90s Gamers vs. 21st Century Gamers

[Aircross]

Did playing Nintendo Hard games in the 90s make 90s gamers better overall at games than 21st century gamers?

Just curious, because I grew up on super hard games like the Super Star Wars series while my younger brother grew up on less intense games and he claims games like Megaman X and Yoshi's Island are too hard.

 

[Vegosiux]

Wait, why does how "good" a gamer you are "overall" depend on how "hard" games you play? That's ridiculous, and I'm one of the old school gamers.

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

 

[Jandau]

Isn't this a bit of a "Well DUH!" kind of thing? Of course playing harder games makes you better at similar games. However, this doesn't mean that old-school gamers are inherently better. If the new kids played harder games they'd adapt just as well.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Before I can reliably answer this question I want to know what you mean by "better". Skillwise, "better" is very dependent on which games you play and someone who rocked Total Annhilation or Command & Conquer won't fare very good just because of that if they try out Dawn of War II or Company of Heroes, for example.

 

[Savagezion]

Wait, why does how "good" a gamer you are "overall" depend on how "hard" games you play? That's ridiculous, and I'm one of the old school gamers.

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

Well, it does in the sense that it allows you to play a larger variety of games. If Mega Man X is "too hard" for you then you probably won't play it and miss out on a great experience. Holding the difficulty against a game will limit your options whether you see games as "too hard" or "too easy". A good gamer can play really hard games and really easy games. A good game on the other hand is enjoyable and finds that comfort zone of difficulty most people can agree on.

 

[targren]

Nah. I think playing "Nintendo Hard" games just made us better MMO grinders.

Think about it. We got conditioned to replay Level 7-2 of Ninja Gaiden II over and over and over again until we finally mastered it, having to get through it without taking any hits from those goddamn swooping things so we'd have enough life left to take out Jaquio the *****-boss. There were in-level checkpoints, but dying on the boss put you back to the beginning.

Makes killing 900 low mobs to grind for their teeth a rather tame, if similar experience. Nintendo Hard made games about memorization, muscle memory, and lots and lots of practice.

 

[Fishyash]

I may speed through the "hard" platformers from the 90s but I still fail MISERABLY at real time strategy games and first person shooters.

Platformers (especially 2d ones) aren't that popular anymore so someone who doesn't play many platformers will definately find those games "too hard".

However, games up until the late 00s did PUNISH people harder for failing on the popular games, because it took a while for the arcade style to die out. Nowdays you go back to the most recent autosave (punished with a 30 second setback and a loading screen). I guess gamers from until the 90s are more likely to persevere with challenges, and THAT is a stretch. Of course there were games even back then with manual saving/quicksaves (mainly RPGs though).

 

[Hyper-space]

Did playing Nintendo Hard games in the 90s make 90s gamers better overall at games than 21st century gamers?

Just curious, because I grew up on super hard games like the Super Star Wars series while my younger brother grew up on less intense games and he claims games like Megaman X and Yoshi's Island are too hard.

Nope.

As targren pointed out, Nintendo "hard" games are usually less about skill, reflexes or split-second decision making, and more about memorization and time investment. You might beat some 14 year old in Megaman X because you've memorized every single level, but he'll pretty much kick your ass side-ways in everything else.

Yes

The popular online games of the 90's were Unreal, Quake, Counter Strike, Natural Selection etc

Now compare that with some more modern games such as COD (I hate to use it as an example but it's valid).

Unreal, Quake and Counter Strike all rely on exactly the same thing as Call of Duty: reflexes.

Just because they are older games and are therefore "old-school" doesn't make them any different than Halo or COD. Yeah yeah, I know its always cool to hate the most popular thing, but really, this is getting fucking ridiculous.

So yeah, I wish more people would stop fucking jumping on the nostalgia band-wagon and get some perspective. Older doesn't mean better.

 

[targren]

As targren pointed out, Nintendo "hard" games are usually less about skill, reflexes or split-second decision making, and more about memorization and time investment. You might beat some 14 year old in Megaman X because you've memorized every single level, but he'll pretty much kick your ass side-ways in everything else.

To be fair, that's not what I said. I never suggested they relied LESS on reflexes or skill. I only pointed out that the reason they were that much harder is because of brutal/non-existent "checkpoints", limited lives, and the necessity for many, many do-overs. Games have become far more forgiving (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) which means you can beat them without achieving any sort of "mastery" of the game.

I'm sure that someone who can enter the Zen-like trance necessary to beat Battletoads without save-scumming could curb-stomp even a "good" CoD player.

 

[srm79]

The 90's? Pah, come back when you can say you did Double Dragon or OutRun on the one 10p then we'll talk.

Captcha: when ThEods. When ThEods what, goddamit?

 

[1-up]

Pfft, Nintendo 90's hard mode?! You want to know hard mode? Play some of those text adventure games from the 80's/early 90's if you want to have a "difficult" experience. Try to figure out how many synonyms there are for "Pour the chemical on the statue" and then tell me how hard Ninja Gaiden is.

Student's haven't gotten any dumber in the last 20 years, they just play less text-based games.

 

[Savagezion]

Did playing Nintendo Hard games in the 90s make 90s gamers better overall at games than 21st century gamers?

Just curious, because I grew up on super hard games like the Super Star Wars series while my younger brother grew up on less intense games and he claims games like Megaman X and Yoshi's Island are too hard.

Nope.

As targren pointed out, Nintendo "hard" games are usually less about skill, reflexes or split-second decision making, and more about memorization and time investment. You might beat some 14 year old in Megaman X because you've memorized every single level, but he'll pretty much kick your ass side-ways in everything else.

Really, not many 2d scroller games relied on memorization and time investment. The Mario's or Double Dragon aren't about memorization. I wouldn't even say Ninja Gaiden was. You could see what was coming and see the controls you would have to do to overcome such an obstacle and could beat a lot of games in one playthrough basd on your familiarity with the controls which would vary from person to person. If Skyrim made you start a new game after dying 5-10 times not many people would have beat it yet. And forumlas and methods for overcoming certain obstacles would be a bigger deal.

Basically, memorization wasn't a mechanic back then but rather a result of players trying to avoid the strong penalties for dying. A great example is the Binding of Isaac. I have constantly seen many people talking about the high difficulty and using methodical ways to defeat stuff that I don't care to read about because I beat it on my first playthrough with Isaac, my second playthrough with Magdolene, and almost beat it on my 3rd playthrough with Cain where I only ever had 1 heart after level 2 trying to unlock someone with "deals with the devil". (I died on level 6 with Cain only having 1 heart) A friend of mine hasn't beat it once with Isaac yet despite a handful of attempts.

So yeah, I wish more people would stop fucking jumping on the nostalgia band-wagon and get some perspective. Older doesn't mean better.

I agree with you on that. I love many of the places gaming has went and prefer it over many of the ways it used to be. However, I also dislike the feeling of accomplishment that seems to be very absent from games today that hold no penalty for lack of skill. It used to mean something with gaming peers when you said which games you had beat. Now, it just means you played it pretty much.

 

[Hyper-space]

As targren pointed out, Nintendo "hard" games are usually less about skill, reflexes or split-second decision making, and more about memorization and time investment. You might beat some 14 year old in Megaman X because you've memorized every single level, but he'll pretty much kick your ass side-ways in everything else.

To be fair, that's not what I said. I never suggested they relied LESS on reflexes or skill. I only pointed out that the reason they were that much harder is because of brutal/non-existent "checkpoints", limited lives, and the necessity for many, many do-overs. Games have become far more forgiving (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) which means you can beat them without achieving any sort of "mastery" of the game.

I'm sure that someone who can enter the Zen-like trance necessary to beat Battletoads without save-scumming could curb-stomp even a "good" CoD player.

They didn't go into some zen-like trance, they only beat it after playing it for hours and hours on end, inevitably memorizing all the levels. Its the difference between winning against multiple opponents in chess after multiple tries because they ALWAYS do the same thing, and winning against an opponent who actually changes his strategy. The lack of check-points were meant to pad out the gameplay, which is not difficulty in of itself.

Really, playing older games only means that you have the patience to do the same thing over and over again, i.e. grinding. Which means that World of Warcraft is one of the most "hardcore" games out there, that is, it uses the same basic concept behind the gameplay and content (hint: its repetition).

 

[Timberwolf0924]

I donno, I play games now a days and think they are easy, for the most part. While I know lots of poeple who still find it hard to beat Mario.. just simple Mario...

 

[asacatman]

snip

I don't agree with you, and I think there's something dangerous (in terms of logic) about cherry picking all your favourite 'unique' games from the past and putting them up against all the games released today.

Is there no value in Bastion, or Limbo, or Portal, or Assasins creed, or Fate of the World, or No more Heroes, or Catherine, or Minecraft, or Magicka, or Bioshock, or LA Noire, or...

I could go on, but I fear it would take me too long. I tried to include a wide variety of games in my list, and notice that a few were indie titles? That scene is producing games which are vastly more interesting than anything in the 90s. Just look at that 'disabled girl dating sim' that was just released. Whatever you opinion on the idea, you can't argue it's not unique. Now I know posting a big list won't please you. You could easily say 'But a lot MORE unique titles were realeased in the 90s!' Well I think the problem is, you only remember the unique ones, and nostalgia takes over from there.

Sorry about that rant, it's just, as a youngish guy it pisses me off when people talk about a 'golden age' , when I find most of the time the modern equivilant of whatever is supposed to have been much better before I was born, is a lot more polished and fun, and yes, unique and daring, than it was in the past.

 

[Joshimodo]

Yes

The popular online games of the 90's were Unreal, Quake, Counter Strike, Natural Selection etc

Now compare that with some more modern games such as COD (I hate to use it as an example but it's valid).

I think what made games like Quake so difficult online was that it made use of the y axis and not just the x axis, enemies could come at you from any angle and you had to be ready to react.

Plus, Quake and Unreal are MUCH faster and far more balanced. A lot more thought and a lot more skill went into playing them.

While 80's and 90's games don't correlate directly to being more skilled, they certainly weeded out less skilled players or forced them to improve. Didn't make the jump or kill the boss? Too bad. Back to the start. Out of lives? Restart the world/game. Now, there's a lot of checkpoints, level skips, aim assists and unskippable tutorials. Oh well.