Drago-Morph said:
Seriously, I just don't get it. Why are people ragging on modern games for not actively hating the player? I mean, I understand Spunk-Gargle-Wee-Wee-Games that are pretty much you on a tour of set pieces with no way to loose are too easy to the point of not being fun. I get that.
No, I'm talking about other games that people seem to criticize for being too "easy". What specifically made me agitated enough to try and get a discussion going so I could understand this phenomenon was a point made in a video I saw abut Skyrim having been made too easy. Specifically, it was heckled because quest-vital characters couldn't die and there was no way to truly fail the (hundreds of hours long) game. I mean . . . really? I just don't get it. It's preposterous.
I don't know, maybe this opinion isn't as widespread as it seems. Maybe it's just a really vocal minority that keeps shouting for the game disc to snap in half and rape your mother if you accidentally step on a tap. If that's the case, then feel free to discuss why this has become such a visible issue as of late and your own thoughts on the subject. However, if there's really a significant chunk of people out there who want to bring back the "good ol' days", I'd really like to hear why. It just doesn't make sense to me.
EDIT: Whoops, meant to post this in Gaming Discussion. My bad. Mods, feel free to move it to your heart's content.
I'm reluctant to respond because whenever I give people the answers, which they do not like, they tend to freak out and try and turn it into a flame war.
That said the bottom line is one between real gamers, and casuals. To a real gamer part of the point of playing a game and progressing is knowing that your doing something not everyone can do, for whatever reason, and will have probably defeated numerous players before you. If progress is accessible to anyone playing the game simply by playing it, it defeats the purpose. To a real gamer the idea of things like easy modes for many games is an anathema because it makes challenge optional, and allows anyone who decides to play see the content which is supposed to act as the reward for defeating the obstacles.
Whether you look down on real gamers or not for having no life, the bottom line is that to a real gamer someone not being able to devote 20 houra a day to gaming as a lifestyle is not an excuse, or a reason to ruin things for those who can and do make gaming an integral part of how they live. Someone who "has a life" and games as "something else they do" is by definition a casual, as they are approaching gaming as a casual interest as opposed to a major priority.
For the most part the issue is one created by the industry. When you have games for real gamers, alongside those for casuals, there is no real problem as long as most sides get their games. The problem is that real gamers ARE a minority nowadays (if a fairly large one, which is why they are so loudly heard), and given that casuals outnumber real gamers, the industry generally wants to cater to casuals to garner larger sales. This includes taking hardcore games like say "Dark Souls" and adding an "easy mode" making the challenge optional in order to increase their sales. Real gamers are profitable, but a successful "serious" game simply raises the question as to how much more money it could make by "casualizing" it.
The basic arguement is that not all games should have an "easy mode" and there is a dedicated audience that wants games where hardcore challenge is simply how the game is, rather than something that is optional. Outsiders might not get it, but the hardcore audience DOES get it, and at the end of the day that's all that matters.
As elitist as I might be on a lot of levels, I truthfully have no real problem with casual gamers as a whole, and even enjoy a number of games developed for that level HOWEVER I also want there to be decidedly non-casual games and challenges out there, and they are becoming fewer and further between. If the industry caters to both sides there is no issue, but as the industry is going entirely one way due to sheer greed, you see these conflicts intensifying. As casual gamers DO outnumber serious gamers, and the business aspects, including internet critics, realize this, there is rapidly becoming less and less interest in defending serious games, and serious gamers, despite the large numbers, because at the end of the day they are simply outnumbered and more money/more hits can be generated by being casual friendly.
There is also the issue of what is good for gaming as a whole. The problem with casual games and gamers is that they tend to sink to the lowest human denominator and kind of settle there. A lot can be done with gaming as a medium, but things aren't going to move forward as they should when things get stuck in that morass for business reasons. Right now we see a sort of "follow the leader" type thing where a serious game, for serious gamers, will do something cool, then people will casualize it and make even more money. With less games being developed to push the envelope for those who can handle it, it slows the growth of the industry, and at this rate soon there will be no more hardcore games, and then no more... or very little... progression and evolution within the industry.