It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gamers today are soft.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:36 PM
Mind you, this is coming from a 21 year old. This thread is inspired by two games and their not so accurate reviews. The first game is MegaMan x8. Review seen here: MegaMan X8

Any megaman game ever made brief synopsis: Jump, shoot, defeat a boss with correct previously acquired weapon, avoid a few strategically placed spikes/lasers/pits, collect some items, repeat til credits roll. Its a platformer. Why is there so much surprise that the 17th game in the storyline is also a platform with spikes that must be avoided? I can say with confidence from experience that though there are a generous amount of spikes in the game, compared to older games, the contact field for said spikes seems to be noticeably less.

Its not really all that difficult and to be honest, I feel the game should get an 8.5 just for the shear improvement over its predecessor. Score aside, the whining over the platforming sections is like complaining in halo that the enemy repeatedly shoots at you. Moral of the story, don't have someone who's never played a legitimate platforming game in their life review a modern not all that difficult platformer thats trying to get back to its roots.

In other words, go play a new prince of persia game, all flash and no real difficulty. I say this because I have a friend that is "good" at these games and I know he couldn't last 5 mins on an original megaman game. Play megaman 1 if you think this is hard where half the battle is simply adapting to the horrible game physics. The magic rope as I call it (officially dubbed Magnet Beam) is what actually makes the game playable. But I digress.

The next installment in this review/whine tragedy is another modern installment of a long established nintendo franchise. Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia

Anything after Symphony of The Night just isn't going to get the respect it deserves. While it was a master piece, anyone who has played through the whole thing once knows its a cake walk and its basically impossible to die. There are no less than 10 items you can easily receive in the game that give you a huge edge over the game. Great concept but too easy. Now, every castlevania game that comes out is put to that test. SOTN is the bar to be measured against.

OoE has a new game + option which adds definite replay value, a hard setting (which lives up to its name), and many things to be unlocked. I feel its better than SOTN because this game actually fights back while having various equipment options, a HUGE map, and bar-none the most versatile fighting system in castlevania history. But, because it actually has some difficulty to it, reviewers see this as a negative.

It is every bit as indepth as SOTN with what I feel is a decent starting difficulty. Bosses don't kill you in 2 or 3 hits but they send the message that running into them or being hit by them will cost you. You can't muscle through a boss fight here like you could in SOTN. They're not 15 minute monotony drills like the reviewer implies. You'll likely die the first time you face a boss, but its not going to take you 100 tries to figure it out. If it does, walk away as it isn't for you. Stick to Wii point and click games. They are made to be more fun than difficult and to appeal to the whole family.

This speaks to the difference between those who grew up in the 3D generation and those you grew up playing the 2D generation. In a 3D game, you can out-flank an obstacle. In a 2D game, you must go over, under, or through it. Growing up on 2D games, I can respect their 3D modern counter-parts for how far they've come and just what they might be in the future. I can respect the two Ps2 castlavnias that came out simply because I've played a nintendo castlevania (though you do infact move slow as dirt in the second one).

In all these 3D games, there's items and various other things that can save you. In a 2D game all you have is your reflexes. If you think you're good because you can beat any halo on legendary, put in some Contra and find out just how good you really are. 2D > 3D in terms of a foundation for gaming. If you think any of these 3D modern games are hard, go play a 2D game and find just how much they've had to water it down to appeal to the masses. You'll be suprised.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:00 PM
it may be that i suck but if i have to pay 60$ for a game i expect to atleast be able to finished even with a little hard parts.
but some of the games just love making you scream.and to pass the second level...then theres cheats..showing a big middle finger to the game yEA BABY!

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by Stillalive

I understand that but you have to understand, from the more seasoned player's view, for $60 I better not be able to beat it in 4 hours. If I can, there better be more to it. Cheats were made for that exact reason. If the starting difficulty is too much, here's how to get a leg up. I just don't want a game that is thoroughly impossible to lose whether or not you know what you're doing.

MegaMan 7 is a perfect example. On of its reviewers said: "Something is to be said about a game that gives you access to its final level at full power yet still provides a challenge". After you beat it, it gives you the password for the last level at full power and its still a challenge. Not one that is unreasonable mind you (eventhough the boss easily ranks in my books as the #1 toughest of all time).

I guess the happy medium here is an easy, intermediate, and hard setting for every game (very hard/impossible for those that are interested). People can go through the difficulty that suits them and there's no real reason why it shouldn't reach out to everyone. I've seen a lot of this in modern gaming but again, I note that earlier games had a single setting and if you couldn't hack it, you didn't see the credits. Its that simple. I like the halo 3 approach where each successive difficulty level gives you alittle bit more of an ending. It provides something for everyone of different abilities and has a universal goal for everyone to reach.

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:23 PM
yes i also like a hard game,i know if its too easy why bother.
lets have examples shall we.
terminator game: 99% the game is you ducking behind cover trying to flank robots and shoot in theyr back....repetitive as a train view of trees
call of duty 4: on easyest is was little chalenge and great,but when i tryed veteran,o man thats the fun,they shot me every second..thats the reality of war for me
d&d games: what the? sutff like baldur gate can i be so weak in this game?
starcraft: how can a person beat the campaign when you have to be a korean pro to just survive,most of the levels are you with a small base against 3 oponents with lots of defences,,and then you get r****(:
only way to survive is siege defence and goliaths for god sake!

offtopic here:

to tell you the truth i just hate blizzard and dustin browder,it takes so many years to make a starcraft sequal? the graphics of the game got so old and even there is no beta yet? they dont even give info anymore,they just like to play theyr little game and not release even a video anymore to the public,like theyr game is so great.
for god sake how do people even play sc still? i dont care about balance the game is 640x480 man!
let them keep ther game they deserve theyr game to get pirated like crazy.
i for once cant wait to warez they beta..and theyr game,they dont deserve my money!
splinter cell conviction does

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Stillalive]

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by Eitimzevinten

I agree with many of the things you posted but you have to understand things are much different now. I'm a little older and got an atari 2600 with pacman at age 6. Minus 3do and neogeo I believe I have owned every console system at launch (i owned a cdi why god why) and I owned 10 different PC video cards including every single 3dfx one.

Back then you had a yellow circle with dots and scary ghosts
and that was it. Ever play Football or Baseball. Yes it was called "Football" no madden no year, man that crap was hard. Even Sonic the Hedgehog and Nintendo Turtles used to get me so pissed.

But these days the average gamer is much more casual and there are alot more of us. It's good for the industry as more revenue allows better hardware and better games.

Difficulty modes make games harder or easier depending on your skill level. Also the great things about games nowadays is that you can do so much more. It's about gameplay, sound, graphics, story, multiplayer, scalability, achievements. The industry needs to focus on making more modern games and sadly were not seeing many new IP's.

To some degree I can see that game difficulties today are getting soft I wouldn't agree that gamers are getting soft. It's just a different time and the industry really needs to stretch it's limits. When I finally beat Pitfall (actually when I went around the map) or Punch Out I was sooo happy but these days that just wouldn't fly for me. I would much rather play a game that gives me multiple different ways to achieve a goal, picking the one that suits me and seeing actual consequences of my actions playout in the story line of the game.


log in