i remember back in the day when all that we had was a standard A, B, Select, Start and a 4 direction keypad (some may remember the NES ) i could remember how easily i had got from the start of the first Zelda game, through the first dungeon, and collecting the first triforce piece without being hit.

then we go up the timescale, SNES, PS1, N64, PC, PS2, Gamecube, XBOX, and we all thought that these games gave us a chalenge. so did i until i downloaded that very same zelda game that i had played many years ago and i must say... it was harder than any game that i could imagine. no telling where you had to go to, cant go near where you think is the end and get the ultimate pwnage weapon to easily complete the game like some people do...

some may call me a noob that i cant play the older games as well as i used to, but in those days, i/we had to rely on instinct (Star wars on the NES, from the conveyor belt, up the wall, not too high to hit the spikes, just right to land on the platform, over you die, under you die...)

then we come upto now day games...

"right, that box said that i have to go....... here, and do this, that and, done that. la de da, oh, i completed it..."

or, "bang bang bang bang bang bang, reload, band bang bang. got to save this person, bang bang bang, all dead, missi... oh game complete..." about 3 christmasses ago, got an xbox, halo 1 and fable. completed them BOTH within 2 weeks after christmas.

now, tell me, is games getting far too easy or are they harder than the older games???


(those that wanted to download the old zelda, go to www.zeldaclassic.com)

Look at it this way, when companies make a game, which makes more sense; a game that takes a short time to complete, and get bored with, or a game that takes months to complete, and has tons of replay value? From the company standpoint it's the first one since the player gets the most immediate satisfaction from it, and then has to buy another game to keep with something entertaining. The shorter game is also easier to produce and test since they don't have to code all that extra content. This means that they have a cheaper product that hits the market sooner, gets bought, then leaves the customer wanting something more right away.

Although really, older games aren't much better, they just added more filler (level raising, spending hours collecting stuff) to make the game seem longer. Even abnormally long games like those in the Final Fantasy series go by rather quickly once you get rid of all the leveling stuff. Xenogears (not Xenosaga) however is a long game no matter what, it's also hard to get a hold of for exactly that reason.

There were older crap games and there are newer ones. I think you have to remember that there are many kinds of player with different likes/desires. Those of us who grew up with older games are also more tolerant of what is now considered inferior graphics. All the same I am inclined to agree that Oblivion has dumbed down to the point of making it totally unreplayable. (This is a personal opinion, I know others disagree.) So where the future? Reputation will only sustain a company for so long. It will depend on the market. If enough kids are happy with Oblivion look-alikes, marketing will mean that's what we get. But a new company will find something better some day. In the mean time look at the work the modding community is doing! Try Povuholo's mod on Elemental lighthouses. You won't find that too easy.

Depends what game you're talking about.

I didnt grew up in that age so I dont really know. Ive only played a couple of old games myself and didnt found them extremely difficult. It had alot less user suport though, very little clues as to what to do and where to go. Perhaps thats what makes older games more difficult. Perhaps it is because gaming companies just started, and they didnt knew what was easy or difficult, so they just made something realizable. As time passed, new functions, engines, ideas came out and it shaped gaming, making it more easy to understand, to play.

So you where good back then because you knew no other solution, or should I say, alternative. All of the games where like that, it didnt seem hard at the time. But for the present you, having played other new games, switched your brain understanding of gaming, adapting to new styles. So when you decide to play something older and completly different...

Thats what I can think of however, I didnt played lots of old games.



I agree to that as well, Malchik.

Back in the days of Windows 3.x, pretty much the only games I played were:
A) Arcady games
B) Falcon 3 and (I think, might have been on 95) Need For Speed 1

Not the sort of thing I'd dignify with the term 'Gaming'.

Incidentally, I happen to have a copy of Windows 3.0 sitting around...

Since then, I've tried out a few of the classics, and while they do seem more focused on gameplay, I do think a rudimentary HUD would probably have helped.

(One of the 'classics' I refer to is Zork. Recently, I was reading the Penkovskiy Papers, and noticed that Ch. 2 was titled "The Dark World of the GRU"")

As Tiberiu says, it all depends on the game. There are some developers that still try to create games with depth, which don't take your hand and walk you through everything. Problem is, they tend to get stamped on by the PR of the larger mainstream titles. Gothic 3, for instance, has had next to no press coverage at all outside of Germany from what I can see. Not even the UK PC Gamer has mentioned it. And yet, it has far more depth and fun to it than Oblivion ever did I'm finding. And it's certainly more challenging, without the ridiculous levelling issues of vanilla OB, and there are no magic icons telling you where every quest can be completed, and every place of interest found.

I think there's still hope for games with depth and more "old school" features, you just have to look to the smaller/indie developers for them. The mainstream titles will always go with what marketing tells them.

The only reason the old games seemed hard is because you were less experienced when you played them. When I played Yoshi's Island for SNES when I got it, I beat it (evenutally), but the scores where not perfect. Now over the couple of weekends, I beat Yoshi's Isand, perfect scores, only a few things gave me trouble, but not like when I was playing it in 5th grade.

It has more to do with skill improving then it does with game design. As for the situation with the games you downloaded, well, it takes time to get used to the controls, keyboard, things like that.

but that was just the one game tho, sure there was easy games like the dventures of mighty max (about 5-6 when i played it, completed that in 2 weeks) but then there was games like super probotector, which is more commonly known as contra. loads of enemies, but one hit on you and you die... sure, it was linear, but the bosses proved to be something completly different. also the final fantasy games, anyone who has tried to defete ruby and emerald weapon on 7 knows what im talking about. they were one of the hardest bosses that i have ever encountered. i know that final fantasy is not that old, but is kind of in between old and new if i had to put it somewhere. some parts were easy others was hard.

metroid was hard too, on the SNES when you had to defeat ridley and you diddnt know that you was going to be fighting him. draygon was hard too (only if you diddnt know the easy way of killing him ) see, games like that were difficult because you had to look at things constantly, not just yoursel and where the enemies were coming from.

games of skill are probably the best ones to prove my point tho, i mean, look at games like:
star wars (NES) (the spike/leap of faith jumps, millenium falcon and xwing parts at the end of the game are the main ones, also the fact that you can miss out parts of it if you diddnt want to bother with it)
super mario bros (NES) (having to go wither over or under bowser to drop the bridge at the end of some levels. he can jmp higher than what you can normally + brick ceiling doesnt help)
captain planet (which i still yet to complete (NES)) (DAMN ****ING PENGUIN!!!!)
goof troop (SNES) (refering to the part where you had to push the blocks a certain way to open doors and stuff, not the whole came tho)

just playing those, you can see that games have gotten easier in comparison to games like:
fable (xbox) swing sword, swing sword, bit of magic here, swing sword)
final fantasy crystal chronicals (GC) (basically the smame thing over and over)
halo 1 & 2 (talking about the XBOX version, not sure about the PC version) (well, just keep shooting)
tony hawks american skateland (DS) (same things over and over, took me about 1 week of playing it to complete it (inbetween college and studdying)

and as much as i dont want to say it, i feel as though oblivion is easy as well, just following the quest markers and you compleye the main quest. BUT, i must say there are things that you can do to make the game harder like turning off the instant traveling, but even so, its just attacking and stuff...

I admit, there does seem to be a good deal of dumbing down going on with most games. Most people just want a game they can play without having to read through a manual to get even the basic controls worked out. You can blame people for being lazy I guess. This is also probably why windows keeps getting more "user-friendly", and also why there are people who still prefer DOS commands. If you make something complicated, you're not going to have as many people willing to go through the trouble of learning how to use it. Have to remember, most of the games out there are geared toward 12-15 year olds (despite ESRB) or younger. As such, not much reading (or thought) needed to play them.

You mean if a game has an interface that's difficult to learn, but is easy to use once one learns how, the spelling and grammar of its users will automatically improve?

No, dunno where you got that idea. All I was saying that if the game is complicated to the point where people would have to spend a few hours reading through a manual, and familiarizing themselves with how things work, fewer people will play said game. Since a literate individual would likely go through the process quicker and easier than an illiterate individual, there are bound to be more literate people playing that game.

The game companies realize this, so tend to dumb things down so that you don't need all that complication, and can just start playing right out of the box. From a marketing standpoint, it makes the most sense. From a gamer standpoint, it means that if you want any real depth, you're going to have to do some searching for some of the few rare games being made.

Also, since the games only offer brief challenges, it means that it gets boring faster, which means that you need to buy another one sooner.

I have to agree with that (sorry for interrupting). I'd like to go a bit deeper in the corporate aspect of developping and promoting "best sellers" game. A game wich is more or less linear, F.E.A.R. comes to mind, as almost no impact in the support department, since out of the box, you can finish the game withouth beign stuck and raise any questions in less than 12 hours at normal setup. No need for the developper to maintain help desk on "gameplay" related issues = more profits and since cheatcodes are implemented right away in the product, it offers anyone whith any motivation the possibility of beating/winning/cheating/finishing the game. How it's done is not important, but for the consummer to see the ending sequence, is for marketting. If somebody beated a game he/she appreciated, he/she will be more encline to buy a similar game, or the upcomming expansions. Hooking the customers who are not asking anything nor complaining, that's the best case scenario fot the corporations.

More over, any title product is a potential milk cow, since most probably, several expansions to the game should be release if the game is a hitter; deepening the plot, but still keeping the same linearity. This sounds like a series of horror movies, and you're right, the same marketting mechanics applies to it.

The era where we needed to share infos on how to complete Zelda II on NES is over. As long as the industry will make profits in sleek looking, playable out-of-the-box, easy to beat, easy to cheat and no question asked game, the fewer difficult/complicated game will be released.

I think that the serious gamer will stay away from most of the mainstream titles and stick to more versatile or vast games. Like some multiplayer shooters (BF42, BF2 etc.) where no game is the same if you play online. Or RPGs like Oblivion who is great for is open architechture allowing the player to install/use several plugings to increase the difficulty, realism, leveling, expand the world and get rid of the magic quest guiding arrows. Or some very deep stuff like silent hunter III, where nobody hold your hand while you charlenge the ennemy at sea and try to get your hide back to the base once your mission is failed or successfull.

There are a bunch of gamers outhere not falling for candy games from the mainstream, and there are serious developpers who will pursue on bringing good games for this silent mass of avid players who'd rather spend 14 hours/day playing on their dream machine than anything else.

I agree, to a point.

Many old games are harder because... wait for it... wait for it... they required skill!

Can you play tetris? It's fun! and you need skill. So was Diamonds, a really old game. That was quick thinking and pattern-recognition. Columns, Plague (but none of you ever played that last one, it was a disease-sim with little dot-bacteria and was insanely fun to play) Contraption Zach, Lemmings...

These were games with real problem-solving and thinking and some actual intelligence involved. Today you require very little thought to play games and quite a lot to mod or make them.

What I don't think Bethesda understands, is that they're not actually selling a game; they're selling the Construction Set. that's it, that's the appeal. Why else would morrowind still be popular? It's got comparatively bad graphics and a horrible rendering system. But the extra content and the well-done gameplay guarantee is relative immortality.

Raiden, Montezuma's Revenge, Bluemax, Tapper, and many others were interesting because they were puzzle-games. Zork, too was great for that reason.

Yes, games have been getting easier. A general rule of thumb is that the better the graphics, the easier the game. If the pixels rival M&M's for size, you're good.

Aaaaand Oblivion has NO replay value. I haven't even bothered to do very much at all, it was so lacking in content. C'mon modders, fix Bethesda's mistakes!

I think we should be careful to compare like with like. Games may be puzzle based/hack and slash-shoot out/role play etc. Although there may be a few puzzles in any type of game they are really different genres. I play puzzle games and rpg (not plain hack and slash). I have not found any new puzzle based games recently (please advise me if they exist) so I assume they are less popular than they were. It means I cannot make any comparisons.

The term RPG is also rather vague. It should mean you have a high degree of flexibility in choosing your character and in the role played in the game world. But ideally this choice should have consequences. Most RPGs I have seen in recent years do not have this - perhaps it is too hard to script? IMO if you had joined the DB in Oblivion you should have been refused entry to at least the Fighters Guild and vice versa. Be that as it may let us assume for the debate that an RPG is a game in which your character choice is important. The rpg can then be more or less biased towards any one of the genre mentioned above. Many try to combine an element of puzzles and hack and slash.

To decide on whether or not one game is easier than another it is necessary to establish that the balance is INTENDED to be the same. I am not sure that MW and Oblivion are intended to have the same balance. Oblivion is far more concerned with levelled monsters etc.

Morrowind in itself was an easy game. Certain factors make Oblivion seem easier, the intrusive map markers being the most obvious, but I am not sure it really is. What makes it get boring more quickly than MW is the fact that it is so much smaller and less varied in terms of content. And it is much shorter. These combine to make it feel easier.

I am currently playing the rpg 'Gothic 3'. Under no circumstances can it be called easy. Indeed in some respects I feel it is too hard to make it replayable. It is long (no bad thing in my book) and has a complex and large world of a fair amount of interest. However it veers very much towards the hack and slash style of gaming. There are no puzzles as such but a great many hunts for needles in haystacks. When combined with an absence of detailed maps and no automapping facility to see where you have or have not been it does tend to lead to frustration.

Oblivion had crappy, though better, maps but you didn't need them because everywhere you needed to go was given a marker to which you could later fast travel. In G3 teleportation is possible between the 24 towns only (and then only if you can find the relevant stones). As a main quest item can turn up in an unmarked cave miles from anywhere it starts to make things feel impossible. It is incredibly difficult to be sure you have been everywhere.

G3 is not easier than older games though the difficulty does not have anything to do with the puzzle content.

I'm not drawing any conclusions from this because my experience of rpgs is by no means comprehensive. I would say however that some of the comparisons referred to in earlier posts do not seem to be comparing like with like.

you guys want a recent game thats hard? play final fantasy 10 (number 9 was the best to me)
its bloody hard!! what about the metal gear solid games?they were hard,the splinter cell games,
now c'mon you can NOT say they were easy.

lets think about old games,
the pac man games, easier then most
space invaders, (except for the very last space ship) pretty easy.
the zelda games, actually they werent easy they were trick but bloody fun
(the console ones not gameboy ones)

think about it new games arent all that easy, i mean some are and some have those parts that take you 5 hours to do and make you so mad you wanto snap the disk (you know what i mean)

but you know what the worst is? whan you play a great game like say age of empires 1 when it came out
and yuo love it then years later at modern day you play it and realise its complete crap! the graphics suck and you cant do many exciting things (i know this is sorta of topic but comon thats annoying)

It's also important to note that games have different audiences now.

Back then, I don't know which demographic played video games the most - but today it's certainly mostly aimed at younger audiences, and mainly teenagers. Have you ever met a teenager that could do rocket science?

Not only that, but a lot of gamers these days do not conform to stereotypes. It's not just "Nerds" and "Geeks" that play them, it's people from all backgrounds. So games have to appeal to people who perhaps aren't that intelligent - but instead want to just have some mindless fun in a game and be happy.

I agree with you Vaanic, not all game players are geeks. Take my cousin for example. Except for his size...or lack there of , he is pretty much your typical sports playing jock, but he enjoys playing video games...of course sports related.