Am I alone in looking back fondly at a time when you bought a game knowing that only hours of blood, sweat and tears would result in seeing the end credits? Where you had to memorise patterns and puzzles and hone your joypad skills to a knife edge if you wanted to get to the end?
I certainly don't look back at that kind of shoddy game design fondly, you only to have to read all the interviews in RG to see pretty much everyone they speak to admits making their games too hard.
So many games back then had the arcade mentality of killing the player as often as possible, thank god that it's gone!
I love the save anywhere feature, and as others have mentioned, you don't have to use it, you can force yourself to only save at the end of a level or every hour etc.
If you really want a challenge to see how good you are then you go online, you will soon find masses of people who will happily destroy you on Street Fighter, FIFA, COD, HALO etc and for those games without player v player then you have online high score leaderboards to test your skills.
Just because games back then tended to lack saves or continues, doesnt make it "shoddy". It really depends on the game. .....and really, back then alot of them actually DID have continues, though that might somewhat depend on which device you were playing. It was certainly true of most NES games, and many PC games of the time as well either did that or had some sort of save system, though saves back then did have more limitations. I cant say much of the other types of computers and such from that era, perhaps it was more of a problem on those? Heck if I know.
Still, I echo what Killbot has said in this thread. And the ability to play online.... yeah, that doesnt change it for me. Going online with the fighting games I play, for instance, I have to wait a ridiculous amount of time for an opponent that can even keep up with me, let alone put up much of a fight. Games really DONT force you to hone your skills much these days, and that leaks into the online experience in pretty much any genre. I've often met players in the fighting genre that are said to be "very good" by those around them, but the "very good" bit actually is only in comparison to many normal players that are kinda lazy and dont REALLY learn the game in question. Which ALSO means that there's a ton of players that will quit really easily when they start losing (which drives me up the wall). Or worse, the ones that wont even try at all after having just watched a few matches, because they think "I cant possibly play on that level" or "that whole game is just beyond me". It never occurs to them to try ANYWAY, as games these days almost never bring out that mentality in people. Wheras with older games.... they forced that mentality all the time. Hell, pretty much everyone I know does this one. They'll play fighting games sometimes.... until I start playing the same game, at which point they immediately all stop (which is really irritating). They think they cant win, yet at the same time they wont TRY it to find out, which creates sort of a nasty loop, as it also doesnt encourage them to practice and improve their skill so that maybe they CAN do it. Stuff like that.
Older games tended to reward skill, whereas recent games merely reward repetition; your skill doesnt really need to increase if you're allowed to do a section a zillion times in a row only to pass it via luck or something.
Prof Mango B Coconut wrote:
killbot wrote:When I play CoD... it's a great game and very slick and well made but I don't really feel like I'm playing a videogame. Not in the same way I do when I play Mario, or Strider. I feel as though I'm watching a film in which I am occasionally allowed to play an active part. But not too active - the developers don't want me messing up their lovely film with my insistance on interacting with it, after all. And they certainly don't want me to die.
You've got it. The thing is the vast majority don't want to be challenged, they want to be entertained - and worse than that, the majority feel entitled.
It's a race to the bottom to find the lowest common denominator - the biggest cash cow.
Developers/publishers want to produce easy games pretty much because of that; players used to having things handed to them. If players have a hard time completing a game, knowledge of this fact spreads, and potential new players/customers will look at it and say "Hmm, but I heard this game was really hard.... I'd probably never get anywhere in it, I'll buy something else". There's the occaisional rare exception, like Demon's Souls and whatnot, but those are rare indeed. And as Killbot says in that quote, the developers want you to be able to see the rest of their little movie.... er, I mean, "game".... so that you can be entranced into buying the following movies/"games", to be wowed with yet more #(%&-ing cutscenes.
Cant stand such games myself. Fortunately, I dont have any of THAT sort, so that works out pretty well.
I will say though, that sort of game is also phenomenally boring to watch someone play, if you dont like that sort yourself. It can be fun and funny to watch a friend playing something with at least a bit of challenge and constantly interesting gameplay to it. But watching them play through something that's more of an "experience" than a game is boring as all hell. Seeing them go through super-easy scenes and then watch little movie bits over and over is.... yeah. A cure for insomnia.