This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why do some people say games today are a lot easier than back then?

#61Bronze_StuffPosted 4/7/2013 9:57:34 AM
EM_Mega posted...
Bronze_Stuff posted...
EM_Mega posted...
Ashenshugur posted...
There is a huge list of frustratingly difficult games from back then and very few today, most people will eventually beat modern games even on the hardest difficulty level with minimal frustration, but try playing some of these...

Festers Quest (Not going to turn off my system until this is beat. Four hours later a power outage...),
Ninja Gaiden (So much fall death),
Contra (w/o the code),
X-men,
Top Gun (is it even possible to land your plane?)
Simpsons Bart vs the Space Mutants (Hats seriously?)
TMNT (Nuff said here),
Ghost and Goblins (you actually have to beat this one twice),
Robotron: 2084,
Oregon Trial (Darn you Dysentery),
Pitfall,
Silver Surfer (why did I ever try to play this game?),
Ikari Warriors (WTH, trapped in a room? What are to do?),
Yo Noid (Guess he got one shotted irl),
Clash at Demonhead (seriously long game),
Golgo 13 (Really a hooker? Yes!),
Legacy of the Wizard,
The Adventures of Bayou Billy,
Flying Warriors (I really suck at this game),
Rush'n Attack (Unless you want to grind for hours to get 1-ups),
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Ah, that last boss fight is seriously tough!),
Dick Tracy (Mainly due to the controls, but sheesh those snipers),
There are so many more that I have forgotten.


XCOM:Enemy Unknown on Impossible Ironman is more difficult than 90%~ of the games you just posted.

Doesn't matter how fast you rush to Plasma weapons when the Aliens have 100% accuracy and you have 40% at BEST.


That's not hard, that's luck based.


Not really, because even with the greatest luck in the universe you still won't be hitting them, the percentages go down THAT low. Even if you could hit them anyway, their damage output jumps too fast for you to even be able to keep up, pretty much the ONLY way to consistently beat them is if you actively use Overwatch and Supress to absurd levels so you can completely skip the roll-of-the-die functions of the game so they won't screw you over. Just losing a single promoted member on your team is nearly unacceptable as well, it takes several missions to get a new one, and each mission only gets harder from the last.

Which is stupid. That's horrible design. Like Fire Emblem Lunatic mode levels of bad design.
---
Jimbo.
#62Bronze_StuffPosted 4/7/2013 10:09:30 AM
And auto regen just takes care of the old tripe of picking up health packs randomly laying around. Personally I prefer auto regen. Both are artificially infused into games, and neither makes sense in reality, but auto regen is the lesser of two evils.

Auto-regen and health packs are two different things.

Auto-regen allows you to run from the enemy to recover life. In Auto-regen world, enemies can be designed to do more damage because the assumption can be made that a person will reach each point with full health. Health packs test the player's skill to NOT take damage over a period of time. Thus, enemies are more bound to do less damage and have significantly less random patterns for the sake of fairness.

Do you really expect a massive single player game with a massive multiplayer game for $60? They barely make the money back on their games currently. That's why DLC is becoming so prominent. They'd either have to split the game which would cannibalize each others sales, or price it much higher, which would kill its sales all together.

That's because devs have started a cycle that they probably won't ever get out of. People don't buy games because of DLC, and devs don't make the anticipated money back for games they spend thousands (possibly millions) on. Devs originally used DLC to include things that weren't completely implemented or expansion packs. Now Devs use DLC to sell fragmented games and to stop used sells. Problem with this? The devs are going to lose this battle, as the consumer can always just WAIT for the game to cost less.

As for QTE, controls are more complex than they have ever been. I see nothing wrong with having a player feel slightly involved in a cinematic event. It keeps them from putting down the controller and keeps the player more engaged then setting down the controller and watching a video. Besides, it's minimal in usage, if you don't like it, don't buy the few games that have it. And QTEs were entirely more prolific in the past then now. Dragons Lair, Space Ace, Mad Dog, Night Trap, etc.

Except QTEs aren't always done in fashions that make sense. Don't make my character jump around like a badass and then go "X+O!" Just let me do it myself. Let it be a boss battle. Let me play the damn game. Dragon's Lair isn't quick time events so much as it is a choice your own adventure style game. There ARE QTE in it, but there aren't that many, and even then, they make SENSE in this style of game. They don't in a lot of other games and proceed to do nothing but annoy the crap out of people.
---
Jimbo.
#63EM_MegaPosted 4/7/2013 2:15:54 PM
Bronze_Stuff posted...
EM_Mega posted...
Bronze_Stuff posted...
EM_Mega posted...
Ashenshugur posted...
There is a huge list of frustratingly difficult games from back then and very few today, most people will eventually beat modern games even on the hardest difficulty level with minimal frustration, but try playing some of these...

Festers Quest (Not going to turn off my system until this is beat. Four hours later a power outage...),
Ninja Gaiden (So much fall death),
Contra (w/o the code),
X-men,
Top Gun (is it even possible to land your plane?)
Simpsons Bart vs the Space Mutants (Hats seriously?)
TMNT (Nuff said here),
Ghost and Goblins (you actually have to beat this one twice),
Robotron: 2084,
Oregon Trial (Darn you Dysentery),
Pitfall,
Silver Surfer (why did I ever try to play this game?),
Ikari Warriors (WTH, trapped in a room? What are to do?),
Yo Noid (Guess he got one shotted irl),
Clash at Demonhead (seriously long game),
Golgo 13 (Really a hooker? Yes!),
Legacy of the Wizard,
The Adventures of Bayou Billy,
Flying Warriors (I really suck at this game),
Rush'n Attack (Unless you want to grind for hours to get 1-ups),
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Ah, that last boss fight is seriously tough!),
Dick Tracy (Mainly due to the controls, but sheesh those snipers),
There are so many more that I have forgotten.


XCOM:Enemy Unknown on Impossible Ironman is more difficult than 90%~ of the games you just posted.

Doesn't matter how fast you rush to Plasma weapons when the Aliens have 100% accuracy and you have 40% at BEST.


That's not hard, that's luck based.


Not really, because even with the greatest luck in the universe you still won't be hitting them, the percentages go down THAT low. Even if you could hit them anyway, their damage output jumps too fast for you to even be able to keep up, pretty much the ONLY way to consistently beat them is if you actively use Overwatch and Supress to absurd levels so you can completely skip the roll-of-the-die functions of the game so they won't screw you over. Just losing a single promoted member on your team is nearly unacceptable as well, it takes several missions to get a new one, and each mission only gets harder from the last.

Which is stupid. That's horrible design. Like Fire Emblem Lunatic mode levels of bad design.


Still better design than Silver Surfer's wall design, Castlevania's terribad controls, Bayou Billy's absurd enemy swarming, or Ninja Gaiden's respawning enemies.
---
Main: Nova/Spencer/Hawkeye
Side: Strider/Dante/Doom
#64Bronze_StuffPosted 4/7/2013 4:08:37 PM
Still better design than Silver Surfer's wall design, Castlevania's terribad controls, Bayou Billy's absurd enemy swarming, or Ninja Gaiden's respawning enemies.

Wall's are pretty bad in SS. Castlevania's controls are fine. The problem with Castlevania is having limited abilities in comparison to what enemies attack. Bayou Billy isn't THAT bad, it's just pretty tough outside of the hellishly cheap final stages. Ninja Gaiden's respawning enemies aren't even the biggest problem of Ninja Gaiden. It's the enemy placement.
---
Jimbo.
#65Stanger5150Posted 4/7/2013 4:14:14 PM
There is no game this gen or last that's even half as hard as Battletoads.
---
PSN- BlackRain8782
#66Stanger5150Posted 4/7/2013 4:17:19 PM
guineathewop posted...
People seem to fail to realize how much easy those old games can be when you have checkpoints or you can save and come back later. I've beaten old games on roms that I've never even come close to beating originally.


And that doesn't count.

You can only compare games as they appear on the hardware they were designed for.
---
PSN- BlackRain8782
#67Seifer_usPosted 4/7/2013 6:20:32 PM
As someone else said, I think the difference is that now you're given a choice. There are multiple difficulty settings in almost every game now, so you can choose to be challenged or to skip merrily on your way. Most older titles didn't really give you that option. You beat it by their rules or you didn't beat it at all.

There's also a difference between older games that were poorly programmed and games that took legitimate skill. Take Zelda II on NES for instance. In most cases, any time I die, it's my own fault and not that of the programmers. A game like Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, however, is all terrible design choices and the like.
---
PSN ID: Shawnji
Trophy List: http://psnprofiles.com/Shawnji
#68GoatJugSoupPosted 4/7/2013 6:23:55 PM
games back then were made mostly still with the arcade in mind (even if they never went there) and the arcades mission was to get as much of your money as possible.
---
http://psnprofiles.com/goatjugsoup1278
GW2 Character Name: Ranger Goat of Yogi, Guild: Knights of Chicken
#69zyrax2301Posted 4/7/2013 6:27:51 PM
Controls have gotten considerably better but the content has become more complex as well, which in a lot of cases goes into 'auto-pilot' making the player do little to nothing to succeed. E.G. climbing in Uncharted.
---
Why? Because **** you is why.