Viewing Thread:
""The problem with games today is...""

As I stumble through my daily routine of hacking, slashing and blasting everything around me to little bits, my mind starts to wander. Today I realised; as I grow older, things change.

Take the gaming world for instance.

Now, I'm not exactly over the hill, but I have seen a massive evolution in the world of computer games in my 19 years on God's green/ grey, brown, dull, uninspiring Earth. A lot of us have been around for the transition from 2D to 3D etc. But today I realised that the biggest change has gone virtually unnoticed, its been so gradual that it had completely passed me by.
I am talking of course of gameplay. Specifically, our approach to gaming and what we now expect from games.

When I were a lad, games were hard. Simple as that. Games... hard. They were fun, they kept you playing time and again, but compared to todays games, they were hard.

So what's happened then? Over the years, games have become bigger, better, more colourful more polygonal and a shirt load easier.
Where's my proof? Allow me to call forward "Longevity".
It can't have escaped your notice that one of the biggest complaints about todays games is to do with their length.
Everyday on SR I see complaints about another games length.
Metal Gear Solid 2, hyped to the max, everyone wants this game (except YH, I don't know either?), the reviews come out and suddenly "hmm... you can finish it in a few hours, i don't think i'll bother"
Devil May Cry; looks and plays superbly, but what do I hear from our "happy" punters? (aside from complaints about borders) "this magazine says it'll only take a weekend to finish - it must be pants"

Lets skip back a few years, to the days of the SNES and Megadrive. "Streets of Rage" a classic title, I'm sure you'll agree. Theoretically possible to finish inside an hour, yet the reviewers and gamers decision comes in unanimous "this game rules!"
Lets skip back a little further to days of Atari ST and Amiga. Anyone (Goaty, Wookiee?) remember a little gem called "Rick Dangerous"? Another classic of its time.

Actually that'll do as my example of old gaming!
Then lets take a more modern game.... ZOE, a classic PS2 title that had many a complaint about its length.

So on the one hand we have ZOE, graphically supreme, innovative control scheme, interesting story and... ok, irritating voice acting, but hey. So where's the problem (Leo's voice aside)? Well, as most of us pick up and play these games on "Normal" setting, I guess the problem may lie there. Why? Simple, the game, pretty and innovative as it was, was like a walk in the park, no real challenge very little fear of death because you could save after every mission, things get too hectic you can fly away and recoup your strength, or if worse comes to worse and you do die, you start from the beginning of your last mission or your last save point if your lives are just too precious.

Our punters say: "Too short"

FAir enough, but then on the other, older, hand we have a game like "Rick DAngerous".
Why should a mere 4 levels of frantic Nazi prodding never pick up any complaints about its length?
Well the reason is this: In Rick Dangerous, you had very little ammo, a severely limited number of lives, no mid-game save points, no continues and no way of telling how to get through one screen of the flick screen mayem that didn't rely on a little trial and error. Thus, we don't make it through the game on our first go, or our second, our even our third. You had to keep plugging away at that stupid little game for weeks before you'd finally cracked it.
With its "one difficulty setting fits all" approach there were no roads around it, you just had to learn, remember and hope that one day you would win. The day finally comes and you get a message congratulating you on your defeat of the game.... and thats it. But, it was one of my fondest gaming memories.

This approach seems to have fallen right out of the market. Instead we get these, stroll from one end to the other, type games that never tempt us to come back for more. Rarely do they make us play through what we know time and again just for the oppurtunity to get that little bit further.
"But thats boring, why do I want to do a level again?" Fair point, but all I remember is the fun I had blowing up Nazi's that I knew I could handle and the fear instilled in me when I go to a screen with which I was not familiar and the realisation that that stinkin' Nazi/Mummy/ strange Pharoe beast might get one over on me this time.

Chiefly my memories go back to games like Rick Dangerous, like Onslaught, like Streets of Rage, like Turrican, games that you had no option but to play from beginning to end in one sitting. The fun I had with games in those days is rarely brought back to me by todays games. Its not just because I'm older, games have changed. I think, in part, for the worse. It never used to be like this. You'd finish games like Double Dragon in an hour and it was great, so great infact that you'd do it again the following day/ week.

Nowadays, a game that can be finished inside of a weekend "isn't worth buying". I'm not necesarily disagreeing with the idea that these games aren't worth buying, I'm just saying that perhaps the problem isn't solely in the length of the games.


"Make Gamin' proper 'ard!"

Tarrant, the 2002

VenomByte wrote:
It's because you simply can't
> learn to be good enough to complete it that quickly. It takes time. It's not a
> matter of learning the levels, it's a matter of learning how to play the
> game.
That's what I'd like to see more of.


Smash Brothers was in that mould.

As for difficulty, I think that Super Mario World on the Snes had the right balance.
It punished you fairly when you got hit.
You didn't usually die straight away but could take one or two hits first.
When you did die, you'd either start at the beginning of the level or at the half way point.

And when you lost all your lives it went back to a save point.

The Save Points were well placed as they were done in the form of a Ghost House or Castle after every 2 or three levels.
This meant you had to do certain levels again when you died, but not so many that you had to start from scratch.

It was punishing without too fustrating.


Nintendo seem to think we're crap at games now days.
Apparently, Mario Advance 2 (a GBA conversion of Super Mario World) not only lets you save at every level, when you get hit with a cape, you only go down to big Mario instead of little Mario (like you used to).

I think multiplayer is the real future of longevity as the difficulty isn't limited by the difficulty setting but by a human opponent who learns and gets better in the same way you do.

Agree 100% with your post Tarrant. As far as I can tell, there are two reasons why games are to easy to play through these days:

1) Save points
The argument in favour of save points, is so that you don't have to play the same levels over and over again. However, if you actually enjoy playing the game, as is supposed to be the case, you shouldn't be put out about that, should you?
The only way around this, which will still allow saving for large games, is to have the game autosave. Giving the user control of where he saves, allows all sorts of tricks to be pulled to avoid repeating stuff, or losing lives, or the game having any real difficulty. Take that contol away fromt he user though, and you can work it any way you want. Perhaps parts won't have to be repeated, but the number of lives will be automatically updated - then, as Meka said, you lose the save file once you've lost all your lives.

CBFD had autosaves at the end of scenes... it saves the scene being completed. Wouldn't it also be interesting if it saved the lives you had left? That way, it would actually be important to find those tails scattered about the gamr, or the green 1up mushrooms in mario. Admittedly it would be very harsh only to have 4 lives to get through CBFD.. but add 2 continues or something?

It could work.

2) Learning curves
You don't learn how to play a game these days, you just lern where everything is. That doesn't really count, in my opinion. If you're playin a FPS, for example, you're not really going to get any better at aiming, or strafing, but you will learn which enemies are where, etc.

Compare this to the most recent game I can think of which does have a learning curve... Tony Hawks.

Everyone was bad at this when they started (though you don't always realise it until you're good.. or you play someone who is). Now, you can get through the game in an hour or so, and it also saves after everything you do, yet it's not too short.

How can this be?

It's because you simply can't learn to be good enough to complete it that quickly. It takes time. It's not a matter of learning the levels, it's a matter of learning how to play the game.

That's what I'd like to see more of.

I remember playing Ghouls and Ghosts on the Megadrive. Every time you had to start from the beginning, you knew where the enemies would spring out from, but you'd learn from your previous failures, and eventually gain enough experience to complete the whole game.

Once you knew how to do it, it didn't matter that you could complete it in an afternoon, it had taken you many, many weeks, or even months to know the game inside out, to know how to beat the bosses without losing a life.

So though the game itself was short, there were plenty of hours that need to be devoted to it in order to see it all.

You used to be able to get level codes on some games, I remember, and these were alright, for some games, but more often than not, you didn't start with any of the weapons you had gained during the earlier levels, so you were too weak to go on anyway.

I've been playing Conker's Bad Fur Day recently, and it reminds me of the older style of game in some ways. Yes the game saves itself at the end of each 'scene' but you have to get through each of these scenes without losing a life, or it's back to the start.

As a result you find yourslef memorizing where the enemies are, and pulling out your guns as you round the corner, rather than wandering blindly into a trap.

As you learn the level, you eventually progress beyond it, and the whole process starts again.

The problem with repetition though, is that it can get frustrating, and to some, boring. On the whole, these days peopel don't want really hard games. They don't want to have to play through a tutorial level every time they play, and slowly progress onto where they were, only to die in exactly the same spot as the last time they played it.

It was fun back in the day, but would we still enjoy it to the same level now?

What you have to think of is those gamers that might not have 4 hours to sit down and play the whole game through to it's conclusion. Maybe if you had 3 lives(but could find more) to begin with, and could save at various points it would work, but the save files would be imediately over written the second you lost a life, so back you'd go to try a certain part of the game again, only one of your lives would be gone.

Once you were out of lives that would be it. No more save file. You'd have to start again from the beginning, but your experience from previously playing the game would mean you'd get to where you were previously stuck, with more lives, and a higher chance of success, until you get stuck again?

Sibs wrote:

But difficulty is a difficult issue to
> address in this day and age. Ironic isn't it?



Indeed. Perhaps the ease of todays games is what's helping to attract more people to the world of gaming?

Casual games for casual gamers?

Surely games should just be hard, like they used to be and all the pansy a*s "casual gaymers" or whatever you wish to call them, can just put all the pansy a*s cheats on and play.

a simple concept for a simple bunch...

"Make gamin proper 'ard"

says it all really.

Dude, read the post!

I'm not saying, "lets make games just like they used to be when I was young"
I'm saying that games have evolved but become too easy, they can keep all the emotional side, but they should be making us work harder! Also, the fact that games don't make us work kind of removes some of the enjoyment and makes people think games are too short. Since when was 8 hours too short? Since you were able to stroll through the game saving every other step!!

"Make gamin' proper 'ard!"

A simple concept.

Bit too long for me too read... Sounded great though! Congrats, but what about the emotional side to games. I mean in the past there were all these great games that could make you FEEL emotions for the characters, make you feel anguish when you fail, make you feel pain when you're character gets hurt, makes you feel hate for the evil dude (and not fall into helpless gigle fits) and makes you fall for the gal.

Or†ega wrote:

Ahhhh, but how can u SEE how the game plays if you are blinded?!



Not so sharp :-( I don't like it!

Sibs wrote:


To see how the game plays without those pretty
> graphics...

;-)




Sharp of you :-) I like it!

Sibs wrote:
To see how the game plays without those pretty
> graphics...

Ahhhh, but how can u SEE how the game plays if you are blinded?!