It might just be me, but aren't videogames WAY too tough nowadays??? (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

Street Fighter was nothing. There was what , down roll-toward, down to away, the dragon punch motion, back for 2 seconds forward, and down for 2 seconds up. That's all the motions there were in Street Fighter.

In Japan each character in Virtua Fighter has a 300 page BOOK released.

 

[Sean Patrick]

it makes me feel stupid, but on level 3 Of SPLINTER CELLL and i've already had to go to Gamefaqs a couple of times just to advance (after hours of not knowing what i was doing wrong).

 

[Mark Evans]

That's unfortunate too Sean. A hallmark of good game design is when you can get a hint to at least nudge you in the right direction.

Several of the old LucasArts games were particularly good for this. Try something a few times to solve the puzzle, get frustrated, character gives a hint, figure it out, move on.

 

[Jeffrey Itterly]

After all these years there's zero excuse for the controls in the Resident Evil series. I'll never buy another RE game...

It just seems like an easy fix that they choose to ignore...

There's a difference between controls being complex and being dated. RE's controls are dated......

 

[Jason Seaver]

Case in point: Combat. Just you, another guy, and a randomly created map. You only needed to know when to hit, where to hide, and a bit of forethought. Take chess. Only need to learn how pieces move, and that's it.

Ah, but that's because Combat and Chess are actual games. Most of what are called games nowadays are actually scripted simulations more interested in storytelling than testing skill.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

There's a difference between controls being complex and being dated. RE's controls are dated......

The only fix that I can see is offerring gamers an option of two control schemes: one in the RE style and one in a 3-D style (like Super Mario 64). The problem with the latter option is that the constantly changing camera angles would make controlling characters tougher than it already is.

 

[DaveGTP]

On the control issue, I thought that Devil May Cry handled it very well (although the camera still sucked). Even if the camera angle changed, you kept walking the same direction until you stopped pressing on the analog stick. Then it reverted to whatever the angle would make it. Only caused me problems a few times. I am playing Onimusha 2, and the controls are irritating me to no end, if only I could use the analog stick instead of the D-pad!
As far as games being too tough, I think that they are too easy. I have not found many RPGs remotely difficult in recent years (except for Dragon Warrior VII!). And I don't level up, I hate leveling up! The only other action games I have picked up have been the harder ones. Like Maximo, Devil May Cry. I appreciate actually being challenged. I hate easy games, and avoid them like the plague.
And I work full time, and I am an Engineering student. I don't play games 24-7. So this isn't coming from a game-o-holic.

 

[EdR]

If you thinks games today are more tough that the games of yester year you must be forgetting some liitle gems like Defender and Robotron 2084.

Good point, but when you think about it, in those days there was a need for games to be hard, because they made money by the hour. If an arcade game was too easy, the game would never make money (or as much money) because each play wold take too long.
I think a lot of old arcade games were carefully weighted to be addictive, and yet have short play times (although I knew some people who could play Robotron for a LONG time).
Arcade games also needed to be easy to figure out, I think. You needed to be able to put in a quarter have fun...if you didn't enjoy it, you might not spend money on it again, so pick-up-and-play was high on the list of qualities arcade games needed.
Today it's very different, because games are purchased as a one-time cost (unless online gaming picks up enough, then pay-to-play could become the norm again). The need to keep a game short is gone...in fact, it's much the opposite...for many games, the longer the better.
Complexity, in the sense of needing to spend time figuring out how to play is expected, within reason.
As someone who grew up in arcades, I do see the loss of the art of simplicity in games. This isn't to say that modern games are worse, that's not the case...but there has been a shift in priorities, largely based on economics...and while I appreciate great games that take a long time to finish, etc...I would like to see more games with more of the arcade sensibility, only with a shallower difficulty curve.
A good example of this is the game "Silpheed" for the PS2. Although it is flawed in several ways, it has the basic elements of a good mix of arcade and depth. I've heard about a game called 'Ikaruga' from a friend of mine who says it could be another game like this...hopefully better than Silpheed.
I also like SuperMonkey Ball for similar reasons, although the so-called mini games (Target, Bowling, Combat) are what keep me coming back. I got bored of the main game much more quickly.

 

[Javier_Huerta]

...and that might be the reason I'd also like to include Crazy Taxi and Crazy Taxi 2 in my ranking. They are simple to learn, difficult to master, and highly addicting.
There's one other thing: easy controls level the playing field when playing against another human being. Otherwise, everything else becomes a matter of learning the correct combination of controls.
I can still remember the frag-fests we used to hold when we had Doom running on our Silicon Graphics Indigo back at school. True, it was one on one, but it was terrific fun! And everyone could join the battle, since controls were forwards, backwards, left, right, shoot, change weapon. So intelligently simple.

 

[EdR]

..and that might be the reason I'd also like to include Crazy Taxi and Crazy Taxi 2 in my ranking. They are simple to learn, difficult to master, and highly addicting.

This is why I love rally games. Good ones offer well designed, predictable, simple controls (accelerate, brake, steer)...and leave it up to you to navigate unpredictable, undulating terrain as fast as possible. It's a very simple concept, but it can take dozens of hours to master a good rally game.

You don't need to solve mind-bending puzzles, you don't need to plan a strategy, you don't need to master complex button combos...you just learn to keep your car as close to going out of control, without actually letting it.

 

[Mark Evans]

Interesting point about Doom, actually, Javier, which got me thinking. Really it's gamers that drive the complexity forward.
Doom did a number of things tech and graphic wise that people never expected. Once these unexpected things are accomplished, people invariably want more on top of this. Half-Life has amazing new environments, and yes, technology, yadda yadda.
What do people want now? More! And the only way to get it is upping technology. We can add voice? People want it! We can blow up the environment and leave bullet holes? People want it!
And when we do that, that's where your complexity comes from

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I'm reading a book right now for a school project, and in the book there's a section about realism in games.

It says that games either become more complex and offer more realism, but at the same time don't offer enough realism to be considered realistic and the nature of being a videogame causes some problems in itself, one being that there is no perfect perspective to play a game from; first-person doesn't let you see as far as the human eye would (in degrees above and to the sides), while third has to rely on a camera that can get in the way of the game.

The book also says that some of the best games out there are the ones that create new and original worlds rather than emulate the one we live in. Rez, ICO, Tetris, etc. are examples of games that could NEVER take place in our world, but that is part of what makes them so unique and enjoyable.