Difficulty Curve? Attention Spans changing?

[ZenErik]

Say I play the newest Call of Duty, and it's one of only a few games I play online. Say I play it every other day (182.5) days during the year that it's current and for only 2 hours each of those days. That's 365 hours for $60.

It may be a different kind of gaming consumption than YOU like, but would I have not gotten my money's worth?

[Gunstar Green]

A game should be fun Single player as well. A game that is only fun for Online Multiplayer is a going to be a waste of money in a year or two when the next one comes out. There aren't many games that are SO good they actually hold up past there own predecessors.

Well, it look like we aren't going to agree. There are plenty of games I only had fun with multiplayer. Guild Wars 2, WarCraft III, Diablo, Diablo 2, Diablo 3. FreeSpace 2 actually was fun single player. But most of those games I only played multi-player. Why is a waste of money when I spent a good 1000+ hours on Diablo 2 and maybe 300+ hours on WC3. Seems like I got way more than my money's worth.

Not all games are supported that long though, specifically console online games. There are a lot of Online multiplayer console games that totally stop supporting Online play once a new game comes out. If you only liked playing that game Online Multiplayer, you are never going to get to play it again.

While that kind of thing might not be for you, a lot of people accept the fact that the lifespan of most multiplayer games is finite. They still like to play them so it's not a waste of money for them.

[Jmustang1968]

Say I play the newest Call of Duty, and it's one of only a few games I play online. Say I play it every other day (182.5) days during the year that it's current and for only 2 hours each of those days. That's 365 hours for $60.

It may be a different kind of gaming consumption than YOU like, but would I have not gotten my money's worth?

I wouldn't bother. Gregzilla seems to be next in line of the members who few agree with and they stand by their outlandish claims to the bitter end.

[TheGregzilla]

No, I totally understand that. Truth is, I play Online Multiplayer games as well. If its something you genuinly enjoy its not a waste of money. Its a waste of money to the thousands (millions?) of people who play it ONLY because a website/commercial/magazine said it was good. I can attest to personally knowing many people who admit they dont really like it but they play it because thats THE online game to play.

I play Borderlands 2. I waited outside for hours to get it, and Ive probably put in at least 1000 hours on it. I play it online multiplayer. BUT, the fact is I genuinly love that game. Its probably my favorite modern game of the past 5 years. Someday, when they stop supporting Online Multiplayer on it, I could still happily play single player on it. Its a good enough game to me, that even if/when Borderlands 3 comes out, I will still play Borderlands 2, because the single player is still a good game.

Im not arguing against COD, honestly Im not. Im arguing the fact that COD is purportedly this uber game, and it gets undeserved popularity. I think all games are good in there own right. If thats what you like so be it, but when so many young players are blinded by media BS that suddenly crap games are good and good games are lame, there is a problem.

[Hobie-wan]

A hardcore gamer is somebody who calls themselves a hardcore gamer. It's a meaningless label and you shouldn't give a crap about it.

A hardcore gamer is someone with kidney stones.

[Damm64]

The simpler things are the most popular, because they are simple (i know duh). Simplicity is more atractive to the masses since it targeret to every one, it dosen't need a great amount of focus to get into it.

Now about the dificulty of the games, yeah they are easier but because of several factors.

1- The industry and companies wants you to BUY the games, why would you buy the Uncharted if you haven't finished the old one yet?

2- Deveplopers make WAY too many tutorials in a bad way. In most tutorials i see they force to use the command as they please with text blocks (again it comes to mind uncharted "If you want to keep playing press L2 to throw a grenade even if you don't want to throw it"). and sometime they thing you're a idiot (push the left trigger foward to move!!!!).

3- Now this comes along with number 2, since deveplopers over use tutorials people get lazy and now they don't to think for themselfs anymore.

They can do better tutorials with the game. Now someone is going to post the sequelitis episode of megaman x.

[JayJaySut]

When I see some people calling themselves hardcore gamers who only play COD, it's like someone calling themselves a movie buff who won't bother to watch black and white movies. It's bothersome because some people put so much effort into enjoying their games and learning about the medium it's a little insulting to be indirectly compared to some kid who just plays what everybody else does. This to me is the real problem, not the definition of the word but even then it's not big problem.

[Gunstar Green]

Then call yourself a game connoisseur or enthusiast or something. "Hardcore" doesn't really sound like a great title for someone trying to appreciate games at a deeper level anyway. It sounds more like someone who's only into porn games.

[Xeogred]

If anything to blame it's the internet / digital evolution.

And yeah I think at this point "hardcore gamer" is getting thrown around too much. Guess I'm getting grumpy and starting to hate both that and the "casual" label that are just kind of worthless and silly.

[Key-Glyph]

I am also in the camp of hating the "casual" and "hardcore" labels.

I grew up liking difficult games on the NES and Genesis and I still like those type of games. If I had grown up today I'd probably get frustrated and do something else.

This. I enjoy challenging games, but I have to say, I think the pedestal that Nintendo Hard gets placed upon is a bit misguided. A lot of the "difficulty" to those games was due to poor design, programming limitations, or an incomplete understanding of what would become genre necessities later on in gaming history (extra men, visible health bars, etcetera). You can certainly take such titles under your wing and make them into meaningful experiences, and you can decide to hone your skills in particular ones to succeed against their (often unfair and contrived) odds -- but I don't think we should kid ourselves into believing that every bit of Ninja Gaiden and its ilk was carefully designed with the intent of being the cumulative Tough Mudder of video gaming, to weed out the weak and kick the crap out of the "true gamers" until they rose from the ashes as something even stronger.

I consider good games to be the ones that teach you the skills you need to succeed at them along the way. It's a lot more difficult and much more impressive to design a balanced experience like that -- assuming you have the proper tools at your disposal -- than to resign yourself to making something arbitrarily batshit hard. But just like anything else, there was a lot of trial and error involved on the creators' part to discover better methods of doing so, and I generally give old games a pass on these grounds. If something like Ninja Gaiden were made now, knowing all the things we presently know, I'd just think the creators were jerks. It would only be excusable if their tagline was something like "Because We're Jerks" or "For Those Who Miss That Mid-Eighties Masochism."