4 ms·

Also old games wining was not guaranteed. Mario, sonic, hell most sidesrollers. Just because you put 50 hours into the game doesn't mean you'll win. It's why d

Also old games wining was not guaranteed. Mario, sonic, hell most sidesrollers. Just because you put 50 hours into the game doesn't mean you'll win. It's why dark souls has a place in my heart. It was a modern game where wining was absolutely not guaranteed. It was hard. And it put you on awe with visuals. Most games you play nowadays is winnable. And when it isn't people complain why isn't it winnable. Well... It's why they're not impactful. Do you remember the win you made against a group of 5 year Olds in soccer? Or do you remember the win against friends who were better than you but you played your heart out. That's the difference. Imo

johnnyanmac 3y ago
I guess that explains the appeal of the "souls" subgenre of games. But also why it's not for me. I never beat Sonic 2 or Mario 3 as a small child and that was frustrating. Meanwhile, some of the first games I did beat by myself were Pokemon Silver and Final Fantasy VII. And they both gave me satisfying conclusions to my journey (compared to say, GTA 2, another game I played a lot by myself). And that proceeded to strongly influence the kinds of games I play. not necessarily hard ones, but ones that rewarded my teambuilding (or at least, ability to cheese the mechanics).
- anthk 3y ago
  A game like GTA 2 (and specially 3) was not meant to be played as-in-the-script, but to fuck around in the city the to have fun and, then, yes, complete the game.
masklinn 3y ago
> Most games you play nowadays is winnable. And when it isn't people complain why isn't it winnable. Meh. There’s plenty of modern games where “winning” either is not really a thing (Minecraft, Terraria, dwarf fortress) or is fiendishly difficult (“winning” StS would be semi-reliably killing the heart with any character at maximum ascension, I think just reaching A20 in 50 hours would be impressive).
- didntcheck 3y ago
  Yeah. As a kid who spent a lot of time playing games but just wasn't very good at them, I'd pore manuals to look at levels that I knew I'd never reach, and not for lack of trying. I was amazed the first time I played a single player game on the PC (forgot what) and was actually able to see the end! Unless you're into speedrunning, playing the same levels over and over just isn't fun. It's frustrating
- Retric 3y ago
  Semi-reliably beating the heart on A20 is no more required to beat the game than speed running a competitive time in Dark Souls is. You can always impose artificial constraints to add more time sinks but that’s on you and your ego not the game.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Old games locked content behind hard challenges, games like StS doesn't. Playing a challenge that doesn't unlock new content is like cooking and then just throwing away the food, it kills the enjoyment for most.
- opan 3y ago
  Minecraft and Terraria still have final bosses as well as achievements. You definitely run out of things to do eventually unless you just want to build stuff at the endgame and/or collect every optional item, which can get boring quick for many people. A full run of either is often weeks-long and dozens if not hundreds of hours, but I don't think most people play the same world/character/save forever.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > Minecraft [...] still have final bosses as well as achievements. You definitely run out of things to do eventually unless you just want to build stuff at the endgame and/or collect every optional item, I don't know about Terraria, but only speedrunners consider the end dragon to be the final boss of the game. Besides the fact that the game has received regular updates with new content (and harder challenges/bosses) for more than a decade since the dragon was added, it's a block game... > unless you just want to build stuff at the endgame That's like saying "unless you want to build things with lego." Building things is the point, it should go without saying. Beating the dragon is what players do in the first day playing on a new map to clear the way for the real gameplay. It's a prerequisite (not finish line) for getting a full set of equipment so you can start building in earnest. Beating the ender dragon is like getting the box of legos open and poured onto the floor.
haunter 3y ago
I think this is just nostalgia talking. My first SNES games, Super Mario World, is a 5 hours long game, 9 if you are going to 100% it https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 And I did beat it back then. Not a super complicated game. What I didn’t remember though and only looked up recently: the MSRP was $60-70 https://imgur.io/khmhfoA https://imgur.io/khmhfoA Today that would be like $120-130 for a 5 hours long game https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ But honestly nowadays even $60-70 for a 5 hours long game would be atrocious no matter the nostalgia factor. Made me think why my parents only bought a game for me three times a year (birthday, christmas, summer vacation)
- Jensson 3y ago
  > My first SNES games, Super Mario World, is a 5 hours long game, 9 if you are going to 100% it https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 That is is you have already mastered games. It takes years to get good enough to beat those games in the time those sites says, if you have already spent years playing games then yes you play through those games quickly. For example, that site lists Super Mario Bros as a 2 hour game. Do you think me as a kid beat that game in 2 hours? No, of course not, I spent hundreds of hours playing it in total and never beat it. At that time games were made arcade hard, they weren't meant for kids to beat, they were meant to provide a long lasting challenge so you can try over and over. https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9371 https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9371 Edit: > And I did beat it back then. Not a super complicated game. Yes, SNES games were significantly easier than NES games in general. I beat the SNES games earlier than the NES games even though I had the NES games for longer, games becoming easier was a long process and SNES was a step in that direction. There were still SNES games that were hard and few managed to beat, but it wasn't the norm at that point.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    > For example, that site lists Super Mario Bros as a 2 hour game. Do you think me as a kid beat that game in 2 hours? No, of course not, I spent hundreds of hours playing it in total and never beat it. We had so much time, though so it wasn't a big deal how hard and tedious a game was. As a bored teenager, dropping 100 hours on a video game in 2-3 weeks was nothing. There was nothing else to do. Trying and failing at a game over and over felt entertaining. I'm closing in on my 50s, and gaming is just different now. I recently grabbed a NES emulator and a knock-off USB NES gamepad and played through a bunch of old games from my childhood. It hits real different now that I have a life and time is precious. Games that I remember as fun are now just time consuming and frustrating, rather than entertaining. Platformers where you needed surgical precision to land on just the right brick or you're back to the beginning of the level: irritating and very quickly my brain starts telling me: "This is not worth it." RPGs where you spend most of your time grinding between bosses who (randomly) either kill your party or go down without much of a fight, my brain says: "This is definitely not as entertaining as I remember it." And all the while, I'm watching the clock, thinking about how otherwise productive I could be being right now...
pizza234 3y ago
> Most games you play nowadays is winnable. And when it isn't people complain why isn't it winnable. > Well... It's why they're not impactful. Today's landscape in of videogame design is much wider than "winnable"/"unwinnable". There's plenty of "unwinnable" games if one wants nowadays - they're called "hard". There is even the "faithful retro NES" subgenre, which reproduces NES design and difficulty. There are definitely impactful hard games, when well produced (I don't like them, but I guess games like Super Meat Boy have a lot of fans). There's a reason why, on the other end of the spectrum, there are "easy" games; their objective is to provide an experience rather than a challenge - and also on this side of the spectrum, there is an extreme end - the walking adventures. Old/unwinnable game of the past doesn't imply "impactful" at all; there was plenty of garbage back then. There's still plenty of garbage nowadays of course[¹], but there are experience-oriented games that are "impactful" - think of the Bioshock series, or even What Remains of Edith Finch. There is one aspect of the past that is gone forever, and it's the mystique that some games had for people who couldn't access gaming media. If, 30+ years ago, one couldn't finish a game (for any reasons), the ending was a mystery. Nowadays, one just looks on Youtube. I have very ambiguous feelings about this, though, as it also carried frustration. [¹] Although I think that, nowadays, due to the lower bar to production, people with good design skills and poor programming skills, can still produce a remarkable game.
Anarch157a 3y ago
those side scrollers were made following the same model of arcade games, which means you are supposed to 'lose' often so you or somebody elae put another quarter on the machine. It was not an artistic choice like in the Souls games.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

I guess that explains the appeal of the "souls" subgenre of games. But also why it's not for me. I never beat Sonic 2 or Mario 3 as a small child and that was frustrating. Meanwhile, some of the first games I did beat by myself were Pokemon Silver and Final Fantasy VII. And they both gave me satisfying conclusions to my journey (compared to say, GTA 2, another game I played a lot by myself). And that proceeded to strongly influence the kinds of games I play. not necessarily hard ones, but ones that rewarded my teambuilding (or at least, ability to cheese the mechanics).

anthk 3y ago
A game like GTA 2 (and specially 3) was not meant to be played as-in-the-script, but to fuck around in the city the to have fun and, then, yes, complete the game.

masklinn 3y ago

> Most games you play nowadays is winnable. And when it isn't people complain why isn't it winnable. Meh. There’s plenty of modern games where “winning” either is not really a thing (Minecraft, Terraria, dwarf fortress) or is fiendishly difficult (“winning” StS would be semi-reliably killing the heart with any character at maximum ascension, I think just reaching A20 in 50 hours would be impressive).

didntcheck 3y ago
Yeah. As a kid who spent a lot of time playing games but just wasn't very good at them, I'd pore manuals to look at levels that I knew I'd never reach, and not for lack of trying. I was amazed the first time I played a single player game on the PC (forgot what) and was actually able to see the end! Unless you're into speedrunning, playing the same levels over and over just isn't fun. It's frustrating
Retric 3y ago
Semi-reliably beating the heart on A20 is no more required to beat the game than speed running a competitive time in Dark Souls is. You can always impose artificial constraints to add more time sinks but that’s on you and your ego not the game.
Jensson 3y ago
Old games locked content behind hard challenges, games like StS doesn't. Playing a challenge that doesn't unlock new content is like cooking and then just throwing away the food, it kills the enjoyment for most.
opan 3y ago
Minecraft and Terraria still have final bosses as well as achievements. You definitely run out of things to do eventually unless you just want to build stuff at the endgame and/or collect every optional item, which can get boring quick for many people. A full run of either is often weeks-long and dozens if not hundreds of hours, but I don't think most people play the same world/character/save forever.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Minecraft [...] still have final bosses as well as achievements. You definitely run out of things to do eventually unless you just want to build stuff at the endgame and/or collect every optional item, I don't know about Terraria, but only speedrunners consider the end dragon to be the final boss of the game. Besides the fact that the game has received regular updates with new content (and harder challenges/bosses) for more than a decade since the dragon was added, it's a block game... > unless you just want to build stuff at the endgame That's like saying "unless you want to build things with lego." Building things is the point, it should go without saying. Beating the dragon is what players do in the first day playing on a new map to clear the way for the real gameplay. It's a prerequisite (not finish line) for getting a full set of equipment so you can start building in earnest. Beating the ender dragon is like getting the box of legos open and poured onto the floor.

haunter 3y ago

I think this is just nostalgia talking. My first SNES games, Super Mario World, is a 5 hours long game, 9 if you are going to 100% it https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 And I did beat it back then. Not a super complicated game. What I didn’t remember though and only looked up recently: the MSRP was $60-70 https://imgur.io/khmhfoA https://imgur.io/khmhfoA Today that would be like $120-130 for a 5 hours long game https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ But honestly nowadays even $60-70 for a 5 hours long game would be atrocious no matter the nostalgia factor. Made me think why my parents only bought a game for me three times a year (birthday, christmas, summer vacation)

Jensson 3y ago
> My first SNES games, Super Mario World, is a 5 hours long game, 9 if you are going to 100% it https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9387 That is is you have already mastered games. It takes years to get good enough to beat those games in the time those sites says, if you have already spent years playing games then yes you play through those games quickly. For example, that site lists Super Mario Bros as a 2 hour game. Do you think me as a kid beat that game in 2 hours? No, of course not, I spent hundreds of hours playing it in total and never beat it. At that time games were made arcade hard, they weren't meant for kids to beat, they were meant to provide a long lasting challenge so you can try over and over. https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9371 https://howlongtobeat.com/game/9371 Edit: > And I did beat it back then. Not a super complicated game. Yes, SNES games were significantly easier than NES games in general. I beat the SNES games earlier than the NES games even though I had the NES games for longer, games becoming easier was a long process and SNES was a step in that direction. There were still SNES games that were hard and few managed to beat, but it wasn't the norm at that point.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > For example, that site lists Super Mario Bros as a 2 hour game. Do you think me as a kid beat that game in 2 hours? No, of course not, I spent hundreds of hours playing it in total and never beat it. We had so much time, though so it wasn't a big deal how hard and tedious a game was. As a bored teenager, dropping 100 hours on a video game in 2-3 weeks was nothing. There was nothing else to do. Trying and failing at a game over and over felt entertaining. I'm closing in on my 50s, and gaming is just different now. I recently grabbed a NES emulator and a knock-off USB NES gamepad and played through a bunch of old games from my childhood. It hits real different now that I have a life and time is precious. Games that I remember as fun are now just time consuming and frustrating, rather than entertaining. Platformers where you needed surgical precision to land on just the right brick or you're back to the beginning of the level: irritating and very quickly my brain starts telling me: "This is not worth it." RPGs where you spend most of your time grinding between bosses who (randomly) either kill your party or go down without much of a fight, my brain says: "This is definitely not as entertaining as I remember it." And all the while, I'm watching the clock, thinking about how otherwise productive I could be being right now...

pizza234 3y ago

> Most games you play nowadays is winnable. And when it isn't people complain why isn't it winnable. > Well... It's why they're not impactful. Today's landscape in of videogame design is much wider than "winnable"/"unwinnable". There's plenty of "unwinnable" games if one wants nowadays - they're called "hard". There is even the "faithful retro NES" subgenre, which reproduces NES design and difficulty. There are definitely impactful hard games, when well produced (I don't like them, but I guess games like Super Meat Boy have a lot of fans). There's a reason why, on the other end of the spectrum, there are "easy" games; their objective is to provide an experience rather than a challenge - and also on this side of the spectrum, there is an extreme end - the walking adventures. Old/unwinnable game of the past doesn't imply "impactful" at all; there was plenty of garbage back then. There's still plenty of garbage nowadays of course[¹], but there are experience-oriented games that are "impactful" - think of the Bioshock series, or even What Remains of Edith Finch. There is one aspect of the past that is gone forever, and it's the mystique that some games had for people who couldn't access gaming media. If, 30+ years ago, one couldn't finish a game (for any reasons), the ending was a mystery. Nowadays, one just looks on Youtube. I have very ambiguous feelings about this, though, as it also carried frustration. [¹] Although I think that, nowadays, due to the lower bar to production, people with good design skills and poor programming skills, can still produce a remarkable game.

Anarch157a 3y ago

those side scrollers were made following the same model of arcade games, which means you are supposed to 'lose' often so you or somebody elae put another quarter on the machine. It was not an artistic choice like in the Souls games.