77 réponses à ce sujet

[newcomplex]

Soruyao wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

That wasn't really his point.    His point was that games should be more like chess, the tradional definition of games, one that encourages user skill, and refinement of said skill rather then focusing on creating a experience that is designed to act as a "pleasure button".    The vanity was more for humorous effect.   

That was one of his points.  He implied that every type of game that moves away from that somehow doesn't deserve to exist, which is what I take odd's with.   He seems to dislike the genre's of games that are most popular, but only supports it with the fact that he thinks everyone who likes those things are just unskilled morons.

I mean, if he meant this entirely as comedy then fine, but if he was trying to insert any other points in there that he wanted to seem legitimate, he failed completely to back any of them up with any sort of logic.

His logic was essentially that almost all other games serve as only a happy button, a feedback loop with a loosely turned learning curve thats sole purpose was to make you feel better, and had little literary merit compared to the works of actual...writers, and little pornagraphic value, compared to actual...pornagraphy.

He comes off very elitist, intentionally, because it is intended as comedy.    Even so, one can construct a logical argument from his points (not nessicarily one I agree with, but I can see where hes coming from).

In literary and movie critisicsm, stuff that fails to illicit emotional reciprocation from the audience is considered decadent.    Or ****.    Depending on what critic you listen to.      They tend to look down upon this very poorly.     His argument is that games, or at least the current state of the game industry, fails at make actual literature within their games, or actual art, only fragments or pieces.    He argues no emotion is reciprocated, nothing.    Its ****, in his mind.     Games can't, or haven't reached the point where they can be regarded as tasteful media.    So he argues looking at games as games, like chess, or monopoly, or yahtzee.     Puzzles, competitive or not, designed to challenge your thinking, or your reflexes.    These forms of entertainment are judged by the depth of their gameplay.     And while ME might be lacking depth, Starcraft or Counter strike certainly do not lack strategums.

Of course, I would disagree, one, because I like my happy button.   It makes me happy .    Second, because video games can illicit a response, then when properly designed, can be unique and seperate from literature or visual art.      Exploration is a feeling that require the absolute gods of writing to pull off in a novel.    It is something a interning level designer can pull off in a year, assuming he isn't stupid or inept.      The aliens of ME2 felt more resonant, more personalized, more complex, then any alien I've read in sci-fi, most whom represent tropes, or real world racial archetypes.    Certainly, on the surface, this is certainly true of ME aliens.    Certainly, their personalities are so archetypical that if presented in film, critics would vomit.    But through your interactions with them, interactions unique to the video game genre, each alien feels like a invidiual, instead of the stereotypical personalities of aliens that reveal no depth, acting more akin to plot devices, and reminescent of Saids Orientalism, the devalueing of the individual to represent an entire culture.   Thane is able to be a father, an assassin, and a drell, while in conventional sci, he would be molded to portray only one.    

And honestly, I don't see whats wrong with a happy button either.

happyhapphyfunfunf song.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 06:44 .

[Nautica773]

newcomplex wrote...
His logic was essentially that almost all other games serve as only a happy button, a feedback loop with a loosely turned learning curve thats sole purpose was to make you feel better, and had little literary merit compared to the works of actual...writers, and little pornagraphic value, compared to actual...pornagraphy.

I don't think he really had much logic. Even games focused strictly on gameplay are for entertainment value. Unreal Tournament may place a great focus on balanced death matches, but at the end of the day, you've learned nothing even if you're the top ranking player in the world. You just had the most fun.

Likewise, literature and all other art is just a different form of entertainment. They may carry other messages, explore interesting themes and focus on complex character development, but if it isn't entertaining in some form it's still bad art.

Ultimately, this is a bad Yahtzee impersonation with little humour and an illogical and hypocritical message.

2/10

[newcomplex]

Nautica773 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
His logic was essentially that almost all other games serve as only a happy button, a feedback loop with a loosely turned learning curve thats sole purpose was to make you feel better, and had little literary merit compared to the works of actual...writers, and little pornagraphic value, compared to actual...pornagraphy.

I don't think he really had much logic. Even games focused strictly on gameplay are for entertainment value. Unreal Tournament may place a great focus on balanced death matches, but at the end of the day, you've learned nothing even if you're the top ranking player in the world. You just had the most fun.

Likewise, literature and all other art is just a different form of entertainment. They may carry other messages, explore interesting themes and focus on complex character development, but if it isn't entertaining in some form it's still bad art.

Ultimately, this is a bad Yahtzee impersonation with little humour and an illogical and hypocritical message.

2/10

I elaborated a bit more.   He isn't saying ut2k4 is good literature.    He is saying that ut2k4 doesn't even attempt to be judged by literary standards, having no plot what so ever, while a game like uncharted 2 does.    Well, uncharted 2 is a ****ty C class movie, while ut2k4 has mechanics and skill depth as complex as chess or any other classical, physical "game".

Note I don't entirely agree with him.   But Uncharted 2 is a **** game.    

Here are some examples of why I disagree with him.

When I played ME1, after first recruiting Garrus, Tali, and Wrex, I knew them as Turian, Quarian, and Krogan.    By the end of the game, I knew Garrus as a headstrong, idealistic cop who is plagued by doubt and confliction.    I didn't know Tali because Bioware gave her a single dialgue (what can i say lol).    I knew wrex as a visionary, someone who has managed to combine secular viewpoints with the admantant customs and tendencies of his people, and possessed a desire to see them move forward.   When I met thane, I knew him as an Assassin and a Drell.    When the game closed, I knew him as father, and a honorable individual.   This parralells the Normandy crews on experience on racial bias.    

This is something I would associate with the most well written science fictions ever.    Despite the fact that any literary analyst could clearly read the script, see the bones beneath the skin, and dismiss it as pop drivel, the game illicits a response that many books have failed to create.    

So Mass Effect is a terrible science fiction book, but its an amazing science fiction game, and it does so by manipulating the advantages of being a game.     Which is a positive step forward for game design in general.    

Similarily, Fallout 3 has a terrible plot, and this isn't just speaking in the shoes of an elitist critic, this is coming from the playerbase itself.     Yet the game manages to capture the desperation of surviving in a post nuclear holocaust through mechanics as simple, and as easy as limiting ammo.    The sense of exploration the world confers, the sense of dread, this is something usually reserved for the best books.     Yet fallout 3 captures it, despite the fact that its actual writing is cringe inducing.    This is done by shaping the players interaction with the game to relect a theme or ideal, something far more potent in a game then merely giving them shoddy dialogue with a NPC, someone whos only purpose in the plot is to give player said dialogue.

Similar ideals are in games like Mirrors Edge.    Similarily terrible plot, but the sheer sense of freedom that Faith coveys with her leaps of faith, the juxtoposition between the static of society with the freedom of Faiths movements, the sense of desperation inferred as cops close in on you, its somethihng that the developers accomplish, without the help of any written script, or programmed script    Through sheer interaction with the world.    For Faith, running is her way of escaping society, but no matter how agile she becomes, she can never escape the entrapments of society.

I think game developers should emulate this more, in different ways.    The players interaction with the game world, whether through open ended dialogue, freedom of exploration, or freedom of movement, or even purposefully restricting them as the equivilent of a plot device (not a design constraint), is the niche video games have to excel as literature.     Something completely different from movies, or books, or theatre, and something thoughtful in its own right.   

Games become "decadent" when the feedback loop is closed, not open ended.    The game demands nothing of you, and gives nothing back.    By demanding, I don't mean "hard", so much as interaction.    The player needs to interact with the game in an intrinsically meaningfull way, and the game needs to reciprocate this action back unto the player.    "roller coaster rides" (which I imagine, is somewhat of a catchphrase among the dev community now lol), demand no meaningful interaction, and as a result, reciprocate nothing back.    

Games don't need open ended plots to do this.   (though open ended dialogue and plot is certainly a way, a way bioware seems fond of)  Things as subtle as seeing faiths arms flail as you make a poor jump are equally potent.    Seeing a flower flutter amongst the wind as a response to the tembles of your joystick, radically altering the scenery below.     Its the little things that do it.     

Ok, now Im just kind of ranting OT here.

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 07:19 .

[Subject 01]

Devoraj wrote...

Cute.

There's always Super Mario.  This issue is hardly a concern.  The devs in Bioware are smart enough to know the difference between advice and complaints.     

Modifié par Subject 01, 17 février 2010 - 07:07 .

[kelsjet]

Alright Gamers, lets discuss...

To be fair, there is little to discuss.

The essence of the movie is 100% true. Games have been 'dumbified' due to, simply, the need for the average consumer of video games (who call themselves 'gamers') to feel good about themselves through instant, easily attainable gratification, as well as, the propensity of the ideology that everyone can be whatever they wish to be, irrespective of inherent talent.

Games as a medium for self improvement through the conquest of difficult abstract or physical challenges is a lost art form.

But so is almost every other form of media. We, as a people, will never again get another Kafka, Herbert, Clark, Asimov or Heinlein. We will never again get non-formulaic music or movies. Art, as a form born from skill and practice has all been replaced by interpretive post modernism, where a glass half full of water is considered worthy of a Turner prize.

Games are just next on the list.

The loss of these forms are just another unfortunate side effect of the commercialization effect, whose destructive impact on the parts of the human psyche that control actual creative expression as well as our ability to distill abstract ideas or to act as a forcing function for mankind to strive to better themselves through internal processes, was documented eons ago in Plato's classic, the Republic (in the section that discusses the 'philosopher kings').

Not that fantastic works of art, music, movies, literature or games do not exist at all, just that even if they do, the are immediately drowned in the sea of sh!t that we live in today.

*shrugs*
C'est la vie.

[newcomplex]

kelsjet wrote...

Alright Gamers, lets discuss...

To be fair, there is little to discuss.

The essence of the movie is 100% true. Games have been 'dumbified' due to, simply, the need for the average consumer of video games (who call themselves 'gamers') to feel good about themselves through instant, easily attainable gratification, as well as, the propensity of the ideology that everyone can be whatever they wish to be, irrespective of inherent talent.

Games as a medium for self improvement through the conquest of difficult abstract or physical challenges is a lost art form.

But so is almost every other form of media. We, as a people, will never again get another Kafka, Herbert, Clark, Asimov or Heinlein. We will never again get non-formulaic music or movies. Art, as a form born from skill and practice has all been replaced by interpretive post modernism, where a glass half full of water is considered worthy of a Turner prize.

Games are just next on the list.

The loss of these forms are just another unfortunate side effect of the commercialization effect, whose destructive impact on the parts of the human psyche that control actual creative expression as well as our ability to distill abstract ideas or to act as a forcing function for mankind to strive to better themselves through internal processes, was documented eons ago in Plato's classic, the Republic (in the section that discusses the 'philosopher kings').

Not that fantastic works of art, music, movies, literature or games do not exist at all, just that even if they do, the are immediately drowned in the sea of sh!t that we live in today.

*shrugs*
C'est la vie.

Arts is dead huh?

I disagree, were pioneering the new fronteer right here, right now

Also, quoting plato is kind of ironic in this context, because plato hates Artistic expression.    He would censor it all if he had the power, ban music, movies, poems, fiction, whatever.    lol.     He even writes a whole essay about the how retarded art and theatre are IN the republic.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 07:17 .

[Jazharah]

It would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic.

[kelsjet]

newcomplex wrote...
Arts is dead huh?

I disagree, were pioneering the new fronteer right here, right now

To clarify, when I said "art" in my previous post, I was referring to the actual form, and not the term for the superset of human creative expression (under which, all things, including movies, games, literature, music etc are considered 'art').

Human creative expression will never die, it will just transfer into a new form. However, like all the forms that came before it, the new form will quickly be consumed in 'the commercialization effect' as described before, at which point it will just transfer to another form. Just how all 'art' (the term) has done so in the past, from paintings (art - the form), to literature, to movies, to games, to beyond.

The only sad part is that the time that a new art form remains untainted (from its inception to the time it is commercialized) is shortening at a rapid pace as society moves forward. Which leads many to argue that since new forms are not given much breathing room to develop before they are devoured, it will only lead to a rather shallow experience of that form.

But yea, human creative expression cannot be suppressed, no matter how much money you throw at the problem.

Modifié par kelsjet, 17 février 2010 - 07:20 .

[kelsjet]

newcomplex wrote...
Also, quoting plato is kind of ironic in this context, because plato hates Artistic expression.    He would censor it all if he had the power, ban music, movies, poems, fiction, whatever.    lol.     He even writes a whole essay about the how retarded art and theatre are IN the republic.   

To address your edit.

As any student of philosophy will tell you, you never consider a particular philosopher 'wholly right' or 'totally wrong' given the truth value of a singular one of their ideas. To do so is actually known as a rational fallacy (inductive fallacy to be precise). In short, you cannot say that since philosopher X had questionable views on topic A, hence all his views on topics B-Z are automatically questionable as well.

The portion of The Republic that I was referring to actually had absolutely nothing to do with Plato's aesthetic (which is actually covered in much deeper detail in "The Apology"), and actually had to do with the other coin of this discussion, that being, the possible effect of ignoring inherent imbalances in society (as demonstrated in his discussion of 'the philosopher kings' in The Republic).

So, in short, your edit is a double fault. One, it is a 'straw man' fallacy, since I was not discussing The Republic in relation to Plato's views on art, and two, it is a minor form of an ad hominem fallacy, as you are attempting to negate Plato's ideas on tiered society by ridiculing him for his views on art (rather than attempting to tackle his views on society).


Edit: Just to hammer home the point I make in my first paragraph of this post.

Kant's work on the Critique of Law is still argued as being questionable even to this date. However, his Critique of Pure reason as well as his Transcendental Aesthetic are considered as two of the greatest ideas known to the western world and were part of the core fundamentals of the intellectual movement of the 18th century, which, as we all know, was the movement that eventually gave birth to the Scientific method, and freed mankind from the grasps of religion and mysticism.

Modifié par kelsjet, 17 février 2010 - 07:38 .

[Sphaerus]

I like that the guy who is citing the basic laws of rhetoric is on the side of the video that just shat all over the most basic rules of said system of logical discourse.



(Kelsjet, by the by.)

[Kwonnern]

Would've been better if he had his own style, instead of adopting Yahtzee's.

[kelsjet]

Sphaerus wrote...

I like that the guy who is citing the basic laws of rhetoric is on the side of the video that just shat all over the most basic rules of said system of logical discourse.

(Kelsjet, by the by.)

From my very first post in this thread:

Kelsjet wrote...
The essence of the movie is 100% true.

Emphasis mine.

Nowhere did I side with the method by which the movie delivered the point. In fact, I did not comment on that at all.

I sided with the basic essence (i.e. the core of what he was trying to say). To see my reasons, read the rest of my posts in this thread

[newcomplex]

kelsjet wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Also, quoting plato is kind of ironic in this context, because plato hates Artistic expression.    He would censor it all if he had the power, ban music, movies, poems, fiction, whatever.    lol.     He even writes a whole essay about the how retarded art and theatre are IN the republic.   

To address your edit.

As any student of philosophy will tell you, you never consider a particular philosopher 'wholly right' or 'totally wrong' given the truth value of a singular one of their ideas. To do so is actually known as a rational fallacy (inductive fallacy to be precise). In short, you cannot say that since philosopher X had questionable views on topic A, hence all his views on topics B-Z are automatically questionable as well.

The portion of The Republic that I was referring to actually had absolutely nothing to do with Plato's aesthetic (which is actually covered in much deeper detail in "The Apology"), and actually had to do with the other coin of this discussion, that being, the possible effect of ignoring inherent imbalances in society (as demonstrated in his discussion of 'the philosopher kings' in The Republic).

So, in short, your edit is a double fault. One, it is a 'straw man' fallacy, since I was not discussing The Republic in relation to Plato's views on art, and two, it is a minor form of an ad hominem fallacy, as you are attempting to negate Plato's ideas on tiered society by ridiculing him for his views on art (rather than attempting to tackle his views on society).


Edit: Just to hammer home the point I make in my first paragraph of this post.

Kant's work on the Critique of Law is still argued as being questionable even to this date. However, his Critique of Pure reason as well as his Transcendental Aesthetic are considered as two of the greatest ideas known to the western world and were part of the core fundamentals of the intellectual movement of the 18th century, which, as we all know, was the movement that eventually gave birth to the Scientific method, and freed mankind from the grasps of religion and mysticism.

I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was just noting the irony.    Which is suppose to be humorous, not a logical argument.    Which is why I use stuff like "lol", slang.   I just found it amusing.     Meant nothing.    I also agreed with you for the most part.   The entire nature of that post was more or less verbatim.     

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 07:47 .

[kelsjet]

newcomplex wrote...
I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was just noting the irony.    Which is suppose to be humorous, not a logical argument.    Which is why I use stuff like "lol", slang.   I just found it amusing.     Meant nothing.   

Fair enough

[Soruyao]

The argument that games have been "Dumbified" so that casual gamers can play and not feel bad about themselves strikes me as totally stupid.



What happened is that the technology to create separate difficulty levels was invented. We start on a default mode that is tailored for your average light gamer. Making the game kick them in the face and T-bag them is a good way to alienate them and make a lot less money. We then have the option of turning that difficulty down, or turning it way up and giving ourselves the kind of challenging gameplay that people seem to want.



He seems to be miffed that "noobs" get the chance to even finish a game. If he cared about a challenge he'd just crank his games up to the highest difficulty, but that's not what he seems to want.

[newcomplex]

Soruyao wrote...

The argument that games have been "Dumbified" so that casual gamers can play and not feel bad about themselves strikes me as totally stupid.

What happened is that the technology to create separate difficulty levels was invented. We start on a default mode that is tailored for your average light gamer. Making the game kick them in the face and T-bag them is a good way to alienate them and make a lot less money. We then have the option of turning that difficulty down, or turning it way up and giving ourselves the kind of challenging gameplay that people seem to want.

He seems to be miffed that "noobs" get the chance to even finish a game. If he cared about a challenge he'd just crank his games up to the highest difficulty, but that's not what he seems to want.

That isn't what hes saying.    Hes saying that games are no longer centered around challenge and overcoming challenge, but solely around the happy button concept, essentially, creating fake challenge so you can overcome it to feel happy, and a bad plot to make you feel even happier.     Even on the highest difficulty, this modern concept is used extensively.    

In other words, skill is no longer the central focus of the game.    This is prettty much seen in every single triple A game.    Even in demon souls, which was apparently hailed for being "really hard".     (Though I could be terribly wrong, I basing it on reviews).

Skill has been replaced with progression.     Even if your not getting any better, you still advance because of the trial and error structure of modern game design and instant saving (games that don't feature instant saving get terrible reviews).

I'm terrible at shooters.    I know, from beating ut2k4 campaign a long time ago, that I got genuinely better from killing Godlike Xan bot at 1v1 deathmatch.    That made me sad.  Going through a modern on rails shooter, I come out of it no more proficient then I was going into them.

I used to know a lot of vaguely bitter nerds like him.    lol.     Really, and this is coming from someone who was a total nerd for the SC comp scene a long time ago, people like him need to appreciate the game part more and bragging part im better then you part less.    Of course, that being said, I do think that theirs still a legit place in gamerland for legit competitive games.    

Honestly its not that wierd if you start thinking in the context that these people view their games the way the average stereotypical American views football.     With intense, furious, anger.    

If anything, I can empathize, if not nessicarily agree witht them.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 10:02 .

[Aidunno]

So Donkey Kong had no story.. simply was a challenge because of the extensive gameplay ? One of the reasons it was so popular was the idea of "rescue the maiden", a story element. Why else would you jump over all those barrels..



Fun is what any entertainment should be based around. Yes we get formulaic games, movies even books (emotional vampires being common at the mo), but that just highlights the change when somebody does something different.



Video can be summed up as ... don't like story in games.. think true gamers exist and are the only ones games should be made for..

[Massadonious1]

[Soruyao]

newcomplex wrote...
That isn't what hes saying.    Hes saying that games are no longer centered around challenge and overcoming challenge, but solely around the happy button concept, essentially, creating fake challenge so you can overcome it to feel happy, and a bad plot to make you feel even happier.     Even on the highest difficulty, this modern concept is used extensively.

In other words, skill is no longer the central focus of the game.    This is prettty much seen in every single triple A game.    Even in demon souls, which was apparently hailed for being "really hard".     (Though I could be terribly wrong, I basing it on reviews).

Skill has been replaced with progression.     Even if your not getting any better, you still advance because of the trial and error structure of modern game design and instant saving (games that don't feature instant saving get terrible reviews).

So wait, let me get this straight: To be a good game, there has to be no plot whatsoever, incredible difficulty, no progression, and sparse (or nonexistant) save points?    So basically, it has to be contra and ghouls and ghosts?   And we're suprised that games like that get bad reviews?

It's like those really artsy movie critics who deride any film that isn't a nonlinear and abstract.   The games this person wants to play exist, but they are a niche market because some people actually do enjoy plot and character development sprinkled into their games.   Man, from this description, the entire genre of RPGs shouldn't exist at all.  It's just "happy button" gameplay sluiced out to feed the noob masses.

I used to know a lot of vaguely bitter nerds like him.    lol.     Really, and this is coming from someone who was a total nerd for the SC comp scene a long time ago, people like him need to appreciate the game part more and bragging part im better then you part less.    Of course, that being said, I do think that theirs still a legit place in gamerland for legit competitive games.    

Honestly its not that wierd if you start thinking in the context that these people view their games the way the average stereotypical American views football.     With intense, furious, anger.    

If anything, I can empathize, if not nessicarily agree witht them.   

Sure, games like that should exist, but people who like niché games should understand that those games are niché games.   Game companies make what most people like, and most people like games that have more substance to them than just grueling difficulty.   Honestly, this whole "happy button" idea seems really strange to me.  It's almost like there's something wrong with people wanting to play games that make them feel good.  Am I supposed to want to play a game that makes me feel miserable?

This makes me think of the phrase "You want to have your cake and eat it too."  As Yahtzee once oh so wisely said:  "I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to eat a cake that I have."

[Rapamaha1]

this was somekind of crappy version of Zero Punctuation ? that guy really tries to be fun but still he fails at it...

[krylo]

Soruyao wrote...

The argument that games have been "Dumbified" so that casual gamers can play and not feel bad about themselves strikes me as totally stupid.

It honestly is.

Speaking as someone who still owns an NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. etc. and plugs them in for some old school gaming now and then; old games weren't as hard as you people remember them.  You just remember them as hard because you were uncoordinated little nerd kids with little kid reflexes and no VG 'skill' to speak of when you played them.

Go find an emulator/gamepad or an old NES and load yourself up some Contra, or Mario Brothers 1/3.  Oh man, you remember how hard those games were when you were a kid?

Yeah, if you've half the skill you claim you can breeze through those old games half asleep.  I wouldn't even call myself 'hardcore' (I may never play ME2 on insanity just because I don't give enough of a ****), and I can breeze through Contra on the NES and end the game with more lives than I started it. I'd like to see you do the same for say, DMC 3, Ninja Gaiden, or Demon's Souls.

Not only do difficult games exist, but the difficult games of today are, ostensibly, far MORE difficult than those games that we remember fondly as being so difficult to our stubby little child fingers.

Except for Gradius.

**** Gradius.

Modifié par krylo, 17 février 2010 - 11:01 .

[Rapamaha1]

krylo wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

The argument that games have been "Dumbified" so that casual gamers can play and not feel bad about themselves strikes me as totally stupid.

It honestly is.

Speaking as someone who still owns an NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. etc. and plugs them in for some old school gaming now and then; old games weren't as hard as you people remember them.  You just remember them as hard because you were uncoordinated little nerd kids with little kid reflexes and no VG 'skill' to speak of when you played them.

Go find an emulator/gamepad or an old NES and load yourself up some Contra, or Mario Brothers 1/3.  Oh man, you remember how hard those games were when you were a kid?

Yeah, if you've half the skill you claim you can breeze through those old games half asleep.  I wouldn't even call myself 'hardcore' (I may never play ME2 on insanity just because I don't give enough of a ****), and I can breeze through Contra on the NES and end the game with more lives than I started it. I'd like to see you do the same for say, DMC 3, Ninja Gaiden, or Demon's Souls.

Not only do difficult games exist, but the difficult games of today are, ostensibly, far MORE difficult than those games that we remember fondly as being so difficult to our stubby little child fingers.

Except for Gradius.

**** Gradius.

well arent you an elitist ******, ser

[newcomplex]

krylo wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

The argument that games have been "Dumbified" so that casual gamers can play and not feel bad about themselves strikes me as totally stupid.

It honestly is.

Speaking as someone who still owns an NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. etc. and plugs them in for some old school gaming now and then; old games weren't as hard as you people remember them.  You just remember them as hard because you were uncoordinated little nerd kids with little kid reflexes and no VG 'skill' to speak of when you played them.

Go find an emulator/gamepad or an old NES and load yourself up some Contra, or Mario Brothers 1/3.  Oh man, you remember how hard those games were when you were a kid?

Yeah, if you've half the skill you claim you can breeze through those old games half asleep.  I wouldn't even call myself 'hardcore' (I may never play ME2 on insanity just because I don't give enough of a ****), and I can breeze through Contra on the NES and end the game with more lives than I started it. I'd like to see you do the same for say, DMC 3, Ninja Gaiden, or Demon's Souls.

Not only do difficult games exist, but the difficult games of today are, ostensibly, far MORE difficult than those games that we remember fondly as being so difficult to our stubby little child fingers.

Except for Gradius.

**** Gradius.

Heh.    Thats exactly the point. Those games aren't hard in the hardcore sense, rather their hard in that each are designed to value skill over pretty anything else in their development.    He argues that that is what games should be desgined to value skill first and foremost.    

Difficulty games today exist on a very different level.    How often do you seem the design flaw of "This was too hard, so I gave up"  Appearing in todays games?   Like...almost never.    It was a extremely common flaw yen years ago.    

Rapamaha1 wrote...

krylo wrote...

Soruyao
wrote...

The argument that games have been "Dumbified" so that
casual gamers can play and not feel bad about themselves strikes me as
totally stupid.

It honestly is.

Speaking as someone who
still owns an NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. etc. and plugs them in for some
old school gaming now and then; old games weren't as hard as you people
remember them.  You just remember them as hard because you were
uncoordinated little nerd kids with little kid reflexes and no VG
'skill' to speak of when you played them.

Go find an
emulator/gamepad or an old NES and load yourself up some Contra, or
Mario Brothers 1/3.  Oh man, you remember how hard those games were when
you were a kid?

Yeah, if you've half the skill you claim you can
breeze through those old games half asleep.  I wouldn't even call
myself 'hardcore' (I may never play ME2 on insanity just because I don't
give enough of a ****), and I can breeze through Contra on the NES and
end the game with more lives than I started it. I'd like to see you do
the same for say, DMC 3, Ninja Gaiden, or Demon's Souls.

Not only
do difficult games exist, but the difficult games of today are,
ostensibly, far MORE difficult than those games that we remember fondly
as being so difficult to our stubby little child fingers.

Except
for Gradius.

**** Gradius.

well arent you an
elitist ******, ser

wow you need to learn to read
before posting.

Modifié par newcomplex, 17 février 2010 - 11:11 .

[Soruyao]

newcomplex wrote...

Heh.    Thats exactly the point. Those games aren't hard in the hardcore sense, rather their hard in that each are designed to value skill over pretty anything else in their development.    He argues that that is what games should be desgined to value skill first and foremost.    

For that to happen, a game would have to have no plot.   It would also have to have almost no save points to eliminate the "trial and error gameplay" that people like this complain about from games where you can save more often.   Never mind the fact that dying and starting the game from scratch is trial and error gameplay.

If anything, old games rewarded patience more than they required skill, since most of them requried you to play them over and over and memorize where every enemy was so that you could get through without dying.

Difficulty games today exist on a very different level.    How often do you seem the design flaw of "This was too hard, so I gave up"  Appearing in todays games?   Like...almost never.    It was a extremely common flaw yen years ago.   

That flaw existed because we had to start over from the beginning of a game.  That's a mechanic that nobody likes because you get extremely bored with the first level/half of the game, since you always have to play through it to get to the part that actually kills you.    It gets to a point where it's just not worth getting to the part you find actually challenging, and you give up.

With modern games the formula is: One extremely difficult section, and once you've gotten through it you are rewarded with a new extremely difficult section and you don't have to run through that part at all again.

This is more fun because you can be challenged without putting up with the tedium of mechanically blasting through the same level over and over again because the technology was too archaic to remember where you were when you died.