• EA executive says games are too hard for the average player
    35 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamesn.com/ea-executive-says-games-are-too-hard-for-the-average-player[/url]
You are definitely asking 2 year olds / CoD players then mr EA executive.
this is a sad sign of where the industry is headed. compare this with games of the 90s; point and click adventure games where you could fail and not be able to progress any longer etc.
[QUOTE=Evanlution;47089749]this is a sad sign of where the industry is headed. compare this with games of the 90s; point and click adventure games [B]where you could fail and not be able to progress any longer[/B] etc.[/QUOTE] tbh that's where I draw the line, that's just bullshit. I'm totally fine with the player being able to fail side quests but when you can be completely locked out of completing the story and aren't at least notified that you failed, that's just bullshit.
[QUOTE=cdr248;47089812]tbh that's where I draw the line, that's just bullshit. I'm totally fine with the player being able to fail side quests but when you can be completely locked out of completing the story and aren't at least notified that you failed, that's just bullshit.[/QUOTE] i agree with you but it still is quite a contrast. games have gotten easier in other ways too. this is partly due to natural progression and improvement which is good but when it is to cater to a wider audience it isn't
Well this is why we have casual games right? It's not like we lack casual games.
[QUOTE=Evanlution;47089749]this is a sad sign of where the industry is headed. compare this with games of the 90s; point and click adventure games where you could fail and not be able to progress any longer etc.[/QUOTE] Games have simply gotten broader, more like, I think there are still indie games like VVVVV, or Love, etc which are extremely hard, then there are games like Dark Souls, Max Payne 3, etc the biggest thing is though Today we have walkthroughs, guides, books, lets plays, wiki's, and an endless fountain of ways to help someone the 90's didn't. For some games if you got stuck, that was it. No internet advice, you have to figure it out on your own. that's it, you're never getting unstuck, unless you find a person to tell you what to do. You can't go to the wiki help page. Today, it's not so much that games are "Easier", it's more that they're not as "Unforgiving". in the 90's some games had fucked up failure states that were overly punishing and totally fucked the player over, forcing them to play the entire game over again. and lets face it, Many AAA games ARE too easy, but there are still a ton that aren't (Some of which stem from the 90's, however, nintendo games, etc). But Indie titles are the closest to the 90's you can get and they aren't getting "Overly easy", they're just getting more advanced and branching out into deeper game genres with deeper plot lines.
No. The modern AAA game spends a good hour holding your hand, and then delivers a highly scripted adventure movie head-down-the-path-like-a-horse-with-blinders experience, all the while constantly reminding you to hide behind the chest high wall to regrow your missing limbs like a starfish with the metabolism of the sun. I don't want a return to the old "Dead Man Walking" style crap, but there needs to be something in between, not a move further down the route where you're spoon fed an originality deficient blockbuster thinly disguised as a video game.
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;47089941]No. The modern AAA game spends a good hour holding your hand, and then delivers a highly scripted adventure movie head-down-the-path-like-a-horse-with-blinders experience, all the while constantly reminding you to hide behind the chest high wall to regrow your missing limbs like a starfish with the metabolism of the sun. I don't want a return to the old "Dead Man Walking" style crap, but there needs to be something in between, not a move further down the route where you're spoon fed an originality deficient blockbuster thinly disguised as a video game.[/QUOTE] Not all of these are AAA but there still a good number of non handholding games out there [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Shadow_of_Chernobyl_cover.jpg[/t][t]http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dark-souls-gaping-dragon.jpg[/t][t]http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2014/08/16/metroredux-gamescom-m2033redux-gamescom-01jpg-8de55d_960w.jpg[/t][t]http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121201011655/farcry/images/c/c2/Far-Cry-3_im_dying.jpg[/t] but it is true, a lot of AAA games are getting retarded easy. Imagine if they made them EASIER.
i think what he means isnt 'hard' but complex. think of an mmo. how long would it take to learn all the intricacies of the game? a damn long time. Even modern triple A titles suffer from this. theres a lot of systems in newer games that take some time to get used to. mentioned earlier is VVVVVV. Its a fairly hard game, but anyone who's never played it before could understand how it works in a few minutes. then you have the likes of dark souls, which is both difficult and kinda complex. It would take some time to get used to how the game works. The guy in the article seems to be referring to difficulty in learning the game, not how challenging the gameplay is
[QUOTE=J!NX;47089979]Not all of these are AAA but there still a good number of non handholding games out there [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Shadow_of_Chernobyl_cover.jpg[/t][t]http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dark-souls-gaping-dragon.jpg[/t][t]http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2014/08/16/metroredux-gamescom-m2033redux-gamescom-01jpg-8de55d_960w.jpg[/t][t]http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121201011655/farcry/images/c/c2/Far-Cry-3_im_dying.jpg[/t] but it is true, a lot of AAA games are getting retarded easy. Imagine if they made them EASIER.[/QUOTE] I haven't played Far Cry 3 but one thing I remember seeing in a video is a mission that tells you to find a crashed plane, and a yellow dot instantly appears to tell you where it is. Quest markers aren't always bad, but in cases like this it's pure hand-holding (and Far Cry isn't the only example of that).
Good lord, I thought we already hit the point where games basically played themselves, are you telling me they can make them even easier?
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47089688]I play games on the hardest setting because I want the game to be hard. I don't give a shit. The harder the better.[/QUOTE] Too bad 9 out of 10 times the "Hard" setting just turns enemies into bullet-sponges. I can't remember a recent AAA release that actually modified the game's content instead of just multiplying damage variables and writing it off.
Halo's Legendary Difficulty was fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=ghosevil;47090160]Too bad 9 out of 10 times the "Hard" setting just turns enemies into bullet-sponges. I can't remember a recent AAA release that actually modified the game's content instead of just multiplying damage variables and writing it off.[/QUOTE] AI in general is probably the most outdated part of modern video games. We can make games look almost photorealistic these days but npc ai is still not much different.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;47090253]AI in general is probably the most outdated part of modern video games. We can make games look almost photorealistic these days but npc ai is still not much different.[/QUOTE] Think of what could be done if we put even half the attention and technology into AI as we do into eyebrow rendering breakthroughs.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47090083]I haven't played Far Cry 3 but one thing I remember seeing in a video is a mission that tells you to find a crashed plane, and a yellow dot instantly appears to tell you where it is. Quest markers aren't always bad, but in cases like this it's pure hand-holding (and Far Cry isn't the only example of that).[/QUOTE] It's kind of hard not to have quest markers in games with open worlds or large maps. Morrowind and most RPGs could do it because those had quest journals but those don't really work too well in games like GTA. Imagine if you played GTA by writing down the name of the street near your objective and having to navigate all the way over there using road signs. I will admit though, markers in strictly linear or corridor shooters are inexcusable unless the game's level design is so bad that it literally requires it. Best solution would probably be to have all games allow you to disable the objective marker so that players who don't want it don't need it.
[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;47090105]Good lord, I thought we already hit the point where games basically played themselves, are you telling me they can make them even easier?[/QUOTE] One day companies will make games that have zero player input, so all you do is just sit there and watch your game play with itself.
[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;47090293]Think of what could be done if we put even half the attention and technology into AI as we do into eyebrow rendering breakthroughs.[/QUOTE] One of the reasons why AI has not been updated is probably due to the focus on multiplayer and "cinematic" visuals. After all, why waste time on some code when you can just say "go here, shoot at a dude and die pretty while we arrange explosives to blow around you"? [QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;47090606]One day companies will make games that have zero player input, so all you do is just sit there and watch your game play with itself.[/QUOTE] It has been done. it is called a "movie"
"Too hard for the average player..." Um.... No?
[QUOTE=Cheif;47090683]"Too hard for the average player..." Um.... No?[/QUOTE] Considering how many people play games exclusively on their phones, it's actually somewhat true. But I ain't saying he's right in his assumption. The "average" player already has the games they want and know how to play, you shouldn't try to get them into the big AAA games, like what we're talking about here. Two completely different demographics that don't really mix very well.
[QUOTE=cdr248;47089812]tbh that's where I draw the line, that's just bullshit. I'm totally fine with the player being able to fail side quests but when you can be completely locked out of completing the story and aren't at least notified that you failed, that's just bullshit.[/QUOTE] Never forget the era of point-and-click adventure games where you may be doomed to failure typically accompanied by a horrific and/or humiliating demise, simply because you didn't pick up the cheese in a nondescript room an hour ago. Alternatively, reaching the end of the game and saving, and then dying every time because you picked up an item you shouldn't of right before the save with no indication that you ruined your game. (which is why multiple saves are always a good idea)
[QUOTE=ghosevil;47090160]Too bad 9 out of 10 times the "Hard" setting just turns enemies into bullet-sponges. I can't remember a recent AAA release that actually modified the game's content instead of just multiplying damage variables and writing it off.[/QUOTE] Metro 2033 makes it so weapons are more damaging on both sides, so it's easier to die, and easier to kill. Ammo, money and filters are more scarce as well.
This is why we'll never get another F.E.A.R 1. Industry is too scared of risk and challenge.
[QUOTE=alexglitch;47090662]It has been done. it is called a "movie"[/QUOTE] Let's reboot the FMV video game craze of the 90s. Just remove the gameplay portions and you're good to go.
Uh I think you guys are mistaken for who an 'average' player is. I've seen plenty of 'average' gamers and most of them suck.
Isn't this what difficulty levels are supposed to address? Developers should dedicate more time on balancing each level for their intended playerbase. It's a sign of lazyness when everything that's changed is the amount of health enemies have and cause. They should instead affect AI, objectives, and unfair traps.
[QUOTE=cdr248;47090593]It's kind of hard not to have quest markers in games with open worlds or large maps. Morrowind and most RPGs could do it because those had quest journals but those don't really work too well in games like GTA. Imagine if you played GTA by writing down the name of the street near your objective and having to navigate all the way over there using road signs. I will admit though, markers in strictly linear or corridor shooters are inexcusable unless the game's level design is so bad that it literally requires it. Best solution would probably be to have all games allow you to disable the objective marker so that players who don't want it don't need it.[/QUOTE] Well when you need to go to a known location (like an address in your example) it makes sense to have a dot on the map. But when the objective is like "find x" it's just dumb. Disabling quest markers usually doesn't really work because the game is built around them, and the quest text/dialogue alone often doesn't give you the information you need to find the objective by yourself.
Of course, it's Ea. They always speak from their arse.
and this is why I don't buy their games I was right not to trust them
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.