The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but i feel there is a radical differrence between games of today and games of yesteryear.
I feel that the main difference is in the difficulty of the games.
If we look at the game earthworm jim for the SNES and the revolutionary title metal gear solid, you may see where im heading.
In earthworm jim there were around 7 worlds which became increasingly taxing from blatantly simple to downright infuriating, but heres the clincher, you had very few continues and lives to complete the game and if you got to the final level and then used your final life, then you were going alllllllll the way back to the start (extremely annoying indeed).
Now in the Amazing metal gear solid you had not so much levels but more an adventure. However in complete contrast to earthworm jim if you got all the way to the final boss (liquid snake) and he gave you a kick in then you could continue as many times as you liked until you finally pulled off a victory.
This leads me to conclude that although games are becoming more technologically advanced, they are sacraficing challenge as well, and as a result becoming much easier to complete than our retro titles.
I feel that the main difference is in the difficulty of the games.
If we look at the game earthworm jim for the SNES and the revolutionary title metal gear solid, you may see where im heading.
In earthworm jim there were around 7 worlds which became increasingly taxing from blatantly simple to downright infuriating, but heres the clincher, you had very few continues and lives to complete the game and if you got to the final level and then used your final life, then you were going alllllllll the way back to the start (extremely annoying indeed).
Now in the Amazing metal gear solid you had not so much levels but more an adventure. However in complete contrast to earthworm jim if you got all the way to the final boss (liquid snake) and he gave you a kick in then you could continue as many times as you liked until you finally pulled off a victory.
This leads me to conclude that although games are becoming more technologically advanced, they are sacraficing challenge as well, and as a result becoming much easier to complete than our retro titles.
Page:
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but i feel there is a radical differrence between games of today and games of yesteryear.
I feel that the main difference is in the difficulty of the games.
If we look at the game earthworm jim for the SNES and the revolutionary title metal gear solid, you may see where im heading.
In earthworm jim there were around 7 worlds which became increasingly taxing from blatantly simple to downright infuriating, but heres the clincher, you had very few continues and lives to complete the game and if you got to the final level and then used your final life, then you were going alllllllll the way back to the start (extremely annoying indeed).
Now in the Amazing metal gear solid you had not so much levels but more an adventure. However in complete contrast to earthworm jim if you got all the way to the final boss (liquid snake) and he gave you a kick in then you could continue as many times as you liked until you finally pulled off a victory.
This leads me to conclude that although games are becoming more technologically advanced, they are sacraficing challenge as well, and as a result becoming much easier to complete than our retro titles.
I feel that the main difference is in the difficulty of the games.
If we look at the game earthworm jim for the SNES and the revolutionary title metal gear solid, you may see where im heading.
In earthworm jim there were around 7 worlds which became increasingly taxing from blatantly simple to downright infuriating, but heres the clincher, you had very few continues and lives to complete the game and if you got to the final level and then used your final life, then you were going alllllllll the way back to the start (extremely annoying indeed).
Now in the Amazing metal gear solid you had not so much levels but more an adventure. However in complete contrast to earthworm jim if you got all the way to the final boss (liquid snake) and he gave you a kick in then you could continue as many times as you liked until you finally pulled off a victory.
This leads me to conclude that although games are becoming more technologically advanced, they are sacraficing challenge as well, and as a result becoming much easier to complete than our retro titles.
Mind you, in these games of old there may have been more of a challenge, but the whole game could be completed in a couple of hours once you'd had the practice.
Completing a game was merely a matter of learning how to defeat the enemies in each section, and you'd have to go all the way back to the start each time to make any progress.
Todays games have challenge in that there's a good 30 hours or so of exploration necessary before you over come all of the hurdles that lead to the end.
A balance between the two needs to be made, so saving before facing every enemy is not an option!
Completing a game was merely a matter of learning how to defeat the enemies in each section, and you'd have to go all the way back to the start each time to make any progress.
Todays games have challenge in that there's a good 30 hours or so of exploration necessary before you over come all of the hurdles that lead to the end.
A balance between the two needs to be made, so saving before facing every enemy is not an option!
Some recent games are quite easy to complete compared to games that where released a few years ago.
I mean i must of had hundreds of games for the Commodore 64 and i can only remember completing about a dozen of them. I still have my Mega Drive with a few games that i haven't completed yet, but for my PS and PS2 i've completed every game at least once.
Lets hope future game releases are slightly more challenging than their predecessors.
Darkreaper
I mean i must of had hundreds of games for the Commodore 64 and i can only remember completing about a dozen of them. I still have my Mega Drive with a few games that i haven't completed yet, but for my PS and PS2 i've completed every game at least once.
Lets hope future game releases are slightly more challenging than their predecessors.
Darkreaper
Games released today tend to have a more coherent storly line, with more indepth tasks,... and results from those takss upon other takss and the whole game...
Whereas games of old, were just about getting from point a to point B without getting killed... Their gaming structure was much simpler, and were within a much more controlled environment...
Whereas games of old, were just about getting from point a to point B without getting killed... Their gaming structure was much simpler, and were within a much more controlled environment...
Meka_Dragon wrote:
A balance between the two needs to
> be made, so saving before facing every enemy is not an option!
Why is it not an option? Some people aren't very good at games so they may need to save more often. They have paid their money for the game the same as everyone else, if they want to save all the time, whats the problem?
If you want a harder game you can set yourself a target to only save when you reach the end of a level or whatever.
I hope more games go down the route of M:SR, all the targets that you were set, lap tim to beat etc, were all customisable, you could change it all.
I thinlthis is the way to go, i'm not sure how it would work for some genres, but for driving games it's quite obvious. Games like MGS could have a similar thing, maybe you could set how many health packs are about, or how many enemies or a time limit or something.
This would also give the game more longevity, i'm currently playing M:SR through with all the targets on the easiest setting. Once i've done that i'm going to go back and increase the difficulty so the game is a real challenge.
A balance between the two needs to
> be made, so saving before facing every enemy is not an option!
Why is it not an option? Some people aren't very good at games so they may need to save more often. They have paid their money for the game the same as everyone else, if they want to save all the time, whats the problem?
If you want a harder game you can set yourself a target to only save when you reach the end of a level or whatever.
I hope more games go down the route of M:SR, all the targets that you were set, lap tim to beat etc, were all customisable, you could change it all.
I thinlthis is the way to go, i'm not sure how it would work for some genres, but for driving games it's quite obvious. Games like MGS could have a similar thing, maybe you could set how many health packs are about, or how many enemies or a time limit or something.
This would also give the game more longevity, i'm currently playing M:SR through with all the targets on the easiest setting. Once i've done that i'm going to go back and increase the difficulty so the game is a real challenge.
Your Honour wrote:
>Why is it not an option? Some people aren't very good at games so they may need to save more often.
I'm not saying no save points ever, but the ability to save before every jump, and before every enemy does take the challenge out of it.
If you had to keep on going until you got all the way through it would be more of a challenge.
Though in todays games there's less importance put on defeating specific enemies as you jump from platform to platform.
Either way, gaming seems to have evolved for the better. It's not the platformers that you had to go back to the start again inwhich I go back to play, but the games that were more of an ongoing adventure, and allow you to continue your progress another day.
>Why is it not an option? Some people aren't very good at games so they may need to save more often.
I'm not saying no save points ever, but the ability to save before every jump, and before every enemy does take the challenge out of it.
If you had to keep on going until you got all the way through it would be more of a challenge.
Though in todays games there's less importance put on defeating specific enemies as you jump from platform to platform.
Either way, gaming seems to have evolved for the better. It's not the platformers that you had to go back to the start again inwhich I go back to play, but the games that were more of an ongoing adventure, and allow you to continue your progress another day.
IT's true what you say about the old platformers. I'm going through Mario Advance at the moment and the thing i've noticed most is that all the levels actually come down to is timing.
As soon as you've got the timing right you can be sure that you'll make the jump every time, that you'll miss the bad guy every time etc.
So once you've got it figured, you can easily go back and do the whole game in one go. From that point of view i find that old games don't really have any replayability to them, and i'm quite surprised when people say they like playing the old games as they have more replayability.
As soon as you've got the timing right you can be sure that you'll make the jump every time, that you'll miss the bad guy every time etc.
So once you've got it figured, you can easily go back and do the whole game in one go. From that point of view i find that old games don't really have any replayability to them, and i'm quite surprised when people say they like playing the old games as they have more replayability.
yeah true but the thing the ANNOYS me the most in some video games is if you can't beat a certain part in a game you have to a whole load of stuff before it just to try again aaarrrrgggghhhhh.
Metal Gear Solid is great you just continue pretty much where you left off. More games like that please!!!!
Metal Gear Solid is great you just continue pretty much where you left off. More games like that please!!!!
Page: