I read something in a recent http://www.gamereactor.eu/previews/7763/Hitman%3A+Absolution/ with the developer of Hitman that I found a little curious. In it the lead designer described that one of their aims for Absolution (the next Hitman) was to "create an experience that captures the soul of the old games, but makes them workable for the modern player." In addition he called the old Hitman games "obese, severe, and heavily based on trial-and-error." He mentioned this in support of a new feature they've added, which highlights enemies through walls and displays their patrol routes as a glowing line across the floor - essentially, a cheat mode built into the game, designed to alleviate the guesswork from tracking your opponents.

Ok, so the Hitman games could be pretty unforgiving, and maybe a few hints would be useful for new players, but this seems a bit much. Thankfully it's a feature that can be ignored, but it's far from the only recent game to host such challenge-eliminating concepts. There seems to be a general tendency to undercut complexity for fear of alienating players who can't get past the difficulty curve. The comment about "the modern player" and "trial-and-error" got me thinking: as a gamer of many years, I simply take it for granted that certain difficult games will require a degree of trial and error, and that each save I reload is simply part of learning to play the game. I take it as a mark of my progress how much less reliant I can become on a game's quicksave system. But is this an outmoded concept - do "modern gamers" rather want to power through a game without their inexperience or consequences holding them back? Share your opinion.

It seems to imply that "Modern Gamers" are majority younger (teenagers, tweens, children) who are too lazy to live up to the challenge of the old generation of games. I fall somewhere in the middle, I've been playing video games since about 1992 but I still like some of the new features that "dumb things down" like the compass in Oblivion. It's not a matter of laziness it's a matter of time, I just don't have the time to put into video games that I used to so I just don't have the time to wander around like I did when I played Morrowind back in high school.

Lots of developers these days say things like "we are making our game more accessible for new gamers" or something like that.

I'm not entirely convinced that's a good marketing move, cause a lot of established gamers often see that same line as "we are dumbing down our games a lot for the casual crowd", and feel a bit insulted of the changes. Not to mention, who read developer interviews and follow the development of the game if not the already established fans? I think it would be better if the developers instead said stuff those fans want to hear.

In any case, it's no secret games gotten easier. Back in the 80s and early 90s it was fairly common to see the game over screen, nowdays I hardly see it at all, with the player being able to take massive amounts of damage and then regenerate all the health a few seconds later. That's why it was so refreshing to play a game like Demon's Souls when it was released a while ago, it was a modern hard game.

Not that the Hitman games really been that hard to begin with, I mean, I played thru the first game in one day.

I don't know that it's so much the "modern gamer" as it is "the modern gaming industry". The people who want the less forgiving games are still there, and the ones who don't want them were there before. With giant companies and budgets of millions of dollars, games that "aren't for everyone" are rarely an acceptable risk. Modern gamers are more likely just a phrase the companies use to try and make their customers seem separate and special, as customers like to do. These games are for YOU, not for those OLD gamers. Of course, it's not all flimsy labeling; the products available in one generation of a long-lasting medium are subject to change, and by extension the fans are going to be different, but it's more a result of trying to shove as many people into the pile as possible. Originally games were seen as only being for antisocial losers, sitting at computers at a time when it still wasn't uncommon not to own a computer. More competitive things like fighting games and shooters were more frequently seen in arcades, naturally a more social setting. People not into them weren't involved at all.

Now every group is being stuffed into marketing range, creating clear, profitable majorities. Adolescent males are a highly desirable demographic, in this medium and others. They're known to be a big portion of profits. They're also known to be prone toward the competitive and aggressive, multiplayer and action. That doesn't apply to everyone, not even everyone in that group, but this doesn't matter to the company for as long as that group is bigger than the other ones. Games aren't often made for those other people; they're either made for the bigger crowd with "elements" of another game type, or as seems to be the case with the new Hitman, a game for the smaller crowd is taken and then saturated with "elements" preferred by the bigger one. The only group as large, or larger, than the majority players are the non-players, the "casuals", who play something every now and then because it seems fun for the moment or because they want to connect with a gaming member of the family. Their money is also desired. Harsher game elements aren't going to be appealing to non-gamers, so they're removed.

So no, I don't think the crowd has changed so much as "modern gamer" is the industry term for "more money damn it". People like convenience and accessibility, and it's of course the marketing department's job to make everything the game does sound good, so you have genuine "streamlining" to make the game more efficient and fun to play alongside "removing content and challenge" to make the game less frustrating to those unwilling to spend much time on it. Both are advertised as the same thing, and as beneficial to the final product, so you get the never-ending battle between people over whether a change is one or the other. People just see/hear what they want to and block out the negatives, in games as much as every other aspect of life, which makes the whole thing extremely hard to discuss or really examine. It's one of the reasons I can barely stand to go near the Skyrim forum.

And as anyone who paid attention saw, that game became quite a huge success considering it started out as some under-the-radar port from over-seas. It's pretty obvious that plenty of gamers still enjoy challenge, and that this trend of making games easier and easier isn't exactly what modern gamers want.

Uh, is the "modern gamer" so stupid that they cant think or figure something out for themselves without them having their hand held throughout the entire game?

They are even doing it with ocarina of time 3D. you can get hints in case you cant figure something out which is complete bull [censored] since they wont suffer as much as we did with the water temple. (yes yes i know, im a young gamer, aint my fault i was born in 94 <_< )

It could have something to do with the psychology of the current gaming crowd, in the sense that those who picked up gaming prior to a certain time period were generally more intelligent than the broader audience now. That isn't to say that current gamers aren't intelligent, but I mean that gamers that grew up on the older games, like Arena, were more problem-solving oriented and could think in abstracts easier. Whereas now the general gaming public cannot.

Does that make sense? I'm not too sure, it's one in the morning here.

so your basically saying that because we didnt know any different and games kicked our ass', it made us into better players?

I've played Arena. Although I enjoyed it, anyone preferring Arena to modern Elder Scrolls games for any reason related to thought needs their hard drive memory checked, in my opinion.

Essentially what I'm saying is that a lot of us can, for example, understand Dungeons and Dragons, and a lot of other people can't. It's all about being able to wrap your brain around a concept.

It's just like how older individuals don't understand how computers work, yet almost everyone from the current generation does. It's also like how my mom can't play Halo unless you stand in front of her so she can shoot you. It's the ability to comprehend.

Rhekarid, did I ever tell you I think you're my long lost brother?

Because I think you're my long lost brother.

You. President of all gaming ideas for future game development. Now.

You haven't met my long found brothers yet.

This means new generation gamers are lazy and svck at videogames.

Let's go back to old-school where we aren't told anything and we have to repeat the level 1000 times. I miss the golden days of gaming.

Seriously. I've tried to go back and play some old games I remember playing as a child; I honestly have no [censored] idea how I was able to play those games as a kid and not gouge my little eyes out. They are so hard.

I have a few old systems set up to my TV, so now and then I always hit some of the classics. Rarely get through them, but fun none the less.

Games have become a broad industry, which doesn't meant that the "new gamer" is a another kind or that people have become dumber, but that people who are less intelligent than the "oldschool gamer" (read "90s nerd") now make up a bigger percentage. Since this is an industry and most companies are only in for the highest profit possible, yes, they need to cater to as many people as possible. But that is a thin line, very easy to miss, since losing the better players is about as big a problem as losing the ones with less experience.

But I have to admit that despite being as hardcoe as one can get, having played through many nights of Nintendo Hard games, the modern approach is much more pleasing. Most old games had somewhat of a fake difficulty through trial and error, and that's not quite the most enjoyable experience. Give me a game that's challenging yet follows very easy to spot rules which you then have to follow. Like Demon's Souls for example. Best of both worlds.

To me, sleep overs with my bros back in 6th grade, beasting out to SNES and N64 games was the fun stuff. Whilst N64 wasn't really hard, it was a small break for those 4 player games. Nothing like staying up til 4am trying to get through a final level.

I love this new environment of weaklings. I'm always trying to improve my game or take on greater challenges in them, I'm not claiming to be the best. Though over the vast majority of gamers "hardcoe, old, new, and whatever else" if I really get into a game I stomp them flat. It's survival of the fittest, only those who want to have a challenge and be the best will win through the rank and file. My god when you meet someone at your skill level or higher on the field of battle, it can be inspiring. To know that for some reason... this man wanted to be better than everyone else too.

The weak will be slaughtered. It seems weird to think this way, but if all the people are told is that a game is fun, easy, and simple to get into for fun then the people who break the mold are all that much more exceptional. For whatever reason they didn't join the timid brethren around them but decided to take up the challenge. Whatever it might be. If everyone was playing hard games again it could be argued the skill level would go up, but only out of necessity to play the game. The true level of skill is diluted as people are forced to play and it creates a more even playing field more or less depending on the game. No I much like this new generation of gamers and the game industry... to some extent. It doesn't test your skill, it tests peoples minds to see who wants to win, really win. Naturally I can't play every game to this level of skill, it takes time and dedication to get there. Though in my preferred online and solo games it is satisfying to go back over the "hard" areas and stomp them more or less. I doubt many people will share this opinion.

Does it make me a god because I can put in a Call of Duty game I haven't played for a year and go 40-4 with a handgun and crossbow? Or am I just decent because everyone else svcks? :confused:

Im still trying to beat SOnic the HEdgehog 2 with old school rules (no saves, no cheats)...

old games were flat out harder.

Is Demon's Souls really that hard? I found that it demanded a sense of "Get your head out of you ass and pay attention you twit!", but I beat it without too much trouble.

And that's the only reason why they've been keeping us playing for that long. Just look at legit speed runs without glitches for those games, and compare to play times of normal players back then.

Depends which one, but overall yea. Damn good.

Agree'd. It's the same as The Witcher on hard. It's a difficulty game, but it's because it requires you to put a thought into what your doing, rather than "LOLOL I SWING SWORD YOU DIE I WIN". And the only reason people go on about how "hard" Demon Souls is, is because a webcomic some guy did :rolleyes:



Most games these days done in speed runs only take a couple hours total to do. :/
The only real difference is we now have larger storage capacities for new games.

Could you imagine Sonic games being 450 levels long?