Do you think videogames will ever be as good as in the 80's and 90's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

Biggest problem with games today is that they have to be very mainstream to appeal to as many people as possible to have good sales. That means throwing difficulty in the trash can, so little school boys won't start smashing their poor consoles to pieces and rage quit afterwards.

---

Considering that over 70% of video games today offer several levels of difficulty for you to choose from, higher ones being indeed hard, I find your statement rather funny. If you need to smash your console/controler over a measly game it usually means the game itself is not really fun, and if you recall controllers were smashed often back in the day, although I have to agree, kids today have far less patience and tolerance

Quote:

---

That also means the games have to be way more linear and have unnecessarily big amount of cut scenes to glue it all nicely.

---

In a day and age when more and more developers are leaning towards sandbox approach, offer more content next to singleplayer campaign, to call video games linear is downright stupid. As for the cutscenes, you do realize you play Final Fantasy.

Quote:

---

Big companies are too greedy nowadays to allow games to be creative and good. It's all about stapling as many games as possible and making as many sales as possible. If it ain't mainstream, it doesn't bounce.

---

Remember Nintendo vs Sega (vs Atari, lol) = purely due to money. Remember all those shity consoles, useless add ones (goddamn we had more of these than we have today) and tons of shitty games = money again. For God's sake Nintendo ditched Sony all due to few bobs, and we already established video games were milked huge back then. In other words, companies have always been too greedy, it's another thing entirely you either don't remember or don't want to.

Quote:

---

One good example is Borderlands 2. Devs promised way more guns, but what did they do? Made less varieties, less backpack and bank space. Why? Because the consoles would start glitching because of less ram than pc's. Forget about innovation or making something better. Market dictates everything. If the game will suffer on consoles, then the pc version will have to be crappy as well.

---

Yes, lets forget all those things they actually improved over Borderlands, which would be nearly everything. I actually agree with you on PC vs consoles part, it's all due to consoles PC gets huge amount of shitty ports.

I really don't get what you mean by many games taking a sandbox approach. Open world? The only open world games there out there are Bethesda ones, FarCry, Stalker,what else? Can't remember. Maybe ME, haven't played it. If you see how many of those games there are vs the linear campaign ones, then I think you've got a very bad idea about sandbox games being on the rise. Yes, linear shovelware has always made up about 90% of the games, but the thing is that more of the good games are becoming more linear and mainstream nowadays.

Present console market has made a big impact on this as well. Games have to be simple enough not to be too taxing on performance and not too hard for the general masses. Maybe when the consoles improve, we'll see quality of games increasing more, but with 5 year old consoles trying to run games that "match" modern PC standarts is bs. This is why devs at GBX are moaning and bitching about even adding more backpack slots, because the memory of the XBox is too low. How pathetic is that? Pretty damn pathetic. And also as a bonus, we PC gamers have to suffer because of this as well.

P.S.: Sorry about mentioning the cut scenes. I was vastly over exaggerating there.

Also, don't want to derail the subject further, but if you go to Borderlands 2 forums you'll see how people complain about the not oh so improved gun system. Yes, the game is very good and is a big improvement in many ways over BL1, offers alot of fun, but the gun system is not really what people had expected. There may be abit more gun part combos, but gun stat variety and feel is way more limited. Won't babble about this more, just visit the forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

I really don't get what you mean by many games taking a sandbox approach. Open world? The only open world games there out there are Bethesda ones, FarCry, Stalker,what else? Can't remember. Maybe ME, haven't played it.

---

Pretty much every WRPG out there (likes of Fallout 3 & New Vegas, TES series, Gothic series Dragon Age Origins, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, Fable...), some JRPG's (Xenoblade Chronicles, Final Fantasy XII, Dragons Dogma, Dark Souls...), action adventure games (Assassins Creed series, Infamous, Batman: Arkham City, The Amazing Spider-Man, Prototype...), even FPS (Borderlands, Rage, FarCry...) and who can forget games such as Red Dead Redemption, GTA series, Saints Row, Mafia... in other words way more with each passing day.

Quote:

---

If you see how many of those games there are vs the linear campaign ones, then I think you've got a very bad idea about sandbox games being on the rise. Yes, linear shovelware has always made up about 90% of the games, but the thing is that more of the good games are becoming more linear and mainstream nowadays.

---

Difference between linear games now and back then is shit load of content you can unlock along the way, meaning it may be a linear game, though it offers more than enough additional content to get you distracted.

Quote:

---

Present console market has made a big impact on this as well. Games have to be simple enough not to be too taxing on performance and not too hard for the general masses. Maybe when the consoles improve, we'll see quality of games increasing more, but with 5 year old consoles trying to run games that "match" modern PC standarts is bs. This is why devs at GBX are moaning and bitching about even adding more backpack slots, because the memory of the XBox is too low. How pathetic is that? Pretty damn pathetic. And also as a bonus, we PC gamers have to suffer because of this as well.

---

Honest to God, you sound like a major PC elitist douche, and this comes from a huge PC gamer. Graphics wise, cu rent consoles do hold video game progression, but that's about it.

Quote:

---

Also, don't want to derail the subject further, but if you go to Borderlands 2 forums you'll see how people complain about the not oh so improved gun system. Yes, the game is very good and is a big improvement in many ways over BL1, offers alot of fun, but the gun system is not really what people had expected. There may be abit more gun part combos, but gun stat variety and feel is way more limited. Won't babble about this more, just visit the forums.

---

In other words, it's a teriffic game with one, I honestly don't know if I should even call it an issue, ergo let's slam it. Honestly how do you people enjoy games anymore.

Care to explain what you don't like about my summary of the console lagging by 5 years and how that effects games analysis? Just because I find it to be a negative thing, doesn't mean I'm a full blown PC rub it in your face elitist who's out to diss your console fanboyism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

Care to explain what you don't like about my summary of the console lagging by 5 years and how that effects games analysis? Just because I find it to be a negative thing, doesn't mean I'm a full blown PC rub it in your face elitist who's out to diss your console fanboyism.

---

Console fanboyism? I don't even own any of the newer consoles.

If you look solely at the PC platform then perhaps, PC does get occasional bad ports which I already mentioned. If you count every platform as every normal person should do then your statement is flawed, consoles do lag as far as graphics go which again, I already mentioned, but graphics have minimal impact on overall quality and we do get tons of truly great games each year.

Now, if you would be kind enough to elaborate how current consoles hinder overall video game quality rather than just compared to PC that would be splendid. Also, you forgot to defend your other points, or you've just given upon on them,

The only point I don't agree with is the sandbox games. Ok, first about those sandbox games, there's only a handful of them. Second they are not that content rich or rewarding as they should be. Open worlds need sacrifice - variety. Simply because the more different objects you have, the more ram and resources you need to use to draw them. With same objects, you don't have to tax the system as much. You see that in all Bethesda games, from Oblivion to FO3 and Skyrim. Same textures, terrains and maps reused with no real uniqueness in design. Sure, not all games you mentioned are like Bethesda and some are really nice, but still. That's just a handful. What you said is that everyone is taking this sandbox approach. I really don't see that happening on such a scale.

How do consoles hinder overall quality? When you have 2 games for both consoles and PC, it gets scaled to the console limitations and not PC's and with console hardware, alot of content needs to be cut. BL2 with backpack space and not giving us way more gun variety is one example. Also, what I just mentioned about same, recycled content in sandbox games with pretty much empty type of content and variety is another example of what consoles have done to PC games. Nowadays games always try to be both for consoles and PC's. It's all about raking in as much money as possible on as big of a scale as possible. PC exclusive games are on the fall. That means, more of the console type games for us, PC gamers.

Even FF13 has become too linear and lost it's charm of having a big world map with many towns as places to explore.

I've done 120% of Banjo Kazooie, flying is basic part of the game. Unless you're talking about the in game cheats where it's like Full my Red Feathers back up to Max. Those aren't even cheats. They are just things you learn way way way later in the game to add to your arsenal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

The only point I don't agree with is the sandbox games. Ok, first about those sandbox games, there's only a handful of them. Second they are not that content rich or rewarding as they should be. Open worlds need sacrifice - variety. Simply because the more different objects you have, the more ram and resources you need to use to draw them. With same objects, you don't have to tax the system as much. You see that in all Bethesda games, from Oblivion to FO3 and Skyrim. Same textures, terrains and maps reused with no real uniqueness in design. Sure, not all games you mentioned are like Bethesda and some are really nice, but still. That's just a handful. What you said is that everyone is taking this sandbox approach. I really don't see that happening on such a scale.

---

Everyone? As far as I recall I said and I quote "more and more (unless more and more means everyone these days) developers are leaning towards sandbox approach (not necessarily full sandbox games)", second part of my sentence is even better "and offer more content next to singleplayer campaign", which goes for "linear" games as well.

Quote:

---

How do consoles hinder overall quality? When you have 2 games for both consoles and PC, it gets scaled to the console limitations and not PC's and with console hardware, alot of content needs to be cut. BL2 with backpack space and not giving us way more gun variety is one example. Also, what I just mentioned about same, recycled content in sandbox games with pretty much empty type of content and variety is another example of what consoles have done to PC games. Nowadays games always try to be both for consoles and PC's. It's all about raking in as much money as possible on as big of a scale as possible. PC exclusive games are on the fall. That means, more of the console type games for us, PC gamers.

---

Again with Borderlands 2, after all those improvements they made you still go back to that one point, do you have any idea how petty that makes you sound. Saddest part though, it's not even an issue of console limitation as you are so eager to claim, Borderlands 2 is what, 5-6 GB tops on every platform (disc size of course), meaning there was more than enough space left to add more gun variety... in other words, it's not really about consoles as much as it's a developers "fault". Something as trivial and minor as backspace issue (which in truth is a matter of developers choice) is a consoles fault as well, dumbest ****ing shit I heard/read in a long, long time (imagine blaming PC for Diablo's backspace issue, lol).

Quote:

---

Even FF13 has become too linear and lost it's charm of having a big world map with many towns as places to explore.

---

One game became too linear (and it's not like others offered much of a freedom considering you were pretty much blocked in a rather cheap ways until you eventually progress with the main story, except for XII which ironically was slammed for by many fans), ergo all games are becoming more linear, lets just forget all those games uncle Xanatos mentioned and more. Well, since games are more linear today what exactly made games less linear back in the day, and fell free to to back up your words with at least dozen of examples (some variety, please).

If you add something like more than 100 backpack slots on a consoles, the menu starts lagging. I didn't make that up. Anyways, maybe the gun system doesn't require that much memory to spawn guns, but I think it does have to think harder, the more parts there are to choose from. That I can't really say, but I don't see why they promised us a bazillion more guns in BL2, but gave us pretty much a cut version of BL1 gun system. They cut alot of parts and combos as well. Why did that do that? Why does every gun have to feel pretty much the same? Why do all purples have to always be very good and all legendaries pretty much always have to be kick ass? That's not very rpg'ish. Purples, legendaries and blues should've had variety, as in usefulness variety. There should've been good and bad of each category and only a few perfect combos should've been really awesome. That would've added alot of depth. What players have to find now is mostly greens, some blues and very few purples. No depth whatsoever. Maybe I'm wrong here, but maybe the loot generation process can't allow adding more parts or the game will start thinking for too long and glitch, especially on the consoles. Yeah, I shouldn't have really used this as an example, if I don't know that much about programming.

Anyways, won't go much into how PC games get scaled to consoles, they just do. Noone wants to remake the same game twice. Devs first always make console games and only then PC ones. Also console games yield most profit. Yeah, that last word says it all. What does this have to do with the topic? People become spoiled, want games to be for everyone and make them alot easier, shorter and less rewarding. And the sad part is that it's the publishers who get the calls. Devs just do what they're told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

If you add something like more than 100 backpack slots on a consoles, the menu starts lagging. I didn't make that up. Anyways, maybe the gun system doesn't require that much memory to spawn guns, but I think it does have to think harder, the more parts there are to choose from. That I can't really say, but I don't see why they promised us a bazillion more guns in BL2, but gave us pretty much a cut version of BL1 gun system. They cut alot of parts and combos as well. Why did that do that? Why does every gun have to feel pretty much the same? Why do all purples have to always be very good and all legendaries pretty much always have to be kick ass? That's not very rpg'ish. Purples, legendaries and blues should've had variety, as in usefulness variety. There should've been good and bad of each category and only a few perfect combos should've been really awesome. That would've added alot of depth. What players have to find now is mostly greens, some blues and very few purples. No depth whatsoever. Maybe I'm wrong here, but maybe the loot generation process can't allow adding more parts or the game will start thinking for too long and glitch, especially on the consoles. Yeah, I shouldn't have really used this as an example, if I don't know that much about programming.

---

Look at the visual variety of weapons in Skyrim, and not just weapons, equipment and overall loot as well... add to that massive backpack and your personal chests to stash that all in (plus, Skyrim's several times bigger to begin with) which again means it's not an issue of a console limitation, though for some strange reason you're willing to stick to it.

The same way Bioware promised our choices and war assets would matter, 16 different endings, more engaging sidequest... what this means my naive friend... developers lie! Instead you actually blame consoles for something as minor as more backpack space.

Quote:

---

People become spoiled, want games to be for everyone and make them alot easier, shorter and less rewarding.

---

I'll repeat myself once again, this time I would like for you to at least try to prove me wrong. Easier? Over 70% of video games today offer several levels of difficulty for you to chose from (higher ones being indeed hard), meaning it's as easy or hard as you make it out to be. Shorter? Fluffy addressed this earlier in this thread, long story short seeing as video games in general offer a lot more of content today, in most cases you add multiplayer to that, I honestly don't see how video games are in any way shorter (do care to explain?). As for your last point, I'm pretty sure "sense of reward" differs from player to player.

Every month, a new video games shows us that consoles are always holding back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanatos

I'll repeat myself once again, this time I would like for you to at least try to prove me wrong. Easier? Over 70% of video games today offer several levels of difficulty for you to chose from (higher ones being indeed hard), meaning it's as easy or hard as you make it out to be.

---

And? That's probably why alot of people are complaining the games aren't as hardcore as oldschool ones. Difficulty means shit if games are still easy and linear even on hardest difficulties. Proof? The internet is the proof. Go and do some research. Sorry if I come off as abit angry, but I'm sick of people defending consoles and modern games like they're some paid M$ agents and lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

And? That's probably why alot of people are complaining the games aren't as hardcore as oldschool ones. Difficulty means shit if games are still easy and linear even on hardest difficulties. Proof? The internet is the proof. Go and do some research. Sorry if I come off as abit angry, but I'm sick of people defending consoles and modern games like they're some paid M$ agents and lawyers.

---

The point he is trying to make is that people choose a relatively easy difficulty such as normal, when they are familiar with the genre and then complain about difficulty. This is usually 90% of reviews and people complaining about the game.
Catherine had to be toned down for the US release because even Japanese gamers had extreme troubles with the hard mode. Diablo 3's inferno mode was also toned down because of scrutiny that it was too hard.
The statement that games aren't hard doesn't hold up.
Linearity has nothing to do with difficulty. Super Meat Boy and The Impossible Game are extremely hard and it's just a single path.

Sure Consoles hold back developers, but it's not by a dramatic scale that games could be some uber godly game that would make people cringe that they use to play on consoles. For a 5 year old consoles they are holding up extremely well compared to current gen PC's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

And?

---

Attachment 22581

Quote:

---

That's probably why alot of people are complaining the games aren't as hardcore as oldschool ones.

---

First there was a lack of hard games (which is not true, remember the hard/nightmare option most games give you), now games aren't as hardcore as oldschool ones... ah, the ever changing Odin1199. Wanna know why oldschool games were hard just for the sake of being hard? Well, according to Shigeru Miyamoto himself, because otherwise games would be way too short (apparently one of your biggest nightmares), and we don't have such an issue today, do we.

Quote:

---

Proof? The internet is the proof. Go and do some research.

---

Research about what? That I can make games more challenging if I simply choose higher difficulty, I don't need internet to tell me that.

Quote:

---

Difficulty means shit if games are still easy and linear even on hardest difficulties.

---

If it's linear to begin with it will still be linear no matter the difficulty... lol.

Quote:

---

but I'm sick of people defending consoles and modern games like they're some paid M$ agents and lawyers.

---

The same way I'm sick of people with their nostalgia glasses on constantly bitching on everything new, you know, the likes of you... no wait, I have to add "and also make rather lame, easily debunked points" to fit you into that description entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanatos

Wanna know why oldschool games were hard just for the sake of being hard? Well, according to Shigeru Miyamoto himself, because otherwise games would be way too short

---

Yeah, good point. All games would be short if they were too easy. But since they were more designed to be harder, they were generally harder. Planning to make the game hard in the first place and making the game first, then thinking on how to add difficulty is not the same, imo. Sometimes difficulty requires alot of rebalancing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

Yeah, good point. All games would be short if they were too easy. But since they were more designed to be harder, they were generally harder. Planning to make the game hard in the first place and making the game first, then thinking on how to add difficulty is not the same, imo. Sometimes difficulty requires alot of rebalancing.

---

That's not my point you stupid ****, nor was Miyamotos's, can't you read for God's sake. Games were Über hard back in the day for one simple reason, they had to be. Games back then were short and linear as it gets, meaning higher difficulty was there solely to prolong your time with such game, developers don't have to deal with such issues today, and that's what Miyamoto was referring to. I'm done being a nice guy, I honestly can't believe I'm discussing games with ignorant person such as yourself.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma...xmfmo1_500.gif

.....where is the love.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanatos

Games were Über hard back in the day

---

No they weren't all Uber hard and no they weren't all short either. Stop taking things so literally and grow the **** up. And like I said, all gams are short if they're too easy. Besides, what he said applies more to the 80's than the 90's anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

No they weren't all Uber hard and no they weren't all short either. Stop taking things so literally and grow the **** up.

---

Never said all of them were... a person who blames consoles for a silly thing such as lack of backspace in a game, a person who thinks difficulty has something to do with linearity, a person who failed to back up each and every one of his points is telling me to grow up... sir, I'm truly insulted.

Quote:

---

And like I said, all gams are short if they're too easy.

---

Skyrim's too easy if you set it's difficulty to novice, you can still easily clock 200 hours into it. I found AC games to be rather easy, I still had over 20 hours in each entrie. Almost every Pokemon game is too easy... long story short, your point sucks big time (nothing new).

I'm not even gonna reply to your pathetic defense that all console games nowadays have a difficulty setting. No they don't, all of them. Using that to justify difficulty is wrong. As if games in the past didn't have those. Also, try to come up with something constructive and don't just try to argue with everyone who agrees with OP, cos that's what you seem to mostly be doing, judging from your posts. That kind of asshatery is not productive. Wanna defend consoles and/or the super awesome new gaming era? People here don't seem to. Make your own whine thread and do it there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

I'm not even gonna reply to your pathetic defense that all console games nowadays have a difficulty setting. No they don't, all of them. Using that to justify difficulty is wrong. As if games in the past didn't have those. Also, try to come up with something constructive and don't just try to argue with everyone who agrees with OP, cos that's what you seem to mostly be doing, judging from your posts. That kind of asshatery is not productive. Wanna defend consoles and/or the super awesome new gaming era? People here don't seem to. Make your own whine thread and do it there.

---

And where exactly did I say that all modern games have a difficulty setting? I did mention something around 70%... silly me, I forgot you don't know how to read, better yet, refuse to.

Alright, time to close this thread. Games are much bigger, longer, richer in content and everything else, have difficulty settings to make them just as hard. What else is there to discuss? Absolutely nothing. It's the 80's and 90's games that are missing stuff from the modern ones. Bravo! Thanks for enlighting us, dark masses, Xanatos.

And one other thing. Even on hard difficulties, games aren't as hard as they used to be. Take Skyrim, Oblivion, FO3 as an example. Not hard. Skyrim was difficult on Master, but only up to a certain point. Once you got the right skills and gear, it became a walk in the park. This is but one example of how games aren't that hard anymore. Yeah, there're some exception, like Dark Souls, but on average, game difficulties are geared more toward casual gamers. Maybe it also has to do with exploration and players not having to be very frustrated for not being able to explore more. Still, games have become more casualized, overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

Alright, time to close this thread. Games are much bigger, longer, richer in content and everything else, have difficulty settings to make them just as hard. What else is there to discuss? Absolutely nothing. It's the 80's and 90's games that are missing stuff from the modern ones. Bravo! Thanks for enlighting us, dark masses, Xanatos.

---

Why are you mad at me? It's not my fault you tried to pass something as silly as backpack space under console limitations, it's not my fault you think difficulty has something to do with linearity itself and it's certainly not my fault you failed to defend your stance on linearity (among other points of course), or even to answer a simple question regarding it. It's also not my fault you were eager to claim I said one thing when my own posts tell otherwise... stop acting so butthurt.

Quote:

---

And one other thing. Even on hard difficulties, games aren't as hard as they used to be. Take Skyrim, Oblivion, FO3 as an example. Not hard. Skyrim was difficult on Master, but only up to a certain point. Once you got the right skills and gear, it became a walk in the park. This is but one example of how games aren't that hard anymore. Yeah, there're some exception, like Dark Souls, but on average, game difficulties are geared more toward casual gamers. Maybe it also has to do with exploration and players not having to be very frustrated for not being able to explore more. Still, games have become more casualized, overall.

---

You'll have to be more specific, which era are you referring to? 80's and early 90's, if so, a lot of games were hard just for the sake of being hard, look back at what Miyamoto said. After that, I haven't honestly felt drop in difficulty, both Oblivion and Skyrim are as challenging as Daggerfall, Dragon Age Origins is as challenging as Baldur's Gate, if not more, Sonic Generations is as challenging as older Sonic games, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is as challenging as Mario 64, Final Fantasy games have been for the most part rather easy, and so on and so on... not to mention a lot of genres (FPS, WRPG, Fighting, RTS, Racing, Sport...) always had an option to chose your difficulty, meaning they were as challenging as you made them out to be.

What does linearity have to do with difficulty? Only you'd think such a thing. I said games are becoming more of the same, linear and/or sandbox stuff that recycles content and doesn't offer as much difficulty as before. I even agreed with Myamoto and added that if any game was easy, it'd be short. Not very accurate, but still. You think games are becoming more sandbox, because you've played AC and Betheda games? Where's your proof? No, you're wrong. Even if it were so, those games are more of the same, without much variety. You think that's quality and one of a kind experience, I think it's same stuff recycled and copy pasted terrains with same spawns and dungeons. That doesn't show alot of advancement, to defend your console argument. Your modern gaming era isn't as canon as you think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

Difficulty means shit if games are still easy and linear even on hardest difficulties.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

What does linearity have to do with difficulty? Only you'd think such a thing. I said games are becoming more of the same, linear and/or sandbox stuff that recycles content and doesn't offer as much difficulty as before.

---

Erm what?
Perhaps you should have read what you said or at least phrased it better.

Yeah, that didn't make any sense whatsoever. What I wanted to say is difficulty settings are shat, if the game is still easy.:D

All in all, I've reviewed my own posts and realized that I've exaggerated things abit with consoles effecting game quality because of hardware. Gotta say I was raging abit because of BL2 and GBX not wanting to add backpack space and then read comments about how adding too much space will cause glitches on the consoles. Games can be great and difficult and don't have to be non-linear all the time. Why I think games aren't the same as before is, because they're not as difficult. People are lazy, want everything at once: exploration, good gear, being a hero and the center of the universe, like in the movies. Companies and market has made games more casual, imo. Less grinding, less of getting your ass handed to you, even when you've got the best gear.

I just think this got a little out of control. There's no need for the blatant hostility that was evident in both sides of the argument and I felt like quoting Rowan a bit there..

One thing that tickled me a little off-topic was the idea that an normal is an easy difficulty. Surely EASY is an easy difficulty? Haha :)

I've given my two cents already but if the issue is now consoles vs. PCs then that's another thread entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin

One thing that tickled me a little off-topic was the idea that an normal is an easy difficulty. Surely EASY is an easy difficulty? Haha :)

---

I didn't really mean a easy difficulty, but on the grand scale its almost always second from being the easiest.
Anyone unfamiliar with the genre is most likely going to Easy or Normal.

Its like me playing Halo 4 on normal and complaining that its easy. I've been playing Halo since its original release and know the ins and outs. Its going to be an easier experience for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

What does linearity have to do with difficulty? Only you'd think such a thing.

---

Mysterion beat me to it.

Quote:

---

I said games are becoming more of the same, linear and/or sandbox stuff that recycles content and doesn't offer as much difficulty as before.

---

Perhaps now you might answer my question. If games are indeed becoming more linear, which you stated several times already, what made older games less linear (do back up your words this time)?

Quote:

---

I even agreed with Myamoto and added that if any game was easy, it'd be short. Not very accurate, but still.

---

If it's not very accurate (and it's not as you can see in one of my earlier posts), and I really do hope you know what "very accurate" means, why mention it in the first place?

Quote:

---

You think games are becoming more sandbox, because you've played AC and Betheda games? Where's your proof? No, you're wrong.

---

It seems you mix "leaning towards sandbox approach" (my very own words) with full fledged sandbox games... I tend to forget you don't read your own posts, why should you mine, thus lets forget all those games Xanatos mentioned and many more he didn't.

Quote:

---

Even if it were so, those games are more of the same, without much variety. You think that's quality and one of a kind experience, I think it's same stuff recycled and copy pasted terrains with same spawns and dungeons. That doesn't show alot of advancement, to defend your console argument. Your modern gaming era isn't as canon as you think it is.

---

Well, if Nintendo is allowed to constantly recycle it's material in games such as Zelda, Mario and Pokemon since, well ever, and I'm not talking here just about visual material, I don't see any reason why games of such magnitude (in both scale and content) can't... you don't really know much about video games, do you.

Not a good analysis between AC, Bethesda, vs Nintendo games. Levels in first games (not between first games) feel the same with very similar content while in the other they have more variety. Don't feel like explaining much, so I just summarized as much as possible.