The SECOND Official Althanas Gaming Thread

[Letho]

Yeah, I made one of these a couple of months back and then forgot to make another even though I planned to do it sort of monthly or bi-monthly.

At any rate, there's something that's been bugging me for a while now regarding games nowadays and today that pretty much culminated. And what's been bugging me is the dumbing down of games recently. Let me elaborate.

I got Splinter Cell: Conviction a couple of days back. And anyone who ever played a Splinter Cell game knows that SC games are all about. It's about stealth, about the dark, the shadows, the gadgets and the badass Sam Fisher making some bad motherfuckers dead without them even realizing it. It's about being calculated and precise and undetected, because if you're not, you're dead. And dead. And dead. And dead. Dead until you finally get it right and hide that one body out of sight that you constantly leave for the guards to find. Sam Fisher is not a gun-totting superhero that blasts his enemies away with a smirk. Sam Fisher is the death in the night.

Or at least he used to be until Conviction. Now, you can go through all but one stage jumping from cover to cover, throwing grenades and blasting everything that comes in sight. And with the new "mark-and-execute" skill, it's easier than ever. At one point, I needed to eliminate four constantly moving targets in a rather small, not overly dark room. A fucking nightmare in previous games. Not so much anymore. All I did was climb a single pipe, marked all four of them and pushed a button and they were all dead. It's a bloody joke. Not to mention that even if you do get detected, you can pretty much run away, duck behind the next cover and then wait for the dumbass AI to come rushing at you, single file, just dying to... well, die, I guess.

Not, don't get me wrong. Conviction is not a bad game. Like the last Call of Duty, it plays almost like an action movie, the graphics are pretty nice and you have a (redundant though it may be) ability to upgrade your arsenal of weapons. But it is a bad Splinter Cell game. And the reason for that is the same reason why the inventory system was thrown out of the second Mass Effect game, the same reason why the last Final Fantasy is an horribly linear experience that allows you as little input as possibly. They're dumbing everything down. They're playing it safe.

Nowadays, it seems that the game developers are mostly afraid of making a game that won't be accepted by the wide masses, a game that requires you to think, a game that will occasionally piss you off and make you swear you'll never play it again, a game aimed at a selected group of people. No, can't have that. Gotta bring in the moolah, so let's make games for dumb people, lazy people, because let's face it, most people fit that bill. Now, I'm not a hardcore gamer; in fact, I don't even know what that means. And yes, there are still developers that make games that make you feel like you accomplished something when you finish it. But more and more there's this trend to make the game accessible to just about everyone, and that usually means making everything easier. Which, in turn, only diminishes the experience.

But that's enough yammering from me. What about you, good folk of Althanas? What do you think about this? Is it something to be concerned about? Am I exaggerating? Or are we gamers set on a path that will lead us to the future where we'll stroll through the game by pushing a single button?

Actually, about that last part, maybe we're already there. That pretty much describes how you play the last Final Fantasy. ;)

[grim137]

To an extent I agree with you. More and more games are being made to appeal to the masses and, to an extent, I can understand why. Games are expensive high budget products now. You can't just have three coders in the basement and a cool company name and expect to be successful in the industry. If a game doesn't sell well then the company that made it will likely lose a lot of money. Combine with the fact that the entertainment form as a whole is a lot more mainstream than it used to be. Remember when only nerdy kids played video games and only the very nerdy kids played them several hours a week. Yeah, that's not the case any more now everybody and their mother's mother plays at least some video games once a blue moon. You can't blame the industry for wanting to cash in on that.

However there are some good things about it. One is that games are generally longer, and contain more content. Those super hard games you remember from back in the day, yeah they only took a long time to beat because they were hard and you lost a shit tone of progress every time you saw the game over screen. If you were good you could beat those games in under 12 hours easy.

Also I've noticed that difficulty levels are becoming a more integral part of games. Now in addition to the standard normal easy and hard mode, most games also offer a few modes more difficult than basic hard mode and usually one even easier than basic easy mode. That way if things are too easy you can just crank of the difficulty. I've also seen a few titles where you can disable things such as regenerating health and other features to designed to make the games more accessible to the casual audience. And on top of all that there's the achievement so if your an OCD gamer there's all sorts of ridiculous tasks with unforgiving requirements for you to try and do.

Yeah, those are my thoughts on games being dumbed down.

[Christoph]

I don't have time for a detailed post, but I will voice my ascent. I remember the days when the words "Nintendo Hard" actually meant something.

[Silence Sei]

People have exchanged difficulty in the actual game for difficulty ascertaining certain endings.

Heavy Rain? Easy to beat. Perfect Crime Ending? You're in for the long haul.

That and with trophies/acheivements typically making you unlock all endings for your ultimate reward.

So I say games themselves aren't so hard nowdays. We've come a long way from bullets on one end and flying turtles on the other. That doesn't make them any less fun, or make different aspects of them hard to get through.

[Amber Eyes]

Games are fucking hard, man! Lol

I will honestly give up on a game if I get stuck, and never pick it up again. I just don't have the patience. I play mostly for story anyway. Luckily Sei will beat the hard parts for me or I'd never finish anything! Games are gearing towards a broader scope of people nowadays, and Nintendo is getting pretty darn rich off of it. I think sony and microsoft are still trying to stay true to their hard-core players, but it's gotta be tempting to do some cheap artwork and put a tennis racket in Kratos' hand.

[MetalDrago]

Admittedly, Sei, that is part of the case. However, as far as the now legendary fail called Final Fantasy XIII, making games too easy has flaws. Final Fantasy, what was once known as the crowning glory of all RPGs, became a linear, boring game that was more show than anything else. The battles were awesome, I'll admit, but the linear game play that kept you on a predetermined track the entire time just drove me nuts. And by nuts, I mean completely and totally fucknuts. I prefer to be able to play a game and control every aspect of the story for myself. That may sound selfish, but there are times when you want a certain amount of control as far as what happens next.

And, personally, I want that control. Open world RPGs may be mostly gone, but at least let me choose if I want to advance the story or stay in this area. They even de-personalized the shops to where you could buy from any shop by accessing (of all things) the fucking save terminal! Plus the redundant upgrade cycle for weapons really turned me off... Let me buy a more powerful weapon from a shop...

*continues to grumble while rumaging around for a copy of FF7*

EDIT: Fuck achievements! The end.

[Enigmatic Immortal]

RPG's i am noticing are getting more...simple minded. Most games in that genre are now plot railed, no room to explore the world, and the characters are not doing a good job on the cliche, but making you just sit there and groan.

Fighting games are becoming more challenging, now that we introduced the 3d engine and the 8 way walk system for most games the strategies change dramatically, plus the same one move bullshit never really works. (Save fucking V-13 from Blazblue.) They make the bosses insanely stupid hard to beat too.

Shooting games have stopped being single focused to multiplayer experience. Call of duty and Gears of war have single player story lines, but let's face it. If you spend time on that you are giving the online community serious time to one up you. I can't play those games against other human opponents, my skills are just that lack luster. Yet what happened to the glory of Time Splitters and Perfect Dark, and the mecca of all shooting games, Golden Eye? Those games did it right. Lot's of versatility, loads of game content already IN THE GAME, not this download bullshit.

The achievement trophy system is the new challenge in games. It's not enough to beat the game, but beat the game and get every achievement defines how tough the game is. The replay value of a game with no replay value significantly improves thanks to those little nuances.

I dunno, the difficulty of solving the puzzles, beating the bosses, and exploring the game have sorta...died. Now everything is railroad oriented. I don't have to make decisions to move forward. (THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS)

My two cents, good sirs.

[grim137]

I think sony and microsoft are still trying to stay true to their hard-core players, but it's gotta be tempting to do some cheap artwork and put a tennis racket in Kratos' hand.

I don't think that's entirely true, Sony and Microsoft just have a better balance. God of War III still has the slick visuals and an easy difficulty setting for the casual crowd. There's also the Halo, GTA, and Madden Franchises (among many others) that pretty much define popular, casual gaming. Oh and lets not forget all those the cheap, but still sometimes entertaining, downloadable titles you can get of X-box Live and PSN.

So yeah, while I don't think we'll ever see Kratos's Grand Kart Racing Adventure, I Sony and Microsoft do cater to the casual crowd. It's just unlike Nintendo they don't cater exclusively to the casual crowd and their casual games usually have more substance.

[Duffy]

Not playing much at the minute, I'm a casual gamer at best with the occaisional dip into something spectacular. I have to admit, I've a penchant for Guitar/band based games so my current gaming collection consists of Band Hero, Guitar Hero 5, The Beatles Rock Band and Final Fantasy 13 (I've yet to complete it...for reasons I don't want to discuss).

Well okay, I will. Yes, it's linear, yes, it's clunky, and it's pretty as fuck BUT, the reason I stopped playing it is not because of that. I just don't like the characters as much as I thought I did. That's why FF9 is the best FF to me ;)

Next games I'll buy will be Skate 3, Fable 3, Rock Band Greenday and Diablo 3, oh, and Ghost Recon 3! Not been keeping up to date with new releases...owt coming out I'm missing caus' games have sucked for a while!

[Letho]

To an extent I agree with you. More and more games are being made to appeal to the masses and, to an extent, I can understand why. Games are expensive high budget products now. You can't just have three coders in the basement and a cool company name and expect to be successful in the industry. If a game doesn't sell well then the company that made it will likely lose a lot of money. Combine with the fact that the entertainment form as a whole is a lot more mainstream than it used to be. Remember when only nerdy kids played video games and only the very nerdy kids played them several hours a week. Yeah, that's not the case any more now everybody and their mother's mother plays at least some video games once a blue moon. You can't blame the industry for wanting to cash in on that.Yeah, but if your product is good, it will still make a profit even if it is "hardcore". Take a look at Gran Turismo series. It's a racing simulator and as such mostly appeals only to people who play racing sims. And it's a very successful game. But it's easier to make a mediocre game everyone will buy than a great game the fans of the genre will cherish.

However there are some good things about it. One is that games are generally longer, and contain more content. Those super hard games you remember from back in the day, yeah they only took a long time to beat because they were hard and you lost a shit tone of progress every time you saw the game over screen. If you were good you could beat those games in under 12 hours easy.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 I've noticed that difficulty levels are becoming a more integral part of games. Now in addition to the standard normal easy and hard mode, most games also offer a few modes more difficult than basic hard mode and usually one even easier than basic easy mode. That way if things are too easy you can just crank of the difficulty. I've also seen a few titles where you can disable things such as regenerating health and other features to designed to make the games more accessible to the casual audience. And on top of all that there's the achievement so if your an OCD gamer there's all sorts of ridiculous tasks with unforgiving requirements for you to try and do.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.

Admittedly, Sei, that is part of the case. However, as far as the now legendary fail called Final Fantasy XIII, making games too easy has flaws. Final Fantasy, what was once known as the crowning glory of all RPGs, became a linear, boring game that was more show than anything else. The battles were awesome, I'll admit, but the linear game play that kept you on a predetermined track the entire time just drove me nuts. And by nuts, I mean completely and totally fucknuts. I prefer to be able to play a game and control every aspect of the story for myself. That may sound selfish, but there are times when you want a certain amount of control as far as what happens next.

And, personally, I want that control. Open world RPGs may be mostly gone, but at least let me choose if I want to advance the story or stay in this area. They even de-personalized the shops to where you could buy from any shop by accessing (of all things) the fucking save terminal! Plus the redundant upgrade cycle for weapons really turned me off... Let me buy a more powerful weapon from a shop...I think that, concerning FF, it started with XII, this loss of control. You got the gambit system, so all you really needed to do is set up a bunch of them and then just walk around with your party killing everything. And then in XIII, they don't even give you control over the entire party. That drove me more nuts than the linearity, personally. I can't even begin to count the times I shouted at the TV because Vanille just kept casting Cure instead of Raise over and fucking over again or whatever.

XIII is basically a CG movie, with a small bit in the middle where they let you fuck around, killing some monsters. And that's it. XII at least had a world map, such as it was.

RPG's i am noticing are getting more...simple minded. Most games in that genre are now plot railed, no room to explore the world, and the characters are not doing a good job on the cliche, but making you just sit there and groan.

Fighting games are becoming more challenging, now that we introduced the 3d engine and the 8 way walk system for most games the strategies change dramatically, plus the same one move bullshit never really works. (Save fucking V-13 from Blazblue.) They make the bosses insanely stupid hard to beat too.

Shooting games have stopped being single focused to multiplayer experience. Call of duty and Gears of war have single player story lines, but let's face it. If you spend time on that you are giving the online community serious time to one up you. I can't play those games against other human opponents, my skills are just that lack luster. Yet what happened to the glory of Time Splitters and Perfect Dark, and the mecca of all shooting games, Golden Eye? Those games did it right. Lot's of versatility, loads of game content already IN THE GAME, not this download bullshit.

The achievement trophy system is the new challenge in games. It's not enough to beat the game, but beat the game and get every achievement defines how tough the game is. The replay value of a game with no replay value significantly improves thanks to those little nuances.

I dunno, the difficulty of solving the puzzles, beating the bosses, and exploring the game have sorta...died. Now everything is railroad oriented. I don't have to make decisions to move forward. (THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS)

My two cents, good sirs. 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

As 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.

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.

Next games I'll buy will be Skate 3, Fable 3, Rock Band Greenday and Diablo 3, oh, and Ghost Recon 3! Not been keeping up to date with new releases...owt coming out I'm missing caus' games have sucked for a while!Diablo 3 is going to be the shit! Can't fucking wait.

[Duffy]

OH!

Completely retarded Duffy moment.

I completely forgot Deus Ex is due this year...

I CANNOT WAIT FOR THAT!

/end excitement.

[Knave]

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.

[Sorahn]

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

[MetalDrago]

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.

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.

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.

[grim137]

Yeah, but if your product is good, it will still make a profit even if it is "hardcore". Take a look at Gran Turismo series. It's a racing simulator and as such mostly appeals only to people who play racing sims. And it's a very successful game. But it's easier to make a mediocre game everyone will buy than a great game the fans of the genre will cherish.

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 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.

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).

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.


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.

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.

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.


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

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.


As 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.

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


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.

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?


Diablo 3 is going to be the shit! Can't fucking wait.

On this we can agree. In fact I believe it to be a universal truth.


Anyone here played Fallout? I've been wanting to try number 3.

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.

[Tainted Bushido]

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.

[Letho]

Anyone here played Fallout? I've been wanting to try number 3.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.

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.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. ;)

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.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.

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=BmUJrKGN3C0I 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.

Also, the video, fricking hilarious. :D

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.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.

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).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.

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.

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.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.

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.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. :P

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. ;)

[Arsène]

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.

If you really want to hear about personal tastes and bad business, I'm still waiting for the release of another Legacy of Kain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Of_Kain) game.

Fingers crossed.

[Visla Eraclaire]

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.

[Amen]

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.

[Sheex]

I picked they're becoming too easy, although in truth I'm somewhere in-between.

On the one hand, I recognize the problem that comes with a game that is too hard to beat. Nowadays, you can spend up to (and I suppose over if we throw in tax) sixty dollars a game. I remember topping out at forty or so back in the day (and that was for a DAMN good game). Kind of a pain if you never manage to beat it due to the difficulty, and I'll admit I remember a few like that.

On the other hand, when I do beat a game nowadays, it's a rare occasion that I throw my hands up in the air and scream "BAHAHAHA! I DID IT! I DID IT! QUICK! TO THE CAR! IT'S TIME FOR A CELEBRATOY BURGER! I'M BUYING!"

I kind of miss that. When I beat FFXIII, all I did was shrug. Actually, if I were to tell the truth, I tossed the remote control aside and went, "That's it? Shit, waste of sixty bucks there." Of course, back in the days of nintendo I didn't actually have a car, but the sentiment was still there.

It's a pretty hard line to walk, but fortunately I've quite a few old games I've yet to beat, so I can still feel that wonderful rush of victory.

Come Squall! We've many a magic to draw! Forget the linearity of Thirteen, I've the repition of Eight awaiting me! Hours upon hours shall be wasted clicking the "draw" button against an accursed goblin, but when we finally crush that bitch Ultemica, it's burger time! I'm buying!


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)

You must defeat my dragon punch to stand a chance!

Or, not really. I think it's pretty much an accepted fact that Blazblue is far more in-depth. But worry less about that, and more about Jin Kisaragi freezing your ass.

Two months. Two months and I'll have Hazama whipping your ass as well.

[Enigmatic Immortal]

Okay, I'll let Jin take the hyper core, but not Hazama. Iron Tager will crush all opposition that does not freeze their enemies with ice. (I won't call cheap, only cause V-13 is a bitch)

The draw in eight is a big ol pain in the ass, but it's made slightly easier with the refinement option.

And screw Street Fighter 4. I'm sorry. It's a bad thing to say, but its my opinion. I just hate that a dragon punch beats everything. Including finishers. lame.

[Tainted Bushido]

Speaking of celebratory Jack runs, there was none for Score Attack...WTF man?

And I'm brushing up, learning my trade. I'll kick yo asses come launch. Just takes learning what works, and what doesn't. Something I woefully was missing...

[Enigmatic Immortal]

We're derailing the thread...

But nothing speaks volumes like a celebratory jack run...Did you finally beat score attack?

Off track again, SORRY! (Pat IM me.)

[Sorahn]

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. :P

Hey by the way the new CoD Black Ops game is set in the cold-war / vietnam era and the only thing they've even talked about so far is the single player. Granted it looks a lot like the action movie craziness of MW2, but when it's all they're talking about it has to be decent, right?

I love some multiplayer CoD, but that's because I joined a clan and got to know a lot of the guys that play, so I always play with people I know. If I didn't, it would get old very very fast (I know because I've done it). Instead, I am a big fan of a good single player game. Fallout 3 was amazing, and I haven't even played any of the expansions (maybe I should), but I also like more linear games like FFX and FEAR.

I like a pretty wide range of games.

Speaking of that, anyone tried ModNation Racers? I've been thinking about picking that up for some mario-kart-esque fun and as a party game (most of my friends are intimidated by most video games but love some mario kart).