What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
mr gryzor
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by mr gryzor » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:37 am

Misery wrote: At least Dark Souls was decent though. But I did get bored with it after a time.

Dark Souls was excellent.
But it certainly isn't the brick wall of a game that people like to pretend it is.
C64-Atari ST-PC Engine-Sega Megadrive-SNES-Neo Geo-Sony Playstation-N64-Dreamcast-Gamecube-XBOX-Nintendo Wii-XBOX360-XBOX ONE

User avatar
Nemesis
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:55 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by Nemesis » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:38 am

mr gryzor wrote:
Nemesis wrote: I must admit that I haven't seen these self entitled gamers who demand that they can complete a game they buy.

Well you need to open your eyes because there is an entire generation of them.
The type of gamers that seem to think that the games story is more important than gameplay (Which it NEVER EVER EVER should be.imo)
With the story comes lots of cut scenes,with the cut scenes come bigger development teams,with the bigger development teams come more wages and bigger budgets.
The games get bogged down by the damn story,and because they're so story driven the developers want the consumer to see all those big,useless,fmv cut scenes-Which in turn results in games that are insultingly easy.

And yep,i stand by my original point.....they are very much the spawn of the Playstation.
The type of people that got into gaming in the mid 90's because of Sonys console.The generation that never played on arcade machines,and were so mummy cuddled by Japanese rpg's and no fail single player story driven games that just 7 short years ago the concept of actually competing against other human gamers online was an alien concept to them.
My eyes have been open for a fairly long time thanks.

We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding whether the difficulty of games nowadays being a bad thing.
Just to be clear though, I like you & many other long time gamers, dislike the story driven, cut scene after cut scene, QTE's (introduced during the Dreamcast era), sitting there twiddling your thumbs whilst some sub par dialogue is being spurted out. I even had a letter published in EDGE magazine lamenting Metal Gear Solid & its constant passive storytelling.

Your second point is a bit of a sweeping generlisation. Did you conduct a survey of Playtstaion gamers to come to such a conclusion? Arcade machines were meant to suck the money from your pockets & home console gaming was always a different beast to that. Arcades became irrelevant so many of todays gamers wouldn't have had the privelidge anyway.

Not to mention games were smaller in scale so were deliberately made more difficult.
Oh and if you want to do little social experiments on our forum don't post about them on your own you plum - Darren@Retro Gamer

User avatar
gman72
Posts: 8018
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:41 pm
Location: UK. Norfolk

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by gman72 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:16 am

His sweeping generalisation regarding Playstation owners is very wide of the mark.
You get it quite a bit here, in another thread someone tried to blame the rise of COD on the Playstation despite it never having been released on it and COD online being huge on PCs for years.
“To gain your own voice, you have to forget about having it heard.” —Allen Ginsberg, WD

User avatar
HalcyonDaze00
Posts: 4621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by HalcyonDaze00 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:27 am

His sweeping generalisation regarding Playstation owners is very wide of the mark
wide of the mark is putting it mildly, completely nonsensical would be a more fitting description.

User avatar
Misery
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by Misery » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:31 pm

mr gryzor wrote:
Nemesis wrote: I must admit that I haven't seen these self entitled gamers who demand that they can complete a game they buy.

Well you need to open your eyes because there is an entire generation of them.
The type of gamers that seem to think that the games story is more important than gameplay (Which it NEVER EVER EVER should be.imo)
With the story comes lots of cut scenes,with the cut scenes come bigger development teams,with the bigger development teams come more wages and bigger budgets.
The games get bogged down by the damn story,and because they're so story driven the developers want the consumer to see all those big,useless,fmv cut scenes-Which in turn results in games that are insultingly easy.

And yep,i stand by my original point.....they are very much the spawn of the Playstation.
The type of people that got into gaming in the mid 90's because of Sonys console.The generation that never played on arcade machines,and were so mummy cuddled by Japanese rpg's and no fail single player story driven games that just 7 short years ago the concept of actually competing against other human gamers online was an alien concept to them.

Yeah, I can definitely agree with all of that story crap. I dont play games to watch a damn movie, which is what so many of them have become. And of course any game that does that MUST be an easy one, because heaven forbid the player not get to the end of the "experience" due to a lack of skill.


Though I will say I dont entirely get the Playstation bit there. Heck, even I dont hate that thing, which is saying something.

User avatar
GameOver
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by GameOver » Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:10 am

Majority of todays gamers are completists. A publisher will put a game through a number of focus tests during development, and each test is split into different age ranges. The results are analysed and a game design will be modified (commonly relating to difficulty) to give gamers what they want. The current trend in what a gamer wants to see will be integrated into your next game design. I've written a lot of games over the years and those results show that players want to complete a game without much trouble. They don't want to die, they don't want to have to search around for items, they certainly don't want to repeat parts of a game more than once. Feedback shows they are all seen as negatives. Story driven games often rate more highly than ones without. It's not how you or I might want ours games to be like, but in general they have to be that way to have a good chance of being successful.

User avatar
Misery
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by Misery » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:01 pm

GameOver wrote:Majority of todays gamers are completists. A publisher will put a game through a number of focus tests during development, and each test is split into different age ranges. The results are analysed and a game design will be modified (commonly relating to difficulty) to give gamers what they want. The current trend in what a gamer wants to see will be integrated into your next game design. I've written a lot of games over the years and those results show that players want to complete a game without much trouble. They don't want to die, they don't want to have to search around for items, they certainly don't want to repeat parts of a game more than once. Feedback shows they are all seen as negatives. Story driven games often rate more highly than ones without. It's not how you or I might want ours games to be like, but in general they have to be that way to have a good chance of being successful.

Sadly, that is entirely correct.

All the more reason why I'm glad to just leave the bloody consoles behind. As that trend is likely to just keep going for the foreseeable future.

User avatar
killbot
Posts: 4824
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:36 am

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by killbot » Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:21 am

GameOver wrote:Majority of todays gamers are completists. A publisher will put a game through a number of focus tests during development, and each test is split into different age ranges. The results are analysed and a game design will be modified (commonly relating to difficulty) to give gamers what they want. The current trend in what a gamer wants to see will be integrated into your next game design. I've written a lot of games over the years and those results show that players want to complete a game without much trouble. They don't want to die, they don't want to have to search around for items, they certainly don't want to repeat parts of a game more than once. Feedback shows they are all seen as negatives. Story driven games often rate more highly than ones without. It's not how you or I might want ours games to be like, but in general they have to be that way to have a good chance of being successful.
So they want games with no challenge whatsoever and no obstacles between them and victory? What's the point?
Image

You can buy my book here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wolfshead-ebook ... =wolfshead

NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, Wii U, GB, GBC, GBA SP, DS Lite, 3DS, MS, MD, Saturn, DC, GG, Xbox, 360

User avatar
GameOver
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by GameOver » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:17 am

killbot wrote:So they want games with no challenge whatsoever and no obstacles between them and victory? What's the point?
To us oldies it does seem like there's often little point to certain aspects of a game, but we're a small percentage of the buying populous. To most players the important elements are to complete it quickly, play multiplayer, boast to friends, access social aspects, collect achievements, get value for money, trade-in etc... Challenge doesn't come into it so much anymore. In the pre-Playstation era there was little customer feedback and it didn't affect design so much but once games hit the masses in such a big way gamers have directed design more than they probably realise.

User avatar
Misery
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:52 pm

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by Misery » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:07 pm

killbot wrote:
GameOver wrote:Majority of todays gamers are completists. A publisher will put a game through a number of focus tests during development, and each test is split into different age ranges. The results are analysed and a game design will be modified (commonly relating to difficulty) to give gamers what they want. The current trend in what a gamer wants to see will be integrated into your next game design. I've written a lot of games over the years and those results show that players want to complete a game without much trouble. They don't want to die, they don't want to have to search around for items, they certainly don't want to repeat parts of a game more than once. Feedback shows they are all seen as negatives. Story driven games often rate more highly than ones without. It's not how you or I might want ours games to be like, but in general they have to be that way to have a good chance of being successful.
So they want games with no challenge whatsoever and no obstacles between them and victory? What's the point?

They're playing for the "experience", note the quotes there.

It's not so much like what most of us would call "playing a game", it's a lot more like watching a movie. They want to see the story from start to finish, get to all of the "set piece" moments, and blahblahblah. Boring, but true.

And this trend sorta keeps itself going by it's very nature. Those who play that sort of game alot.... tend to not be very good at the other sort, and keep playing easier and easier ones. It affects multiplayer stuffs too, sadly, as skill levels tend to be *very* low when that happens. I've a few friends who do this, and while that group rather enjoys multiplayer games.... they specifically enjoy them only if I am not also playing (unless it's a co-op sort of thing), because they assume they'll get stomped. Wont even touch any competetive game if I'm also into it. Bloody stupid, really.


But yeah, "what's the point" is a question I have found myself asking more and more over the last couple years in relation to console games as a whole. It's been a long time since I found a real answer that'd give me enough point to actually bother with those games.

User avatar
learnedrobb
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:17 pm
Contact:

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by learnedrobb » Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:38 am

gman72 wrote:His sweeping generalisation regarding Playstation owners is very wide of the mark.
You get it quite a bit here, in another thread someone tried to blame the rise of COD on the Playstation despite it never having been released on it and COD online being huge on PCs for years.
That was me, and you willfully misinterpreted my posting. I never said that COD originated on the Playstation, I pointed out that the 'Playstation Generation' of gamers gave rise to the current landscape which is dominated by annually refreshed franchises such as COD.

Anyways, back on topic:

Games these days are an 'experience' rather than a challenge. I wish it were different, but the market demands it be thus, and so it is.
NES/N64/GC/Wii/WiiU/SMD/SS/DC/PS1/PS2/PS3/PS4/Xbox/360/OneS/PSP/3DS/PSV
PSN: learnedrobb

User avatar
RMLF
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:54 am
Location: Lost in the Ether

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by RMLF » Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:03 pm

I can see the multiplayer thing given the amount of quit outs at a death I had at play over the weekend. It was like I cant die, Oh Im quitting. I was like. Dude you died, come back and batter us next time, Alls fair in love and war or Carmageddon II.

I dont like games that are too hard the final boss of XIII can still go and take a running jump, but I dont want Dragons Lair with additional Bells and Whistles either
The Artist Formerly Known as Ralph Milne's Left Foot :P

Wheres Gus Ceasar when you need him?... Pah!

Ralph's Trade/Sale Thread http://www.retrogamer.net/forum/viewtop ... =6&t=22769

User avatar
Megamixer
Posts: 14956
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:18 am
Location: Staffs, UK

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by Megamixer » Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:25 pm

I think people are possibly making too big a deal out the 'evils' of a game being more an experience than a challenge...

As I said before, if a game entertains you then that's all that matters. Do you need to ignore your liking for a game and instead ponder about whether it should have been a challenge? No, you don't.

I'm playing Dragon's Crown at the moment and finding it to be dead easy but it doesn't hamper my enjoyment of the game at all because I'm appreciating it for other things than difficulty.
Retro is a state of mind, and cares not for your puny concepts like dates and calendars.

User avatar
firebreather
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:31 am
Location: Lancaster
Contact:

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by firebreather » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:15 am

I would rather die in a game repeatedly, find nothing more infuritaing that running round and round in game enviroment with little idea of what im meant to be doing, at least if something kills you, then your usually on the right track.
Image

User avatar
retrojc
Posts: 4267
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:41 am

Re: What happened to the ability to 'fail' at a game?

Post by retrojc » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:33 am

mr gryzor wrote:But it certainly isn't the brick wall of a game that people like to pretend it is.
is there a yawn emotion thing?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests