Why are games so bloody easy these days?

[relootz]

Most people play games on easy and normal and then whine about them being easy...

Just play games on hard or insane (for masochists) and you will have a challenge on your hand in most cases.

 

[Felix]

I've play Metroid Prime and Donkey Kong Country Return, wouldn't call them easy, if anything DKCR is too hard.

But nowhere near Battletoads though.

 

[deuxhero]

Most people play games on easy and normal and then whine about them being easy...

Just play games on hard or insane (for masochists) and you will have a challenge on your hand in most cases.

Normal shouldn't be "easy". Normal should be a challenge at points. You shouldn't need "hard" mode to need to think.

I've play Metroid Prime and Donkey Kong Country Return, wouldn't call them easy, if anything DKCR is too hard.

But nowhere near Battletoads though.

For all of Nintendo's reputation as a "kiddy" company (When's the last time Sony or Microsoft funded/owned something like this?) they are one of the few companies these days that produces games that aren't dumbed down to hell. Their "easy" modes tend to be really easy and you can beat the game with the bare minimum of completion without a real issue, but their high difficulty settings and optional areas are always insanly sadist (well except Fire Emblem 8, but that sucked).

 

[Crooked Bee]

When's the last time Sony or Microsoft funded/owned something like this?

Ah, that was a cool game. I'm glad someone else here enjoyed it.

 

[relootz]

Most people play games on easy and normal and then whine about them being easy...

Just play games on hard or insane (for masochists) and you will have a challenge on your hand in most cases.

Normal shouldn't be "easy". Normal should be a challenge at points. You shouldn't need "hard" mode to need to think.

Normal has never been that much of a challenge in any game for me, normal means that you can finish the game without ever encountering difficulties or replaying game parts.
The difficulty isn't aimed at an experienced gamer but rather at the average joe who doesn't want to get frustrated (and probably doesn't want to think a lot either )

 

[Achilles]

In most games the difficulty levels have been renamed. Like so:

Oldfag -> Next-gen

Extremely easy -> Easy
Very Easy -> Normal
Easy -> Hard
Normal -> Very Hard
Hard -> Brutal, Nighmare, Rape etc.

 

[Raghar]

I thought it goes this way:
Easy. I might see the last boss.
Normal. Yes thats an option in the menu.
Lunatic. The highest difficulty.

Extra stage of course doesn't allow to select the difficulty and uses Lunatic by default.

Older games were easier... Some new games were made for these who have already experience with genre, and are heavily trained on similar games.

 

[Black Cat]

Why are games so bloody easy these days?

Because they want to sell more and have a wider appeal than that of a niche market? Indie developers and doujin developers still do make games both niche and bloody hardcore, but then even among the self denominated Hardcore many start crying foul because they have actually never had contact with a truly hard game, or forgotten how it was already.

And it is also a question of genre, i guess. Hardcore beat 'em ups, hardcore fighting games, hardcore shoot 'em up, and hardcore plataformers seem to be much better received than hardcore role playing games and strategy games, in my experience, both by gamers and people who's just casual. When playing stuff on the DS or the notebook it seems role playing games full of numbers and stuff only win you smirks and despise from onlookers, while playing some crazy danmaku shit makes the same ones watch in awe and, if enough confidence stands between you and them, cheer you on or make comments about how cool that dodge was and how very good your reflexes are. There's kind of an stygma on playing hardcore number crunching games that's not so present, if at all, in playing fast paced, skill based, no-strings-attached action games, regardless of dificulty, since the later doesn't forcibly include wasting your life in nerd-like behaviour in exchange for entertainment.

In the eyes of most people you are a failure, a waste of air, and a loser if you are good at hardcore role playing games and wargames and the like, while brutal and fast paced action games can be seen as cool and entertaining. So the only way to move role playing games from the most absolute and dirty niche of not selling is to make them easier to the point they no longer mean "Wasting your life crunching numbers instead of doing fun things", i guess.

 

[Jive One]

Nice shout out to Ogre Battle.

 

[Norfleet]

There's no such thing as a "hard" number crunching game. Number-crunch games are all just puzzles. Once you find the winning combo, it becomes trivially easy to repeat the solution. Such a game cannot be hard because once the solution is known, any monkey can implement it.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Lowest Common Denominator.

 

[Lysiander]

The 12-year olds of today are stupid fucks who get everything shoved up their ass. Back when we were 12, we had to draw maps of the dungeons on paper, minmax the 200 stats of our characters and, to make the game work at all, learn 500-page OS manuals by heart so we wouldn't fuck up the install.

of youths.

But in all seriousness, the modern (mostly teenage) audience doesn't want to spend any effort on their games, they just want to lay back on their couch and enjoy their gaming "experience". Industry capitalizes on it by creating easy games en masse (which are easier to design than hard games because they require less balancing) and making shitloads of money thusly.

While either of your points are the symptoms of the problem, neither is the cause. The cause lies in the industry and the way it developed.

Lets face it, MMOs are the big kids in town and from an economic standpoint, the only thing that actually makes sense as a business model. Investing years worth of time and money into a project of which you have no idea how it plays out is never a good model.Since fun is not truly quantifiable and completely subjective you cannot really predict sales. This is were "tried and true" along with "easy access" comes into the game.

Unless you can promise your potential audience something that gets them interested fast and keeps them interested long enough to shell out the one time cost of the game, you will not be successful and your investment goes down the drain.

MMOs offer relatively fast gratification for relatively little investment. The only thing that MMOs do not offer, is getting to the highest echolons of power in relation to the game world quickly. That takes time, money in the form a constant subsciption and at least some effort.

This is the one aspect of gaming that single player games can really corner. They can give the player the feeling to be all powerful in relatively (to MMOs) low time. Hence, that is exactly what they do. They remove all possible obstacles, borrow as much as possible from tried and true MMO concepts and generally allow you to fullful whatever vision they have of your fantasies of omnipotence.

Added to that is the problem, that once your single player game has sold, there really is little motivation to invest anything else into it, unless your success is big enough to make the prospects of a sequel promising. Hence, investing much time and money into depth that will not help you sell your title is economically pointless, especially when depth increases the cost not only on the design but also the production end. Voice acting does not come cheap and having to go from one to two DVDs simply because your VA or multiple ending videos simply need the space can move a project from profitable to not viable.

In the old days, games were small time and mostly made for the sake of making games. Sure, making a profit was important, but mostly to keep the company in business and not to satisfy shareholders. These days, most companies cannot afford to simply break even, at least not the main stream ones. Combine that with the immense rise in the cost of making games and you have a one way ticket to simplistic land.

On top of all that, the associations to learning and knowledge seem to have changes somewhat as you pointed out. For instance, a friend of mine tried to get his son into Baldurs Gate a couple of month ago. The boy is 14. He started out well enough and seemed to enjoy the game and story, but once he figured out that he'd have to actually read his spells and understand the mechanics to make the necessary choices, he lost interest saying, and I quote: "If I wanted to study, I'd do my homework. I wanna play."

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO LYSIANDER TAKE THAT INTELLIGENT SHIT BACK TO TALKLIKEAFAG.COM

ON THIS SUPER FORUM WE TELL THE CONSOLE BROS THAT THEY ARE RETARDS LOLLOLOLLOLLOL AND GRADE SCHOOL KIDS NOWADAYS ARENT PLAYING 1980S GAMES CAUSE THEY ARE FUCKING RETARDS SHIT EATING DOGFUCKING RETARDS

 

[grotsnik]

BRO LYSIANDER TAKE THAT INTELLIGENT SHIT BACK TO TALKLIKEAFAG.COM

ON THIS SUPER FORUM WE TELL THE CONSOLE BROS THAT THEY ARE RETARDS LOLLOLOLLOLLOL AND GRADE SCHOOL KIDS NOWADAYS ARENT PLAYING 1980S GAMES CAUSE THEY ARE FUCKING RETARDS SHIT EATING DOGFUCKING RETARDS

Now that's what I call a backhanded compliment.

 

[Excommunicator]

Unfortunately Blobert is right in his own way. The temperamental posters on here probably won't read or care about that stuff, and the more thoughtful posters already know all of it. It is elementary, after all.

Additionally Lysiander, your post is ironic given how it appears to be a critique of the economic-minded ways of the industry, and yet it seems to scream how economically minded you yourself are. Reading that, one could be forgiven for thinking you are prominent in a successful mainstream studio, trying to sound intelligent among independent thinkers whilst idly milking the personal benefits of your "contribution" the current sorry state of affairs.

Or perhaps that is simply your own resignation to the folly of trying to make the industry work any other way.

Either way, thanks for the thoughts. Now ponder on resolutions.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

In the eyes of most people you are a failure, a waste of air, and a loser if you are good at hardcore role playing games and wargames and the like, while brutal and fast paced action games can be seen as cool and entertaining. So the only way to move role playing games from the most absolute and dirty niche of not selling is to make them easier to the point they no longer mean "Wasting your life crunching numbers instead of doing fun things", i guess.

Xenos are truly disgusting.

Yes it is true what you may have heard whispering amongst the catacombs betwixt the night and nether-night! Why not say it out loud for all to hear. Let the fools doubt and sneer, it matters not. Be proud of your humanity and keep it unsullied and blessed.

This is as my Master told it to me and now I tell it to thee.

There are a billion names of damnation! A billion kinds of things that slither and slime and defile the land and sea and wind. Each thing is a kind of sin spawned by man's evil. And that man is very sinful there are many of these damned things and their power is great.

As the purpose of all things in nature is to increase so it is with the damned. They would we joined them and so they seek to overcome us. In alien forms they assault us. In sleep they come to spread doubt and fear among us. They would corrupt our hearts and see us damned too. Trust them not nor suffer them to live.

For each alien destroyed is a soul freed from eternal bondage. Each mortal alien life extinguished is a human soul raised to glory. Thus our eternal destiny is written in the blood of the alien.

With sword and spear destroy the alien. With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars. With tooth and fist and hammer blows, with axe and shell and poison-bombs, with virus-charge and thermal mines!

Kill them! Kill them! Kill them all!

As my Master told it to me I now tell it to thee that thou shalt tell others in thy turn.

On top of all that, the associations to learning and knowledge seem to have changes somewhat as you pointed out. For instance, a friend of mine tried to get his son into Baldurs Gate a couple of month ago. The boy is 14. He started out well enough and seemed to enjoy the game and story, but once he figured out that he'd have to actually read his spells and understand the mechanics to make the necessary choices, he lost interest saying, and I quote: "If I wanted to study, I'd do my homework. I wanna play."

Sounds like an anti-intellectual faggot.

 

[Lysiander]

Additionally Lysiander, your post is ironic given how it appears to be a critique of the economic-minded ways of the industry, and yet it seems to scream how economically minded you yourself are. Reading that, one could be forgiven for thinking you are prominent in a successful mainstream studio, trying to sound intelligent among independent thinkers whilst idly milking the personal benefits of your "contribution" the current sorry state of affairs.

Or perhaps that is simply your own resignation to the folly of trying to make the industry work any other way.

Either way, thanks for the thoughts. Now ponder on resolutions.

Well, I do study economics because I find it facinating. I do realize the irony. I am one of those people who while understanding the system, wishes it would work differently. I'd call it more realisation of the folly, but yeah, I guess resignation plays a role too. I dont work in the industry though, im still in college.

As for solutions, one huge step in the right direction, im my opinion, could be to turn the franchise logic around by moving from a IP focus to a technology focus on the franchising. As a simple example, consider the old SSI games. They all used the same engine, system and ruleset. Only content changed from one game to the next. (Give or take a few tweaks here and there, but for the most part, the technology was the same.) Bethesda does a similar thing with the elder scrolls series and it seems to work out pretty well for them, economically at least. The infinity engine is another example.

What i find suprising is that there is so few serialized gaming out there. Imagine a game that basically works like a TV series pilot and then continually releases episodic content that is spefically not tagged on like most DLCs these days, but intentionally builds up one grand storyline. Blizzard has, in part, begun to explore the concept with the starcraft split, but since they always take forever to actually do a launch its basically three seperate games. Imagine, if you will, BG II being released as one title containing chapter I & II with each consecutive chapter being released individually in maybe a month's or two spread.
While this does not aleviate the problem of investing a large amount of up front capital for potentially low gains (engine and all that costs money), it does cut down on relatively fixed production costs such as voice acting since that can be done in the time between episodes.

What it comes down to, is that games are so huge, production wise, that it takes so long between releases, that people lose interest and their attention needs to be recaptured. This works fine in a low production cost medium like books, but in a fast moving industry such as video games it has problematic results. i am not entirely sure this would work out in reality, in fact, I doubt it, but it could be a concept to explore.

I realize Im preaching to the choire here, I just feel like doing it though.

@Blob, thanks for the flowers. Dont change. :p

Final note, from an economic PoV, one could build a model where people buy the single player software for a small fee and with it the right to obtain more content. (fee could be 0 as well.) The basic game would be like a demo and once you reach a certain point, you would be charged to continue. The idea here is a model in which you only pay for what you actually play plus a small introductory fee. Initially, this would seem like lower gains, but given that the initial purchase could be as cheap as the bargain bin sales, its concievable that the overall audience could grow large enough to break even and profit primarily from the subsequent chapter purchases.
I dont even want to contemplate the outcry this would create in the gaming community, cursing the fuckin moneygrab of a business model that it looks like at first glance, but purely economically, it would be more valid than the fire-and-forget like sales we have now.

 

[mpxd]

Lysiander: Good posts -- preaching to the choir, maybe, but even the choir can appreciate a good preacher.

The one thing i'm sorta hesitant to accept is that the existence of today's 'next-gen' stuff necessarily makes the 'good old days' model no longer feasible. Codex itself would seem to be a pretty good argument for the fact that the market still exists; it's not as big as the new 'mainstream' market, but it was never very big to begin with. It's not as though there's not enough money to keep developers interested -- these are people, you say, who make games because they like making games, not making money.

So then why the drought of great games, relative to the 'golden age'? Is it a temporary problem, which will fix itself as the mainstream market matures and developers go back to looking for profits in the niches? Or is it more permanent, perhaps an artifact of the mainstream market's enormous advertising budgets and media clout?

 

[MetalCraze]

Most people play games on easy and normal and then whine about them being easy...

Just play games on hard or insane (for masochists) and you will have a challenge on your hand in most cases.

There is a difference between a hard difficulty and a retarded difficulty. With the latter being enemies absorbing more bullets and doing magic sniper shots to your head which just makes a game unbearably boring. And we don't even see that often in modern games. Hard difficulty is more like "less easy" these days.

 

[Jaesun]

There is a difference between a hard difficulty and a retarded difficulty. With the latter being enemies absorbing more bullets and doing magic sniper shots to your head which just makes a game unbearably boring. And we don't even see that often in modern games. Hard difficulty is more like "less easy" these days.

This.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Normal has never been that much of a challenge in any game for me, normal means that you can finish the game without ever encountering difficulties or replaying game parts.
The difficulty isn't aimed at an experienced gamer but rather at the average joe who doesn't want to get frustrated (and probably doesn't want to think a lot either )

Try God Hand on Normal one day. Then report back.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

There is a difference between a hard difficulty and a retarded difficulty. With the latter being enemies absorbing more bullets and doing magic sniper shots to your head which just makes a game unbearably boring. And we don't even see that often in modern games. Hard difficulty is more like "less easy" these days.

This.

I had the displeasure of observing a friend who was playing one of the halo games a while back. He considers himself 'hardcore' so he plays on the highest difficulty. There are magic snipers that instantly kill you from any distance at that difficulty. How to beat them? Well, the game autosaves before every fight, and sometimes they miss or for what ever reason just don't shoot you immediately. And that was it. He would approach the battle in the exact same way every time, with there being about a 50% chance of losing immediately. That is console 'gameplay'. Fairly amusing because Halo 1 was actually pretty good about the difficulty levels even though it was clearly just upgrading enemy types, along with their damage/health.

Normal has never been that much of a challenge in any game for me, normal means that you can finish the game without ever encountering difficulties or replaying game parts.
The difficulty isn't aimed at an experienced gamer but rather at the average joe who doesn't want to get frustrated (and probably doesn't want to think a lot either )

Try God Hand on Normal one day. Then report back.

Action fighting games in general seem to be fairly resistant to the decline. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that they are actually playable on consoles without dumbing down control schemes and move sets.

 

[Raghar]

They all used the same engine, system and ruleset. Only content changed from one game to the next.

People would be pissed. They merely added few text and models, otherwise it's the same as previous version... And they are selling it at full price. (5-12 $ at best)

It's hard to make a quality and consistent content.

Bethesda does a similar thing with the elder scrolls series

Which one? Morrowind and Oblivion used different systems and there was massive overhaul. Considering they always wanted to sell because of graphics, the old graphics with new content wouldn't work too well for them.

What i find suprising is that there is so few serialized gaming out there. Imagine a game that basically works like a TV series pilot and then continually releases episodic content that is spefically not tagged on like most DLCs these days, but intentionally builds up one grand storyline.

You might like to learn something about game design. Mainly about difference between stream content and a game.
Would people pay for half a book now, then they would pay for second half of a novel later?

Yes there are games like for example Winter voices. It didn't work well.

Technically MGS is an episodic game. (Original author always wanted to make a hybrid between a game and a movie.)

Imagine, if you will, BG II being released as one title containing chapter I & II with each consecutive chapter being released individually in maybe a month's or two spread.
While this does not aleviate the problem of investing a large amount of up front capital for potentially low gains (engine and all that costs money),

These are the most important costs.

it does cut down on relatively fixed production costs such as voice acting since that can be done in the time between episodes.

Voice acting is next to irrelevant. In fact it kills any chance for nonlinearity, or at least detailed and deep dialogs.

What it comes down to, is that games are so huge, production wise, that it takes so long between releases, that people lose interest and their attention needs to be recaptured.

You have it other way around. Few years later people already forgot on that game, and thus they can enjoy it as fresh one. If they want continuity, nothing prevents them to replay old one few weeks before release. Releasing two episodes shortly after each other just means players would ignore the second one because they used something similar fairly recently.

Final note, from an economic PoV, one could build a model where people buy the single player software for a small fee

I heard something like this, just it was without words "small fee".

and with it the right to obtain more content.

DLC.

The basic game would be like a demo and once you reach a certain point, you would be charged to continue.

Stones into windows of game company. (I'm not joking about this one.) Also death threats, preferably from players that can't be sued. Relationships with players would sink like a stone, if the company had any. Then there is also possibility of lawsuit about selling a whole product, but locking out the ending without additional fees.

but purely economically, it would be more valid than the fire-and-forget like sales we have now.

It would be massive disaster for people who would try it. Also you'd need to pay to quite a few policemen and lawmakers.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS GRAND THEFT AUTO DID THE EPISODE SHIT ON THE FAGBOX THOUGH MAYBE THERE WAS A YEAR OR SO IN BETWEEN RELEASES

 

[Lysiander]

There is a difference between a hard difficulty and a retarded difficulty. With the latter being enemies absorbing more bullets and doing magic sniper shots to your head which just makes a game unbearably boring. And we don't even see that often in modern games. Hard difficulty is more like "less easy" these days.

I couldn't agree more with this.

The one thing i'm sorta hesitant to accept is that the existence of today's 'next-gen' stuff necessarily makes the 'good old days' model no longer feasible.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it non feasible anymore. The gothic series and the large number of indy production titles are examples that catering to a niche market still works and can even work for mainstream titles. (risen)
I meant to illustrate the point that when faced with the decision of knowingly catering to a niche vs attempting to adress an audience as large as possible, and each being connected to a risk value, most companies opt for the later simply because that is usually less risk.

I guess its along the same level of having to play a system you do not like as much as your favourite one vs not playing at all. Most people would prefer working in the industry and making a game vs making the one game and facing unemployment afterwards. Some companies take the risk and are successfull, such as the witcher publishers, and some simply don't. Thats where titles like DA, Mass Effect, ArcaniA and the like come from IMHO.
Breaking even has simply become harder because the starting investment is bigger and thus the amount you need to sell has gone up. Even if you do not want to make big bucks, you want to stay employed and thus need to break even. And that is only for privately owned companies that work on investments or loans. Many companies these days have shareholders who don't care one bit about the product, only the money they can make off it. To satisfy those, you have to simply make as much as you can and that means to adress the biggest crowd possible.

So then why the drought of great games, relative to the 'golden age'? Is it a temporary problem, which will fix itself as the mainstream market matures and developers go back to looking for profits in the niches? Or is it more permanent, perhaps an artifact of the mainstream market's enormous advertising budgets and media clout?

First of all, the market has gotten a lot bigger since then. Back when the old SSI type games were produced, the people who wanted them also made up a large part of the overall computer game audience. People who actually had computers and used them to play games were very likely to be into fantasy, scifi and roleplaying anyway. These days, being into roleplaying games does not even equate basic math skills anymore, let alone being comfortable with crunching a few numbers.

Still, I am still hoping the market will mature, like the movie market did in parts at least, to the point where niche audiences become large enough to justify the investment to make modern scale games. In some parts, I think it even already has. PC games have gone from a small industry of people who wanted to work in that particular industry to simply big business. The audience has grown with the industry but I dont think it has grown proportinately yet.

Finally, there is also the evolution of games that should not be neglected and accounts for some part of the problem I think. For a long time, for instance, turn based combat was not really a design choice but a necessity because for many games it was the only or simplest way to actually handle combat. With the advent of real action based combat (as in real time) it became a choice and a large part of the audience seems to prefer it. Hence, turn based combat became a thing of the past for most games simply because it requires more suspension of disbelief to see the realism and it makes games more complicated and thus harder to get into. Turn based combat also tends to be less forgiving which ties in directly into MetalCrazes argument.

@Raghar, I love how you quote things out of context in order to provide an example of a statement I have already made in the part you did not quote. Especially, the serialized model and the associated public outcry I outlined. Well done.

Regardless, some things I would like to adress:
1. The Gothic series + Risen have barely evolved system wise. Imagine a new storyline being written in the G2 engine back when it was current. I doubt many people would have complained. Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Fallout NV were all done in the same engine, with tweaks as necessary to account for the changes in the system. It was mentioned in reviews and complains were there, but it didnt stop the audience from paying full price for each title. (Im not going to make a comment about quality, or lack thereoff here.)

2. The groundwork of the elder scrolls system has never changed, only the way it was implemented. While bethesda continually removed elements, they added little except for the perks in oblivion. The lore was there in large parts, every game has the quests for the daedric artifacts, the same guilds to join, the same skills and the same attributes. The implementation changed with each game, but they have basically been doing the same thing over multiple titles, two of which, Daggerfall and Morrowind seem to be well respected around here.

3. Voice acting may be unimportant for you and me, but it does seem to play a huge role for the majority of gamers. How many successfull games have been released in the last couple of years that were no fully voice acted? Heck, even modders start to VA their stuff. Personally, I dont care either way, but I know a lot of people who do. As a case in point, Patrick Steward VAing in Oblivion was a major selling point. As pathetic as it was, the simple fact that Bethesda could say it was in there before the game was launched boosted sales. Thats the role VA plays today.

4. Replay value is a great thing, but it does not help sales. The model I proposed was to keep people playing continually, much like a TV series, in maybe a two or three month spread. The concept is not to have people wolf down the game in a week or two and then move on, but to give them an incentive to stay involved for a long time to basically emulate the subscription model in MMOs. I realize the model is no where near finished or feasible in its current state. It was an idea that I felt warranted exploration.

5. As I said, I do not work in the industry and have never worked in game design, so it is entirely possible I am wrong about things. These are just thoughs and views gathered by following games and the market as it presents itself to me.