The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When I got my first console, which was the SNES, I was thrilled. I got my Dad to set it up (I was only about 7) and I started to play. I did find it very difficult, as it was my first game (Super Mario World). I carried on playing on my SNES and bought games like Mario Kart and Donkey Kong Country 2. I never actually managed to complete Donkey Kong 2 in the life-time of the SNES. Now further along in time, I've completed Goldeneye, with all the cheats, and finished Super Mario 64 and the like and with the impending GameCube release, and having done done everything in the N64 games I have, I thought I'd take a little nostalgic look back in time and get my SNES out again and try and finally finish Donkey Kong Country 2.
Now having been hardened by all those games I'd played since then, I thought it would've been a piece of cake. To my suprise I still just couldn't finish the level I'd left off from. However, I had got further than before, but I found the game pretty tough. I re-discovered the feeling of becoming all jittery after begin pumped with adreniline from head to toe nearing the end of the level and the want to smack someone in the face with my controller when the omenous game over music sounded. After a lot of trying I did complete the level. Then I was faced with the final boss, Kaptin K.Rool. Now that was difficult.
At the first moment I died while facing him I realised what was missing from modern day gaming, Trial and error. In old platformers you would try a level and end up getting killed at one point. You would then try it again with a fresh look on how to deal with that tricky part. If you failed you would go back to the drawing board. When you found the way you needed to complete it (which would probably strike you eventually) you would still need to put it into practice, which is much easier said than done.
Then when you finally did finish the game, you would be rewarded with a immense feeling of satisfaction. It didn't matter that you would only get a very short cut-scene before the credits-rolled, you would just sit back and take them in and be amazed at your achievement.
That brings me on to what is wrong with games now. When you play a game the solution to a problem will probably just strike you immediately and doesn't need much skill to be able to do. Sure, it might require a certain amount, but not to the extent of older games. That means when you finish a game you immediately think you deserve to see a huge cut-scene. This is because the game just doesn't challenge you. All you have to do to complete the game is spend time playing it.
At the moment every one is raving about Metal Gear Solid 2, but when I talk to people about the game, yes they say it's good and I'd probably agree after playing it, but they have all completed it. They also mention it took about 15 hours to complete. I'm not sure but I would have thought that at least one or two may have taken longer or done it a little quicker. So is there much of a challenge to modern day games? To me it seems that all the people that played the game didn't get stuck in one place for too long. This would make it seem as if the game doesn't really test your ability.
Now this example if it had been a longer game would the challenge to it still matter? I think so. Older games weren't 30 hours long. They took each person different times to complete. It wasn't the number of levels that did this it was because the game pushed you to the limit of your ability and then improve on it, and this of course will take longer for different people depending on your ability. So if you wanted to complete a game back then you would have to try, try and try again.
I would hope that the next-generation consoles will hopefully try to resurrect this seemingly lost art of making a game challenging. But, I fear that developers are trying too hard to make the games look good and have different features and aren't spending enough time on making a decent challenge for the player. I for one wouldn't mind if they sacrificed amazing graphics a little for a bigger game, which challenges meaning it takes longer to complete. At the moment you can complete games in as little as a day. I would like to lose a long time playing a game, but not just because it's an epic, but because you are challenged along the way.
Now having been hardened by all those games I'd played since then, I thought it would've been a piece of cake. To my suprise I still just couldn't finish the level I'd left off from. However, I had got further than before, but I found the game pretty tough. I re-discovered the feeling of becoming all jittery after begin pumped with adreniline from head to toe nearing the end of the level and the want to smack someone in the face with my controller when the omenous game over music sounded. After a lot of trying I did complete the level. Then I was faced with the final boss, Kaptin K.Rool. Now that was difficult.
At the first moment I died while facing him I realised what was missing from modern day gaming, Trial and error. In old platformers you would try a level and end up getting killed at one point. You would then try it again with a fresh look on how to deal with that tricky part. If you failed you would go back to the drawing board. When you found the way you needed to complete it (which would probably strike you eventually) you would still need to put it into practice, which is much easier said than done.
Then when you finally did finish the game, you would be rewarded with a immense feeling of satisfaction. It didn't matter that you would only get a very short cut-scene before the credits-rolled, you would just sit back and take them in and be amazed at your achievement.
That brings me on to what is wrong with games now. When you play a game the solution to a problem will probably just strike you immediately and doesn't need much skill to be able to do. Sure, it might require a certain amount, but not to the extent of older games. That means when you finish a game you immediately think you deserve to see a huge cut-scene. This is because the game just doesn't challenge you. All you have to do to complete the game is spend time playing it.
At the moment every one is raving about Metal Gear Solid 2, but when I talk to people about the game, yes they say it's good and I'd probably agree after playing it, but they have all completed it. They also mention it took about 15 hours to complete. I'm not sure but I would have thought that at least one or two may have taken longer or done it a little quicker. So is there much of a challenge to modern day games? To me it seems that all the people that played the game didn't get stuck in one place for too long. This would make it seem as if the game doesn't really test your ability.
Now this example if it had been a longer game would the challenge to it still matter? I think so. Older games weren't 30 hours long. They took each person different times to complete. It wasn't the number of levels that did this it was because the game pushed you to the limit of your ability and then improve on it, and this of course will take longer for different people depending on your ability. So if you wanted to complete a game back then you would have to try, try and try again.
I would hope that the next-generation consoles will hopefully try to resurrect this seemingly lost art of making a game challenging. But, I fear that developers are trying too hard to make the games look good and have different features and aren't spending enough time on making a decent challenge for the player. I for one wouldn't mind if they sacrificed amazing graphics a little for a bigger game, which challenges meaning it takes longer to complete. At the moment you can complete games in as little as a day. I would like to lose a long time playing a game, but not just because it's an epic, but because you are challenged along the way.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
When I got my first console, which was the SNES, I was thrilled. I got my Dad to set it up (I was only about 7) and I started to play. I did find it very difficult, as it was my first game (Super Mario World). I carried on playing on my SNES and bought games like Mario Kart and Donkey Kong Country 2. I never actually managed to complete Donkey Kong 2 in the life-time of the SNES. Now further along in time, I've completed Goldeneye, with all the cheats, and finished Super Mario 64 and the like and with the impending GameCube release, and having done done everything in the N64 games I have, I thought I'd take a little nostalgic look back in time and get my SNES out again and try and finally finish Donkey Kong Country 2.
Now having been hardened by all those games I'd played since then, I thought it would've been a piece of cake. To my suprise I still just couldn't finish the level I'd left off from. However, I had got further than before, but I found the game pretty tough. I re-discovered the feeling of becoming all jittery after begin pumped with adreniline from head to toe nearing the end of the level and the want to smack someone in the face with my controller when the omenous game over music sounded. After a lot of trying I did complete the level. Then I was faced with the final boss, Kaptin K.Rool. Now that was difficult.
At the first moment I died while facing him I realised what was missing from modern day gaming, Trial and error. In old platformers you would try a level and end up getting killed at one point. You would then try it again with a fresh look on how to deal with that tricky part. If you failed you would go back to the drawing board. When you found the way you needed to complete it (which would probably strike you eventually) you would still need to put it into practice, which is much easier said than done.
Then when you finally did finish the game, you would be rewarded with a immense feeling of satisfaction. It didn't matter that you would only get a very short cut-scene before the credits-rolled, you would just sit back and take them in and be amazed at your achievement.
That brings me on to what is wrong with games now. When you play a game the solution to a problem will probably just strike you immediately and doesn't need much skill to be able to do. Sure, it might require a certain amount, but not to the extent of older games. That means when you finish a game you immediately think you deserve to see a huge cut-scene. This is because the game just doesn't challenge you. All you have to do to complete the game is spend time playing it.
At the moment every one is raving about Metal Gear Solid 2, but when I talk to people about the game, yes they say it's good and I'd probably agree after playing it, but they have all completed it. They also mention it took about 15 hours to complete. I'm not sure but I would have thought that at least one or two may have taken longer or done it a little quicker. So is there much of a challenge to modern day games? To me it seems that all the people that played the game didn't get stuck in one place for too long. This would make it seem as if the game doesn't really test your ability.
Now this example if it had been a longer game would the challenge to it still matter? I think so. Older games weren't 30 hours long. They took each person different times to complete. It wasn't the number of levels that did this it was because the game pushed you to the limit of your ability and then improve on it, and this of course will take longer for different people depending on your ability. So if you wanted to complete a game back then you would have to try, try and try again.
I would hope that the next-generation consoles will hopefully try to resurrect this seemingly lost art of making a game challenging. But, I fear that developers are trying too hard to make the games look good and have different features and aren't spending enough time on making a decent challenge for the player. I for one wouldn't mind if they sacrificed amazing graphics a little for a bigger game, which challenges meaning it takes longer to complete. At the moment you can complete games in as little as a day. I would like to lose a long time playing a game, but not just because it's an epic, but because you are challenged along the way.
Now having been hardened by all those games I'd played since then, I thought it would've been a piece of cake. To my suprise I still just couldn't finish the level I'd left off from. However, I had got further than before, but I found the game pretty tough. I re-discovered the feeling of becoming all jittery after begin pumped with adreniline from head to toe nearing the end of the level and the want to smack someone in the face with my controller when the omenous game over music sounded. After a lot of trying I did complete the level. Then I was faced with the final boss, Kaptin K.Rool. Now that was difficult.
At the first moment I died while facing him I realised what was missing from modern day gaming, Trial and error. In old platformers you would try a level and end up getting killed at one point. You would then try it again with a fresh look on how to deal with that tricky part. If you failed you would go back to the drawing board. When you found the way you needed to complete it (which would probably strike you eventually) you would still need to put it into practice, which is much easier said than done.
Then when you finally did finish the game, you would be rewarded with a immense feeling of satisfaction. It didn't matter that you would only get a very short cut-scene before the credits-rolled, you would just sit back and take them in and be amazed at your achievement.
That brings me on to what is wrong with games now. When you play a game the solution to a problem will probably just strike you immediately and doesn't need much skill to be able to do. Sure, it might require a certain amount, but not to the extent of older games. That means when you finish a game you immediately think you deserve to see a huge cut-scene. This is because the game just doesn't challenge you. All you have to do to complete the game is spend time playing it.
At the moment every one is raving about Metal Gear Solid 2, but when I talk to people about the game, yes they say it's good and I'd probably agree after playing it, but they have all completed it. They also mention it took about 15 hours to complete. I'm not sure but I would have thought that at least one or two may have taken longer or done it a little quicker. So is there much of a challenge to modern day games? To me it seems that all the people that played the game didn't get stuck in one place for too long. This would make it seem as if the game doesn't really test your ability.
Now this example if it had been a longer game would the challenge to it still matter? I think so. Older games weren't 30 hours long. They took each person different times to complete. It wasn't the number of levels that did this it was because the game pushed you to the limit of your ability and then improve on it, and this of course will take longer for different people depending on your ability. So if you wanted to complete a game back then you would have to try, try and try again.
I would hope that the next-generation consoles will hopefully try to resurrect this seemingly lost art of making a game challenging. But, I fear that developers are trying too hard to make the games look good and have different features and aren't spending enough time on making a decent challenge for the player. I for one wouldn't mind if they sacrificed amazing graphics a little for a bigger game, which challenges meaning it takes longer to complete. At the moment you can complete games in as little as a day. I would like to lose a long time playing a game, but not just because it's an epic, but because you are challenged along the way.