# Gaming is dead



## Subzero100 (Apr 13, 2015)

Gaming in the traditional sense is dead as far as i can see, but obviously isn't on a whole since people still are buying games. How many people out there that have basically begged companies that put out some of the best stuff there was in the 80's and 90's in a recognizable form that was simple and fun today? and how many failures have there been of games that didn't convert well into 3d like castlevaina? Its obvious that they gave up on what was fun and focused on what will make the most money instead, because i think we are long overdue for a real follow up to super mario 3, symphony of the night, and countless others. Withe today's tech is would be easy to make these things happen, but the odds hang favorably in the direction of us getting the latest yearly $60 dlc that is call of duty instead.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 13, 2015)

7/10 topic title, made me respond.


----------



## VinsCool (Apr 13, 2015)

That's why i'm into retro/failed consoles

I like old stuff.


----------



## RevPokemon (Apr 13, 2015)

Gaming will not die for a while as we will always have a few good game makers that don't follow that crap (way forward, yacht club, etc)


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 13, 2015)

Gaming is not dead, it is just different.
You have so many options today I think it is impossible not to find something that suits you.
Just stop looking into mainstream and old franchises if they bother you.
Look into the indie scene, whose small budget is more alike to the one of the small gaming industry of yore.
The indie scene is more independent, so you may find all type of not so sell numbers oriented games in there.
Don't focus on old franchises, if you are fixated to an old franchise and specific old games on those franchises then never a new version will be able to compete to your over-embellished memories.


----------



## Blaze163 (Apr 13, 2015)

I see this come up often. Gaming is by no means dead. It's more widespread now than ever before, which has attracted the 'bro' crowd and this made games like CoD extremely profitable. But one thing nobody seems to remember is that we were all new to gaming at one point or another. We didn't start off looking for artistic value in games and insisting that we get the best of the best. There was a time when we were much the same. I, for example, couldn't give a crap about any game other than the latest Sonic games when I was a kid. They've held up over the years but when you really boil it down, Sonic 2 was mostly guilty of the same offences we flay CoD alive for. Same basic premise with a new lick of paint, minor tweaks and updates to the multiplayer? Which game series does that apply to? BOTH. We let it slide because games were simpler back then, or because of nostalgia, but it's the truth.

The 'bro' gaming crowd is basically the same. They all buy the bare-bones no effort sequels now, but give it time and they'll soon get bored the same way we did as we matured, experimented, developed more refined tastes in our gaming lives, and the industry adapted accordingly. We hate the 'bro' crowd because they remind of us of what we once were. But gaming, much like any other form of art, goes through peaks and valleys. If you feel we're in one of these valleys at the moment, which I don't necessarily agree with, then at least remember that the industry will adapt as it always does and we'll be back on top form in no time. When the PS3 launched it had virtually nothing worth playing, the price was outrageous, technical issues and everyone claimed it was 'the death of gaming' and a 'disgrace to the PS2 legacy'. Now look at it. It came into its own and gave us some of the greatest games of the last generation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just think we need to be patient.


----------



## chavosaur (Apr 13, 2015)

Dat Clickbait tho


----------



## Hells Malice (Apr 13, 2015)

If only there were developers not a part of any large tripleAAA companies.

Perhaps some independent people and studios who develop solid games that aren't all about making the almighty dollar

If only such a thing existed
it would be a wonderful world indeed.

RIP gaming, y u no indie

No but seriously you're a fucking retard. Gaming is bigger than ever. More people than ever partake in gaming than ever before. Games just keep getting better, get with the times old man.


----------



## SickPuppy (Apr 13, 2015)

Everything changes over time. It's just that some people don't want to change with the times. Get over it bud, pitfall, pac man, and asteroids will not be back, ever.


----------



## Sefi (Apr 13, 2015)

Good thing there's enough good games for a person to play from birth to death already!


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 13, 2015)

Subzero100 said:


> Gaming in the traditional sense is dead as far as i can see, but obviously isn't on a whole since people still are buying games.


 
Yes. And not only that, but they're also actually PLAYING those games they buy. And even ENJOYING themselves while doing this 'gaming' thing.

In other words: take off your goddamn emo glasses, bro. There are more games than call of duty, and it's gotten to a point where even mediocre games of the nineties are getting remakes and reboots (Christ...under what rock were you hiding when nintendo released NSMBW and NSMBU?).


----------



## Black-Ice (Apr 13, 2015)

Have you seen eSports? 
I don't think you have


----------



## Disco (Apr 13, 2015)

SickPuppy said:


> Everything changes over time. It's just that some people don't want to change with the times. Get over it bud, pitfall, pac man, and asteroids will not be back, ever.


 
Exactly!

It's not the games, it's us, nostalgia is strange thing...
Much of the games that I loved as a kid, are unplayable when I try them today.

But there are some really awesome old games that I play almost every year, for example: commander keen series, flashback (not that remake crap), another world, jazz jackrabbit, doom, batman nes, mario bros 3, resident evil 1,2,3...

But also there are really great games today, I just finished Never Alone on PS4 and that game is just awesome edutainment documentary like game and great insight into Eskimo culture!
Also, I love The last of us, Killzone, Cod (yes despite the internet saying it's the same every year, I love cinematic COD SP campaigns, it's my guilty pleasure), Bioshock...
And for old type games there is always emulators on PC and GBA/DS/3DS (Nintendo is just perfectly oldskul  ).

Only thing that I did realized that this generation of consoles is the remastered generation and generation of delaying (obviously it's far more complicated and expensive to make games for PS4/Wii U/X1/PC), and I don't like it...
And also I don't like the hype they make for games these days, and then the game becomes the super disappointment like for example the Order 1886 which is in my opinion a movie with some interactions here and there (I borrowed the game, not giving money for that kind of   ).


----------



## Vipera (Apr 13, 2015)

Every time someone writes "videogames are dead" on the internet I always read it as "I'm a lazy person who can't even make a quick Google research".


----------



## TecXero (Apr 13, 2015)

A lot of the stuff that interests me anymore tend to come from Indies and smaller developers. What you enjoy may not be insanely popular right now, but there's something for everyone. You just have to know where to look. What bothers me is how physical media is dying off (already dead PC side) while DRM is on the rise (luckily there are DRM free alternatives on PC, but console side, you can only buy the games from their online store if you go digital legally).


----------



## BullyWiiPlaza (Apr 13, 2015)

Gaming these days often is about exposing or trolling others instead of having fun playing (this degeneration is especially true in Call of Duty). Everybody just plays like a jack-ass (camping, best characters, guns, equipment) and thinks that in-game scores matter in real-life (k/d ratio?).


----------



## Bimmel (Apr 13, 2015)

Get a dog. Or a child. Or both.

Much better then that dead gaming.


----------



## sandytf (Apr 13, 2015)

Gaming is not dead and will be around for a very long time. However, the culture around gaming has been continuously changing and evolving. Back in the 80's and 90's, the Internet wasn't available, resulting in gaming having an aurora of mystery around it. Coupled with the younger average age of gamers back then, visiting a local video game store used to cause a greater level of excitement since there was always a chance of discovering something new. Ebay, online shopping, and greater standardization in gaming hardware (particularly with console accessories) have lessened this feeling and as a result,  the mystique is gone. However,  not all is negative. Unlike in the past, gamers have greater access to video game related information, game reviews, and  game play videos. Additionally, the diversity of available games is substantialy larger, especially considering all of the games of yore are still not only available  but even easier to access today than in the past.


----------



## Catastrophic (Apr 13, 2015)

Vipera said:


> Every time someone writes "videogames are dead" on the internet I always read it as "I'm a lazy person who can't even make a quick Google research".


 
For me, it's "I don't like video games anymore which must mean that gaming is dead".


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 13, 2015)

Even the glorious Nintendo that was the shit in the 90's hasn't been doing great since the Super Nintendo days. 

I mean, N64/GameCube/Wii have some gems but it just doesn't compare to how good they were with the SNES. And damn, now they're putting more effort into Happy Meal toys than actual games.

Problem is, Nintendo fans are now preferring those said Happy Meal toys over the games now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Even the glorious Nintendo that was the shit in the 90's hasn't been doing great since the Super Nintendo days.
> 
> I mean, N64/GameCube/Wii have some gems but it just doesn't compare to how good they were with the SNES. And damn, now they're putting more effort into Happy Meal toys than actual games.
> 
> Problem is, Nintendo fans are now preferring those said Happy Meal toys over the games now.


Yup. It's been a downward spiral ever since the N64 came about - they stopped caring about their customers and started caring exclusively about their own content. I remember when Nintendo had an aggressive licensing campaign that just raked in developers, a seal of quality, some damned standards - no more. Now we get whatever they think is right, not what we deserve.


----------



## BullyWiiPlaza (Apr 13, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Yup. It's been a downward spiral ever since the N64 came about - they stopped caring about their customers and started caring exclusively about their own content. I remember when Nintendo had an aggressive licensing campaign that just raked in developers, a seal of quality, some damned standards - no more. Now we get whatever they think is right, not what we deserve.


 
If you look at what they have been releasing gaming-wise in the last few years it's fucking pathetic. All games are almost complete copies of previous versions and it's hard to find something truly new and innovative. It's like Nintendo doesn't do anything but porting textures and bringing out their graphics-updated old games 90% of the time because the gameplay is identical. Do they have like 5 or 500 employees working on stuff? I can't even tell.


----------



## Hells Malice (Apr 13, 2015)

BullyWiiPlaza said:


> Gaming these days often is about exposing or trolling others instead of having fun playing (this degeneration is especially true in Call of Duty). Everybody just plays like a jack-ass (camping, best characters, guns, equipment) and thinks that in-game scores matter in real-life (k/d ratio?).


 
Except not really at all. That's pretty much just Call of Duty, and LoL/DOTA


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2015)

BullyWiiPlaza said:


> Gaming these days often is about exposing or trolling others instead of having fun playing (this degeneration is especially true in Call of Duty). Everybody just plays like a jack-ass (camping, best characters, guns, equipment) and thinks that in-game scores matter in real-life (k/d ratio?).


Are you trying to say that CS 1.6 wasn't like that over a decade ago? Because it sure was.


----------



## BullyWiiPlaza (Apr 13, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Except not really at all. That's pretty much just Call of Duty, and LoL/DOTA


 
What about all the Funky Kongs and Daisys with Flame Runners or Mach Bikes in Mario Kart Wii? Best combination overall statistically. Over half of the lobbies with above-average versus ratings are playing them because they have a speed boost that might get them the few milliseconds needed for a better placement.


Foxi4 said:


> Are you trying to say that CS 1.6 wasn't like that over a decade ago? Because it sure was.


I haven't played it but people say the community wasn't messed up.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 13, 2015)

You know, I am a 90's child and yes the 90's were pretty awesome, but they are also long dead and gone and we need to move into the future. 
The truth is, gaming's not dead, it's changed direction. And quite honestly gaming has always been about changing directions, think about how people reacted when gaming went from 4 Bit lines and barely identifiable figures to greater detailed 8Bit sprites? Hell what about when games when from 8Bit to 16Bit. Kids were happy to see the changes because it meant something new was coming along and but I am willing to bet there was an older generation that was totally against it and even calling gaming "dead" because they didn't like the change. 
Of course we can also argue that every single generation believes they are best generation and crap for their generation is the best crap. 
Gaming has changed and sales reflect that. If people want games like CoD and sequels, then that's what we are going to get. Take it from someone who is actually the head of the video game department in my store. I have to track sales to know what to order for the store, thus my job to know what's selling. And you know what's selling the best? GTA 5, COD, Borderlands, Pokemon, ect. Games you expect to sell well and thus they do. 
The truth be told, the gaming industry has always been about making money and giving the fans what they want by sales reflections. If one style of game shows better results to another style, they will start making games like that. Even if they change some things up, they still attempt to keep the same core elements that get the sales. Even the most innovative companies like Nintendo really doesn't do much innovations. They just take what's selling well and mix it up a bit to see what happens. Platformers sell well for them, so what do they do? They add a new gimmick to the core and see what happens. If it goes well, they start working on more like it. Once they stop selling well, they start a new gimmick, That's how the gaming industry works. It's all about making money through some new gimmick added to something popular.


----------



## Veho (Apr 13, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I remember when Nintendo had an aggressive licensing campaign that just raked in developers, a seal of quality, some damned standards


I don't. Nintendo was always willing to slap their "seal of quality" on any piece of crap whose developers were willing to pay for the SDK. Your experience is skewed by nostalgia goggles and the fact your local stores (and friends) only imported hits, but the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" also stands on some of the worst games of all time. It never actually guaranteed anything. 


Standards, bah. Behold, "standards".


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 13, 2015)

Veho said:


> Behold, "standards".


 
Another quality release


----------



## RevPokemon (Apr 13, 2015)

Joe88 said:


> Another quality release



Yet they let pieces of shit like this


----------



## Hells Malice (Apr 13, 2015)

BullyWiiPlaza said:


> What about all the Funky Kongs and Daisys with Flame Runners or Mach Bikes in Mario Kart Wii? Best combination overall statistically. Over half of the lobbies with above-average versus ratings are playing them because they have a speed boost that might get them the few milliseconds needed for a better placement.


 

and? Playing optimally isn't trolling or being a jackass. Honestly games like MK suck shit with randoms anyway, it's only fun with friends. You're playing to win online, it's not surprising people will do that. People don't typically find losing to randoms fun. With friends it's 'whatever'. If there's a trend, people will typically follow it so they aren't left behind and thus why you see so many people doing that. Online gaming has -always- been like this. So it's not like anything has changed. Plenty of games have good communities, just like some have shitty ones. A huge amount of games don't even HAVE online multiplayer so your argument was pretty stupid from the start.




Veho said:


> I don't. Nintendo was always willing to slap their "seal of quality" on any piece of crap whose developers were willing to pay for the SDK. Your experience is skewed by nostalgia goggles and the fact your local stores (and friends) only imported hits, but the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" also stands on some of the worst games of all time. It never actually guaranteed anything.
> 
> 
> Standards, bah. Behold, "standards".


 
Are you trying to say Shaq Fu wasn't the greatest game ever?
Someone ban this guy


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 13, 2015)

Joe88 said:


> Another quality release


 
Well... Shaq Fu was passable.
But you just threw an elephant into the forum.
An elephant awarded with a reliable golden Nintendo seal of quality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2015)

Veho said:


> I don't. Nintendo was always willing to slap their "seal of quality" on any piece of crap whose developers were willing to pay for the SDK. Your experience is skewed by nostalgia goggles and the fact your local stores (and friends) only imported hits, but the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" also stands on some of the worst games of all time. It never actually guaranteed anything.
> 
> 
> Standards, bah. Behold, "standards".


I would argue that the bar was considerably higher and there was a lot more third-party devs on-board. The NES and SNES have their share of garbage, but it's nothing compared to the alternatives at the time - 8-bit computers are a mine of terrible software slapped together for a buck in some dark cellar.


----------



## cdoty (Apr 13, 2015)

I just recently finished watching Atari: Game Over, and I think they captured the reason for the last 'death of gaming'. Atari was trying to sell another "10 million units into a saturated market". We are nowhere near saturated, due to the size of the market. I think the biggest threats to gaming are the free to play games, the race to the bottom in pricing, and the amount of crap games being released. The market is correcting the problems be making it harder for developers to make enough money to fund additional games.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 13, 2015)

Go away, Nietzsche.


----------



## BullyWiiPlaza (Apr 13, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Plenty of games have good communities, just like some have shitty ones. A huge amount of games don't even HAVE online multiplayer so your argument was pretty stupid from the start.


For me gaming is online gaming because offline gaming is just playing with yourself or some predictable computer player which is the same all the time and eventually people get tired of every random trying to follow trends or play in a douchy way online. You can't play with randoms anyway since they mostly don't how to properly play or just won't. With friends it's still great fun, it's literally the only way where gaming still shines.


----------



## Qtis (Apr 13, 2015)

Ah, Gaming is dead.

Seriously though, gaming is alive more than before. I find it sort of odd that people think new forms of gamings as something that shouldn't exist "because it didn't exist a few years ago". Imagine if people thought of Steam as they think of mobile gaming now.

Oh, sorry for that. They do think of mobile gaming exactly the same way. Steam was shit when Half Life 2 released and required the platform. If HL2 released now and required Steam, it'd be Game of the Year before the end of the month. No questions asked. Gaming is an experience more than ever. Before, we had technical limitations for many games (why else would we see remastered versions of past games? If the original couldn't be improved, why would anyone remake it? (and no, just money gets you only so far)). Now we are seeing more and more games not limited by memory, RAM or GPU. The future will show something else, don't get me wrong, but as is, there are only few games that actually make use of multiple cores in a CPU or make the GPU feel like the depths of hell. (Those games are also quite badly optimised for current hardware).

ps. No, Final Fantasy et al. are not good examples of games, as the series is has been milked a few times too many without improving the initial experience again. So releases did add content, others didn't. I won't go into the matter any more as it has been discussed to death before.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 13, 2015)

Qtis said:


> Ah, Gaming is dead.
> 
> Seriously though, gaming is alive more than before. I find it sort of odd that people think new forms of gamings as something that shouldn't exist "because it didn't exist a few years ago". Imagine if people thought of Steam as they think of mobile gaming now.
> 
> ...


 
You meant HL3, right, right?
HL3 fucking where?! </end of rant>


----------



## Qtis (Apr 13, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> You meant HL3, right, right?
> HL3 fucking where?! </end of rant>


 
It's just around the corner, trust me. Valve has never let us down with timelines


----------



## Hells Malice (Apr 13, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Even the glorious Nintendo that was the shit in the 90's hasn't been doing great since the Super Nintendo days.
> 
> I mean, N64/GameCube/Wii have some gems but it just doesn't compare to how good they were with the SNES. And damn, now they're putting more effort into Happy Meal toys than actual games.
> 
> Problem is, Nintendo fans are now preferring those said Happy Meal toys over the games now.


 
Nintendo had fantastic N64 games. Kirby 64, Donkey Kong 64 and Mario 64 (i'm sensing a trend in titles here...) were phenomenal. Hell Kirby 64 and DK64 are still the best games in their franchise. Not to mention Star Fox 64 and Banjo Kazooie/Tooie.
Even gamecube era games were pretty solid. Windwaker AND Twilight Princess (yeah yeah a wii title too) were both very unique Zelda games that still felt like zelda games. Super Mario Sunshine was pretty neat and was a good sequel to SM64. Pikmin 1 and 2 were fun and solidly made. Gamecube gets shit on since it did start to let a few franchises go (star fox anyone?), but honestly it was still a pretty solid console era for Nintendoh.
As far as Nintendo titles are concerned, N64 blew SNES out of the water. The SNES had some real gems, but most of Nintendo's finest tiles are on the N64.

The Wii and 3DS is really where Nintendo just dropped the damn ball. The WiiU, the ball is just gone, they dropped that shit down a well and there ain't no Timmy to go get it.


----------



## Minox (Apr 15, 2015)

It's dead? Again?


----------



## Vipera (Apr 15, 2015)




----------



## Subzero100 (Apr 15, 2015)

" (Christ...under what rock were you hiding when nintendo released NSMBW and NSMBU?"

i rest my case


----------



## Subzero100 (Apr 15, 2015)

Guild McCommunist said:


> 7/10 topic title, made me respond.



that's because the old stuff is the best some people fail to see that


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 15, 2015)

Subzero100 said:


> " (Christ...under what rock were you hiding when nintendo released NSMBW and NSMBU?"
> 
> i rest my case


 
Good point.
But anyway, and as you mentioned Castlevania somewhere, I think Cave Story is one of the best Metroidvanias ever (yes I know it was released like ten years ago and then milked like a cow, but still)
Also Super Meat Boy was a challenging and beautiful platformer, Skullgirls a really nice 2D fighting game, and so on...
And I don't name newer games because I haven't had time to play lately, but sure there are good games for any taste out there.
There are lots of great games in the indie scene, and if you want some oldschool hardcore style dungeon crawlers and RPGs, Atlus sure has something for you.
Also, even if Fire Emblem gameplay has been turned kind of easy, the latest entry provides tons of content, and I expect the next FE:if Nohr side to have tough gameplay as it should.
It is a very good time for Fire Emblem.

Of course, I am only speaking about my tastes and just giving a small number of examples, anyway there are lots of games offered, and I am sure anybody can find something great for their taste.

You can still find great games that will be good for your tastes.
The only thing I see missing from the past is a belief of being part of a society or group that hypes towards the same great games. (or something like that, my English failed here)
But that is because of marketing in a market that doesn't try to reach you anymore, you are not part of the mainstream market, so you are left out.
That is a consequence of becoming old, too bad.


----------



## Subzero100 (Apr 15, 2015)

yeah there just needs to be more of it, and i think indie games have over taken most so called aaa games out there for the very fact that they are original and fun. I also think 3d has run its course, and nobody has any good ideas anymore that's why you will never seen another 2d castlevaina, metroid, or any of the top titles from the nes area...which is sad considering how much power they have to work with now. From the look of it the best we have to look forward to is unlimited runner games unless somehow Nintendo manages to fix that area with their new mobile partner.......one can wish.


----------



## Hells Malice (Apr 16, 2015)

Inb4 Subzero100 tells us to get off his lawn.

You sound like you're 90 years old, get with the times old man and try taking off those 10 pairs of rose tinted glasses.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Nintendo had fantastic N64 games. Kirby 64, Donkey Kong 64 and Mario 64 (i'm sensing a trend in titles here...) were phenomenal. Hell Kirby 64 and DK64 are still the best games in their franchise. Not to mention Star Fox 64 and Banjo Kazooie/Tooie.
> Even gamecube era games were pretty solid. Windwaker AND Twilight Princess (yeah yeah a wii title too) were both very unique Zelda games that still felt like zelda games. Super Mario Sunshine was pretty neat and was a good sequel to SM64. Pikmin 1 and 2 were fun and solidly made. Gamecube gets shit on since it did start to let a few franchises go (star fox anyone?), but honestly it was still a pretty solid console era for Nintendoh.
> As far as Nintendo titles are concerned, N64 blew SNES out of the water. The SNES had some real gems, but most of Nintendo's finest tiles are on the N64.
> 
> The Wii and 3DS is really where Nintendo just dropped the damn ball. The WiiU, the ball is just gone, they dropped that shit down a well and there ain't no Timmy to go get it.


The first-party titles on the N64 were pretty solid - shame that the console had nogaems besides first-party. The Gamecube had a more sizable library, but it was still minuscule in comparison to the PS2 and even the Xbox. Nintendo was already in the process of _"dropping the ball"_ at that point, just in terms of licensing and hardware solutions.


----------



## LightyKD (Apr 16, 2015)

Gaming isnt dead, it's just getting stupified. Between the dude-bros, the people who hat other gamers over console, liked genre or play style and add in the greedy ass companies and investors who don't know what gaming is about -yep, gaming has become dumb. My advice, stick with what you like and DONT blow through those games. Treat the games you like as if they were fine wine and take your time playing them. That should keep you satisfied.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 16, 2015)

Subzero100 said:


> that's because the old stuff is the best some people fail to see that


 
Except the 90's were also full of failed/shit systems for example: 
3DO
CDi
Atari Jaguar
Sega Saturn
32X/Sega CD
Amiga CD32
Apple Bandai Pippin
Nintendo 64DD (So bad it never made it out of Japan)
R-Zone
Virtual Boy
Game.com
Tiger anything

The 90's gaming market was just a wild west of gaming, they were just throwing shit at wall until something stuck. So really "old stuff is the best some people fail to see that," is it my failure to see how great these systems were or were they just bad on their own? Where things really better or are we just blinded by nostalgia? 
Really every generation thinks their generation was the best and that's what holds back progress. Instead of accepting change, we continue to cling to the old thinking it was better because we enjoyed it. The reality is, the world has since moved on and that's what's going to continue to happen.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 16, 2015)

Subzero100 said:


> " (Christ...under what rock were you hiding when nintendo released NSMBW and NSMBU?"
> 
> i rest my case


Sure, no problem. At least you admit it when you're wrong. 



Spoiler



Yes, I noticed your sarcasm. But since you don't care about giving reasons, I might as well ignore it.


----------



## Subzero100 (Apr 16, 2015)

"Sure, no problem. At least you admit it when you're wrong. "

except that im right the new super mario bros games aren't real mario games, and its not surprising that alot of people missed the point on the topic


----------



## Cortador (Apr 16, 2015)

So dramatic lol


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 16, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Nintendo had fantastic N64 games. Kirby 64, Donkey Kong 64 and Mario 64 (i'm sensing a trend in titles here...) were phenomenal. Hell Kirby 64 and DK64 are still the best games in their franchise. Not to mention Star Fox 64 and Banjo Kazooie/Tooie.
> Even gamecube era games were pretty solid. Windwaker AND Twilight Princess (yeah yeah a wii title too) were both very unique Zelda games that still felt like zelda games. Super Mario Sunshine was pretty neat and was a good sequel to SM64. Pikmin 1 and 2 were fun and solidly made. Gamecube gets shit on since it did start to let a few franchises go (star fox anyone?), but honestly it was still a pretty solid console era for Nintendoh.
> As far as Nintendo titles are concerned, N64 blew SNES out of the water. The SNES had some real gems, but most of Nintendo's finest tiles are on the N64.
> 
> The Wii and 3DS is really where Nintendo just dropped the damn ball. The WiiU, the ball is just gone, they dropped that shit down a well and there ain't no Timmy to go get it.


 
I personally wouldn't put the 64 above the SNES because even 64's gems didn't quite age well to today's standards due to the limitations that Nintendo applied to the console whereas in comparison, the PlayStation eventually had dual analogue sticks which permitted for full use of proper character & camera control (still some games went with L + R for it).

Admittedly the N64, NGC and Wii all have some great games but they just didn't live up to their potential as PS1 (vs. 64), PS2 (vs. NGC) and 360/PS3 (vs. Wii - oddly 'cause the Wii is as powerful as an NGC) took over them. That's what it was, Nintendo consoles just haven't been doing well for years against 'rival' companies.

Nintendo prefers to see themselves in their own gaming world than being rivals to other gaming companies so it's another reason as to why their home consoles have a lower interest than the rest, and most of those customers are fans otherwise they'd be left with not much at all.

Btw, there's a discussion about Donkey Kong 64 here: http://gbatemp.net/threads/how-to-rate-a-downloaded-game.385993/ buying old games and remembering of those nostalgic moments is nice and all but then you realise that that game just isn't very good any more.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 16, 2015)

My main issue is that consoles aren't plug & play anymore and have turned into dumbed down PCs with all the forced updates, patches etc that console gaming was supposed to circumvent in the first place. Call me crazy but I want to plug my console in, put the cart/disc whatever in and play the fucking game without any nonsense. DLC & pay2win style microtransactions have made a large part of gaming a scam even in full fledged $60 games which is pretty disgraceful. There are plenty of cool games coming out but console gaming just isn't as fun as it was for me in 1989-2003 or so imo. Nostalgia definitely plays a part but being simple plug & play devices is kinda the whole point of console gaming in my opinion.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Apr 17, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> My main issue is that consoles aren't plug & play anymore and have turned into dumbed down PCs with all the forced updates, patches etc that console gaming was supposed to circumvent in the first place. Call me crazy but I want to plug my console in, put the cart/disc whatever in and play the fucking game without any nonsense. DLC & pay2win style microtransactions have made a large part of gaming a scam even in full fledged $60 games which is pretty disgraceful. There are plenty of cool games coming out but console gaming just isn't as fun as it was for me in 1989-2003 or so imo. Nostalgia definitely plays a part but being simple plug & play devices is kinda the whole point of console gaming in my opinion.


You know, the Special / Collector and Limited Edition of games should have special-type discs which include all of the content as these customers are paying more than the rest so at least they should get the whole package but sadly.. It's not the case.

The UK edition of Mortal Kombat Kollector's Edition doesn't include the Season Pass nor the Goro DLC. What a scam.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 17, 2015)

Yeah man, that kind of nonsense is why I mostly emulate and play my old SNES-PS2 games(NES is broken so I emulate). I'd be more than happy to buy new, good games that don't have assloads of day 1/early DLC that was supposed to be in the game in the first place, microtrans bullshit and all the other stupid shit that's unfortunately become "normal" in modern games. I can deal with the updates/patches but taking shit out of full priced $60 games and selling it as "DLC" plus trying to make us pay for shit like cheats is just retarded and not something I can support. I 100% agree with you that limited/collector's editions should include ALL content since you're paying more for said versions; good call.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 20, 2015)

Back in my day shovelware and indiegames were called freeware.
And there was a wonderful variety of fun games. Nowadays shooters are aimed at CoDtards or Mouse/Keyboard users, and most other games at 80's nostalgics and people willing to pay money for freeware neither of those 4 categories I fall under.


----------



## Flame (Apr 20, 2015)

Expect RPG's, old games haven't aged well at all.

Doesn't mean they not great games, just like old people great inside and great personality... Just I would fuck them or put my dick any where near.

I want that young adult.. In they 20's with HD tits.


----------



## storm75x (Apr 20, 2015)

What do you want. Virtual Reality Pacman™?


----------



## Nightwish (Apr 20, 2015)

Snugglevixen said:


> Nowadays shooters are aimed at CoDtards or Mouse/Keyboard users


Good shooters were always aimed and mouse&keyboard users


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 20, 2015)

Nightwish said:


> Good shooters were always aimed and mouse&keyboard users


 
Good shooter = UT99 or Touhou (depending on the meaning of shooter), and Touhou plays nice on gamepad.


----------



## Veho (Apr 20, 2015)

Snugglevixen said:


> Nowadays shooters are aimed at [...] Mouse/Keyboard users


As is right and proper   

I feel the opposite is true, that since major titles are usually mutiplatformers, that they are all geared towards dual analog controls.


----------



## weatMod (Apr 20, 2015)

Subzero100 said:


> Gaming in the traditional sense is dead as far as i can see, but obviously isn't on a whole since people still are buying games. How many people out there that have basically begged companies that put out some of the best stuff there was in the 80's and 90's in a recognizable form that was simple and fun today? and how many failures have there been of games that didn't convert well into 3d like castlevaina? Its obvious that they gave up on what was fun and focused on what will make the most money instead, because i think we are long overdue for a real follow up to super mario 3, symphony of the night, and countless others. Withe today's tech is would be easy to make these things happen, but the odds hang favorably in the direction of us getting the latest yearly $60 dlc that is call of duty instead.


 
i agree with everything except i thought CV64 was pretty good
 except of the  awful camera but i they could have expanded and improved on it instead of going the linear route with  LOS reboot
 they need a new 3d reboot that keeps it simple


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 20, 2015)

I'd kill for a new Suikoden or a remake of Chrono Trigger.(or new fucking Chrono but SE would likely fuck it up) As far as playing old games goes, a CRT is a must imo unless you're willing to spend tons of money on upscalers and that kinda stuff, plus CRTs= less input lag. I'm not very picky about the visual stuff but when old games are re-released, always give people filter options and shit like that so they won't be so pixelated. Emulators have spoiled me with all their cool ass filters/shaders.

Still, my main beef is that consoles aren't plug & play anymore and the DLC/microtrans bullshit drives me nuts. It's a terrible business model that screws consumers hard, especially the yearly shooters. Spend less time on pretty graphics and more time on actual substance. A game can look good without being stupidly expensive to make, but I'm also no expert on game design. Unfortunately, we humans are superficial and pretty graphics attract us, me included of course.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 20, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> I'd kill for a new Suikoden or a remake of Chrono Trigger.(or new fucking Chrono but SE would likely fuck it up) As far as playing old games goes, a CRT is a must imo unless you're willing to spend tons of money on upscalers and that kinda stuff, plus CRTs= less input lag. I'm not very picky about the visual stuff but when old games are re-released, always give people filter options and shit like that so they won't be so pixelated. Emulators have spoiled me with all their cool ass filters/shaders.
> 
> Still, my main beef is that consoles aren't plug & play anymore and the DLC/microtrans bullshit drives me nuts. It's a terrible business model that screws consumers hard, especially the yearly shooters. Spend less time on pretty graphics and more time on actual substance. A game can look good without being stupidly expensive to make, but I'm also no expert on game design. Unfortunately, we humans are superficial and pretty graphics attract us, me included of course.


 
Regarding old games, I agree CRT looks better, but I couldn't even start thinking about using so much space with an energy hungry space inefficient CRT (their time is gone for me, as well as big cars, incandescent lamps, the Concorde, and other cool relics from the resource wasting past).
I can live with big square pixels on a LCD, pixelated is totally OK, but please no nasty filtering for me at least as 2D is regarded.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 20, 2015)

I only use filtering when emulating games to reduce pixelation. A lot of people prefer playing old games raw but if there's a good CRT filter or something I like that kinda stuff. Even the more intense filters like the xBR ones can look pretty cool sometimes, especially when playing games like SF3-3rd Strike in FBA. I respect and understand where you're coming from but old games look like shit on high res monitors and plain bilinear filtering is a bit too blurry for my tastes. CRTs are heavy energy hogs but older games look so much fucking better on them, especially PS1 & N64 games.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 21, 2015)

Veho said:


> As is right and proper
> 
> I feel the opposite is true, that since major titles are usually mutiplatformers, that they are all geared towards dual analog controls.


The major titles aren't good though. And most of the few good shooters to come out these days have poor controller support.


----------



## Subzero100 (Apr 24, 2015)

"i agree with everything except i thought CV64 was pretty good"

whats cv64?

Chrono Trigger? lol look what they did to the game after it went 3d. That's why never things aren't good anymore they forgot how to make them work or just dont know how to make good games anymore. If it wasn't for indies 2d wouldn't exist anymore. Something work good in 2d some don't, but if you have stupid programers the game is doomed all together. The Resident evil remake sold over 1 millions copies to date, so now capcom has no excuse to remake 2 & 3 now.


----------



## Originality (Apr 24, 2015)

Gaming is dead eh? Can't think about that much, too busy playing games like Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 24, 2015)

Subzero100 said:


> "i agree with everything except i thought CV64 was pretty good"
> 
> whats cv64?
> 
> Chrono Trigger? lol look what they did to the game after it went 3d. That's why never things aren't good anymore they forgot how to make them work or just dont know how to make good games anymore. If it wasn't for indies 2d wouldn't exist anymore. Something work good in 2d some don't, but if you have stupid programers the game is doomed all together. The Resident evil remake sold over 1 millions copies to date, so now capcom has no excuse to remake 2 & 3 now.


 
I think he means this:


Also, I certainly prefer Chrono Trigger, but if you talk about Chrono Cross, hell I would play that game once and again for hours if only to listen the OST, it is a masterpiece.
And just because...


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 24, 2015)

Chrono Cross is a shitty sequel to CT imo, but as its own game I love it. Also yeah that OST is sexy, one of the best VG soundtracks I know of.

Prisoners of Fate(I think it's called other shit too) is probably my favorite song in the game. Sad, but I love the atmosphere it provides(continued in the spoiler) 



Spoiler



when you fight Miguel. That little bastard kicked my ass the first few times I fought him, especially the surprise Holylight & Holy Dragon Sword.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 25, 2015)

I found a relevant video the other day. Can't remember the name but it basically said shooter publishers are purposefully ruining their games so that 9 year old noobs get an easy dopamine fix so they'll keep chasing that fix till college and buy every dlc and yearly rerelease while trying to chase off veterans who scare away the noobs.
That's why Destiny apparently had a lot of stuff cut and simplified from beta to release because Activision wanted to make noobs addicted and its why CoD allegedly lags on purpose.


----------



## Subzero100 (Apr 26, 2015)

It up to Nintendo to show people the future once again with the nx, but why am  do i get this feeling that Nintendo isn't Nintendo anymore....


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2015)

God, whenever I hear people crying foul about how gaming is dead and how the classics were so much better I imagine an old folks home with grandpas and grandmas waving their walking sticks at the whippersnappers outside, yelling that they should turn their noise aka rock music down. That's what's actually happening here - you're getting old. You're grumpy and you grasp at the few straws of childhood memories you have in the vain attempt at being young again. Games haven't gotten any worse, in fact, they're becoming increasingly good and they're too much for you to handle anymore. It's like the 90's again when people couldn't fathom how a platformer could work in three dimensions and vowed to never pick up a 32-bit system, I'm seeing it all over again. I've got bad news for ya - the "good 'ol days" sucked and they're not coming back, shave that handlebar mustache, old be gone, embrace the new.


----------



## Vipera (Apr 26, 2015)

People that say that gaming is dead are like people who say that games used to last longer in the past than now. Hint: they didn't.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2015)

Vipera said:


> People that say that gaming is dead are like people who say that games used to last longer in the past than now. Hint: they didn't.


Exactly. Prohibitive difficulty and "lives" were introduced as a legacy of arcade games specifically to artificially increase the longevity of games that normally would take a couple hours at most to finish.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 26, 2015)

Subzero100 said:


> It up to Nintendo to show people the future once again with the nx, but why am do i get this feeling that Nintendo isn't Nintendo anymore....


I agree. Since Iwata became president he's been a kissup to the stockholders.
Not that Iwata is a bad president with bad ideas in his own right, he just needs to break free of the stockholders leash


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 26, 2015)

Gaming most certainly isn't dead, but paid online service scams, microtransactions in full-priced games and on-disc or day 1 DLC that was clearly meant to be in the final product are shitty trends indeed. Gaming itself is evolving in many ways but console gaming is no longer plug & play, put a game in and play. You now have to deal with much of the negative shit associated with PC gaming(incomplete games that are constantly patched, OS updates etc) without nearly as much freedom as one has when gaming on a PC. Arguing that peoples' criticisms are nothing but rose-tinted nostalgia goggles is a silly strawman argument, and while gaming isn't dead, some of the current trends in the industry are detrimental to consumers. It's a matter of taste/opinion whether the positives outweigh the negatives.


----------



## Veho (Apr 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Exactly. Prohibitive difficulty and "lives" were introduced as a legacy of arcade games specifically to artificially increase the longevity of games that normally would take a couple hours at most to finish.


Or as we real gamers like to call it, "a challenge". Foxi4causal  ;O; 

Nowadays they artificially inflate longevity with online multiplayer.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 26, 2015)

Gaming is dead? Dangit, I turn my back for one semester and bam! dead as a doorknob! Apparently!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2015)

Veho said:


> Or as we real gamers like to call it, "a challenge". Foxi4causal ;O; Nowadays they artificially inflate longevity with online multiplayer.


Challenge is fine as long as it's reasonable. Reasonable challenge was not a characteristic of _"retro"_ video games.  As for inflating longevity of games with multiplayer, it only works with certain genres, really.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 26, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Challenge is fine as long as it's reasonable. Reasonable challenge was not a characteristic of _"retro"_ video games.  As for inflating longevity of games with multiplayer, it only works with certain genres, really.


 
I had kind of a flashback to the first Ninja Gaiden for the NES. I don't know if that game was unreasonably difficult, but to me it was just unfair as fuck.


----------



## Veho (Apr 27, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Challenge is fine as long as it's reasonable. Reasonable challenge was not a characteristic of _"retro"_ video games.


Foxi _confirmed_ 4casual  ;O;  There's no such thing as "unreasonably hard", there's only such a thing as a whiny quitter. ;O; 







_Because it's there. _




Foxi4 said:


> As for inflating longevity of games with multiplayer, it only works with certain genres, really.


Of course it works. Multiplayer replaces a storyline, campaign, missions, levels, enemy AI... You don't have to do anything, just give people a map and let them slug it out.  Whee


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2015)

Veho said:


> Foxi _confirmed_ 4casual ;O; There's no such thing as "unreasonably hard", there's only such a thing as a whiny quitter. ;O; _Because it's there._


Of course there's such a thing as _"unreasonably hard"_, the concept spawned an entire genre of so-called _"unfair games"_ like Cat Mario and the likes where the only way to _"win"_ is to repeat the process over and over again until you memorize every pitfall. When the game hasn't got any clean-cut rules and is designed to trick the player, it's unfair. If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there _(especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre)_, the game's unfair. A fair challenge is a challenge that requires the player to master the rules of the game and apply them in the process of playing it, not memorizing the level like a dope - that's not skill, that's Simon Says. A huge number of oldie titles expected you to attack enemies before they're even on-screen specifically because the games were programmed to _"get you"_ at that point if you don't know about the upcoming danger - that's not fair, that's bullshit and trickery that's supposed to kick you back to the start of the level so that the game is 15 minutes longer.





> Of course it works. Multiplayer replaces a storyline, campaign, missions, levels, enemy AI... You don't have to do anything, just give people a map and let them slug it out. Whee


Two little words - Co-operative Campaign. One of my favourite kinds of multiplayer because it adds a new layer of narrative to the game.

*EDIT:* You know what? Scratch that - Simon Says is a bad analogy because that's fair - it shows you the correct input and either you get it or you don't. What I'm talking about is Simon Says that doesn't show you the input and if you guess wrong and fuck up, well, you should start over. Not fair, not a challenge - random chance.


----------



## zeello (Apr 27, 2015)

Strictly speaking, all gaming is casual unless it's like a tournament or something.


----------



## Veho (Apr 28, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course there's such a thing as _"unreasonably hard"_, the concept spawned an entire genre of so-called _"unfair games"_ like Cat Mario and the likes where the only way to _"win"_ is to repeat the process over and over again until you memorize every pitfall. When the game hasn't got any clean-cut rules and is designed to trick the player, it's unfair. If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there _(especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre)_, the game's unfair. A fair challenge is a challenge that requires the player to master the rules of the game and apply them in the process of playing it, not memorizing the level like a dope - that's not skill, that's Simon Says. A huge number of oldie titles expected you to attack enemies before they're even on-screen specifically because the games were programmed to _"get you"_ at that point if you don't know about the upcoming danger - that's not fair, that's bullshit and trickery that's supposed to kick you back to the start of the level so that the game is 15 minutes longer.
> 
> *EDIT:* You know what? Scratch that - Simon Says is a bad analogy because that's fair - it shows you the correct input and either you get it or you don't. What I'm talking about is Simon Says that doesn't show you the input and if you guess wrong and fuck up, well, you should start over. Not fair, not a challenge - random chance.



So you want every pitfall to be clearly labelled as such, every trap to have a red exclamation mark above it, the enemies to telegraph their movements and attacks ten seconds in advance, and want the telegraphing to be clear enough to figure out what it is and how to avoid it the first time you see it? Foxi4_iPhone-game-level_-of-casual  ;O; 

It's not "unfair" random chance if the level layout and enemy movement is scripted and identical in every go. 

If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there (especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre), the game may be aggravating and frustrating, but it's perfectly fair. If the game rearranged the obstacles at random and the only way to beat it was chance and dumb luck, that would be unfair. If the obstacle is possible to avoid once you know it's a trap, that's not unfair. You could complain about things like that with arcade games, where replays cost money, but it's pointless on PCs and consoles. 

And besides, threats jumping at you from off-screen without any warning, and having to replay boss battles because you had to die a few times in order to learn what telegraphs a new type of attack after you've managed to evade the initial type, happened in Super Mario as well. And they still do. Would you really call Super Mario games unreasonably difficult or unfair? 



Foxi4 said:


> Two little words - Co-operative Campaign. One of my favourite kinds of multiplayer because it adds a new layer of narrative to the game.


Two words*: games where single player mode is just a half-hour tutorial at most and there's no campaign and the game is PVP-multiplayer-only because derp that's popular at the moment. 


*Actual number may vary


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2015)

Veho said:


> So you want every pitfall to be clearly labelled as such, every trap to have a red exclamation mark above it, the enemies to telegraph their movements and attacks ten seconds in advance, and want the telegraphing to be clear enough to figure out what it is and how to avoid it the first time you see it? Foxi4_iPhone-game-level_-of-casual ;O;
> 
> It's not "unfair" random chance if the level layout and enemy movement is scripted and identical in every go.
> 
> ...


You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing that games should be easy and players should be able to finish them on their first try which is not what I'm saying - a learning curve has to be present in any game to be challenging. What I'm saying is that it's unfair to trick the player, especially if it also involves being inconsistent. We're riding on a thin line of game design logic here, but bare with me for a moment and I'll explain.

Take for instance the obstacles in Prince of Persia - I think that game is both hard and fair. It quickly introduces players to a very basic concept - there are spikes on the floors. Spikes are clearly telegraphed by the fact that the floor has little dots on it and the player doesn't know that they're spikes until he/she steps on them. Once a player does step on the spikes, he/she is given a split second to step off them and incoming danger is telegraphed by the sound of spikes preparing to deploy - this gives the player a chance to step off the pressure plate and learn that they're dangerous. From this point onwards the player knows that these are spikes and has to plan movement around that obstacle ahead in order to effectively navigate the dungeon. It's that split second that makes a difference between a _"f*ck you, git gud"_ trap and a fair trap.

The same applies to enemies attacking you from the off-screen area - there's nothing wrong with that as long as the player is given sufficient leeway to dodge them. There's a big difference between an enemy attacking you from off-screen, requiring you to flex your reflexes and dodge the attack and an enemy dropping on you saying _"f*ck you, git gud, sh*thead!"_ with no chance of dodging the attack. It's even worse when due to technical/technological difficulties the enemies are able to shoot the player from the off-screen area, but the bullets shot by the player character disappear once they reach the edge of the screen - this is a problem that appears in many retro games and it gives the enemies a clear unfair advantage.

Challenge as an idea implies the possibility of a winning scenario - if a trap or an enemy doesn't have any options to mitigate it, it's not challenging, it's unfair. Killing the player repeatedly with unfair traps and enemies does not present a challenge, it just introduces frustration. A truly good game and a good challenge should present players with threats and teach them how to avoid or overcome them, and not with a bunch of tutorial screens _(this is a digression, but an important one - we need less tutorial screens. I'm sick and tired of games explaining themselves with walls of text. Games are an audio-visual medium - show, don't tell!)_ but with simple audio-visual cues.


> Two words*: games where single player mode is just a half-hour tutorial at most and there's no campaign and the game is PVP-multiplayer-only because derp that's popular at the moment.


A distinction has to be made between games that are primarily made for multiplayer and games that are primarily made for single player campaigns. In the case of the former, the campaign is usually tacked on as an extended tutorial prior to the experience proper - competitive multiplayer. In the latter, it's the multiplayer that's an afterthought since the campaign is the main focus and multiplayer is just dessert after a hearty meal.


----------



## zeello (Apr 28, 2015)

Veho said:


> So you want every pitfall to be clearly labelled as such, every trap to have a red exclamation mark above it, the enemies to telegraph their movements and attacks ten seconds in advance, and want the telegraphing to be clear enough to figure out what it is and how to avoid it the first time you see it?


No, but if it isn't done that exact way, then inevitably the player must suffer hits or losses until they figure out how to avoid those attacks. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, that's just a fact. In a way, taking damage and losing is essentially serving as tutorials for each of those traps/enemies.



> If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there (especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre), the game may be aggravating and frustrating, but it's perfectly fair.


Avoiding an obstacle shouldn't come 100 percent down to memorization. Even in a game with trial and error gameplay, audio and visual warning signs help jog the player's memory so they don't repeatedly forget what comes next.

Anyway: Yay! I'm participating!


----------



## Veho (Apr 28, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Challenge as an idea implies the possibility of a winning scenario - if a trap or an enemy doesn't have any options to mitigate it, it's not challenging, it's unfair. Killing the player repeatedly with unfair traps and enemies does not present a challenge, it just introduces frustration.


I argue that, if you have a good chance of evading them once you learn where they are, traps and enemies aren't unfair. Compare it to Guitar Hero and rhythm games, where the only way to complete with a perfect score is to learn the part by heart, it's impossible to do by reflexes alone. Difficult, yes. Unfair, no. 

Besides, frustration is cathartic. Wanting to hurl the controller into a wall is the hallmark of a truly cleansing experience   



Foxi4 said:


> A distinction has to be made between games that are primarily made for multiplayer and games that are primarily made for single player campaigns. In the case of the former, the campaign is usually tacked on as an extended tutorial prior to the experience proper - competitive multiplayer. In the latter, it's the multiplayer that's an afterthought since the campaign is the main focus and multiplayer is just dessert after a hearty meal.


And more and more developers make their games online-only because it's easier than developing a single-player campaign. 



zeello said:


> Even in a game with trial and error gameplay, audio and visual warning signs help jog the player's memory so they don't repeatedly forget what comes next.


If they have memory problems, they can take ginkgo biloba


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2015)

Veho said:


> I argue that, if you have a good chance of evading them once you learn where they are, traps and enemies aren't unfair. Compare it to Guitar Hero and rhythm games, where the only way to complete with a perfect score is to learn the part by heart, it's impossible to do by reflexes alone. Difficult, yes. Unfair, no. Besides, frustration is cathartic. Wanting to hurl the controller into a wall is the hallmark of a truly cleansing experience  And more and more developers make their games online-only because it's easier than developing a single-player campaign. If they have memory problems, they can take ginkgo biloba


Presenting a player with a challenge that cannot be overcome is not challenging, it's a _"f*ck you"_. It's the equivalent of hitting a sleeping person in the face with a shovel and laughing _"Ha ha! Idiot!"_ - Funny? Yes. Fair? No.

If there's no chance to plan, predict and dodge, there's no challenge. An obstacle isn't challenging unless the player is aware of it and if the only way to find out that it's there is to die, it's poorly designed. If memorizing the level is the only way to win, it's just a poorly-designed game.

Even in Guitar Hero you can see the button inputs coming your way, the game tells you what to do and whether you do it or not is a matter of your eye-hand co-ordination, not memorization. The moment you start memorizing the song is the moment when you stopped playing a video game and started being a robot.

As for multiplayer games being _"easier to make"_, I'd argue that they necessitate a different kind of design, but they're not necessarily easier to make. Multiplayer games present different kinds of challenges to the developers - multiplayer maps are different than singleplayer maps, there's issues with balancing, mitigating lag and ping issues, introducing fun game modes etc. - it's just a different kind of development.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Apr 28, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> Good shooter = UT99 or Touhou (depending on the meaning of shooter), and Touhou plays nice on gamepad.


Except that Touhou games aren't FPS or shooters(very loose definition to call it a proper genre if you ask me, but generally used to refer to FPSs) are Danmaku/Bullet Hell/shmup, very different genre.

Good'ol FPS aimed for keyboard alone. Wolfestein 3D, DooM and others from that time played nice with keyboard.




Foxi4 said:


> God, whenever I hear people crying foul about how gaming is dead and how the classics were so much better I imagine an old folks home with grandpas and grandmas waving their walking sticks at the whippersnappers outside, yelling that they should turn their noise aka rock music down. That's what's actually happening here - you're getting old. You're grumpy and you grasp at the few straws of childhood memories you have in the vain attempt at being young again. Games haven't gotten any worse, in fact, they're becoming increasingly good and they're too much for you to handle anymore. It's like the 90's again when people couldn't fathom how a platformer could work in three dimensions and vowed to never pick up a 32-bit system, I'm seeing it all over again. I've got bad news for ya - the "good 'ol days" sucked and they're not coming back, shave that handlebar mustache, old be gone, embrace the new.


 
Foxy, just say "I remember Cranky Kong" two words that resume all your post.



Veho said:


> I argue that, if you have a good chance of evading them once you learn where they are, traps and enemies aren't unfair. Compare it to Guitar Hero and rhythm games, where the only way to complete with a perfect score is to learn the part by heart, it's impossible to do by reflexes alone. Difficult, yes. Unfair, no.
> 
> Besides, frustration is cathartic. Wanting to hurl the controller into a wall is the hallmark of a truly cleansing experience
> 
> ...


 


Foxi4 said:


> Presenting a player with a challenge that cannot be overcome is not challenging, it's a _"f*ck you"_. It's the equivalent of hitting a sleeping person in the face with a shovel and laughing _"Ha ha! Idiot!"_ - Funny? Yes. Fair? No.
> 
> If there's no chance to plan, predict and dodge, there's no challenge. An obstacle isn't challenging unless the player is aware of it and if the only way to find out that it's there is to die, it's poorly designed. If memorizing the level is the only way to win, it's just a poorly-designed game.
> 
> ...


To say truth, neither of you is correct. you two are approaching the problem from the wrong angle.
A game doesn't need to play like other games, for example, normally in a game where you have a gun to shoot you just go and shoot everything in the screen and leave nobody alive, correct??
Then a revolutionary game came, Metal Gear, you can't go and blindly shoot at everything like other games, is this game unfair for that?? nope, it just plays differently than usual.

Same thing happen with the so called "unfair" games, they just play differently. you start playing the game walk a few steps and suddenly, the floor isn't there anymore, but it happened something similar to the blocks a character stepped on in the background before so you had a clue that something was wrong. or maybe you see an object too suspicious to be good, or a convenient platform so convenient that could let you get past that obstacle, but wait, you step on it and it wasn't a platform it was a sword that looked as a platform thanks to 2D vision and your character got sliced in half.
in "unfair" games you CAN find hints of danger and can let you progress a little more, but the objective of those games IS TO PREVENT YOU FROM ADVANCING and often will tackle something without a hint.
Much like Metal Gear has a focus on stealth instead of trigger happy action, unfair games have a focus on trial and error instead of well timed jumps.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> _*Snip!*_


There's nothing wrong with stealth, avoiding an obstacle is as good as destroying it and it's also a challenge. This isn't about what kind of gameplay is employed, it's about the idea of what a fair challenge is. In MGS sneaking is an established mechanic that the player is taught, it's not unfair. Your argument about unfair games is moot because the whole point of obstacles is to prevent the player from progressing, not just in unfair games, but in all games. Obstacles make a challenge, however they have to be fair obstacles to result in a fair challenge.

*EDIT:* I'd also like to point out that _"unfair games"_ do have merit. There's a kind of player that enjoys unfair challenge - it's called a masochist. Some people enjoy being punished for no reason, but that doesn't make the punishment fair - it's not fair and it's not supposed to be. A truly well-designed game should be hard while remaining fair towards a player - that's a hallmark of a good game, a reasonable challenge that requires the player to hone his/her skills in order to progress. A test that you have to take 20 times in order to pass regardless of your level of preparation is not a good test, it's sheer memorization. If a game is _supposed_ to test memorization, like Simon Says, that's fine. If that's not the case, it's not being fair to the player.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Apr 28, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> There's nothing wrong with stealth, avoiding an obstacle is as good as destroying it and it's also a challenge. This isn't about what kind of gameplay is employed, it's about the idea of what a fair challenge is. In MGS sneaking is an established mechanic that the player is taught, it's not unfair. Your argument about unfair games is moot because the whole point of obstacles is to prevent the player from progressing, not just in unfair games, but in all games. Obstacles make a challenge, however they have to be fair obstacles to result in a fair challenge.
> 
> *EDIT:* I'd also like to point out that _"unfair games"_ do have merit. There's a kind of player that enjoys unfair challenge - it's called a masochist. Some people enjoy being punished for no reason, but that doesn't make the punishment fair - it's not fair and it's not supposed to be. A truly well-designed game should be hard while remaining fair towards a player - that's a hallmark of a good game, a reasonable challenge that requires the player to hone his/her skills in order to progress. A test that you have to take 20 times in order to pass regardless of your level of preparation is not a good test, it's sheer memorization. If a game is _supposed_ to test memorization, like Simon Says, that's fine. If that's not the case, it's not being fair to the player.


 
Anyway, you say that while playing D* Souls and Bloodborne, where often you have enemies jumping out of nowhere and snipers with perfect accuracy shooting at you while having other monsters ganging you or little space to evade the arrows/bullets(and if you do, you fall to your doom). those are the fairest game in the world.
Your actions contradict what you are saying Foxy4arguingbecauseIliketoargue.



Foxi4 said:


> Obstacles make a challenge, however they have to be fair obstacles to result in a fair challenge.


why can't you accept that unfair games have a more steep challenge and leave it at that??
I personally don't like unfair games because they're frustrating, but I can see why they are appealing and accept them as a unique genre. I have played Demon's Souls and Bloodborne and liked the ambient, system and everything else except the bullshit difficulty they have at times.

also, you mentioned that in Metal Gear you are taught how to take a stealth approach in the game, well there are games that doesn't explain how to do certain actions and the player still need to use them without knowing, is that unfair??
the prime example is the intro stage of Megaman X. you fall and you get trapped in a pit, you are expected to know how to walljump, but the game has barely started and you couldn't never do anything similar in previous games. oohhhhh Megaman X is unfair!!!! prepare your torches and pitchforks!!!!.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> Anyway, you say that while playing D* Souls and Bloodborne, where often you have enemies jumping out of nowhere and snipers with perfect accuracy shooting at you while having other monsters ganging you or little space to evade the arrows/bullets(and if you do, you fall to your doom). those are the fairest game in the world. Your actions contradict what you are saying Foxy4arguingbecauseIliketoargue.


I see no contradiction at all. You're taking my digression from the main subject, meaning _"unfair games"_ as a genre, as my statement on gaming in general. Both DS and BB are love letters to unfair challenge and artificial difficulty which brings them down from a perfect 10 to a respectable 9, but the key difference here is that both DS/BB and unfair games in general are not leaving the player any delusions - they're unfair by design and the player knows he/she is signing up for that. BB's done huge strides in making the game more fair by the way, there's far less _"f*ck you"_ moments in the game and I don't think I came across one that couldn't be mitigated somehow or killed me outright. That's besides the point though.


> why can't you accept that unfair games have a more steep challenge and leave it at that??


Because they don't have a steep challenge at all. Tricking the player into a false sense of security is not challenge, it's trickery. You're not testing anything, you're just being a d*ck towards the player.


> I personally don't like unfair games because they're frustrating, but I can see why they are appealing and accept them as a unique genre. I have played Demon's Souls and Bloodborne and liked the ambient, system and everything else except the bullshit difficulty they have at times.


There you go, you've said it yourself. Artificial difficulty is something that pushed you away from otherwise fantastic games. You say that it's not a problem in one sentence and then point out exactly how it's a problem in another, and you're calling me the king of contrarians? C'mon. 


> Also, you mentioned that in Metal Gear you are taught how to take a stealth approach in the game, well there are games that doesn't explain how to do certain actions and the player still need to use them without knowing, is that unfair?? the prime example is the intro stage of Megaman X. you fall and you get trapped in a pit, you are expected to know how to walljump, but the game has barely started and you couldn't never do anything similar in previous games. oohhhhh Megaman X is unfair!!!! prepare your torches and pitchforks!!!!.


Good job stealing an example from Sequelitis. You've also forgotten how the video explains exactly how this is entirely fair. Skip to 10:10 if you're impatient.



You don't have to drown the player in a wall of text to teach him/her how to play a game. Again, video games are an interactive audio-visual medium - show, don't tell. We need _less_ tutorials, I've already stated that, we need less holding the player by his/her hand and more subtle cues on how to play. You know what's a good way to show a player how a trap looks like without killing the player outright? Make an NPC fall into a trap. There, done! The player now knows what to avoid without being unfairly killed. That, or make the trap dangerous, but non-lethal - leave the player with a sliver of health so that he/she learns his/her lesson. It's game design 101 - don't alienate your player with unfair challenge, otherwise only masochists will play your game.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Apr 28, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I see no contradiction at all. You're taking my digression from the main subject, meaning _"unfair games"_ as a genre, as my statement on gaming in general.


 
That explain your point better, if is by that I agree. I was thinking in games like Syobon Action(cat mario) and IWBTG that are deliberately designed to be cruel to the player for the sake of it.
Smash CPU level 9 is unfair, reads your controller input and powershields everything. same for level 50 amiibo, I'm pretty sure I didn't teach Mario how to powershield.



Foxi4 said:


> Good job stealing an example from Sequelitis. You've also forgotten how the video explains exactly how this is entirely fair. Skip to 10:10 if you're impatient.
> 
> *video*
> 
> You don't have to drown the player in a wall of text to teach him/her how to play a game. Again. Video games are an interactive audio-visual medium - show, don't tell. We need _less_ tutorials, I've already stated that, we need less holding the player by his/her hand and more subtle cues on how to play. You know what's a good way to show a player how a trap looks like without killing the player outright? Make an NPC fall into a trap. There, done! The player now knows what to avoid without being unfairly killed. That, or make the trap dangerous, but non-lethal - leave the player with a sliver of health so that he/she learns his/her lesson. It's game design 101 - don't alienate your player with unfair challenge, otherwise only masochists will play your game.


 
That was a sarcasm, I was just thinking on that video while writing my previous post. because you called whatever it doesn't the game say to you something explaining a pit or giving a warning like "hey, you can get out of pits by walljumping" for example it would be unfair. but nevermind that, I know was a terrible sarcasm and example.

unfair is when the random number god makes your pokemon miss an aqua tail and make it receive a critical hit thunder in return.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> That explain your point better, if is by that I agree. I was thinking in games like Syobon Action(cat mario) and IWBTG that are deliberately designed to be cruel to the player for the sake of it. Smash CPU level 9 is unfair, reads your controller input and powershields everything. same for level 50 amiibo, I'm pretty sure I didn't teach Mario how to powershield. That was a sarcasm, I was just thinking on that video while writing my previous post. because you called whatever it doesn't the game say to you something explaining a pit or giving a warning like "hey, you can get out of pits by walljumping" for example it would be unfair. but nevermind that, I know was a terrible sarcasm and example. Unfair is when the random number god makes your pokemon miss an aqua tail and make it receive a critical hit thunder in return.


I see some common ground here - good. My entire point is that a good game should convey danger in a way that allows the player to mitigate it. How the game does that is entirely up to the designers and there are good and bad ways to go about it, but it's something that you have to do in order to be fair to the players. Cat Mario and the likes are games for masochists, that's fine, some people like this sort of thing and they know that's how the game's going to play out the moment they dig into it, but it's the fringe of video games that belongs in its own genre. The general rule is that games should be consistent and transparent with the players so that they challenge the player's skills, not the player's patience.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 28, 2015)

While incredibly frustrating, it feels damn good when I beat games like Ghouls n' Ghosts.(arcade, World or JP version) A lot of the difficulty of that game is keeping the knife up until you fight beelzebub during the 2nd playthrough; dodging shit weapons in that game is part of what makes it hard, and it's much better to die than pick up the shitty ass torch, axe or really anything other than the knife or psycho canon during your 2nd playthrough. The SuperGrafix version is the hardest though because it has very limited continues along with being just as brutally hard as the World/JP arcade version.(US Genesis version allows you to continue right before boss fights even on professional mode)

Super Ghouls on the other hands simply kicks the shit out of me and I have yet to beat it. When I say beat it, I mean zero fucking savestates. The first Ghosts & Goblins & SGNG are harder than Ghouls imo, but game sin that series, while cheap as fuck and frustrating, are very rewarding to beat. I suck at platformers too so it's not like you have to be great at the games; just try over and over.


----------



## zeello (Apr 30, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> You don't have to drown the player in a wall of text to teach him/her how to play a game. Again, video games are an interactive audio-visual medium - show, don't tell. We need _less_ tutorials, I've already stated that, we need less holding the player by his/her hand and more subtle cues on how to play.


 
EASY THERE RIGEL 1
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/5815026


----------

