Support NeoGAF

[Hitokage]

I really don't think it has to do with stretching out anything. They didn't approach it that way. Remember, in the 80's the predominant gaming platform was the arcade, which was developed for short but intense play times--forcing the player to buy more credits didn't hurt either. That philosophy relaxed going into the home, but it was still the mindset for most developers and players in the 8 bit days.

Once the home became established as the primary platform for game development, you saw the shift to games being longer and then judged primarily on length. Intensity of experience wasn't a priority as you could freely extend things to 30-40 hours.

 

[Imperfected]

People used to like a challenge. Those examples aren't impossible.

Those aren't, but there are games that were impossible to complete - like Robocop for the Commodore 64 - which strongly suggests that poor/no testing was a factor.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

What the fuck is your problem? People play games for a variety of reasons, some want extremely difficult games and some people just want to enjoy the story/graphics/whatever. Both are perfectly valid play styles, and many modern games offer options for both types of gamers. So why do you feel the need to insult other people who do not share the same opinion as you?

First, you're being a lot more hostile than the person you're responding to.

Second, a "game" that's impossible to lose is not a game.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I

Seems to be a Genesis thing primarily. Happened to Hard Corps too, where the difference is huge. I'm not complaining, but it sure is weird. I bet there is a decent story waiting to be written there.

It's weird, but I know it's not always a 1:1 thing. Like, I know Mega Man 2's JP is USA's "Difficult". I think that's why MM2 just seems so much easier than 1/3/4. That and the almighty Metal Blade.

Then you got stuff like Castlevania Bloodlines where the US version will just whoop your ass, or US's Death Smiles running at 150% speed compared to the Japanese version

btw, pls link to Super Meat Boy article

also, did you read that article about game criticism that was floating around, because it was quite terrible and I thought you would weigh in on it. This is the same guy who who wrote a huge article about feelings he experienced in Zelda 1 when he was impressionable kid and the later Zeldas just couldn't recapture those feelings.

 

[walking fiend]

Why are so many games so easy now?

No, seriously.

 

[terrisus]

but there are games that were impossible to complete

Like Impossible Mission.
It actually was impossible.

 

[CHC]

Because games werent made for babies back then. Games might as well play themselves these days.

Yeah they were made for real mature adults weren't they? No children allowed! Come on and take off the rose colored glasses man, most of these games were like two hours long and had to pad it with obtuse difficulty. A lot of it probably wasn't even by design either, chances are games were tested by a small team made of the creators themselves, who were thus very good at it by then.

There are plenty of difficult games made today, I mean PLENTY. Plenty of easy ones too, but to pretend that games are in some way worse off today than in the early 90s is just off elitist junk.

 

[FlyFaster]

brutally difficult games encourage mastery.

 

[walking fiend]

There are plenty of difficult games made today, I mean PLENTY. Plenty of easy ones too, but to pretend that games are in some way worse off today than in the early 90s is just off elitist junk.

No, it is not some elitist junk.

Most games are too easy; and their hard difficulty modes most of the time hasn't gone under proper quality test. Not to mention, a lot of the older games were difficult because of their level design, not just because you needed to shoot a guy 1000 times instead of 100 times to kill it.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Why are so many games so easy now?

No, seriously.

Spending thousands of dollars on content creation often results in a product that's more about content tourism.

 

[Lindsay]

Well, for one, video games were all about the 'challenge' back then. I can't speak for every kid, but my friends used to play the hardest games and beat them just for the bragging rights. It was sort of a competitive thing.

Ya that so wasn't my experience! I'd plop aside games I couldn't get far in an move on to another! Challenge is all well an good but after awhile it'd just get boring for me ta go through that stuffs I could pass over an over again just to fail later an have to start from squat. I was way more into games that looped an had the targets of beating your own hi score like Donkey Kong.

But I did pass that TMNT dam level so it couldn't have been ultra difficult. Anything past that level is just a confused blur! Prolly why the dam level is so memorable lol.

 

[Prisoner]

Kids were made of tougher stuff back then.

...or something.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

First, you're being a lot more hostile than the person you're responding to.

I'm being hostile to someone who is arrogant and insults me and countless others? No, really?

Second, a "game" that's impossible to lose is not a game.

Who said anything about "games where you can not lose"? I don't think I even know such games.

 

[Lothar]

What the fuck is your problem? People play games for a variety of reasons, some want extremely difficult games and some people just want to enjoy the story/graphics/whatever. Both are perfectly valid play styles, and many modern games offer options for both types of gamers. So why do you feel the need to insult other people who do not share the same opinion as you?

This is exactly the reply a baby would make. You're throwing a tantrum. You see what I mean now? Ha.

I'm curious, how old are you? BET you're born after 1990.

 

[pinny]

You're making us juniors look bad. It's not nice going around insulting people bro.

Where is the insult? Stating that someone is bad at videogames is an insult?

Probably the "Angry Nintendo Nerd" or w/e, right?

I don't think so. He never uses the term and it's been used before he became popular, too.

 

[terrisus]

Spending thousands of dollars on content creation often results in a product that's more about content tourism.

Got to have everyone watch all those cutscenes and long spell animations!

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Where is the insult? Stating that someone is bad at videogames is an insult?

Calling someone "a baby" who prefers games with normal/easy difficulties is insulting. And just because someone doesn't like very hard games doesn't even mean that he's bad at games, what a leap of logic.

This is exactly the reply a baby would make. You're throwing a tantrum. You see what I mean now? Ha.

I'm curious, how old are you? BET you're born after 1990.

You would lose that bet. If you are an adult, why don't you behave like one and stop calling other people "babies" because they have a different opinion about video game difficulty than you?

 

[Mzo]

Some kid's first time on a bike, he's gonna crash and burn. To him, it'll be difficult to do something he's never done before.

Are there forums where people cry about how hard it is to ride bicycles after they try it once, followed by hundreds of smug posts about how easy it is to do, along with pictures and videos of people doing bicycle tricks?

Then some asshole is like "you never fall off a car, whoever designed the bicycle was a fucking idiot."

 

[Zee-Row]

Back in the day our balls were bigger.

 

[GreenTornadoX]

Where is the insult? Stating that someone is bad at videogames is an insult?

Yes. Liking easier games does not equal bad. It's not like all of us has the time to master games with high difficulty when we are now in our 30's - 40's. Back then we had no responsibilities and now we do. We want something a little bit easier to fill our downtimes.

 

[pinny]

Calling someone "a baby" who prefers games with normal/easy difficulties is insulting. And just because someone doesn't like very hard games doesn't even mean that he's bad at games, what a leap of logic.

I didn't call anybody a baby, that was someone else. Also, he didn't even say that, he said: "modern games are made for babies", which is just another way of saying that modern games are very easy.

I also never said he's bad at games because he doesn't like hard games. But if you really can't beat the dam level in the turtles NES game, then yes, you really are bad at games. As I said in a post before, I believe most people on GAF would be able to beat that level within a few tries. And if you are below the skill level of "most people on GAF", in other words "most gamers", than you can be considered bad at it. Doesn't that seem reasonable?

 

[Lothar]

Calling someone "a baby" who prefers games with normal/easy difficulties is insulting. And just because someone doesn't like very hard games doesn't even mean that he's bad at games, what a leap of logic.



You would lose that bet. If you are an adult, why don't you behave like one and stop calling other people "babies" because they have a different opinion about video game difficulty than you?

What adult would be this defensive over being called a baby? I don't believe you. And definitely the worst thing you can do when called a baby is whine and cry over an insult. That just makes it funnier.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

There was no frame of reference. Games weren't hard, they just were.

 

[walking fiend]

Yes. Liking easier games does not equal bad. It's not like all of us has the time to master games with high difficulty when we are now in our 30's - 40's. Back then we had no responsibilities and now we do. We want something a little bit easier to fill our downtimes.

I haven't really read his entire post; but there is no insult in saying that some people are bad at video games; and there's nothing wrong with that. I am bad at sports.

However, I do not agree with attitude that cause someone is bad at something, s/he is not allowed to enjoy it. Or that every game should be made for people who are good at video games.

Just like how not everyone play sports professionally.

 

[DeadTrees]

I'm not the type of person to throw "modern games" under the bus for the "good old days"

the expectation that every single human should be able to clear a videogame and that progress being lost is a flaw

No one in this thread has actually said this, and hey, you ended up repeating the same no-true-Scotsman assertion you made a few posts ago. So much for skills.

without people naming specific valid examples

They already have. Boy, I can't wait to be told about all the "arcade skills" and "deep mastery" invoked when having to burn every tree in Hyrule with the red candle in the first Zelda.

 

[Zing]

Boy, I can't wait to be told about all the "arcade skills" and "deep mastery" invoked when having to burn every tree in Hyrule with the red candle in the first Zelda.

No one will, because that isn't true. You don't need to burn every tree. There is actually logic behind the placement of all doors in that game. I could look at any screen in the game and narrow down the possible locations of the door (there is only one on each screen) to just a few blocks. You can find almost any hidden door with a maximum of three bombs or flames.

You may have ironically proved the point some people are making.

 

[GreenTornadoX]

What adult would be this defensive over being called a baby? I don't believe you. And definitely the worst thing you can do when called a baby is whine and cry over an insult. That just makes it funnier.

I don't think that's the point. People shouldn't have to make sweeping generalizations (insulting ones at that) to make their point.

And at that point, I'll stop derailing the topic

 

[Riposte]

btw, pls link to Super Meat Boy article

It was on the official blog or whatever, which won't load for me. It basically describes what Super Meat Boy tries to do, with the goal being to minimize frustration/penalties (with very shorter levels, infinite lives, etc) to fit a broader audience (it says Super Mario World was a step on this process, which isn't complete nonsense, but I would argue SMW doesn't lead to Meat Boy lol). The reasoning that sticks out was something along the lines of getting the difficulty out of the way so people could have fun. It was actually spread around a lot back when it was new, creating a lot of arguments on my part.

also, did you read that article about game criticism that was floating around, because it was quite terrible and I thought you would weigh in on it. This is the same guy who who wrote a huge article about feelings he experienced in Zelda 1 when he was impressionable kid and the later Zeldas just couldn't recapture those feelings.

I thought it was poor for the most part too, but I was too lazy/tired/busy to comment it on full. Instead, I briefly talked about a part someone highlighted in the thread about game reviewers needing to be skilled or not. For convenience, I'll just link the post. What I was basically saying, to counter his idea that "experts are myopic", is that people naturally find the well-informed to be better as describing a game (with a comparisons drawn across a genre being vital) and avoiding personal shortcomings readers can spot, whereas reviews by the uninformed (common as they are for genres with more demanding output) are harder to take seriously when the reader can see beyond their shallow insights (even going as far to see how they were made in the first place).

No one in this thread has actually said this, and hey, you ended up repeating the same no-true-Scotsman assertion you made a few posts ago. So much for skills.

My assessment of why people think the way they do about older games is exactly that: an assessment. I'm attributing a reason why people feel the way they do in retrospect and what is the deeper cause behind ideas like "game design evolving". What I'm also saying is that I'm not necessarily dismissing modern games (or games outside a console/arcade context) as bad and go as far as defend their compromising or different designs compared to older 2D action games.

As for the "no-true-Scotsman" argument, I'm tackling a broad (and false) generalization of arcade games that doesn't bother to consider the origins of these games. The idea of 1ccs is mainly a Japanese idea and in the modern context I don't see people giving the same treatment to SNK, Capcom, etc. games (and these are games of noteworthy difficulty) as they do Midway or whoever games or particularly bad Japanese ones. So the idea is that "arcade games are just hard because they want to steal your money" is rather ignorant and I put forth that most of the classics and their imitators weren't designed as such and are indeed played as a single credit games.

 

[Lothar]

I don't think that's the point. People shouldn't have to make sweeping generalizations (insulting ones at that) to make their point.

And at that point, I'll stop derailing the topic

Calling someone a baby is not an insult. That's called playfully teasing, lol.

 

[Tain]

yo DeadTrees, could you talk a bit about your overall thoughts on this topic?

 

[Project Alice]

These games, also known as Nintendo Hard games, were sadistic in their difficulty.

or this?

I still remember those two scenes vividly. The only way I beat TNMN on NES was with a Game Genie, and I was good! I still will never understand that pit of spikes you have to drop into to get to Shredder.

That scene in battletoads was a pain in the ass. You had to time it 100% perfect. People really got to play like 10 solid minutes of good battletoads before that shitstorm ended your fun. Got tired of the drop down the pit level. Blah. Yet we still loved that game because BattleToads!

 

[Hyperactivity]

Yeah, Zelda 1 has a lot of cryptic hints and secrets compared to modern Zelda. Combat-wise the difficulty is above modern Zelda as well. In the 3D games you can just raise your shield and you're almost invincible.

A bit off topic, but Zelda 1 or something as cryptic + miiverse would be godly

On topic, it's because of the Iwata quote, the games needing to be artificially lengthened because they were short, the awesome feeling of getting past an obstacle that you had trouble with, and the fact that in many games, it was YOUR fault if you died. That adrenaline rush is awesome, and this comes from someone growing up in the Gamecube/PS2/Xbox generation.

the last two is how to tell the difference between badly designed and just hard but death=your fault. If the object isn't motivating you to get past it, you can tell.

A good example of these is Mega Man. Take MM2 for example. Besides a few things (dissapearing blocks/Quick Man stage) every time you died, it was your fault and you felt like you wanted to get past it

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

No one in this thread has actually said this, and hey, you ended up repeating the same no-true-Scotsman assertion you made a few posts ago. So much for skills.


They already have. Boy, I can't wait to be told about all the "arcade skills" and "deep mastery" invoked when having to burn every tree in Hyrule with the red candle in the first Zelda.

Anger over an unassailable statement you hate being stated is an option, yes.

That sentence of Riposte also answers Walking Fiend's question: the expectations are higher. Orders of magnitudes higher. Beating the game is standard now, and it's not even a demand from gamers highly skilled at the genre. Quite the contrary, it's the opposite.

Want to know where the corollary leads? It doesn't even guarentee sales of dev houses that make them to the effect of guarenteeing it! Others that don't still make bank anyways! The pandora's box is open!

 

[Muppet of a Man]

These games, also known as Nintendo Hard games, were sadistic in their difficulty.

Why is this?

1. Early video game design on a more advanced technology lead to trial and error

2. Part of the Arcade philosophy of having the characters die regularly to force players to spend more coins made it over to the NES.

3. Lazy Developers who didn't test their game and just shipped it out.

4. Developers weren't given enough time to make the game, testing wasn't done.

5. Sadistic asshole developers that wanted to see children cry.

6. Satan made the games.

Who would release a game with this?

or this?

Is there also a writeup as to how Simon's Quest was made? I'd like to know what went through the Konami team when they decided to make most of the game centered around finding those orbs with Dracula's body in them, completely without bosses and anticlimactic. I'd like to know why the translation team localized the game the way they did. From what I heard the villagers, who are always usually lying in the English version, would lie in the Japanese release but in an obvious way.

Games were actually games back then instead of "experiences". They were also more oriented at hand-eye coordination and twitch reflexes then they are now.

To which I say to game devs these days, "Get that movie crap out of my games!"

Geez, I still play games from the 8 and 16 bit eras and think to myself, what the heck happened? Metroidvania games in particular, which were especially awesome.

 

[Ashtar]

I swear I played that battletoads level so many times and never beat it......

 

[Sixfortyfive]

The idea of arcade games primarily being designed around "quarter munching" is a myth that makes my head ache every time I read it.

Doubly so when the two arcade games that I've spent the most money on in my lifetime, Daytona USA and Pump It Up, only guarantee you a fixed amount of playtime per credit with no option of continuing in the first place. You'd think that people could put two and two together when looking at most of these games and figure that maybe "getting to the end" wasn't the reason anyone spent money on them.

 

[terrisus]

Beating the game is standard now, and it's not even a demand from gamers highly skilled at the genre. Quite the contrary, it's the opposite.

And at the same time, quotes from game companies have indicated that fewer and fewer people are actually completing games.

It's like people are less and less inclined to beat games, while at the same time developers try to make it easier and easier for them to do so.

 

[genjiZERO]

Everyone knows you waste Raphael on the bomb level, and then rescue him in the next one.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

1. Old games are shit
2. No one knew how to make games back then

What?

 

[Haunted]

These games, also known as Nintendo Hard games, were sadistic in their difficulty.

Why is this?

1. Early video game design on a more advanced technology lead to trial and error

2. Part of the Arcade philosophy of having the characters die regularly to force players to spend more coins made it over to the NES.

3. Lazy Developers who didn't test their game and just shipped it out.

4. Developers weren't given enough time to make the game, testing wasn't done.

5. Sadistic asshole developers that wanted to see children cry.

6. Satan made the games.

#2 is correct with a bit of #5 sprinkled in.

 

[Zeth]

Gameplay > "experience"

Simpler times. People made games, not million-dollar mega publishers. I don't know exactly when the term "content tourism" was coined, but it was a sad day.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The idea of arcade games primarily being designed around "quarter munching" is a myth that makes my head ache every time I read it.

Doubly so when the two arcade games that I've spent the most money on in my lifetime, Daytona USA and Pump It Up, only guarantee you a fixed amount of playtime per credit with no option of continuing in the first place. You'd think that people could put two and two together when looking at most of these games and figure that maybe "getting to the end" wasn't the reason anyone spent money on them.

I actually believe that was a factor to Arcades. Same as MMOs and grinds and waits.

See, the thing is, I see it as those two set-ups require those in moderation to function. When one side demands too much (money or ease, one way or the other), the balance is gone, and either a new system emerges to recreate the ecosystem without too much damage (F2P in MMOs) or there is irrepairable harm (dead Arcades and MMOs where the amount of actual social and economic interaction suffers from heat-death from unnecessarity).

And at the same time, quotes from game companies have indicated that fewer and fewer people are actually completing games.

It's like people are less and less inclined to beat games, while at the same time developers try to make it easier and easier for them to do so.

If I hazarded a guess, the results would be mixed, actually. The reason being is that "stopped dead by a boss, mechanic, That Fucking Jetski Section, etc" is only one reason amongst many that players quit a game. Maybe they got bad feedback from friends. Maybe the story turned stupid to them. Maybe it got too long for what they felt like putting into it. Maybe later differing gameplay sections wasn't what they signed up for. Or maybe...just maybe...it was too EASY.

 

[SirButterstick]

I think it's because we raised a self-entitled culture over the last few years, i.e. 'Everyones a winner!' and that has carried over into gaming. To give and example, it's the most evident in any MP centric game. I play a hell of a lot of BF3, and at least once a game I get accused of being a cheater. My response it always the same . . . Maybe you're just not good at this point, and you need practice instead of automatically assuming you're good and should place #1.

It's good for games to be hard, it helps you grow, devise new tactics, and rewards that with a sense of accomplishment. Something that's lacking in today's games. The Souls series was a breath of fresh air in this regard.

 

["D"]

Kids were made of tougher stuff back then.

...or something.

We were. Despite gaming on the rise, we still went outside to PLAY regardless of the current technology. These little bastards today think you're punishing them when you tell them to go outside and play. And don't ask if they know what games like Freeze Tag or Red Light, Green Light were....they'll just look at you like a fossil.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I actually believe that was a factor to Arcades.

It's overblown, though. If you were like me and had no regular source of income in the early 90s, you'd be dropped off at the arcade in the mall for a couple hours while your mom went out shopping or whatever, with maybe $3 in quarters at your disposal to pass the time. So you'd have to make that $3 count, and you'd learn real quick which games were a waste of your money and which were not, and those that were wouldn't get much playtime.

Some games were better about this than others, but it wouldn't take much time for my friends and me to realize that only a fool would waste credits on Konami's X-Men, just to use one example, instead of one of the other beat-em-ups that wouldn't sap your life from unwinnable situations. (And I was blown away to learn, years later, that the Japanese version of the same game wasn't broken in the way it penalized you for using special moves.)

 

[VariantX]

I didn't really think most games were all that unfair back then. But any game with infinitely respawning enemies is bullshit. That's taking the easy way out to make a game more difficult. Its like the developers couldn't be bothered to make a more interesting and difficult challenge instead.

 

[keuja]

This is NOT hard. TMNT Level 2 in general is NOT hard. What it does is refuse to allow you to proceed without knowing what to do, and it only takes a few stabs to figure out. Too many people just give up because they aren't used to being demanded anything when playing a game.

I mean, all you do is learn the proper bomb order and switch turtles when they get low on hp, leaving one turtle specifically for that screen.

There are parts in the game that are genuinely unfair, but it's dismaying to see so many cry about the dam.

Lol I didn't know that l kids in 1989 weren't used to being demanded anything in games.

At that time all the kids played the shit out of every games, playing the few games they had at home over and over.
So no, we didn't give up. If that part and the battletoad one stuck as super hard in our memories it is because it really was (for 8 yo kids at least, unless you were some kind of game genius).

 

[friskykillface]

Blaster Master had no save or pw system, you had to beat the game in one play through 0_O, made me go mad when i was a kid haha

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

It's overblown, though. If you were like me and had no regular source of income in the early 90s, you'd be dropped off at the arcade in the mall for a couple hours while your mom went out shopping or whatever, with maybe $3 in quarters at your disposal to pass the time. So you'd have to make that $3 count, and you'd learn real quick which games were a waste of your money and which were not, and those that were wouldn't get much playtime.

Some games were better about this than others, but it wouldn't take much time for my friends and me to realize that only a fool would waste credits on Konami's X-Men, just to use one example, instead of one of the other beat-em-ups that wouldn't sap your life from unwinnable situations. (And I was blown away to learn, years later, that the Japanese version of the same game wasn't broken in the way it penalized you for using special moves.)

One bar of health left: SPAM THAT MUTANT POWER! lol

Oh yeah, I was there and did that. Judged what money I had on me with any games I was looking forward to at Toys R Us or Babbages and what I wanted more.

But there were those that did. Quite a number in fact. Thing was, the balance was preserved that games that fucked you over for quarters got a bad rap with your best customers, ones that were a breeze to beat lost out on sales, but in that area in the middle, that compromise, profit and fun times flourished for many.

 

[Trojita]

Blaster Master had no save or pw system, you had to beat the game in one play through 0_O, made me go mad when i was a kid haha

Gotta keep the system on all night lol.