Winning and Losing

[3DOKid]

It sort of struck me that the 3DO represented the transition between games trying to kill you and games letting you win.

When I was a kid, playing 8bit and 16bit games, on systems like the Sinclair Spectrum computer, the Amiga and Atari STe, and of cause the video Arcade - I sort of expected to lose. Completeting a game was pretty rare for me, and would cost a lot of money or time or both.

Especially in the arcade where the objective, as a player, was simply to shove in less cash each time.

A lot of 3DO games are like this. Basically you must die, Space Hulk wants you dead and so does Johnny Bazzokatone but also, suddenly I'm winning. Suddenly the game is playing fair. Suddenly it gives me the impression it's on my side.

Now a days, all games want you to win. By simply holding the pad you are on the road to victory.

Now - don't mind it so much - I just wondered if others agreed or what their experience was.

[Trev]

Space Hulk wants you dead

I totally agree w/the above statement!

[bonefish]

Some games as of late are really easy. The only investment they require is time to press "A" over and over... fine for an RPG because it's basically telling a story. But a game that sticks out is Fable for X-Box, it was way too simple. I enjoyed it but it was way too easy, too generous with levels. On the other hand, Conker Bad Fur Day for X-Box was one of the most brutal games I've ever played.

Come to think of it, I have an easier time with older games than I used to. For some reason Sonic 1 for Genesis used to kill me, but I picked up a collection disc and had no trouble beating it. Difference 17 years makes.

I think that lately the "crap" games are the easy ones, as good, polished titles are more suited to their audiences.

[Gunstar]

As far as SpaceHulk goes, and I do agree that it's trying to kill you, no doubt about it, but it not suddenly starting to play fair, your just getting better. The weapons will always jam (an problem that while it can add realism, even in real life weapons will jam 1000 times less often), but there is timing and technique to the hand-to-hand combat, and it can only mean you are getting better at that. And also avoiding enemy shots better like when encountering the mercenary space knights. I say this becuase I've played Spacehulk a lot over the years, but more lately, a lot more, and I have gained several levels lately after not being able to get past one level for years. It's becuase I'm learning hand-to-hand combat, the timing, and action and reaction of the enemy in close combat, where I'm getting much better at my timing and judgment of using the parry or thrust moves. It's just a steap learning curve.

Other than that, I agree about modern games vs. those of a decade or more ago, they want you to win now, instead of die. I think this is becuase hard games no longer sell well. The general consumer wants to win and win soon. It's a lack of patience and attention deficit disorder that generations of TV and video gaming have created. We live in an instant result society now. So game makers now make games that can be won more easily, and the consumer will move on to the next game purchase. And the consumer gets less frustrated (lack of patience) becuase they don't get stuck in a game, but move on to something new. Us old-school gamers still remember and appreciate a good challenge, even if it takes years of attemps to successfully progress in some instances.