| outlawauron said: Also, why do people associate ignorance of old things with stupidity. I'm too young to know about things before SNES, and the games I've played before that generation, I can count on one hand. I just don't care about it. |
I can forgive the ignorance. That doesn't bother me. If you were never exposed to something, then it's hard to get used to it. However, the fact that some of these kids know about games and play on the new consoles is disturbing because that says something. It says that games today do not challenge players enough. It also says that games today hold your hand too much. How is it that a more complext game in full 3D provides less of a challenege than a more intuitive and simplistic 2D game? Also, how can you not figure out how to master controls on a controller that contains four buttons and a d-pad wirhout reading instructions (also assuming that the game's controls aren't shit)?
This is real problem. Back when I was a kid, actually beating a game was a huge reward. I rarely ever got to see an ending of a videogame. This is because most games were extremely difficult. It had to be this way because developers couldn't make long games that weren't RPG's due to technical shortcomings. However, the brutal difficulty of games improved hand-eye cordination and made us better gamers. SInce we had to master our games, that also meant that we kept them for a while. This is something publishers and developers should take note of. If they don't want second hand sales of their games, then they should learn to make something that's compelling and that the player would want to pick up again and again, not sometihng you would beat in a weekend and never want to touch again or something that focuses on story over gameplay, which makes play not want to play it again when the game's done.
Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com
