Topic: Why is it that classic games are more challenging than modern games?

Consumers are far smarter about how they spend their money now than ever before. The world's economy is still shaky, and people are looking to maximise the entertainment they get out of the money they spend. Therefore they're buying games that the whole family can enjoy, rather than more niche titles. Therefore they're buying consoles like the Wii, which appeals to a broader demographic, than the more "hardcore consoles."

That's one of the reasons the casual market has taken off - because a home console is a better value-for-money form of entertainment than almost anything else. It's economics, not individual IQ. But then you're not capable of thinking about the bigger picture, I imagine.

And yet another casebook example of the moronic argument that "casual play = inferior" - clearly you are too "dumb" to appreciate the simple aesthetic beauty of a well-constructed "casual" game.

Alternatively, unless you're the kind of person that will only attend Operas, Shakespeare plays, and arthouse cinema, you're a hypocrite for getting all elitist over videogames.

Enjoying a simple casual game is not any more "dumb" than enjoying a simple action film.

Video game companies have always been smart. That's why they've survived. Business leaves no room for a company of any description to be stupid. The ones that weren't smart are gone (3DO, Midway)

Video gamers and video game companies are smart.

Let's not generalise too far in the other direction, here

Riiiiight, Waltz.
But still, I feel that video game companies are smart.

Aww, don't remind me, I miss the Battletanx and Rush series.

I liked 3DO's Heroes of Might and Magic games on the GBC And Mortal Kombat. I think I must be the only person alive that enjoyed that series (especially the 3D ones) over the other fighting games.

But Midway was a shockingly inept business. I can't believe it survived THAT long.

That would also be a good answer to why kids hate RPG's...

That and most RPGs cover issues that kids simply can't understand. Romance, sacrifice, hatred/ revenge, themes of good and evil... no kid will understand the complexities involved in those, ergo, no child will find them entertaining.

The few RPGs that are explicitly tailored to appeal to children (Pokemon), are wildly popular with them.

Casual and hardcore is not the issue here. MOST modern games are just easier, that's it. You'll still breeze through an epic FPS faster than say, the first Mega Man game. You still have some games that try your reflexes in the modern age like Ninja Gaiden. I can't think of to many others off the top of my head though, unless you count modern games with retro vibes like Super Meat Boy, Bit.Trip, and 'Splosion Man.

No doubt. But the idea that the reason games are becoming easier because the audience is getting dumber is a really stupid and small-minded argument.

Not to mention a nostalgic ego-stroke (see, Starboy, told you )

And the suggestion that older games are better, which is in buckets in this thread, is incorrect.

Older games/newer games being better is a debate for another topic. I will agree though that today's generation of games are easier than I'm used to.

Back to an argument that was made a few posts ago...
I don't really think the gaming industry has become a group of souless money-grabbers. They've merely realized that there is money to be made in the casual market as well. Thus, they've merely broadened their horizons, in order to fit a wider audience. It's not heartless greed. It's good business tactics. The companies aren't meant to tailor to a small group of peoples' specific desires. They must do their best to appeal to everyone, and I think they're doing a pretty good job accomplishing that so far...

Oh, and for the record...I'm not some old coot ranting about the past, as my last post has portrayed me to be... I'm just an impulsive teenager who doesn't think his arguments through very well...

"New games are for dumb audiences" - a sentiment running through a few of the posts in this thread - is implicitly suggesting that games for "smart people" (old games, apparently) are better.

don't really think the gaming industry has become a group of souless money-grabbers. They've merely realized that there is money to be made in the casual market as well. Thus, they've merely broadened their horizons, in order to fit a wider audience. It's not heartless greed. It's good business tactics. The companies aren't meant to tailor to a small group of peoples' specific desires. They must do their best to appeal to everyone, and I think they're doing a pretty good job accomplishing that so far...

hm, close, but I think it's more that the games companies have always wanted to access a broader demographic of players, it's just taken until now for consoles that appeal to the "non-gamer" to appear for those companies to (finally) take advantage of.

@walzelf
You make some interesting points. It doesn't really explain why games geared toward the more "gamer" side of things, aren't always that challenging though.

i think its just because like the can opener made opening a can easier, the recent increase in digital technology (and storage) has made games easier to make and play.
games had to be hard to get some attention and extra length, now they just need to look pretty and be fun (or just be prettier).

Because not all gamers want a challenge. In fact, these days the "hardcore" gamers tend to want, as Waltzelf mentioned, an "experience". A lot of people would prefer a game that's more like art, rather than a game that kicks their butt.

I think it's more along the lines of this: Games are entertaining people in several different ways now, not just with difficult gameplay. Now, with more advanced systems, developers can create scenarios that can envoke emotions with an engaging story. They can also produce epic and impressive sequences that are a treat to the senses, not just because they look pretty, but because they are engaging to play as well. With older systems, such feats were not really possible. Sure, engaging tails could be spun from older games, but some may find it difficult to connect with lifeless pixels and walls of text (at least that's MY opinion ). Thus, gaming has evolved, and now it's becoming a more accepted form of media. Developers no longer need to focus on difficult gameplay in order to create a memorable experience for the public.

Amongst other things, the definition of gamer has changed. Being a gamer no longer involved having a fascination with arcade-style games.

For instance, look at RPGs - Final Fantasy 1 and the early Wizardry games were insanely difficult, involving all kinds of grinding and save/ loading. RPGs now are about story - the kind of thing that early games in the genre weren't capable of, but gamers wanted.

Early RPG gamers were still keen on having as close to a Dungeons and Dragons/ Tolkien like experience as possible, it's just that then, it wasn't possible, so they made do with what was available. Now, that is much more possible - the number of gamers that would by a balls-hard, no-story and nameless-characters Final Fantasy 1 clone over a Final Fantasy XIII now would be tiny.

@WaltzElf
The Dragon Quest owners over in Japan say hello!

Everyone has their own personal preference when it comes to games.
Although, I do like the games of today as well.