Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have always thought that if you die in a game that it is poor game design. They did not provide the player the tools (gear, skills, etc.) that were needed.
I do think that games have gotten easier over the years but I think it's a good thing. I've gone back and played some games from my childhood and they were hard as shit but then I remember I had near limitless time to beat said games. Now there are games for nearly everyone. I don't have a lot time to play so I enjoy being able to set the difficulty setting down so I can move forward with the story and not spend hours being stuck at a certain part.
Why, back in my day you had to use Himem & bootsys and run a menu on boot to setup for for each game. After doing that, you had to actually make it through the game for the payoff for all the work up front to run the damn thing in the first place. Gamers today have it easy. And don't get me started on consoles. Bah, get off my lawn!!!!!
/edit: Or, in a modern gripe, using mods in FO4, making it most of the way through the main questline, then getting ctd's. Removing a mod, seeing if that fixed it, then adding that mod back and removing another one, lather, rinse, repeat. I don't think I have made it all the way through since I started using mods. I think it's my masochistic streak. But I really like the idea of Sim Settlements. And Insane Ivy, I really don't want to give her up as a companion.
I'd agree with this. Times change with gaming like anything else in life. People are busier, older, but still want to put time into a game with some challenges. But to spend countless hours trying to figure things out for one boss fight is just a disrespect of a person's time in today's world. At least it was pre-covid19. I played Dark Souls 1 and it was fun, for example. But there was no way I was going to play that a second time. I threw Souls 2 out as it was just too much of a time suck. I don't know about you but as much as I'm a gamer and enjoy playing, I do other things in this life too.I wouldn't say I became "soft" but generally "busy." So, I have to be more conscience of my time. Anyone who thinks old games were "easy" are lying. However, I will also say, anyone who thinks things are "easier" are wrong too. It's just different eras of design. All with their own style and difficulties.
What I will say is, I can't stand the era of "speedruns." I find nothing thrilling about that stuff.
Speedrunners are not "good," they just look like they are on one particular game due to grinding it endlessly for thousands of hours. Watch a stream of a speedrunner play a game they never have before. I swear they are some of the most incompetent actual gamers on the planet.I thought the same for a while, and where things like tool-assist are concerned, I feel like "what's the point?". However, if you watch some of the actually good players, that just know their paths through the game, and know how to play well, it's actually pretty impressive. I can't watch them to any great extent, but when I see a game I like being played by someone really good it's kinda cool. Almost like standing and watching someone that was really good at an arcade game in the 80s.
Counter-point: The tools are there, but the player is dying because they have not learned yet how to use all the tools available to them properly.I have always thought that if you die in a game that it is poor game design. They did not provide the player the tools (gear, skills, etc.) that were needed.
Counter-Counter-point?: the game did a poor job preparing the player so that they effectively learned how to use all of the tools properlySpeedrunners are not "good," they just look like they are on one particular game due to grinding it endlessly for thousands of hours. Watch a stream of a speedrunner play a game they never have before. I swear they are some of the most incompetent actual gamers on the planet.
Counter-point: The tools are there, but the player is dying because they have not learned yet how to use all the tools available to them properly.
Counter-Counter-point?: the game did a poor job preparing the player so that they effectively learned how to use all of the tools properly
I come from an era when gamers would keep coming back for more. If the game was too hard, we kept picking at it till we mastered it. If we played against better players, we kept playing against them until we were just as good or better. We never cried about difficultly and never called a game unbalanced.
I sometimes feel a certain portion of today's gamers whine too much about difficulty. People crying about no proper matchmaking, they feel some games are"unbalanced," a patch comes out making a game harder and people start with their "It's too hard now. I'll wait till the next patch" causing them to rage quit, etc.
Do you think some gamers have become too soft? Or is it that I never simply noticed the soft gamers before?
Well those are sort of the same, but yes the name of the game for 20 years straight has been lower the skill to get more money from people who invest less and less and want easier feel goods.I used to think this, but then those Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne-style games became really popular.
I'm not sure if gamers became soft or if developers made their games softer in an attempt to make them more accessible.
I think the more probable explanation is that game design as a concept was still in its infancy back then and everyone was still trying to figure it out. Game developers were all mostly computer science graduates. As time went on you had people from more diverse education backgrounds getting involved, along with a better understanding of what kinds of game mechanics and structures work. Technology was also a limiting factor that improved with time. It's actually a multifaceted issue with an interesting history.When I was growing up, I had a C64, Amiga, and PC (for computers) and various consoles here or there, that I really didn't play much. My friends had NESes and SNESes (I didn't start getting more into these consoles until a little later in their cycles.)
Games on the C64 and Amiga particularly were absolutely brutal where difficulty was concerned. I think I have a good theory of why this is, that's backed up by the opinion of a couple of game designer/programmer friends that I have.
On those computer platforms, the dev teams were generally smaller (not always, but usually). They didn't have teams of testers a lot of the time. The devs themselves would play the games over and over and over, and since THEY could do it, they assumed other people could as well. Anything from just raw difficulty (which they would often increase before release due to their own improving skills with the game) to overlooked bad design decisions because they were already used to them. There were many games that were nearly impossible without a cheat on older computer platforms. (Shadow of the Beast II comes to mind...) Some of the games I used to play and beat on the C64, I can't even believe I had the patience to keep at it. Yet my brother and I beat many of them on multiple occasions.
On the consoles (NES, SMS and beyond) I think things were tested more rigorously. Probably in part due to the games going onto ROM instead of disks for one, and a wider audience for another. They could also catch things as they went from Japan to the US since they had to burn the localized version anyway, and fix them.
Just some thoughts on some of the early computer games in comparison to console games. Arcade games... That's another one to explore.
When I was growing up, I had a C64, Amiga, and PC (for computers) and various consoles here or there, that I really didn't play much. My friends had NESes and SNESes (I didn't start getting more into these consoles until a little later in their cycles.)
Games on the C64 and Amiga particularly were absolutely brutal where difficulty was concerned. I think I have a good theory of why this is, that's backed up by the opinion of a couple of game designer/programmer friends that I have.
On those computer platforms, the dev teams were generally smaller (not always, but usually). They didn't have teams of testers a lot of the time. The devs themselves would play the games over and over and over, and since THEY could do it, they assumed other people could as well. Anything from just raw difficulty (which they would often increase before release due to their own improving skills with the game) to overlooked bad design decisions because they were already used to them. There were many games that were nearly impossible without a cheat on older computer platforms. (Shadow of the Beast II comes to mind...) Some of the games I used to play and beat on the C64, I can't even believe I had the patience to keep at it. Yet my brother and I beat many of them on multiple occasions.
On the consoles (NES, SMS and beyond) I think things were tested more rigorously. Probably in part due to the games going onto ROM instead of disks for one, and a wider audience for another. They could also catch things as they went from Japan to the US since they had to burn the localized version anyway, and fix them.
Just some thoughts on some of the early computer games in comparison to console games. Arcade games... That's another one to explore.
That isn't just true for games, but every kind of programmer. If you design the program you automatically know how it should work and instinctively use it that way. That's why outside testing is a must.to overlooked bad design decisions because they were already used to them.
I think the more probable explanation is that game design as a concept was still in its infancy back then and everyone was still trying to figure it out. Game developers were all mostly computer science graduates. As time went on you had people from more diverse education backgrounds getting involved, along with a better understanding of what kinds of game mechanics and structures work. Technology was also a limiting factor that improved with time. It's actually a multifaceted issue with an interesting history.
Ninja Gaiden, TMNT, Ghosts and Goblins, Mystical Ninja, Noid, Karati Kid, mega man, some double dragons, battle toads, silver surfer, blaster master. just to name a few.
When I was younger (51yrs old now) I was all over games like Cuphead , etc .. bound and determined to figure it out/beat it .. and it was rewarding when I did (except for Super Ghouls'nGhosts .. never did beat the boss on the 2nd play through ).yeah people are a little soft now, heck I’m soft now. I played like halfway through Cuphead and said ”life’s too short for this” and gave up. Never picked it up again despite owning on Xbox AND Steam. I think it’s a great game but I was having to die like 50 times to get through some of the bosses.