Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigMcD
Have any of you ever thought that you're just better at games than you used to be?
In any case, I would rather have a linear game which I can complete than some freeform thing which is impossible without wasting hundreds of time.
|
Yes, and I AM better at the video games of yesteryear.
But that's for the same reason as newer games being easier: I've learned by rote. The examples from the first post, the original Zelda, pretty much everyone knows...
There was an old computer game written at my school. Somehow, it became a huge craze (As huge as you can expect to get from around 700 elementary students tops). It was really challenging if you figured it out yourself. I became easy, though if you learned it by rote.
A lot of the more recent games take out the thinking factor and just skip directly to the rote.
Of course I'll beat SMB3 more reliably now. I know pretty much all the tricks. Zelda doesn't have any surprises for me anymore, because I figured it all out years ago. I don't need an intuitive sense for these games anymore, because I've done it already.
The last really challenging game (I played) was Myst, because there was still a level of thinking, and there was the possibility to actually LOSE (E.G. You missed something earlier, you CAN'T beat the game without going wayyyy the fuuuuck back). Do I expect every game to be like Myst? No, but I'd like more than a couple games from the last ten years to NOT spoonfeed everything to me