The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yeah there isn't really one way of organising games on the PC, the closest thing would be Steam or Gamespy.
Steam is limited by it doesn't cover loads of games but does cover a few major multiplayer ones.
Gamespy unfortunately is so buggy and unreliable that a lot of gamers won't install it due to just a general dislike for the system.
PC gaming could do with one system to organise all games, there are things that come close, such as Xfire which is a messaging program that can auto join people from your friends list. I used to use it a bit but it does at times seem to sap FPS from games losing 10-15 in some games although it doesn't sound like much it does effect people with lower systems.
The best way from PC gamers to get decent servers on larger games like battlefield 2 is to join a clan server as they are normally tightly admin'd as power goes to some of the members heads, although some will be a bit strict, on the whole they will have rules to improve the gaming experience for everyone that comes on and punish those that go against what they want on their server.
Steam is limited by it doesn't cover loads of games but does cover a few major multiplayer ones.
Gamespy unfortunately is so buggy and unreliable that a lot of gamers won't install it due to just a general dislike for the system.
PC gaming could do with one system to organise all games, there are things that come close, such as Xfire which is a messaging program that can auto join people from your friends list. I used to use it a bit but it does at times seem to sap FPS from games losing 10-15 in some games although it doesn't sound like much it does effect people with lower systems.
The best way from PC gamers to get decent servers on larger games like battlefield 2 is to join a clan server as they are normally tightly admin'd as power goes to some of the members heads, although some will be a bit strict, on the whole they will have rules to improve the gaming experience for everyone that comes on and punish those that go against what they want on their server.
on 360 you can mark people you play with as future contacts, so if you have an open game and actually get on with the people you're playing against then you can add them to a list to play against next time.
I guess the problem with PC gaming is that the system is pretty open ended and every game has it's unique way of organising internet games, where as the 360 has an organised system across the board.
I guess the problem with PC gaming is that the system is pretty open ended and every game has it's unique way of organising internet games, where as the 360 has an organised system across the board.
Unfortunately a lot of PC games online would be pretty terrible if you online played with friends due to their size (unless you happen to have 40 odd mates with the game and a half decent PC.)
It's all right for smaller games like Counter Strike or Day of Defeat but impossible for games like Battlefield 2.
The other problem with only playing with friends means you are limited much more for when you are able to play as everyone needs to have the same free time.
It's all right for smaller games like Counter Strike or Day of Defeat but impossible for games like Battlefield 2.
The other problem with only playing with friends means you are limited much more for when you are able to play as everyone needs to have the same free time.
The answer, I would have thought, is to play with just friends in a closed game.
It's not that their is something wrong with online gaming, it's more the people that can play.
There is no way of policing who can get online, short of starting your own server and kicking the random morons that will come along.
Unfortunately there are many people out there that either go to cause people grief by team killing or by constant abuse. People are always looking for an easy way to score high and unfortunately many games will have some loophole that allows spawn killing or tactics that are considered cheap by a lot of people but because it isn't stopped by the server or game they continue to do it.
exploiting glitches happens a lot in most online games and as most servers aren't monitored all the time something can only be done after the game as finished and a report has been made to admins.
although it won't ruin your game even the odd insult can put a bit of a dampener on a game as people seem to forget that the point of the game is meant to be fun not just about winning.
There is no way of policing who can get online, short of starting your own server and kicking the random morons that will come along.
Unfortunately there are many people out there that either go to cause people grief by team killing or by constant abuse. People are always looking for an easy way to score high and unfortunately many games will have some loophole that allows spawn killing or tactics that are considered cheap by a lot of people but because it isn't stopped by the server or game they continue to do it.
exploiting glitches happens a lot in most online games and as most servers aren't monitored all the time something can only be done after the game as finished and a report has been made to admins.
although it won't ruin your game even the odd insult can put a bit of a dampener on a game as people seem to forget that the point of the game is meant to be fun not just about winning.
And what is the problem with online gaming? My 360 seems to be able to handle it pretty well.
The mix of games available hasn't changed much, IMO, since the early 80s. Even back then you had titles which were "quick & dirty" (especially film tie-ins): E.T. for the Atari 2600 was the final nail in the coffin of the early boom era. Titles which could hold me were few & far between. The only real difference between then & now is the graphics & sound: gameplay itself has hardly changed. Most (if not all) modern games can find their roots in games from the 70s, let alone the 80s.
I use my portables a fair bit these days and my PC just for online gaming, my Wii gets no attention really as there simply aren't any games at the moment worth spending money on. I am still glad i got it though.
I guess really i just want more of a challenge to my games like it was in the old days. i did think "well maybe they were hard cause i was young and rubbish" but i tested a few old games and i still can't get much further so maybe i am just old and rubbish now or they were genuinely harder back in the day.
I guess really i just want more of a challenge to my games like it was in the old days. i did think "well maybe they were hard cause i was young and rubbish" but i tested a few old games and i still can't get much further so maybe i am just old and rubbish now or they were genuinely harder back in the day.
Funnily enough, I seem to be using my console more casual gaming now and my portables for deeper experiences =\
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: