Give Me a Win Button

[Count_ZeroOR]

I feel - and this is my own personal preference in gaming, that good challenge is gaming should not feel like you're running into a brick wall over and over again until you manage to break through, or the one occasion where quantum mechanics works your way, and the wall's molecules "decide" to let you all the way through the wall.

What it should feel like is that, well, I over-came something difficult, and without requiring physical aptitude or lightning reflexes. Split-second platformers like Mega Man are okay, and twitch fests like Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden are okay, but my reflexes are good, but they're not great - and if a game requires great reflexes to get past a certain point. That's not cool.

The two other games I had problems with in a similar fashion were the Need for Speed Games (particularly Carbon and ProStreet), where in both cases I had situations where I ended up with only a sub-optimal car late in the game because of mechanics in the game (getting pulled over by the police in Carbon without a Get Out Of Jail Free Card - because they were handed out so sparingly), and getting my best car totaled without any spare repair chits in ProStreet. In theory I could have recovered from this, but I would have had to grind the races I'd already beaten to get the cash to do it. I don't consider that to be fun. That's running repeatedly into a brick wall.

Again - I don't have problems if my character dies on a level. I don't have problems if I get a game over. I do have problems if I'm going over the same portion of the game over and over ad infinitum, without any sign of process.

Oh, and as far as the "What Do I Do Now" button - I could really use that for FPS games, as I often get lost in those games, and having a FAQ open just doesn't help. Even some of the guys playing Half-Life 2 for Rebel FM's game club are having that problem with some of the late stages of Half-Life 2, and they've played it before!

 

[Nutcase]

the fact that there are permenant and irreversible penalties into GTA4's cheats, and the fact that they fully denighed giving us a tank is wrong

has anyone legitimately beaten SC:Terran Campain mission 8 legitimately? you are being fucking Hercules beetled that entire mission

Hercules beetled? Then you are talking of Brood War not vanilla Starcraft. And yes, I played that mission just last week, and it's super easy. Any kind of wall-in disables the ultralisk completely, it just runs from side to side in front of your wall until it's dead. And it stops from spawning as soon as you kill the right-side cerebrate, so it's not there for the whole mission.

Speedrunners have actually beat that level in under five minutes, but that involves skipping the cerebrates entirely and takes some skill.

 

[toapat]

the fact that there are permenant and irreversible penalties into GTA4's cheats, and the fact that they fully denighed giving us a tank is wrong

has anyone legitimately beaten SC:Terran Campain mission 8 legitimately? you are being fucking Hercules beetled that entire mission

Hercules beetled? Then you are talking of Brood War not vanilla Starcraft. And yes, I played that mission just last week, and it's super easy. Any kind of wall-in disables the ultralisk completely, it just runs from side to side in front of your wall until it's dead. And it stops from spawning as soon as you kill the right-side cerebrate, so it's not there for the whole mission.

Speedrunners have actually beat that level in under five minutes, but that involves skipping the cerebrates entirely and takes some skill.

no, the original where you have the zerg fucking your ass and the protoss punching you in the face.

may be mission #9 im thinking of

 

[toapat]

To be fair, I've played enough FPSs now since I got into gaming that I can rampage through most of them on easy or normal. I'm by no means a hardcore gamer though, and I appreciate an easy mode on games. Particularly RTSs, which I'm only just getting to like, and am unashamedly crap at.

if you arent Korean, you dont have that high of a bar to judge RTS skill against
it you dont play SC, you dont play RTSes
+5 points for the name

 

[DYin01]

I only somewhat agree with the article, but it was a good read nontheless. I used to use cheats a lot, but coincidentally, the less I wanted to use cheats, the less they became available. I like some difficulty in a game. I appreciate a game more when there's a challenge involved. I don't like it when it's too easy, personally. I get a 'tourist gamer's point of view though.

 

[Nutcase]

In my view, a game needs to be completely awesome before it earns the right to seriously challenge me. I've proven in the past that I can completely destroy a game. But it takes time, and I love my time more than I love the average half-assed Halo knockoff developers puke out on a regular basis. Getting good at a game is my way of loving a game. If the game doesn't delight me, I just want to skim the good parts and move on.

If you have already determined the game is bad, scavenging for leftovers of good ideas the bad game may or may not contain sounds like a poor use of time. For me, it works great in that situation to just dump the game and move on to better ones.

What I really wonder about in your article was that you used fighting games as an example when the vast majority of the content in a fighting game is right there in your face, available immediately. It's probably the genre that holds back the least.

 

[Void(null)]

This is an absurd and feeble strawman, but since other people seem to be trying it out I'll humor you.

Perhaps my point was presented in a poor and sarcastic fashion, but it is still valid. Pacman, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, Pong, Centipede. These were all games and yet none of them had an "I win" button. Your accomplishment was your high score and the fun was in the playing. Video games have always been about challenge, even if that challenge is trying to beat your friends high score.

Even in the early console days of the NES, games were harsh and unforgiving. They featured cheat codes for infinite health, or continues etc, but many of them immediately robbed the game of its "fun" as soon as the challenge was removed. Even games with built in cheats like Mario and the warp pipes/whistles still penalized the player by skipping content all together.

I'm there to HEAR the characters, FEEL the combat, and SEE the scenery. I even addressed this in the article: There is pleasure to be had in strolling through a game world, experimenting with it, and generally moving at your own pace.

There may be pleasure to be had in strolling around a game world experimenting, but at some point there has to be an actual game in there, and a game requires some form of obstacle and challenge. Even casual games offer some form of opposition, otherwise you do not have a Video Game, you have a graphical story... and at that point, Books and Movies do a significantly better job of telling that story.

Sometimes I want a lot of challenge, and sometimes I want a little. Or none

And that is what different games are for. Each game is supposed to be its own little package, difficulty and challenge included. If you are not in the mood for facing up to that challenge, then there are other games to be played.

Sometimes I am in the mood to play Street Fighter IV competitively online... sometimes more up for the pace of Puzzle Fighter. But I will play Puzzle Fighter if I want a game of that pace... I wont demand that Street Fighter IV be dumbed down to the level of Puzzle Fighter.

Sometimes I am in the mood for a highly challenging game like S.T.A.L.K.E.R, sometimes I am up for Unreal Tournament... other times Team Fortress 2 is more my speed.

See the through-line here? The familiar theme?

And a book is a terrible alternative. A book is a single rigid experience: You read what was written. A game is a thing of choices and experimentation, even if the choices are "do I use the rocket launcher or the chainsaw on this guy". So yes, I've heard of books and no, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

I weep for the modern era sometimes, I truly do. It's this sort of thinking that has brought about the decline of modern literature. Books are a wonderful alternative, they create rich immerse worlds, and take the reader on a journey that will challenge them to think, to guess and the desire to find out what happens next.

Isn't that one of the huge selling points in story driven games? Finding out what happens next? Silent Hill 2 is an amazingly linear game, with very little interaction on the players part, but its that story and the drive to find out what comes next that keeps the player glued to their seat and terrified, yet the puzzles and other mechanics where there to back it up as a game.

It just seems to me that people are drifting further and further away from what video games are in their demands and desires from them. A desire and need that can be better filled by Books and Plays, rather than trying to smash square peg into round hole because people staunchly refuse to see that a single medium of entertainment is not capable of filling there needs on every level at every time with every game.

In my view, a game needs to be completely awesome before it earns the right to seriously challenge me. I've proven in the past that I can completely destroy a game. But it takes time, and I love my time more than I love the average half-assed Halo knockoff developers puke out on a regular basis. Getting good at a game is my way of loving a game. If the game doesn't delight me, I just want to skim the good parts and move on.

Then you need to be more choosy in what games you play. If you are wasting time with the next Halo knockoff then I have no sympathy for you. You don't go into White Castle and expect a 5 course gourmet meal... if you do, you are going to be disappointed. And add to that, you will still have to chew the same number of times and spend time digesting the meal. Only one is small, cheap and greasy burgers and the other is actual food.

You do not need to play, buy or support every half assed Halo knock off... in fact it would be better for the industry as a whole if you didn't, if you held those developers up to higher standards and if gamers as a whole shouted out in chorus "No... I will not be sold shit in a box for $60. I demand quality entertainment!"

Release now patch later, Madden'esk minor update every year, pay for a brand new game and the saturation of "X" clones, exist because they make money, they make money because people are willing to buy any old drivel or at the very least, some company's have become large enough that they can afford to keep on churning out drivel Steven King fashion until they can lend enough hype and spin on something that people will buy it in droves, convincing themselves that it is not the same regurgitated tripe with a different coat of paint.

Its a shame that we do not have a group of people to play and review games before they make it to the general public. A sort of consumer watch dog that will tell people the good and bad aspects of a game... OH WAIT! We do... only they have been failing miserably lately, far more concerned with advertising revenue and seeing just how far they can get their tongue into Developer X's ass so they can perhaps gain some trust and get a juicy exclusive to get more hits for their site for that tasty advertising revenue.

Don't demand that games become easier so you can blitz through the content to see whats there, instead demand that games become better... so that they are worth your time and effort to take that journey.

 

[Calobi]

Wasn't this supposed to be about fun?

This reminds me of [a href="http://www.willhines.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/peanuts_big.jpg"]this Peanuts' strip[/a] for some reason.

 

[Tears of Blood]

This is an absurd and feeble strawman, but since other people seem to be trying it out I'll humor you.

I'm there to HEAR the characters, FEEL the combat, and SEE the scenery. I even addressed this in the article: There is pleasure to be had in strolling through a game world, experimenting with it, and generally moving at your own pace. Sometimes I want a lot of challenge, and sometimes I want a little. Or none.

And a book is a terrible alternative. A book is a single rigid experience: You read what was written. A game is a thing of choices and experimentation, even if the choices are "do I use the rocket launcher or the chainsaw on this guy". So yes, I've heard of books and no, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

This is EXACTLY what I try to tell people I live around ALL the time. They don't get why I play games and find them way better than movies or books or something.

I try to use an analogy sometimes. Some people like to use their mind to fill in the gaps (As in picture what happens in the book in their mind.) and I tell them that's fine, but I consider the amount of content you are taking is like Play-Doh to me. The more Play-Doh I have, the bigger and more awesome I can make my tower or monster or whatever else I want to make with it. And video games give the most Play-Doh.

 

[pneuma08]

Spoiler

You can have your cheat codes but the whole your grandma can beat this game needs to go. Remember when games used to just be hard like Mega Man 1, Master Blaster or Bionic Commando? You either got better at the game or you didn't progress. Inputting a CHEAT code already implies shame just from its classification, sure you beat the game but you had to cheat to do it.

How exactly would my grandma playing on easy affect your hard mode?
And why exactly is someone not as skilled as you not allowed to see the ending of the game? Did they pay less than you for the game?

Ahh I see you have that sense of entitlement that plagues gamers these days. Just cause you purchased the game doesn't give you the right to be able to cruise through it without skill. Then I conceded it ok to let poor gamers have cheat codes, so they can get through the game knowing they had to cheat to do it, but no that's not enough for you. You don't want that cheating stigma and think playing it on grandma mode proves your skill as a leet gamer.

Since I purchased a chess set, I should be able to make the exact same moves over and over again and the game/player should let me win just due to the fact I paid for it. No, if you want to win at chess you have to learn to play better and plan out your next moves

I think he feels the right to play a game of chess without the Queens if he so feels. This is also a bit of a straw man argument because chess is multiplayer, and you have to deal with rules of fairness and so on. More to the point, if I have the dev copy of a game and fly through the air dropping bombs on everyone, how does that change your experience of the game, especially since you are unaware.

If I make a game that is essentially a movie that pauses every once in a while to challenge the player to "Press the Green Button", I'm basically making a game that says, "If you are colorblind, you can't see the ending". You can extrapolate this to games nowadays if you replace "are colorblind" to "can't react within 1/10 of a second".

@Void(null): There's a few points to be had here. Firstly, if I say, "Lord of the Rings is too wordy, I can't get through it without headaches" you can't just say, "then you shouldn't be reading Lord of the Rings, read The DaVinci Code instead" because I will miss the ideas, themes, and story of Lord of the Rings (and you can replace LotR with any given wordy literature, like Things Fall Apart or Heart of Darkness, and The DaVinci Code with any throwaway dime novel). This also contributes to the decline of modern literature, and this is what you're suggesting when you say to stop playing one game in favor of picking up another. Yes, not everyone is going to enjoy every game, but there's more to games than just the gameplay, just as there's more to novels than just the readability. (Of course this isn't a perfect analogy; you can't just make a novel more readable with the touch of a button, and some details will be lost in transition. Also, there's fewer quality works of art in video gaming than there is in prose, but you get the idea, right?)

Why shouldn't I be able to experience the themes and story of Grand Theft Auto IV because I can't drive a virtual car? Why can't I experience the humor of Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time if I can't coordinate all four characters at the same time at high speed? Why can't I uncover the secrets of Warcraft 3 without having to learn and master all of the strategy required?

Sure, there's the "cliffnotes" summaries and transition to video, but that has problems of its own.

Not to mention lack of variety makes for an extremely poor way of attracting new gamers. I've known people who are interested in, say, Bioshock but don't want to touch a controller because they're "no good at those types of games" (meaning FPSes). Easy mode goes far in reaching to those people, and cheats would help as well.

Cheats also fundamentally change the nature of the game, providing a different gaming experience. What if I would rather play the crazed badass gunman who can't die and mows down everyone in his path, rather than the game of strategic positioning and ammo conservation? What if I just wanted to make the most massive explosion possible, and don't want to be hampered by details like enemy soldiers' gunfire? You say to buy a different game, but all options can be on the table with some relatively minor cheats. (I'm not saying they should, and I'm sure there are invisible ramifications for including said cheats as I alluded to in my previous post, but it would definitively be an additional draw, and can work wonders on redeeming a poor purchase.)

Additionally, from an artistic standpoint, games are just now learning what the medium is capable of. As a minor example, Bioshock's revelation wouldn't have quite the same punch if it wasn't happening to you, the player, and it makes revenge that much sweeter later on. Some of that is lost in the transition to the "Let's Play" videos, but so far it's been negligible.

This sort of leads me into my final point, which is your perceptions of what games are and how they should behave. You obviously have a gamist mindset - that games have obstacles to be overcome, and overcoming the obstacles are the point. But that's not all that modern games are, and all they can be. Take Silent Hill 2, for instance, and strip away the puzzles and the combat, and make it just about exploring the desolate place of Silent Hill, and exploring why the protagonist is there, and why other people are there (or not there as the case may be). It would make a poor novel or movie because it would lack the exploration and discovery by the player, even moreso with branching paths. But what's left that's a game, and is it still a "game", as we use the word today?

"Square peg, round hole" syndrome is kind of necessary for the development of craft. Yes, books, plays, movies, comics, are all a viable form of entertainment, but they all have their strengths and weaknesses as a medium. So do "games". Finding out what they are is going to take some experimentation and failure.

 

[Jabbawocky]

I have a feeling that cheats have disappeared thanks to achivements. Okay I know there are some games since those days that have had cheats (such as Guitar Hero III which would allow cheats but disable the achivements or The Orange Box which just didn't care). but it is almost as if developers now think that becuase there are achivements you shouldn't be able to cheat at all.

 

[Void(null)]

@Void(null): There's a few points to be had here. Firstly, if I say, "Lord of the Rings is too wordy, I can't get through it without headaches" you can't just say, "then you shouldn't be reading Lord of the Rings, read The DaVinci Code instead" because I will miss the ideas, themes, and story of Lord of the Rings (and you can replace LotR with any given wordy literature, like Things Fall Apart or Heart of Darkness, and The DaVinci Code with any throwaway dime novel). This also contributes to the decline of modern literature, and this is what you're suggesting when you say to stop playing one game in favor of picking up another. Yes, not everyone is going to enjoy every game, but there's more to games than just the gameplay, just as there's more to novels than just the readability. (Of course this isn't a perfect analogy; you can't just make a novel more readable with the touch of a button, and some details will be lost in transition. Also, there's fewer quality works of art in video gaming than there is in prose, but you get the idea, right?)

If you tell me the Lord of the Rings is too verbose and dull, I would tell you to read the Game of Thrones series, you will get similar themes and story elements, but in a much easier to digest fashion. Personally I cannot stand Tolkien's writing style, so i do not read his work... I did not enjoy the movies for much the same reason.

This is why I would read George R Martin instead of demanding that someone rewrite a classic, adding in more action and less wordy description.

The DaVinci code and LOTR have nothing in common... they are not even the same genre so its a very poor example. If someone didn't like Tetris would you recommend Bushido Blade 2? No, of course not because they are not even remotely connection.

Now I understand your point, that it is not going to be the exact same story... but if you want to get the full Lord of the Rings experience... then you are going to have to read through the whole series of books... you will either be compelled enough by the story to do so, or you will not, and find something else to fill that niche.

Why shouldn't I be able to experience the themes and story of Grand Theft Auto IV because I can't drive a virtual car? Why can't I experience the humor of Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time if I can't coordinate all four characters at the same time at high speed? Why can't I uncover the secrets of Warcraft 3 without having to learn and master all of the strategy required?

Because a Video Game... is a GAME.

A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong solitaire).

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational or psychological role. According to Chris Crawford, the requirement for player interaction puts activities such as jigsaw puzzles and solitaire "games" into the category of puzzles rather than games.[1] - From Wikipedia & Chris Crawford "on Game Design"

Lets highlight the important part there.

"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational or psychological role."

A game involves: Goals, Rules, CHALLENGE, and Interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both.

In this instance, Challenge is defined as:

1. a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc.
2. something that by its nature or character serves as a call to battle, contest, special effort.
3. difficulty in a job or undertaking that is stimulating to one engaged in it.

Without challenge, it is no longer a Video GAME. So your demands upon a Video game are not being met... because they were never designed or intended to fill that need, because they are games, not exploration or interactive story simulations.

This sort of leads me into my final point, which is your perceptions of what games are and how they should behave. You obviously have a gamist mindset - that games have obstacles to be overcome, and overcoming the obstacles are the point. But that's not all that modern games are, and all they can be. Take Silent Hill 2, for instance, and strip away the puzzles and the combat, and make it just about exploring the desolate place of Silent Hill, and exploring why the protagonist is there, and why other people are there (or not there as the case may be). It would make a poor novel or movie because it would lack the exploration and discovery by the player, even moreso with branching paths. But what's left that's a game, and is it still a "game", as we use the word today?

Gamist? Not a word in the English language that I recognize, sorry. I looked it up on Google and Dictionary.com and neither brought forth any kind of results. I am truly sorry but I really have absolutely no idea what you are getting at with that section. Do you mean Elitist? If so I entirely agree, I am an Elitist and proud of it. If not, Please explain in more detail and I will do my best to respond.

Onto the rest of your "Final point" Silent Hill 2 was inspired by books, specifically the works of H.P Lovecraft for theme and setting, and visually borrowed heavily from works such as Jacobs Ladder and the films of David Lynch.

Silent Hill is if anything, an example of classic film and literary techniques being applied to a Video game. But without the "goals, rules, challenge, and interaction" then Silent Hill would not be a Video Game, it would be an interactive story, much like "The Silent Hill Experience" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill_Experience] which was released on the PSP.

"Square peg, round hole" syndrome is kind of necessary for the development of craft. Yes, books, plays, movies, comics, are all a viable form of entertainment, but they all have their strengths and weaknesses as a medium. So do "games". Finding out what they are is going to take some experimentation and failure.

No, it really is not. Developers are already experimenting with ways in which to evolve the medium, but that evolution does not make a "Video Game" it creates something else, a Graphical Story, an Interactive Novel... not a Video GAME.

Look at "The Path" look at "The Silent Hill Experience" look at the slew of Japanese Text & Picture based style story games (Games, as most of them contain some form of obstacle... even Phoenix Wright has you make your way through the obstacles of the trials.)

There is a market for what is being asked for, where their is demand, there will always be those ready to supply, but Video GAMES need to stay GAMES including offering some form of CHALLENGE and that evolution of exploratory interactive story's need to be supported as something more than a niche market, but demanding that one becomes the other is folly that will only water down and destroy what few good games we do have, that are not just this weeks puked out Halo clone.

 

[SilentScope001]

I'm there to HEAR the characters, FEEL the combat, and SEE the scenery. I even addressed this in the article: There is pleasure to be had in strolling through a game world, experimenting with it, and generally moving at your own pace. Sometimes I want a lot of challenge, and sometimes I want a little. Or none.

So then why not engage in lucid dreaming?

I like books because I don't have to turn the page, and see the message: "WHOOPS, THE HERO DIED, PLEASE GO BACK 50 PAGES BACK TO THE BEGINING OF THE CHAPTER AND READ AGAIN, THIS TIME MORE CAREFULLY!" On second thought, an "Win" button makes books even more preferble, I don't have to press the button in order to get premission to turn the page and read the story. I could just...turn the page.

Why shouldn't I be able to experience the themes and story of Grand Theft Auto IV because I can't drive a virtual car? Why can't I experience the humor of Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time if I can't coordinate all four characters at the same time at high speed? Why can't I uncover the secrets of Warcraft 3 without having to learn and master all of the strategy required?

Sure, there's the "cliffnotes" summaries and transition to video, but that has problems of its own.

Like what? Cliffnotes, transition to videos, even strategy guides, suffice to give you the themes and experiences of the game without you needing to play the actual game. I love them.

 

[Spatzist]

I personally try to avoid cheats, for the reasons mentioned above- once you go cheat-mode, there's no going back. What I like are games that account for their difficulty by (A) allowing you to find a creative way to overcome the obstacle (kill Salvatore before he gets to his mansion? Alright, I'll just park a firetruck in front of his garage beforehand), or (B) having some cleverly disguised RPG element that allows you to overpower your character without making the rest of the game stupid easy (saving up my monies to buy a crapload of rocket launcher ammo). Either way, I want to be able to feel I actually earned my success. Cheat codes just take that sense of accomplishment away from me. Mind you, I cheated quite a bit in my youth, because there were a number of games I just didn't have the skills or motivation to beat properly. I'll admit cheat codes can be a good thing, but only when you're using them by choice- if you're just using them to get past a part of the game you really wish you could beat without cheatcodes, but the developers made stupid-hard, it kind of ruins the fun.

 

[pneuma08]

But if someone were to rewrite LotR in such a way that would make it more readable, if it were as easy as pushing a button? What would be the merits and demerits of having such a thing?

"Gamist" comes from the GNS Theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory] of tabletop roleplaying. I use the term colloquially in a loose fashion, referring to those who enjoy the "game" parts of games, more than the story or experience.

To elaborate, you define games as "goals, rules, challenge, and interaction" which is perfectly apt. But modern video games have more than that - they have story (narrative, themes, characters, and so forth) and they have atmosphere (powerful scenes such as breathtaking vistas or memorable moments). You emphasize the game part over the narrative or the simulation.

Now, what this article and the one by Susan Arendt highlight a desire to skip past the "game" part of a video game and get to the other parts, because sometimes the game part is the worst - and most prevalent - part. It is meant to be a game after all. In contrast, it is (relatively) easy to ignore the story for the game, but the reverse is not true.

In the past, the game part easily took the center stage, but now as technology and the medium matures, the other parts are gaining prevalence. Some experimental "games" almost even eschew the game part altogether (as I'm sure you're aware). I do agree that it shouldn't be called "games". But this "interactive fiction" medium is founded upon and derived largely from games and gaming technology, and indeed nearly all of them are indeed full-fledged games. Still, there has yet to be a full, distinct term that developed do describe "interactive fiction". Until then, alas, the colloquial term is "games", even as it grows less relevant.

Spoiler

I'm there to HEAR the characters, FEEL the combat, and SEE the scenery. I even addressed this in the article: There is pleasure to be had in strolling through a game world, experimenting with it, and generally moving at your own pace. Sometimes I want a lot of challenge, and sometimes I want a little. Or none.

So then why not engage in lucid dreaming?

I like books because I don't have to turn the page, and see the message: "WHOOPS, THE HERO DIED, PLEASE GO BACK 50 PAGES BACK TO THE BEGINING OF THE CHAPTER AND READ AGAIN, THIS TIME MORE CAREFULLY!" On second thought, an "Win" button makes books even more preferble, I don't have to press the button in order to get premission to turn the page and read the story. I could just...turn the page.

Why shouldn't I be able to experience the themes and story of Grand Theft Auto IV because I can't drive a virtual car? Why can't I experience the humor of Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time if I can't coordinate all four characters at the same time at high speed? Why can't I uncover the secrets of Warcraft 3 without having to learn and master all of the strategy required?

Sure, there's the "cliffnotes" summaries and transition to video, but that has problems of its own.

Like what? Cliffnotes, transition to videos, even strategy guides, suffice to give you the themes and experiences of the game without you needing to play the actual game. I love them.

In most cases the "cliffnotes version" differs very little (depending on how it's distilled, you can miss some environmental elements - a text detailing how to fight a boss doesn't convey how menacing it is). However, there are sometimes when it's just not as potent when you separate the interaction from the viewer (not the best term...user?).

For instance, The Path is an experimental (not-really-a-)game that basically centers around a group of girls and a horror that awaits them. However, you're the one guiding them, and as such you can choose to avoid the fate that awaits them. Do this enough times and you get the message, "YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WILL DO". Quite chilling, and much lessened in impact when shown in a video, because it's not really addressing you. I find this exciting because I'm not convinced the effect could be pulled off in other media, as it's addressing the user directly as a result of his actions.

 

[Void(null)]

GNS Theory, see I learned something new today, thank you.

I agree that the Path was an amazing piece of story telling, and it is certainly a foot forward for interactive media, but by the same Token the Path was great because it was different, and I still do not see the need for every game to be The Path.

I would rather see Developers exploring that new field as its own genre, rather than trying to force square peg, round hole types devices into regular games for people who cant be bothered playing the actual game part of a Video Game.

 

[Macar]

I'm kind of supprized how many people are against this idea. I think it makes perfect sense. If you dont like it you dont have to mess with it (ie- I would never, ever use cheats, but I can see their value for others so go ahead, put them in. I wont be using them).

This is one of many eloquent pleas I've heard and read reguarding this same topic and I wonder what keeps the developers so stuck in thier ways about this. Is it some ego trip, they dont what players to experience the game in a different way than they intended (ie, a specific difficulty. Developers, listen: There's a whole world of new gamers and game-tourists out there who want adjustable difficulty. Do it.

 

[Fearzone]

I agreed with this article, once, maybe up to around 6 months ago. Until I started playing Fat Princess and Super Stardust HD.

You see, I'm a long-time PC gamer, I'm an old dog, and these dual shock controllers are new tricks. Me and dual shocks just have never seen eye-to-eye. Plus, my reflexes aren't what they were a couple decades ago. That the triangle is in the front and the X in the back I can handle on a good day, but the square and the circle... how am I supposed to remember which is where?!? The only console I owned before the PS3 was an Atari 2600 that my parents bought me for Christmas. But I really want console gaming to work so I can sit back on the couch away from my desk and just relax after a busy day. And there are some fine console games indeed.

So, up to 6 months ago, I fully agreed there should be an easy mode, that is truly easy, so dualshock-tards like me can still experience and maybe enjoy the content.

The turning point came with Fat Princess and especially Super Stardust HD where I saw how precise and intuitive the dual shock control could be, if game designers put in the effort to come up with a decent control scheme. With those two games I've come to realize that the poor controls inherent to many games, even well reviewed ones, are not the fault of the PS3 or the dual shock but rather sloppy game design. Give me a targeting reticle on any shooter with the smoothness and precision of Super Stardust and I'll be a happy camper in hard mode.

So now I feel, if I don't want to be challenged by a game, maybe I shouldn't buy it. And if I'm bored by the 3rd 10-minute let's play segment on YouTube, it probably was never the right game for me.

But that's me. Cheats and easy mode are time-tested standards and even if I were never to use them I would still be reassured that they are there. It's like a safety net, just in case.