Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Daily Gaming News > News Items

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Weekend Gamer: What are...
Last post by Major Dan
Today 06:11 AM
9 Replies, 608 Views
Six years later, Star...
Last post by BitCrash
Today 03:12 AM
22 Replies, 1,430 Views
Picts - Waiting to...
Last post by vallor
Yesterday 09:19 PM
18,156 Replies, 2,924,229 Views
The Witcher Leading...
Last post by karaliusbronius
Yesterday 08:25 PM
13 Replies, 1,700 Views
It's Sunday: What NFL...
Last post by Terran
Yesterday 03:28 PM
5 Replies, 384 Views
Thronebreaker: The...
Last post by Terran
Yesterday 02:03 PM
5 Replies, 665 Views
Call of Duty Black Ops...
Last post by Booda
Yesterday 10:16 AM
12 Replies, 1,288 Views
Pure Evil - Weekend...
Last post by MechaDangerous
Yesterday 10:15 AM
1 Replies, 317 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-24-2016, 09:52 AM   #21
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackzc View Post
Good, its to hard and has run its course.
He could easily make a career of making these for the rest of his life, ala Metal Gear and Kojima if he wanted. Gamers would eat them up.

Too hard? What does too hard even mean. I remember 8-bit and 16-bit games that were too hard, they were hard because they required virtually or literally pixel-perfect platforming and control.

This game isn't that kind of hard. It's more learning each opponent's attacks, learning your own responses, and once you do you must develop strategies to deal. Once done, the game's pretty easy. Most of the fun is in developing those strats and mastering the enemy.

It's great fun to be absolutely wrecked by an enemy and then, eventually, to completely master them, especially bosses that seemed impossible at first.

It's definitely something that caters to hardcore gamers who want that mountain-climbing experience. Some gamers just want to relax with easy games, I get that.

But there's no more fulfilling experience in gaming than to face a challenge that's tough and then completely master it, and this series provides that in spades like few other games do.

It's a much better gameplay strategy than, say, Donkey Kong Country where the challenge was to explore and collect junk more than anything. Laborious, repetitive, and annoying.
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 11:59 AM   #22
JazGalaxy
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackzc View Post
Good, its to hard and has run its course.
Complaining about a game being too hard is like complaining about food being too spicy. There are millions of people who disagree with you and who eat that style of food BECAUSE of the spice. You may not understand it, and that's fine. But nobody cares.
JazGalaxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 12:55 PM   #23
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
they were hard because they required virtually or literally pixel-perfect platforming and control.
No, they were hard because most of them were broken. Busted. Impossible to defeat. Garbage in need of several patches, which was not possible then.
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 02:32 PM   #24
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
No, they were hard because most of them were broken. Busted. Impossible to defeat. Garbage in need of several patches, which was not possible then.
While there were certainly unpatchable bugs in the old NES and SNES games, their difficult stemmed from an outmoded design mentality, not programming or software errors.

Things like lives, continues, extreme difficulty and even points came directly from the design philosophy used in arcade games, which were designed specifically to get as much money out of players as possible. This, obviously, wasn't necessaryour for home games...but these philosophies stuck around for years.

There were definitely some broken games, but most of the "issue" stems from an incompatible design philosophy. Games had to work back then, especially on Nintendo consoles; they wouldn't allow the games to be published if they didn't work.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 02:51 PM   #25
JazGalaxy
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post

Things like lives, continues, extreme difficulty and even points came directly from the design philosophy used in arcade games, which were designed specifically to get as much money out of players as possible. This, obviously, wasn't necessaryour for home games...but these philosophies stuck around for years.
People keep saying this, but it's not remotely true. It's silly.

It seems to promote an idea that a lot of people have, and I'm not saying you have this idea, that video games started in the arcade. They did not. All of the things that people attribute to being relics of gaming's past as arcade games were part of gaming BEFORE arcade games even existed.

"extreme difficulty and even points came directly from the design philosophy used in arcade games which were designed specifically to get as much money out of players as possible"

Right. Because basketball, golf, table tennis, pinball and dominos all feature points in order to "get the most money out of players as possible".

Crossword puzzles became a national phenomenon in the 1920s with people seeking out more and more challenging puzzles. It became a competition between newspapers and publications to boast about who had THE most challenging puzzle. Mastering the puzzles was seen to be a mark of accomplishment by fans and a waste of time by detractors. And just like with most games, there WERE detractors who called the games silly, a waste of time, sinful, etc.

No, videogames weren't designed the way they were designed in the 70s and 80s because of "archaic design philosophy". They were designed that way because that's what people LIKED. Video games didn't become more popular in the next 2 decades because they improved the design. They become more popular because they surrendered to a more populist design philosophy. It's no different than a moderately popular book which becomes a blockbuster film. The film is rarely BETTER than the book. But the film is in a more populist medium and so it gets more attention and is better received.
JazGalaxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 05:10 PM   #26
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
No, they were hard because most of them were broken. Busted. Impossible to defeat. Garbage in need of several patches, which was not possible then.
Too hard and broken is different from just too hard tho.

In the category of too-hard but not broken I would include a game like Battletoads, famously hard, most people never got past the 2nd level with the speeders. I had no real problem learning that level, it was the final stage with its incredibly punishing platforming up the tower that was way too difficult, specifically in that a single mistake would set you back so far that it was punishingly difficult to learn the encounter that was giving you trouble if it constantly had a 20 minute reset time.

This game, Dark Souls, isn't hard-broken, it's hard-working perfectly.
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 05:17 PM   #27
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
While there were certainly unpatchable bugs in the old NES and SNES games, their difficult stemmed from an outmoded design mentality, not programming or software errors.

Things like lives, continues, extreme difficulty and even points came directly from the design philosophy used in arcade games, which were designed specifically to get as much money out of players as possible. This, obviously, wasn't necessaryour for home games...but these philosophies stuck around for years.

There were definitely some broken games, but most of the "issue" stems from an incompatible design philosophy. Games had to work back then, especially on Nintendo consoles; they wouldn't allow the games to be published if they didn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
No, videogames weren't designed the way they were designed in the 70s and 80s because of "archaic design philosophy". They were designed that way because that's what people LIKED.
There may be some combination of both of these being true, but I'd like to add a third possible reason, which is that they were hard because the games did not have much content and in order to lengthen the game experience they made the games harder.

If you look at another famously difficult game that is also not-broken-hard, Ninja Gaiden, the actual record for beating it is ~12 minutes.

Yeah.



I spent a lot of hours beating that game, but its difficulty was clearly dialed up to produce a longer gaming experience with a lot of nearly pixel-perfect stuff required. It was however very polarizing, you had to be a hardcore gamer in order to persevere in that game.

Gaming's later popularity came because making games longer became easier and cheaper by other means than simply using difficulty raises, allowing less-than-hardcore gamers a place at the table. Increasingly RPG aspects allowed difficulty to be raised after teaching newbs to get good at the game first, converting a lot of softcore to hardcore in the process, basically lowering the bar to becoming hardcore, or providing a guided path to doing so.

If we compare Ninja Gaiden to, say, Super Mario 3, we see that the latter is not punishingly difficult yet is also a very long and satisfying game, because Nintendo actually produced a whole lot of platforming content of a length that Tecmo simply did not in Ninja Gaiden.

NG might be 10% of the actual platforming content of SM3.

Similarly, with the advent of 3D gaming, lots of games were comparatively short due to the high cost of learning to dev in the new paradigm, games like Turok, perhaps.

Today we laugh at AAA games that can be beat in under an hour, 50 minutes for Turok, but a two-hour Indie game like Abzu is considered bare bones:

__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 05:38 PM   #28
JazGalaxy
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
There may be some combination of both of these being true, but I'd like to add a third possible reason, which is that they were hard because the games did not have much content and in order to lengthen the game experience they made the games harder.

If you look at another famously difficult game that is also not-broken-hard, Ninja Gaiden, the actual record for beating it is ~12 minutes.

Yeah.



I spent a lot of hours beating that game, but its difficulty was clearly dialed up to produce a longer gaming experience with a lot of nearly pixel-perfect stuff required. It was however very polarizing, you had to be a hardcore gamer in order to persevere in that game.

Gaming's later popularity came because making games longer became easier and cheaper by other means than simply using difficulty raises, allowing less-than-hardcore gamers a place at the table. Increasingly RPG aspects allowed difficulty to be raised after teaching newbs to get good at the game first, converting a lot of softcore to hardcore in the process, basically lowering the bar to becoming hardcore, or providing a guided path to doing so.

If we compare Ninja Gaiden to, say, Super Mario 3, we see that the latter is not punishingly difficult yet is also a very long and satisfying game, because Nintendo actually produced a whole lot of platforming content of a length that Tecmo simply did not in Ninja Gaiden.

NG might be 10% of the actual platforming content of SM3.

Similarly, with the advent of 3D gaming, lots of games were comparatively short due to the high cost of learning to dev in the new paradigm, games like Turok, perhaps.

Today we laugh at AAA games that can be beat in under an hour, but a two-hour Indie game like Abzu is considered bare bones:

I feel like there is much more to it than just this, however.

I think there are a lot of things to consider:

1)"Lives" in video games are nothing other than "chances". "Chances" are part of the element of game design known as "rules". "rules" are limitations that are placed around what a player can and cannot do in a game. For example, "you cannot touch the ball with your hands" is a rule/limitation that is put on players in the game of soccer. In soccer, you have as many "chances" to score as you can attempt within the rule/limitation of a set time period.

But other games also have chances. In 20 questions, you have 20 "lives" to guess the correct answer. In horse shoes, you have 3 "lives" to make a collar. In baseball you have 3 "lives" to hit the ball. In dodgeball your team has as many lives as you have players on the team.

The idea that winning and losing, lives and chances, rules and limitations are somehow "archaic" elements of "primitive" game design are just stupid.

2)Games are designed around the platform on which they are played. Yes, arcade games were designed for quick bursts of fun. But PC games, where gaming started, NEVER had that limitation. Console games, similarly, never had that limitation. When Online games first started, developers were getting paid by the MINUTE for gamers to play their game. This led to design trends that were the complete opposite of arcade games. The thought was no longer, "how can we create quick bursts of fun that suck quarters", the thought was now "how can we keep players playing for the longest amount of time, no matter what?" (and in the days of early MMOs on 14.4 modems, how can we keep players playing while not offering them any meaningful interactive content.) This gave rise to "carrot on a string" gameplay that promised that if gamers just kept playing, even if they weren't having fun, they would eventually "ding" and get to "upgrade". This is what gamers call the "treadmill" that they claim to hate but continue to do in droves.

All this is to say that gaming fundamentally changed into something different over the years. It's just literally not the same thing that it used to be. Now gamers are far more into carrot-on-a-stick style gameplay and rollercoaster style gameplay, where something new is introduced every few seconds to keep the player playing, than they are difficulty based gaming. Meanwhile, the people who grew up on difficulty based gaming (the people you can see in documentaries like King Of Kong or on sites like Retroware) simply don't play games anymore. They fell out of the hobby because the hobby changed.
JazGalaxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 08:47 AM   #29
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
People keep saying this, but it's not remotely true. It's silly.

It seems to promote an idea that a lot of people have, and I'm not saying you have this idea, that video games started in the arcade. They did not. All of the things that people attribute to being relics of gaming's past as arcade games were part of gaming BEFORE arcade games even existed.
You're ignoring the fact that video games as a business model - charging people for individual play sessions - really started with arcades.

These games were designed to get as much money as possible out of people. It was their entire purpose.

Quote:
Right. Because basketball, golf, table tennis, pinball and dominos all feature points in order to "get the most money out of players as possible".
I never said they invented points. The points were, however, used to drive people to play longer and pay more money...all in the name of getting onto that high score list.

They didn't invent points. They pioneered the idea of using point systems to make money.

Quote:
Crossword puzzles became a national phenomenon in the 1920s with people seeking out more and more challenging puzzles. It became a competition between newspapers and publications to boast about who had THE most challenging puzzle. Mastering the puzzles was seen to be a mark of accomplishment by fans and a waste of time by detractors. And just like with most games, there WERE detractors who called the games silly, a waste of time, sinful, etc.
People like a challenge, sure. These publications didn't charge people a quarter every time they got two or three words wrong in order to keep playing, though.

Quote:
No, videogames weren't designed the way they were designed in the 70s and 80s because of "archaic design philosophy". They were designed that way because that's what people LIKED. Video games didn't become more popular in the next 2 decades because they improved the design. They become more popular because they surrendered to a more populist design philosophy. It's no different than a moderately popular book which becomes a blockbuster film. The film is rarely BETTER than the book. But the film is in a more populist medium and so it gets more attention and is better received.

Arcade games were made artificially difficult in order to maximize income and make machines profitable. This design philosophy carried over to console games, because it was the familiar design paradigm of the era. There was absolutely no reason for points, lives or continues in home console games...because they already had your money. They could only charge you once.

These systems existed to make money. Period.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 09:30 AM   #30
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
Arcade games were made artificially difficult in order to maximize income and make machines profitable. This design philosophy carried over to console games, because it was the familiar design paradigm of the era.
How this can possibly be a contested point, considering it is rooted in historical fact, is beyond me.

Then again, we're talking about Jiz here, so I'm not surprised.
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 09:39 AM   #31
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,796
To clarify (since I can't edit), I'm talking about your 'arcade design' point; they were made to consume quarters as their primary purpose was obviously to make money. As to what percentage of console games were designed to be impossibly difficult because of arcade gameplay inspiration or because they were just busted, clearly both are true of games of the era. I would argue many console games of that era were just broken garbage. Far too many, Nintendo Seal or not.
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 09:53 AM   #32
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
To clarify (since I can't edit), I'm talking about your 'arcade design' point; they were made to consume quarters as their primary purpose was obviously to make money. As to what percentage of console games were designed to be impossibly difficult because of arcade gameplay inspiration or because they were just busted, clearly both are true of games of the era. I would argue many console games of that era were just broken garbage. Far too many, Nintendo Seal or not.
Honestly, I think most of them were made the way they were primarily because of developers carrying over what worked for the business startegy they used to develop for. I can't say every single NES game wasn't busted or featured nasty bugs...but, I'd argue most of them were of good quality. Nintendo was pretty draconian back in the day, even down to limiting the number of titles a company could release per year.

You didn't see nearly as many (if any) broken messes on Day One as you do now. They simply couldn't fix games after they went to production/manufacturing, so they had to be more or less "perfect".

The "official" cartridges typically worked well out of the box. The "unofficial" black NES cartridges, however, could be hit or miss; they didn't have to adhere to the same standards because they circumvented Nintendo entirely.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 09:54 AM   #33
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
How this can possibly be a contested point, considering it is rooted in historical fact, is beyond me.

Then again, we're talking about Jiz here, so I'm not surprised.
It's kind of nice when we can agree.

Feels good.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 01:39 PM   #34
JazGalaxy
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post

I never said they invented points. The points were, however, used to drive people to play longer and pay more money...all in the name of getting onto that high score list.
I simply fundamentally disagree with what you are saying.

Early arcade games were NOT created to drive people to play longer and spend more money. They were honestly shockingly honest games. This is evidenced by the fact that many accomplished gamers at the time would boast about being able to spend one quarter and spend all afternoon on a Pac Man or Donkey Kong machine.

Yes, arcade design BECAME about utilizing strategies to maximize profit potential. But that wasn't the point.

Do remember the chain of business of the arcade industry. Arcade game manufacturers make the games and then SELL them to arcades. Thusly, it was of no immediate interest for Arcade game manufacturers to maximize the number of financial interactions that a gamer was making with a machine. The game manufacturer was only interested in selling the unit. They wanted to make something that people wanted to play.

As arcades filled up with games and competition became more severe, yes. Games became more competitive. For instance, 4 player machines became a popular strategy because it made effective use of space. Games like Ninja Turtles stand out in my mind for using an unfair uncommunicative blinking light system on bosses to keep you pumping in quarters until they were finally dead. But those games tended to come later. Early arcade games didn't impose shady limitations on gamers just to keep them putting in quarters.

Moreover, the idea that cartridge games utilized arcade game mechanics because "that was the language of the time" is just... silly. Think of a game like Zelda. That game was designed from the ground up to be a console game. They didn't impose challenge and difficultly because they simply couldn't think of anything ELSE to do. That was the GAME.

Metroid, Kid Icarus, Super Mario Bros. 2, Castlevania 2... these games were no influenced by arcades.

You're basically just making up that idea because it bolsters a previous held belief you have that the design of old games is "archaic". It's fine if you don't like it, but it's not archaic and it wasn't any legacy of arcades.
JazGalaxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 02:45 PM   #35
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
I simply fundamentally disagree with what you are saying.

Early arcade games were NOT created to drive people to play longer and spend more money. They were honestly shockingly honest games. This is evidenced by the fact that many accomplished gamers at the time would boast about being able to spend one quarter and spend all afternoon on a Pac Man or Donkey Kong machine.
I guess you don't know how business works. These old machines were extremely expensive; the manufacturers had to give arcades a compelling reason to buy them. If they can't turn a profit on each machine, then why buy them?

Quote:
Yes, arcade design BECAME about utilizing strategies to maximize profit potential. But that wasn't the point.
It was always the point.

Quote:
Do remember the chain of business of the arcade industry. Arcade game manufacturers make the games and then SELL them to arcades. Thusly, it was of no immediate interest for Arcade game manufacturers to maximize the number of financial interactions that a gamer was making with a machine. The game manufacturer was only interested in selling the unit. They wanted to make something that people wanted to play.
It's no different than something like claw machines, which are rigged in the favor of the machine's owner. The profit margin can actually be set in these things, which directly affects the win/loss ratio.

Arcade machines were designed to make money. Period.

Quote:
As arcades filled up with games and competition became more severe, yes. Games became more competitive. For instance, 4 player machines became a popular strategy because it made effective use of space. Games like Ninja Turtles stand out in my mind for using an unfair uncommunicative blinking light system on bosses to keep you pumping in quarters until they were finally dead. But those games tended to come later. Early arcade games didn't impose shady limitations on gamers just to keep them putting in quarters.
Quote:
Moreover, the idea that cartridge games utilized arcade game mechanics because "that was the language of the time" is just... silly. Think of a game like Zelda. That game was designed from the ground up to be a console game. They didn't impose challenge and difficultly because they simply couldn't think of anything ELSE to do. That was the GAME.

Metroid, Kid Icarus, Super Mario Bros. 2, Castlevania 2... these games were no influenced by arcades.
How is it silly when it's blatantly staring you in the face? Sure, there were games that broke the mold even then...but there's no denying the fact that standard video game mechanics and practices found in console games was directly influenced by what was being done in the arcades.

Quote:
You're basically just making up that idea because it bolsters a previous held belief you have that the design of old games is "archaic". It's fine if you don't like it, but it's not archaic and it wasn't any legacy of arcades.
The thing is, I'm not making it up. If people in the industry see it...then, it could very well be correct!

"On the other hand, we must consider the arcade mindset. Before consoles, arcade games ruled the world and console game developers drew inspiration from them, taking the gameplay experience from the cabinets to the consoles. Bear in mind that the purpose of arcade games was to have people pouring coins into them, so they were designed deliver a fast and engaging experience through high difficulty levels to make players pay more if they wanted to keep playing. This also explains why many people admire and respect Super Nintendo (SNES) games over NES games, because game creators started to develop their own style realizing that they had to lower the difficulty curve in order to make games more accessible."

I'm not the only one saying this.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 03:32 PM   #36
JazGalaxy
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
The thing is, I'm not making it up. If people in the industry see it...then, it could very well be correct!
You're pointing to a post on Envato to prove that you're right? That guy has just as many qualifications as you or I. I've even been approached by Envato to do graphic design tutorials. They're just Youtube for written articles.

And, yes, you're not the only one saying it. But that just means you're not the only person who is wrong.

Here's a picture of the original NES box:



Here's a picture of the Zelda box:



Notice how the box uses the word challenge at least 3 times. Each time, it is listed as a FEATURE. It actually uses the phrase "The Legend Of Zelda is the most challenging game we've made yet!"

Challenge was, back then, considered a FEATURE of game design. Games were designed to be hard because that's what gamers were LOOKING for. The fact that it's written 3 times on the box as a selling point is PROOF of that.

The logical fallacy you are falling into starts with your assumption that modern games are better than older games. Once you take that as fact, you say to yourself, "why are newer games better than older games. Well, because older games didn't have the technological power to be good." But that's a fallacious argument that you can use about absolutely anything.

"People only liked folk music in the 60s because they hadn't invented Heavy Metal yet." "People only liked old country music because they hadn't invited dubstep yet". "People only liked watching music videos on MTV because they hadn't invented reality TV shows yet."

The reality is that populist material will always sell better than specialized material.

Listen to any modern pop song today and what will you find? You'll likely find some traces of pop-punk, some traces of dub-step and electronica, some traces or hip hop and some traces of female vocal operatics. Why? Because a melting pot of all of those things sells better than any one strain on it's own.

Videogames are no different. Modern videogames are designed the way they are not because they are better, but because they are more populist. Want to alienate gamers? Make your game hard. Difficulty in games declined as story in games became more important because difficulty necessarily gets in the way of story telling. Who wants to keep losing over and over again when the player simply wants to find out what's next?

As games got easier to play, easier to complete, easier and easier to interact with, they became more popular. Heck, look at final fantasy. The series continued to become more and popular as it did away with all it's barriers to entry. Voice acting instead of reading? More popular. Doing away with management and stat tracking? More popular. Doing away with math and numbers? More popular. Now it's newest interation is basically a button masher interspersed with movies. That's about as far from it's RPG origins as one could get.
JazGalaxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 04:20 PM   #37
JazGalaxy
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
It was always the point.
It makes absolutely ZERO sense for you to say that arcade manufacturers maximizing the number of quarters pumped into machines was "always the point" when you could put one quarter into Donky Kong or Space Invaders and play all day long until the game glitches out on you. That is in direct contrast to what you are saying they were trying to do.

Or, heck, why do pinball machines exist at all?

If you were making the argument that Daytona or Gauntlet were programmed that way, with their constantly decreasing timers, then yes. Sure. But early arcade games most definitely weren't.

And, again, you can't ignore the fact that arcades were a completely seperate strain of gaming that PC gams or console games. When Richard Garrett was programming Alkabeth in his bedroom and selling it to people on discs he put into plastic bags... nobody was sitting around thinking about what was happening in the arcades.

Roberta Williams even made a comment how back when she was in the industry, it was called the "computer games" industry and it really had nothing to do with the "video games" industry, which was consoles and mostly for children. It's hard for us to remember those days, but the computer games industry was almost entirely in the US and Europe and the console industry was largely based in Japan. They didn't really talk and had no real WAY to talk. That's why PC games and console games felt so different, although there was some overlap like how Kings Quest would appear on the NES or Dragon Quest was directly influenced by Ultima. Yuji Hoori even comments that when he was making Dragon Quest, he was deep into Ultima and Wizardry, but nobody around him knew what those games were.
JazGalaxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 09:38 PM   #38
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
I still say it's beyond reasonable doubt that at least Ninja Gaiden was made hard to lengthen player's experience with it.

Let's do a quick survey of current speed run times on famous NES games (and I'm not going to vet these for tool assist or glitches).

Contra can be beat in 10 minutes.
Castlevania, 12 minutes.
Mega Man 22 minutes.
Mega Man 2, 29 min.
Battletoads 32 minutes.
Metroid 15 min.
Ducktales, 7 min.
Super Mario 3, 11 min.
Kid icarus 30 min.
Castlevania 2, 30 min.
Excitebike 6 min.
Blaster Master, 30 min.
Punchout 9 min.
Life Force 25 min.

But some games break the trend:

Zelda II, 1:29 min.
Star Tropics 61
Final Fantasy 1:13
Final Fantasy II, 3:23

(SNES)

Super Mario World 1:45
Zelda Link to the Past 1:44
Donkey Kong Country 2, 58
Final Fantasy 6, 7:53
Chrono Trigger, 6 hours

Today, on many AAA games we expect to get many more hours than that. Bloodborne took me about 40 hours to beat, though I like to take my time generally.

What's interesting is that the amount of time players want to invest in a game to beat it probably hasn't changed all that much since the NES days. The content in Bloodborne is orders of magnitude more than Super Mario or Contra, yet those old games took so long because you had to master the game so closely.

It was actually a somewhat rare thing to have actual hitpoints in a NES game, it was often 1-hit death. if Bloorborne had been like that it would probably take much, much, much longer to beat for the average person. That would be more comparing apples to apples.
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2016, 10:28 PM   #39
JazGalaxy
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
I still say it's beyond reasonable doubt that at least Ninja Gaiden was made hard to lengthen player's experience with it.

Let's do a quick survey of current speed run times on famous NES games (and I'm not going to vet these for tool assist or glitches).

Contra can be beat in 10 minutes.
Castlevania, 12 minutes.
Mega Man 22 minutes.
Mega Man 2, 29 min.
Battletoads 32 minutes.
Metroid 15 min.
Ducktales, 7 min.
Super Mario 3, 11 min.
Kid icarus 30 min.
Castlevania 2, 30 min.
Excitebike 6 min.
Blaster Master, 30 min.
Punchout 9 min.
Life Force 25 min.

But some games break the trend:

Zelda II, 1:29 min.
Star Tropics 61
Final Fantasy 1:13
Final Fantasy II, 3:23

(SNES)

Super Mario World 1:45
Zelda Link to the Past 1:44
Donkey Kong Country 2, 58
Final Fantasy 6, 7:53
Chrono Trigger, 6 hours

Today, on many AAA games we expect to get many more hours than that. Bloodborne took me about 40 hours to beat, though I like to take my time generally.

What's interesting is that the amount of time players want to invest in a game to beat it probably hasn't changed all that much since the NES days. The content in Bloodborne is orders of magnitude more than Super Mario or Contra, yet those old games took so long because you had to master the game so closely.

It was actually a somewhat rare thing to have actual hitpoints in a NES game, it was often 1-hit death. if Bloorborne had been like that it would probably take much, much, much longer to beat for the average person. That would be more comparing apples to apples.
This gets tricky and messy, though.

When you look at the stats on PS4 for achievements, the VAAAAST majority of players never beat games. In terms of the games I play, most players only make it through 30-40% of the game.

GTA V completion 51%
Black Flag completion 48%
I Am Setsuna 36%
The Witcher 3 38%
Bioshock Infinite 54%
Bioshock 52%
The Last Of Us ~50%
I don't know Bloodborne well enough to know the end game achievement but it looks to be in the 35% range.


So the reality is that game length is not of any significance to the VAST majority of PS4 players. Most gamers never play a game long enough to know how long it actually is.

And while you are right that speed runners can beat NES games in a matter of minutes, that's not the way old games used to work. Developing the skill necessary to beat a game, even if you KNEW what to do mentally, was difficult and is what took time.

People forget, but that's why games like Zelda and Megaman allowing you to choose your stage or go out of order were so important. In a game with no challenge, being able to pick where you go next is a charming but useless feature. In a game that was difficult, being able to choose where you went next was the difference between being able to progress or hitting a wall that you simply could not penetrate. I know many people who would abandon a dungeon in Zelda and go find one they could handle. I also know people who had particular megaman stages they were good at and others they were terrible at. Gutsman's stage in MM1, for instance, was a bear for me. Ice Man's stage, with the disappearing platforms, though, was easy as pie.

Heck, I remember being shocked to find out that people thought the seaweed in TMNT was a classic roadblock. I never had a problem with it and can still navigate it on muscle memory even after not playing it for years. But the turbo tunnels you were talking about? NEVER beat them. never ever.
JazGalaxy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 12:52 AM   #40
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
Quote:
So the reality is that game length is not of any significance to the VAST majority of PS4 players. Most gamers never play a game long enough to know how long it actually is.
This isn't the only interpretation we can give those facts.

Even if players don't finish a game they want the final length to be there, or else gamers will come down hard on them, as they did on Abzu for being a 2-hour game, despite being indie and cheap.

And even if the majority are playing half the game, that's still closer to 20 hours than to one hour.

Example, I stopped playing "The Last of Us" because Bloodborne released and I didn't have time for it anymore.

But if it had ended when I quit, I would've considered that a rip-off for the price.

Quote:
And while you are right that speed runners can beat NES games in a matter of minutes, that's not the way old games used to work. Developing the skill necessary to beat a game, even if you KNEW what to do mentally, was difficult and is what took time.
That's what I'm talking about though. I might've played every section of Ninja Gaiden a hundred times, whereas I've only played every section of Bloodborne a dozen times or so across the 9+ times I've beaten it.

Difficulty per linear inch of game-space is drastically higher in those early NES games that had to rely on difficulty to increases the length of a gamer's playtime with that game. The easier they made the game the shorter player-time with it would be.

I argue that Ninja Gaiden is actually a far, far harder game than Bloodborne, which doesn't require anything like pixel-perfect platforming and millisecond-timing like NG did, nor rote attack-response memorization in level-enemies (except arguably for bosses in both games).
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dark souls, dark souls 3, fromsoftware

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 AM.