Gaming has become too casual

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#102 Edited by Maroxad (10347 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

There has been difficulty settings to adjust to ones preferred game in almost every game I've played.

Difficutly does not magically un dumb down games though... and even then, the highest difficulty settings are usually too easy anyways.

Modern AAA WRPGs can be generalized like this (there are naturally exceptions)

  • Full health and mana after each fight
  • Mana is plentiful and abundant, but may stop excessive spamming
  • No penalty for dying, press A to resurrect dead party member.
  • Threat, meaning that the monsters will only ever attack the target the player wants them to attack
  • Buffs are either non existant or irrelevant
  • Level scaling, so players can go anywhere without any fear of gettting killed. BieberWare games are particulary bad when it comes to this.
  • Plot may encourage urgency, but this is in no way expressed in the gameplay. Players can dillydally for 5 years when they were told to meet the emperor's son NOW!
  • Only skill checks will be press blue or red dialogue option to win conversation.
  • Only 3 classes or styles: Magic, Melee and stealth/archery.
  • No attributes, only skills and/or perks.

The Dark Savant trilogy can be summarized like this

  • Healing is done with potions and healing spells, mana slowly regenerates out of combat, faster if resting.
  • Spellcasting comes from 4 schools and 6 elements. Each individual element has its own mana pool. So at one point I may have 6 Earth MP and 3 Fire MP. This (combined with the fact that every spell in the game is useful) results in that the 5 dedicated spellcasting classes end up casting more than just 1 spell type each battle.
  • Dead party members can only be resurrected with expensive resurrection spells. Characters resurrected permanently lose 1 point of vitality. Characters who get stoned may very well lose 2 vit from the ordeal. Characters with no vit left can not be resurrected and are permadead.
  • The front line are more prone to being attacked, but those behind are in no way safe. In the final entry of the trilogy, foes attacking the player from the behind would frequently target the mages, priests and other squishy characters.
  • Buffing and debuffing is in my honest opinoin far more useful than most attack spells. Bards are easily one of the best classes in the trilogy.
  • Level scaling only exists in the third entry, and each zone still has a minimum level. You will end up fighting creatures several levels stronger than you.
  • There is definately a sense of urgency in the trilogy. As characters rest and time flows, your characters get older, once characters get old enough, they permadie.
  • Plenty of skill checks, for diplomacy, swimming, searching for secrets, identifying items, identifying monsters, climbing, stealing, disarming traps, unlocking doors. Characters with less than 10 points into the skimming skill instantly drown when they jump into water.
  • There are 14 classes in the first 2 games, 15 in the final game. These classes all have their own quirks and mechanics to justify their existnace. The thief is best at stealing, but not so good at combat, the bard can buff and debuff without spending any mana, monks and ninjas can instantly kill, alchemists have superb buffs and debuff spells and can cast even when silenced and brew potions when resting, valkyries can cheat death, gadgeteers can combine items into powerful new items, and the list goes on.
  • 7-8 attributes dephending on the game. These attributes affect multiple lesser statistics (Vitality affects more than just HP, ect), as well as what classes are available to the character.

Changing the difficulty will not magically alter the game this much to be more like The Dark Savant trilogy. The problem is the lack of complexity.

#103 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (8622 posts) -

@locopatho said:

Games used to be more broken, unintuitive, awkward, glitchy, unfair, padded or flawed on some other way. People back then took pride in overcoming that crap. And now they get pissed off that modern gamers actually get smooth, polished, sensible, logical games, designed purely for joy and pleasure, complete with tutorial systems to teach how to play, save systems to avoid losing progress, and without the old archaic bullshit. And those angry nerds go fucking ballistic about it!

Oh NES Zelda, where you have to burn 100's of bushes before you find the ONE RANDOM one that actually burns away and leads you somewhere! So hardcore!

Oh Super Mario Bros 3, where I can die on the final boss and have to repeat the entire game because I'm out of lives. How awesome!

Or third person shooters before cover systems, you have to awkwardly shuffle sideways out from and back behind walls/columns! So difficult to master!

Or action adventure games with random respawning foes. Where they could literally respawn beneath you as you fall from the sky. How fun!

Or JRPGs where have to grind for multiple hours between each dungeon or else get destroyed. What a great way to extend gameplay time!

This is not even to mention clunky controls, bad camera angles, long loading times, punishing lack of save systems/check points, and all the other baggage older games have. Not to dismiss them completely obviously, but take off the fucking nostalgia goggles.

Games are just more enjoyable these days for the vast majority of people. Including me. Older games could be great for their time but looking back at most NES, or PS1 games, how do they hold up to modern 2D and 3D games being released every day? I'll take the Last Of Us over any third person shooter or action adventure from the 90s. Why? Because in addition to it's great story, beautiful graphics, sweet online gameplay, extra extended DLC content, and fun as hell trophies, it's GAMEPLAY fucking trounces anything from back then. What PS1 game (for example) are you putting up against the Last Of Us, if it's so shit?

(Last Of Us just an example. Stick another highly acclaimed modern game in there and try stick a PS1 or N64 game against it, if that works for you better.

I agree with this. I don't think your SMB3 comment is accurate, though. Didn't you just start at the last castle you beat whenever you ran out of lives?

#104 Posted by Heil68 (54533 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

@Heil68 said:

There has been difficulty settings to adjust to ones preferred game in almost every game I've played.

Difficutly does not magically un dumb down games though... and even then, the highest difficulty settings are usually too easy anyways.

Modern AAA WRPGs can be generalized like this (there are naturally exceptions)

  • Full health and mana after each fight
  • Mana is plentiful and abundant, but may stop excessive spamming
  • No penalty for dying, press A to resurrect dead party member.
  • Threat, meaning that the monsters will only ever attack the target the player wants them to attack
  • Buffs are either non existant or irrelevant
  • Level scaling, so players can go anywhere without any fear of gettting killed. BieberWare games are particulary bad when it comes to this.
  • Plot may encourage urgency, but this is in no way expressed in the gameplay. Players can dillydally for 5 years when they were told to meet the emperor's son NOW!
  • Only skill checks will be press blue or red dialogue option to win conversation.
  • Only 3 classes or styles: Magic, Melee and stealth/archery.

The Dark Savant trilogy can be summarized like this

  • Healing is done with potions and healing spells, mana slowly regenerates out of combat, faster if resting.
  • Spellcasting comes from 4 schools and 6 elements. Each individual element has its own mana pool. So at one point I may have 6 Earth MP and 3 Fire MP. This (combined with the fact that every spell in the game is useful) results in that the 5 dedicated spellcasting classes end up casting more than just 1 spell type each battle.
  • Dead party members can only be resurrected with expensive resurrection spells. Characters resurrected permanently lose 1 point of vitality. Characters who get stoned may very well lose 2 vit from the ordeal. Characters with no vit left can not be resurrected and are permadead.
  • The front line are more prone to being attacked, but those behind are in no way safe. In the final entry of the trilogy, foes attacking the player from the behind would frequently target the mages, priests and other squishy characters.
  • Buffing and debuffing is in my honest opinoin far more useful than most attack spells. Bards are easily one of the best classes in the trilogy.
  • Level scaling only exists in the third entry, and each zone still has a minimum level. You will end up fighting creatures several levels stronger than you.
  • There is definately a sense of urgency in the trilogy. As characters rest and time flows, your characters get older, once characters get old enough, they permadie.
  • Plenty of skill checks, for diplomacy, swimming, searching for secrets, identifying items, identifying monsters, climbing, stealing, disarming traps, unlocking doors. Characters with less than 10 points into the skimming skill instantly drown when they jump into water.
  • There are 14 classes in the first 2 games, 15 in the final game. These classes all have their own quirks and mechanics to justify their existnace. The thief is best at stealing, but not so good at combat, the bard can buff and debuff without spending any mana, monks and ninjas can instantly kill, alchemists have superb buffs and debuff spells and can cast even when silenced and brew potions when resting, valkyries can cheat death, gadgeteers can combine items into powerful new items, and the list goes on.

Changing the difficulty will not magically alter the game this much to be more like The Dark Savant trilogy. The problem is the lack of complexity.

Guess it's time to change hobby's or be uber picky what games you play. Maybe try Hearts of Iron 3 on PC to satisfy you.

#105 Posted by musicalmac (24460 posts) -

I like the variety we've got on our hands now, much of it the result of ultra-available mobile gaming revolution. Did you know even Bioshock is being remade for iOS?

#106 Edited by Maroxad (10347 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

Guess it's time to change hobby's or be uber picky what games you play. Maybe try Hearts of Iron 3 on PC to satisfy you.

No need to be uber picky anymore. Plenty of games that dont feel like dumbed down games trying to movies. I can just ignore the blight (BioWare, most of Sony's studios, ect), and focus on devs who still realize that gaming is about games.

#107 Posted by Heil68 (54533 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

@Heil68 said:

Guess it's time to change hobby's or be uber picky what games you play. Maybe try Hearts of Iron 3 on PC to satisfy you.

No need to be uber picky anymore. Plenty of games that dont feel like dumbed down games trying to movies. I can just ignore the blight (BioWare, most of Sony's studios, ect), and focus on devs who still realize that gaming is about games.

Well there you go! Now THATS the spirit!

#108 Posted by clone01 (26008 posts) -

Nah.

#109 Edited by ni6htmare01 (1758 posts) -

I thought that causal gaming are those mobile gaming that people play when they commute to work or school!

#110 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6256 posts) -

"I don't always play casual games, but when I do, I prefer consoles.
Stay thirsty my friends." - Dos Equis Man

Seriously tho, I don't always feel like learning 30 key commands in every game and have trouble finding a key to map "lean left" and "lean right," I'd much rather have the game do the leaning for me with sticky cover and these days I'm much too lazy to go searching around 50 containers for a health kit.

Becoming somewhat ADD with games is just part of getting older.

#111 Posted by locopatho (22158 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

I agree with this. I don't think your SMB3 comment is accurate, though. Didn't you just start at the last castle you beat whenever you ran out of lives?

Maybe? Am I thinking of the Lost Levels?

I play the noobified (more fun) All Stars versions, that do have checkpoints :P

#112 Posted by happyduds77 (1688 posts) -

Retro games are objectively inferior to games now days.

#113 Edited by nini200 (11468 posts) -

The irony of this thread is that it's the Hardcore gamers that buy all the DLC and stuff.

Casual gamers are not to blame for gaming's focus now, Hardcore gamers are the idiots that proved to Microsoft that they would pay twice to play online, pay for unfinished games and were willing to pay to have the removed content added back into the game after release and they are the same ones that are proving to Sony and Microsoft that they are willing to accept DRM.

They are the same people who keep buying those Blockbuster titles and acting like those games are the second coming of Christ. you can't blame Casual gamers for the way gaming is now, that's solely the Hardcore Gamer's fault.

#114 Posted by locopatho (22158 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@farrell2k said:

Yep, and The Last of Us is the best example. "Play" a 25 minute movie, walk around in a linear corridor, play another movie, ad infinitum.

Yep sounds like you haven't played it.

I played just about the first half hour on the ps3, which was basically a frickin' movie, then got bored to tears waking up 20 years after my daughter died of a gunshot to the stomach. Some skank woke me up pounding on my door and we walked around the apartment building. At this point, I almost feel asleep myself. Boring to the point of ridiculousness that game is.

Lol. That's so sad. Not every game has to be instant action you know. It's ok to build up to it. It's called pacing and atmosphere.

Look at Baldur's Gate, one of the most beloved RPGs ever. Yet you spent the first hour or more wandering around a library, killing rats, returning books to old women and giving antidotes to cows. It's dull. The whole POINT of that dullness, is to make it all the more shattering when your are forced to flee that existence by a savage attacker. It's similar in Last Of Us. If you just switch your brain off and wilfully hate the game from the off, of course you won't enjoy it. You have to give it a chance.

If you'd stuck it out you'd have experienced some of the most intense and rewarding gameplay of the 7th gen, to say nothing of the story.

#115 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (3332 posts) -

Hitman, Max Payne, Tomb Raider, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Metal Gear Solid, those are games that are all downgraded for casual gamers

#116 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (19472 posts) -

There's room for all games. I was a flight sim aficionado then. I still am now. I don't mind having "casual" games alongside my favorite genres.

#117 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (3332 posts) -

and how Sony fanboys would react if Dark Soul sequel was casual like Final Fantasy XIII or STALKER becomes easy like Call of Duty.

Funny how console fanboys says that casual is okay, and yet they would complained if Dark Soul sequel was easiest game ever. STUPID PEOPLE ARE IIN HERE !!!!

#118 Edited by Maroxad (10347 posts) -

@locopatho said:

Lol. That's so sad. Not every game has to be instant action you know. It's ok to build up to it. It's called pacing and atmosphere.

Look at Baldur's Gate, one of the most beloved RPGs ever. Yet you spent the first hour or more wandering around a library, killing rats, returning books to old women and giving antidotes to cows. It's dull. The whole POINT of that dullness, is to make it all the more shattering when your are forced to flee that existence by a savage attacker. It's similar in Last Of Us. If you just switch your brain off and wilfully hate the game from the off, of course you won't enjoy it. You have to give it a chance.

If you'd stuck it out you'd have experienced some of the most intense and rewarding gameplay of the 7th gen, to say nothing of the story.

Bad pacing is bad pacing, no matter how you spin it.

Baldur's Gate 1 sucks anyway, the intro was just a sign of the blandness to come, Baldur's Gate 2 on the other hand was incredible.

#119 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (27948 posts) -

It's called "Accessibility to a New Audience."

#120 Posted by locopatho (22158 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

@locopatho said:

Lol. That's so sad. Not every game has to be instant action you know. It's ok to build up to it. It's called pacing and atmosphere.

Look at Baldur's Gate, one of the most beloved RPGs ever. Yet you spent the first hour or more wandering around a library, killing rats, returning books to old women and giving antidotes to cows. It's dull. The whole POINT of that dullness, is to make it all the more shattering when your are forced to flee that existence by a savage attacker. It's similar in Last Of Us. If you just switch your brain off and wilfully hate the game from the off, of course you won't enjoy it. You have to give it a chance.

If you'd stuck it out you'd have experienced some of the most intense and rewarding gameplay of the 7th gen, to say nothing of the story.

Bad pacing is bad pacing, no matter how you spin it.

Baldur's Gate 1 sucks anyway, the intro was just a sign of the blandness to come, Baldur's Gate 2 on the other hand was incredible.

Slow != bad. If you can't appreciate a slow burn to a story, I genuinely pity you. It makes subsequent events more meaningful.

Bg doesn't suck, obviously. It's like saying Portal, Dark Souls or Mario Galaxy sucks. Have your opinion, sure, but... no :P