Topic: Majority of Gamers Today Can’t Finish Level 1 in Super Mario Bros. (Satire article)

Don't understand what this has to do with the games' difficulty. Nintendo owes it's success for developing hardcore (not a term used back then), difficult games back then. I want to be really challenged again. Simple as that. Too few titles actually do nowadays.

You shouldn't playing games if you don't want to be challenged. Watch movies if you want laid-back, visual entertainment...

1. Find difficulty setting.
2. Turn it on highest setting.

This is not hard. In addition to the fact, there are still incredibly difficult games on the market. If you don't see how difficulty and profit is related, there's not much I can do for you. Making a game accessible to everyone > making a game accessible to much less people. You don't see how they're related, but you're not sure why most games have been much more accessible?

I also just want to reiterate how ridiculous this is. You're complaining that people are enjoying games without having the great skills you apparently have. Games. No games require skill, they require time and practice. You're not winning gold medals in the Olympics, you're beating a game. A video game. To complain that other people can also beat games is just ridiculous.

So now your opinion dictates why people should play video games. Yep, no elitism here.

Sometimes I play games on easy because I just want to finish the game and play through everything quickly. Does this make you upset too? : (

Playing games because they're hard is like reading books because they're hard: something everyone does when they're just getting into the hobby, but perhaps abandons at some point.

I like Renaissance literature, and I like sappy contemporary YA. Just like how I like Lost Levels and I like Ecco Jr. (Okay we could debate the quality of Ecco Jr., but all I'm saying is that difficulty isn't much of a determinant as to whether or not a game is fun. Demanding challenge above all is a niche within a niche! The 0.5%!).

And back to my original point, how many folks out there know at least one kid who just attempts the hardest book in the house because it's there? That's the only way those car manuals will ever get read.

Games. No games require skill, they require time and practice. You're not winning gold medals in the Olympics, you're beating a game.

@Alexsays I sure wish I'd had this line at my disposal when I stepped in it after refusing to care that a friend got a good time in Mario Kart.

No. I am pointing out some facts. What you do with them is entirely up to you...

@JGMR: I'm pretty sure Nintendo owes its success to developing games back then, difficult or not. telling people that they 'should' or 'should not' be playing games is ridiculous. Gaming has always been for everyone, up to and including the lowest common demoninator you apparently choose to scorn with that old tired 'hardcore vs. casual' crap parroted by people with nothing better to do than label things. :/

Play what you like and let others do the same; no one's forcing you to play things you don't want to play for whatever reason. If you stop putting your faith in labels, you'll probably have a lot more fun :3

What you said is a fact? So the point of playing video games is to be challenged, and that is a fact.

I remember the first time I passed my opinion off as fact.

This does not change the fact that games today have "super guides", and an infinite amount of hints telling players what they can do. You call that gaming? And I certainly don't agree that it is for everybody. But, that's my opinion.

I play games more to relax and enjoy a story nowadays for the most part. I generally don't like the stress of frustrating games anymore, unless it has a story worth following. I paid my dues in arcades and on the NES, and all the cheap deaths and rigid controls that came with it. Beating Battltoads just made me glad I was done with it. That wss probably the hardest Nintendo game I actually finished.

Yeah, that's a game satire site. Apretty good one, like the Onion.

It's not so much that new players are bad, but they're just used to--and expecting--other things. My niece loves to play NSMB on the DS, but I remember she couldn't get used to playing SMB1 or SMB3. Why? because she was already used to wall jumps, and triple jumps, and butt stomps, and she couldn't do any of that on the older games. It wasn't that she thought it was difficult, but that it frustrated her that Mario didn't have so many moves at his disposal. I guess from the eyes of a person going from the present to the past I could see why older games aren't as interesting as newer iterations--and never mind the short attention span of a child!

But it's not because players are now better or worse.

Are you being forced to use these things? Nope. If you're trying to blame your inability to keep from using them on their easy availability, that's allll on you, man — and it's a mistaken scapegoat considering how long kids have had the internet and forums to ask questions, Nintendo Power used to publish walkthroughs and between them and Prima guides, they had everything covered. If you needed help on the fly, there was Nintendo's old gaming question hotline, then later there were places like GameFAQs to host playthrough guides, and even before all that, us kids used to ask this older kid down the street sometimes if we needed help with games like Castlevania and stuff. If people needed help years ago, there were still ways to get it. Why should someone feel bad for playing and enjoying a game that features in-game help instead of looking for help in other places if they need it? Where do you get off telling someone who enjoys a game that features in-game tips or a guide that they shouldn't?

You are, well except for the super guides I guess since that is optional, but you know what I am talking about. Good example: Ocarina of Time, and every Zelda game ever since. Although I liked Skyward Sword from a aesthetic point-of-view, it just wasn't as satisfying enough completing that game, as it was completing the first three Zelda titles... Why? Because it took hard work to complete. Many gamers may remember their own drawn maps of these fantastic games...

And, I haven't even touched on the ridiculously easy level-design these days, which are custom-made for today's "movie-goers"...

@JGMR: If the Zelda series is not what you want to play, don't play it. to sit there and complain as if you don't have a wide array of choice in gaming and to continue to name-call does nothing to further your cause, silly as it may be.

I understood where you were coming from (didn't really agree with you but I understood your feelings on the matter) up until you said this. Now it's blatantly obvious you are just pining for the NES and SNES era and it's edgy unrefined formulas. Simply put; your nostalgia clouds your judgement.

It's not only Zelda. I am talking about gaming in general, as does the satirical article which was created to encourage a discussion I think?

If a small community is dedicated to horror-films (a genre which I am not at all interested in), should that mean that everybody should love horror-films? And, should those dedicated fans be victimized by the people who don't want to see gore? If there is a Rembrandt out there, should it imply that everybody should be a expert painter? No, otherwise you're endorsing a totalitarian situation.

Quality > Quantity

I see the gaming biz defence force has initiated their mission to thawrt somebodies opinion again...

Hard difficulty is just like the easy setting these days. Either take more damage from a enemy that doesn't even have a chance of hitting you or the game just throws more of those easy enemies at you

the only 'discussion' it encourages is the same tired 'hardcore vs. casual' argument we've had over and over and over and over and over here at NL. the gamers you choose to label as 'casual' are not going away anytime soon, and neither are games made accessible and customizable enough for players of all skill levels to enjoy.

you have two realistic choices if you want to continue playing video games: adapt to today's games and make them work for you, or play only the games you loved from years ago. no amount of complaining on an internet forum will change the entire gaming industry to suit your tastes, and no amount of negativity about it or arbitrary labeling will stop the general public from playing games they genuinely enjoy playing.

I don't really understand the relevance of the bolded point to your argument. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China. Nobody is saying that everyone should love Zelda or "easy" games, in fact, the opposite has been said. You have the decision NOT to play Zelda. We aren't enforcing a "totalitarian" regime on you by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, the reason that NES and SNES games were often hard WAS NOT necessarily because the people creating them INTENDED for them to be hard. The hardware limitations and lack of many advancements in the industry that have occurred since then are what is to blame for difficult games. Less testing and generally lower budgets mean less time to work on difficulty and the like, and, as previously stated, hardware limitations stopped modern conveniences from being used. For example, do you think that the original Legend of Zelda wouldn't have had a map if it was made on, say, the Nintendo 64? If you had given the development team the know how to implement a wide overworld map, they certainly would have done so.

Also, just because a game is made more accessible to all players doesn't mean it isn't of lower "quality". Was Metroid Prime a bad game because of the short tutorial section that occurs immediately after Samus gets off her ship that teaches you the basics? Was Pikmin a bad game because every area included a map? There are so many examples that I can use.

Your way of thinking is inherently flawed. Difficulty does not equal quality - sometimes it indicates the opposite, a poorly tested game that has a broken difficulty curve because nobody bothered to fix it.

I know you're meaning well, but I simply don't agree about the acceptance of the situation. And who started labeling? Not me. I am from the days when you were either a gamer or not. There was not in-betweens. Hence why I said that there was no talk of "hardcore games (or gamers)" back then, because almost every game was "hardcore" (read: more difficult, less forgiving, less instructive) by today's standards. Same goes for the stupid AAA-game talk. As if budget has anything to do with the quality of a game!

I'm backing off here. I've made my point multiple times I guess. I don't want to annoy you guys anymore if that's the case...

Please continue...