90s Gamers vs. 21st Century Gamers

[Bento Box]

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.

I know, right? That's like saying that frequently picking up heavier things than other people do, will make you better at picking up heavier things later in life! That's just silly!

Well, no, it's more like saying that frequently picking up heavier things than other people is going to make you better at physical labor later in life.

Just clarifying -- are you suggesting that if there were to be a study conducted, that it wouldn't find a positive correlation between physical strength and ability to perform physical labor?

 

[Vegosiux]

Just clarifying -- are you suggesting that if there were to be a study conducted, that it wouldn't find a positive correlation between physical strength and ability to perform physical labor?

Bananas.

(Ask a stupid question...)

Sorry, but I do not take kindly to people trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[zehydra]

I'm really good at Side scrollers because that's what I grew up with. I grew up with Super Mario Bros. 3, Megaman and Kirby. I also grew up with Zelda, but that's a pretty specific genre.

I also really love pixel art because of I enjoy the game art from the NES game period. It might also explain why I really enjoy minecraft's graphics.

 

[zehydra]

Yoshis island...hard?...Im a yoshi island Pro!

mabye thats because I played it alot at the time

anyway I think games to day are pretty easy..hence why I think I suck at games

It's pretty hard for a sidescroller. Especially the damn swamp and snow worlds

 

[FoolKiller]

Sorry... double posted during an edit. Impressively, I somehow managed to quote myself in it. Peculiar.

 

[Duskflamer]

no, I don't think gamers from the 90s are better than gamers growing up today, but I can tell you why the perception is there.

In older video games, getting to the end was an extreme accomplishment reserved only for those who have truly mastered the game, whether that meant memorizing stages or being good with the mechanics.

By contrast, most video games today are designed with the mindset that everyone should be able to get to the "end" and any mastery challenges are relegated to clearly optional "extra" content.

Someone who is used to older games looking at today's games sees everything dumbed down because they're still used to the older philosophy of the ending being a true accomplishment, rather than something taken for granted by someone starting up the game for the first time. On some level, they have trouble accepting the idea that everyone should be able to "finish" a game and rationalize it in some way, such as assuming that gamers in general are so much worse today that everything needs to be dumbed down for them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well let me ask you this: how do you think that one manages to get the kill streak rewards?
Its not by sitting around and waiting for them!

Well actually, at this point spending money has allowed this to become even more unbalanced. Buying certain things has allowed people access to double XP when not available to all players. This allowed people to gain perks and prestige quicker than others. This is clearly unbalanced.

As for a killstreak reward... I don't understand why the fuck you would reward someone for a killstreak by making them even more powerful. If the person is clearly dominant, giving that person extra abilities is essentially kicking the dog when its down.

If you want a real challenge, they should give perks and such to a person on the losing end of a game to balance it out more. Something similar to the AI Director in Left 4 Dead but pertaining to multiplayer. Say you get to call an airstrike if you die five times in a row or 3 times in a minute.


In my opinion, that would make things more interesting.

Oh... and about the topic:
Yes, being a gamer from the past makes me a better all-around gamer because of sheer experience. However, in any given game someone can hand my ass to me on a platter. My love of a great variety of games has caused me to not specialize in any of them. This makes it hard to actually be dominant at any of them.

When I used to play more competitively I was very fierce at things like NHL, and Ghost Recon (the original better ones), and I was world-class in Burnout 3: Takedown. But at this point I just want to sit back, play some and enjoy the fun.

 

[Nalbis]

I don't know whether its a 90's thing or maybe just the fact I've been gaming longer - but compared to my friends I am a much better gamer, I can with ease pick up almost any game and just instantly grasp it (except for RTS's but I don't play those) where as they will struggle for at least half an hour to get used to the basics.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

Hell yes, if you're trained on a certain level of difficulty, modern games are just far too easy. Deus Ex: Human Revolution on "Give me Deus Ex" was a case in point.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

Sorry, I did a double-take there.
Megaman X is HARD???

Well, I guess it would be if you aren't used to 2D games at all.

 

[octafish]

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?

Not OutRun, but I did get through Double Dragon once. To be fair I was more a liability to the guy I was playing with.

 

[LilithSlave]

Megaman X

Mildly challenging but not really. Doesn't get anywhere near to truly challenging until the fight with Sigma where there is little room for error.

Yoshi's Island

Holy crud not challenging at all. What on earth has happened to video gaming?

Sorry, I did a double-take there.
Megaman X is HARD???

I had a bigger double take at Yoshi's Island.

That's just typical platforming.

By the way, being good at gaming doesn't make you more worthy. Having a high education does. Video games are not for the challenge, they're to have fun. Despite the fact they're called "games". It just so happens a mixture of risk and reward often creates fun.

Also, I grew up on the Atari 2600 and I'm terrible at video games.

 

[targren]

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).

Clearly, you've never done it. You're not going to finish that game without some very, very quick fingers, no matter how much you've memorized. The boss fights alone will see to that, and then there were the REAL ***** games that randomized on you... (Deadly F@#king Towers...)