too much convenience in other games...

[darkely]

I was thinking... you know I feel like murdering some zombies so I got out L4D and it occurred to me that everything is too convenient - granted it is a video game but still it kind of annoys me.

[Cranky Old Man]

(05-17-2012 08:40 AM)darkely Wrote:  I was thinking... you know I feel like murdering some zombies so I got out L4D and it occurred to me that everything is too convenient - granted it is a video game but still it kind of annyos me.

First off, this should be in the Off-Topic forum, as it's not about Penumbra.

L4D prouds itself on being convenient: The gameplay is directed by an AI that is to make sure that it is.
However, yes, todays gameplay isn't the mindraping games of my youth. They don't hone skills and focus, but dulls them, turning gamers into spoiled, weak idiots. In games of old, we had three "HP", and if we were lucky, we'd get an extra HP after we killed over a thousand enemies.

[Prelauncher]

The problem is that it is money that control most games (I am aware of the golden veins in Indie).
Example, EA take a look at what kind of game sells the best at the moment, then they tell a studio to make that kind of game so that it will reach the largest audience. After that the studio makes the game, dumbed down and pointless, because that's what the mainstream wants. EA then markets the game to hell and back so we get all hyped about it and then they release it and we discover that it is just a copy of the last ten games in that genre.

[spukrian]

The computer/video game industry is corrupt. Back in the day, gaming was a niche, filled with enthusiasts. Now, gaming companies only think about profit, that means going for the Lowest Common Denominator, i.e. casual gamers, people who only want to relax for an hour or so (after work, dinner and putting the kids to bed).

That's why a game today can't be challenging, because if it is, then it will take too much time to finish it, which is bad because the average casual gamer today has no attention span to speak of, he/she might give up and that's bad, since then he/she won't buy and play the gazillion sequels and spinoffs that the company will make.

This is why there is so much focus on stories in games. The game has to be CINEMATIC and EDGY, in order to evoke an emotional response. Because writing an intellectually compelling story is too difficult when it's target audience just "wants to relax"...

[Cranky Old Man]

Sure, I agree that most people on the face of this planet are pretty mindless, but how many games does it take to saturate the "moronic games market"? 2K Games president Christoph Hartmann defended them making X-Com into an FPS, saying "pure strategy games are just not contemporary". There is nothing that these guys aren't prepared to sacrifice to their precious "Moron Horde", and 2K Games (Oops - I forgot Frictional Games.) is the only exception that held up and went: "Hold on here, guys. There's another market here. There's a whole 'nother type of alien gamer here."

[Oscar House]

Old games were difficult in order to get your money (tailored towards arcade gamers)
New games are easy in order to get your money (tailored towards casual gamers)

[Googolplex]

(05-17-2012 02:53 PM)Prelauncher Wrote:  The problem is that it is money that control most games (I am aware of the golden veins in Indie).

Example, EA take a look at what kind of game sells the best at the moment, then they tell a studio to make that kind of game so that it will reach the largest audience. After that the studio makes the game, dumbed down and pointless, because that's what the mainstream wants. EA then markets the game to hell and back so we get all hyped about it and then they release it and we discover that it is just a copy of the last ten games in that genre.

This is totally true!

[Khyrpa]

This thread is ridiculous...

L4D being too convenient. Convenient? How is it bad for a game to be convenient?
I took a closer look on a few definitions of that word:
suitable for one's purpose or needs
suited to personal comfort or to easy performance

Doesn't that just mean it's really well designed? I don't understand the problem.

(05-17-2012 09:30 AM)Cranky Old Man Wrote:  However, yes, todays gameplay isn't the mindraping games of my youth. They don't hone skills and focus, but dulls them, turning gamers into spoiled, weak idiots. In games of old, we had three "HP", and if we were lucky, we'd get an extra HP after we killed over a thousand enemies.

Do you mean you don't need to focus or hone your skills in L4D? Oh wait! I bet you mean playing solo campaign with bots... Nvm then, judge the game from a mode that is there just to introduce players to the same mechanics that are in multiplayer versus (where the game is meant to be played).
And why would I want to rape my mind on my spare time?

(05-17-2012 02:53 PM)Prelauncher Wrote:  Example, EA

...

(05-18-2012 02:24 PM)Oscar House Wrote:  Old games were difficult in order to get your money (tailored towards arcade gamers)
New games are easy in order to get your money (tailored towards casual gamers)

Its a design choice if you want to keep the difficulty low. If done well, it gives empowering feeling which can be really satisfying and fun. Now some people might tolerate trial and error more than others and want that increased challenge with the cost of flow and continuity. Or the game could have the difficulty set so well that the player knows he just barely beats the challenge every time.

Hell I don't play something like mass effect (EA example?) to have extremely difficult fights where I have to concentrate and do everything perfectly... Actually even mass effect might have some challenging stuff with the introduction of the multiplayer mode, but I haven't played that thing so dunno.


Derp, EA, casuals, pointless, dumbed down, todays gaming so mainstream, old good times.

Those mainstream games bring more people into playing games whom then might eventually develop a taste for things lil more less "convenient".


Easy to pick up, hard to master?
or
Hard to pick up, hard to master?

sure some games might be:
Easy to pick up, easy to master

for me, I don't always play to be challenged.

[spukrian]

I actually quite like Mass Effect, despite it's flaws. I remember there were some sidequests that were quite challenging, even though most of the main plot was easy (if you had leveled up from sidequests, that is).

Of course, I haven't played ME2 or ME3.

My earlier post was just meant to be about the gaming industry in general. Indeed, I've never played L4D...

[Bridge]

It is true games are getting easier in general, though I don't necessarily agree that games need to be inherently harder; a balance has to be struck. Anytime I play a new game I set it on the hardest difficulty and rarely have a problem. I don't say that to brag, I think games really are much too easy nowadays. It needs to be more like: easier lower difficulties and harder hard difficulties, so that people wanting a challenge have the option to.

What I don't want to see in newer games is mandatory save scumming like in many older games; it doesn't add to the experience it just makes it more annoying to play. In some modern FPSs you can breeze through the levels without worrying too much about anything whereas in an older FPS like Blood you have to save before basically every action, because you can easily walk into a room and get killed in one second (even on normal!). That style of gameplay really isn't exciting to me at all. Not only does save scumming rob all the tension that might otherwise be present it slows down the gameplay considerably, which is a tough sell for an action FPS.