Mario 3 had no save...Are Gamers getting wimpy?

I beat all kinds of super hard games years ago that would kick my ass now.

Reasons...
I am old and have lost my skills
I am no longer willing to try the same level a thousand times
I have a family
I am old and I lost my skills...oh wait

 

Yeah, it does get to be a bit time-consuming. I have some games that I've played for hours and am, right now, no better than average. Plus, I basically have gaming A.D.D.. I usually can't play the same game for too long, seeing as I have a ton of them that I want to play. Occasionally, though, I'll pull out one and get hooked on it, like when I decided to go back and beat MGS3. Other than that, I'm usually bouncing from one game to another.

 

It's like we're the same person.

 

Let me start by mentioning I've been gaming for 25 years, so I feel qualified enough to express my thoughts on this subject. Keep in mind this is only my opinion and if you feel the need to flame me afterwards, so be it.

I feel that most gamers today are not only wimpy, they aren't really gamers. They are more like posers who care only about the quality of graphics rather than actual play. People who never experienced games in the 80's and 90's will go to review sites and overuse technical terms like "launch title", "polygon count", etc. as though they're experts and industry insiders. It sounds so phony, and it comes across as amatuerish.

Nowadays, you always see somebody complaining that a game either "looks like a launch title" ie the graphics aren't good enough, or "it doesn't push the limits of the system" ie the graphics aren't good enough.

Back in the day, games didn't have ridiculous eye candy, and they were unbelievably hard. We played games to play games, not to look at pretty scenery with millions of colors that looked even more pretty when you blew something up near it. We didn't have GameFAQs, strategy guides, memory cards, cheat codes for invincibility and unlimited weapons, or emulators with save states. If you needed help on a game, you had to either ask a friend who had the game in question, or call a 900 number for hints; failing both you were SOL. You were lucky if games had more than 3 continues or even a pause function for that matter...not to mention the fact that you had better have plenty of time to make it through most games in one sitting.

In my honest opinion, you really cannot consider yourself a true gamer unless you have done any of the following (bearing in mind this applies mostly to those who remember Pong):

-'Flipped' any of the classic Atari games (Asteroids, Pac-man, Space Invaders, etc.) Those of you who don't know what that means have already been disqualified.

-Had at the very least one controller that was terribly busted up to the point it didnt look like a controller anymore but was still functional.

-Spent more than five bucks in quarters on any old school arcade game, just to try and reach the end. (when they were still a 25 cents per play, that is).

-Beaten any of the notoriously difficult NES games without the need of the Advantage, Max, or Game Genie.

-Beaten Friday the 13th on NES. The ending sucked, but if you got to see it you've accomplished the near-impossible.

-You've heard or seen the phrase: "Congratulations. The End".

-Been driven to actual tears due to frustration from getting stuck for the 1,252nd time at the same spot, on the same level, which was usually literally 2 steps from the ending.

-Done an actual KO on Mike Tyson or Mr. Dream. (No, a TKO doesn't count in this case).

-Gotten through Contra, Super C, or Life Force without the Konami Code; or using a continue either way.

-Made it through both quests of the original Zelda without using maps but by memory alone.

-Being able to go through the infamous 6-2 on the first Ninja Gaiden in your sleep.

Those are just a few examples and I'm sure I'll probably get slammed for them, but it is what it is.

Having said all the above, that is why games from the 2600 and NES are still incredibly popular decades later: unforgiving difficulty, replayability off the charts, and the feeling of accomplishment once you do finally conquer them.

Anything from after these eras have lost the plot where it comes to all this; that's why most of today's new blockbusters become yesterday's forgotten ideas. They are all show and no go, straight and simple.

Granted, there are still a lot of good games out there that are original and are loaded with content; but the old kind of thrill you used to get by running through them is few and far between, and pretty much non-existant anymore. Not even the newer retro-ish kind of games capture that same feel.

So to answer the question: Yes. Gamers are indeed spoiled, lazy, and wimpy. It's as though they want to play interactive movies rather than games, or they just want to rush to the end while using maxed everything and skipping all the stuff in between. In either case you have to ask youself, what's the point?

Sorry for the long post. I'm sure there's got to be somebody here who agrees with me.

 

I finish all games I buy, even though I many stop playing them for awhile.

Once you start working for your games, you learn to respect and finish them.

Plus, I make sure to triple check the reviews of games to make sure if I should buy them or not (not iPhone games, I don't really care about those and they're impulse buys... damn Appstore...).

EDIT: To ThunderingSteam, I agree with you. I was born in 1990 though, so I wasn't really HERE for the Atari age, but the Atari and SNES were the first games I played, and I remember trying to beat that damn Star Trek game on the SNES for God knows how long, and when I finally did, it was epic.

And then I bought my N64 for the first time and played the REAL classics, i.e. Star Fox, Super Mario 64, LoZ: OoT and MM... those where probably the best games I've EVER played.

However, a little eye candy doesn't hurt, but it's not a necessity. I recently bought a new N64 with the above mentioned games, just so I could play through them at will (as well as Goldeneye )

 

Wow, elitism to the max.

 

I'm not going to quote that huge post, but to a point, I agree. I was bored last night so I started playing some games on the NES/SNES/Genesis that were known for being ridiculously hard, like Castlevania, Splatterhouse, and Contra. After playing them and not being able to beat level 1 in most of them, I must say that games are really getting easy by comparison. There's the occasional modern-day game that's really difficult, like Shinobi for the PS2, Devil May Cry 3, and Contra 4, but in general, games are so much easier. Maybe it's to ease the frusteration on those who are starting to get into gaming, or if it's a shift in focus to areas like graphics or online play.

And I agree 100% about the graphics. There is nothing I hate more than someone who won't play a game because "The graphics are terrible" or "It doesn't look realistic enough". I have friends who have said that in the past, and I wanted to punch them for saying that. Seeing as I grew up with an N64, most of my favorite games either have old-school 3D graphics where you can see the blocks in the characters' bodies, or don't even have 3D graphics. Sure, it's a nice way to compliment a good game, but I just wish that developers would start to focus on the gameplay more than the graphics again. Same goes for reviewers. I hate reading an entire thing on how wonderful or terrible a modern game's graphics are. What matters is how fun it is, not what it looks like. Unless it affects gameplay, shorten it to maybe a paragraph, like I like to do when reviewing.

And while I havn't done most of the things on your list, I have both busted up a controller even beyond use (since the wire frayed, but the controller itself is intact) and spent a ton of money beating one game at the arcade (if you count a light-gun shooter. Combined, my cousin and I must have spent about 5 bucks in tokens beating that game. And it was a 1 token game.)

 

I think it's a matter of the average attention span being so short now.
Kids have so many options, within gaming and with other distractions (Internet, more tv channels, and bigger allowances) that if a game is too hard they'll likely just move on to something else.

[I'm 30, my gaming really took off with NES and Mike Tysons Puch Out]

 

Again, my apologies for the long post. You can see it's a complex issue when you think about it. And I never did everything on that list either, but I do know people who have. I just wanted to get that out of my system because it just annoys me so bad. Thanks for the comments everyone.

 

How good is it if I make it to the final level of Contra on the NES using nothing but the Konami Code? I've never made it that far before, with or without the code.

Also, are the Super Mario All Stars versions of the SMB games reduced in difficulty? If so, how drastically? If it's too much I might pull my NES back out and play the original Mario on that, just to see how I do.

 

I am incredibly fortunate and privileged to be able to design games for a living (my day job) and as a hobby.

I don't have a lot of time to play games anymore. But I try and finish the ones I *do* play. Generally about 8 hours is enough for me, with multiplayer adding some value to paying loads of cash for a title.

The question of difficulty is a, er, 'difficult' one.

The secret is, I think, to cater for both the 'too hard' lot and the 'elitist' lot

This can be done in a number of ways (and these aren't necessarily applicable to *every* game type, obviously!):

1. Use score multipliers.
Players after a high score will do their best to hold on to the multiplier to get a better score. Or, give people that choose a harder difficulty more points for the same stuff on an easier difficulty (but with less lives, or more enemies on-screen). Those that just want to progress through the game can effectively ignore multipliers or play through on easy to beat the game. Both styles of play are rewarded. This feeds into...

2. Unlockable levels
It's pretty standard to have unlockable levels in a game. You beat one level, you unlock the next, you get rewarded for your progress with a new level/challenge.
Some designers do contemplate having all levels open from the start. This gives everyone a chance to see everything in the game, regardless of time invested or skill level. The reward comes from playing the game through from start to finish, which should result in a higher score. Jeff Minter's Space Giraffe is a good example.

3. Add sections just for the hardcore
The DS game I'm finishing work on right now is a classic platformer. It's aimed at kids, so it's relatively easy. The 'critical path' is pretty simple. However, there are sections within each level that offer an added element of risk/reward. They're a little tougher (like having smaller platforms to jump onto, or disappearing ones so that timing is more critical). Importantly, these 'hardcore' sections can be ignored completely and you can still finish the game. They're there if you want to challenge yourself though.

4. Offer a variety of ways to deal with an enemy
One way is the easy way. It gives you points, but not as much as if you did it the hard way.
An example: I have a retro space shooter concept for the iPhone somewhere around here - top down style. In this game are 'battleships' - big capital ships that take multiple hits to take down.
For every hit a battleship takes, you get points. When the battleship blows up, you get more points.
While the battleships are on-screen, there's usually a smartbomb waiting to be picked up. Getting the smartbomb will get you the points for blowing up the battleship. But you forsake the points you'd get if you took it down manually, hit by hit. The hardcore get their points, the not so hardcore get their progress. Win - win, down to player choice.


5. Achievements
I'm not a big big fan of achievements, but they can serve a purpose. They should take a while to accomplish, *if you can be bothered*. The hardcore will play a game to get them all. Those who move on quickly should still be offered a few 'easy to get' achievements to give them a sense of accomplishment. Everybody wins!


Just a few thoughts. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can try and cater for both sets - hardcore and less hardcore

Cheers,

QS

 

With all this talk about how awesome the NES was, I wish I were born 20 years ago...

 

Actually, it's not that hard to find online. I got lucky and found an NES, complete with cables, one controller and one zapper, and Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt for either $3 or $5 at a white elephant (basically a used crap sale for those who don't know; I didn't until i worked at it) I was working at a couple of years ago.

At most, online, I think it's about $20 for the console with at least a controller and the necessary wires, and most games probably sell for under $10, if you're looking to buy one.

 

ha im only 21 but i remember when i had my Sega with Sonic 2 on it. That had no save option but i was addicted to it, i think i made it to one of the final battles once or twice but was never able to finish it.
Nowdays i dont complain about games being to easy, i just find myself moving on to another game altogether if i get really stuck. Personally i like finishing what i started but the app store makes it too easy to find another game. Ha too much of a good thing ay

If final fantasy 7, 8 or anything past 3 for that matter had no save option, they would've been flippen hard to finish

 

the hardest game i played was the original metroid, mainly cause of the lack of a map. I never finished it. And I agree that too many people have really short attention-span these days.

Samus Aran FTW by the way!

 

Actually, I realized that because I'm stuck with a Wii, but have internet connection, I can download NES games for $5 each Trying to beat the original SMB now, got to world 3 on my 10th try and am very proud of myself

 

I think that online has something to do with the lack of difficulty and poor single player experiences. most older games didn't have difficulty settings. Also I think multi player has completely ruined game story telling nowadays. Don't get me wrong multi player is fun, but for me, death match games just get old after a while. And if u play multi player u have 2 or 3 games u play. U got Call of Duty, Halo, some MMOs and sports games. I think games like Bioshock 2 suffered immensely from developers not putting 100 percent into the story mode. bioshock 2 does not need a multi player component. Who is playing Bioshock 2 multiplayer except for the first day to try it. Leave multi to the home run hitters. story modes suffer immensely. Use the resources to make a great single player experience. The original Bioshock was one of best games I ever played cause everything was put into the single player. Heard a young kid in EB Games the other day say he doesn't play single player games. The poor young buck. I felt sorry for him. He doesn't even know what he is missing. give me a sick story driven single player experience over a multi player game anyday.

 

Well said. As fun as multiplayer is, a great singleplayer experience is always a much more entertaining part of a game, for me at least. I enjoy online games like Modern Warfare 2 or Left 4 Dead as much as the next guy, but they're definitely not my favorite games. I'd much prefer to play a story-driven game, like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy VII, Phoenix Wright, or even a PS2-era Grand Theft Auto game. In fact, since my Xbox got the red ring, I've been getting more and more into games where you have to sit down and play them, rather than just jump online for a game and quit. It's a much more fun and rewarding experience than online. As fun as it is to frag other people, I'd much prefer to go through a game's plot, finding out what happens in the storyline, or killing tons of lesser enemies, an option they never seem to give you in online multiplayer games.

 

@ThunderingSteam

I completely agree with you on your very long post (I'm a bit late to reply)

There are so many games I could go through that I could say would qualify one to be a true gamer, especially from the NES days.

It seemed that even next gen systems after the NES like Genesis and SNES got a bit easier in terms of difficulty (excluding RPG's and Super Ghouls and Ghosts which was sadistically brutal)

I still venture back into old school games whenever I can. I've sat down recently, and beaten Mega Man 2 in one sitting, but it was one of my most beloved games ever made on the NES.

When I think of the old school gamer days, I think of busted up controllers, and callused thumbs where I literally couldn't play anymore, and had to stop!

I think that's why a lot of gamers miss the retro gaming days, it was freedom, it was hours of playing a game non-stop, and not ever looking to see what time it was.

It's a reflection of the time where cell phones didn't exist, and all this other technology, so your main focus would be that quality NES title. No strategy guides, no books, no online walkthroughs. Just you and a friend or two exploring the game with your wit and might

At any rate, I'll quit babbling, but I will always remember those days fondly!