1999 Mode!

[Luca72]

Regardless of where you stand in the sordid conflict between PC's and consoles, you have to admit that, on average, games are easier than ever. I understand the need for would-be developers of more hardcore games to adopt to some of the trends of the industry - after all, they need the money to make their next game.

But I've been wondering - why not implement several game modes? I don't just mean high difficulty and low difficulty - difficulty in games today is often just a reflection of how much health enemies have and how much damage they do to you. I'm talking about a mode that removes the modern utilities that feel contrived to some of us. This is why I'm excited over 1999 Mode in Bioshock: Infinite - I think it's a step in the right direction.

Skyrim, for example, feels almost arcadey when compared to past Elder Scrolls games. Why not have the mainstream version, but also have a "Hardcore" mode (like New Vegas)where your health doesn't regenerate, and joining factions requires relevant skills, etc. No major new content needs to be added, just a few numbers tweaked. Other games could remove things like quick-time kills and plot arrows.

Do you think it would be worth it to implement more modes like this? Part of the reason I play games is for the challenge (just part), and it takes me out of the game when I feel like I'm being babied.

 

[DoPo]

Skyrim, for example, feels almost arcadey when compared to past Elder Scrolls games. Why not have the mainstream version, but also have a "Hardcore" mode (like New Vegas)where your health doesn't regenerate, and joining factions requires relevant skills, etc.

Well, there are mods.

OT: I looked up what 1999 mode does and...it's not that...1999-y

- Reduced player respawn points -> I don't recall any respawn points. I suppose some game did it back then but I can't think of many
- Reduced ammo -> fair enough but it depends on how much ammo you have. Some games didn't suffer shortage on ammo.
- Enemies inflict greater damage -> just like Hard mode
- Player has reduced and faster-depleting health -> so-o-o, Hard mode?
- Respawn cost increases to $100, and the player will be sent back to the main menu if they don't have enough money. -> again, not many games had respawn.
- Navigation Arrow is removed completely. -> fair enough, I'd love that.
- Inability to change difficulty during play -> meh, I'm OK either way.

Now, don't get me wrong - I like the ideas but I'm not sure why a different mode is necessary - I'd prefer similar changes to come from the actual difficulty.

 

[Tomaius]

All the things they did to make the game difficult aren't actually too much of a problem, and the game is still quite easy if you've played a decent amount of shooters.

I'd recommend restarting from a checkpoint on death anyway to save money so the increased cost isn't an issue. Also nothing in the game is especially hard to find, so the navigation arrow isn't necessary most of the time.

 

[Luca72]

I actually have no plan to play Infinite in 1999 mode, because ironically I don't think that game would benefit from it. When Irrational says 1999 I'm assuming they're trying to make it feel more like System Shock 2, where your individual choices mattered a lot more. But Infinite isn't really the kind of game where that applies since it's more of a linear storytelling adventure.

I'm thinking more about games like Deus Ex and Thief, which obviously have to update themselves to appeal to a wider market, but seem to lose a lot of what made them so memorable in the first place by simplifying gameplay elements. The concern about the direction Thief is taking, for example, seem perfectly reasonable. Why not include an alternative mode that's closer to the vision of the original game?

Another chief example to me is the recent direction Splinter Cell games have taken, where stealth doesn't even feel important anymore because of how easily you can take out enemies. One mode enables auto-lock and quick-kills, another just utilizes a standard aiming mechanic.

You're right about mods, and I find myself turning to mods more and more (even Xcom benefitted from some tweaking from the community). I've noticed though that there are people who don't feel like they're playing the game as it's intended if they use mods, even if they're mods that only aim to improve the game. Including some alternate methods for playing the game seems like a good decision.

 

[Terminate421]

1999 mode was easy as hell once I invested into the best stuff:

Crows maxed out
Devils Kiss maxed out
Carbine and shotgun maxed out.

Spare cash was put into bucking bronco and machine guns and RPGs and shock jockey.

With that combo I only died 3 times and had a lot of cash to spare

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

They advertized 1999 mode as something completely different months before release. It is a lot easier than they said it would be.

 

[shrekfan246]

I'm really glad that there's an option to turn off the Quest Arrow in the first Bioshock, actually. I'm going back through it after having beaten 1999 Mode, and decided to ditch the Quest Arrow this time around -- Partially because I know for the most part where I'm going around Rapture now, but also because there's just so much to explore to begin with. I'll admit I've had to check out the map a few times, but that's the whole point. I'm still debating whether I want to bother with Hard instead of Medium though, since the mechanics are just clunky enough that I generally take a lot of damage to begin with...

1999 mode was easy as hell once I invested into the best stuff:

Crows maxed out
Devils Kiss maxed out
Carbine and shotgun maxed out.

Spare cash was put into bucking bronco and machine guns and RPGs and shock jockey.

With that combo I only died 3 times and had a lot of cash to spare

I barely ever used the Crows or Devil's Kiss even on 1999 Mode. Top 3 weapons were the Carbine, Shotgun, and Hand Cannon, but I still used Bucking Bronco more than anything else with Shock Jockey coming in at second.

Admittedly maybe I would've had a slightly easier time with a few select sections had I thought of the Crows, EDIT: but it's not like that's the only way to beat it easily.

 

[daveman247]

snip

1999 mode is basically hard mode, but with expensive deaths :/

Jacking up the cost of things would have been nice too.


A mode in the latest deus ex that increases the xp needed for augments would be cool. Makes each upgrade majorly important then, instead of almost having everything about two thirds through.

The next splinter cell game (blacklist) has something Called "classic mode" I think? It ratchets up the AI and disables mark & execute and disables the xray goggles back to the standard nightvision. I think it may disable the detection markers too. Basically back to splinter cell of old, Sounds good to me The choice of lethal vs nonlethal is back in too.

 

[Luca72]

snip

1999 mode is basically hard mode, but with expensive deaths :/

Jacking up the cost of things would have been nice too.


A mode in the latest deus ex that increases the xp needed for augments would be cool. Makes each upgrade majorly important then, instead of almost having everything about two thirds through.

The next splinter cell game (blacklist) has something Called "classic mode" I think? It ratchets up the AI and disables mark & execute and disables the xray goggles back to the standard nightvision. I think it may disable the detection markers too. Basically back to splinter cell of old, Sounds good to me The choice of lethal vs nonlethal is back in too.

Oh seriously? I didn't know that about Blacklist. I've completely tuned out the Splinter Cell series at this point. That's a cool change - maybe developers are realizing that they aren't going to get away with samey third person shooters forever. If this is what it takes to keep getting their games funded, that's a decent compromise.

 

[xshadowscreamx]

snip

1999 mode is basically hard mode, but with expensive deaths :/

Jacking up the cost of things would have been nice too.


A mode in the latest deus ex that increases the xp needed for augments would be cool. Makes each upgrade majorly important then, instead of almost having everything about two thirds through.

The next splinter cell game (blacklist) has something Called "classic mode" I think? It ratchets up the AI and disables mark & execute and disables the xray goggles back to the standard nightvision. I think it may disable the detection markers too. Basically back to splinter cell of old, Sounds good to me The choice of lethal vs nonlethal is back in too.

more expensive deaths and your edition of expensive upgrades

all that combined would mean it would be impossible to save for any upgrades at all and forget vigor upgrades.. the only thing maybe would be my pistol.

i fear the graveyard fight

 

[WoW Killer]

Why is it 1999? Is that supposed to be the year when everything changed? I remember people complaining about games being too easy since way back. Off the top of my head, when Super Mario Land 2 came out for the Gameboy, this magazine I used to read made big mention of the game's difficulty (or lack of it) in their review. They had a screenshot of the Space Zone boss with the caption (I think I still remember the exact words): The hardest boss in the game. You'll beat him in two tries. That was in 1992.

 

[Yopaz]

I don't see why the changes can't already be implemented in difficulty modes. I know there are some games that remove quest markers at higher difficulties.

Fire Emblem also have hardcore and casual mode that causes changes other than health, damage chance of hitting and number of enemies. It's a good idea, but gameplay changes vs difficulty changes can easily be skewed. I'd prefer if the difficulty was more or less the same in regards to enemies, health, damage (experience points) and such and let the differences be something we don't see from difficulty settings. Only 5 lives through the game or getting lives from beating bosses would be my suggestion to a different mode. Enemies dealing more damage or fewer spawn points is not a change we can't see from difficulty modes.

 

[Luca72]

Why is it 1999? Is that supposed to be the year when everything changed? I remember people complaining about games being too easy since way back. Off the top of my head, when Super Mario Land 2 came out for the Gameboy, this magazine I used to read made big mention of the game's difficulty (or lack of it) in their review. They had a screenshot of the Space Zone boss with the caption (I think I still remember the exact words): The hardest boss in the game. You'll beat him in two tries. That was in 1992.

1999 was the year System Shock 2 came out. It's the spiritual predecessor to all the Bioshock games, and one of the first games Ken Levine was part of as far as I know. It can be brutally difficult because the choices you make tend to stick with you. To the point where you might get close to an unwinable scenario. Early on when Ken Levine talked about 1999 mode the idea was that the choices were supposed to carry a lot more permanence, but I don't think he ever went into great detail about that. And... the 1999 mode we got doesn't really do that. So I think it's just supposed to be hard mode above the usual "you take more damage" rules.

 

[Louie Clark]

Well, there are mods.

OT: I looked up what 1999 mode does and...it's not that...1999-y

As someone who grew up on Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, and other wonderful games like that, I can confirm that this is totally true. I was excited to try 1999 mode, and I honestly couldn't tell much difference at all in terms of how hard it was other than needing to loot ammo more often.

Also, it is worth pointing out that the f keys don't quicksave and quickload. Come on Ken, I know you were around in 1999, and so were quicksaving and quickloading. Come to think of it, that might be a reason games could get away with being much harder. You could treat each encounter as a puzzle, and keep trying it without penalty until you got passed it without getting hit and using as little ammo as possible.

1999 was the year System Shock 2 came out. It's the spiritual predecessor to all the Bioshock games, and one of the first games Ken Levine was part of as far as I know. It can be brutally difficult because the choices you make tend to stick with you. To the point where you might get close to an unwinable scenario.

This is correct as well. You can screw yourself in that game by taking a build that works at first, and ends up being near useless and not know it until you are hours in.

 

[Legion]

1999 mode was easy as hell once I invested into the best stuff:

Crows maxed out
Devils Kiss maxed out
Carbine and shotgun maxed out.

Spare cash was put into bucking bronco and machine guns and RPGs and shock jockey.

With that combo I only died 3 times and had a lot of cash to spare

Mine was:

Fully upgraded Possession
Fully upgraded Sniper
Fully upgraded Carbine

I spent the rest on whatever I felt like, but didn't really need to.

I died around three times also, when going for the trophy that means you cannot buy anything from the Dollar Bill machines (ammo, salts and health). It was very easy to be honest.

The 1999 mode as advertised was clearly aimed at an earlier build of the game, as half of the things mentioned are not relevant to the design of the game released. As far as I am aware, the only difference between hard and 1999 mode is that it is game over if you run out of money.

 

[Luca72]

Well, there are mods.

OT: I looked up what 1999 mode does and...it's not that...1999-y

As someone who grew up on Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, and other wonderful games like that, I can confirm that this is totally true. I was excited to try 1999 mode, and I honestly couldn't tell much difference at all in terms of how hard it was other than needing to loot ammo more often.

Also, it is worth pointing out that the f keys don't quicksave and quickload. Come on Ken, I know you were around in 1999, and so were quicksaving and quickloading. Come to think of it, that might be a reason games could get away with being much harder. You could treat each encounter as a puzzle, and keep trying it without penalty until you got passed it without getting hit and using as little ammo as possible.

1999 was the year System Shock 2 came out. It's the spiritual predecessor to all the Bioshock games, and one of the first games Ken Levine was part of as far as I know. It can be brutally difficult because the choices you make tend to stick with you. To the point where you might get close to an unwinable scenario.

This is correct as well. You can screw yourself in that game by taking a build that works at first, and ends up being near useless and not know it until you are hours in.

My psi hacker faced certain death on the Von Braun the first time I played and didn't know what the hell I was doing. Fortunately I had been saving a ton of handgun bullets and found out they fit into the AR. Pretty sure the AR was the only reason I was able to beat that game.

Oh, and I can't tell you how many times I found myself instinctively tapping F5 in Bioshock Infinite...

 

[Louie Clark]

Oh, and I can't tell you how many times I found myself instinctively tapping F5 in Bioshock Infinite...

Save scrubbing aside, quicksaving had it's uses. There's been many times in games that I've wanted to try something that I was sure would lead to death (and reloading the level I was already on).

 

[Doom972]

Skyrim, for example, feels almost arcadey when compared to past Elder Scrolls games. Why not have the mainstream version, but also have a "Hardcore" mode (like New Vegas)where your health doesn't regenerate, and joining factions requires relevant skills, etc.

Well, there are mods.

OT: I looked up what 1999 mode does and...it's not that...1999-y

- Reduced player respawn points -> I don't recall any respawn points. I suppose some game did it back then but I can't think of many
- Reduced ammo -> fair enough but it depends on how much ammo you have. Some games didn't suffer shortage on ammo.
- Enemies inflict greater damage -> just like Hard mode
- Player has reduced and faster-depleting health -> so-o-o, Hard mode?
- Respawn cost increases to $100, and the player will be sent back to the main menu if they don't have enough money. -> again, not many games had respawn.
- Navigation Arrow is removed completely. -> fair enough, I'd love that.
- Inability to change difficulty during play -> meh, I'm OK either way.

Now, don't get me wrong - I like the ideas but I'm not sure why a different mode is necessary - I'd prefer similar changes to come from the actual difficulty.

I think that it's supposed to resemble System Shock 2. It had respawn points similar to the Vita-chambers, but it worked in a similar way to the description of the 1999 mode. That and the ammo shortage are some of the elements that made that game hard.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Actually it's time to make the next step and offer an advanced mode where a multitude of features can be adjusted, because no matter how many modes they make there will always be something that irritates me.

But even with all that the fundamental problem with Infinite will not go away, combat was made for CoD boys and unless a complete overhaul is made this just isn't fixable.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I mean I don't doubt it would be easy to DO in theory, but it'd be kind of hard to design around. Also what features are considered gameplay advancements and which ones are modernized and should be optional is much more arbitrary in reality than it seems to any one individual opinion. The line drawn in new vegas's hardcore mode was more one that separated features that were less convenient but added realism, not really "modern vs old school."

Stuff like that is probably best left to modders.