|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:57 am
The Death Blues Mix Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Old games weren't harder. They were cheaper and ridden with far more technical limitations leading to shoddy coding though.
Clipping, hit detection, Aim bots, etc. It was the illusion of being hard but really a majority of the time it was the game design. For example look at Crash Bandicoot versus Crash Bandicoot 2. There really wasn't any change in difficulty but the coding was better in 2. You wouldn't land on a platform and slip through it just because you were with in the hit detection margin of error as often.
Plus, often times the programmers would do things to make the game seem longer by cheating you. Well..Contra was b***h even with the thirty man code. Super Mario the Lost Levels were hard. Ghost N' Goblins was hard, Megaman 1 and 2 were hard. The ******** X series was a b***h. If you want shoddy and shitty codding then play some Codemasters or Acclaim games. Some games were meant to be hard.
True difficulty comes from the need to improve, to acquire skills fit to beat whatever challenge comes. Not from memorizing a set pattern and hoping you make it.
For example, Call of Duty 4 is hard because they keep throwing endless amounts of enemies at you if you don't reach a certain point in the level, not because the AI is incredibly intelligent.That's saying like Metal Gear Solid was hard because you have limited of time to actually kill. Metal Gear Solid becomes easier once you memorized the patterns of the guards.. Even most games today have a linear pattern, the only exceptions here are MMOs.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:55 am
They are harder. Yeah, there's a cheapness factor, but not with all games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:11 am
Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Old games weren't harder. They were cheaper and ridden with far more technical limitations leading to shoddy coding though.
Clipping, hit detection, Aim bots, etc. It was the illusion of being hard but really a majority of the time it was the game design. For example look at Crash Bandicoot versus Crash Bandicoot 2. There really wasn't any change in difficulty but the coding was better in 2. You wouldn't land on a platform and slip through it just because you were with in the hit detection margin of error as often.
Plus, often times the programmers would do things to make the game seem longer by cheating you. Well..Contra was b***h even with the thirty man code. Super Mario the Lost Levels were hard. Ghost N' Goblins was hard, Megaman 1 and 2 were hard. The ******** X series was a b***h. If you want shoddy and shitty codding then play some Codemasters or Acclaim games. Some games were meant to be hard.
True difficulty comes from the need to improve, to acquire skills fit to beat whatever challenge comes. Not from memorizing a set pattern and hoping you make it.
For example, Call of Duty 4 is hard because they keep throwing endless amounts of enemies at you if you don't reach a certain point in the level, not because the AI is incredibly intelligent.That's saying like Metal Gear Solid was hard because you have limited of time to actually kill. Metal Gear Solid becomes easier once you memorized the patterns of the guards.. Even most games today have a linear pattern, the only exceptions here are MMOs. You mentioned multiple MMX games, and I think you forgot that all the bosses in those games had patterns. Finding that pattern and weakness took the most time, but once that was down, it made it much easier to beat the game in a few hours. Here's my big food for thought. Is all difficulty relative? I'm probably never going to be able to complete Guitar Hero 2 on HARD, but I can eventually shrink epic Zelda games into ten hour run-throughs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:26 am
SuperJawes2112 Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Old games weren't harder. They were cheaper and ridden with far more technical limitations leading to shoddy coding though.
Clipping, hit detection, Aim bots, etc. It was the illusion of being hard but really a majority of the time it was the game design. For example look at Crash Bandicoot versus Crash Bandicoot 2. There really wasn't any change in difficulty but the coding was better in 2. You wouldn't land on a platform and slip through it just because you were with in the hit detection margin of error as often.
Plus, often times the programmers would do things to make the game seem longer by cheating you. Well..Contra was b***h even with the thirty man code. Super Mario the Lost Levels were hard. Ghost N' Goblins was hard, Megaman 1 and 2 were hard. The ******** X series was a b***h. If you want shoddy and shitty codding then play some Codemasters or Acclaim games. Some games were meant to be hard.
True difficulty comes from the need to improve, to acquire skills fit to beat whatever challenge comes. Not from memorizing a set pattern and hoping you make it.
For example, Call of Duty 4 is hard because they keep throwing endless amounts of enemies at you if you don't reach a certain point in the level, not because the AI is incredibly intelligent.That's saying like Metal Gear Solid was hard because you have limited of time to actually kill. Metal Gear Solid becomes easier once you memorized the patterns of the guards.. Even most games today have a linear pattern, the only exceptions here are MMOs. You mentioned multiple MMX games, and I think you forgot that all the bosses in those games had patterns. Finding that pattern and weakness took the most time, but once that was down, it made it much easier to beat the game in a few hours. Here's my big food for thought. Is all difficulty relative? I'm probably never going to be able to complete Guitar Hero 2 on HARD, but I can eventually shrink epic Zelda games into ten hour run-throughs.You can do that with Legend of Zelda and Zelda II?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Old games weren't harder. They were cheaper and ridden with far more technical limitations leading to shoddy coding though.
Clipping, hit detection, Aim bots, etc. It was the illusion of being hard but really a majority of the time it was the game design. For example look at Crash Bandicoot versus Crash Bandicoot 2. There really wasn't any change in difficulty but the coding was better in 2. You wouldn't land on a platform and slip through it just because you were with in the hit detection margin of error as often.
Plus, often times the programmers would do things to make the game seem longer by cheating you. Well..Contra was b***h even with the thirty man code. Super Mario the Lost Levels were hard. Ghost N' Goblins was hard, Megaman 1 and 2 were hard. The ******** X series was a b***h. If you want shoddy and shitty codding then play some Codemasters or Acclaim games. Some games were meant to be hard.
True difficulty comes from the need to improve, to acquire skills fit to beat whatever challenge comes. Not from memorizing a set pattern and hoping you make it.
For example, Call of Duty 4 is hard because they keep throwing endless amounts of enemies at you if you don't reach a certain point in the level, not because the AI is incredibly intelligent.That's saying like Metal Gear Solid was hard because you have limited of time to actually kill. Metal Gear Solid becomes easier once you memorized the patterns of the guards.. Even most games today have a linear pattern, the only exceptions here are MMOs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:09 pm
The Death Blues Mix Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Kaiba-X The Death Blues Mix Old games weren't harder. They were cheaper and ridden with far more technical limitations leading to shoddy coding though.
Clipping, hit detection, Aim bots, etc. It was the illusion of being hard but really a majority of the time it was the game design. For example look at Crash Bandicoot versus Crash Bandicoot 2. There really wasn't any change in difficulty but the coding was better in 2. You wouldn't land on a platform and slip through it just because you were with in the hit detection margin of error as often.
Plus, often times the programmers would do things to make the game seem longer by cheating you. Well..Contra was b***h even with the thirty man code. Super Mario the Lost Levels were hard. Ghost N' Goblins was hard, Megaman 1 and 2 were hard. The ******** X series was a b***h. If you want shoddy and shitty codding then play some Codemasters or Acclaim games. Some games were meant to be hard.
True difficulty comes from the need to improve, to acquire skills fit to beat whatever challenge comes. Not from memorizing a set pattern and hoping you make it.
For example, Call of Duty 4 is hard because they keep throwing endless amounts of enemies at you if you don't reach a certain point in the level, not because the AI is incredibly intelligent.That's saying like Metal Gear Solid was hard because you have limited of time to actually kill. Metal Gear Solid becomes easier once you memorized the patterns of the guards.. Even most games today have a linear pattern, the only exceptions here are MMOs. Dude you praise Metal Gear Solid if it was the first slice of bread. Don't play dumb here. You just can't accept that some games were just meant to hard. It's not always because the amount of enemies like Ghost N' Goblins or Contra. Some are just hard...maybe because the AI of that time or level design at that time was superior than any other games at that time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:26 pm
Kaiba-X Dude you praise Metal Gear Solid if it was the first slice of bread. Don't play dumb here. You just can't accept that some games were just meant to hard. It's not always because the amount of enemies like Ghost N' Goblins or Contra. Some are just hard...maybe because the AI of that time or level design at that time was superior than any other games at that time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:42 pm
In the past there wasn't much competition for selling games so the level of difficulty was insignificant. Now there's an ever expanding selection of games and the consumers have a shorter attention span than ever before. So difficulty has to factor in.
I don't think it's necessarily good or bad. It was just bound to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:54 pm
It is actally true that older games are actually harder than games of today. There were many ads at the time that boasted how hard their game was. Plus years ago, a game being very hard was a good thing. Today we want games that can be finished and also games today don't use those meaningless points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:38 am
Beramode In the past there wasn't much competition for selling games so the level of difficulty was insignificant. Now there's an ever expanding selection of games and the consumers have a shorter attention span than ever before. So difficulty has to factor in. I don't think it's necessarily good or bad. It was just bound to happen. That is sort of true. I think audience might have something to do with difficulty in games. Example: look at kid's games like Lego Star Wars. You're not going to have voracious, overly-strong Doom/Quake-style enemies that are able to kill you in one hit, or "so-extremely-hard-and-overdone-it's-awesome"-style bosses that look like they came straight out of a Contra game. Kids simply cannot handle that. They aren't used to playing those types of games. So, they make enemies all cute and non-dangerous, bosses super-easy, and game length relatively short. Thus, difficulty suffers from the simpleton factor that plagues games kids play. I can see where you're coming from when you say that audience has to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:02 pm
Beramode In the past there wasn't much competition for selling games so the level of difficulty was insignificant. Now there's an ever expanding selection of games and the consumers have a shorter attention span than ever before. So difficulty has to factor in. I don't think it's necessarily good or bad. It was just bound to happen. I agree. "Convenience" is now a selling point for video games. Back in the day, no one cared that Mario Brothers 3 was an epic, hours-long adventure that had no save feature.No way in hell would that fly with today's gaming audience. Hell, if a game sets you back more than 5 or 10 minutes ater dying, it's considered a huge pain in the butt, and alot of gamers lose patience with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm
Arvis_Jaggamar Beramode In the past there wasn't much competition for selling games so the level of difficulty was insignificant. Now there's an ever expanding selection of games and the consumers have a shorter attention span than ever before. So difficulty has to factor in. I don't think it's necessarily good or bad. It was just bound to happen. I agree. "Convenience" is now a selling point for video games. Back in the day, no one cared that Mario Brothers 3 was an epic, hours-long adventure that had no save feature.No way in hell would that fly with today's gaming audience. Hell, if a game sets you back more than 5 or 10 minutes ater dying, it's considered a huge pain in the butt, and alot of gamers lose patience with it. The gaming audience has become much larger than it used to be, and with game development becoming more expensive as time goes along, developers are going to want to get as much sales from people as possible. As a result, an appeal to the majority occurs. That's just how it works, the majority wants easier gameplay, they get it. Not saying whether it's good or bad because as much games as I've played...I'm not a very good gamer, I refuse to play easy and take forever beating normal, but todays normal is hard to me and I can never imagine what awaits me in hard mode. And I'd probably be screwed trying to play an older game sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:37 pm
Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Arvis_Jaggamar Beramode In the past there wasn't much competition for selling games so the level of difficulty was insignificant. Now there's an ever expanding selection of games and the consumers have a shorter attention span than ever before. So difficulty has to factor in. I don't think it's necessarily good or bad. It was just bound to happen. I agree. "Convenience" is now a selling point for video games. Back in the day, no one cared that Mario Brothers 3 was an epic, hours-long adventure that had no save feature.No way in hell would that fly with today's gaming audience. Hell, if a game sets you back more than 5 or 10 minutes ater dying, it's considered a huge pain in the butt, and alot of gamers lose patience with it. The gaming audience has become much larger than it used to be, and with game development becoming more expensive as time goes along, developers are going to want to get as much sales from people as possible. As a result, an appeal to the majority occurs. That's just how it works, the majority wants easier gameplay, they get it. Not saying whether it's good or bad because as much games as I've played...I'm not a very good gamer, I refuse to play easy and take forever beating normal, but todays normal is hard to me and I can never imagine what awaits me in hard mode. And I'd probably be screwed trying to play an older game sweatdrop Dude, how long have you been playing video games?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:45 pm
tangocat777 Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Arvis_Jaggamar Beramode In the past there wasn't much competition for selling games so the level of difficulty was insignificant. Now there's an ever expanding selection of games and the consumers have a shorter attention span than ever before. So difficulty has to factor in. I don't think it's necessarily good or bad. It was just bound to happen. I agree. "Convenience" is now a selling point for video games. Back in the day, no one cared that Mario Brothers 3 was an epic, hours-long adventure that had no save feature.No way in hell would that fly with today's gaming audience. Hell, if a game sets you back more than 5 or 10 minutes ater dying, it's considered a huge pain in the butt, and alot of gamers lose patience with it. The gaming audience has become much larger than it used to be, and with game development becoming more expensive as time goes along, developers are going to want to get as much sales from people as possible. As a result, an appeal to the majority occurs. That's just how it works, the majority wants easier gameplay, they get it. Not saying whether it's good or bad because as much games as I've played...I'm not a very good gamer, I refuse to play easy and take forever beating normal, but todays normal is hard to me and I can never imagine what awaits me in hard mode. And I'd probably be screwed trying to play an older game sweatdrop Dude, how long have you been playing video games? Ever since the PS1/N64 era. I've played some NES/SNES games too...haven't really been able to sit through any of them though...and I don't have the patience for "Game Over...time to play all the way back from the beginning again" crap sweatdrop I'd cry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:52 pm
Canis Lupus the LoneWolf tangocat777 Canis Lupus the LoneWolf Arvis_Jaggamar Beramode In the past there wasn't much competition for selling games so the level of difficulty was insignificant. Now there's an ever expanding selection of games and the consumers have a shorter attention span than ever before. So difficulty has to factor in. I don't think it's necessarily good or bad. It was just bound to happen. I agree. "Convenience" is now a selling point for video games. Back in the day, no one cared that Mario Brothers 3 was an epic, hours-long adventure that had no save feature.No way in hell would that fly with today's gaming audience. Hell, if a game sets you back more than 5 or 10 minutes ater dying, it's considered a huge pain in the butt, and alot of gamers lose patience with it. The gaming audience has become much larger than it used to be, and with game development becoming more expensive as time goes along, developers are going to want to get as much sales from people as possible. As a result, an appeal to the majority occurs. That's just how it works, the majority wants easier gameplay, they get it. Not saying whether it's good or bad because as much games as I've played...I'm not a very good gamer, I refuse to play easy and take forever beating normal, but todays normal is hard to me and I can never imagine what awaits me in hard mode. And I'd probably be screwed trying to play an older game sweatdrop Dude, how long have you been playing video games? Ever since the PS1/N64 era. I've played some NES/SNES games too...haven't really been able to sit through any of them though...and I don't have the patience for "Game Over...time to play all the way back from the beginning again" crap sweatdrop I'd cry I came in during the transition period of N64/Snes. I got a few VC Nes games, and a few Sega compilations for PC/Gamecube. That's how I got into Shining Force. (which they still haven't released the second on VC scream )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
