Games Aren't Getting Eaiser!

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm sorry, but if you're becoming more adept at shooting at 100 yards, you're getting better. anything you do for along time, putting effort and desire and drive into, you're going to get better. I have a grouping of about 16 inches at 40 yards with my pistol, I can let my friends use it and his grouping is at 4 inches, he's much more adept than I am.. and I'll also say he's better, too

Before this analogy drops from your hands, give him a crossbow and ask him to hit a moving target.

Then watch how fast he adapts to it. Adept, not better.

 

[Timberwolf0924]

Then watch how fast he adapts to it. Adept, not better.

I think you're mixing it up.

Adept =/= Adapt

Adept is a skill level,
Adapt is the ability to conform to what needs to be adapted to.

The only way to become more adpet at something is to keep at it. I'm sure I can get as good at 100+ yards if I keep working at it.

 

[Vivi22]

I think the correct question is not if games are getting easier or not but why does anyone care. What does beating a harder game prove? What does not being able to complete a game mean? Why do people want to be punished for failure? (i.e. the PoP argument)

Sometimes it's enjoyable to play a game that forces you to try harder and actually improve significantly in order to progress or to compete. It's part of why I enjoy competitive multiplayer games more than just about anything else these days. That feeling you get when you really start to master a game after hours of effort is something that is truly unmatched by a lot of games these days.

Sure, easier games can provide compelling experiences in other ways: a good narrative, exploration, multiple valid play styles, etc. But the satisfaction that comes with mastery is an entirely different feeling, and one that you can't replicate any other way.

 

[Furioso]

Not even close, back in the NES/SNES days you could be amazing at video games and never finish most of them, almost no one could beat Contra without cheating, and that's still true today, games used to be easy to learn, impossible to master, and now they are just harder to learn, easy to master

 

[josemlopes]

You have a point but there are a lot of games that are truly easier then they should be.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

hmmm...Yes and no.

Yes, we have gotten more skilled over time. But some games ARE getting easier.

Look at Zelda twilight Princess. The dungeons were a bit more linear and simple than the rest of the series, and the final boss can hit you with an EPIC looking attack only to deal HALF A HEART OF DAMAGE. I think I used ONE potion in the whole game.

So I think it's a mix of both.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I was playing Crash Bandicoot the other day and on standard difficulty I had a real hard time getting through it, only finished about 1/5 of the game in 4 hours. And I would consider myself a seasoned platform-gamer.

 

[Sandernista]

Case 1
Halo: CE Anniversary
In recent halo games, ie 3 and reach, you are able to solo legendary with a considerable number of skulls turned on. When me and a friend popped in the new CE Anniversary and went into co-op, we got our asses handed to us. Despite the fact that our co-op team was contrived of 2 veteran halo players, who have both aced halo 3 and reach's solo campaign on legendary with many skulls equiped, the covenant steam rolled us like we were made of jelly.

Really?

Me and my bro can beat Halo CE's campaign on legendary easily by ourselves. It takes both of us working our asses off to get through Halo 3's campaign on legendary with no skulls.

OT: Most arcade games were designed to be near impossible, but as far as many early console+pc games go, I'd agree. Most were pretty simple.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Games aren't easier, they just don't punish as much. You probably die a similar amount of times in a play session of CoD and Doom, it's just that Doom sends you back further when you die.

Actually, CoD sets you back further. Doom uses a save system.

Ah, alright then. Disregard that example.

 

[ztara]

i haven't read all the posts in this thread (so sorry if im repeating) but i think games have gotten easier for a reason.

If your hard is rock hard, as in Zork hard (hur hur hur), people get stuck, get cross and a large percent of the time give up! I think rnearly all of us have gotten to that point in a game when you go " ...what? why isn't what im doing working,is this broken, im trying really hard and it isnt paying off!". And you switch off, and more importantly you find it hard to switch back on.

Now this is ok if youv spent £1-10 on a game, what ever its no big deal, but if its a brand new £40 triple A then your gonna be really cross. So cross you might not want to pick up the sequel, because thats gonna be rock hard too and/or that company took your £40 for a 'broken' game. So its in the Game industries interests to make a game appear difficult but really just a little challenging.

Indie devs. it would seem are the people who can afford to make Hard games. Without millions being poured into their projects their allowed to appeal to the hardcore of sado-masochistic gamers who like to be punished