Games are TOO EASY

I think that games these days are way too easy. I beat Half-Life 1 in 5 days on hard and Blue Shift in 2 days. I haven't got Half-Life 2 yet, so I can't really say anything about that yet... Games should be HARDER, like SuperTyrian 2: Lord of the Game (after 2 years of playing, I'm up to level 3 and there's around 50 levels...). I HATE games which are too easy.

/\ Finishes Tyrian 2: Time War

Damn you runtime error 216!!!

You must be good, try doom 3 (or any doom) on nightmare (your health only stays at 50 or so, and drops of its above)

It's not that games are easier its that you are a better gamer.

Doom 1 on Nightmare is pretty fun.

TEST OF SKILL:
Use only fist, chainsaw and pistol on Nightmare. This is the only way I can get a proper challenge with a single player first person shooter.

I recommend playing Ghost Recon and just running through it if you think games are easy, or maybe some Soldier of Fortune with max spawning/toughest enemies... similar to Doom's Nightmare except these guys spawn, not respawn. :smile:

Right now I'm just playing SuperTyrain 2: Lord of the Game, it's hard enough for my tastes. (would you believe, 8 times harder than Tyrian 2 on Hard plus virtually no weapons)

If games are so easy for you why did
Blue Shift take you so long? That's like a (possibly) 2 hour
venture.

I think most games are at a good difficultly level.
There's a difference between being hard and being ridiculous. I have
no problem with a game being difficult, but there are times where
it's just too much. You have to be able to balance everything out
really well. Making a game ridiculously hard is not a good balancing
technique.

I just have a beef with developers who make a game
"harder" by increasing or decreasing damage and health to
you or enemy's. Like Medal Of Honor for example. When a game makes it
so you have to shoot an enemy in the head three times before they
die... they've done a terrible job on difficulty fronts.

Personally,
I'd like to see different game modes for different difficulties, ones
that may put you in a more difficult situation. Even though that
would cause insane development periods, it would give the game such
an overwhelming dynamic.

However, I also think there should be
games that have appendixes after you beat them that extend the story
and uses your previous game play against you. Imagine something like
Metal Gear Solid and playing through again as Grey Wolf and the AI
used your previous game as a basis for Snakes AI. That would be
great.

But I've babbled for too long.

I don't think
games are too easy, because easy is a relative term. Define it and
I'll give a better answer.

I think games have gotten easier through the years...you get much more
help and areas are always so defined. Instead of "go to the cave" and
then leaving you to find whatever it was remotely mentioning. Nowadays
if someone can't get past a level in a minute or two they give up or
find an FAQ or the game just tells them. That's hardly fun. Back in the
day, the guy who beat the game was a god between friends. Now, the guy
who can't beat the game is a loser.

Crono, download Tyrian 2 from somewhere, type ENGAGE at the title screen, and tell me how you do. I imagine you'll find it quite... well, you'll see.

You played Ikaruga, Foxpup? I think it'd be right up your alley.

Haven't played it. Looked it up on Google, and it sounds fun.

I've checked the DOS Games Archive, and they don't have Tyrian 2, only Tyrian 1. You'll have to download Tyrian 2 from somewhere else.

I don't think it's a case of games getting easier...just shorter.

YAY! I just finished level 3 on SuperTyrian 2! I think I'm going to stop playing for a while because my hand is going numb (invulnerability is a bitch with a mouse).

Some games are easier, some harder. Guess it depends on the kind of
game for me. If you want a challenging racing game, F-Zero GX is pretty
rough. Lots of unlockables, many of which aren't impossible, but might
as well be.

Have you ever played the "Myst" series? It's by far the most tedious game ever. I was this close to falling into a permanent coma from playing it.

However, the puzzles are nearly impossible to solve.

Tyrian 2 won't work on a modern PC.

Check this out:
dosbox.sourceforge.net

EDIT: The link don't seem to work!!! Copy and paste it into the address bar until I can figure out how to work this thing...

One of the things about games that makes them seem simpler is the incredible ease that save features now allow. Remember when beating a level gave you no more than a password you could put in to say you beat it? Or when games made you play the whole way through in one sitting? You had to actually master the game to get through. Now, a rabid quicksaver can just repeat a difficult section indefinitely until getting it perfect or with minimal damage, and then move on to the next area.

Seriously, Quick Save is the antithesis of challenging gameplay.

I find that with a lot of games there will be a point where I get stuck
and can't go any further. For example, the first two Ratchet and
Clank games, which are excellent, get impossible for me to finish about
three quarters of the way through. There's just a point in so
many games where I get so frustrated I can't finish. Certain
games that are really good I will perservere no matter what. Even
in Half-Life 1, I couldn't beat that big baby thing without cheating.

And I am a total sucker for quicksave, especially in Half-Life 2.
I don't like it when my health drops below 70 or 80, and I will always
reload a quicksave if I do poorly in a fight when I know I can do
better. It prolongs the game for me, so it's not all that bad.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Adam Hawkins</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I don't think it's a case of games getting easier...just shorter. </DIV></DIV>
yeh i would agree with you in some games, they are getting shorter in stories and levels, instead of being longer and harder :wink: , because i like games which are long and have a sweet scent of Challenge....this is the game i like !!

HL2, quite frankly, was a breeze. I only got stuck a few times when I couldn't figure out which direction to go in.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>HL2, quite frankly, was a breeze. I only got stuck a few times when I couldn't figure out which direction to go in.</DIV></DIV>
Same here, except that I didn't get stuck at all. The puzzles in HL2 are a bit too obvious. But that's the way it goes. Some people get better at playing over time, but the games are made for average gamers so that there would be no fustration on the end of the paying customer. It's sad... I got more fun out of HL1 than HL2.

HL2, quite frankly, was a breeze. I only got stuck a few times
when I couldn't figure out which direction to go in.

Same here. But, HL1 took about the same amount of effort.

to me., HL1 was nice to me in the old times, now new gfx and new stuff came along...so hl2 and other games are MUCH better than HL1, thats my opinion...

Well, I played HL2 for the first (and only) time on medium, and it was REALLY easy. AND the final level was easier than "Follow Freeman" (annoying squad). HL1 was much harder; generally.

my biggest gripe is the lack of re-playability. in its day civilization 2 was my whole world. i played it nearly 3 years straight.. over and over again.

HL1, i played 1/2 way, lost interest.
hl2, looks at floor i'm at beginning.. lost interest.
doom 3 played it once.
duke nukem, played it like 10 times.

anywho's, the point is, nothing i like, has re-playability anymore. to me, games are like bic lighters, use them once, or till the flint runs out and throw them away.

i had big hopes for fallout 3 but it seems i won't get that one, so my last holdout is either civ 4 or EE2.

i guess upon reflection, i only play TBS,RTS and RPG's more than once anymore..

wow, didn't think of that till now. :/

I think you've got to the stage where you have to realise that you play games too much. Try thinking about how you can use your super skills to your advantage- perhaps a professional beta tester for a games company, or maybe go on some crappy TV show to show your l337ness :razz:

It's quite impossible to do, but I think using the "difficulty" slider
should not only boost the intelligence of your enemies, but also the
difficulty of the puzzles, and perhaps some parts in the level (more
use of long jumps, ....)

That would nearly mean developing three different levels, but it would be worth it.

I finished HL2 in about 18 hours, which is rather short for such an
anticipated game. I never got stuck, because everything was so bloody
obvious.

Force field ? Let's find a barrel to hit the power plug. All the puzzles involving physics objects were quite easy.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Forceflow</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>All the puzzles involving physics objects were quite easy.

</DIV></DIV>
Everything evolved around the damn grav gun! If HL2 didn't have it do you really think it would have been a good game? I might make a poll on that. Try playing HL2 without any gravgun.

Now that gun dominates the DM mode, along with the combine SMG, and that seems to be it!

It's quite impossible to do, but I think using the "difficulty" slider
should not only boost the intelligence of your enemies, but also the
difficulty of the puzzles, and perhaps some parts in the level (more
use of long jumps, ....)

That would nearly mean developing three different levels, but it would be worth it.

I finished HL2 in about 18 hours, which is rather short for such an
anticipated game. I never got stuck, because everything was so bloody
obvious.

Force field ? Let's find a barrel to hit the power plug. All the puzzles involving physics objects were quite easy.

It's possible, but incredibly difficult to achieve and make it good and not annoying.

One of the things about games that makes them seem simpler is
the incredible ease that save features now allow. Remember when beating
a level gave you no more than a password you could put in to say you
beat it? Or when games made you play the whole way through in one
sitting? You had to actually master the game to get through. Now, a
rabid quicksaver can just repeat a difficult section indefinitely until
getting it perfect or with minimal damage, and then move on to the next
area.

Seriously, Quick Save is the antithesis of challenging gameplay.

I agree with that at some point. Those old games didn't have those
functions at all but they were... well, just fun to play so you just
repeated half of the game days after days after days.

I think it's not just a game-designers issue. It's also that players
have changed. Most players these days want it all and want it quick. No
redoing long parts, that gets annoying to them. And game-designers want
their games to be fun so they'll adapt to that. That's what I think
about it.

So, I think it's just a change in gameplay style. Though indeed it could be tweaked quite some in games nowadays.

Few months ago my brother played a Vietcong game. On hard, you had only
limited savegames. Very unpleasant at first but it does fit the hard
setting fine. It may not suit all players, but I think that's a nice
addition to the 'harder enemies, less health 'n stuff' thing.

I've also read that Darktruth, the mod that sadly never made it, wanted
to implement a no-quicksave system for the hardest setting. Just
auto-save spots. Two types actually: a one-time autosave, and a
reusable autosave. They actually used these as rewards sometimes, in
secrets for example. Nifty, I liked those idea's.

I also miss those extra thingies in nowadays games. Those secrets that
unlocked secret levels, extra stuff and all... it felt so much more
rewarding and made replayability much better for me. Plus, it gives the
feeling that you're actually smart, finding secrets, and it's exciting
to have found a secret level or object that you weren't supposed to
find on a normal run.

And about difficulty settings: I find that a harder difficulty must
have a greater reward. Darktruth planned to give away more of the story
on harder settings, and offer slightly different situations instead of
just harder enemies. I would've loved to see that in-game.

HL2 rewarded those that inspected area's closely, there were some
hidden information spots and such. That's ok, good to reward those that
seek, but I also think it should've rewarded those that went the harder
way.

I finished HL2 in about 18 hours, which is rather short for such an
anticipated game. I never got stuck, because everything was so bloody
obvious.

I can't believe you're calling 18 hours short. Hell, I finished it in just over 10 and it was plenty enjoyable over even that span of time. With the exception of the epic RPGs, very rarely do I want a game taking me much beyond 12-15 hours. I'm usually more than happy with 8, provided that 8 is well crafted.

How many hours of enjoyment will you get from mapping or deathmatching online, on top of those 10/18/whatever hours? More than any other game EVER for many of us, except for HL1 :razz:

you should be someone like me. games that are hours long, lose interest for me rapidly. i cannot play as long anymore, and with session of 15 to 30 minutes, it becomes cumbersome after a while.

anywho's its not length, its quality. i buy games knowing full well I'll never finish them. i buy them anyways. go figure. :/

anywho's its not length, its quality.

Hey, true words...

You could go as far as to say length should come forth from quality... For a
fun game will be played longer than a long boring game, isn't it? :smile:

Play ICO, and realise that time plays no importance compared to quality :smile:

Really though, I totally disagree with people saying games are getting
shorter. Think back to Streets Or Rage, Sonic, Mario, Street Fighter,
Prince of Persia, Another World, etc... - hardly the lengthiest of
games any of them. Most could be completed in less than 2 or 3 hours.
Any despite this, some people find it necessary to bitch at 18 hours
(and if you took that long without getting stuck...something is amiss)?
I really don't get it to be honest. I'm normally glad of a game being
completeable in as reasonable amount of time, as quite frankly there
are so many other games out there that I'm normally happy to be able to
move onto something new.

Want a game that's rediculously hard? Doom3. I'm on hard difficulty, but don't write me off yet -- I know a game is to hard when I'm standing 4 feet away from a guy, shoot a shotgun at him, and only 1 pellet hits.

Blah. I personally haven't played any new games for quite a while now -- they all become very reduntant in style, and features. The only game I find that is "real easy" is Quake2 :razz: The original Quake was more of a challenge!

My thought is, is that you are better off playing an easy game with amazing grandeur, than you are playing a correctly challenging game, with no grandeur at all.

Also, is grandeur even the right word for that sentence?

Ballblue: shotgun in D3 is crazy effective, but the problem is actually -aiming-. They went a little overboard with the melee kickback when you get hit, so once you get a bunch of guys near you it's basically game over :razz: Wish they'd toned that down a bit.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
anywho's its not length, its quality.

</DIV></DIV>
It's not about the size of the boat... it's about the motion in the ocean.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cassius</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
It's not about the size of the boat... it's about the motion in the ocean.

</DIV></DIV>

Cass, have i really been that bad an influence on you

i was thinking that as i typed, but no way was i going to hint i was thinking it..
you.. kill me sometimes .

Play Viewtiful Joe (Gamecube / PS2). It will whoop your ass into submission.