OXCGN:
"I’m always after new experiences.
Therefore, I recently purchased a PS3 for Christmas, and one of the first games I bought was the highly-touted Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune.
I soon realised, that even though I’ve had my PS3 for just under a month, I’ve blasted through the Uncharted Series, as well as Ghost Recon: Future Soldier and DOOM 3: BFG Edition.
It got me thinking: have my skills as a gamer increased over time, or are games not as challenging as they once were?"
80°
60°
40°
50°
Ad 
450°
10°
20°
20°
10°
10°
Also, back in the day there was no way to Google something if you were stuck.
You can't win withe stuff like this because when games are too hard people complain, so even very hard games nowadays aren't that hard.
At any rate, the writer of this article needs to study-up just a little bit more on the subject:
"I’ve blasted through the Uncharted Series"
Since all of them have puzzle elements contained within it, I highly doubt he blasted through them. It's very easy to complete games when you have the option to start at "easy" and "very easy", which I think he did.
"The original Halo contained health kits, and was a more challenging game because of it, but it too conformed to recharging health"
The original Halo INVENTED recharging health.
"I remember playing the original DOOM games, where after doing battle against a horde of demons, I’d be low on health, knowing I’d have to get past more demons in order to gain precious health kits.
It might be just me, but I felt there was more tension and intensity present, knowing that one wrong move would kill me, and making it to safety would give me a greater sense of accomplishment."
Or, you can just run pas them, which greatly cut-down the difficulty factor. The speed-run was invented by people who played games like this and many other games on the PC because they gave you unmatched agility when your computerized opponents could barely move coherently.
"Games such as Mega Man were brutally difficult. This is a franchise where precision timing and skill were needed in order to retain the precious few lives the player was afforded."
Not really; Mega Man all played the same: once you find the easiest level, you get a weapon from the boss, and then you find the next easiest level and kill that boss with that weapon, which will kill that boss with ease. It's a puzzle game, and not a very hard one once you see the pattern.
If you want hard games, here's a list and why:
Killzone 1 and 2: has checkpoints, but are very far between one and the other
Kill.Switch: out of all of the cover-shooters, this one was one of the most brutal: unlike Uncharted and Gears of War, you don't have people to assist you at any point of the game.
King's Field: PS1 RPG with very deep gameplay as it progresses, difficulty is not too over the top at any one time, but the challenge is consistent throughout the entire game.
And the most logical point of having extra lives or save points in games is because most gamers aren't layabouts or kids who have hours on end to play games; you go too far back into gaming, and gaming will die because only those two groups of people will be able to play those types of games, because most people don't have the time to play whole levels over and over again. Gamers WANT to face very hard challenges, but they don't have the time to waste half of a day to do so like they did when they were kids. Save points will allow them to continue the challenge when it's good for them to. Demon Souls balances it out very well in that regard.
But see how much those games stick out like a sore thumb? These games would be normal in days of past.
So yes, games are too easy these days. They're catered towards the lowest common denominator... That's why.
http://www.gamespot.com/new...
lol every generation new 12 year olds get into gaming and consoles are just to popular. One button games sooner or later.
Not to mention that horror and tactical shooters are just about dead. The only stealth games left are MGS and dues Ex. Splinter cell looks like a joke now.
How easy are games?
http://youtu.be/YuhfD48VRGE...
Like stealth? here!
http://youtu.be/YuhfD48VRGE...
"One button games sooner or later"
Look at early gaming controllers and then look at the current standard controllers. Controllers aren't getting less complex. Motion controls don't have anything to do with it so please don't try to play that card. Motion controls will stick around to lure in the casual gamers who are put off by the standard controllers, but we can all see that games designed purely for motion controls are firmly in the casual category.
Take Demon Souls and Dark Souls for example. Demon Souls was a very punishing game, but it was unlike any other game we've played before, hence why it was extremely difficult. Once I've started to learn how the game functioned, then it wasn't so bad. After entering the realm of Dark Souls, it wasn't as punishing as I thought it would be, but that's because I went through so much with the previous one.
p.s. I've beaten every game you just listed, back in the old days all you had to do was remember the pattern, and you could play the game exactly the same way every time. It was easy once you new what to do. I dont think I've gotten worst at gaming as i've gotten older, but who knows, maybe i have. Im just saying that games are not easier on hard than the games of games gone by
<And let's not even talk about the ones from Nintendo. Mario Galaxy is so easy even a baby could beat it.>
To finish halo 4 on legendary, in fact I did the last levels on a lower difficulty.
It's for reasons like that that I really appreciate games like Demon's/Dark Souls because they achieve a different kind of difficulty. They don't have to resort to making the player extremely weak and the enemies really powerful, they make the game difficult by punishing impatient and unobservant players.
Just my opinion, but that's why I don't like to consider the higher difficulty settings on games as being "difficult". If a game is going to be called "difficult" it should be because the game is NATURALLY difficult. You shouldn't HAVE to set any sort of level to make it more so. And games that are only difficult because they throw more bullets at you, I just don't think they should count. Again, my opinion though.
Example in 4 if they see ur shield pop they will charge u even if ur behind cover and those with shields that go out will take cover. It became insanely hard on legendary but the health wasn't the issue. The AI was smart and KNEW when to attack.
Personally, I do not consider Demon's/Dark Souls as "hard" but what they do is make you consider your environment, the enemies and your abilities in a way other games haven't done in a long time, and for me, that makes a much more enjoyable game.
Anytime you actually NEED to learn the mechanics and intricacies of a game in order to beat it is a good thing in my opinion.
The first is rated about 8/10
and
the second 2/10
for difficulty :) (Thats at ps3trophies.org)
So I want a mildly challenging experience that is fun.
For this reason I have avoided (reluctantly) great games like Demon's Souls.
I don't get a great deal of satisfaction from passing difficult areas...I get relief.
personally i'm not all that much into masochistic difficulties and Normal is the one i always go with
Games are/were meant to be challenging. That's where the fun comes from.
Not sure about you but ps3 has been a big part of this gen and if I was working for a gaming website it would only be appropriate to own that piece of this ging gen.
I don't work for a gaming site and yet I have every console ( except the wii U )
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
games like uncharted2-3/god of war 3/killzone2-3/demon souls on the hardest difficulty
are some of the hardest games i have ever played
Far too often these days, though, even the Hard and Expert difficulties are just too easy.
And then there are franchises whose names are synonymous with requiring a certain level of skill being FAR easier than they should be.
I would love them to patch in a difficulty level for that game :(
I hate how coreographed games have become. Full of setpiece moments that most people seem blinded by, because of how big in scale they are, but they seem to miss the fact that most of these moments are basically a cutscene playing out ingame, and the player can't really interact with it in a genuine way.
At least these scripted moments never seem to occur dynamically. I'm obviously hinting at CoD, Uncharted and all the other franchises that try to rip these franchises off. The latest addition is Dead Space 3 which is seemingly completely ignorant of where it has its roots.
Sleeping Dogs had adaptive AI - I'd think as a developer you'd at least try something like that. I just hope difficulty settings are a continued practice and implemented into Watch Dogs and new AC titles.
Gamers have gotten very entitled and to make money the industry has coddled them. If something is new and learning it frustrates gamers they quit and in turn the game loses sells. This mean everything has to be primarily the same. They take away any real penalties for losing or they make the player way overpowered. To trick ppl in to thinking they are doing something the enemies becomes bullet sponges or plates of steel with few real ways to hurt you.
I would like to see more game theory.
I will strongly disagree! Edonus, maybe you are not buying the right games for your play style! Think about what you are saying. Maybe you want "real penalties for losing"
I believe you have used the word real for the meaning in-game and not wanting actaual real world penalties.
My Opinion, "I want light, fair, and fun penalties for doing poorly where there is enough information for the task at hand".
To developers: Give me enough information in my game to do well (there) and I will buy your game new for $60 USD.
This creates very weak gamers. Gaming was once a trial of patience and solid thinking, you had to observe patterns and recognize strategies under pressure. If they just started reintroducing the limited lives concept back in design it would be great.
Thats why I loved ME2 and Steel battalion they gave you a squad of characters hat you built relationships with and if you didnt play right they would die and wouldnt comeback affecting the overall story arch of the game. Thats a real penalty.
Your point is (and will aways be) very valid and I now see clearly what you have said in your first post.
On topic: I do see what Halo (and others) did with infinte lives and there is no penilties. The only punishment in those type of games would be when the gamer himself (/herself) got bored enough to stop playing. Games can be beaten in days instead of weeks or months. Some like that, some don't. I do like the option though.
Now speaking of Halo, that game does have skulls that can easily be turned on and off at will. There are also many points (and goals) that can be earned in game. The points that I speak of are tasks to complete w/o being achievments. Other games set some quite high goals without affecting achievment too.
I myself could not beat the Game Halo 1 if not for the forgiving gameplay. I played on easy and had fun the whole time I was doing pooly. I was never mad at the game or the developer for having me die for no reason like (Tomb Raider 1 thru...25)
I'm happy that there are games for every play style. I want games made for the Hardcore. You seem to enjoy the challenge which is great!
There are tons of games out there that are considered insane on their highest difficulty. Try Halo Reach with 4 players on Legendary. Or the Destroyer from Borderlands 1 DLC with 4 players. What about the Resistance games on Superhuman or Gears of War on insane?
Games these days give you the options for easier settings, but they still do have the hardcore difficulties that you're looking for. But to be honest, why would you want it that hard anyways? Like to the point where you constantly die and struggle to the next checkpoint? That doesn't seem fun. I find it more engaging when the game is challenging but not overly cheap to the point where I'm dying every 10 steps.
Hard doesn't necessarily mean letting the player die constantly. It's about making smart decisions and allow them to plan ahead and reward them accordingly or punish them vice-versa instead of rushing in head-to which many modern games promote. This is why there is a "thrill" trying to playing games where they only give you the tools for you to discover or work out the balance like Vanquish, Demon's souls or Gravity Rush.
That's just a warm up for Battletoads! The later levels are more difficult thus the reason why not many has finished it! Watching them on Youtube is enough reason for you not wanting to try it. There is no getting lucky, just pure skills!
<Campaigns are being hastily completed in four to five
hours, when the norm used to be around ten to fifteen.>
And for Uncharted, i don't know why but i felt UC2 crushing mode is harder than this. But maybe my gaming skills are increased.
As for the articles, gaming this days are about acessible for all type of gamers, including the casual ones. That's why games like Demon's Souls / Ninja Gaiden are becoming very rare. But i'm not against games that isn't challenging as Demon's Souls / Ninja Gaiden. It's about balance i think and hardcore gamers require games that removed the stress from dying a lot after playing games like Demon's Souls ^^
same thing for shooters like COD (referring to single player campaign only, since multiplayer is player-controlled). yes, once in a while you end up dead, but the "challenge" aspect is mediocre; it's practically the action and visual flair that keeps you going at it.
HALFLIFE 2 is the easiest game I've ever played. Even on hard it's a breeze.
HL1 was the better game with worse graphics.