Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

Gamasutra Man says games are too much work and rewind button is necessary.

 

Every time I hear this argument come up, it just confuses me something fierce.  This time it's because it's just vague on what a challenge is.

If a game is too difficult, there are typically varying levels of difficulty to play on that may be more along the lines of what the player is looking for.  At what point did it become necessary to remove failure from the equation?  Has our society started to fall so friggin' far that this is the lengths we're going to in order to seemingly preserve what I find to be a 'you're a special unique snowflake' politically correct mentality that makes us psychological weiners?

Another thing that bugs me is that no one seems to address a pretty big issue of an auto-pilot feature: The Gameshark Fallacy.

The Gameshark Fallacy is where one finds that they have the means to remove any of the effort involved in given task, but relies on their will being strong enough to resist the temptation.  As soon as you give into that temptation, chances are you will tell yourself 'I'll only do it just this once!' and before you know it, all your materia is maxed, Cloud is packing 99 levels and the Ultima Weapon before you get to the Guard Scorpion at the end of the first mako reactor.

This idea is pretty much doomed to failure.  I can't see any reason why the people that this option targets (and even the people it doesn't) wouldn't just going out and rent the game for a couple days and go along for the ride then return it.

And it kind of bugs me that no one points this out!

Dudes, I need some opinions.

[Frocto]

I cannot actually take anything this guy says seriously while he has greek sculpture as the article picture. Neither should you.

[Misha]

on the one hand I loved the time rewind mechanic from prince of persia.

On the other hand, what the fuck? that bane fight was practically trivial. Dodge his attacks, stun with batarang, hit him. PUZZLE SOLVED.

[yyler]

IN THIS ARTICLE someone is too stupid for video games and gets indignant

[Brentai]

I have this complaint for specific video games.

I can understand a more inexperienced gamer having this complaint for a wider spectrum of video games.

Honestly though there is always the entire DS library you big baby.

[Doom]

"I am bad at games, other people must be too, the problem is with the games clearly."

"If a task is complex it's like work and work ain't fun, never mind the amount of passion and dedication and set-up humans can put into any fun task they have an interest in."

"Here is a bad analogy to chess. You see, Chess is a legitimate, time-tested activity and if I was bad at Chess, it'd be perfectly noble for me to research and practice. But I play VIDEO games for fun!"

"Here is an example of how I can't handle a simple boss fight in a modern game, therefore proving that all modern games are probably needlessly complex. Also, an imaginary world where people have to wait for FAQs. Also, I am too lazy and incompetent to learn the boss' pattern in less than an hour, how ridiculous is that."

Man I went to gamefaqs, clicked on Arkham Asylum right there in the "MOST POPULAR GAMES DIS MONTH" list, ctrl+f'd and found a half-a-page long blurb that amounts to "dodge his attacks, hit quick-time events, don't over-extend." It's preposterous that this dude is writing an article on the internet and bitching about the availability of information.

We've had the Undo feature for decades, it's called a save function, but I guess babies would love a literal rewind. Maybe they can just go watch movies too.

Ridiculous, ridiculous bunk and garbage and trash and oh hey it's from Kotaku what a surprise.

I guess this article is nice support for the theory that people are just becoming bigger wimps every generation.

[Zaratustra]

Two things I've read

1) Gamers are more unhappy than the population average (don't give me that cause-effect shit now)
2) People that escape a near-death situation feel much happier for a period

clearly games need much more danger of goddamn fucking death

[Brentai]

Technically they need to narrowly escape death more often, not die more often.  This is where the fine art has been lost, as most games nowadays think in patterns of either "You are in no real danger of failing" or "You will fail multiple times until you finally get it right".

One of the appeals of multiplayer gaming is the fact that you have a better chance of hitting that sweet spot of barely outmatching a random opponent than a static challenge intended for a broad audience.

[Dooly]

Wait, the article isn't about modern games becoming too hard to create?  Who the fuck cares?

[JDigital]

I think you're on to something. Some of the best Dungeons & Dragons games I've had are where we almost got killed, but didn't. Failure is no fun, but neither is winning when you know there was never any chance of failure.

Conversely, I've had some boring 4E games where the fighter stood in a doorway and tanked all the enemies for the entire battle. Danger creates excitement.

[Bongo Bill]

Being bad at video games myself, I can sympathize with the guy's motivations. And I also think that rewinding time is a very fun mechanic, no matter how trivial it makes any skill challenge. However, I long ago came to the conclusion that the solution was: every game needs cheat codes (and not just lame ones like Big Head Mode).

[Büge]

The Gameshark Fallacy is where one finds that they have the means to remove any of the effort involved in given task, but relies on their will being strong enough to resist the temptation.  As soon as you give into that temptation, chances are you will tell yourself 'I'll only do it just this once!' and before you know it, all your materia is maxed, Cloud is packing 99 levels and the Ultima Weapon before you get to the Guard Scorpion at the end of the first mako reactor.

This is why I can't enjoy Morrowind on the same level as when I first discovered the game. I know how to make a quick fortune, what pitfalls to avoid, how to kill people without consequence, and where the best gear is found. Sometimes I think the game was doing this on purpose though.

"You left Master alchemy tools in an unlocked room where nobody goes?"

"Well, yes. It's not like we don't know where they are."

[Royal☭]

I almost wish that there were a system with varying degrees of difficulty, where people who fond a game too challenging or frustrating could tone down the difficulty to something more their speed, including game mechanics that might benefit them.  But, alas, this seems too complex an idea for our feeble human brains.  Instead we'll spend time arguing back and forth over whether games should have one true difficulty.

[Smiler]

Wow, nobody has started a "Games nowadays are too easy!" argument yet.

But really, games are too much work? If he can't handle some simple pattern solving, maybe he should just go watch a movie.

[Niku]

Wow, nobody has started a "Games nowadays are too easy!" argument yet.

Because there's no argument.   

[Smiler]

Everyone seems to be able to dredge something up to argue about though.

[Bongo Bill]

nuh uh

[Catloaf]

If I were to attempt to tackle the issue with a game mechanic, I would try something that would be amazingly time consuming and too much work on my part.

I've had the idea of a game where, there are a lot of chances for 'failure,' but instead of having to redo a part when you fail, you're forced onto a different path, that would lead you to a different story, and a different and worse ending.  Like missing a jump and falling down a hole lands you at the bottom of a hole, and you explore the cave and see if you can get out.  Or getting killed by an enemy leads you to wake up, half-dead, being dragged somewhere.

And it would be different for every fucking hole and every fucking enemy and every hole and enemy that you would encounter on the already failed once pathways.  I suppose each lower level would have to be smaller than the one above it or would truly be a tower of babel.

It would probably end up making people go insane trying to get the best ending, but also encourage replay, and give a slight incentive to fail on purpose just to see what happens.

Add in normally branching pathways and it becomes a near impossible project to ever complete, or play 100% if it was completed.  Or non-linear paths! 

Oh and if it were multiplayer, there could be even more possibilities!!!

[Transportation]

I'M FEELING ARGUMENTATIVE.

Gamasutra Man says games are too much work and rewind button is necessary.

 

This is the correct reaction because there are these things, as other posters have noted, called "check points". Or difficulty modes. He seems to be decrying problems that have solutions. And he has no real excuse for not going to Gamefaqs, but requiring the typical person to find a walkthrough site they probably haven't heard of is a tad unreasonable.

But the article does have a point and you seem to be arguing against it SO

At what point did it become necessary to remove failure from the equation?  Has our society started to fall so friggin' far that this is the lengths we're going to in order to seemingly preserve what I find to be a 'you're a special unique snowflake' politically correct mentality that makes us psychological weiners?

None of these follow. At all.

People are paying for a product to be entertained. If they are pissed off about a game, then it has failed for them. It is not a reflection of societal decay or any such psycho-bullshit.

Strangely enough, the populace at large are not masochists and do not play a section over and over because the game has thrown down some metaphorical gauntlet. They stop playing. Because they are not having fun. The horror.

Videogames are becoming more popular, and therefore are (and from a business standpoint should) become easier. The days of increasing playtime with difficulty walls are over (beyond those few throwbacks, anyway).

Another thing that bugs me is that no one seems to address a pretty big issue of an auto-pilot feature: The Gameshark Fallacy.

The Gameshark Fallacy is where one finds that they have the means to remove any of the effort involved in given task, but relies on their will being strong enough to resist the temptation.  As soon as you give into that temptation, chances are you will tell yourself 'I'll only do it just this once!' and before you know it, all your materia is maxed, Cloud is packing 99 levels and the Ultima Weapon before you get to the Guard Scorpion at the end of the first mako reactor.

The "Gameshark fallacy" is a textbook slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason to do it more than once. And I'm not seeing the problem with playing like that. If it's an option, anyway. I imagine most people would want some complexity out of their games.

This idea is pretty much doomed to failure.  I can't see any reason why the people that this option targets (and even the people it doesn't) wouldn't just going out and rent the game for a couple days and go along for the ride then return it.

Because it's fun, is a decent game, and has replay value? Or is a game judged on how time consuming it is?

---
I probably wouldn't have bothered with my standard wall of text post if it weren't for posts taking their hardcore gamer (hate that word) smugness seriously.

"Oh my god, people want games to be fun and accessible (re: easy) for them. These people are idiots! Morons! ENTIRE WORLD IS BABIES."

It's like art snobs decrying the masses for going to popcorn flicks.

Look at what you have become.

---

Dudes, I need some opinions.

This post is your fault.

[Detonator]

Technically they need to narrowly escape death more often, not die more often.  This is where the fine art has been lost, as most games nowadays think in patterns of either "You are in no real danger of failing" or "You will fail multiple times until you finally get it right".

It needs to be done with some grace, though.  Everyone hates the rubberband AI in Mario Kart 64, even though it's designed to keep good players challenged.  I believe Resident Evil 4 had a system where supplies were given based on how well you were doing, so you would always have just enough to get by.  I think this is a lot more subtle and better for the game experience since the enemies themselves would stay the same, so the game never felt like it was getting easier or harder.