13 replies to this topic

[DeathDude]

Was thinking about this while checking out some older games, do ya get more satisifaction from beating a game now a days or do ya get more for playing older games?

Personally I find some of the older games I definitely get more satifaction beating than the newer ones (not all just moreso) mainly because the challenge and difficulty of some older games was quite hard, add that to the fact if we go to the NES/Snes/Genesis era of having limited saves and or no saves at all, having to sit around and beat the game in one sitting.

Think with a lot of the games now a days there are way too many easy ones, that just don't last as long as it did back in the day. Thats not to say that all games from this era are like that, as there are definitely games that are quite challenging (GTA 3+ Series, Hitman) but think still while there are hard games that exist, compared to the types from back in the day, not so much. With regards to like strategy and RPG games, think in most cases they still retain their difficulty in a different way than the ones from the 90's and are probably the most consistent with keeping a high difficulty that pays off with effort.

So what is your take on this?

[Potatoe]

I get the most satisfieing feeling when beating old games and some nice retro freeware.

[BeefontheBone]

Depends on the difficulty really - I finished Fable the other night, which was a lot of fun and really interesting, but just not very hard (particularly the final boss) which kind of killed the satisfaction a bit. Similarly Oblivion - those bloomin' gates became really dull to the point where the main quest was trudging, however well put together most of the side quests are. If I ever actually manage to finish DROD (bloody goblins) I'll find that hugely satisfying, but not as satisfying as if I ever manage to beat Zangband!

[greywolf]

It depends on the difficulty, much like Beef said, and the length as well. Beating Ikachan wasn't that satisfying simply because it was short and not very hard. Beating ADoM, however, was extremely satisfying, and I reveled in the joy of my high score for hours.

[Sinke]

The RPGs today are better, since they managed to combine the aesthetical importance of old "text-only" adventures with more enjoyable user interface.
However, I must admit that somehow I am always more astonished with graphics of the old games then of those recent.

For example, when I played original SNES "Chrono Trigger" graphic seemed "much better" then graphic in  PS2's  FFX. Maybe it has some emotional value, since 16-bit generation is connected with my youth.  Or maybe I am spoiled, and things can't astonish me as they used to.

I mean- Starwind ( Starfox ) on SNES was like "they can't make graphic better then this in 100 years".  

But, to return to topic-it all comes with game itself. If it is a puzzle, or an adventure- I feel more satisfied, especially if I finish them without help aside. If it is an action game, I enjoy the affirmation of my gamer's dexterity.

There were games in the past which you couldn't beat. I mean, how many waves space invaders have before boss? That would be a reason for depression. No matter how tough you are, you would never finish the game.

But if you would leave a high score, at least you would be considered the toughest guy in the bar next to the arcade.

[DeathDude]

BeefontheBone, on Mar 20 2007, 10:29 AM, said:

Depends on the difficulty really - I finished Fable the other night, which was a lot of fun and really interesting, but just not very hard (particularly the final boss) which kind of killed the satisfaction a bit. Similarly Oblivion - those bloomin' gates became really dull to the point where the main quest was trudging, however well put together most of the side quests are. If I ever actually manage to finish DROD (bloody goblins) I'll find that hugely satisfying, but not as satisfying as if I ever manage to beat Zangband!

Think going beyond the difficulty level though, if ya compare say a hardish game from back in the day, with something considered hard today, obviously lot of elements that go into play that determines that.

Nice example, Ghouls N Ghosts, now thats a super hard game, one of the hardest well known games out there, and to anyone who can beat the game twice (thats right you have to beat it once and then a second time to get the "real" ending")

Think with most games now a days, the difficulty is much easier, and its made even easier with save points, checkpoints, whatnot, now granted thats because levels are longer and more challenging, but it is fun to try out games without saving, and seeing how far you can go.

[BeefontheBone]

I played through the original half-life using only the autosaves on hard a couple of times, and that made it a far more enjoyable experience than replaying it with quicksaving. Depends on the game, though - forcing you to replay puzzles you've solved or even worse cutscenes you can't skip (usually between a save point and a boss fight - FF 8 I'm looking at you!) is some of the most irritating poor game design. That and the repetitive, arbitrary battles was what eventually put me off Final Fantasy altogether.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Today, way more unlockables, and games today tend to have more cohesive and comprehensible stories with suitable endings.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Totally and utterly depends.

Finishing Act of War : Direct Action (modern) wasn't actually that difficult, but due to how the plot worked and such it was still quite a nice feeling, all things considered.

Finishing X-COM : Terror Frrom The Deep (quite an oldie) was satisfying because it was so amazingly difficult - it took damned close to a fortnight to finally crack it.

On the other hand :

Finishing Homeworld 2 (modern) was far too easy and whilst it drew the trilogy (with Cataclysm) to a close in an alright fashion, the last mission was fairly dull, and it didn't really satisfy me much.

Also, finishing Syndicate (oldie) was the hardest thing in the whole universe, ever, and it didn't even have an ending. Not satisfactory, and I didn't feel all that happy with the ending.

*edits*

One thing I do like about some games, although this isn't a modern phenomenon, is the whole difficulty levels thing - play on Easy to get the game finished, albeit not very interestingly, and then come back on a much harder mode. Deus Ex is a great example - play through the game on, say, Medium difficulty, and then come back and play with Realistic mode on - instead of being practically bullet proof, you and your foes become extremely vulnerable - as well as there being the same amount of foes as "Hard", too.

One shot to the leg and you'll need a medical bot to sort it out, and you're in serious trouble if you take a shot to the head!

[Blood-Pigggy]

I like games where changing the difficulty doesn't only affect you, or make your enemies stronger, like in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater for example, the physics of the guns and the amount of recoil and food scattered around the environment all change.

[Sinke]

But I really liked Snake Eater, it is one of my all-time favourite games. Sons of Liberty weren't enjoyable as much.

Modern games brought new genres, like "Sims" or "Tekken" while certain older genres became less popular- such as 2-d fighters ala Street Fighter or traditional point and click adventures.

But these genres are quite popular in spheres of "amateur game makers".

Memory cards, Game sharks, console modifications, Internet support- a lot of things changed in last 10 years. Games are easier, I also share that opinion.

[Moogle]

I mainly only do online games theese days, so its rather moot but....

Personally I find I got more satisfaction out of the old ones.
To me (as I mainly played RPGs back "the day"), some of the old ones take more time than skill to beat. The skill games (mainly) like FPS' and the like just don't seem to really matter too much to me, who cares if I can out shoot a bot =\ (hopefully Bioshock will totally change this =D). In my opinion I found that the old ones (like the NES / SNES ones) were a bit funner, I haven't replayed any new games at all from what I remember, wheras I've replaye dthe older ones quite a bit (notably Esxape from Krondor, done that at least 5 times...)

[Juni Ori]

Surprisingly beating the newer games. Mostly because they usually are less good and I get some bonus satisfaction finishing something I don't like. Don't ask, I'm just little freakish...

[MdaG]

I seldom feel any satisfaction beating a game today. It's more of a sadness of the game "being over" if it's a good game (with a good story) or a sense of relief if the game wasn't that good to begin with. Most often I just don't feel a thing, it's just over.

Anyway the last few games I've finished were:

Oblivion *nothing*
Dreamfall *sadness*
Rainbow Six - Vegas *nothing*
Gears of War *nothin*
Jade Empire *nothing*
Fable - Lost Chapters *nothing*