It's pretty simple really. I started at pretty much the exact same time as the OP and got into PC gaming during the 486 DX era. The games I played back then were made buy developers that saw there wasnt a game like they wanted play so they made it. The fondest memories I have of those days were playing syndicate, xcom, doom, theme park and sam and max. Those first in the series games didnt have many if any simillar titles, they were groundbreaking games no one had seen before.
Skip forward to today and we have developers trying to make the biggest profit, hence making games for a broad age/inteligence range. No longer are games about what "nerds" want, its about how many kids/low iq people can you get to buy your game without scaring away all of the adults/intelligent people, which usually always fails. The industry isnt about inovation and making cool things made of win, its about making money.
XCOM was amazing and I completely support your post.
What I can't wait for a game that is truely "Dumbed Down" too the point they make the game into a real type of world were anything can be done if they players can find a way too do it, this would allow many smart people too do there best but also the so called "Dumb" people to follow easly without much problem. (oh and I'm one of those Self-Proclaimed "Dumb" people)
Oh anyone know a good zombie game? I love shooting meat puppets that have no pain and in many ways would never be called murderer. XD
As usual, it's easy to scapegoat the young folks and blame them for the things we don't like in the industry.
The games you enjoyed as a youngster weren't produced by people in your age group. How old are the developers who're producing these "EZ mode" games? Looking around the industry today I'd say most developers are about your age OP. So it may be that you're the exception who enjoyed the difficulty without handholding 'cause your peers who are now developers are of a different opinion.
What I can't wait for a game that is truely "Dumbed Down" too the point they make the game into a real type of world were anything can be done if they players can find a way too do it, this would allow many smart people too do there best but also the so called "Dumb" people to follow easly without much problem. (oh and I'm one of those Self-Proclaimed "Dumb" people)
Oh anyone know a good zombie game? I love shooting meat puppets that have no pain and in many ways would never be called murderer. XD
Ha I hear ya. I'm not all that smart myself, but I sure as heck wish that when I saw the mmorpgs of today that they actually made me feel like I was in a fantasy world environment. The community has just gotten so bad in just about every title I have tried since 2004. There's no sense of escapism unless I turn off general chat. But then if I group with folks, 9 times out of ten it's "Sup," or "Yo," if I am lucky or just silence. On top of that, developers try harder to be witty than creative, and they add cute garbage to games (especially from cash shops), and just silly quest runs about silly stories.
There was so much immersion back in the day, and I swear it's just an arcade game era with an MMORPG nametag on the box.
Nostalgia bias: the first game we play always feels more complex than the second one we play.
Quite the irony. The very first Mario game on the NES is brutal for most gamers nowadays. My nephews(10 and 12) who play Xbox 360(Halo, Batman, CoD, Etc.) and nothing else, cannot beat the original Mario. Its simply too hard for them. They don't even want to try to invest time into it to get better. I noticed this trend on Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2. I also noticed it on New Super Mario Bros Wii. If the game is too hard they just give up. If they can't breeze thru it easily, they won't bother. I have noticed this trend with every other game that comes out lately.
The reason they're dumbing down is gamers have been handed elements in games for far too long. They cannot and will not even try to learn or overcome obstacles or challenges. Once the game becomes too hard they just trade the game back in and buy something else. If a game is not mind numblingly easy then it won't sell to the masses. This is the price we pay for having the games being more accessible for more audiences. I don't care if they make games easier, but at least add in difficulties. Don't penalize us who like games to be challenging by making the game only one difficulty.
I do find it quite funny though. Original Mario is harder than 95% of the games on the market today. Makes me feel good knowing I could beat that game at a young age. Then it makes me feel sad watching this generation give up on trying to play classics from the past.
Ha I hear ya. I'm not all that smart myself, but I sure as heck wish that when I saw the mmorpgs of today that they actually made me feel like I was in a fantasy world environment. The community has just gotten so bad in just about every title I have tried since 2004. There's no sense of escapism unless I turn off general chat. But then if I group with folks, 9 times out of ten it's "Sup," or "Yo," if I am lucky or just silence. On top of that, developers try harder to be witty than creative, and they add cute garbage to games (especially from cash shops), and just silly quest runs about silly stories.
There was so much immersion back in the day, and I swear it's just an arcade game era with an MMORPG nametag on the box.
Ya I really want the old days back when you could talk too be people and they didnt respond with one or two words every time or heck when a Arcade around a town would have people playing Mortal Kombat against others was also really fun. XD
But I cant say anything bad about the communities of games now since they have changed so much but it would be nice to find a community that would be like the old days hell I'm still with a Online Gamer Community called EWo (Elite Warrior's Online) we used too play tons of Shooting games and mainly Tribes (Tribes was awesome I loved using a tank too mortor enemies base) but those days when you could chat or really plan out attack with friends or just random people and really play together then alone. ( stink that EWo isn't what it was in the past used too be 100 people strong untill well life hit many members I knew and some well Age caught up too them in the end... R.I.P) It stinks see the old gamers go just if more of the new gamers could live in there foot steps then most of todays games would be great again.
Generation clash.I, for one, was born in 83' and had my hands on an NES by the time I was two. I still have memories of playing Metroid and having absolutely no clue as to what to do with it, but eventually kicking the shit out of that game at a *very* early age. Regardless of the age you were when you played the incredibly difficult games of the first generation of home consoles, you likely have a skillset I would consider 'superior' to modern gamers, that is, unless you were never able to get over the peripheral challenge that came with PS2-era controllers.Gamers indoctrinated at any point around say, the N64, have no clue how difficult games used to be, and if confronted with one, they would pull hairs out. I've actually seen this in many of my younger friends that had an older brother's NES and never got into it, but jumped right into the first Xbox easily. Likely because it looked better, and not much else... but I would definitely argue that simplicity/ease is the hallmark of the later generations of gamers, while those around at the inception of the industry will constantly search for something more challenging.
Ah, you are a young pup, NES LOL! I started on a TI-75 and a Commador and the Apple IIE was cutting edge for my generation.
But to the point, I feel games have become easier for a couple reasons: 1. Suites took over and all they care about is making money and quantity became more important than quality. 2. The "every kid gets a trophy" generation is now playing games and god forbid they have to actually work for anything. So, to make money, games are dumbed down so that generation can continue to not have to deal with failure. God help us, we have raised a bunch of pansies that can't deal with having to work for anything in a game; let alone life...
Quite the irony. The very first Mario game on the NES is brutal for most gamers nowadays. My nephews(10 and 12) who play Xbox 360(Halo, Batman, CoD, Etc.) and nothing else, cannot beat the original Mario. Its simply too hard for them. They don't even want to try to invest time into it to get better. I noticed this trend on Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2. I also noticed it on New Super Mario Bros Wii. If the game is too hard they just give up. If they can't breeze thru it easily, they won't bother. I have noticed this trend with every other game that comes out lately.
The reason they're dumbing down is gamers have been handed elements in games for far too long. They cannot and will not even try to learn or overcome obstacles or challenges. Once the game becomes too hard they just trade the game back in and buy something else. If a game is not mind numblingly easy then it won't sell to the masses. This is the price we pay for having the games being more accessible for more audiences. I don't care if they make games easier, but at least add in difficulties. Don't penalize us who like games to be challenging by making the game only one difficulty.
I do find it quite funny though. Original Mario is harder than 95% of the games on the market today. Makes me feel good knowing I could beat that game at a young age. Then it makes me feel sad watching this generation give up on trying to play classics from the past.
Hell I still cant beat Mario i get too the 3-4 world without using that dam flute and then run out of lives but no one could beat me at Duck Hunt and still can't I love my uncle for keeping his Nintendo system running perfectly and he even has the gun! Woot Woot!!!
But back then the games were more about Quility then Quintity so no wonder I still love playing Nintendo.
One of those "indoctrinated at N64 gamers" here, and I completely agree with OP.
Games need to appeal to larger markets, which means not being incredibly challenging. Not a big surprise that gamers like myself end up being unable to deal with older games--which for myself, feels like a huge loss.
Ah, you are a young pup, NES LOL! I started on a TI-75 and a Commador and the Apple IIE was cutting edge for my generation. But to the point, I feel games have become easier for a couple reasons: 1. Suites took over and all they care about is making money and quantity became more important than quality. 2. The "every kid gets a trophy" generation is now playing games and god forbid they have to actually work for anything. So, to make money, games are dumbed down so that generation can continue to not have to deal with failure. God help us, we have raised a bunch of pansies that can't deal with having to work for anything in a game; let alone life... Just my 2 CPs.
So much truth in this post.
+1 Latronus
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
The way I see it there are older fringe gamers and there are younger fringe gamers. I don't see their tastes as being all that different.
What I see is the late 90s had an explosion of computers as home appliances, bringing in a huge number of people using the computer as an entertainment device. This shift caused fringe gamers to become an extremely small minority among computer users in general.
Dev / Publishers chase the money. So now we have "fringe gaming for the masses". An odd contradiction of terminology where game designs that used to be entirely for the fringe group have been shifted towards mainstream appeal.
The games changed because the market changed.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
I, for one, was born in 83' and had my hands on an NES by the time I was two. I still have memories of playing Metroid and having absolutely no clue as to what to do with it, but eventually kicking the shit out of that game at a *very* early age. Regardless of the age you were when you played the incredibly difficult games of the first generation of home consoles, you likely have a skillset I would consider 'superior' to modern gamers, that is, unless you were never able to get over the peripheral challenge that came with PS2-era controllers.
Gamers indoctrinated at any point around say, the N64, have no clue how difficult games used to be, and if confronted with one, they would pull hairs out. I've actually seen this in many of my younger friends that had an older brother's NES and never got into it, but jumped right into the first Xbox easily. Likely because it looked better, and not much else... but I would definitely argue that simplicity/ease is the hallmark of the later generations of gamers, while those around at the inception of the industry will constantly search for something more challenging.
I believe it's more than this, though I loved your post. I am 42, btw.
MMORPGs were created to stimulate a market of gamers that spent some evenings every given month (or week even) playing Dungeons and Dragons, and various other pen and paper tabel top "live LARP acting" RPGs (I was part of the CLC or College of Lake County Gamers club in Mundelein, Illinois, I was also a member of Don's Dungeon in Seattle Washington and the Dragon's Nest in Albuquerque, New Mexico).
Some of those gamers went on to create Everquest and Dark age of Camelot, Ultima (of course!), and so forth. The developers of those titles learned how to work together on these gaming nights, accomplish complex tasks, and compete against a human adversary (the dungeon master). They brought that into the mmoRPG market (which they created anyway) and brought like-minded gamers with them.
We played our characters as they would have lived and breathed. No we didn't sit and spit out poorly contrived Shakespeare, but we did leave out the "dude" speak and what was going on in the States at that time.
When this community of gamers transitioned from table top to mmoRPG, they brought with them that same sense of play excellence and community building. They brought creativity and a willingness to want meat to their mmoRPG.
I have to say that until World of Warcraft released in 2004, you had two types of online gamers. The fantasy players who brought the old community online, and the FPS guys who were playing Counterstrike and RTS games.
WoW brought the the FPS folks into the mmorpg world and overnight we had communities of DUDE-SPEAK and LEET-PWN-YOUR-FACE- etc type talk. The community of the FPS mingled with the mmoRPG and before you know it, like an incoming virus, the older gaming crowd was consumed.
Today's MMOs (I won't even add RPG to today's mmos) are the fat taken from the meat of what once was. The games are dummed down and overhyped with equal enthusiasm. Hordes of players support these games for 1-3 months and then the games nosedive and the fans move to the next big download.
The age of the mmoRPG has died, Gandalf and the Elves have taken Frodo and Bilbo into the West, and now is the time of the mmoVG the massively multi player online video game.
Sauron should be pleased.
I disagree, because l33t speak has been around since before Anarchy Online. Play the Secret World, that is as much deserving of an RPG title as any game is.
I do however, agree that WoW brought the genre to the masses. For whatever reason that game was the right mix of features at the right time to make the MMO genre just explode in the west. I don't think these were all FPS players. Actually I know for a fact a lot of them were sims players or other RPG gamers or non-gamers all together. WoW took the genre out of the niche, and now everyones trying to get a piece of that pie.
Nostalgia bias: the first game we play always feels more complex than the second one we play.
Quite the irony. The very first Mario game on the NES is brutal for most gamers nowadays. My nephews(10 and 12) who play Xbox 360(Halo, Batman, CoD, Etc.) and nothing else, cannot beat the original Mario. Its simply too hard for them. They don't even want to try to invest time into it to get better. I noticed this trend on Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2. I also noticed it on New Super Mario Bros Wii. If the game is too hard they just give up. If they can't breeze thru it easily, they won't bother. I have noticed this trend with every other game that comes out lately.
The reason they're dumbing down is gamers have been handed elements in games for far too long. They cannot and will not even try to learn or overcome obstacles or challenges. Once the game becomes too hard they just trade the game back in and buy something else. If a game is not mind numblingly easy then it won't sell to the masses. This is the price we pay for having the games being more accessible for more audiences. I don't care if they make games easier, but at least add in difficulties. Don't penalize us who like games to be challenging by making the game only one difficulty.
I do find it quite funny though. Original Mario is harder than 95% of the games on the market today. Makes me feel good knowing I could beat that game at a young age. Then it makes me feel sad watching this generation give up on trying to play classics from the past.
I grew up on NES and I don't have the patience for those games anymore. I'll admit, though that I am not great at games. I always loved them grew up playing some of the hardest games around, but never ever been that good at them.
Except for Bushido Blade 2 for some reason which I owned at that game and realized much later i was playing it on Hard from the get go lol.
Except for Bushido Blade 2 for some reason which I owned at that game and realized much later i was playing it on Hard from the get go lol.
Ha... I played the first, and it was quite easy to rule at that game when you chose the spear and fought anyone with a wakizashi. First to draw blood wins, and I could clear the entire string of opponents in about 20 minutes. Spent more time in loading screens than actual fights.
Glad I just rented that one, because I would have been pissed if I spent 50$ on it.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I, for one, was born in 83' and had my hands on an NES by the time I was two. I still have memories of playing Metroid and having absolutely no clue as to what to do with it, but eventually kicking the shit out of that game at a *very* early age. Regardless of the age you were when you played the incredibly difficult games of the first generation of home consoles, you likely have a skillset I would consider 'superior' to modern gamers, that is, unless you were never able to get over the peripheral challenge that came with PS2-era controllers.
Gamers indoctrinated at any point around say, the N64, have no clue how difficult games used to be, and if confronted with one, they would pull hairs out. I've actually seen this in many of my younger friends that had an older brother's NES and never got into it, but jumped right into the first Xbox easily. Likely because it looked better, and not much else... but I would definitely argue that simplicity/ease is the hallmark of the later generations of gamers, while those around at the inception of the industry will constantly search for something more challenging.
There's so many holes to this discussion on why the reason gaming industries do the dumbing method:
1st: A large number of the masses these days are not capable of doing analytical procedures and thereby gaming industries end up toning down the difficulty for this reason. (aka: the money maker)
2nd: Too hard difficulty could lead to frustrations and thereby causes the consumer to disband from the game itself. (aka: bad marketing strategy) One game's rep can lead to the future of other game creation's rep by the same company to be affected as well.
3rd: Releasing too much technology can cause a economic meltdown on that industry. You can tech only so far before, no one needs the product anymore. (Example: There's the 256 mb HD > 512 mb > 1gb > 4gb > 8gb > 16gb > 250 gb > 500 gb> 750 gb > 1tb > 2tb > .... ) Do you see a pattern here and now base it by years in gap when selling it to consumers. (Windows 97 > 98 > NT > XP > Vista > 7 > 8 > ....)
.... I would like to add more, but I'm not gonna bother. It's all about marketing strategy overall. Learn that and you'll know the rest.
BTW there's a reason why game consoles require you to buy a new one every few years. Aside from the slight tech ups, it's also because ideas are running out so that's that.
(Example: NES > SNES > N64 > Game Cube > Wii > ....)
Except for Bushido Blade 2 for some reason which I owned at that game and realized much later i was playing it on Hard from the get go lol.
Ha... I played the first, and it was quite easy to rule at that game when you chose the spear and fought anyone with a wakizashi. First to draw blood wins, and I could clear the entire string of opponents in about 20 minutes. Spent more time in loading screens than actual fights.
Glad I just rented that one, because I would have been pissed if I spent 50$ on it.
First one was awful, Second was epic though. I was a master with the katana and my second weapon was a sword too. I used to piss off my brother cause he could never beat me. And he is a far better gamer than me but he never managed to master that game...I suppose everyones good at something right?!
There's so many holes to this discussion on why the reason gaming industries do the dumbing method:
1st: A large number of the masses these days are not capable of doing analytical procedures and thereby gaming industries end up toning down the difficulty for this reason. (aka: the money maker)
2nd: Too hard difficulty could lead to frustrations and thereby causes the consumer to disband from the game itself. (aka: bad marketing strategy) One game's rep can lead to the future of other game creation's rep by the same company to be affected as well.
3rd: Releasing too much technology can cause a economic meltdown on that industry. You can tech only so far before, no one needs the product anymore. (Example: There's the 256 mb HD > 512 mb > 1gb > 4gb > 8gb > 16gb > 250 gb > 500 gb> 750 gb > 1tb > 2tb > .... ) Do you see a pattern here and now base it by years in gap when selling it to consumers. (Windows 97 > 98 > NT > XP > Vista > 7 > 8 > ....)
Well, point 1 and 2 support my argument that how a Player deals with frustration depends greatly on what generation of games they came in on. Those playing the ass-kickers of yesteryears, but namely those that adapted and excelled at it, are more likely to keep at it... while those that never did, never will.
Point #3 has nothing to do with anything here, though. Bit of an off-tangent.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
There are emus for just about any game these days, try and see if they're still as difficult as you remember. I occasionally take a walk down the memory lane and play around with some C64 games.
Hmm, but I know people ([mod edit]) that would disagree.
The rules fit on a piece of paper, but the applications thereof are thesis-worthy. Give people the option of choice, mixed with the chance to make a poor one, and they will seize up... maybe even flip the table at some point.
Yes, the applications are deep. Depth is important. Complexity isn't.
Or rather, outward-facing complexity isn't.
When a gamer calls something "dumbed down", 99% of the time they're judging things skin-deep and not making some comprehensive analysis of a game's true depth. So because skin-deep complexity is what's being discussed, it's accurate to say that complexity doesn't matter at all and is in fact entirely bad game design.
Because really what's important is an underlying complexity with a simple skin. That's why Chess's applications are thesis-worthy.
But again...for every 100 players discussing "dumbing down" only 1 has really mastered the game in question enough to understand whether it is or isn't. To be fair, I'm not suggesting most games are particularly deep, but simply that "dumbed down" is whipped out at the drop of a hat when in a fact an important chunk of those "dumbed down" games are actually pretty deep.
For example, on first glance it seems TSW's skill system might be fairly deep, despite abilities individually being quite simple. Yet it's crafting system is like Minecraft's: unnecessarily complex in a way which forces you to look up recipes on a wiki -- but that complexity adds exactly zero to the depth of the system.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes GTWander, my favorite poster. Who could forget him talking about sex technology in games. Electronic devices that move a man's joystick, etc...in the classic "MMO's That You Can Fornicate In" thread...lol
Hmm, but I know people ([mod edit]) that would disagree.
The rules fit on a piece of paper, but the applications thereof are thesis-worthy. Give people the option of choice, mixed with the chance to make a poor one, and they will seize up... maybe even flip the table at some point.
Yes, the applications are deep. Depth is important. Complexity isn't.
Or rather, outward-facing complexity isn't.
When a gamer calls something "dumbed down", 99% of the time they're judging things skin-deep and not making some comprehensive analysis of a game's true depth. So because skin-deep complexity is what's being discussed, it's accurate to say that complexity doesn't matter at all and is in fact entirely bad game design.
Because really what's important is an underlying complexity with a simple skin. That's why Chess's applications are thesis-worthy.
But again...for every 100 players discussing "dumbing down" only 1 has really mastered the game in question enough to understand whether it is or isn't. To be fair, I'm not suggesting most games are particularly deep, but simply that "dumbed down" is whipped out at the drop of a hat when in a fact an important chunk of those "dumbed down" games are actually pretty deep.
For example, on first glance it seems TSW's skill system might be fairly deep, despite abilities individually being quite simple. Yet it's crafting system is like Minecraft's: unnecessarily complex in a way which forces you to look up recipes on a wiki -- but that complexity adds exactly zero to the depth of the system.
I like complexity in games. Even things in games which simply serve as distractions add depth for me.
But I put up witha lot more to get through games.....I remember drawing my own Wizardry maps to get my way through dungeons.....now people just use mini maps that draw themselves as you explore.....or search up a map online. But drawing your own maps was an art of its own.
Honestly I hate the prevelence of online guides and strategy guides in general. IMO these basically reduce every strategy game into a formulaic game rather than an evolution of your own thought process. Thus strategy is not even a factor in most games because people just search up the best strategies online.....only execution matters.
While the use of these guides does not really affect me because I can not utilize them.....it has STRONGLY affected design of new games. Which means I get a more streamlined game....which is not neccisarily something that appeals to me.
I like complexity in games. Even things in games which simply serve as distractions add depth for me.
But I put up witha lot more to get through games.....I remember drawing my own Wizardry maps to get my way through dungeons.....now people just use mini maps that draw themselves as you explore.....or search up a map online. But drawing your own maps was an art of its own.
Honestly I hate the prevelence of online guides and strategy guides in general. IMO these basically reduce every strategy game into a formulaic game rather than an evolution of your own thought process. Thus strategy is not even a factor in most games because people just search up the best strategies online.....only execution matters.
While the use of these guides does not really affect me because I can not utilize them.....it has STRONGLY affected design of new games. Which means I get a more streamlined game....which is not neccisarily something that appeals to me.
Well being forced to draw a map for yourself isn't exactly a deep experience. It's an inconvenience which doesn't really add depth to the experience, whereas there are so many other skills a game demands of players which do have depth.
The AH, as an example, rewards learning how to price your items correctly at the start, but is a deep enough system in most games that you can actually begin to influence a server's prices once you become skilled enough at the system. A "strategy guide" outlining AH strategy couldn't, by definition, be a static set thing, and instead would be a lengthy set of advice much like a Chess thesis. Because by definition a static strategy isn't going to work in a system like that.
We need more systems like the AH and fewer like "no minimaps". The former provides depth with a minimal amount of complexity. The latter is mostly an inconvenient hassle which adds little to no depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They dumb it down for profit. If you are 10 years old, have half a brain and consume large amounts of caffeine then you can sell it to the masses for a large profit. That is how most mmo devs test their games today.
The same old arguments cloaked in modern colloquialisms. "In my day, I had to walk 10 miles to school in 6 feet of snow, both ways, now top that you whippersnapper!"
Comments
XCOM was amazing and I completely support your post.
What I can't wait for a game that is truely "Dumbed Down" too the point they make the game into a real type of world were anything can be done if they players can find a way too do it, this would allow many smart people too do there best but also the so called "Dumb" people to follow easly without much problem. (oh and I'm one of those Self-Proclaimed "Dumb" people)
Oh anyone know a good zombie game? I love shooting meat puppets that have no pain and in many ways would never be called murderer. XD
As usual, it's easy to scapegoat the young folks and blame them for the things we don't like in the industry.
The games you enjoyed as a youngster weren't produced by people in your age group. How old are the developers who're producing these "EZ mode" games? Looking around the industry today I'd say most developers are about your age OP. So it may be that you're the exception who enjoyed the difficulty without handholding 'cause your peers who are now developers are of a different opinion.
Ha I hear ya. I'm not all that smart myself, but I sure as heck wish that when I saw the mmorpgs of today that they actually made me feel like I was in a fantasy world environment. The community has just gotten so bad in just about every title I have tried since 2004. There's no sense of escapism unless I turn off general chat. But then if I group with folks, 9 times out of ten it's "Sup," or "Yo," if I am lucky or just silence. On top of that, developers try harder to be witty than creative, and they add cute garbage to games (especially from cash shops), and just silly quest runs about silly stories.
There was so much immersion back in the day, and I swear it's just an arcade game era with an MMORPG nametag on the box.
Quite the irony. The very first Mario game on the NES is brutal for most gamers nowadays. My nephews(10 and 12) who play Xbox 360(Halo, Batman, CoD, Etc.) and nothing else, cannot beat the original Mario. Its simply too hard for them. They don't even want to try to invest time into it to get better. I noticed this trend on Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2. I also noticed it on New Super Mario Bros Wii. If the game is too hard they just give up. If they can't breeze thru it easily, they won't bother. I have noticed this trend with every other game that comes out lately.
The reason they're dumbing down is gamers have been handed elements in games for far too long. They cannot and will not even try to learn or overcome obstacles or challenges. Once the game becomes too hard they just trade the game back in and buy something else. If a game is not mind numblingly easy then it won't sell to the masses. This is the price we pay for having the games being more accessible for more audiences. I don't care if they make games easier, but at least add in difficulties. Don't penalize us who like games to be challenging by making the game only one difficulty.
I do find it quite funny though. Original Mario is harder than 95% of the games on the market today. Makes me feel good knowing I could beat that game at a young age. Then it makes me feel sad watching this generation give up on trying to play classics from the past.
Ya I really want the old days back when you could talk too be people and they didnt respond with one or two words every time or heck when a Arcade around a town would have people playing Mortal Kombat against others was also really fun. XD
But I cant say anything bad about the communities of games now since they have changed so much but it would be nice to find a community that would be like the old days hell I'm still with a Online Gamer Community called EWo (Elite Warrior's Online) we used too play tons of Shooting games and mainly Tribes (Tribes was awesome I loved using a tank too mortor enemies base) but those days when you could chat or really plan out attack with friends or just random people and really play together then alone. ( stink that EWo isn't what it was in the past used too be 100 people strong untill well life hit many members I knew and some well Age caught up too them in the end... R.I.P) It stinks see the old gamers go just if more of the new gamers could live in there foot steps then most of todays games would be great again.
Ah, you are a young pup, NES LOL! I started on a TI-75 and a Commador and the Apple IIE was cutting edge for my generation.
But to the point, I feel games have become easier for a couple reasons:
1. Suites took over and all they care about is making money and quantity became more important than quality.
2. The "every kid gets a trophy" generation is now playing games and god forbid they have to actually work for anything. So, to make money, games are dumbed down so that generation can continue to not have to deal with failure. God help us, we have raised a bunch of pansies that can't deal with having to work for anything in a game; let alone life...
Just my 2 CPs.
Hell I still cant beat Mario i get too the 3-4 world without using that dam flute and then run out of lives but no one could beat me at Duck Hunt and still can't I love my uncle for keeping his Nintendo system running perfectly and he even has the gun! Woot Woot!!!
But back then the games were more about Quility then Quintity so no wonder I still love playing Nintendo.
One of those "indoctrinated at N64 gamers" here, and I completely agree with OP.
Games need to appeal to larger markets, which means not being incredibly challenging. Not a big surprise that gamers like myself end up being unable to deal with older games--which for myself, feels like a huge loss.
So much truth in this post.
+1 Latronus
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
The way I see it there are older fringe gamers and there are younger fringe gamers. I don't see their tastes as being all that different.
What I see is the late 90s had an explosion of computers as home appliances, bringing in a huge number of people using the computer as an entertainment device. This shift caused fringe gamers to become an extremely small minority among computer users in general.
Dev / Publishers chase the money. So now we have "fringe gaming for the masses". An odd contradiction of terminology where game designs that used to be entirely for the fringe group have been shifted towards mainstream appeal.
The games changed because the market changed.
I disagree, because l33t speak has been around since before Anarchy Online. Play the Secret World, that is as much deserving of an RPG title as any game is.
I do however, agree that WoW brought the genre to the masses. For whatever reason that game was the right mix of features at the right time to make the MMO genre just explode in the west. I don't think these were all FPS players. Actually I know for a fact a lot of them were sims players or other RPG gamers or non-gamers all together. WoW took the genre out of the niche, and now everyones trying to get a piece of that pie.
I grew up on NES and I don't have the patience for those games anymore. I'll admit, though that I am not great at games. I always loved them grew up playing some of the hardest games around, but never ever been that good at them.
Except for Bushido Blade 2 for some reason which I owned at that game and realized much later i was playing it on Hard from the get go lol.
Ha... I played the first, and it was quite easy to rule at that game when you chose the spear and fought anyone with a wakizashi. First to draw blood wins, and I could clear the entire string of opponents in about 20 minutes. Spent more time in loading screens than actual fights.
Glad I just rented that one, because I would have been pissed if I spent 50$ on it.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
There's so many holes to this discussion on why the reason gaming industries do the dumbing method:
1st: A large number of the masses these days are not capable of doing analytical procedures and thereby gaming industries end up toning down the difficulty for this reason. (aka: the money maker)
2nd: Too hard difficulty could lead to frustrations and thereby causes the consumer to disband from the game itself. (aka: bad marketing strategy) One game's rep can lead to the future of other game creation's rep by the same company to be affected as well.
3rd: Releasing too much technology can cause a economic meltdown on that industry. You can tech only so far before, no one needs the product anymore. (Example: There's the 256 mb HD > 512 mb > 1gb > 4gb > 8gb > 16gb > 250 gb > 500 gb> 750 gb > 1tb > 2tb > .... ) Do you see a pattern here and now base it by years in gap when selling it to consumers. (Windows 97 > 98 > NT > XP > Vista > 7 > 8 > ....)
.... I would like to add more, but I'm not gonna bother. It's all about marketing strategy overall. Learn that and you'll know the rest.
BTW there's a reason why game consoles require you to buy a new one every few years. Aside from the slight tech ups, it's also because ideas are running out so that's that.
(Example: NES > SNES > N64 > Game Cube > Wii > ....)
First one was awful, Second was epic though. I was a master with the katana and my second weapon was a sword too. I used to piss off my brother cause he could never beat me. And he is a far better gamer than me but he never managed to master that game...I suppose everyones good at something right?!
Well, point 1 and 2 support my argument that how a Player deals with frustration depends greatly on what generation of games they came in on. Those playing the ass-kickers of yesteryears, but namely those that adapted and excelled at it, are more likely to keep at it... while those that never did, never will.
Point #3 has nothing to do with anything here, though. Bit of an off-tangent.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
There are emus for just about any game these days, try and see if they're still as difficult as you remember. I occasionally take a walk down the memory lane and play around with some C64 games.
Yes, the applications are deep. Depth is important. Complexity isn't.
Or rather, outward-facing complexity isn't.
When a gamer calls something "dumbed down", 99% of the time they're judging things skin-deep and not making some comprehensive analysis of a game's true depth. So because skin-deep complexity is what's being discussed, it's accurate to say that complexity doesn't matter at all and is in fact entirely bad game design.
Because really what's important is an underlying complexity with a simple skin. That's why Chess's applications are thesis-worthy.
But again...for every 100 players discussing "dumbing down" only 1 has really mastered the game in question enough to understand whether it is or isn't. To be fair, I'm not suggesting most games are particularly deep, but simply that "dumbed down" is whipped out at the drop of a hat when in a fact an important chunk of those "dumbed down" games are actually pretty deep.
For example, on first glance it seems TSW's skill system might be fairly deep, despite abilities individually being quite simple. Yet it's crafting system is like Minecraft's: unnecessarily complex in a way which forces you to look up recipes on a wiki -- but that complexity adds exactly zero to the depth of the system.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes GTWander, my favorite poster. Who could forget him talking about sex technology in games. Electronic devices that move a man's joystick, etc...in the classic "MMO's That You Can Fornicate In" thread...lol
I like complexity in games. Even things in games which simply serve as distractions add depth for me.
But I put up witha lot more to get through games.....I remember drawing my own Wizardry maps to get my way through dungeons.....now people just use mini maps that draw themselves as you explore.....or search up a map online. But drawing your own maps was an art of its own.
Honestly I hate the prevelence of online guides and strategy guides in general. IMO these basically reduce every strategy game into a formulaic game rather than an evolution of your own thought process. Thus strategy is not even a factor in most games because people just search up the best strategies online.....only execution matters.
While the use of these guides does not really affect me because I can not utilize them.....it has STRONGLY affected design of new games. Which means I get a more streamlined game....which is not neccisarily something that appeals to me.
Well being forced to draw a map for yourself isn't exactly a deep experience. It's an inconvenience which doesn't really add depth to the experience, whereas there are so many other skills a game demands of players which do have depth.
The AH, as an example, rewards learning how to price your items correctly at the start, but is a deep enough system in most games that you can actually begin to influence a server's prices once you become skilled enough at the system. A "strategy guide" outlining AH strategy couldn't, by definition, be a static set thing, and instead would be a lengthy set of advice much like a Chess thesis. Because by definition a static strategy isn't going to work in a system like that.
We need more systems like the AH and fewer like "no minimaps". The former provides depth with a minimal amount of complexity. The latter is mostly an inconvenient hassle which adds little to no depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They dumb it down for profit. If you are 10 years old, have half a brain and consume large amounts of caffeine then you can sell it to the masses for a large profit. That is how most mmo devs test their games today.
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
Most game are easier today than they were ten years ago because more kids (12 and under) are playing.
The same old arguments cloaked in modern colloquialisms. "In my day, I had to walk 10 miles to school in 6 feet of snow, both ways, now top that you whippersnapper!"