Support NeoGAF

[PerezDeCorcho]

The above video is an example of the complex AI systems found in F.E.A.R, a game that is now thirteen years old.

Compare this with the virtually brain dead AI found in modern games like Far Cry 5; a title developed by thousands of developers across multiple Ubisoft studios — it’s night and day.

What the hell happened? Where have our standards gone?

 

[Louis Cyphre]

It's going backwards in the AAA market because those games are expensive to make and take more people and often more time. Visuals have been the main marketing tool while 30fps and sub-standard A.I. becomes commonplace.

 

[Viliger]

People keep buying AAA shit that has braindead AI and "press X to win" gameplay, but since it has not even good graphics, but good bullshot trailers and muh story it is totally fine to go backwards in what actually matters. That's what happened.

 

[JimmyRustler]

AI indeed is. Just finished the original Far Cry yesterday and the AI really makes modern games look old.

Then again.... Wasn't there a story of Naughty Dog dumbing down the AI of TLOU because otherwise it would have been too difficult or something?

 

[Orpheum]

AI indeed is. Just finished the original Far Cry yesterday and the AI really makes modern games look old.

Then again.... Wasn't there a story of Naughty Dog dumbing down the AI of TLOU because otherwise it would have been too difficult or something?

Yeah they apparently had really competent AI systems but they straight up said it wasn't fun to play against since the enemies were almost too competent, "sneaking up to you and murdering you in a second" as they said. It's somewhere in the making of video.

It would have been cool if they had implemented it in a separate difficulty setting

 

[HeresJohnny]

I'm kind of torn on this issue. On one hand, comparing the AI in MGSV to the original MGS, the AI in V is so much more advanced and fun to play against. But I'm wondering if that is also because as the series' AI got better, it became more sandbox like. I don't really think great AI would work all that well given the tightly focused design of the original MGS. Continuing on that thought, I am a HUGE fan of the Tenchu series, and part of what makes that game so rad is the dumb-as-rocks AI. The game simply wouldn't be as fun with smart enemies, so I kind of understand why developers may opt to simplify (dumb down) the AI in their games if perhaps it didn't test well. I also think AI is one of those areas that isn't as tangible to most gamers (not in the way graphics and sound are, for example) so it's probably not as highly prioritized as other areas.

 

[Ar¢tos]

AI and diversity in enemies are my biggest complaints in gaming. But what everybody cries for is Ray Tracing nowadays.
Most gamers have limited shallow minds and it only takes something shiny to entertain them, even if the gameplay is mediocre.
The fact that we can keep cheesing enemies, abusing their (lack of) AI in nearly every game goes unnoticed.
The other big issue I have, that in certain ways ties to the AI issue, is the lack of diversity in enemies. If I go outside I see people of many sizes and skin colours and they don't react the same way to the same stimuli. In games every enemy of each type is a pure clone of each other, same clothes, same height, same color and the exact same reactions and attack patterns. That completely kills the immersion for me. When visual diminishing returns become an hurdle I hope devs start focusing on other aspects of gaming.

 

[Daymos]

Let's hope some of the indie developers get rich and make their own AAA studios. The future doesn't have to be Ubisoft and EA.

 

[Hendrick's]

You are comparing a corridor shooting segment to an open world game, so I'm not sure your example is great. I do think AI is trash and that it hasn't seemingly improved at all over the years. Not sure if it is just really hard or time consuming to pull off, but obviously it is deprioritized over graphics. Blame falls on gamers though, as most don't really care or even want to be challenged.

 

[KormaChameleon]

People are more bothered about visuals and frame rate than the actual gameplay itself.

 

[The3DGameArtist]

It's become worse I think as well with a lot popular games (destiny, division , anthem) type games are server-based , thus having the exact same restrictions for AI and gameplay like MMOs have. Which means the behaviors have to be quite simple and cheap to process.

I still wish there was more progress in the area and I would totally sacrifice in other areas to make AI stand out more, become more flexible, interesting and maybe even easier to emotionally connect to NPCs etc.

 

[Redneckerz]

The clever part is in the way levels are designed - And not so much that FEAR's AI is that complex. Its really just a clever planning system in tandem with clever level design that enables multiple options for AI Agents to explore (Edit: typo)

A summary of links detailing this, mostly with Jeff Orkin, FEAR's AI programmer.
https://www.pcauthority.com.au/feature/building-believable-ai-in-games-fear-477687

Three States and a Plan: The AI of FEAR - http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf

 

[Kenpachii]

not only that physics also takes a dive.

 

[JCK75]

The saddest thing to me is how fast FEAR's multiplayer died, it IMO was so incredible, the moves you could do from leg slides to jump kicks just felt so good.
It worked for me as I was always so much better at games than my friends as they are very casual so they hated to play FPS against me, being able to go all melee while they can use whatever guns they want leveled it just enough to make it fun for them while still allowing me to hold my own.

 

[MisterBrimstone]

Enemy AI is not where the money is at. It's as simple as that.

 

[GermanZepp]

AI and diversity in enemies are my biggest complaints in gaming. But what everybody cries for is Ray Tracing nowadays.
Most gamers have limited shallow minds and it only takes something shiny to entertain them, even if the gameplay is mediocre.
The fact that we can keep cheesing enemies, abusing their (lack of) AI in nearly every game goes unnoticed.
The other big issue I have, that in certain ways ties to the AI issue, is the lack of diversity in enemies. If I go outside I see people of many sizes and skin colours and they don't react the same way to the same stimuli. In games every enemy of each type is a pure clone of each other, same clothes, same height, same color and the exact same reactions and attack patterns. That completely kills the immersion for me. When visual diminishing returns become an hurdle I hope devs start focusing on other aspects of gaming.

This! i would love super mega complex behaviours in A.I. but, as long the developers add a lot of enemy types with diferent fun patterns im fine. Bethesda DOOM as a lot of demons and everyone do something diferent, when they mixthem all up at the same time is cool, you need a strategy for each one. Borderlans is open world an has some buffed badass rpg version of enemys that i liked much. I hope in the new one they use the same aproach (in randomizing weapon stats and damage) over enemy types, that will be great, like a proceduraly generated enemy. EDIT: grammar

 

[xviper]

because when people see a trailer for a game all they care about is the graphics, it's what hooks them up

the second thing nowdays gamers care about is the word "Open World"

the combination of these two comes at the cost of a brain dead AI

 

[ThatStupidLion]

AI is going backwards because the general audience can't handle anything harder than beating something on their first try

it also is harder to market than visuals

 

[MisterBrimstone]

AI is going backwards because the general audience can't handle anything harder than beating something on their first try

it also is harder to market than visuals

Besides, why develop a good AI when you can add competitive multiplayer for a good challenge? (and monetization)

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Part of the problem with good AI is that you can upset your players, especially those who want a shooting gallery and not a real challenge.

Plus, it's difficult to program and implement. Good graphics aren't "hard" in the sense that you can throw money at the issue (buy enough assets and hire enough artists).

 

[dirthead]

Honestly, you can't even make a 1st or 3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI when you're saddled by the handicap of having to be playable by gamepad players. Players can't even move or react efficiently with that laughable interface.

The reason AI seems to be going backwards is really more an issue of games being made for consoles now. For the most part, PC game development is dead. Games are made for consoles and ported to the PC now. True PC games like Half-Life, FEAR, and Thief were actually made for the PC with a PC interface in mind. Of course you can do more when you assume that your players are using a keyboard and mouse and can actually react to gameplay at post-grandpa speeds.

 

[SirKicksalot]

The clever part is in the way levels are designed - And not so much that FEAR's AI is that complex. Its really just a clever planning system in tandem with clever level design that enables multiple options for AI Agents to explroe.

They also talk a lot. They aren't actually reacting to most of the things you do and they aren't planning anything, but the illusion is perfect.

As for Far Cry, those guys literally see you through vegetation and tent canvas. The x64 patch broke some things and made them even more alert. To be fair the game was rushed and Cevat Yerli admitted they had no time to fine tune it. It's obvious they just threw a bunch of dudes in the later maps and never playtested it, the difficulty is straight-up broken.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Honestly, you can't even make a 1st or 3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI when you're saddled by the handicap of having to be playable by gamepad players. Players can't even move or react efficiently with that laughable interface.

The reason AI seems to be going backwards is really more an issue of games being made for consoles now. For the most part, PC game development is dead. Games are made for consoles and ported to the PC now. True PC games like Half-Life, FEAR, and Thief were actually made for the PC with a PC interface in mind. Of course you can do more when you assume that your players are using a keyboard and mouse and can actually react to gameplay at post-grandpa speeds.

Yeah, 'cause console players don't play some of the most input-intensive games out there on game pads or anything. And it's not like most of the toughest 3rd person action games came out on console or anything. This says more about your own narrow tastes in gaming than anything else.

I'd post an eyeroll gif but it's not even worth the effort.

 

[DonF]

Not even Rockstar, who showed awesome advancement in AI in GTA4 with the euphoria engine, has showed more interest in this. Its kinda disappointment.

 

[dirthead]

Yeah, 'cause console players don't play some of the most input-intensive games out there on game pads or anything. And it's not like most of the toughest 3rd person action games came out on console or anything. This says more about your own narrow tastes in gaming than anything else.

I'd post an eyeroll gif but it's not even worth the effort.

Yeah, console players don't play some of the most input intensive 3D games out there. They play mostly button mashers and games with assisted/auto aiming.

And what would you call a "tough" 3rd person action game? If you're going to say something like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, etc., I'm going to laugh at you. The AI in those games is a joke.

I don't think a Japanese developer has ever actually made a challenging 3rd person action game. They've made cheap ones and ones where the AI cheats a lot. Actually challenging because of the AI? Nope.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yeah, console players don't play some of the most input intensive 3D games out there. They play mostly button mashers and games with assisted/auto aiming.

And what would you call a "tough" 3rd person action game? If you're going to say something like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, etc., I'm going to laugh at you. The AI in those games is a joke.

I don't think a Japanese developer has ever actually made a challenging 3rd person action game. They've made cheap ones and ones where the AI cheats a lot. Actually challenging because of the AI? Nope.

Didn't realize I was dealing with such a badass. Which ones would you consider "challenging"? It wasn't me who postulated that AI was held back because of consoles:

you can't even make a 1st or 3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI when you're saddled by the handicap of having to be playable by gamepad players. Players can't even move or react efficiently with that laughable interface.

The reason AI seems to be going backwards is really more an issue of games being made for consoles now.

Defend your own position. Which are the "3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI" on PC, since it's the console players holding everything back?

Many top players use game pads in fighting games as well. Apparently that doesn't matter, though.

I think you're just narrow-minded since you doubled-down and wrote off all Japanese devs because... reasons? Please, help all of us scrubs understand true gaming.

(if you actually understood gaming's history, you'd realize that the vast majority of twitch arcade gameplay went to consoles, not PC. And since mouse-and-keyboard gaming didn't really get a foothold until the mid-90s, you have 25 years of twitch-gaming to account for that was on...which platforms again?)

 

[dirthead]

Didn't realize I was dealing with such a badass. Which ones would you consider "challenging"? It wasn't me who postulated that AI was held back because of consoles:



Defend your own position. Which are the "3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI" on PC, since it's the console players holding everything back?

Many top players use game pads in fighting games as well. Apparently that doesn't matter, though.

I think you're just narrow-minded since you doubled-down and wrote off all Japanese devs because... reasons? Please, help all of us scrubs understand true gaming.

(if you actually understood gaming's history, you'd realize that the vast majority of twitch arcade gameplay went to consoles, not PC. And since mouse-and-keyboard gaming didn't really get a foothold until the mid-90s, you have 25 years of twitch-gaming to account for that was on...which platforms again?)

I said 3D games. Fighting games aren't 3D. They're 2D games with 3D graphics.

I also said that PC games don't exist anymore. They're just console ports. You ignored everything I wrote.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I said 3D games. Fighting games aren't 3D. They're 2D games with 3D graphics.

I also said that PC games don't exist anymore. They're just console ports. You ignored everything I wrote.

Then enlighten us. Provide your nuanced and well-researched definition of what a "true PC game" happens to be.

Tekken, Virtua Fighter, and DoA aren't 3D?

 

[dirthead]

Then enlighten us. Provide your nuanced and well-researched definition of what a "true PC game" happens to be.

Tekken, Virtua Fighter, and DoA aren't 3D?

Gameplay wise, they're about as 3D as Fatal Fury on the Neo Geo was. You can pull off fast gameplay with gamepads in 2D games. Actually controlling 3D movement? Not so much.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Gameplay wise, they're about as 3D as Fatal Fury on the Neo Geo was.

Ah, so you don't know what you're talking about. Got it. At least I know the "depth" of your gaming experience, and it explains everything above pretty well. Fatal Fury uses lanes, not 3D movement. Very fun series, by the way.

You can pull off fast gameplay with gamepads in 2D games. Actually controlling 3D movement? Not so much.

Funny, because 3D movement with analog controls is infinitely more nuanced and precise than WASD. 3rd-person action games were popularized on console. Why is that? Wait... let me take a wild guess: was it The Filthy Casuals?

You still haven't done any of the following:

1. Supported your own claim that gamepads are holding back AI in 3D games by referencing a PC game that is your standard.
2. Supported your own claim that Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, (and other Japanese games) aren't challenging by referencing a 3rd-person PC game that is your standard.
3. Supported your own claims as to what a "true PC game" is.
4. Supported your own claims that the 3D fighting games I listed aren't 3D even though they have movement on the 3D plane.
5. Supported your own claims that controllers are too slow to handle "3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI".

I grew up with PCs, long before I got into consoles. I'm pretty familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the platform. Ultra-Fast-paced games only became a thing on PC mid-90s onward (when RTSs and FPSs began to take advantage of mouse controls). You have decades of gaming before and since to account for. Either take the L or take the time to explain your stance with actual facts.

 

[Kreydo]

[/MEDIA]

Compare this with the virtually brain dead AI found in modern games like Far Cry 5; a title developed by thousands of developers across multiple Ubisoft studios — it’s night and day.

What the hell happened? Where have our standards gone?

Marketing won the mainstream audience, this is what happened in the 2000' (Developpers in AAA industry don't make games anymore, it's the Publishers and shareolders... The point isn't to create innovative or in-deph game, their only goal is to sell a product no matter what! They are not creator or artist, they are businessman.)
The majority of people buying sport games and fastfoods AAA don't even read forums, they are consumers who saw a cool advertissement on TV.
It's also why 90% of the games are not finished in global stats, people are impulsive customers. They buy, play the game without much intereset for some hours, they have their fun of course. But then get bored and seek for the new hype/fun product.

The fact that you post here on a gaming forum already show that you are not that audience, and so not the main target audience of those games anymore.

 

[DryvBy]

The above video is an example of the complex AI systems found in F.E.A.R, a game that is now thirteen years old.

Compare this with the virtually brain dead AI found in modern games like Far Cry 5; a title developed by thousands of developers across multiple Ubisoft studios — it’s night and day.

What the hell happened? Where have our standards gone?

I love Far Cry 5 for it's over-the-top craziness but yes, the AI is super dumb. Hard doesn't make them smarter either. It just makes the bullets hit harder and sponge armor is increased.

 

[LucidFeuer]

FarCry V is an epitome of crap AI, which is probably why it's the example that came to mind.

But then Ubisoft is a vapid AAA factory, same engine barely updated or optimised, same base assets repurposed, same simple concept and mechanics...only Beyond Good & Evil 2 seems worth looking after at Ubi.

 

[Geki-D]

I agree that AI is pretty much stopped progressing these days, I remember the stuff the AI could do in MGS2 and how that was all pretty much cut out for future games. ...But I gotta say, that Fear video isn't exactly selling me on how much better it was. plenty of instances in that video alone where the AI walks towards the guy shooting at them. Good AI generally means self preservation, I think a lot of people assume that an AI is good when it performs like a real player in an MP game but AI is generally aiming for how people perform in real life. I mean not wanting to throw away their life just to take down someone else. This'll lead to the "whack'a'mole" cover games that I've seen people say is bad AI.

Though either way, AI used to be a selling point for games and something devs used to really push but now it's more about dat 60fps *insert latest highest value screen resolution*. Far Cry 5's AI feels like it was the standard FPS AI bundled with the engine.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Gameplay wise, they're about as 3D as Fatal Fury on the Neo Geo was. You can pull off fast gameplay with gamepads in 2D games. Actually controlling 3D movement? Not so much.

You are very wrong.

 

[Hendrick's]

Honestly, you can't even make a 1st or 3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI when you're saddled by the handicap of having to be playable by gamepad players. Players can't even move or react efficiently with that laughable interface.

The reason AI seems to be going backwards is really more an issue of games being made for consoles now. For the most part, PC game development is dead. Games are made for consoles and ported to the PC now. True PC games like Half-Life, FEAR, and Thief were actually made for the PC with a PC interface in mind. Of course you can do more when you assume that your players are using a keyboard and mouse and can actually react to gameplay at post-grandpa speeds.

Dumbest thing I've read all week. Biased much? You sound like a salty old PC gamer yelling at the console kids playing on your lawn.

 

[Redneckerz]

They also talk a lot. They aren't actually reacting to most of the things you do and they aren't planning anything, but the illusion is perfect.

When i say planner, i am referring to the technical system that works behind the scenes, not about what the visual end-result is on screen.

As for Far Cry, those guys literally see you through vegetation and tent canvas. The x64 patch broke some things and made them even more alert. To be fair the game was rushed and Cevat Yerli admitted they had no time to fine tune it. It's obvious they just threw a bunch of dudes in the later maps and never playtested it, the difficulty is straight-up broken.

Along that line, Crysis is another of those titles where AI can be quite clever. Even was pushed as a PR point.

Yeah, console players don't play some of the most input intensive 3D games out there. They play mostly button mashers and games with assisted/auto aiming.

And what would you call a "tough" 3rd person action game? If you're going to say something like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, etc., I'm going to laugh at you. The AI in those games is a joke.

I don't think a Japanese developer has ever actually made a challenging 3rd person action game. They've made cheap ones and ones where the AI cheats a lot. Actually challenging because of the AI? Nope.

Could you elaborate on the following?

• What would you call a ''Challenging 3rd person action game''?
• Which 3rd person action games from Japan are you considering cheap?
• Is one of these called Dark Souls? If yes: What makes you think the AI is cheating? If not: In which 3rd person action game from Japan (that you have played) is the AI actively and demonstrably cheating?

I said 3D games. Fighting games aren't 3D. They're 2D games with 3D graphics.

I also said that PC games don't exist anymore. They're just console ports. You ignored everything I wrote.

On its own, that statement is false.

If you meant '''PC games taking advantage of the platform'' it would be more accurate, but still debateable.

Examples of PC only games, both past, present, and indie:

• Shattered Horizon
• Star Citizen (The obvious ones)
• PositronX
• Universal Combat
• Elderborn
• Splitgate: Arena Warfare
• Citybattle: Virtual Earth
• Arthurian Legends
• Kings & Heroes

I could keep on, but this should be sufficient.

 

[Danjin44]

To me fun enemies to fight is not about advance AI rather it's about their design and their complex attack patterns.

Also it seems the reason we see less smart AI in shooters is mostly because most developers that make shooters these days make more MP focus game. So they think why should they waste resource and time to create advance AI when MP allows players go against other players.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Blame falls on gamers though, as most don't really care or even want to be challenged.

This is a very important point. Remember all the talk about SKIP BUTTONS and invincibility modes that let you walk through the game mindlessly? It definitely feels like there's an higher emphasis on keeping lazy people in their comfort zone rather than crafting tougher challenges.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This is a very important point. Remember all the talk about SKIP BUTTONS and invincibility modes that let you walk through the game mindlessly? It definitely feels like there's an higher emphasis on keeping lazy people in their comfort zone rather than crafting tougher challenges.

You are not wrong there. Games like the Souls series are considered niche compared to other AAA games, yet that is how challenging every game was in the 80's, and some parts of the early 90's.

Beating games back then were considered "niche".

 

[kaczmar]

Honestly, you can't even make a 1st or 3rd person 3D game with truly aggressive, fast, and tough AI when you're saddled by the handicap of having to be playable by gamepad players. Players can't even move or react efficiently with that laughable interface.

The reason AI seems to be going backwards is really more an issue of games being made for consoles now. For the most part, PC game development is dead. Games are made for consoles and ported to the PC now. True PC games like Half-Life, FEAR, and Thief were actually made for the PC with a PC interface in mind. Of course you can do more when you assume that your players are using a keyboard and mouse and can actually react to gameplay at post-grandpa speeds.

PC gamers have nobody but themselves to blame for developers focusing on consoles. Games cost money to make. PC gamers don't buy games unless they are cheap. Developers are going where the money is.

 

[Lionel Richie]

You are not wrong there. Games like the Souls series are considered niche compared to other AAA games, yet that is how challenging every game was in the 80's, and some parts of the early 90's.

Beating games back then were considered "niche".

Yeah, Souls games have some death traps here and there that could be annoying for first time players, but they really aren't that hard. The fact that these games are considered to be some kind of standard when it comes to challenge in games is by itself fucked up.

 

[Risky]

People are more bothered about visuals and frame rate than the actual gameplay itself.

But if I'm not shrieking about only getting 59.9 FPS, what will i scream over?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yeah, Souls games have some death traps here and there that could be annoying for first time players, but they really aren't that hard. The fact that these games are considered to be some kind of standard when it comes to challenge in games is by itself fucked up.

Kinda yes, kinda no. Part of a game's challenge comes from the skill/reflex requirement. Another part comes from unfamiliarity, both with the game itself (where does this tunnel lead? What are this boss' patterns?) and with the genre. You could be playing the easiest FPS but if you're unfamiliar with the genre's conventions you may still find it hopelessly difficult.

Soulsborne games took a familiar genre (3rd person action RPG) and turned a lot of those expectations on their head. This created a lot of unfamiliarity. As you pointed out, they "could be annoying for first-time players, but they really aren't that hard". Exactly, and nearly every one of us was a "first time player" when we played a Souls game because of how differently it approached the genre.

I'm not outright disagreeing. "The Dark Souls of _____" and the slobbering praise for the franchise's difficulty are both waaaay overplayed nowadays, but it doesn't mean the games weren't hard in the context of when they launched.

Or maybe I just suck. I dunno. I had a tough time completing Demons Souls when I first played it.

But if I'm not shrieking about only getting 59.9 FPS, what will i scream over?

There's always port-begging.

 

[Danjin44]

This is a very important point. Remember all the talk about SKIP BUTTONS and invincibility modes that let you walk through the game mindlessly? It definitely feels like there's an higher emphasis on keeping lazy people in their comfort zone rather than crafting tougher challenges.

Why do you think reason Catherine didn’t got good scores? I bet you anything most reviewers didn’t even finish the game because it was too hard. Basically same reason God Hand got bad reviews back then.

 

[Frosted]

Here is the problem with developing a game with outstanding AI. The AI in the game could eventually take over the game world itself, creating it's own rules and laws thus preventing the game payer ( you, or me) from winning the game or having an enjoyable experience. Is that what you want? I THINK NOT!!

 

[Lionel Richie]

Kinda yes, kinda no. Part of a game's challenge comes from the skill/reflex requirement. Another part comes from unfamiliarity, both with the game itself (where does this tunnel lead? What are this boss' patterns?) and with the genre. You could be playing the easiest FPS but if you're unfamiliar with the genre's conventions you may still find it hopelessly difficult.

Soulsborne games took a familiar genre (3rd person action RPG) and turned a lot of those expectations on their head. This created a lot of unfamiliarity. As you pointed out, they "could be annoying for first-time players, but they really aren't that hard". Exactly, and nearly every one of us was a "first time player" when we played a Souls game because of how differently it approached the genre.

I'm not outright disagreeing. "The Dark Souls of _____" and the slobbering praise for the franchise's difficulty are both waaaay overplayed nowadays, but it doesn't mean the games weren't hard in the context of when they launched.

Or maybe I just suck. I dunno. I had a tough time completing Demons Souls when I first played it.

I think you're right, maybe I underestimated the challenge presented by the games because it turned into an unfortunate meme. I think simply calling them "hard" doesn't do them justice. They excel at putting you on edge, every Souls game is a bit exhaustive since you're frequently tense. They present a system where death really means something bad for the player (instead of AAA games where you can kill yourself real quick to reset the stealth bits instead of going for a shootout, fuck Uncharted 4) and yet it's ever present because of the mix of hard hitting enemies and ridiculous death traps. I think it's more comparatively punishing than hard. You can't afford to make mistakes and you know you will make them, which makes the experience feel more daunting. Which personally I think it's fucking awesome.

My problem is that this unease at the prospect of failure in a game shouldn't be an unique trait. The lack of tension in most modern games eventually makes them feel a bit boring outside of obvious spectacle or nice stories and shit. The last level on The Last of Us hits it home nicely as well because the game puts you in this really urgent mindset. You gotta go fast, take fools out, stakes are high and you feel the rush in the gunfight. The game achieves this tension through a completely different method than Souls game and it's pretty much as effective at getting you invested and keeping you focused. If you have no reason to pay close attention to what you're doing, eventually you zone out and since games are long experiences you won't remember most of them. But you do remember Sen's Fortress. And you do remember Valley of Drakes, Demon Ruins and so on.

Why do you think reason Catherine didn’t got good scores? I bet you anything most reviewers didn’t even finish the game because it was too hard. Basically same reason God Hand got bad reviews back then.

Exactly. And to me that is kind of like them criticizing Dragon Quest XI for being turn-based. It isn't even about being right or wrong, it just misses the point.

 

[Danjin44]

Exactly. And to me that is kind of like them criticizing Dragon Quest XI for being turn-based. It isn't even about being right or wrong, it just misses the point.

It becomes worse when they consider Turn based RPGs “grindy”because the boss becomes little to hard for them. instead of different tactics to beat them they think they should grind more.

 

[Hendrick's]

You are not wrong there. Games like the Souls series are considered niche compared to other AAA games, yet that is how challenging every game was in the 80's, and some parts of the early 90's.

Beating games back then were considered "niche".

I would argue that the Souls games are still easier than games of the 80's. At least you can save and never fully lose progress.

 

[Lionel Richie]

It becomes worse when they consider Turn based RPGs “grindy”because the boss becomes little to hard for them. instead of different tactics to beat them they think they should grind more.

Yeah and they seem to unable to understand that maybe those features have a target audience in mind. It's like today everything needs to be for everyone, it's ridiculous.