- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 2/22/17 at 11:51 am to DelU249
Posted on 2/22/17 at 11:51 am to DelU249
I've beaten a lot of those games that you have listed. Took me many hours and many days/weeks to do that (with most of them). It was just a different time, everything didn't happen in an INSTANCE...like it does now. You had to figure things out too, no gamefaqs.com back then. Talking to friends at school was how you got your info. You could call that hotline and such, but that cost money.
The arcade conversion/quarter cruncher theory definitely plays into it as well. The majority of arcade games are made to not be completed in one quarter...that's for damn sure!
The arcade conversion/quarter cruncher theory definitely plays into it as well. The majority of arcade games are made to not be completed in one quarter...that's for damn sure!
Posted on 2/22/17 at 11:56 am to DelU249
It's a combination of several factors, many of which have already been named, but I think there are 2 main factors.
1. Game design was, in many ways, in its infancy. What's considered hard or unfair now was just accepted without much question because both developers and players didn't really know any better. (Admittedly, part of this "acceptance" was also that there simply wasn't as many games to play as there are now.)
2. Playtesting wasn't done nearly to the extent it is done now.
Let's look at Megaman 2 as a quick example of this. First, let's start with Quick Man's stage with the instant death lasers. They come out with no warning or foreshadowing for the player to anticipate them and they kill you in one hit. This would be seen as total BS by any modern player but I think most players just thought, "Wow! This is hard." And kept trying until they got it or realized they could use Flash Man's weapon to make it easier.
Another example is Heat Man's stage with the long sequence of disappearing / reappearing blocks at the end of the stage. About half way through this gauntlet if you miss a single jump you fall to instant death. Most people through trial and error (and frustration) eventually learned to just use the jet item to get past it but there is no hint that this is the best way to do this. This type of challenge wouldn't make it through play testing now days. Now days this would either be flat out told to the player or the challenge would be gated entirely until you had the right item to bypass it easily.
1. Game design was, in many ways, in its infancy. What's considered hard or unfair now was just accepted without much question because both developers and players didn't really know any better. (Admittedly, part of this "acceptance" was also that there simply wasn't as many games to play as there are now.)
2. Playtesting wasn't done nearly to the extent it is done now.
Let's look at Megaman 2 as a quick example of this. First, let's start with Quick Man's stage with the instant death lasers. They come out with no warning or foreshadowing for the player to anticipate them and they kill you in one hit. This would be seen as total BS by any modern player but I think most players just thought, "Wow! This is hard." And kept trying until they got it or realized they could use Flash Man's weapon to make it easier.
Another example is Heat Man's stage with the long sequence of disappearing / reappearing blocks at the end of the stage. About half way through this gauntlet if you miss a single jump you fall to instant death. Most people through trial and error (and frustration) eventually learned to just use the jet item to get past it but there is no hint that this is the best way to do this. This type of challenge wouldn't make it through play testing now days. Now days this would either be flat out told to the player or the challenge would be gated entirely until you had the right item to bypass it easily.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 11:58 am to gjackx
quote:definitely true. I remember those days. had to be passed down the chain from someone with a subscription to Nintendo power and word of mouth didn't travel as fast. granted back then games also had instruction manuals that were worth reading or came with a map or something.
Talking to friends at school was how you got your info
if you've never played Zelda, there's no fricking way you beat that game without it or without looking for answers online. I mean I guess I could, but it wouldn't be enjoyable.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 12:01 pm to Breesus
quote:
So... Dark Souls?
you dont lose anything for dying in dark souls either unless you are just careless.
unless they made a mode where you go back to the beginning of the game when u die?
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 12:03 pm to DieDaily
that's extra frustrating because after your game over you have to go through all of that shite again just to get back to the point you were having trouble with so you could "figure it out"
quote:I guess I find the "flat out telling you" option really detracting at times...I prefer visual cues but even those are sometimes way too obvious.
Now days this would either be flat out told to the player or the challenge would be gated entirely until you had the right item to bypass it easily.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 12:15 pm to DelU249
quote:The problem is that rarely does either approach work. Either modern approach often has one of 2 outcomes: the player feels patronized or the player feels dumb for not realizing what the visual queue was telling them to begin with.
I guess I find the "flat out telling you" option really detracting at times...I prefer visual cues but even those are sometimes way too obvious.
With nothing, you at least have the satisfaction of feeling like you really figured it out even if the developer intended / anticipated your solution all along. There is, of course, the chance the player will never figure it out and the game ends for them right there. It's a gamble, one I think most modern developers are simply unwilling to take.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 12:26 pm to DieDaily
quote:
The problem is that rarely does either approach work. Either modern approach often has one of 2 outcomes: the player feels patronized or the player feels dumb for not realizing what the visual queue was telling them to begin with.
There's a difference between tutorials that are literally, "press up on the analogue stick to move forward" and games that provide guidance on where and where not to go.
I get annoyed sometimes at games like Witcher 3 that plop level 30 monsters in areas that have level 5 content. That's bad game design. That's different than making a conscious effort to travel somewhere much earlier than the game anticipates.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 12:32 pm to DieDaily
quote:
the player feels patronized or the player feels dumb for not realizing what the visual queue was telling them to begin with.
I can appreciate being in that position and I understand that it's subjective to say what is the right balance with a visual cue, but I just prefer them to draw me the street and not the whole map. It also depends on the objective in mind. sometimes the reward is worth it, and feeling stupid is fine with me because it's always the satisfying "man, i'm such a dumbass"
for example in Metroid prime (because that's the series I've played most recently) you have to find the 12 keys hidden around the world, they give you a ballpark area to start and kind of briefly describe where in that area to find it, and because each room is so well designed you remember these areas you at least have a ballpark idea to start. so they combine telling you and showing you and the task is very manageable but not "frick this game" difficult.
I hate that it feels like it's either "nope, not giving you a damn thing" or "let me tell you precisely what you need to do"
though I agree with you, I like the former better...IF it is rewarding.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 1:17 pm to DelU249
They didn't have the luxury of immersive graphics, so gameplay is all you had.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 1:24 pm to BulldogXero
quote:Yes, I agree. "Rarely does either approach work" was probably too strong a statement but I will say that I find most modern games pretty unsatisfying from a standpoint of feeling like I actually figured something out myself.
There's a difference between tutorials that are literally, "press up on the analogue stick to move forward" and games that provide guidance on where and where not to go.
For me, the mark of good game design is guiding the player while having them think they're coming up with the ideas themselves.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 1:35 pm to DieDaily
quote:it's so weird you say that. I started this whole thread because that's exactly what happened to me last night.
For me, the mark of good game design is guiding the player while having them think they're coming up with the ideas themselves.
the game was leading me and I didn't know it. it lead me to the point I needed to go but I didn't have the upgrade to access anything beyond that...this was right after beating a boss for which I received an upgrade...so I figured I needed to use the new upgrade to get the next upgrade and kind of knew where that was. so I felt like a genius for not wasting any time figuring anything out
and then in bed it hit me that I had been tricked
Posted on 2/22/17 at 2:23 pm to gjackx
quote:
You had to figure things out too, no gamefaqs.com back then.
Man, video games were great before we had this stuff.
Oh you are stuck? frick you, figure it out.
Can't figure out how to beat the mini boss in world 3? frick you.
Now a little hand guides you along most of the time.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 2:28 pm to CBandits82
Life before HTML formatted gamefaqs sucked. One giant 35,000 word text document.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 2:38 pm to DelU249
quote:
I know TMNT, double dragon & ghosts n goblins were, but kid Icarus? bayou billy? Zelda?
there's certainly more to it than that.
Depends on the game. Arcade conversions (and games that emulate arcade style action) should be obvious b/c they were initially designed to take all your money.
However, games like Zelda or Metroid are really only as hard as they are b/c they didn't have the memory for features like worthwhile maps. Sometimes you games had no saves or passcodes like TMNT. For an RPG like Final Fantasy you would get stuck with random enemies b/c there just wasn't space for them to be on screen.
Also, some of it can just be chalked up to shitty programming (getting hit from offscreen enemies, poor hit detection) or lack of system power (slow down).
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 2:39 pm to CBandits82
yep. battletoads definitely belongs on that list.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 2:45 pm to tigeralum2007
never played it. this wasn't really a list making exercise, I was just demonstrating the point that the games on the NES were hard as fricking balls
Posted on 2/22/17 at 3:21 pm to DelU249
quote:
never played it. this wasn't really a list making exercise, I was just demonstrating the point that the games on the NES were hard as fricking balls
Somebody made a good point earlier saying gameplay was all you had because you didn't have incredible graphics.
Nintendo still is a company focused on gameplay to this day.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 3:42 pm to CBandits82
quote:There is some truth to this but it wasn't like people were saying back during the Nintendo days "Man, these graphics suck. At least the games are fun."
Somebody made a good point earlier saying gameplay was all you had because you didn't have incredible graphics.
Most of the games looked great for the time. (I think many of them look good to this day, but that's another topic.) Outside of arcade games, there wasn't much you could compare NES games to other than other home consoles on par or below it like the Master System, Atari 8-bit computer line, and the Commodore 64.
The first game that stood out to me from a graphics perspective back then was the NES port of the arcade version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I beat that game in my local arcade countless times and the limitations of the NES were very apparent once I played the port. Then my brother bought a Genesis and the difference in power became even more apparent.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 3:48 pm to DieDaily
quote:
Yes, I agree. "Rarely does either approach work" was probably too strong a statement but I will say that I find most modern games pretty unsatisfying from a standpoint of feeling like I actually figured something out myself.
That's why I love immersive puzzle games. Portal, AntiChamber, The Talos Principle, etc. They show you the rules and leave you to figure the rest.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:08 pm to DieDaily
quote:
There is some truth to this but it wasn't like people were saying back during the Nintendo days "Man, these graphics suck. At least the games are fun."
this
quote:
The first game that stood out to me from a graphics perspective back then was the NES port of the arcade version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I beat that game in my local arcade countless times and the limitations of the NES were very apparent once I played the port. Then my brother bought a Genesis and the difference in power became even more apparent.
as a kid i didn't even think about it, or know that it was possible. i thought they were going to make games on the NES forever
so after being blown away by improved graphics it never occurred to me that there would be 3d consoles so the n64 really mind fricked me
PS2 i thought looked like real life
since then I've felt less of a wow with each new generation.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News