Are games getting too easy?

by James Ransom-Wiley { Sep 2nd 2005 at 1:00PM }

Grandpa gaming Tom's Hardware has a good article up about the phenomenon of games getting progressively easier. Personally, I don't think we're getting better as players, I think publishers and developers are catering to a mainstream audience.

Back in the day, games were downright frustrating, and I don't think a lot of people wanted to play—certainly not for extended periods of time. But that frustration (the difficulty) was part of the soul of video games. I'd like to see more developers making games that get your pulse racing when you enter a boss battle, and when you die, again and again, stir the urge to smash your controller into the ground. I think we still see this from time to time—Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) comes to mind—but not nearly enough. I'm concerned that developers are letting online play dictate a game's challenge, while crafting single-player modes to cater to the sort of gamer that likes to drift through a (so-called) adventure without a hiccup.

[Thanks, Brian]

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Sin ViCiOuS @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

Agree, in order to create that experience I always play on the hardest setting.

Dan @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

What controller is that? Looks suspiciously like that old Revolution controller.

http://www.joystiq.com/page/4/

Eath @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

cool site.

jc @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I can relate to the nostalgia of early games and their tougher gameplay. However, I don't miss the long lineups to change my lunch money into quarters, nor cigarette burns on the 'fire' buttons.

Games have evolved, and with that comes more variety and different styles of games... for the most part, my gaming needs are filled (finding the right games can be tough).

There is a danger in saying the soul of games is missing today. I think, for the most part, there are some decent games out there. If anything, I would say that controllers and game controls allow for a more accurate gaming experience today. (anyone remember trying to get your huge shot through the mother ship in Gorf?)

On the other hand, I would like to see some things changed, more inline with reality.
ie: Car Race Game... if you are in a race, and you write off your car, you should automatically lose the race... give us some incentive for not always being balls to the wall.

Some games could really use a decent AI, as the only time I feel challanged is online/multiplayer... mostly Battlefront/Halo type games.

batman @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

i agee 100%, games these days are WAY easier (for the most part) and WAY shorter (Fable, Jade Empire, etc) than they used to be. Personally i think gaming is slowly, excruciatingly becoming Hollywood. It really is dissapointing to see video games going the way of the main stream and selling out.

It used to be if you knew someone who was a gamer, they were hardcore (many still are, including me and more than likely anyone reading this as well :), they loved the sublties, the stories, the puzzles, and yes, the difficulty. Now you just have to log onto Xbox live to see how much it's changed.

Foul-mouthed little kids, soccer moms, 5-6 hour a week gamers, and, more than anything, large companies, are all slowly turning the video-game industry upside-down.

We need a return to roots. We need an end to the game created by and/or for the casual gamer.

you now have permission to begin flaming :)

PS. Oh and whatver happened to rewards for beating games, bring that shit back! every single game in this planet should give you SOMETHING for completing it.

Hunty @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I don't think games are getting easier, I think that the controls are getting better. If you go back right now and try to play SMB, you'll see what I mean, or compare how intuitive the controls of POP:SOT are to the controls of the ORIGINAL Prince of Persia. At the same time, the focus of games' challenge is shifting to the more cerebral, which I think is great; I never died ONCE playing "Wind Waker", but it took me a really long time to beat because there were such clever puzzles in it (well, that and the damn sailing).

The way I want games to go (which seems to be the way they're headed) is for the controls to be so good and intuitive that I can effortlessly do whatever I want to in the game, and the real challenge comes from the complexity of the puzzles and the cleverness of the AI. Ninja Gaiden and God of War are both perfect examples of this; I had no problem doing crazy multi-wall-jumps and 50-hit combos, but I died a whole lot in both games before I figured out how to out-smart and out-fight some of the very clever (but not at all cheating) AIs.

Sean @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

batman: of course games today are shorter than games of yesterday. That's because games of yesterday didn't have an ending. You just went to the next level and everything was moving faster.

The death of the arcade is what made games easier. Companies are no longer making money off you dying.

I still have Shadow of the Beast (the hardest game ever made) and Ghosts'n'Goblins/Ghouls'n'Ghosts. I never play them because it's just too frustrating. Why should I devote myself to those frustrating games when I have tons of other games that are actually *fun*.

Btw, people seem to forget that back when games were "impossible" there were actual cheat codes that actually helped the player. Konami-codes, and level selects, and god-modes were abundant. But look at any game in the last 5 years and the only thing they offer are unlockable characters.

ad @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

No doubt about it. Last time I worked on a commercial game for both Xbox and PC, during testing the publisher would always want the game made simpler and easier. For a game to be sucessfull and make money, it has to appeal to the broadest range of gamers possible. Unfortunately this is across a broad demographic. 8 - 40 year olds, casual and hardcore gamers.

So by the time your games done it's a different beast than you had originaly envisioned, mostly because the publisher wants to make money and keep in business, and for them, it gives the best chance of success. It's understandable, but unfortunately it also sucks for those that want some depth and a bit of skill to play well.

Chris @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

"What controller is that? Looks suspiciously like that old Revolution controller."

It's a third party N64 controller.

Jonathan Harford @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I think games should be even shorter -- and consequently cheaper. I'd rather play through five five-hour games (and thus five different ideas) in two weeks than get bored with one. I like to see new environments, new mechanics, not constantly have my reflexes tested.

Dignan17 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I disagree. The games are not easier.

First off, easier than what? The 8-bit days? I agree, I personally only beat one or two of my Sega Master System games, but there's a reason for that: repetitive gameplay. It seems to me that in order to stretch the game out in the old days, the tactic was merely to play the same thing over and over again, but faster and with more enemies. That sucks. The only game I really beat on the system was Wonder Boy III, and that had far more variation.

And what about fighting games? Yeah, at first you had six buttons and moves that required little more than a few joystick positions and one or two buttons. Then we got into Virtua Fighter territory, and the moves started getting to the point where nobody but really serious players could even start playing. Now we're back to the Soul Caliber games, which can certainly have a lot of depth, but are also easy for people to pick up.

Lastly, have you even PLAYED Viewtiful Joe? The game is still sitting in my collection without my ever having beaten the first level. I played that f*cking helicopter too many times, and the fact that I had to repeat that first level over and over led to frustration, which simply made the game no fun.

Dignan17 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

By the way, I question the whole idea: who ever said that games HAVE to be hard. Does that really make it more enjoyable? It certainly doesn't for me. And just because a game is short doesn't mean making it more difficult would have made it longer.

Anyway, I know there are masochists out there who enjoy the challenge. I've become less of a hardcore gamer over the years as other things have taken up my time, and I want games as entertainment. I want them to be fun and engaging. In my life I've broken three controllers by flinging them at the wall. I don't remember the games I was playing because I didn't enjoy them enough for them to stick in my memory.

JDH @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

When you change a game's difficulty level what are you really changing? Is it variables that just make the levels faster with more enemies and lesser response times for interaction?
What it should be is a change and mix of patterns for AI with harder to recognize patterns and random response times?

Anybody remember Mike Tyson Punch-out? Left, pause, right, pause, A A A A, left, pause...

Games back then were trial and error because of pattern recognition. Once you recognize the patterns (heck, the WWE has patterns in their wrestling matches), you "grok" the game. No need to play it then because you will be just going through motions.

The problem is due to main stream targeting of game companies. More games sold that are easy equal more money in their pockets. That means re-using recognizable patterns and adjusting variables that make the games quicker with more enemies.

To hardcore gamers, though, (Ninja-Gaiden) unbeatable levels without cheats, and unrecognizable patterns via dynamic AI is the way to go. The rewards are higher when you beat something once and you are afraid to play it again because you have doubts you can beat the game again. That is why some of us still play hard games, albeit few of us, but there is a market for those games. Especially when the casual gamer starts recognizing the patterns too...

mat @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I recognize that picture. Its from some TV commercial I think.

MosquitoControl @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

Personally I hate overly hard games.

Rather, I hate overly hard games that don't save very often. I greatly enjoyed the gameplay of Ninja Gaiden, but never made it too far. Why? I was repeating too much of the game too often. Make me do the exact same thing three or four times in a row and I'm shutting the system off for the day. Usually I'll get it fairly quickly the next day, but after a few days of that I find myself dreading going back.

The ability to save everywhere is a huge part of what has made most games easier. It isn't necessary. But please, if you have a nearly impossible boss battle, let us save immediately before and immediately after. Failure to do that isn't gaming, it's slave labor.

GlitchCog @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

This article is exactly correct. I miss the old difficult games. Today's games really don't inspire a sence of accomplishment upon winning. I remember playing through Wind Waker the first time and being all worried about Gannon. I guess seeing link just brought me back to the good old days, so I was anticipating a higher level of difficulty. Oh man, was I ever mistaken.

Anyone looking for a challenge today needs to buy those old games. I've been going through Crystalis on my GBC lately. (Although the music sucks in the remake.)

locknroll @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I really don't see what the problem is. Most games today have multiple difficulty settings.

Easy
Normal
Hard
Insane

Is it that hard to just turn up the difficulty setting to max so you can punish yourself???

Benny @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I do believe it's partly because of the way games have advanced now. In the old days making a level more dificult would normally mean simply adding a few more enemies, increasing the speed of the game , reducing the number of items or something along those lines. Now with all this talk of AI and realism that isn't really an acceptable thing to do and would make the game boring. Creating a perfect difficulty level is incredibly hard in our modern generation as there is a wide range of gamers skills to take account of and the balance can be easily tipped.

The only answer I can really think of is if developers create games with higher difficulty levels but integrate some kind of alternate path within a game for those who find it too hard. I'm not good at explaining but a bit like Deus Ex and the way that would allow you to choose the hard but quick way in or the smarter stealthier way into areas.

jakk, blackrock @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

are the games getting to easy, or are gamers getting too good?
oh and the funniest difficulty setting i think ive ever seen is in metal arms: glitch in the system.

easy
normal
hard
and the funny one
balls of steel

32_Footsteps @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

As for whether or not games are getting shorter than they used to be - not really. I think it works on a pendulum. Sure, the earliest games were effectively eternal, if you were good enough. But then they made games have endings, and they were of a finite nature. Try playing through the original Contra again (using the Konami Code to guarantee you'll see it at full length, if you want). That game was incredibly short; once you're good at it, under a half hour of gameplay. Granted, games could have extended gameplay if they were that much fun to play through repeatedly, but that's true today as well.

Whether or not they're getting easier... I don't know if any of us could really measure that. I mean, sure, now I beat games in a matter of days (or sometimes hours, for shorter games) whereas it used to take weeks or months. However, I've been playing video games now for over two decades - if I hadn't gotten better at them in general by now, I'd have some sort of severe cognitive disorder. The only way I could think of testing this hyopthesis would be to sit down relative newcomers to video games and have them play through various games of different time periods, and see which they find harder.

Vancaeyzeele @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

I replayed some games of the NES-era. Now i can say that when i was a kid these games were difficult yet now i play trough them in under an hour.

The main problem is the interaction basics. Almost every game lately is based upon shooting. Now if you would have had a sword in the same situation it would require more insight then hiding behind a corner or riding a truc while shooting.

Everyone knows that shooting is a lame way of fighting. Every cop has one, so does every criminal. And that has a reason, it's fast, easy and effective.

What we need to see more is sword fighting(zelda), close distant fighting(PD) and really clever puzzels.(most puzzles of today require the insame low amount of brains that mostly mice are able to test-drive games back in their labs...)

J @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM

#21. I completely agree. Most of my Nintendo games were easily beaten when I dusted off the NES recently. I remember them being insanely difficult when I was 7 or 8 but now they're just simple. Even the greatest game ever: River City Ransom, got much easier and boring than I remember it.