single player mode? I enjoy progressing in the story and finding out what happens next. Just because I can't make choices about where the main characters go next doesn't mean it isn't challenging or rewarding, and I think it can make for a better experience in certain games.
Take Modern Warefare 2 for example. Yes it was ridiculously short and very linear, but it played like an action movie and coming from someone who likes action movies, I thought it was pretty sweet. FFX is still one of my favorite games of all time, and it was almost completely linear. Same for FEAR. There are still good games out there that aren't linear like Fallout 3 or the Elder Scrolls games (thanks Bethesda!). But I think the best way to tell a good story is for the game to be linear. No one complains about the linearity of movies or books (barring the choose-your-adventure-turn-to-page-83 kind). They just enjoy the ride.
So in conclusion... yes?... and no? I dunno... I honestly just rambled on here for like 20 mins. Here's a pretty funny IGN spoof on Borderlands vs. mainstream games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmUJrKGN3C0
Also, the video, fricking hilarious.
Yeah, you could fuck around with GT, I guess, but you can do that with just about any game. But if you wanted to actually achieve something in it, it was a very tough process. And its been thus in every installment so far. I'll try another example. Metal Gear Solid series. At its core, these games remained the same regardless of the console they were on (and they appeared on like three generations of consoles now, and on a PSP, not counting those ancient ones on like NES or something). Like GT, they are aimed at a specific type of gamers and usually you either love it or hate it. Splinter Cell used to be that kind of a game until Conviction, and that's my beef with it and any other game that gets messed up while being converted for the masses, losing its identity because of popular demand.
A bit of both, I guess. Some games are getting shorter, some are getting simpler and some are getting both. It's the general trend that I rather dislike, because it seems everything is going in that direction. You don't hear about games getting harder and longer, not often in any case. Even games with legendary difficulty such as Ninja Gaiden are getting easier (not by a whole lot though in the case of Ninja Gaiden, but still) in the sequels.I'm confused are you complaining about games being shorter now or simpler because that's two different arguments? With Modern Warfare 2 yes the campaign was short but it was by no means bad. It was still intense, and challenging, and while it may have had a few plot holes it was enjoyable. Like Sorhan said, it played out like a big budget action flick (it was also heavily advertised as the video game equivalent of a big budget action flick).
And as far as MW2 and the multiplayer goes, I understand that. And I never said that MW2 is necessarily a bad game, because it's not. What I'm saying is that if they put as much effort into the singleplayer as they did in multiplayer, I probably wouldn't have felt as shortchanged as I did when I finished it. There are still, contrary to popular belief, people who don't play senseless, endless online games. And up until MW2, I felt that the Call of Duty catered to those people as well. Personally, I found the campaign of the first MW game a much more challenging experience, and it was definitely a longer game than the sequel.
Hey, I never said it's a brilliant business proposition. But it would make people put more effort into their gaming, instead of just switching to easy-auto whenever shit hit the fan and breezing through the game. But I guess this really depends on the game. While Final Fantasy can make do without difficulty settings, I guess a shooter or an action game wouldn't fare very well, not in the gaming world of today anyways.Yes thats an amazing idea. Lets alinate several costumers, reduce the sales of our games and our profit margins by potentially huge amount just so a small group of people can feel smug about "making the cut". From a business standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.
See, you get me all wrong. I like Call of Duty games. I played every single one of them so far and I really enjoy them even if I never played it online. And up until MW2 I could enjoy it because it seemed that they put the same effort into both the offline and online content. But not anymore, with singleplayer being a mere prologue of the new CoD experience. So I could and probably should switch to another franchise, but isn't it a bit sad if that's the solution? I mean, it's clear from the previous installments that they know how to make a good singleplayer game. So why not try to cater to all their fans? Because the money is in the multiplayer? Probably. And I can't really blame them. I can complain, though. :PThis just reads as "boohoo I'm upset becomes some games don't cater to my personal tastes, somebody please care". How is some games becoming multiplayer focused affecting "your single player experience"? Modern Warefare 2, and Modern Warefare 1, and Call of Duty 2 & 3 we're all heavily focused on multiplayer (though not as much as the Modern Warefare ones) as has damn near every shooter since Golden Eye and especially since Halo. Hell with MW2 it everybody new it was multiplayer focused, every add, preview, interview with the creators, ect said there was a huge multiplayer component and that the one player mode was just there to make you feel like the star of your personal action flick. If you don't like it then play another game. There are plenty out there that cater to what you want, just because one doesn't does not mean its a shitty game.
What would be great for me is if they could separate the two versions. I mean, there are games that are able to stand perfectly well as just multiplayer shooters (like MAG on PS3, the legendary Counterstrike, Quake Wars, Team Fortress, America's Army...). And then you'd also have a separate single player CoD. Yeah, a pipe dream, I know, but man, I'd find that pretty awesome. Me and like probably three other people in the world not playing the CoD online.
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
William Butler Yeats - The Second Coming
If you really want to hear about personal tastes and bad business, I'm still waiting for the release of another Legacy of Kain game.This just reads as "boohoo I'm upset becomes some games don't cater to my personal tastes, somebody please care". How is some games becoming multiplayer focused affecting "your single player experience"? Modern Warefare 2, and Modern Warefare 1, and Call of Duty 2 & 3 we're all heavily focused on multiplayer (though not as much as the Modern Warefare ones) as has damn near every shooter since Golden Eye and especially since Halo. Hell with MW2 it everybody new it was multiplayer focused, every add, preview, interview with the creators, ect said there was a huge multiplayer component and that the one player mode was just there to make you feel like the star of your personal action flick. If you don't like it then play another game. There are plenty out there that cater to what you want, just because one doesn't does not mean its a shitty game.
Fingers crossed.
Last edited by Arsène; 05-24-10 at 11:09 AM.
"I think I did as well as might be expected, seated as I was between Jesus Christ and Napoleon Bonaparte." - Prime Minister David Lloyd George, on President Woodrow Wilson and Premier Georges Clemenceau in Paris, 1919.
"The Ziggy Stardust cut is the only cool mullet that there's ever been." - Barney Hoskyns
Are some games getting easier? Yes
Enough for it to be a serious problem? No
It's frequently the case that a game's difficulty is being shunted away from the sort of "You must be this hardcore to see the ending" and toward bragging-rights awards and bonus dungeons. This takes away some of the incentive for me to do things that are genuinely difficult, and I sometimes feel mildly disappointed, but I think the whole thing is analyzed from the wrong perspective.
Is the game still fun? If yes, fine. If no, is it because the challenging part is all over on the side? Would it be more fun if that challenge was shoved in the middle and you were forced to complete it?
I see no reason why that would be so.
Frankly, I'm not nearly as good at any game as I used to be. I'll always be decent, but I don't have the time to be spectacular. Unfortunately, this means I finish a lot of games, but the insane achievement add-ons are just too stupid to be worth my time. That kind of sucks, but I'd rather it be that way than just a series of ultrahardcore games I can't even finish.
I realize the ideal lies somewhere inbetween, but I don't think the industry is really operating with a high degree of granularity on this point, unfortunately.
We talkin bout practice
Not a game, not a game, not a game
We talkin bout practice
I think the thing to keep in mind when discussing the difficulty of video games is the actual goal of the game. The original three Mario games could get pretty difficult. Metroid was difficult. Zelda was difficult.
The thing is, those games had extremely sparse stories, and relatively simple goals. The chief goal was to beat the game, in order to prove (to yourself or others) that you could overcome that challenge. That sort of goal is only going to appeal to one kind of person, and any industry wants to appeal to as broad a market as possible.
I don't think video games are too easy or too hard, I think they're vastly superior to what they were, despite nostalgia value. The great thing about video games today is that if you need more of a challenge and you don't care about the story, or you feel it was earned too easily, just turn up the difficulty. Dragon Age is a great example - on normal, it is a very tough game. If you just want the story, set it on easy. If you want to feel like you really accomplished something, set it on hard.
So yeah, I don't think games are any easier, really, developers just leave the degree to which you're challenged in your hands, as opposed to setting a single immutable goal out for you.
I would actually say that Splinter Cell: Conviction IS a poor game if it doesn't offer a compelling goal. If it's too easy for you to feel a sense of accomplishment and the story isn't good enough that you feel like you're working through something intriguing, the game isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing. I don't think this is a new trend, though. For every Metroid there were twenty absolutely awful games on NES. Everything is just on a bigger scale now.
Last edited by Amen; 05-24-10 at 03:56 PM.
Posting Permissions
Submit Thread for Judgment