Funcom makes some good games when it comes to difficulty, that makes people post stuff like this: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/356131. I don't think they want to make dead easy games because they think games should have a challenge to them, be it making a build or playing the build.
The same old arguments cloaked in modern colloquialisms. "In my day, I had to walk 10 miles to school in 6 feet of snow, both ways, now top that you whippersnapper!"
Bad analogy.
Some things in rl were harder then than are now, and I know nobody who wants those things hard again.
However, I do know plenty of players who would prefer games beeing generally harder. Many solo games have different difficulty settings for a reason. It's got to do with challenge. For some, it's an important factor in the fun equation.
hmm dumbing down of games.. So many reasons why it happens.. All I can say that it's the PLAYERS that are allowing it and demanding it.. Generally speaking... The devs give you what you want, not the other way around.. Economics is controlled more by the consumer, not the company.. Problem I see is that the players want games released quickly , and with little complexity to master them.. It's like every 6 months the genre demands another simple arcade shooting gallery .. Could devs make a game that gives us 97% of what everyone wants? Sure they could, but do you think the players will stand back and wait 5+ years for it? Nope... The players are insatiable, and are always looking for a quick fix..
We have seen time and time again that players are gullible to keep buying the same broken formula over and over.. Why should devs change? It's profitable to keep doing it over and over, until the players STOP buying inferior products.. Why should a car company add FM radio, cd player, bluetooth and GPS to a car if the driver is going to continue to buy whatever a company puts out.. Most companies learn that it is the consumer that drives the market, however I think that theory fails in computer gaming.. I swear sometimes it's as if the players are so strung out on the gaming drug, they'll buy any cheap drug just to get their fix..
It is the players that need to STOP supporting 1/2 baked games, and send a strong message to MMO devs, It's MY way or the highway.. We don't NEED the games, they need us... Can we start an "occupy" mmo forum thread? bahahahahaha
I blame the multiple choice test. Society as a whole is trying to dumb everything down with standardized multiple choice testing etc. This whole idea that "no child is left behind" is absolute horse shit. Children will be left behind, that's real life. Everyone gets a medal at the end of a race. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of their sports season. It's completely unrealistic. Just look at SWG when it was good, not everyone was a Jedi.
I wish it was just video games that were being dumbed down
The same old arguments cloaked in modern colloquialisms. "In my day, I had to walk 10 miles to school in 6 feet of snow, both ways, now top that you whippersnapper!"
Bad analogy.
Some things in rl were harder then than are now, and I know nobody who wants those things hard again.
However, I do know plenty of players who would prefer games beeing generally harder. Many solo games have different difficulty settings for a reason. It's got to do with challenge. For some, it's an important factor in the fun equation.
It would have been a bad analogy if he merely stated that modern games needed to be more challenging, but as soon as he started spouting off how one generation of gamer is superior to another, that whole argument became mud.
People don't like to lose, I think. I don't consider myself better at gaming, but I am more likely to choose a game that will kick my ass over a game that won't. My tolerence for losing (based on the punishment Dark Souls did on me) is just higher than some.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I blame the multiple choice test. This whole idea that "no child is left behind" is absolute horse shit. Children will be left behind, that's real life. Everyone gets a medal at the end of a race. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of their sports season. It's completely unrealistic. Just look at SWG when it was good, not everyone was a Jedi.
Funny you brought that up.. I started off on day 1 in SWG and even after they added that holocron chasing gimic for Jedi's.. I never once cared or wanted it.. Personally.. I hate playing FoTM classes.. I like playing the uncommon class that most avoid because they are too complex or not OP enough.. Rather it be the Bard in EQ1 or other similar challenges.. Plus I play a class that fits my desires.. I seldom play the melee roles, I prefer healing, support or range classes..
Games are simpler because the pinnacle of game design isn'tcomplexity. It's simplicity.
Chess is not a complex game. It's deep-yet-simple. The rules can fit on one piece of paper. That's good game design.
It's good to strive for simplicity, but you have to also implement deep systems. WOW accomplished that (despite naysayers seeing the skin-deep simplicity and assuming it was a shallow game, when it wasn't,) and that was a big part of the game's success.
Er, you're not making your case, I mean really, how many people really enjoy playing chess these days?
Besides, I always thought the game of Life was much more fun, or Risk or even Stratego.
EVE is not simple, and is very deep, and as such appeals to a smaller group of players. (much like Chess I suppose)
You always confuse popularity with quality, they are two different things in many cases.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Resident Evil 1 (1995) - Survive with the shit you find, limited save spots and inks for save, some freedom do roam about and puzzles to use you brain
Resident Evil 5 (2008-2009) - Rape the enemies with a l33t arsenal of weapons acessible at any given time, u die u keep all the money and become stronger - unlimited saves - funneled with no puzzles or at most "press one button and win" -
Well, this without comparing castlevania series... Sorry pal games became hugely dumbed down.
Resident Evil 1 (1995) - Survive with the shit you find, limited save spots and inks for save, some freedom do roam about and puzzles to use you brain
Resident Evil 5 (2008-2009) - Rape the enemies with a l33t arsenal of weapons acessible at any given time, u die u keep all the money and become stronger - unlimited saves - funneled with no puzzles or at most "press one button and win" -
Well, this without comparing castlevania series... Sorry pal games became hugely dumbed down.
Resident Evil 1 was absolutely brutal. I loved that game. I remember turning off all the lights and being genuinely scared to turn a corner lol.
Resident Evil 1 (1995) - Survive with the shit you find, limited save spots and inks for save, some freedom do roam about and puzzles to use you brain
Resident Evil 5 (2008-2009) - Rape the enemies with a l33t arsenal of weapons acessible at any given time, u die u keep all the money and become stronger - unlimited saves - funneled with no puzzles or at most "press one button and win" -
Well, this without comparing castlevania series... Sorry pal games became hugely dumbed down.
I totally agree with this.I won't play any MMO currently out or close to release.I spend my gaming time on solo strategy games.I'm playing Medieval Total War 2 on very hard campaign/battles with the gimpier nations,much more of a challenge than any MMO on the market.I am waiting for The Repopulation hopefully late next year.
Eve is not complicated. Make scam. Spam scam till some one falls for scam. Repeat.
Hi. I'm looking to rid this character of a 15 Billion isk bounty and for a partner to split the sum 50/50. I just need you to send me 500 million isk as a security deposit to prove that you're not going to scam me. /PM
I, for one, was born in 83' and had my hands on an NES by the time I was two. I still have memories of playing Metroid and having absolutely no clue as to what to do with it, but eventually kicking the shit out of that game at a *very* early age. Regardless of the age you were when you played the incredibly difficult games of the first generation of home consoles, you likely have a skillset I would consider 'superior' to modern gamers, that is, unless you were never able to get over the peripheral challenge that came with PS2-era controllers.
Gamers indoctrinated at any point around say, the N64, have no clue how difficult games used to be, and if confronted with one, they would pull hairs out. I've actually seen this in many of my younger friends that had an older brother's NES and never got into it, but jumped right into the first Xbox easily. Likely because it looked better, and not much else... but I would definitely argue that simplicity/ease is the hallmark of the later generations of gamers, while those around at the inception of the industry will constantly search for something more challenging.
Theres a flaw in this logic, My first game experience came with pong, atari consoles (had all of them) Zorg and I'm one of the casual majority. So it doesn't matter where you began your gaming life, it matters what you like and how many players like one side or the other. Right now the majority is casual players and multiple companies have discovered this is their main revenue source so they are lowering the difficulty for the fun factor.
We are demanding the end of the elitest jerks raid/dungeon only mmos, the end of lobby mmos, and the end of the 2004 dead world syndrome that's been plaguing these games since WoW took over as the king. MMO's weren't made just for a small niche of players who consider themselves superior, they were made for fun and for the chance of developers to make worlds that are teaming with the illusion of life. They were made for an escape from reality. They can have both elements in them, the ease of travel/housing/sandbox minus the forced pvp with all of the dungeons raids etc to make the niche players happy, that balance tho seems to be beyond the developers abilities at this point.
All those "children left behind" are grown up now and have credit cards. It's a huge cash cow.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Er, you're not making your case, I mean really, how many people really enjoy playing chess these days?
Besides, I always thought the game of Life was much more fun, or Risk or even Stratego.
EVE is not simple, and is very deep, and as such appeals to a smaller group of players. (much like Chess I suppose)
You always confuse popularity with quality, they are two different things in many cases.
Chess remained interesting a helluva lot longer than an ultra shallow game like The Game of Life. Perhaps you should go back and play The Game of Life to remind yourself just how shallow and deterministic it is. May as well get a game of Monopoly in too, while you're at it.
Your other examples (Risk and Stratego) are examples of exactly my point: depth without overcomplication. The rules for both games are pretty simple, yet the emergent depth is there due to how the rules interact with one another.
I'm not confusing popularity with quality. We're not even discussing those terms. We're discussing depth vs. complexity, and I've pointing out a fact of design which was discovered long before videogames even existed ("A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery 1900-1944) Any mechanic in a game which fails to efficiently achieve a required goal is holding the game back. And in the case of EVE you have a bunch of mechanics and rules spammed into the game in the hopes of achieving depth, and it's just a complete mess.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The reason we had more fun with mario or metroid is becouse that was all new games for us...last time i had so much fun was on forgotten hope - BF 1942 mod release
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys FH1942 best tanker for 4years Playing WWII OL for some years untill now many other for some months
I would say this is bullshit. I'm part of the younger crowd, around say, the n64. My friend who also happens to belong to this generation has a nes. We regularly woop the shit out of the games with our other friends who happen to belong to this genereation.
I think it's really the fact that everybody from jocks to nerds and everyone inbetween are playing games now, so with those customer comes games that are suited for them.
This guy gets it.
Originally posted by XAPGames
The way I see it there are older fringe gamers and there are younger fringe gamers. I don't see their tastes as being all that different.
What I see is the late 90s had an explosion of computers as home appliances, bringing in a huge number of people using the computer as an entertainment device. This shift caused fringe gamers to become an extremely small minority among computer users in general.
Dev / Publishers chase the money. So now we have "fringe gaming for the masses". An odd contradiction of terminology where game designs that used to be entirely for the fringe group have been shifted towards mainstream appeal.
Considering how we have to keep renormalizing IQ ratings because the average keeps rising, then once we've reached maximum saturation, we should see the ‘dumbing-down’ reverse if it's really about how intelligent the players are.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
Considering how we have to keep renormalizing IQ ratings because the average keeps rising, then once we've reached maximum saturation, we should see the ‘dumbing-down’ reverse if it's really about how intelligent the players are.
I just think we'd hit another wall with Emotional Intelligence at that point. Mind you, I don't truly believe that sheer intelligence is at fault. I perceive the "dumbing down" phenomenon as a pleasant mix of vapid capitalist social retardation and a bare bones public education system mixed with a bit of parental neglect. I was definitely oversimplifying.
All those "children left behind" are grown up now and have credit cards. It's a huge cash cow.
It's all about making money.
Fisher price, spoon fed gaming to appeal to the masses. All reward no risk. Nothing that would be considered too hard. Nothing that would punish the player for failing.
If you wanted to make an eletronic chess game today it would need to include: exclamation points, achievements, DLC, a cash shop, cut-scenes, always online, and give the players points for losing.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Er, you're not making your case, I mean really, how many people really enjoy playing chess these days?
Besides, I always thought the game of Life was much more fun, or Risk or even Stratego.
EVE is not simple, and is very deep, and as such appeals to a smaller group of players. (much like Chess I suppose)
You always confuse popularity with quality, they are two different things in many cases.
Chess remained interesting a helluva lot longer than an ultra shallow game like The Game of Life. Perhaps you should go back and play The Game of Life to remind yourself just how shallow and deterministic it is. May as well get a game of Monopoly in too, while you're at it.
Your other examples (Risk and Stratego) are examples of exactly my point: depth without overcomplication. The rules for both games are pretty simple, yet the emergent depth is there due to how the rules interact with one another.
I'm not confusing popularity with quality. We're not even discussing those terms. We're discussing depth vs. complexity, and I've pointing out a fact of design which was discovered long before videogames even existed ("A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery 1900-1944) Any mechanic in a game which fails to efficiently achieve a required goal is holding the game back. And in the case of EVE you have a bunch of mechanics and rules spammed into the game in the hopes of achieving depth, and it's just a complete mess.
The reason that simple games are more popular is not because they are "better". Every feature you add to a game could be a deal breaker for a lot of people. For instance in MMOs some deal breakers are FFA PvP, extensive crafting, settings.
Now some settings are more popular. Does that mean they are better? No.
Further, simplicity was a hall mark of early games because they can't manage complexity. And because people were less educated. If the majority of the population cannot do math or read, how are they going to manage complex games? What about free time? We can e quite sure that limited free time is a factor in what games you like.
A lot of text based browser games have time settings. In games that don't the forums are full of arguments about which time span is the best. Each group argues that their time span is ideal. They don't want a 24 second turn because its too fast for them and gives active players too much time. Yet they claim that an hour is too slow a time span, they want 30 minutes. The hour group says 30 minutes is too fast but 2 hours or 3 hours is too slow.
Its all totally relative to how much free time you have.
I could go on and on about the assumptions you make but I suspect you aren't capable of making a large change in belief.
The point is that you don't even attempt to interrogate the context in which that quote was made. There are actually some mechanics in chess that we could take out to make it simpler and imo more interesting.
My entry point into gaming was PONG, Atari 2600, and the Magnavox Odessey. One button on the controller. It was amazing at the time -- hand-to-eye coordination in its purest form. Up the difficulty until you could simply not react fast enough. The early games didn't end. You played until the game kicked your a**...and you knew it eventually would. That's the way games worked. Very simple fun, but also harsh. Games like Donkey Kong, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, KC's Crazy Chase, etc.
I agree with what you said, but not with Pac-Man on the 2600 - that game (nowhere near as complex as the real arcade game) hit a certain speed and then reset to slow, over and over; you could hit a never-ending zen state on that game - I once 'clocked' (went through the maximum displayable score) that game twice in one sitting, before begging a friend to turn off the damn console for me.
Space Invaders on that machine though - yeah, that would kick your arse - especially the invisible Space Invaders varient!
There wasn't really a concept of 'winning' those old games - just getting a higher score - or lasting longer than your mates.
Comments
Funcom makes some good games when it comes to difficulty, that makes people post stuff like this: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/356131. I don't think they want to make dead easy games because they think games should have a challenge to them, be it making a build or playing the build.
Bad analogy.
Some things in rl were harder then than are now, and I know nobody who wants those things hard again.
However, I do know plenty of players who would prefer games beeing generally harder. Many solo games have different difficulty settings for a reason. It's got to do with challenge. For some, it's an important factor in the fun equation.
hmm dumbing down of games.. So many reasons why it happens.. All I can say that it's the PLAYERS that are allowing it and demanding it.. Generally speaking... The devs give you what you want, not the other way around.. Economics is controlled more by the consumer, not the company.. Problem I see is that the players want games released quickly , and with little complexity to master them.. It's like every 6 months the genre demands another simple arcade shooting gallery .. Could devs make a game that gives us 97% of what everyone wants? Sure they could, but do you think the players will stand back and wait 5+ years for it? Nope... The players are insatiable, and are always looking for a quick fix..
We have seen time and time again that players are gullible to keep buying the same broken formula over and over.. Why should devs change? It's profitable to keep doing it over and over, until the players STOP buying inferior products.. Why should a car company add FM radio, cd player, bluetooth and GPS to a car if the driver is going to continue to buy whatever a company puts out.. Most companies learn that it is the consumer that drives the market, however I think that theory fails in computer gaming.. I swear sometimes it's as if the players are so strung out on the gaming drug, they'll buy any cheap drug just to get their fix..
It is the players that need to STOP supporting 1/2 baked games, and send a strong message to MMO devs, It's MY way or the highway.. We don't NEED the games, they need us... Can we start an "occupy" mmo forum thread? bahahahahaha
One of the 1st sintome when we are getting old:
we start to think how our generation was so better then nowadays.
And yes, i start to think that way few years ago
I blame the multiple choice test. Society as a whole is trying to dumb everything down with standardized multiple choice testing etc. This whole idea that "no child is left behind" is absolute horse shit. Children will be left behind, that's real life. Everyone gets a medal at the end of a race. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of their sports season. It's completely unrealistic. Just look at SWG when it was good, not everyone was a Jedi.
I wish it was just video games that were being dumbed down
It would have been a bad analogy if he merely stated that modern games needed to be more challenging, but as soon as he started spouting off how one generation of gamer is superior to another, that whole argument became mud.
People don't like to lose, I think. I don't consider myself better at gaming, but I am more likely to choose a game that will kick my ass over a game that won't. My tolerence for losing (based on the punishment Dark Souls did on me) is just higher than some.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Funny you brought that up.. I started off on day 1 in SWG and even after they added that holocron chasing gimic for Jedi's.. I never once cared or wanted it.. Personally.. I hate playing FoTM classes.. I like playing the uncommon class that most avoid because they are too complex or not OP enough.. Rather it be the Bard in EQ1 or other similar challenges.. Plus I play a class that fits my desires.. I seldom play the melee roles, I prefer healing, support or range classes..
Er, you're not making your case, I mean really, how many people really enjoy playing chess these days?
Besides, I always thought the game of Life was much more fun, or Risk or even Stratego.
EVE is not simple, and is very deep, and as such appeals to a smaller group of players. (much like Chess I suppose)
You always confuse popularity with quality, they are two different things in many cases.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
@Vorthanion
Resident Evil 1 (1995) - Survive with the shit you find, limited save spots and inks for save, some freedom do roam about and puzzles to use you brain
Resident Evil 5 (2008-2009) - Rape the enemies with a l33t arsenal of weapons acessible at any given time, u die u keep all the money and become stronger - unlimited saves - funneled with no puzzles or at most "press one button and win" -
Well, this without comparing castlevania series... Sorry pal games became hugely dumbed down.
Resident Evil 1 was absolutely brutal. I loved that game. I remember turning off all the lights and being genuinely scared to turn a corner lol.
I totally agree with this.I won't play any MMO currently out or close to release.I spend my gaming time on solo strategy games.I'm playing Medieval Total War 2 on very hard campaign/battles with the gimpier nations,much more of a challenge than any MMO on the market.I am waiting for The Repopulation hopefully late next year.
Eve is not complicated. Make scam. Spam scam till some one falls for scam. Repeat.
Hi. I'm looking to rid this character of a 15 Billion isk bounty and for a partner to split the sum 50/50. I just need you to send me 500 million isk as a security deposit to prove that you're not going to scam me. /PM
Theres a flaw in this logic, My first game experience came with pong, atari consoles (had all of them) Zorg and I'm one of the casual majority. So it doesn't matter where you began your gaming life, it matters what you like and how many players like one side or the other. Right now the majority is casual players and multiple companies have discovered this is their main revenue source so they are lowering the difficulty for the fun factor.
We are demanding the end of the elitest jerks raid/dungeon only mmos, the end of lobby mmos, and the end of the 2004 dead world syndrome that's been plaguing these games since WoW took over as the king. MMO's weren't made just for a small niche of players who consider themselves superior, they were made for fun and for the chance of developers to make worlds that are teaming with the illusion of life. They were made for an escape from reality. They can have both elements in them, the ease of travel/housing/sandbox minus the forced pvp with all of the dungeons raids etc to make the niche players happy, that balance tho seems to be beyond the developers abilities at this point.
Indeed.
All those "children left behind" are grown up now and have credit cards. It's a huge cash cow.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Chess remained interesting a helluva lot longer than an ultra shallow game like The Game of Life. Perhaps you should go back and play The Game of Life to remind yourself just how shallow and deterministic it is. May as well get a game of Monopoly in too, while you're at it.
Your other examples (Risk and Stratego) are examples of exactly my point: depth without overcomplication. The rules for both games are pretty simple, yet the emergent depth is there due to how the rules interact with one another.
I'm not confusing popularity with quality. We're not even discussing those terms. We're discussing depth vs. complexity, and I've pointing out a fact of design which was discovered long before videogames even existed ("A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery 1900-1944) Any mechanic in a game which fails to efficiently achieve a required goal is holding the game back. And in the case of EVE you have a bunch of mechanics and rules spammed into the game in the hopes of achieving depth, and it's just a complete mess.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The reason we had more fun with mario or metroid is becouse that was all new games for us...last time i had so much fun was on forgotten hope - BF 1942 mod release
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months
I would say this is bullshit. I'm part of the younger crowd, around say, the n64. My friend who also happens to belong to this generation has a nes. We regularly woop the shit out of the games with our other friends who happen to belong to this genereation.
I think it's really the fact that everybody from jocks to nerds and everyone inbetween are playing games now, so with those customer comes games that are suited for them.
This guy gets it.
Yes I played SWTOR.
Considering how we have to keep renormalizing IQ ratings because the average keeps rising, then once we've reached maximum saturation, we should see the ‘dumbing-down’ reverse if it's really about how intelligent the players are.
I just think we'd hit another wall with Emotional Intelligence at that point. Mind you, I don't truly believe that sheer intelligence is at fault. I perceive the "dumbing down" phenomenon as a pleasant mix of vapid capitalist social retardation and a bare bones public education system mixed with a bit of parental neglect. I was definitely oversimplifying.
It's all about making money.
Fisher price, spoon fed gaming to appeal to the masses. All reward no risk. Nothing that would be considered too hard. Nothing that would punish the player for failing.
If you wanted to make an eletronic chess game today it would need to include: exclamation points, achievements, DLC, a cash shop, cut-scenes, always online, and give the players points for losing.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The reason that simple games are more popular is not because they are "better". Every feature you add to a game could be a deal breaker for a lot of people. For instance in MMOs some deal breakers are FFA PvP, extensive crafting, settings.
Now some settings are more popular. Does that mean they are better? No.
Further, simplicity was a hall mark of early games because they can't manage complexity. And because people were less educated. If the majority of the population cannot do math or read, how are they going to manage complex games? What about free time? We can e quite sure that limited free time is a factor in what games you like.
A lot of text based browser games have time settings. In games that don't the forums are full of arguments about which time span is the best. Each group argues that their time span is ideal. They don't want a 24 second turn because its too fast for them and gives active players too much time. Yet they claim that an hour is too slow a time span, they want 30 minutes. The hour group says 30 minutes is too fast but 2 hours or 3 hours is too slow.
Its all totally relative to how much free time you have.
I could go on and on about the assumptions you make but I suspect you aren't capable of making a large change in belief.
The point is that you don't even attempt to interrogate the context in which that quote was made. There are actually some mechanics in chess that we could take out to make it simpler and imo more interesting.
OPs claim is so absurd and self-congratulatory I would have never imagined it got this kind of response. Unbelievable.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I agree with what you said, but not with Pac-Man on the 2600 - that game (nowhere near as complex as the real arcade game) hit a certain speed and then reset to slow, over and over; you could hit a never-ending zen state on that game - I once 'clocked' (went through the maximum displayable score) that game twice in one sitting, before begging a friend to turn off the damn console for me.
Space Invaders on that machine though - yeah, that would kick your arse - especially the invisible Space Invaders varient!
There wasn't really a concept of 'winning' those old games - just getting a higher score - or lasting longer than your mates.