Gamers today are sissies

[IdaGno]

All I've got is this big yellow wrench. Why can't I hit this flippin' space monkey?

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: manowar821
There are also super sensitive retards who get all homophobic/upset when they see a funny dick spray on the wall (counterstrike source). I was hoping that's what this thread was going to be about, but oh well. I agree, anyway, I know 4 people who have "uber gear" in MMO's, but cannot for the life of them clear the second world in Super Mario Brothers 3.

Well, on a similar note I have a friend who obsesses over old hard games, beats battletoads all the old mario games easily, but is absolutely awful at RTS's or FPS's. Comes down to what you are good at I guess, being good at these old games does not make you some kind of gaming god.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: manowar821
There are also super sensitive retards who get all homophobic/upset when they see a funny dick spray on the wall (counterstrike source). I was hoping that's what this thread was going to be about, but oh well. I agree, anyway, I know 4 people who have "uber gear" in MMO's, but cannot for the life of them clear the second world in Super Mario Brothers 3.

Well, on a similar note I have a friend who obsesses over old hard games, beats battletoads all the old mario games easily, but is absolutely awful at RTS's or FPS's. Comes down to what you are good at I guess, being good at these old games does not make you some kind of gaming god.

No of-course not... But they're also somewhat basic, and it's fun to get into the roots of modern video gaming once in a while, so you know where it all came from... It gives you perspective, at least on a limited level.

PS: I know someone like that, too, it's a little strange.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Pelu

Originally posted by: irishScott
For those of you who want a nice modern truly challenging game:

Try Company of Heroes on Expert. Have fun taking St. Fromond.
Empires Total War also looks extremely promising.

Can't say much for shooters.

lol in Expert All levels of CoH are tuff...

Meh. I found Normal to be pretty easy in terms of defense after the initial rush. AI would just keep up the same pattern of attacks to the point where I could turtle indefinitely.

I've yet to take St. Fromond on Expert. Once I almost took the square, then Panzers and a shitload of infanty in halftracks rolled down the road before I could put up tank traps and pushed me back across the bridge. Came down to me panically (word invention FTW) mass producing AT guns and having my remaining infantry huddling around my HQ so I could reinforce them on the fly. Had to retake the near bridge and blow it myself just to get some relief. Saved the game at that point, I'll come back to it when I have another 3 hours to kill.

 

[AzN]

Single player game is sissy. We've moved beyond that to Multiplayer with actual intelligence.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

With all due fairness, an awful lot of multiplayer out there is less intelligent then pattern based NES games.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
I don't like games that are needlessly challenging. I like games that are fun.

If you want challenge, play multiplayer. There you will be challenged in the best way possible - against others also seeking a challenge.

This is why i prefer MP over SP games. I prefer to play against human opponents also. Makes for more interesting play, and competition makes it interesting too. Of course, I am just an average player.

 

[Maleficus]

Originally posted by: Azn
Single player game is sissy. We've moved beyond that to Multiplayer with actual intelligence.

Multiplayer games have no story, while I am an avid fan of competition, sometimes I like to battle my way through a story.

MP isn't a replacement for SP.

 

[Pia]

Originally posted by: Maleficus

Originally posted by: Azn
Single player game is sissy. We've moved beyond that to Multiplayer with actual intelligence.

Multiplayer games have no story, while I am an avid fan of competition, sometimes I like to battle my way through a story.

MP isn't a replacement for SP.

MP isn't a replacement for SP, but on the other hand, story tends to be particularly incompatible with high challenge. Whenever challenge is high, you are going to fail often, which in most game systems results in a restart (from beginning of level/from latest save/etc). That is distracting to the story. Consider a given level of a game:

event 1 - fight - event 2 during fight - fight over - event 3

Now assume the fight is very hard, and the player has to quickload again and again:

event 1 - quicksave - fight - quickload - fight - event 2 - ql - fight - event 2 - fight - ql - fight - event 2 - fight - event 3

The pacing just breaks. Sure, for the game character the chain of events is still logical, but dramatic appeal and emotional impact on the player is lost from the repetition.

 

[DefDC]

I like hard games, but I also like the easiness of today's games too. All Bioware RPGs are insanely easy. The only challenge is finding the time to get though them. However, I think they've all been great. And it's nice that it's not only the hardcore gamers that can see the end of those games.

A couple of very hard games that came out relatively recently are Psychonauts and Tron 2.0. Psychonauts, I believe, could have been made even MORE fun by making it a bit easier. I'm 34 now, and can get pretty pissed when an anal jumping puzzle is the only thing standing in the way of story progression. (I am not bad at jumping puzzle either, I've been a multi-genera hardcore gamer all my life). Tron, to me, was almost perfect in it's difficulty. It was hard, but never seemed unfair...

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
This is gonna make me sound like an ass (people pretty much always knew that anyway) but you do realize Doom had 5 difficulty settings dont you?
I know it gives people a huge boner to go straight for the hardest setting but thats totally unnecessary. If you get killed the game is obviously too hard for you.
Go down a notch.

Of course, if you get spanked on the easiest level theres nothing I can do for you. I can only assume you suck at Doom and should probably go back to reading books or watching TV.
I'm a shitty player and even I can beat Doom on the middle setting without cheating.
Though I suppose I do agree with your point about fun. Video games are games and should be enjoyable. If they arent then cheat codes have a chance to make them fun. But if you need invincibility and unlimited gold/ammo/hearts just to play the game normally then it probably isnt going to provide much entertainment.

To put it into perspective, last time I played Doom was when I was 14 or less. My maturity/attention span was pretty low, as was my ability to grasp the concept of "Knee up in the Dead" or "Hell on Earth". IIRC, if I couldn't win first or second time through playing properly, I went straight to cheating. Today, I could probably run circles around the enemies, but some older and younger people may have that same 'suckiness' and lack of attention span that I use to have. The instant respawn, toning down of difficulty prevents most of that instantly. You don't need to search for cheat codes and use retarded button combinations or strategy guides anymore. Guess you could say it makes games more accessible to 'tards?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: ja1484
You can do that, but it makes you wrong. Go back and look at Doom or Hexen, or the original WarCraft or Command and Conquer. Hell, CRPG as a genre didn't really *exist* in its *modern form* back in the mid 90s.

The point is, Wolfenstein 3d was a point and click game. Modern shooters maintain that base, but in many cases there is MUCH more going on (STALKER, for example). People just haven't noticed how many new features have come along in the intervening ~15 years because they were added slowly, 1 or 2 at a time.

What content? Did Doom even have a story? I guess if you counted that two paragraph setup in the manual. Warcraft only had two races, and they were practically mirror images.

You're right about the RTS genre if only because the technology didn't exist at the time for good pathfinding and high levels of units required for the genre, but the FPS genre is not the same case. You have the dumbed-down iD games, sure, but what about Ultima Underworld or System Shock? It wasn't until recently that the FPS/RPG genre saw a resurgence outside of the few games that ex-Origin/TTLG members contributed.

The CRPG certainly did exist. It didn't exist with an isometric mouse-controlled interface, but what can you call games like Ultima and Wasteland? The latter was even the precursor to Fallout.

 

[Coldkilla]

OFP2 FTW - Marked my calender. Kids flee from this game the second they realize what a dumb decision it was to buy a game that made you think.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Maleficus
http://www.escapistmagazine.co..._148/4874-Hard-Times.2

One of many articles talking about the demise of games that actually challenged the player. Now we are filled with World of Warcraft where skill doesn't even exist.

Itaki has to add dog mode to ninja gaiden so people can beat them, sad sad world.

lol... even on dog mode the game is hard to alot of people.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: irishScott
One thing that really pisses me off is the notion that RTS games should be "balanced". Personally, I love the thrill of coming back from behind. Only in the total war games and CoH have I truly been able to use tactics to beat a far superior force.

As for storytelling, it's all but dead. Deus Ex (and it's sucessor) had an awesome story line. System Shock 2 had an awesome story line. Star Control 2 has an awesome story line. Planet's Edge and Wasteland, from the early 90s/late 80s, have story lines, interactivity, complexity and character development that I have yet to remotely see in any modern game. Awesome stuff.

Best thing about them, when the characters die, they stay fucking dead. Theres none of this Gears of War "walk over, scream "Fight Through the Pain!" which magically cures a bullet wound in the guy's chest" shit. You can acquire new members, or clone a member in the case of Planet's Edge, but even then the cloned member will have different attributes that you'll have to adapt to/use.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=830
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=2425

That said, the Myst games had an excellent story and lasted until 2004 IIRC (there are 5 of them). They take forever, but they're some of the most intriguing and well designed puzzle game's I've ever played, and there's a lot to them if you're into Literary/Art Analysis. The Environments are simply breathtaking in the later games. But they're an exception. By and large the story line in most modern games consists of:

Good guy A has to take out bad guy B
A has a traumatic past that somehow turned him into God.
A goes after B.
B disappears right before A can get to him.
A is knocked out.
A wakes up with a desire for vengeance and justice.
A starts his quest, kills a few monsters, and meets sidekick and/or hot chick F
F is good with guns/weapons.
A&F embark on a quest of daring intrigue where random bad guys CDEGHJKLIMNOSPUZ pop up out of nowhere to provide "twists and turns" to the plot, but ultimately don't do much and just slow down the game.
Huge Boss fight between A (and possibly F) and B occurs. B now has a device that makes him nigh invincible.
A&F destroy B, F possibly dies in the process (causing A to become extremely constipated and shoot lighting out of his ass)
Assuming F is a hot chick, F never puts out.

slap your self and buy Mass effect on PC to play a game with a awesome story line

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: irishScott
One thing that really pisses me off is the notion that RTS games should be "balanced". Personally, I love the thrill of coming back from behind. Only in the total war games and CoH have I truly been able to use tactics to beat a far superior force.

As for storytelling, it's all but dead. Deus Ex (and it's sucessor) had an awesome story line. System Shock 2 had an awesome story line. Star Control 2 has an awesome story line. Planet's Edge and Wasteland, from the early 90s/late 80s, have story lines, interactivity, complexity and character development that I have yet to remotely see in any modern game. Awesome stuff.

Best thing about them, when the characters die, they stay fucking dead. Theres none of this Gears of War "walk over, scream "Fight Through the Pain!" which magically cures a bullet wound in the guy's chest" shit. You can acquire new members, or clone a member in the case of Planet's Edge, but even then the cloned member will have different attributes that you'll have to adapt to/use.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=830
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=2425

That said, the Myst games had an excellent story and lasted until 2004 IIRC (there are 5 of them). They take forever, but they're some of the most intriguing and well designed puzzle game's I've ever played, and there's a lot to them if you're into Literary/Art Analysis. The Environments are simply breathtaking in the later games. But they're an exception. By and large the story line in most modern games consists of:

Good guy A has to take out bad guy B
A has a traumatic past that somehow turned him into God.
A goes after B.
B disappears right before A can get to him.
A is knocked out.
A wakes up with a desire for vengeance and justice.
A starts his quest, kills a few monsters, and meets sidekick and/or hot chick F
F is good with guns/weapons.
A&F embark on a quest of daring intrigue where random bad guys CDEGHJKLIMNOSPUZ pop up out of nowhere to provide "twists and turns" to the plot, but ultimately don't do much and just slow down the game.
Huge Boss fight between A (and possibly F) and B occurs. B now has a device that makes him nigh invincible.
A&F destroy B, F possibly dies in the process (causing A to become extremely constipated and shoot lighting out of his ass)
Assuming F is a hot chick, F never puts out.

slap your self and buy Mass effect on PC to play a game with a awesome story line

Ah yes... Mass Effect

 

[skace]

There needs to be some distinction in this thread about arcade difficulty and regular difficulty. Arcade difficulty was sometimes considered incredibly cheap and often meant memorizing an exact sequence learned through many deaths, which was done to eat quarters at the expense of the player. Examples of arcade difficulty were Ghouls n Ghosts, Contra, and Battletoads. The other type of difficulty is general difficulty in games which has also been on a great decline.

I've noticed that people arguing against difficulty are bringing up arcade games as examples of where they don't think we should be. However, they've made a giant leap in the process, jumping right over normal difficulty. I believe Yahtzee even brought this up in one of his articles although it could have been someone else. General difficulty is how most games don't make the player think anymore or put them in a situation where they can die. It's the FPS game that has regenerating health or that relies on the player hiding behind obstacles instead of actually moving. It is universal ammo or a lack of grenades. It is when invulnerability is considered a valid gameplay mechanism. It is the slowing down of player movement and general handicapping how the player moves.

The lack of difficulty in games these days is the equivalent of a 30 year old saying he likes playing baseball but only if he can hit the ball off of a tee instead of having it pitched at him. And then using an excuse of how little time he has to cover his complete lack of competence. Sure, hitting off a tee makes baseball more accessible, but jesus christ have some dignity and learn something.

 

[imported_protoz]

I enjoy a great story, it's what gets me through most games anymore because gameplay has gotten stagnant for many genre's. The difficulty isn't a selling point for me at all anymore.

That said there has to be a goof balance of difficulty to make the story matter. I played through the Half-Life series on Normal mostly because I was bored on easy but I died too quickly on Hard. Normal had a good balance so I could take a few more shots and survive to find the next med pack.

On Halo 3 I've beaten it on Legendary because it isn't as challenging. Get shot? Run behind a rock til you regenerate then shoot a little bit more.

It's different styles but I prefer the feeling of acomplishment where I end a big firefight with 15 health and have to go hunting for health to move on instead of watching my shields recharge.

RTS games are different though. I don't like having 30 races. 3 or 4 are more than enough for balance/misbalance. The races should never be neck and neck but have specific advantages you can use that no one else has.

Starcraft perfected this and that's why I can still watch tournaments of a 10 year old game. New strategies are constantly formed to use the strengths better.

Single player RTS games might have a decent story but they really prepare you for multiplayer. Starcrafts story was pretty fun but the game didn't come to life until you were on Battle.net

 

[zpsyx9]

First person games have been lame as hell lately, its been Halo syndrome and more.

Crysis, Gears of War, Call of Duty 4 all have regen-o-health, which makes things easy on a retarded level. I can turn Crysis on it's hardest setting and literally walk into 10 guys. Just toss a few grenades, they all run, if I get shot I'll just hide behind a tree! Don't worry about ammo, its infinite for all but the strongest weapon (which you'll get 10 minutes in).

...AND THEN you have Bioshock, the "this is really scary except it's impossible to die so the entire concept of fear is a moot point" game. You could bring a Big Daddy straight to a spawn point and kill them with your crowbar (oh did I say that, I meant wrench...) on the HARDEST setting. You can turn those spawn points off, yes, but the game is still designed around having them.

Heres a thought for the developers. PC games use a mouse & keyboard, not a controller. We're not gimped, we don't need your freaking free health and ammo charity. Difficulty settings should be renamed "Grandma, Sissy, Little Girl, Normal", next time throw "Average PC gamer" in there

Ugh, screw this I'm going back to Half-life. I'll let Grandma, Spike TV, and Samuel Jackson play the new games.

 

[Tim]

Perhaps the OP should be in charge of all game making and the gameplay within the games.

Agreed?

 

[Maleficus]

AGREED

 

[ShawnD1]

God damn I hate old games. Whoever thought "impossible" and "fun" were synonymous should just be killed. I had at least 20 nintendo games (bought them used from the video rental store), and most of them were completely impossible.

Captain Skyhawk - you die in 1 hit
Flight of the Intruder - horribly confusing first person flyer (like afterburner but sucky)
Link - last castle involves being killed in 1 hit because there are pits everywhere
Astyanax - worst controls ever
Hydlide - game makes absolutely no sense, and the save only works until you turn off the system
Cabal - game would glitch out half the time, making the screen blurry (this was a really fun game)
Alien 3 - no way you could get everything within the time limit unless you had played the game before
Ghosts and Goblins - die in 1 hit


Put Doom 2 on the hardest setting and you'll get an idea of how 99% of NES games are.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
God damn I hate old games. Whoever thought "impossible" and "fun" were synonymous should just be killed. I had at least 20 nintendo games (bought them used from the video rental store), and most of them were completely impossible.

Captain Skyhawk - you die in 1 hit
Flight of the Intruder - horribly confusing first person flyer (like afterburner but sucky)
Link - last castle involves being killed in 1 hit because there are pits everywhere
Astyanax - worst controls ever
Hydlide - game makes absolutely no sense, and the save only works until you turn off the system
Cabal - game would glitch out half the time, making the screen blurry (this was a really fun game)
Alien 3 - no way you could get everything within the time limit unless you had played the game before
Ghosts and Goblins - die in 1 hit

Put Doom 2 on the hardest setting and you'll get an idea of how 99% of NES games are.

I dont even remeber Alien 3 for the NES, but the SNES game was pretty damn good.

Also, I think you forgot Karnov, the fat bastard who spits fire. The first level is pretty damn tough and it gets impossible after that.
And Magician. Limited number of saves, you cant go backwards, creating the wrong spell is insta-death.
I always thought Rush'n'attack was too damn hard.
And Bionic Commando was a bitch after the first level. Fun times though.
Master Blaster (or was it Blaster Master?). A HUGE game with limited lives and no save or password.

Wizards & Warriors was a real bitch. Could never get past the first level without a Game Genie.

Actually, now that I think about it, Final Fantasy was a pain as well.
I remember beating Lich and warping out of the Earth Cave. Had run out of tents but had max health upon hitting the surface.
Walked back to town and the first random monsters I hit were ghosts or ghasts or ghouls or something.
They continually paralyzed me and I died in about 20 turns. I couldnt escape, couldnt fight back, couldnt protect or heal my guys. Just sat there watching turn after turn, getting madder and madder while they bum-raped my party to death.
Had to reset and start in town and go all the way throught the Earth Cave again. Brought plenty of extra tents to save that time.

 

[Tom]

forget complicated games of old..try to get 621k of real mode memory with an expanded memory manager, sound card drivers,etc.

just to play the game.

 

[PsharkJF]

FF1 is legendarily difficult in comparison to the newer ones.
Oh,
COCTRICE (yes! Please turn me to stone just before my black mage casts FIR3!)
MADCAT (Yay for first-cast FIR2)
PERILISK (...slain)
R.GOYLE (Again, first-cast FIR2)
SORCEROR (...slain)