(Silly title warning) Are Video Games RUINING Gaming? - General

Stupid title aside, I enjoyed this video. Guy is basically making a video essay about changing fail conditions in gaming. I found it interesting. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMKDIDCKVfI[/media]

Problem still remains, time is still more valuable than learning a game.

All I hear is "games become more and more casual, and it sucks because games are not casual by definition" or some bullshit like that. The first part is correct, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I've always liked the BioShock respawn thing and hated the checkpoint system, except in a few situations where it doesn't feel like it's there "by default" (because that's the most common way of doing difficulty in a game). I like respawns because they just make games less frustrating and less time-wasting. Yes, I agree with David Cage when he says "game overs are a design failure" because it's a terrible and unimaginative way to retry in a lot of games where it is not needed at all. However, it's important to realize that respawns and checkpoints do appeal to different types of players, and I wish this video creator didn't imply that "casual gamers" are harming video games as a whole, because it's completely silly. Also walking simulators are games, you can't just say "they're not games because they don't fit my own description of games". I can't take anyone who says that seriously, considering how hypocritical it is. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] To be honest, with a title like "are games ruining gaming", you should know the guy was going to oppose his own vision of games to the way games [I]actually[/I] are which he refuses to acknowledge.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50309708]All I hear is "games become more and more casual, and it sucks because games are not casual by definition" or some bullshit like that. The first part is correct, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I've always liked the BioShock respawn thing and hated the checkpoint system, except in a few situations where it doesn't feel like it's there "by default" (because that's the most common way of doing difficulty in a game). I like respawns because they just make games less frustrating and less time-wasting. Yes, I agree with David Cage when he says "game overs are a design failure" because it's a terrible and unimaginative way to retry in a lot of games where it is not needed at all. However, it's important to realize that respawns and checkpoints do appeal to different types of players, and I wish this video creator didn't imply that "casual gamers" are harming video games as a whole, because it's completely silly. Also walking simulators are games, you can't just say "they're not games because they don't fit my own description of games". I can't take anyone who says that seriously, considering how hypocritical it is. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] To be honest, with a title like "are games ruining gaming", you should know the guy was going to oppose his own vision of games to the way games [I]actually[/I] are which he refuses to acknowledge.[/QUOTE] I don't see the problem as being "too casual". It's just that they're never challenging by design.

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;50309762]I don't see the problem as being "too casual". It's just that they're never challenging by design.[/QUOTE] How so? A game appealing to casual audiences doesn't mean it can't be challenging, does it?

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50309708]All I hear is "games become more and more casual, and it sucks because games are not casual by definition" or some bullshit like that. The first part is correct, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I've always liked the BioShock respawn thing and hated the checkpoint system, except in a few situations where it doesn't feel like it's there "by default" (because that's the most common way of doing difficulty in a game). I like respawns because they just make games less frustrating and less time-wasting. Yes, I agree with David Cage when he says "game overs are a design failure" because it's a terrible and unimaginative way to retry in a lot of games where it is not needed at all. However, it's important to realize that respawns and checkpoints do appeal to different types of players, and I wish this video creator didn't imply that "casual gamers" are harming video games as a whole, because it's completely silly. Also walking simulators are games, you can't just say "they're not games because they don't fit my own description of games". I can't take anyone who says that seriously, considering how hypocritical it is. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] To be honest, with a title like "are games ruining gaming", you should know the guy was going to oppose his own vision of games to the way games [I]actually[/I] are which he refuses to acknowledge.[/QUOTE] I dunno, tabletop/board games or all other things that have been classified as games have had fail states way before video games were a thing. Honestly, walking sims are more like interactive moving pictures than interactive technology version of games. And like he said, there's nothing wrong with that, and honestly we don't *need* a term to differentiate the two, but I can see why it's a subject that can matter. Personally, I loved Bioshock, but I'm also a huge Dark Souls fan and I used to delve in Touhou, where if I would lose all my lives once I'd start again from stage 1, because that's how you unlock the last stage. Having felt the satisfaction of overcoming my own weaknesses and bested those games I thought were completely impossible during the first hours of playing them only to feel like a pro later is probably part of the reason games are so good, and have been since before the age of technology. Beating someone else at their own game, where they have the advantage, is and always has been insanely satisfying. And interacting moving pictures (or walking sims) are more like movies, where you follow a certain story, it's just viewed from a different perspective, but it's a completely different experience than any kind of game of the past. But yeah that title was dumb, a better title would be something along "What do we win when we fail or lose when we win?" or some catchier version of that [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Loadingue;50309770]How so? A game appealing to casual audiences doesn't mean it can't be challenging, does it?[/QUOTE] I don't think he dragged "casual" into the video once, he was talking about how they're different experiences aimed for different audiences, not casuals being bad, in fact most hardcores end up as casuals sooner or later, but what we lost in not being willing to give a challenge the time it deserves

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50309770]How so? A game appealing to casual audiences doesn't mean it can't be challenging, does it?[/QUOTE] The whole point of the video is that triple A games are moving towards having no consequences for dying/failing. "Losing" in one of these games usually means rewinding back like 30 seconds. Makes games pretty boring imo.

Why do people think games can either be casual or hardcore? Why can't we allow both on those that have reason to appeal to either? Isn't that what difficulty is for? I wish Dark Souls had an Easy Mode so I could just enjoy the game [I]in my own way[/I], admiring the art, and watching the story. I really can't be bothered to learn how to play the game properly, but an Easy Mode wouldn't hurt the games so much would it? "It would hurt the franchise, it would take away the charm" is all flawed argument. People who want to play like it's supposed to, can.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50309708]All I hear is "games become more and more casual, and it sucks because games are not casual by definition" or some bullshit like that. The first part is correct, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I've always liked the BioShock respawn thing and hated the checkpoint system, except in a few situations where it doesn't feel like it's there "by default" (because that's the most common way of doing difficulty in a game). I like respawns because they just make games less frustrating and less time-wasting. Yes, I agree with David Cage when he says "game overs are a design failure" because it's a terrible and unimaginative way to retry in a lot of games where it is not needed at all. However, it's important to realize that respawns and checkpoints do appeal to different types of players, and I wish this video creator didn't imply that "casual gamers" are harming video games as a whole, because it's completely silly. Also walking simulators are games, you can't just say "they're not games because they don't fit my own description of games". I can't take anyone who says that seriously, considering how hypocritical it is. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] To be honest, with a title like "are games ruining gaming", you should know the guy was going to oppose his own vision of games to the way games [I]actually[/I] are which he refuses to acknowledge.[/QUOTE] If game overs are a failure of design, how else do you suggest maintaining the challenge while simultaneously punishing mistakes? If you die to a group of enemies and respawn right where you left off, how can you get better and learn if there's no consequences for fucking up? This is where games become "casual" and, in my opinion, absolutely boring. And I really disagree on the "time wasting" part. How is it a waste of time to retry an encounter until you get it right? That's called playing the game. It's only a waste of time if the journey of retrying and getting better and eventually triumphing is frustrating. THAT'S bad design. But if you're getting frustrated to the point of just wanting to get through to the next area then you should be playing better video games.

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;50309817]The whole point of the video is that triple A games are moving towards having no consequences for dying/failing. "Losing" in one of these games usually means rewinding back like 30 seconds. Makes games pretty boring imo.[/QUOTE] I think you are confusing the real source of the problem. It's not that games should punish the players less when they fail, it's that high difficulty modes should make failures more punishing. Instead of that, most games just rank up enemy health, reactions, damage and that kind of thing. Evidently the problem can be solved with what I've just said. The higher the difficulty, the more you go back in time, and/or the more you lose. That would make everyone happy.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50309851]Why do people think games can either be casual or hardcore? Why can't we allow both on those that have reason to appeal to either? Isn't that what difficulty is for? I wish Dark Souls had an Easy Mode so I could just enjoy the game [I]in my own way[/I], admiring the art, and watching the story. I really can't be bothered to learn how to play the game properly, but an Easy Mode wouldn't hurt the games so much would it? "It would hurt the franchise, it would take away the charm" is all flawed argument. People who want to play like it's supposed to, can.[/QUOTE] It's a part of the "games are art" argument. The developers want the world to feel hostile. It actually would take away from the "charm" of the game in the sense that part of the charm is that Dark Souls games are supposed to be dreary, cold, threatening worlds. They wouldn't feel the same if you could casually stroll through them without worry. Also, summoning phantoms is sort of like easy mode for Dark Souls anyway. As long as we're not talking about DS1 where it's broken now.

I've never been one to actually care about failure or challenges. What I've overcome means nothing to me, where I've gotten is what I care about. So for video games, I get bored seeing a game over or looking at a list of challenges I have to do. I don't care about the achievement of it all, that's meaningless. What function does a little tickbox saying "I did it!" do? I just want to do things, I want to be able to do more, do it more powerfully, do it faster. Its never a case of, "Wow, that was so hard, I feel so proud I beat that." its always, "Wow, that was boring. Least that shit is out of the way."

[QUOTE=Dirf;50309858]If game overs are a failure of design, how else do you suggest maintaining the challenge while simultaneously punishing mistakes? If you die to a group of enemies and respawn right where you left off, how can you get better and learn if there's no consequences for fucking up? This is where games become "casual" and, in my opinion, absolutely boring.[/QUOTE] You can always look at GTA that do respawn in a challenging way: spawn a long way off, with less money and guns. [QUOTE=Dirf;50309858]And I really disagree on the "time wasting" part. How is it a waste of time to retry an encounter until you get it right? That's called playing the game. It's only a waste of time if the journey of retrying and getting better and eventually triumphing is frustrating. THAT'S bad design. But if you're getting frustrated to the point of just wanting to get through to the next area then you should be playing better video games.[/QUOTE] By "time wasting" I mostly meant having to go through quests, dungeons, dialogues and the like that you have before because you died. I play Morrowind these days, so I get that when I forget to quick-save. Also it can be time wasting to retry an encounter because I have no interest in combat. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;50309879]It's a part of the "games are art" argument. The developers want the world to feel hostile. It actually would take away from the "charm" of the game in the sense that part of the charm is that Dark Souls games are supposed to be dreary, cold, threatening worlds. They wouldn't feel the same if you could casually stroll through them without worry.[/QUOTE] "Could"? Is it really important to players how others might play the game? Genuine question, are you bothered to know people could play the game with less difficulty if they wished? [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50309906]I've never been one to actually care about failure or challenges. What I've overcome means nothing to me, where I've gotten is what I care about. So for video games, I get bored seeing a game over or looking at a list of challenges I have to do. I don't care about the achievement of it all, that's meaningless. What function does a little tickbox saying "I did it!" do? I just want to do things, I want to be able to do more, do it more powerfully, do it faster. Its never a case of, "Wow, that was so hard, I feel so proud I beat that." its always, "Wow, that was boring. Least that shit is out of the way."[/QUOTE] Exactly my opinion on most story-driven games. I just want to enjoy the story, universe, art, music, etc. I don't care about combat.

He mentioned the enemy spawning in Far Cry 2, but never actually mentioned why people hated it. Big difference between running back somewhere after a fair death and turning around only to have an enemy you just killed respawned.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50309935]You can always look at GTA that do respawn in a challenging way: spawn a long way off, with less money and guns. By "time wasting" I mostly meant having to go through quests, dungeons, dialogues and the like that you have before because you died. I play Morrowind these days, so I get that when I forget to quick-save. Also it can be time wasting to retry an encounter because I have no interest in combat[/QUOTE] I personally don't find GTA's respawns challenging. They're a minor setback at best and a slight inconvenience. It's only when limited lives are introduced that they become challenging. And forgetting to quicksave doesn't really count when criticizing a checkpoint system. A decent checkpoint system typically wouldn't have you backtrack through dialogue and excessive walking before reaching the point where you died, but there are always exceptions to that I guess.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50309851]Why do people think games can either be casual or hardcore? Why can't we allow both on those that have reason to appeal to either? Isn't that what difficulty is for? I wish Dark Souls had an Easy Mode so I could just enjoy the game [I]in my own way[/I], admiring the art, and watching the story. I really can't be bothered to learn how to play the game properly, but an Easy Mode wouldn't hurt the games so much would it? "It would hurt the franchise, it would take away the charm" is all flawed argument. People who want to play like it's supposed to, can.[/QUOTE] You know if you get decent at the game you can do all that right? Why should games have to steep to your level and not challenge you to do better? [QUOTE=Loadingue;50309935] Exactly my opinion on most story-driven games. I just want to enjoy the story, universe, art, music, etc. I don't care about combat.[/QUOTE] Go read a book this medium is not for you.

and it makes sense you're dreading the combat and respawns in morrowind. I like the game and all but the combat is fucking garbage. automerge

Having to redo a section can be annoying enough in itself tbh. I'm okay with games being difficult but I'd just rather not have them throw me back 20 minutes because I took 2 bullets and died. I think Spec Ops: The Line was fairly good when it came to difficulty as dying was an actual possibility in gunfights (and could happen frequently if you like to play like me and do risky shit for the hell of it) but the checkpoints were space out well enough so that one death didn't feel like a complete waste of time. My biggest problem with stuff like this is for QTEs and set-pieces and the such. In COD, if you have to do some supr intense thing and you fuck up, then you just get thrown back 5 seconds to awkwardly re-experience the 'intense moment' a try again. Everything falls apart when 'cinematic moments' break the flow of the game because they need to replay themselves when really they could be a great opportunity to do some Butterfly Effect story branches.

[QUOTE=Dirf;50310057]I personally don't find GTA's respawns challenging. They're a minor setback at best and a slight inconvenience. It's only when limited lives are introduced that they become challenging.[/QUOTE] Aah but that's the heart of the problem: we all experience games differently. It's okay, we all have different expectations from games. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;50310059]You know if you get decent at the game you can do all that right? Why should games have to steep to your level and not challenge you to do better?[/QUOTE] That's what different difficulties are for. So others don't have to steep to my level. [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;50310059]Go read a book this medium is not for you.[/QUOTE] That is incredibly rude and dumb. You can't tell me that after I've been a player and fan of video games as a whole for many years and I have nearly 300 games in my Steam library.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;50310085]Aah but that's the heart of the problem: we all experience games differently. It's okay, we all have different expectations from games. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] That's what different difficulties are for. So others don't have to steep to my level. That is incredibly rude and dumb. You can't tell me that after I've been a player and fan of video games as a whole for many years and I have nearly 300 games in my Steam library.[/QUOTE] For someone who has 300 games in their steam library you sure don't like gameplay. Everything you want from a game is exactly what you get from a TV show or Movie. You complain that you don't want to learn how to play a game to get the story and all the art and blah blah. Why should the game bother dealing with you if you don't even put in an effort to play it? Why must the game cater to someone who doesn't even bother trying to play it and complains about learning? Go watch a let's Play then if you don't even want to be challenged.

The issue, in my opinion, of an easy mode is that if a game is forcing itself to design an easier way to play the game, the game developers [B]have[/B] to shift resources away from the real game, to create a secondary difficulty system that changes the way the game functions in serious ways. I can't see how this doesn't negatively affect games. [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] Redesigning a game like Dark Souls to have an option casual element would definitely mean a loss of resources from the game. Games have finite budgets, the secondary difficulty will have to take away from that. So in the case of game like Dark Souls 1, the end game of that game would be even more fucked up and rushed. That's fucking terrible for gamers as a whole.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;50310240]For someone who has 300 games in their steam library you sure don't like gameplay. Everything you want from a game is exactly what you get from a TV show or Movie[/QUOTE] The experience you get from a video game is an amalgam of a lot of different elements, gameplay, music and story are just a few of those. Film, similarly, is an amalgam of music, cinematography, plot, dialogue etc. Every medium can be broken down into elements like this, if you think that gameplay is the only factor that makes video games memorable and meaningful then you're objectively wrong.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50310263]The experience you get from a video game is an amalgam of a lot of different elements, gameplay, music and story are just a few of those. Film, similarly, is an amalgam of music, cinematography, plot, dialogue etc. Every medium can be broken down into elements like this, if you think that gameplay is the only factor that makes video games memorable and meaningful then you're objectively wrong.[/QUOTE] Gameplay is the vehicle that gives you all of those memorable moments. Without it then it's just a series of cutscenes (which is just a movie).

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50310263]The experience you get from a video game is an amalgam of a lot of different elements, gameplay, music and story are just a few of those. Film, similarly, is an amalgam of music, cinematography, plot, dialogue etc. Every medium can be broken down into elements like this, if you think that gameplay is the only factor that makes video games memorable and meaningful then you're objectively wrong.[/QUOTE] It's not the only thing that makes them memorable though, and he didn't even remotely say that. Gameplay is the only thing that makes a game a game and not a movie

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;50310274]Gameplay is the vehicle that gives you all of those memorable moments. Without it then it's just a series of cutscenes (which is just a movie).[/QUOTE] Exactly. To me, a video game should be an adventure, where many things can happen and I can tell people about my adventures later by the water cooler. That doesn't mean a game that *only* tells it's own story ISN'T a game, but the adventure of "how I managed to finally beat this super tough enemy" only becomes interesting if the enemy actually is tough. Story through gameplay, I believe it's called, and it's not the same as the written story of a game obviously, which isn't what I'm referring to, as those are completely independent of one another

As much as I do agree that games aren't as hard and less rewarding, I am no longer a kid and I have real things to do other than video games so I welcome casual play. Nothing was better than investing time into games like ratchet and clank or destroy all humans, but it seems games are aging along with the player base

[QUOTE=Zondac;50310292]Exactly. To me, a video game should be an adventure, where many things can happen and I can tell people about my adventures later by the water cooler. That doesn't mean a game that *only* tells it's own story ISN'T a game, but the adventure of "how I managed to finally beat this super tough enemy" only becomes interesting if the enemy actually is tough. Story through gameplay, I believe it's called, and it's not the same as the written story of a game obviously, which isn't what I'm referring to, as those are completely independent of one another[/QUOTE] Yeah exactly. The great part of fighting a tough boss or beating a tough game is that sensation of winning and achieving something. If you just have an easy mode "because I don't want to learn how to play" don't even bother at all.

I think respawns are really dependent on the game. Games like Super Meat Boy, Mario, and Sonic work extremely well with their death states and I wouldn't play them otherwise. However a 40 hour jrpg there's no way I'd start from the beginning especially due to being unlucky. I think that checkpoints in of themselves aren't bad at all, and in fact you can still get pretty good at the game. I think the main issue is modern games are too easy, rather than checkpoints or respawns being the main issue. Metal Gear Rising and other Platinum games kick your butt if you suck, so your only course of action is to just get good. However, they still have checkpoints, and in rather convenient places too. Basically games that are level based, or challenge based, don't really suffer at all even with unlimited lives. As they still require skill to get through them. However, you're not losing progress due to dieing. Your progress is based on whether you complete it or not. Compared to a game like bioshock, where there's more than the level to beat. There's all sorts of stuff to find and collect, and if you die, you have to reexplore and recollect those things. Which makes it just annoying to replay again.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;50310366]I think respawns are really dependent on the game. Games like Super Meat Boy, Mario, and Sonic work extremely well with their death states and I wouldn't play them otherwise. However a 40 hour jrpg there's no way I'd start from the beginning especially due to being unlucky. I think that checkpoints in of themselves aren't bad at all, and in fact you can still get pretty good at the game. I think the main issue is modern games are too easy, rather than checkpoints or respawns being the main issue. Metal Gear Rising and other Platinum games kick your butt if you suck, so your only course of action is to just get good. However, they still have checkpoints, and in rather convenient places too. Basically games that are level based, or challenge based, don't really suffer at all even with unlimited lives. As they still require skill to get through them. However, you're not losing progress due to dieing. Your progress is based on whether you complete it or not. Compared to a game like bioshock, where there's more than the level to beat. There's all sorts of stuff to find and collect, and if you die, you have to reexplore and recollect those things. Which makes it just annoying to replay again.[/QUOTE] In something that's heavily based on narrative like Mass Effect/Bioshock I prefer very forgiving checkpoint systems but in something that is played for the action, I find it really annoying.

I've recently been playing Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, which does this weird mix between Bioshock and the old "3 deaths and you're out" where it decreases your reward by 1/3rd every time you die, and when you have no reward left you fail the quest, and for that game that works really well, because the battles take so long (lategame many of them take 30-45 minutes) that it only adds to the feeling of it being a battle of attrition. I think the game I've played that had the most annoyingly forgiving punishment is definitely Price of Persia. (The newish one) Holy fuck, falling off a ledge and just getting dragged back up again made it so devoid of challenge I couldn't finish the game, cause I had NO feeling of mastery. It's such a stark contrast to the old Prince of Persia, where the timebending mechanic allowed you to get another shot at the hard parts, but you also got a sense of mastery those times you didn't have to rely on it, and in the end you'd still need to execute the things even with the time reversal. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] Honestly fail states are such an interesting part of the feeling you want the game to give, it's a BIG shame we're seeing less and less of the interesting ways to deal with failure