Early on, games tended to be either trivial or impossible, with not much space in between. Some games even allowed the user to choose his difficulty setting with the choice of trivial or impossible. I wasn't really a fan of either option, but given the choice, I tended to prefer trivial to impossible. By the mid to late 1980s, a lot of game designers had figured out how to make games that were somewhere in between, and this was much better.
I never cared for the 'Die til you learn the trick' gameplay. Much prefer the easy to learn, hard to master curve. But I started on fairly serious boardgames (a good friend was an Avalon Hill playtester), before going on to pnp roleplaying.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
When I was kid I beat every game I laid my hands on. On another note perhaps us old gamers actually got better over the years at playing video games and easy to figure out. In a sense we have lots of gaming experience.
Don't underestimate kids, the games aren't being dumbed down for them. They're being dumbed down for adults, maybe not the hardcore ones on this site. But the ones who don't want to dedicate their lives to video games anymore.
This is a nice try, and its right in a very simplistic way, but certainly not the underlying reason that games are dumbed down, especially seeing as the very same adults you are talking about will spend the same hours, if not more hours playing the dumbed down version with several different characters. Time is a BS smokescreen excuse.
When I was a kid there was no real internet and no guidebooks or walkthroughs. Unless you either had a buddy who'd already beaten the game or could figure it out yourself you were pretty screwed. So yeah that made RPGs harder, whether it was a good kind of hard is another question. Often it was just a question of not thinking in quite the same way as the dev was thinking rather than being really dense. Like in some games you actually had to figure out it wanted you to say "place sword in sheath" instead of "put sword in sheath" and it wouldn't work if you didn't type it exactly the way the dev wanted which was kind of dumb (but caused by tech limitations not game design). I do think games today try way too hard to be" accessible" even to a blind 3 year old with Down's Syndrome though. There's a balance that should be struck.
When I was a kid, there were no video games or computers (except mainframes in government labs), heck the calculator wasn't even invented yet. (Seriously, I got one for graduation from high school, replaced my slide rule)
No VCR's, no microwaves, no cell phones, no CD's, (8 track tapes baby), surprised we weren't still living in caves.
Our idea of hardcore gaming was playing RiSK or never ending monopoly marathons.
Enjoy what you have guys, it truly is a marvelous age to be a gamer.
I had a slide Rule. I also remember when electronic gaming was adjusting the dial on the football player figurine's base and then turning on the buzzing sheet metal platform and watch them move around on the "field".
When I was under 10 years of age, the games I played were board games and card games, outdoor games, or "games" we made up. In junior high, I played games like Q-Bert, Pitfall, Frogger, and other games that when one ran out of lives or turned off the console the game was over and one had to start all over the next time. Many of these consisted of levels being very similar but having increasing difficulty. Game controls were fairly basic so there wasn't a whole lot to "figure out." I was an adult before I experienced the Super NES and the "more complex" games of today so it is difficult for me to compare whether or not I wanted easy games as a "kid" to what kids/teenagers today want. Also, my definition of easy/difficult would be very different. Children and teenagers today are raised in a world of technology where I was in upper elementary/junior high when home computers came into existence and were not common place until years later. I remember when car phones were boxes and high priced rather than the cell phones of today (or now the smartphones that are far more powerful than the computers of the 80s and early 90s).
When I was a kid I think I just wanted fun games. Some games where just stupid to me, but very seldom were they hard. I do think I once cheated in the first Zelda game because I remember finding some hidden location in a Nintendo magazine that you had to use a bomb to get something rare or whatever. So I guess that game was hard. PC games for me back then such as Karateka (on the Macintosh I think) or Zaxxon on the Commodore 64 weren't that hard either but were fun.
So it's not that I wanted easy games, just fun games. A game can be either hard or easy and still be boring or fun, which was just as much true back then as it is today.
When I was a kid there was no real internet and no guidebooks or walkthroughs. Unless you either had a buddy who'd already beaten the game or could figure it out yourself you were pretty screwed. So yeah that made RPGs harder, whether it was a good kind of hard is another question. Often it was just a question of not thinking in quite the same way as the dev was thinking rather than being really dense. Like in some games you actually had to figure out it wanted you to say "place sword in sheath" instead of "put sword in sheath" and it wouldn't work if you didn't type it exactly the way the dev wanted which was kind of dumb (but caused by tech limitations not game design). I do think games today try way too hard to be" accessible" even to a blind 3 year old with Down's Syndrome though. There's a balance that should be struck.
When I was a kid, there were no video games or computers (except mainframes in government labs), heck the calculator wasn't even invented yet. (Seriously, I got one for graduation from high school, replaced my slide rule)
No VCR's, no microwaves, no cell phones, no CD's, (8 track tapes baby), surprised we weren't still living in caves.
Our idea of hardcore gaming was playing RiSK or never ending monopoly marathons.
Enjoy what you have guys, it truly is a marvelous age to be a gamer.
I had a slide Rule. I also remember when electronic gaming was adjusting the dial on the football player figurine's base and then turning on the buzzing sheet metal platform and watch them move around on the "field".
I remember a hockey game like that. I also remember my first handheld "football" game was just about 6 red lights that would randomly move down and side to side on a little 2 inch screen that represented both players and the football.
There seems to be a common thought that teenagers and little kids are complete morons who want the most basic and simplistic gameplay there is.
I don't know about you, but I grew up playing NES games which were brutally hard and didn't explain a damn thing to you. I was 4 years old playing the original Final Fantasy and just getting dropped into this big world having to figure it all out. I was about 11 when I played my first MMO (Nexus TK) and 13 or 14 when I played EverQuest 1 and again, I just had to figure these things out. I didn't want my hand held, I didn't complain things took too long. I just wanted to rush home from school so I could play more!
I think people forget what they were actually like when they were kids. Children are naturally curious and want to learn things and figure things out. I am amazed how my little cousins manage to figure out things in Minecraft so quickly without any instructions. They just dive right in and play in this sandbox figuring everything out. And we are talking about 4-7yr olds.
I actually find that as an adult I am far less willing to learn a new game if it doesn't teach me well. I don't want to waste 4 hours of my day just figuring out how to get out of the city or craft a pair of boots. I want to jump in and have fun before I have to go to bed!
That's not to say I don't like deeper experiences at all, I am just far less excited about putting in the effort than I was as a kid.
Don't underestimate kids, the games aren't being dumbed down for them. They're being dumbed down for adults, maybe not the hardcore ones on this site. But the ones who don't want to dedicate their lives to video games anymore.
You do realize 4-7 year olds are better at the type of thing than 25-35 old adults. Think about all the new things you had to learn in those years. Learn to read and write, math, new social interactions at school, sports, ride a bike, etc. Learning to play FF or Everquest was a cakewalk compared to what was expected in school and sports. Ask most adults to do that stuff now and most wouldn't be able to. The hand holding isn't for the kids. It is for the adults and woman gamers who make up the majority of the player base.
When I was a kid (80's and 90's), I just wanted a game with a proper save feature. Crap like Mario got real old having to either leave the system perpetually on and paused, or resign to replay everything you just did because you have to go to bed. Those games weren't hard, they were just frustrating due to their design.
Games in the 90's were much better, although most were horrifically documented. EQ1 is a great example of a game that's pretty easy to play, once you figure out which keys do what. You just kill stuff until you level up, and get to explore out a little and kill more (and different) stuff. Sometimes with other people around. During the whole process, you gain new skills once in a while and slowly work them into your rotation as needed. Nothing real crazy. Any difficulty involved wasn't the result of good design.
Nope i have NEVER liked anything easy,even in sports i always wanted to play the better teams or players to improve myself.In gaming as a youngster i liked some of the KOEI games because i liked their challenge.I became hooked on FFXI because it is very challenging and having played the majority of games ,i find it is the hardest mmorpg ever made,at least from mainstream games.
To me hand holding or giving me a win is weak,i couldn't be bothered.I shared these same feeling with most of my friends.Example if we were playing a hockey team that did not have enough players,we did not want the forfeit,.we would ask if we could lend them some players to make a game of it or grab some bystanders to make a game,easy is not in my vocabulary.
I might add that it is not only about playing something really difficult,i do prefer stuff that is easy to play but difficult to master.
An example is that MOST games have such ridiculous short timers so players don't even think,they just spam their best dps.Anyone can play a mmorpg but i like when a game makes you use maintenance and thought AND with others,not just solo.Another example would be FFXI's RENKAI system,it was tough to grasp and tougher to master,i saw many players that had no clue what so ever even 2-3 years later.Then there was the magic burst,you could if paying attention tell the magic burst just by the animation of the Renkai but still mages would ask "what is the magic burst of that Renkai.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
There seems to be a common thought that teenagers and little kids are complete morons who want the most basic and simplistic gameplay there is.
I don't know about you, but I grew up playing NES games which were brutally hard and didn't explain a damn thing to you. I was 4 years old playing the original Final Fantasy and just getting dropped into this big world having to figure it all out. I was about 11 when I played my first MMO (Nexus TK) and 13 or 14 when I played EverQuest 1 and again, I just had to figure these things out. I didn't want my hand held, I didn't complain things took too long. I just wanted to rush home from school so I could play more!
I think people forget what they were actually like when they were kids. Children are naturally curious and want to learn things and figure things out. I am amazed how my little cousins manage to figure out things in Minecraft so quickly without any instructions. They just dive right in and play in this sandbox figuring everything out. And we are talking about 4-7yr olds.
I actually find that as an adult I am far less willing to learn a new game if it doesn't teach me well. I don't want to waste 4 hours of my day just figuring out how to get out of the city or craft a pair of boots. I want to jump in and have fun before I have to go to bed!
That's not to say I don't like deeper experiences at all, I am just far less excited about putting in the effort than I was as a kid.
Don't underestimate kids, the games aren't being dumbed down for them. They're being dumbed down for adults, maybe not the hardcore ones on this site. But the ones who don't want to dedicate their lives to video games anymore.
You do realize 4-7 year olds are better at the type of thing than 25-35 old adults. Think about all the new things you had to learn in those years. Learn to read and write, math, new social interactions at school, sports, ride a bike, etc. Learning to play FF or Everquest was a cakewalk compared to what was expected in school and sports. Ask most adults to do that stuff now and most wouldn't be able to. The hand holding isn't for the kids. It is for the adults and woman gamers who make up the majority of the player base.
Please read up on (somewhat) recent neuroscience.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I missed out on video games "as a kid" (born 1963). However, when my son (b. 1987) started playing videos games, he was quite the opposite. Every new game we got, his first action was to visit a cheats code page. I asked him about this and he said that was so he could beat the game. After he beat the game, he would then go back and play it again without the cheat codes but with foreknowledge of what was coming up.
On the other hand, when he tried out EverQuest, he took right to it, doing his own thing, going his own way and having fun. I don't think he visited EQ "How To" websites. I am happy to say that he no longer gets the cheat codes first now
I am pretty sure cheat code websites still exist and get visited quite a bit.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
As a kid I played much on an older home computer system. The games I had were from different genres but of varying quality. "Multiplayer games" only allowed two simultanously playing players or had some hot seat mode implemented where each player made his turn and then control passed to the next player. Most games didn't have a save function.
In sport simulations you were only competing with yourself by beating previous "records" set by you or your friends. Controls varied between disciplines. Disciplines were more like different mini-games. Nothing difficult once you figured out how controls worked. Then the main challenge became about finding the right timing.
I had one strategy game called "Defender of the Crown". Grafics, controls and gameplay were great for its time. It had some mini-games (e.g. catapult firing boulders at a castle, jousting tournament, raiding an enemy's castle, etc.). But the strategy part was a bit weak, especially the AI. I had the impression that the AI was cheating (i.e. the enemies' armies were too large for the funds received by their controlled territories) and there was in principle one strategy to survive the game (i.e. eliminate two out of three opponents in the very beginning so the AI doesn't eliminate you). Only then did you have the chance to experience the strategy part. The game was in principle over after 6-10 rounds depending on your starting positions but there was the option to not eliminate all opponents and continue playing. In hindsight the game was not very hard and not very complex either, but it could be very frustrating until you figured out the strategies to survive or practice the mini-games the game offered.
Most of the arcade games, platformers and shooters could be very frustrating due to no save function. There were some fun ones which you could play with friends in a coop mode like "Dynasty Wars". There were some very frustrating ones like "Myth" from System3 (i.e. the egyptian level with the pyramid and traps is very very frustrating). "Gauntlet" in coop mode was fun but very repetitive since you ran through a set number of dungeons, trying to reach the exit before time runs out. But after reaching the final level and finishing it, the game started over at the first level again. PvP aficionados would surely like the bomberman clones that were available at that time.
Racing games came in different shapes as well. Isometric perspective or driver perspective were available. "Indy Heat" was good as competitive game. The racing track was seen from above and there were always four teams of which up to 2 could be human players.
The roleplaying games of that time were quite simplistic without much character interaction. I got hooked on one game from SSI called "Phantasie". That was a rather odd game. Character aging was implemented. You could choose from a large variety of humanoid races (each race with an individual life span). Some races were very strong meleers (e.g. trolls, minotaurs) but had a rather low life expectation. Of course with elves you didn't have much concerns regarding aging. Once the maximum age was reached a character would die of old age, but that could only happen if you wasted time (e.g. by trying to get to max level or farming the best available equipment). When a character died in combat then he/she could be raised only if the party had a healer with the resurrection spell. A resurrected character would permanently loose 1 or 2 points of constitution which would have an impact on later level ups. The combat options you had depended on your exact party setup. Combat would be round based and you could only give general commands to your party members (e.g. attack nearest enemy, attack enemy which is far away, cast single target spell, cast mass target spell, etc.). In wilderness areas your party could be surprised during nights. In such a situation your party members would all be asleep except one character who is on watch. If that character on watch has a high enough listen skill then there is a chance he might wake up all other party members before combat starts. It's enough to say that the game could be very deadly to unexperienced and unprepared players. Additionally it was only possible to save the game when in town. Resting was only possible in towns as well and at inns which could be found scattered along the wilderness areas. Even a high level party could be easily (and unnecessarily) killed if it did go a long way without resting (i.e. magic points depleted and hit points lowered). There are magic and healing potions which can be bought and found. But these can only be used outside of combat to restore used magic points or lost hitpoints.
A game doesn't have to have the best grafics. It doesn't have to be very accessible, although it helps if the controls can be learned and figured out easily. A game may be simplistic but it may as well be very complex. One of the biggest frustrating elements is if you get the feeling that the AI is cheating and is not adhering to the same game rules. In arcade games one of the most frustrating elements was if you had to move pixel by pixel along the screen because only then you could find the exact spot from where to jump over a pit or obstacle (and even more frustrating without save options and where wasting all energy/lives resulted in starting the game from the very start).
I think this thread is bullshit. No way you can compare your childhood with todays teenies. So much changed in those past 20years. And obviously back then MMOs were for Adults, because they had the money. Now you cannot make a MMO for childs with the same goal as for Adults- childs dont have money- not in the amount of Adults.
And by the way back then, so few families had a PC. Now every child has one.
This thread doesnt make sense to me, you cannot compare milk with meat.
think if anyone claim they wanted hard games as a kid they are looking back with the old rosecoloured glasses - personally never used any cheat codes, even if it seemed like they were built into every single game, or could be added to it on a new disk, for the Amiga 500, as imo it completely ruins a game - but my class mates, would cheat, were actually very annoying to find out since they also would be those who would tease saying, god havent you completed that yet it is SO easy.
Anyway what I did do, were to just skip the game if it took too long to get past a certain place in a game, then if I got too bored later on, I would try again - since I couldnt buy alot of new games like I could today if I would, then usually get past it at some point, and actually finish the games.
so what I am saying, if you as a child have access to other fun games or other entertainment you will skip a challange, if you feel it isnt within near reach to complete, or use cheat codes, as most Ive known, that played games would.
as a child playing the C64 games I would beat all games, since Id only have a very few games then....Robocop 2, pipemania, pong, a commercial game and ducktales I think that were all I ever had for the C64, but loved and completed all of them, even if I found the sequence when you died in robocop very scary back then ;P
Kids don't know any better, the game industry basically teaches them the term instant gratification and they absorb it like a sponge because they are kids.
It's not really the fault of the "kids", its the fault of adults, be it as a producer or consumer.
When I was I kid I didn't really give a f*ck about game difficulty, there were easy games and hard games that entertained me, it depended on particular game and it's feel. I think that 99% of people here lost their memory of being young, because things they think they thought back then are just stupid...
World was normal, when games were created for kids, things started to get ridiculous when adults came in and decided games aren't for kids anymore....
It is like taking legos from kids and making them prebuilt and glued together permanently, because adults have work, family and don't have time to build legos, but they want to play them, and it is unfair that kids have advantage... that is how retarded gaming became now.
Comments
Early on, games tended to be either trivial or impossible, with not much space in between. Some games even allowed the user to choose his difficulty setting with the choice of trivial or impossible. I wasn't really a fan of either option, but given the choice, I tended to prefer trivial to impossible. By the mid to late 1980s, a lot of game designers had figured out how to make games that were somewhere in between, and this was much better.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
This is a nice try, and its right in a very simplistic way, but certainly not the underlying reason that games are dumbed down, especially seeing as the very same adults you are talking about will spend the same hours, if not more hours playing the dumbed down version with several different characters. Time is a BS smokescreen excuse.
I had a slide Rule. I also remember when electronic gaming was adjusting the dial on the football player figurine's base and then turning on the buzzing sheet metal platform and watch them move around on the "field".
Depending on your definition of kid:
When I was under 10 years of age, the games I played were board games and card games, outdoor games, or "games" we made up. In junior high, I played games like Q-Bert, Pitfall, Frogger, and other games that when one ran out of lives or turned off the console the game was over and one had to start all over the next time. Many of these consisted of levels being very similar but having increasing difficulty. Game controls were fairly basic so there wasn't a whole lot to "figure out." I was an adult before I experienced the Super NES and the "more complex" games of today so it is difficult for me to compare whether or not I wanted easy games as a "kid" to what kids/teenagers today want. Also, my definition of easy/difficult would be very different. Children and teenagers today are raised in a world of technology where I was in upper elementary/junior high when home computers came into existence and were not common place until years later. I remember when car phones were boxes and high priced rather than the cell phones of today (or now the smartphones that are far more powerful than the computers of the 80s and early 90s).
When I was a kid I think I just wanted fun games. Some games where just stupid to me, but very seldom were they hard. I do think I once cheated in the first Zelda game because I remember finding some hidden location in a Nintendo magazine that you had to use a bomb to get something rare or whatever. So I guess that game was hard. PC games for me back then such as Karateka (on the Macintosh I think) or Zaxxon on the Commodore 64 weren't that hard either but were fun.
So it's not that I wanted easy games, just fun games. A game can be either hard or easy and still be boring or fun, which was just as much true back then as it is today.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I remember a hockey game like that. I also remember my first handheld "football" game was just about 6 red lights that would randomly move down and side to side on a little 2 inch screen that represented both players and the football.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
You do realize 4-7 year olds are better at the type of thing than 25-35 old adults. Think about all the new things you had to learn in those years. Learn to read and write, math, new social interactions at school, sports, ride a bike, etc. Learning to play FF or Everquest was a cakewalk compared to what was expected in school and sports. Ask most adults to do that stuff now and most wouldn't be able to. The hand holding isn't for the kids. It is for the adults and woman gamers who make up the majority of the player base.
When I was a kid (80's and 90's), I just wanted a game with a proper save feature. Crap like Mario got real old having to either leave the system perpetually on and paused, or resign to replay everything you just did because you have to go to bed. Those games weren't hard, they were just frustrating due to their design.
Games in the 90's were much better, although most were horrifically documented. EQ1 is a great example of a game that's pretty easy to play, once you figure out which keys do what. You just kill stuff until you level up, and get to explore out a little and kill more (and different) stuff. Sometimes with other people around. During the whole process, you gain new skills once in a while and slowly work them into your rotation as needed. Nothing real crazy. Any difficulty involved wasn't the result of good design.
You make me like charity
Nope i have NEVER liked anything easy,even in sports i always wanted to play the better teams or players to improve myself.In gaming as a youngster i liked some of the KOEI games because i liked their challenge.I became hooked on FFXI because it is very challenging and having played the majority of games ,i find it is the hardest mmorpg ever made,at least from mainstream games.
To me hand holding or giving me a win is weak,i couldn't be bothered.I shared these same feeling with most of my friends.Example if we were playing a hockey team that did not have enough players,we did not want the forfeit,.we would ask if we could lend them some players to make a game of it or grab some bystanders to make a game,easy is not in my vocabulary.
I might add that it is not only about playing something really difficult,i do prefer stuff that is easy to play but difficult to master.
An example is that MOST games have such ridiculous short timers so players don't even think,they just spam their best dps.Anyone can play a mmorpg but i like when a game makes you use maintenance and thought AND with others,not just solo.Another example would be FFXI's RENKAI system,it was tough to grasp and tougher to master,i saw many players that had no clue what so ever even 2-3 years later.Then there was the magic burst,you could if paying attention tell the magic burst just by the animation of the Renkai but still mages would ask "what is the magic burst of that Renkai.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
When I was a kid, I often needed external affirmation of my worth.
If games do that for ya, rock on.
Please read up on (somewhat) recent neuroscience.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I missed out on video games "as a kid" (born 1963). However, when my son (b. 1987) started playing videos games, he was quite the opposite. Every new game we got, his first action was to visit a cheats code page. I asked him about this and he said that was so he could beat the game. After he beat the game, he would then go back and play it again without the cheat codes but with foreknowledge of what was coming up.
On the other hand, when he tried out EverQuest, he took right to it, doing his own thing, going his own way and having fun. I don't think he visited EQ "How To" websites. I am happy to say that he no longer gets the cheat codes first now
I am pretty sure cheat code websites still exist and get visited quite a bit.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
As a kid I played much on an older home computer system. The games I had were from different genres but of varying quality. "Multiplayer games" only allowed two simultanously playing players or had some hot seat mode implemented where each player made his turn and then control passed to the next player. Most games didn't have a save function.
In sport simulations you were only competing with yourself by beating previous "records" set by you or your friends. Controls varied between disciplines. Disciplines were more like different mini-games. Nothing difficult once you figured out how controls worked. Then the main challenge became about finding the right timing.
I had one strategy game called "Defender of the Crown". Grafics, controls and gameplay were great for its time. It had some mini-games (e.g. catapult firing boulders at a castle, jousting tournament, raiding an enemy's castle, etc.). But the strategy part was a bit weak, especially the AI. I had the impression that the AI was cheating (i.e. the enemies' armies were too large for the funds received by their controlled territories) and there was in principle one strategy to survive the game (i.e. eliminate two out of three opponents in the very beginning so the AI doesn't eliminate you). Only then did you have the chance to experience the strategy part. The game was in principle over after 6-10 rounds depending on your starting positions but there was the option to not eliminate all opponents and continue playing. In hindsight the game was not very hard and not very complex either, but it could be very frustrating until you figured out the strategies to survive or practice the mini-games the game offered.
Most of the arcade games, platformers and shooters could be very frustrating due to no save function. There were some fun ones which you could play with friends in a coop mode like "Dynasty Wars". There were some very frustrating ones like "Myth" from System3 (i.e. the egyptian level with the pyramid and traps is very very frustrating). "Gauntlet" in coop mode was fun but very repetitive since you ran through a set number of dungeons, trying to reach the exit before time runs out. But after reaching the final level and finishing it, the game started over at the first level again. PvP aficionados would surely like the bomberman clones that were available at that time.
Racing games came in different shapes as well. Isometric perspective or driver perspective were available. "Indy Heat" was good as competitive game. The racing track was seen from above and there were always four teams of which up to 2 could be human players.
The roleplaying games of that time were quite simplistic without much character interaction. I got hooked on one game from SSI called "Phantasie". That was a rather odd game. Character aging was implemented. You could choose from a large variety of humanoid races (each race with an individual life span). Some races were very strong meleers (e.g. trolls, minotaurs) but had a rather low life expectation. Of course with elves you didn't have much concerns regarding aging. Once the maximum age was reached a character would die of old age, but that could only happen if you wasted time (e.g. by trying to get to max level or farming the best available equipment). When a character died in combat then he/she could be raised only if the party had a healer with the resurrection spell. A resurrected character would permanently loose 1 or 2 points of constitution which would have an impact on later level ups. The combat options you had depended on your exact party setup. Combat would be round based and you could only give general commands to your party members (e.g. attack nearest enemy, attack enemy which is far away, cast single target spell, cast mass target spell, etc.). In wilderness areas your party could be surprised during nights. In such a situation your party members would all be asleep except one character who is on watch. If that character on watch has a high enough listen skill then there is a chance he might wake up all other party members before combat starts. It's enough to say that the game could be very deadly to unexperienced and unprepared players. Additionally it was only possible to save the game when in town. Resting was only possible in towns as well and at inns which could be found scattered along the wilderness areas. Even a high level party could be easily (and unnecessarily) killed if it did go a long way without resting (i.e. magic points depleted and hit points lowered). There are magic and healing potions which can be bought and found. But these can only be used outside of combat to restore used magic points or lost hitpoints.
A game doesn't have to have the best grafics. It doesn't have to be very accessible, although it helps if the controls can be learned and figured out easily. A game may be simplistic but it may as well be very complex. One of the biggest frustrating elements is if you get the feeling that the AI is cheating and is not adhering to the same game rules. In arcade games one of the most frustrating elements was if you had to move pixel by pixel along the screen because only then you could find the exact spot from where to jump over a pit or obstacle (and even more frustrating without save options and where wasting all energy/lives resulted in starting the game from the very start).
Then you must not have kids.
I think this thread is bullshit. No way you can compare your childhood with todays teenies. So much changed in those past 20years. And obviously back then MMOs were for Adults, because they had the money. Now you cannot make a MMO for childs with the same goal as for Adults- childs dont have money- not in the amount of Adults.
And by the way back then, so few families had a PC. Now every child has one.
This thread doesnt make sense to me, you cannot compare milk with meat.
think if anyone claim they wanted hard games as a kid they are looking back with the old rosecoloured glasses - personally never used any cheat codes, even if it seemed like they were built into every single game, or could be added to it on a new disk, for the Amiga 500, as imo it completely ruins a game - but my class mates, would cheat, were actually very annoying to find out since they also would be those who would tease saying, god havent you completed that yet it is SO easy.
Anyway what I did do, were to just skip the game if it took too long to get past a certain place in a game, then if I got too bored later on, I would try again - since I couldnt buy alot of new games like I could today if I would, then usually get past it at some point, and actually finish the games.
so what I am saying, if you as a child have access to other fun games or other entertainment you will skip a challange, if you feel it isnt within near reach to complete, or use cheat codes, as most Ive known, that played games would.
as a child playing the C64 games I would beat all games, since Id only have a very few games then....Robocop 2, pipemania, pong, a commercial game and ducktales I think that were all I ever had for the C64, but loved and completed all of them, even if I found the sequence when you died in robocop very scary back then ;P
Free to play = content updates for the cash shop. Buy to play = content updates for the cash shop.
Subscription = Actual content updates!
Kids don't know any better, the game industry basically teaches them the term instant gratification and they absorb it like a sponge because they are kids.
It's not really the fault of the "kids", its the fault of adults, be it as a producer or consumer.
When I was I kid I didn't really give a f*ck about game difficulty, there were easy games and hard games that entertained me, it depended on particular game and it's feel. I think that 99% of people here lost their memory of being young, because things they think they thought back then are just stupid...
World was normal, when games were created for kids, things started to get ridiculous when adults came in and decided games aren't for kids anymore....It is like taking legos from kids and making them prebuilt and glued together permanently, because adults have work, family and don't have time to build legos, but they want to play them, and it is unfair that kids have advantage... that is how retarded gaming became now.