Poll of the Day > Games aren't easier, just more functional.

(+) Yeah! (+)

So I'll confess that I used to be that guy... ranting and raving about how spoiled these kids are... and that they didn't know challenge until they knew the name Jacquio... that these chump kids would get devoured by any edition of Immortal... and that even the small lot of hipsters that thought they were tough shit for making progress in Contra III would get bodied by Contra Hardcorps (the NA version where you die in one hit, not the wussified JP version)... 'til I went back and replayed Immortal and discovered... hey, this is a broken mess... and revisited many older games after. It's easy to lose track of just how much of a mess most fighting games were before Street Fighter 3 taught them how to do it right.

Devs have a better grasp on how a controller should work, balance is better established as a concept, response is finer-tuned, physics are better understood, level design and game design aren't as experimental... might 'feel' easier as a result, but the games just actually work now.
---

Press x to skip this topic
---

x
---

I could see having this mindset for some games, but not all. I mean stuff like Super Meat Boy, Cuphead and Darksouls proves that modern game can me more difficult. However when you look at most AAA games it is obvious that they aren't creating a game, just telling a story and adding some "gameplay" to try and keep people interested. In that sense, those game have certainly gotten a lot easier.
---

Games have gotten easier. Ever since they moved away from the arcade mentality designed to eat quarters.
---

I think there are many valid complaints as to why modern games are easier, but some of it is just a matter of the size and scope. It's a necessity to have saving, and by the same logic, permanent game overs would be awful. Old games could get away with that stuff when they were shorter. If those old games had saving and more generous checkpoints/continues, I'm sure we'd find them a lot easier too.

SteamedHams posted...

I think there are many valid complaints as to why modern games are easier, but some of it is just a matter of the size and scope. It's a necessity to have saving, and by the same logic, permanent game overs would be awful. Old games could get away with that stuff when they were shorter. If those old games had saving and more generous checkpoints/continues, I'm sure we'd find them a lot easier too.

I'd actually bundle that in with game design.

I know there's exceptions like modern roguelikes where they maintain faithfulness to the genre by having perma-deaths - and give leeway to those; but most of the time that and/or long sprints of being able to save go with deprecated/poor game design. Phantasy Star II on Sega Genesis for example, feels like an incredibly difficult game just because of it's slow pacing, convoluted menu navigation/inventory management and balance issues... those still exist in the PSP/PS3/X360 Emulations in it's collections, but they're said to feel significantly easier just because we're allowed to save anywhere instead of having to play through a huge chunk to get the Visiphone.

Or we can look at the difference between Final Fantasy I on NES and the 'refreshed' version we see at the core of the GBA/PSP/Mobile versions of FF1. The older version feels harder because of a horrible design choice where attacking picked a slot (so that turns would be wasted), and a rather senseless magic system would allow someone who wasn't able to cast a low-level fire spell to somehow have enough energy to cast a high-level fire spell (amongst many other things... that doesn't even touch all the problems the original FF on NES had). Simply balancing that out and systematically improving the game with faster-paced battles, faster movement options and a more sensible magic system made many think it was easier when really... it just works better.
---

SteamedHams posted...

I think there are many valid complaints as to why modern games are easier, but some of it is just a matter of the size and scope. It's a necessity to have saving, and by the same logic, permanent game overs would be awful. Old games could get away with that stuff when they were shorter. If those old games had saving and more generous checkpoints/continues, I'm sure we'd find them a lot easier too.

I don't even think that is a problem because PC games in the early 90's started having "save whenever you want" functionality and some of them are still incredibly tough even with save scumming. A level in Doom Nightmare mode is still going to take you hours to get through the first time even if you are saving every time you kill a monster and loading when you take a hit.
---

While I don't argue that tons of functional improvements have made games easier that would have only been harder due to poorer design and user interface (hardware and software), design philosophy has also trended toward easier games regardless. Developers have said as much, either overtly or if you read between the lines.
---

TLR_ posted...

SteamedHams posted...

I think there are many valid complaints as to why modern games are easier, but some of it is just a matter of the size and scope. It's a necessity to have saving, and by the same logic, permanent game overs would be awful. Old games could get away with that stuff when they were shorter. If those old games had saving and more generous checkpoints/continues, I'm sure we'd find them a lot easier too.

I'd actually bundle that in with game design.

I know there's exceptions like modern roguelikes where they maintain faithfulness to the genre by having perma-deaths - and give leeway to those; but most of the time that and/or long sprints of being able to save go with deprecated/poor game design. Phantasy Star II on Sega Genesis for example, feels like an incredibly difficult game just because of it's slow pacing, convoluted menu navigation/inventory management and balance issues... those still exist in the PSP/PS3/X360 Emulations in it's collections, but they're said to feel significantly easier just because we're allowed to save anywhere instead of having to play through a huge chunk to get the Visiphone.

Or we can look at the difference between Final Fantasy I on NES and the 'refreshed' version we see at the core of the GBA/PSP/Mobile versions of FF1. The older version feels harder because of a horrible design choice where attacking picked a slot (so that turns would be wasted), and a rather senseless magic system would allow someone who wasn't able to cast a low-level fire spell to somehow have enough energy to cast a high-level fire spell (amongst many other things... that doesn't even touch all the problems the original FF on NES had). Simply balancing that out and systematically improving the game with faster-paced battles, faster movement options and a more sensible magic system made many think it was easier when really... it just works better.

It literally was made easier. The original had higher monster encounter rate.
---