Quantcast
Videos games SHOULD NOT be difficult... (It hurts the Video Game)

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Videos games SHOULD NOT be difficult... (It hurts the Video Game)

Teeqoz said:
AlfredoTurkey said:


Congrats! But you probably account for less than 1% of 19 year olds in that regard haha


You probably account for less than 1% of 38 year olds in that regard too though, so that doesn't really matter...


First off, I'm 36. I don't need to be any closer to 40 than I have to be and second, I'm pretty sure more than 1% of the original NES kids could beat an NES game considering we're all trained and grew up on them. Saying only 1% of 36 year olds can beat an NES game is like saying only 1% of 16 year olds know how to download an app on a smartphone.



Around the Network
AlfredoTurkey said:
Teeqoz said:


You probably account for less than 1% of 38 year olds in that regard too though, so that doesn't really matter...


First off, I'm 36. I don't need to be any closer to 40 than I have to be and second, I'm pretty sure more than 1% of the original NES kids could beat an NES game considering we're all trained and grew up on them. Saying only 1% of 36 year olds can beat an NES game is like saying only 1% of 16 year olds know how to download an app on a smartphone.


Oh, so this is about any NES game? Well that's a completely different story. Anyways, saying only 1% of 16 year olds can beat an NES game is like saying only 1% of 36 year olds know how to send an e-mail.



Teeqoz said:
AlfredoTurkey said:


First off, I'm 36. I don't need to be any closer to 40 than I have to be and second, I'm pretty sure more than 1% of the original NES kids could beat an NES game considering we're all trained and grew up on them. Saying only 1% of 36 year olds can beat an NES game is like saying only 1% of 16 year olds know how to download an app on a smartphone.


Oh, so this is about any NES game? Well that's a completely different story. Anyways, saying only 1% of 16 year olds can beat an NES game is like saying only 1% of 36 year olds know how to send an e-mail.

lol

All I'm saying is this. If you take a 16 year old who's only ever gamed on 360/PS3 to now, playing only modern games, they're not going to have the skill set that someone does who has gamed since the NES because modern (not retro indie platformers etc.) games are soft in comparison. 

Can someone who is young be raised today on hard games and have those skills? Sure, and there's many out there that do... but it's not the majority or even close. 



AlfredoTurkey said:
Teeqoz said:


Oh, so this is about any NES game? Well that's a completely different story. Anyways, saying only 1% of 16 year olds can beat an NES game is like saying only 1% of 36 year olds know how to send an e-mail.

lol

All I'm saying is this. If you take a 16 year old who's only ever gamed on 360/PS3 to now, playing only modern games, they're not going to have the skill set that someone does who has gamed since the NES because modern (not retro indie platformers etc.) games are soft in comparison. 

Can someone who is young be raised today on hard games and have those skills? Sure, and there's many out there that do... but it's not the majority or even close. 


There's probably a rather simple explanation for that: If you've been gaming ever since the NES era (not the same as simply having gamed in the NES era, then quit gaming) then you are what is often reffered to as a "core" gamer, where gaming has become an important hobby for you. That would also mean that you've spent a lot more time gaming.

To further explain, my dad used to game back when he was a kid, but he doesn't game anymore, and he'd struggle if I were to give him a game of moderate difficulty today (not to mention any hard retro style platformer). Likewise, a lot of people that have only gamed since the PS360 era are likely to not end up as so called "core" gamers when they grow up, however given that they (us) aren't as far into our lives, the, ahem, let's say, wheat hasn't been separated from the chaff. While for people who have been gaming ever since the NES era they have, and you are left with the so called "core" gamers.

Of course yes, games are easier today and that will lead to a skill difference for the average gamer, but I don't think it's nearly as big as you make it out to be.

IF you were to just pick a random dude who used to play on an NES, and ask him to finish Contra, he'd likely get his ass whopped, same can be said for a random kid who plays on his PS360 or PS4/XBO.



Actually, I've found that modern games have found the right balanced between challenge and frustration. Maybe because they have more mechanical depth than older games so they wouldn't be fun or enjoyable to some people if they were as frustrating and difficult .

This thread probably wasn't srss, but it's interesting how some users did actually take it srsly. All in all, it still was a good read, so thanks everyone.



.- -... -.-. -..

Around the Network
Teeqoz said:
Of course yes, games are easier today and that will lead to a skill difference for the average gamer, but I don't think it's nearly as big as you make it out to be.

IF you were to just pick a random dude who used to play on an NES, and ask him to finish Contra, he'd likely get his ass whopped, same can be said for a random kid who plays on his PS360 or PS4/XBO.


Super Meat Boy is a modern game that most consider hard to beat (really hard to 100%), and even that game pales in comparison to beating Contra without a cheat code. Why? Unlimited lives, continues and saves, that's why. In those days, the harder games punished failure. Get to stage 4 and lose that last life? Guess what? Game over bitch... back to the start for you! You had better cancel the next 4 months of your life, bunker down and learn how to lose or else you'll never beat shit.

 

And sure, I agree if you picked "random" people off the street that that would hold true. But take two core gamers (36/16), and you have a completely different scenario. 



My one sentence response:

Video games should not ALL be difficult.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Nem said:

I think every game should aspire to give a challenge, though not an insane one. One that gives you small hurdles to overcome.
They do need to add measures to reduce the frustration so you dont lose a huge ammount of your time when you fail, otherwise you ditch the whole series. So, im in agreement with that.

Keep them with some level of challenge, but reduce the frustration from failing. Allow the player to not feel punished but motivated to do better.

Why? Challenging is not the only thing a video game can aspire to be, and these days may no longer even be the main thing. There is a much broader range of experience that can be had from video games than when they first appeared. If a video game aspires to someting other than a gameplay challenge then gameplay challenge may detract from the main purpose of the game. A video game should aspire to be an enjoyable experience for people who are interested in whatever the game is trying to do. Whether that's challenging gameplay or immersive experience or something else doesn't matter. The size of the audience you attract for a video game will be largely determined by what elements the developer focusses on as the main source of enjoyment. 

I think it's a really bad idea to suggest any sort of formula or standard method for how a game should or shouldn't be challenging. some people want a really tough experience, others want a largely stress free time with their games. All preferences should be catered to.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo said:

Why? Challenging is not the only thing a video game can aspire to be, and these days may no longer even be the main thing. There is a much broader range of experience that can be had from video games than when they first appeared. If a video game aspires to someting other than a gameplay challenge then gameplay challenge may detract from the main purpose of the game. A video game should aspire to be an enjoyable experience for people who are interested in whatever the game is trying to do. Whether that's challenging gameplay or immersive experience or something else doesn't matter. The size of the audience you attract for a video game will be largely determined by what elements the developer focusses on as the main source of enjoyment. 

I think it's a really bad idea to suggest any sort of formula or standard methid for how a game should or shouldn't be challenging. some people want a really tough experience, others want a largely stress free time with their games. All preferences should be catered to.


I agree. I love difficult games, but I also love easy games like Kirby and Journey. Challenge should be handled on a game by game basis. While some games should never be difficult, like Kirby, some should never be easy, like Dark Souls.



Well, this is new.

Read.

u are an @@@@@@! I don't feel like spending 80 bucks on a game that I can finish in a day or a week or that matter!!
suck it up and just stop playing them. if u can't handle it then stop playing them