Poll: Difficulty in games is changing.

[DesertMummy]

I think the strongest evidence of games getting easier is F:NV's Hardcore mode. They wrote like a paragraph explaining how it is super hard. Not that hard. I played the whole game through with on;y a few minor snags. And I'm not even that good at games.

 

[JMeganSnow]

I see the difference in difficulty more like this:

Old games: Be prepared to do *every single thing* multiple times. Even if you are nigh-perfect, a second of bad luck could break you. Fortunately, it takes about 10 seconds to load the game. You are saving every 5 feet, right?

New games: Once you've figured out what you're doing, you can go long periods (and even screw up) and still recover. You can be pretty much assured of not losing too much progress even if you do screw up. However, if you don't pay attention you can get yourself into a situation where the only way out is through and you're really short on resources so it suddenly turns back into an Old Game. The game may or may not warn you when this is about to happen. However, everything looks and sounds much, much prettier . . . except when they're using the Brownish Green Palette for some reason.

It doesn't bother me. I had more patience for do-it-again-stupid when I was younger. Now, I tend to get annoyed when I fall off the jump three times in a row.

 

[7777777777444]

I think the strongest evidence of games getting easier is F:NV's Hardcore mode. They wrote like a paragraph explaining how it is super hard. Not that hard. I played the whole game through with on;y a few minor snags. And I'm not even that good at games.

Looks like they need to double up on the difficulty, if "Hardcore" equivalates to "Victory Garrentied."

 

[JMeganSnow]

I think the strongest evidence of games getting easier is F:NV's Hardcore mode. They wrote like a paragraph explaining how it is super hard. Not that hard. I played the whole game through with on;y a few minor snags. And I'm not even that good at games.

I wasn't under the impression that hardcore was supposed to be "hard". It was supposed to give a different TYPE of experience. If you play the game with a reasonable amount of caution, it's not going to be difficult either way. It's going to require you to pay attention to different things.

 

[JMeganSnow]

I think the strongest evidence of games getting easier is F:NV's Hardcore mode. They wrote like a paragraph explaining how it is super hard. Not that hard. I played the whole game through with on;y a few minor snags. And I'm not even that good at games.

Looks like they need to double up on the difficulty, if "Hardcore" equivalates to "Victory Garrentied."

Ooh, I have an idea on how to make it harder--play on an old system that chugs horribly whenever there are more than 2 enemies around, and that randomly shuts down. Now you have a constant risk of inescapable failure! Much "harder".

That was the primary "difficulty" in older games that I've played--you had to be lucky to win. You had to hope that the sleep spell got several kobolds at once. You had to hope that your one fireball took out the majority of the orcs. You had to hope that your fighters got repeatedly missed. You had to hope that the boss didn't crit at the wrong time.

In newer games, you have to learn what works and what doesn't. You have to get the timing down. You have to pay attention. You have to remember to stock up. But once you learn how to do those things, you shouldn't have to depend on luck.

I much prefer skill to sudden "whoops, you fail!" for no reason.

 

[7777777777444]

Ooh, I have an idea on how to make it harder--play on an old system that chugs horribly whenever there are more than 2 enemies around, and that randomly shuts down. Now you have a constant risk of inescapable failure! Much "harder".

That was the primary "difficulty" in older games that I've played--you had to be lucky to win. You had to hope that the sleep spell got several kobolds at once. You had to hope that your one fireball took out the majority of the orcs. You had to hope that your fighters got repeatedly missed. You had to hope that the boss didn't crit at the wrong time.

In newer games, you have to learn what works and what doesn't. You have to get the timing down. You have to pay attention. You have to remember to stock up. But once you learn how to do those things, you shouldn't have to depend on luck.

I much prefer skill to sudden "whoops, you fail!" for no reason.[/quote]
Looks like they need to double up on the difficulty, if "Hardcore" equivalates to "Victory Garrentied."[/quote]

I see your point here... i do remember though that, while incredibly difficult in spots, me and my friends could beat a majority or "Difficult" games from that era.

 

[Xixikal]

Ever tried Demon Souls? ... now THAT is hard.

 

[Trolldor]

Difficulty is changing because the reward scheme is different. You aren't being rewarded for gruelling platforming, you're being rewarded for exploration. Sense of accomplishment is given through defeating the story.
N has no story, so the player is rewarded with satisfaction for surpassing difficulty.
Also, a much wider audience from a much wider age range and from many different backgrounds.

 

[Reallink]

I think this makes a lot of sense when it is put in context. Early console games were competing against arcade games, and as such emulated that very difficult and short, quick game play.

However, console games have followed their own evolutionary process. With consoles, long term (note, this refers to one play-through) is more important, hence the emergence of extended stories to fuel this. The game became more difficult to proceed per segment, but wouldn't have worked if it required you to sit through the entire extended story again, hence unlimited lives and checkpoints.

I personally favour stories, and so prefer the modern concept of difficulty. However for those looking for a challenge, I do recommend taking on a FPS with one life. If you die at any point in the story, start from scratch. Good Luck!

 

[bjj hero]

Having said that games are far easier now to lower the bar for entry. More gamers means more money. Old games killed you far more often than new games ever do.

But the new kids kill me far more than the old ones do

I'd guess you play a lot more people now than you did in the 80's and 90's. You were limited by how many people you could fit in a bed room or by who was at the arcade. I don't think its a case of the players being better.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Old games come from a tradition of arcades. Arcades were designed to be hard and thus get credits. The fun you got was from betting that neigh impossible thing. In new games the fun comes not from being one of the few who can do it but from experiencing the game, which is about more then just balls to the walls hardness. Also, old games suffered from more limited interfaces and design while newer games are more expansive, have more options, are less broken, and have more avenues for fun.

 

[T-Bone24]

It's because arcade games wanted your money, so they were made really difficult, hence you play more and more before finishing hence more money. Older games were built with this philosophy still in mind. They were also rather short as games are really quite expensive to make and a few decided to mask their shortness with difficulty. Eventually we started to move away. You want hard games? You're not looking in the right place. There are still plenty of difficult games.

 

[4RM3D]

Nowadays most AAA games piss easy, even on the most difficult setting (if available). Why? Because companies don't wanna lose players when the game is too difficult. This also has to do with the fact that more casual gamers are playing. Also, because game mechanics have changed over the years, so has the difficulty.

I have only played a few AAA games that offered me a challenge over the past few years, e.g. Resonance of Fate and Mirror's Edge (both on hard mode).

Now, I do want to mention two things here. One, I was talking about AAA games (big budget releases), I know that there are indie games out there that are insanely difficult (Touhou Lunatic comes to mind).

Two, some game are not difficult but are still mentally challenging, like Portal 2 co-op (still waiting for a hardcore/nightmare/elite mode

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Having said that games are far easier now to lower the bar for entry. More gamers means more money. Old games killed you far more often than new games ever do.

But the new kids kill me far more than the old ones do

I'd guess you play a lot more people now than you did in the 80's and 90's. You were limited by how many people you could fit in a bed room or by who was at the arcade. I don't think its a case of the players being better.

I think it's a case of me being old and slow

Some of those COD players online are just insane though. Kinda people I can imagine blasting through Batlletoads or Mario 1 with those fast reaction times.

Sigh... I still never finished those two.

 

[mbug]

dude, you ever played Golden Eye 64? game is ridiculously hard >_<"

 

[GrimHeaper]

Having said that games are far easier now to lower the bar for entry. More gamers means more money. Old games killed you far more often than new games ever do.

But the new kids kill me far more than the old ones do

I'd guess you play a lot more people now than you did in the 80's and 90's. You were limited by how many people you could fit in a bed room or by who was at the arcade. I don't think its a case of the players being better.

I think it's a case of me being old and slow

Some of those COD players online are just insane though. Kinda people I can imagine blasting through Batlletoads or Mario 1 with those fast reaction times.

Sigh... I still never finished those two.

My reaction is shot at the age of 18...

 

[TheOneandOnly]

Speaking as someone who recently started the second Kugelstadt mission in Return to Castle Wolfenstein with 6 points of health and no armour, I prefer the "older" version of gaming difficulty. The fact that I'd done so poorly on the previous part of the mission actually had an effect. Obviously searching for health packs wouldn't work in Hardcore multiplayer in COD4, for example; regenerating health is fine when you can gun someone down from full health to dead in under half a second.

 

[GrimHeaper]

Speaking as someone who recently started the second Kugelstadt mission in Return to Castle Wolfenstein with 6 points of health and no armour, I prefer the "older" version of gaming difficulty. The fact that I'd done so poorly on the previous part of the mission actually had an effect. Obviously searching for health packs wouldn't work in Hardcore multiplayer in COD4, for example; regenerating health is fine when you can gun someone down from full health to dead in under half a second.

Unlike the new FPS shooting games in which anyone can eat about 100 bullets and be fine.
Normal humans I mean really :/

 

[Danceofmasks]

"Everybody wins, just try your hardest!"
That kind of thinking is by definition casual.
If you play that way in Tennis, or Bowling, or , then you're not serious about the game.

Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't be playing that way, 'cos hanging out with your buddies is fun, but ...

If there are no losers, there are no winners.

"I finished Demon's Souls" is impressive, because swarms of players can't get to the end.
"I finished Mass Effect 2 on insanity" is not, because it's so ridiculously easy anyone short of a total n00b can get through it.

So I'm (in case it isn't obvious) siding with limited lives.