Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello, how are you?

So, past week I went to my Steam library to see what I could play and saw I had F.E.A.R there.
I remember playing it when it launched, but at the time my PC was not up to it, so I ended up never actually playing the game.

So I went and played it.
I really enjoyed the game, but I died alot!!! I mean really alot during the single player campaign.

That is not how it usually happens in modern shooters when I play the campaigns.
So I am wondering if today's games just hold your hand for the sake of keeping players engaged and the story moving forward?

What's your thoughts?

Cheers!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,047 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdourado View Post

Hello, how are you?

So, past week I went to my Steam library to see what I could play and saw I had F.E.A.R there.
I remember playing it when it launched, but at the time my PC was not up to it, so I ended up never actually playing the game.

So I went and played it.
I really enjoyed the game, but I died alot!!! I mean really alot during the single player campaign.

That is not how it usually happens in modern shooters when I play the campaigns.
So I am wondering if today's games just hold your hand for the sake of keeping players engaged and the story moving forward?

What's your thoughts?

Cheers!
Games are made for millennials and newer generations now. Everyone gets something just for playing. It is nothing like the Atari/Nintendo generation where you had 3 lives and that was it. If you were not smart enough to solve the puzzle of figure out what to do next you were basically done. Gone is the era where when you say. yea I've play that and beat it, that it actually meant something. People have forgotten how to vote with their wallets and every time a developer drops a crap game everyone complains and still buys it anyway.

A good example is Destiny 2. No matter how bad you suck you get stuff for participation. To me this totally devalues the effort in completing task. Why should I try to complete a public even when I can just activate it and then stand by idle until the timer clicks out and still get a god damn reward.

Up coming game that people are pooring so much money into preorders the battle front 2. You are paying for a full game and yet someone is gonna f you up because they spent a ton of cash power leveling their selves instead of earning it. Yet people still buying the game which just reinforces to the developers that she sheeps are gonna take it in the rear and still pay someone to do them that way.

If you look around there are tons of examples where the games have lowered not just quality but the amount of content as well. Yet prices are still as high if not higher then ever before. It is all just one big money grab and coddle the gamer to the point where they dont even need to do anything to be accomplished... i could go on and on on with this rant. The gaming industry has fallen so hard. its more about microtransactions and worthless season passes and dlc.
 

·
PC Gaming 1337 Enforcer
Joined
·
14,431 Posts
Yes. TLDR version - They hold your hand too much, they have less content than past games, they fail to use advanced technology to enhance gameplay unlike 2000s PC games, they don't innovate, there is less literary influence now than in the 2000s, physics have gone backwards, sound processing has gone backwards, AI programming has gone backwards, prices have gone up versus the 2000s, multiplayer has been destroyed in AAA games (no more hosting your own dedicated servers), modding is disappearing especially included SDKs, role-playing games have little to no role-playing now, the vast majority of games in the majority of the most popular genres are worse in almost every way now.

F.E.A.R. is a particularly excellent example. The AI is much more advanced than most other games especially now, and it still has the best combat AI of any action game overall. F.E.A.R. isn't alone in that regard; Half-Life 2 and other Source games, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Call of Duty (yes the original), the entire Unreal series except maybe UT3 (don't remember its AI), even Return to Castle Wolfenstein and the original Half-Life have above average AI by today's standards.

Then F.E.A.R. also has more advanced sound processing via DirectSound3D 3D HRTF and EAX environmental effects, and it is actually technologically superior to 99% of FPS games in the most important ways for a game focused on shooting/combat: AI, physics/destruction/ragdolls, particle effects, dynamic lighting and shadows (almost all of these are dynamic while most of these are static in today's games, and this is a game that relies a lot on lighting especially for atmosphere), sound.

Might want to check out my related thread on this. Lots of good F.E.A.R. examples with video footage.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1641796/what-are-your-thoughts-on-the-reduced-content-and-dumbing-down-of-aaa-games

As Trippen Out suggests, the attention span and IQ of most gamers is lower now than in the 2000s and 1990s, and games (especially AAA games) cater to them. I am a millennial by the way so I am embarrassed for my generation.

Hell if you want to talk hand holding, THE BEST examples I can think of would be to compare the RPGs of today to some of the elite RPGs of yesterday such as Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, and Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura.

Put it this way: RPGs are meant to be nonlinear experiences that let the player do what they want, approach and handle situations how they see fit. Yet RPGs today railroad you into one or two paths to complete a quest, and give you objective markers telling you exactly where to go and what to do. While some of these classic RPGs like the ones I named will simply give you a quest saying, "Find the lost city of Vendigroth" and nothing else to go on at first. A key difference here is, your quest journal in these classic RPGs is written by your character in the first person, so it is entirely reliant on what your character knows. But quest journals today are written by a God-like invisible figure giving you more knowledge than you should know.

These quests in a modern RPG like Dragon Age: Inquisition or Mass Effect: Andromeda (calling this an RPG is embarrassing to RPGs) usually consist of just going to a marked location and killing everything, or going to a marked location and holding a key to interact with something, or a mix of the two. And any role-playing is minimal. While quests in the classic RPGs I named involve actual thinking and intuition, role-playing and much more involved dialogue, carrying out investigations and following up on leads with no invisible figure helping you, more content in the quests and more role-playing and less repetition. No hand holding. Not to mention they are less linear; a simple locked door won't stop you in Fallout, Fallout 2, or Arcanum since you can blow it up and skip portions of quests in this type of situation.

Put it this way: using PvP shooter genre as an example, it took superior games (more content rich, technologically advanced, mechanically distinct) like UT2004, Quake 4, Battlefront II (the real one from '05), Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, and mods for all of these to satisfy 2000s gamers. They complained about UT2003 having too little content because it had less than UT99, when it actually has several times more content than 99% of PvP shooters today, prompting Epic Games to release UT2004 which is nearly unparalleled in content! They complained about Garry's Mod having too little content at launch. We went from Rainbow Six 3 to Vegas and Siege. 2000s gamers had quality standards. Now today, gamers are satisfied with anything, but mostly simplified children's games since they are overwhelmed by additional content...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,240 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdourado View Post

Hello, how are you?

So, past week I went to my Steam library to see what I could play and saw I had F.E.A.R there.
I remember playing it when it launched, but at the time my PC was not up to it, so I ended up never actually playing the game.

So I went and played it.
I really enjoyed the game, but I died alot!!! I mean really alot during the single player campaign.

That is not how it usually happens in modern shooters when I play the campaigns.
So I am wondering if today's games just hold your hand for the sake of keeping players engaged and the story moving forward?

What's your thoughts?

Cheers!
YEP. Go back and play anything on consoles from NES to Sega/SNES. Hell, Megaman is quite a challenge.
 

·
PC Gaming 1337 Enforcer
Joined
·
14,431 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpykeZ View Post

YEP. Go back and play anything on consoles from NES to Sega/SNES. Hell, Megaman is quite a challenge.
Well to be honest, not much comparison there. Those games take a few hours to develop fully lol.
 

·
Overclocker
Joined
·
11,684 Posts
Games have lost their difficulty long time ago. And with it gone is any good story telling and singleplayer, now it's mostly about milking multiplayer subscriptions, pay2win, pay2notgrind, etc.
I'm quite bored playing online vs other humans, there are nowadays only so few good players in some genres.

Games are made easier so they sell more, dumber, locked options so people can't mess up anything etc. and then enthusiasts and hard core gamers are left out, their game settings, console access etc. taken away, and even the hardest difficulty in most modern games all it does is make enemies appear out of nowhere more, with more health, more armor and higher damage, otherwise they are the same dumb AI
frown.gif


Half-Life didn't have some good AI to me, it was a good game for it's time, definitely, but it's a tunnel game mostly made from connected maps and like most games I played the AI is just waaay too predictable, even most humans are in online games.

I would not say modern games hold your hand, they put you in a wheel chair and roll you around literally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
People don´t want it to be hard.
Blizzard introduced mobs scaling with item lvl and the forums was in uproar, so they removed it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,321 Posts
Ive had a member tell me FEARs AI implementation was terrible yet never having played it. It was pointless to debate with him further....

I dont mind linear experiences but the stories are just so lacking.
 

·
PC Gaming 1337 Enforcer
Joined
·
14,431 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Games have lost their difficulty long time ago. And with it gone is any good story telling and singleplayer, now it's mostly about milking multiplayer subscriptions, pay2win, pay2notgrind, etc.
I'm quite bored playing online vs other humans, there are nowadays only so few good players in some genres.

Games are made easier so they sell more, dumber, locked options so people can't mess up anything etc. and then enthusiasts and hard core gamers are left out, their game settings, console access etc. taken away, and even the hardest difficulty in most modern games all it does is make enemies appear out of nowhere more, with more health, more armor and higher damage, otherwise they are the same dumb AI
frown.gif


I would not say modern games hold your hand, they put you in a wheel chair and roll you around literally.
This is spot on. Synthetic difficulty being implemented over true difficulty and challenge via good AI and statistical balance is annoying as hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Half-Life didn't have some good AI to me, it was a good game for it's time, definitely, but it's a tunnel game mostly made from connected maps and like most games I played the AI is just waaay too predictable, even most humans are in online games.
Half-Life AI is simple, straightforward, but more effective than your average single player shooter today. In modern AAA shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield, you will see the AI break very often and do things like stand in front of tanks or stand next to their enemies, just broken programming. Half-Life AI at least tries not to expose themselves more than they need to, but yeah there is nothing advanced about it unlike the dynamic navigation and team tactics seen in games like F.E.A.R. and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Where Half-Life excels is having unique gameplay and feel on every chapter, having cool weapons and diverse encounters for a linear game and interesting "puzzles" and hidden areas.

People are very predictable, although it is amusing that people fall for simple tricks like double backing or running around a corner and going prone more than AI does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Not all games offer easy play & instant gratification these days; if in doubt just fire up the new Divinity: Original Sin 2 on 'normal'. Amazing game by the way, 140 hours to finish my first playthrough and I (mostly) loved it all!
 

·
I miss my OCN!!
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
You damn young whipper snappers, well I remember when I had to walk to school in the snow and uphills both ways no less.

Every 10 years or so we seem to forget how things were and then try to expose some sort of guilt on the younger generation. The more things change the more things stay the same if you ask me, we just forget and assume we had it worse than the other guy/gal.
 

·
PC Gaming 1337 Enforcer
Joined
·
14,431 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanpatrick View Post

Not all games offer easy play & instant gratification these days; if in doubt just fire up the new Divinity: Original Sin 2 on 'normal'. Amazing game by the way, 140 hours to finish my first playthrough and I (mostly) loved it all!
Divinity: Original Sin 2 is guilty of most of the criticism being discussed here. It doesn't hold your hand in quests, due to having no objective markers and God-like knowledge given to the player, but in the majority of the most important story/character moments it railroads you into a character decision that leaves no room for role-playing. For example, any companion related moment like this:



The game presents itself well but mostly provides the illusion of role-playing. It has a fair amount of unique dialogue choices based on your character build (whether or not you chose an origin character and which, and your race mostly), but most of these don't actually change anything or have any lasting effect. The game isn't terrible but doesn't try to be an excellent RPG and doesn't put much effort into its writing at all. The best way to play it is to make your own custom campaigns, fill them to the brim with role-playing since it does have a rule system that allows for it, and play with other players and a game master.

Funny enough, it does excel from a combat gameplay perspective except for one stupid thing; too many overleveled encounters. With the above average AI and Tactical difficulty mode I think it's called, it just becomes unbalanced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanpatrick View Post

Not all games offer easy play & instant gratification these days; if in doubt just fire up the new Divinity: Original Sin 2 on 'normal'. Amazing game by the way, 140 hours to finish my first playthrough and I (mostly) loved it all!
Just completed the game with my buddy on Tactitian. Good game, but I'd hardly call the game challenging. Didn't even have to use stuff like potions or scrolls other than ressurection... Replaying Icewind Dale now, and I remember it being so much more difficult, to the point where I'm questioning myself if Beamdog did something to difficutly levels on the "enhanced edition". We started a fresh game with level 1 characters, with Heart of Fury on, and... it's fine. Up to chapter 2 now and not once did we even have to consider turning down difficulty.

Blegh, hit submit too early.
What I was trying to say is, I don't think games were significantly more difficult back then. They were more inovative, yes, and that coupled with player inexperience made them seem more difficult, but replay it now, and what seemed to be impossible just takes a bit of forward planning instead of rushing in.
 

·
Overclocking Enthusiast
Joined
·
6,141 Posts
Yes they do and i believe its to attract a younger or older user base. You can try a harder game settings but even then some games are still too easy. But it also depends on who made the game.
 

·
PC Gaming 1337 Enforcer
Joined
·
14,431 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loladinas View Post

Just completed the game with my buddy on Tactitian. Good game, but I'd hardly call the game challenging. Didn't even have to use stuff like potions or scrolls other than ressurection... Replaying Icewind Dale now, and I remember it being so much more difficult, to the point where I'm questioning myself if Beamdog did something to difficutly levels on the "enhanced edition". We started a fresh game with level 1 characters, with Heart of Fury on, and... it's fine. Up to chapter 2 now and not once did we even have to consider turning down difficulty.

Blegh, hit submit too early.
What I was trying to say is, I don't think games were significantly more difficult back then. They were more inovative, yes, and that coupled with player inexperience made them seem more difficult, but replay it now, and what seemed to be impossible just takes a bit of forward planning instead of rushing in.
Yeah D&D games just had a learning curve, if you knew D&D and used simple tactics then they're usually not hard, and for the most part they are actually easier than Divinity: Original Sin 2 on Tactician mode since DOS 2 has more overleveled enemy encounters and superior AI tactics.

There are multiple kinds of difficulty, and several different kinds are being discussed in this thread. Hand-holding usually refers to things like quest design and linearity, objective markers vs open ended, simplicity of gameplay mechanics, though the OP used dying in F.E.A.R. as an example which is more like what you're talking about. With action games like FPS, the classics were indeed generally more difficult than most modern ones due to better AI, lack of auto regenerating health, and enemies doing more damage.

But as for hand holding, play something like Rainbow Six 3 and compare it to Siege or any modern FPS, compare even Divinity: Original Sin 2's quest design to modern garbage AAA RPGs (or better yet Fallout/Fallout 2 vs Fallout 4), and you will see what I mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
The last AAA game I played was Wilands.
While I must say I really enjoyed the graphics and the environments of the game, I played over 25 hours and beat all story missions.
But in those 25 hours I only died once and it was due to a stupid bug where I was locked against a truck that exploded.
The rest of the game I felt pretty much imortal, entering Unidad fortresses guns blazing and pulling headshot after headshot.
From a certain point, the game was just repetitive.

Early this year, I also did a full playtrough of half life 2 and the two other episodes and I must say I was really surprised at how the game aged.
The graphics were not 2017 AAA fps game of course, but they didn't compromise the game in any way and I had a great time playing!
Really great, couldn't get out of it and was immersed and engaged the whole game!

And I really had to manage my resources and think before a gun fight.
Not like today's games when it's all guns blazing and kill everything.

Cheers!
 

·
PC Gaming 1337 Enforcer
Joined
·
14,431 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdourado View Post

The last AAA game I played was Wilands.
While I must say I really enjoyed the graphics and the environments of the game, I played over 25 hours and beat all story missions.
But in those 25 hours I only died once and it was due to a stupid bug where I was locked against a truck that exploded.
The rest of the game I felt pretty much imortal, entering Unidad fortresses guns blazing and pulling headshot after headshot.
From a certain point, the game was just repetitive.

Early this year, I also did a full playtrough of half life 2 and the two other episodes and I must say I was really surprised at how the game aged.
The graphics were not 2017 AAA fps game of course, but they didn't compromise the game in any way and I had a great time playing!
Really great, couldn't get out of it and was immersed and engaged the whole game!

And I really had to manage my resources and think before a gun fight.
Not like today's games when it's all guns blazing and kill everything.

Cheers!
Now wait till you try Half-Life 2: Cinematic Mod, which makes the game a bit harder by making you less of a bullet sponge.









 

·
I might have tacos tonite
Joined
·
22,339 Posts
There are still difficult games, like Dark souls. "Survival" games are also super popular, which do so little hand holding that you usually have to look up a wiki to even be able to survive the first night.

AAA games are usually meant to be played easily by someone who has never played a video game before, so have a lot of hand holding, but you don't have to look far to find games that don't.
 

·
New001
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
I liked PREY, was a great game, had it on original XBOX, it was equal first fav game with halo from memory.

I think I stand in a different camp than most as a casual gamer, I find most games today great to play for short stints. I'm not too keen to spend a whole weekend gaming (be stressed out all week from my lack of productivity) and maybe that means that non-immersive games, simple/obvious gameplay mechanics and simple story lines actually works in my favour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,506 Posts
Short version, yes they do.

Just started playing the old Medal of Honor games (Pacific Assault atm) and I've died at least 20 times in the first few missions (playing on realistic), its hard because even though you can kill them in one shot they can also drop you in 1 - 2 shots and if the medic isn't close your dead, that simple so it's pretty fair (more or less), in older games we have no glowing drops, no objective markers, cant tag enemies, no health regen etc, which makes the games pretty hard if your not careful. I just finished the night time mission at the start of Pacific Assault, I was killed so many times because I couldn't see the enemy, it was dark and the camo / uniforms blended in pretty well. Granted it is an older game now and it leaves a lot to be desired but still its a good challenge over even the newest Medal of Honor which I finished on hard in about 6 hours, Pacific Assault on the other hand is kicking the crap out of me
lachen.gif
sad-smiley-002.gif
.

As some have said Dark Souls is a "hard" game but to me it always felt like it wasn't a hard game in the proper sense of the word, when I play a game on hard settings I expect to have to fight the game but Dark Souls just feels unbalanced like the devs went, "Well you have 100 health so this enemy will do 90 damage but you with the best sword in the game will do 50 damage, oh and this enemy has 500 health, good luck" that to me isn't fair it's just lazy. Personally I've never liked Dark Souls anyway because the controls felt pretty crap and rolling everywhere is just meh.

Edit, I could say a hell of a lot more about games now a days but seeing the thread is only about the hand holding I'll leave it at that.
 
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top