The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Something for a while has been bothering me and several other gamers that i talk to, this isn't a rant on the state of online gaming as lets face it, you can't fix something that has always been broken. But rather this is about the state of single player games and basically the lack of skill so many of them take to complete these days.
It seems that most games these days only take time to complete them, often you aren't required to get better at a game merely remember what happened last time you failed and counteract it the second time around. Sure all games are basically this but we seem to have got to a state in games where it is possible to save at any moment or at least have a few checkpoints in what is a level 20-30 minutes long play time if that.
This to me requires very little skill as even if you had to restart a level you could just quick save around the corner from the last time you stuffed up so that if you fail again you can just load from there. It seems to me that gamers have got lazy when playing through a game and are too used to being able to resume from half way through a level without having to go through the same bit again.
Many games have had saving features and even some arcade machines have the ability to write down a code so that if you wanted to pick up from the level you finished on you could. There was a time when games were “pure” when if you failed or ran out of continues you were starting from scratch.
Take a title like Wonder Boy In MonsterLand on the master system, this is a hard game, this required that you begin the game again if you ran out of lives, but it was enjoyable to play through again as you might find an extra area or item that you didn't get before, by the time you played the game all the way through you were completely kitted out due to a few repeat plays and learning new things and it was a truly challenging game, i don't know anyone that completed it without many many tries.
The difficulty of games is also an issue in my eyes, too often there are options to select a difficulty. I assume most people pick Normal difficulty first time playing a game at least, but i have a horrible feeling that i am wrong and the majority go for Easy or something lower than Normal.
I personally think that games should get progressively harder as you play them, meaning that normal should lead in to hard. But recently i have noticed that some games don't seem to be getting harder and rather just have an easy finish.
Take Half-Life 2 the final level although it was fun was so easy and took nothing to complete it, it was a real let down for me as every enemy was taken out with one shot.
Quake 4 suffered from this as well in my opinion as the final boss wasn't really a lot of effort or thought to beat despite the rest of the game being one of the best FPS titles i have played in a while.
One game that i always remember as hard is the MegaMan series, the SNES titles in particular was very hard and all levels were on the same level of difficulty as you could pick which order you do them in. MegaMan did feature a save function of sorts by using passwords at the end of each level so you could type it in next time around and start from there but as the game was challenging it was needed.
A lot of games these days just seem to require that you play them long enough to complete rather than improve. I assume that it is because gaming is such a wide thing now, most families will have some sort of console or PC and that the age of gamers is broader and so easier options are needed.
Many games that have these options are FPS games and have age ratings of 15 or 18 so short of just being rubbish at FPS games there is no reason in my eyes to have an easy option or a quick save.
It seems that most games these days only take time to complete them, often you aren't required to get better at a game merely remember what happened last time you failed and counteract it the second time around. Sure all games are basically this but we seem to have got to a state in games where it is possible to save at any moment or at least have a few checkpoints in what is a level 20-30 minutes long play time if that.
This to me requires very little skill as even if you had to restart a level you could just quick save around the corner from the last time you stuffed up so that if you fail again you can just load from there. It seems to me that gamers have got lazy when playing through a game and are too used to being able to resume from half way through a level without having to go through the same bit again.
Many games have had saving features and even some arcade machines have the ability to write down a code so that if you wanted to pick up from the level you finished on you could. There was a time when games were “pure” when if you failed or ran out of continues you were starting from scratch.
Take a title like Wonder Boy In MonsterLand on the master system, this is a hard game, this required that you begin the game again if you ran out of lives, but it was enjoyable to play through again as you might find an extra area or item that you didn't get before, by the time you played the game all the way through you were completely kitted out due to a few repeat plays and learning new things and it was a truly challenging game, i don't know anyone that completed it without many many tries.
The difficulty of games is also an issue in my eyes, too often there are options to select a difficulty. I assume most people pick Normal difficulty first time playing a game at least, but i have a horrible feeling that i am wrong and the majority go for Easy or something lower than Normal.
I personally think that games should get progressively harder as you play them, meaning that normal should lead in to hard. But recently i have noticed that some games don't seem to be getting harder and rather just have an easy finish.
Take Half-Life 2 the final level although it was fun was so easy and took nothing to complete it, it was a real let down for me as every enemy was taken out with one shot.
Quake 4 suffered from this as well in my opinion as the final boss wasn't really a lot of effort or thought to beat despite the rest of the game being one of the best FPS titles i have played in a while.
One game that i always remember as hard is the MegaMan series, the SNES titles in particular was very hard and all levels were on the same level of difficulty as you could pick which order you do them in. MegaMan did feature a save function of sorts by using passwords at the end of each level so you could type it in next time around and start from there but as the game was challenging it was needed.
A lot of games these days just seem to require that you play them long enough to complete rather than improve. I assume that it is because gaming is such a wide thing now, most families will have some sort of console or PC and that the age of gamers is broader and so easier options are needed.
Many games that have these options are FPS games and have age ratings of 15 or 18 so short of just being rubbish at FPS games there is no reason in my eyes to have an easy option or a quick save.
Page:
Something for a while has been bothering me and several other gamers that i talk to, this isn't a rant on the state of online gaming as lets face it, you can't fix something that has always been broken. But rather this is about the state of single player games and basically the lack of skill so many of them take to complete these days.
It seems that most games these days only take time to complete them, often you aren't required to get better at a game merely remember what happened last time you failed and counteract it the second time around. Sure all games are basically this but we seem to have got to a state in games where it is possible to save at any moment or at least have a few checkpoints in what is a level 20-30 minutes long play time if that.
This to me requires very little skill as even if you had to restart a level you could just quick save around the corner from the last time you stuffed up so that if you fail again you can just load from there. It seems to me that gamers have got lazy when playing through a game and are too used to being able to resume from half way through a level without having to go through the same bit again.
Many games have had saving features and even some arcade machines have the ability to write down a code so that if you wanted to pick up from the level you finished on you could. There was a time when games were “pure” when if you failed or ran out of continues you were starting from scratch.
Take a title like Wonder Boy In MonsterLand on the master system, this is a hard game, this required that you begin the game again if you ran out of lives, but it was enjoyable to play through again as you might find an extra area or item that you didn't get before, by the time you played the game all the way through you were completely kitted out due to a few repeat plays and learning new things and it was a truly challenging game, i don't know anyone that completed it without many many tries.
The difficulty of games is also an issue in my eyes, too often there are options to select a difficulty. I assume most people pick Normal difficulty first time playing a game at least, but i have a horrible feeling that i am wrong and the majority go for Easy or something lower than Normal.
I personally think that games should get progressively harder as you play them, meaning that normal should lead in to hard. But recently i have noticed that some games don't seem to be getting harder and rather just have an easy finish.
Take Half-Life 2 the final level although it was fun was so easy and took nothing to complete it, it was a real let down for me as every enemy was taken out with one shot.
Quake 4 suffered from this as well in my opinion as the final boss wasn't really a lot of effort or thought to beat despite the rest of the game being one of the best FPS titles i have played in a while.
One game that i always remember as hard is the MegaMan series, the SNES titles in particular was very hard and all levels were on the same level of difficulty as you could pick which order you do them in. MegaMan did feature a save function of sorts by using passwords at the end of each level so you could type it in next time around and start from there but as the game was challenging it was needed.
A lot of games these days just seem to require that you play them long enough to complete rather than improve. I assume that it is because gaming is such a wide thing now, most families will have some sort of console or PC and that the age of gamers is broader and so easier options are needed.
Many games that have these options are FPS games and have age ratings of 15 or 18 so short of just being rubbish at FPS games there is no reason in my eyes to have an easy option or a quick save.
It seems that most games these days only take time to complete them, often you aren't required to get better at a game merely remember what happened last time you failed and counteract it the second time around. Sure all games are basically this but we seem to have got to a state in games where it is possible to save at any moment or at least have a few checkpoints in what is a level 20-30 minutes long play time if that.
This to me requires very little skill as even if you had to restart a level you could just quick save around the corner from the last time you stuffed up so that if you fail again you can just load from there. It seems to me that gamers have got lazy when playing through a game and are too used to being able to resume from half way through a level without having to go through the same bit again.
Many games have had saving features and even some arcade machines have the ability to write down a code so that if you wanted to pick up from the level you finished on you could. There was a time when games were “pure” when if you failed or ran out of continues you were starting from scratch.
Take a title like Wonder Boy In MonsterLand on the master system, this is a hard game, this required that you begin the game again if you ran out of lives, but it was enjoyable to play through again as you might find an extra area or item that you didn't get before, by the time you played the game all the way through you were completely kitted out due to a few repeat plays and learning new things and it was a truly challenging game, i don't know anyone that completed it without many many tries.
The difficulty of games is also an issue in my eyes, too often there are options to select a difficulty. I assume most people pick Normal difficulty first time playing a game at least, but i have a horrible feeling that i am wrong and the majority go for Easy or something lower than Normal.
I personally think that games should get progressively harder as you play them, meaning that normal should lead in to hard. But recently i have noticed that some games don't seem to be getting harder and rather just have an easy finish.
Take Half-Life 2 the final level although it was fun was so easy and took nothing to complete it, it was a real let down for me as every enemy was taken out with one shot.
Quake 4 suffered from this as well in my opinion as the final boss wasn't really a lot of effort or thought to beat despite the rest of the game being one of the best FPS titles i have played in a while.
One game that i always remember as hard is the MegaMan series, the SNES titles in particular was very hard and all levels were on the same level of difficulty as you could pick which order you do them in. MegaMan did feature a save function of sorts by using passwords at the end of each level so you could type it in next time around and start from there but as the game was challenging it was needed.
A lot of games these days just seem to require that you play them long enough to complete rather than improve. I assume that it is because gaming is such a wide thing now, most families will have some sort of console or PC and that the age of gamers is broader and so easier options are needed.
Many games that have these options are FPS games and have age ratings of 15 or 18 so short of just being rubbish at FPS games there is no reason in my eyes to have an easy option or a quick save.
Crazy people using laptops on batteries probably need the quicksave option.
I think the key word is 'option'
If, at the start, the setting was that no automatic saves would take place and the game was made more of a challenge, I think a lot of people would just leave it with those settings. But for some of us who need to save because of time constraints (not being able to sit playing a game for more than an hour at a time, for instance) or those who want the benefit of autosaving, Laptops being one example, as Hedfix pointed out, they could go to the options screen and turn it on.
This would solve all the problems in one go. If you hide away the autosave option in an options menu then people will be less tempted to use it, but those of us who may need it will know its there.
If, at the start, the setting was that no automatic saves would take place and the game was made more of a challenge, I think a lot of people would just leave it with those settings. But for some of us who need to save because of time constraints (not being able to sit playing a game for more than an hour at a time, for instance) or those who want the benefit of autosaving, Laptops being one example, as Hedfix pointed out, they could go to the options screen and turn it on.
This would solve all the problems in one go. If you hide away the autosave option in an options menu then people will be less tempted to use it, but those of us who may need it will know its there.
I agree there are times where it will be needed, but how many games these days have levels that take more than 30 minutes? not many in my experience. I suppose it depends on peoples time constraints and if they know how long they can play at a time.
A save at the end of a level is more acceptable than check points or a quick save in what i deem a short time period any way.
I am as guilty as most with saving but i won't use quick saves in a game and it's probably more me just forgetting to save then me trying to avoid using it. But i have got to the point that i have never quick saved really in games so i just don't think about it.
Although i have had points when i wish i had quick saved obviously.
A save at the end of a level is more acceptable than check points or a quick save in what i deem a short time period any way.
I am as guilty as most with saving but i won't use quick saves in a game and it's probably more me just forgetting to save then me trying to avoid using it. But i have got to the point that i have never quick saved really in games so i just don't think about it.
Although i have had points when i wish i had quick saved obviously.
I'm playing through Half-Life 2 now, I find it ridiculously easy.
once you're done, start Episode One it's far better than HL2 although a bit shorter.
Most of the time I want to save so I don't have to sit through long cut scenes again if I die. I often don't have time to play games for hours on end the away I used to. I generally hate savepoints and wish you could just save anywhere. It does vary from game to game though and sometimes the lack of savepoints makes a game slightly harder. Resident Evil was always annoying. You had to find a savepoint but also have an ink ribbon to use it.
GTA also annoys me that you have to go back to your safehouse when you want to save. I spent half of my time travelling to and from my house when I didnt even need to go there.
GTA also annoys me that you have to go back to your safehouse when you want to save. I spent half of my time travelling to and from my house when I didnt even need to go there.
This would be a good use for the achievements system on 360 and PC.
You could have achievements for finishing levels without using the autosave function.
You could have achievements for finishing levels without using the autosave function.
The achievement system sounds a bit lame to me, like the stars you used to get in primary school for tying up your shoe laces. I prefer extras like the ones offered in Timesplitters.
Unfortunately gaming isnt marketed at the hardcore long-term gamer anymore, it's for the instant gratification generation of "complete it in your spare time and move on" in which case a game might take them a month or two to finish. For the proper gamers, these games lack enough substance or challenge and are completed in days. Welcome to the days of the casual gamer, they rule the roost now. F**kers!
Page: