Forums

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

Posts 41 to 54 of 54

V8_Ninja

@WaltzElf I kinda wanna somehow agree with you but also try to slightly defend my point, but my battle is completely lost. You are essentially right in almost every way. And I'm not actually the age of real wisdom yet, so it's best if you ignore a small majority of ramblings from time to time. But hey, this is the internet, so we can all move on to the next topic to complain about and forget about the previous one, right?

Thanks given to Xkhaoz for that one avatar.
Please contact me before using my custom avatar!
A (Former) Reviewer for Digitally Downloaded.net
My Backloggery: http://backloggery.com/v8_ninja

retrobuttons

Because gaming has become more mainstream and user friendly. Back in the day learning how to play a game was part of the fun and the replay value, you didn't just go through a game you really tried to master every part of every level.

retrobuttons

nintendoduffin

I think the main reason (as one or two people have already commented) is that old games had very severe size limitations so they were made insanely difficult to compensate for the briefness of the game.

nintendoduffin

retrobuttons

WaltzElf wrote:

It's all about consumers getting dumber and companies getting smarter.

You were wrong from this statement, and it just got worse from there.

I agree, you probbably think it's cool to say something like this without really thinking about it. Games becoming more accessible is a logical evolution and it's a process that has always been going on. The snes games where already more accessible than the nes games. It's only logical that if you make something creative you want to reach a huge audiance and want many people to enjoy your product. There is nothing wrong with making money with a product you have invested a lot of time, effort and recourses in. Today there are still a lot of games that are only playable if you already have experience with and a feeling for games. Even though I have fond memories of how games used to be, this evolution is logical and much needed to push the medium, a game being less difficult doesn't say much about the quality of the game, some of the best games are being made right now.

Edited on by retrobuttons

retrobuttons

Firkraag

I'd probably not still be a gamer today if they were as difficult as back in the day. Most games are better designed today in that regard. Nobody wants to replay sections over and over again anymore because it's simply not fun, I can at the most stomach 2-3 times if they're few and far between.

No, the old design of 3 continues and that's it is a thing of the past. Let it die already.

There he goes, Firkraag. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. - My VGscore

moomoo

There was less content. In order for it to last longer, it had to be harder. Games like Megaman would be over in a half hour on the first try if it wasn't for the difficulty.

Best thread ever
Feel free to add me on Miiverse or PSN.
Miiverse is Moomoo14, PSN is Moomoo1405390

3DS Friend Code: 4940-5561-6002 | Nintendo Network ID: Moomoo14

Bankai

retrobuttons wrote:

WaltzElf wrote:

It's all about consumers getting dumber and companies getting smarter.

You were wrong from this statement, and it just got worse from there.

I agree, you probbably think it's cool to say something like this without really thinking about it. Games becoming more accessible is a logical evolution and it's a process that has always been going on. The snes games where already more accessible than the nes games. It's only logical that if you make something creative you want to reach a huge audiance and want many people to enjoy your product. There is nothing wrong with making money with a product you have invested a lot of time, effort and recourses in. Today there are still a lot of games that are only playable if you already have experience with and a feeling for games. Even though I have fond memories of how games used to be, this evolution is logical and much needed to push the medium, a game being less difficult doesn't say much about the quality of the game, some of the best games are being made right now.

I agree. In addition to everything retro's said - consider the cost of making games now, too. 40, 50 million is not an uncommon budget for a game. If a developer and publisher don't sell a whole lot of that game, the employees of the developer and publisher will soon find themselves out of a job - their employers will go bankrupt.

People have been making the same kinds of arguments about the "dumbing down" of films, books, theatre, opera, symphonies - you name it - for years now. Games are no different, but people making these claims are way off the mark. There are plenty of smaller productions across all genres of entertainment that still hold true to "hardcore" values (see Mega Man 9 and 10 for gaming examples) - these are made on smaller budgets for a more limited audience.

To expect a blockbuster game (or film, book - hi Dan Brown, etc) to have the kind of production values and market reach, while still only holding true to the core audience, is unreasonable and financially unsustainable.

Unlike books and films though, I think the videogame industry does a remarkable job of pumping out expensive-to-make games that still hold a lot of artistic integrity.

Edited on by Bankai

grenworthshero

WaltzElf wrote:

grenworthshero wrote:

WaltzElf wrote:

Business leaves no room for a company of any description to be stupid. The ones that weren't smart are gone (3DO, Midway)

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.

What? I know a lot of people who think Mortal Kombat is the best fighting series, hands down.

PSN ID: grenworthshero
Steam: grenworthshero
WiiU: grenworthshero
***
YouTube--backloggery--tumblr--

Nintendo Network ID: grenworthshero

Bankai

grenworthshero wrote:

WaltzElf wrote:

grenworthshero wrote:

WaltzElf wrote:

Business leaves no room for a company of any description to be stupid. The ones that weren't smart are gone (3DO, Midway)

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.

What? I know a lot of people who think Mortal Kombat is the best fighting series, hands down.

Really? I'd love to meet them, because I'm literally the only person I know who enjoyed the 3D MK games.

grenworthshero

@Waltzy
I think those people tend to be non-Nintendo gamers. Most of the Nintendo people I've met like Street Fighter or Killer Instinct best

PSN ID: grenworthshero
Steam: grenworthshero
WiiU: grenworthshero
***
YouTube--backloggery--tumblr--

Nintendo Network ID: grenworthshero

SpentAllMyTokens

I think in some ways games have become easier in good ways. In the original SMB, if you lost all your lives, you started back from the beginning. However, there was only about half an hour's worth of content in there, so they had to make it so you died a lot. How many hours of content are in Mario Galaxy. Say you lose your last life going for the 120th star and you had to start at the beginning again. Would that make you enjoy the game more? Nope. You'd wish there was a save feature, and you could start from that level again. Games now are more about solving more complex puzzles than were available in the 8 and 16 bit days than about just surviving. They also have longer and more immersive stories that people want to get through. Starting at the beginning of a 30 hour game is much more annoying than a 30 minute game.

I am way too lazy to think of something clever.
My Backloggery

Ark

Games back in the day HAD to be harder. Look at any classic Mega Man, if you were highly skilled you could probably beat 1-6 in 3 hours max. A modern platformer such as the Densetsu no Stafy series could take several hours even if you skipped dialog and anything non-pure-gameplay. The reason games like The Legend of Zelda NES took long is because things weren't explained to you or at least they weren't thrown in your face like modern games. Knowing exactly what to do, you could beat the game in an hour or two which my uncle has shown to be fully possible (or there's probably some speed-run on YouTube) while a modern Zelda-esque game spans over 20 hours, without cutscenes, load times, etc.

The main difference between modern and classic I'm trying to explain is length. The length of the average NES game where you know exactly what to do/never die/etc. can be measured in MINUTES (or single digit hours) while modern games are generally over 10 hours.

The difficulty back then was in most cases an artificial "longevity." A lot of NES games didn't even have a save function, which extends play-time if you screw up.

...Aaaaaaaand TokenGirl basically said everything I wanted to, before me.

Edited on by Ark

.

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.