Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Jun 2013 20:18 UTC
Games "In recent years, an odd consensus has arisen where many believe that games are easier than they used to be. In many cases it's true, and it isn't surprising, as extreme competition between titles has created the need for games to be immediately entertaining as soon as you press the start button. As a consequence, many older - and potentially newer - players consider these games of yesteryear much more difficult. The immense challenge Wii U owners have experienced with virtual console games is evidence of that. Are these newer adventures really easier? Or has the design philosophy for video games improved instead?" Interesting take. I will tell you this, though - take a game like Dragon Age (the only one that matters, so the first one). It's immediately accessible to newcomers at the easy and normal setting, but try stepping it up to nightmare mode, and you're suddenly back in old-fashioned hardcore territory where you'll need to apply every little bit there is to know about the game to be able to finish it (tip for DA fanatics: finish the game without a single character going down in combat, on nightmare. I did it. It's hell). My point is: sometimes, you have to up the difficulty or create your own challenges to find the rewarding difficulty of gaming yore.
Thread beginning with comment 565972
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
More A Change in Goals
by krinchan on Mon 1st Jul 2013 00:17 UTC
krinchan
Member since:
2012-06-08

Having played Doom II for some nostalgia in the middle of playing through Metro: Last Light (free with my Graphics card), I don't find it a difference in difficulty, but a difference in goals.

Doom and much more so Doom II contained expansive, non-linear maps that were filled with traps and secrets. The fun came from learning how to handle enemies, strafing like a pro, and some really clever AI synergies with various enemies in the same room. Clearing out a room by turning the Imps on the Revenants and then finishing off a few Revenants with a quarter health is something to be proud about.

Metro: Last Light plays more like a "choose your own adventure" book, really. You get some story, then drop out of the story and play a "scenario." Imagine one or two of the more complicated rooms in Doom II with some extensions to the engine for stealth and sneaking.

You are rewarded for success by getting more story. It's fairly obvious that the design goals are very different. iD wanted to make a game. Deep Silver wanted to tell a story.

I really don't keep up with FPS anymore. I only play Metro: Last Light because it was free. Which is sad, because I really was a hardcore Doom and Quake guy. I got into Halo 1 with a friend on the Legendary Co-Op, but after everything went competitive multiplayer, I quit the genre.

Edited 2013-07-01 00:17 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: More A Change in Goals
by Alfman on Mon 1st Jul 2013 04:42 in reply to "More A Change in Goals"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I agree there was probably a change in development goals. The "problem" is that it's difficult to be original any longer. Technology may improve marginally, but pushing it further doesn't increase entertainment value IMHO. To me, incorporating captivating story lines is a good way to differentiate modern games and keep things fresh.

AI is the one area I've been particularly disappointed with in games. Enemies are often trivial state machines - mechanic and predictable. I've always thought they could be much better. However I haven't seen many games in the past decade so if anyone has examples of good modern AI I'd like to see it in action. Of course if the enemies were more intelligent and realistic, the odds individual characters winning "fairly" against numerous formidable AI opponents would approach zero and probably ruin the script.

Edited 2013-07-01 04:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3