This is generally fine, as most of the audience in the mobile market and the Wii console are casual gamers. The concern is that this ease of gamplay is spreading into, and altering, the games aimed at the hardcore gamers. This ranges from changes to difficulty and the addition of features, like restore points, to make games easier.
Restore points the ability to store the exact state of the game and then restore it later as if you just turned back time have been said to ruin old games. You can find restore points not just in emulators, but also most recently in the 3DS and Wii U versions of virtual console games. The dislike of restore points stems from the feeling that using restore points removes a lot of challenge from old games. Dying in those games had the consequence of retreading old ground, from replaying the current area to restarting from the beginning of the game and needing to replay entire levels simply because the player died one time.
Retreading previously completed levels is not an issue for hardcore gamers, but for new gamers wishing to experience the old games, the high difficulty may be too much for them to want to continue the game, or is simply too intimidating for them to even try the game in the first place.
I can definitely see why people dislike restore points. However, is the option required? The player has the choice to use restore points, but it is not forced upon them.
Does the use of restore points take away from the experience? That depends on the person. The experience of a game is generally subjective, so for those who use restore points, the simple act of completing the level could be the experience, regardless of what they used to get there.
Furthermore, they may use restore points as a learning tool so that they can understand the game mechanics and can return later in order to complete the game without the aid of restore points. Lastly, and the one of the reasons I appreciate restore points, the person may simply not have much time for gaming, and thus having to redo levels or retread old ground actually degrades the experience due to their personal time constraints.
So is it bad to use such a feature? This question was even posted in the Nintendo Force magazine where Lucas M. Thomas editor-in-chief of the magazine wrote about how he would finally be able to finish Zelda 2 thanks to restore points, and was curious if a victory in a game through this manner is just as valid. Besides, to some new players, using the restore points is like an easy mode and then not using them is like a hard mode. I had forgotten about the game Dark Souls potentially having an easy mode added until I watched a video by Jim Sterling on the same subject skip to for the relevant content of the video.
In short, the developers of Dark Souls a game regarded as one of the, if not the number one, most difficult games available in the current market expressed interest in adding an easy mode to this game. Many gamers railed against this addition, as they argued it would ruin the experience of the game. Dark Souls is meant to be hard, so adding an easier mode defeats the purpose of playing.
This means that the selection of an easier difficulty would be up to the player, not the developer.
It can be used if the player chooses to do so. In fact, to avoid the risk of alienating console audiences, Ion Storm made it so there were hardly any references to previous games at all—especially Thief II: The Metal Age. So they alienated the loyal following of people who had stuck with the game for half a decade up until that point, instead. And this trend looks like it is set to continue with the latest Thief , which is a reboot. And Stephen Russell wasn't called in to lend his voice talent for the character of Garrett, either.
True Thief fans are probably better off sticking with The Dark Mod instead. All right, so the series mentioned here are all old. Nobody cares. Plenty; too many games nowadays could be described as having a console feel to them, and many—mainly diehard PC gamers—are put off by this.
The Dead Space series has that console feeling to it. I noticed that the first time I saw it. It was even doubted at one point whether Dead Space 2 would even be released on PC.
I could go on forever, baby. One of the only true PC gaming series of the last decade is S. Almost every title in said series is raw, unpolished - some might even say ugly, in more ways than one.
The HUD is just chock full of information. And along with the semi-demise of GSC came the total demise of S. What, you say they were going to bring S. Get the f k out of here, Stalker!
And don't you dare say that GSC paid the price for tampering with a winning formula. You were thinking it. Admit it, you cruel, cold, callous person, you. Console titles have preferred genres.
Strategy titles are inherently geared towards PCs. This has to do with—once again—mouse control, tasks such as clicking and dragging to select units and so on. Shooters work best on PC. I said it. Anything that requires precision, you need a mouse for. Not a controller, or a joystick, or a wheel—a mouse and a keyboard. I feel embarrassed when I see these game trailers or walkthroughs and the guy playing is using an Xbox or a PS3. Do you remember the gameplay footage of Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 where General Antal was practically screaming at Randy Pitchford when he was dithering about struggling with the Xbox controller?
It was like he was back in the service again, probably. Racing games are console-orientated. How often do you see games with cars and bikes arrive on PC today? The same could be said for flight simulators, or skateboarding titles, or fighting games like Mortal Kombat. PC gamers aren't interested in to that sort of thing anyway. All the exercise they need is accomplished by reaching over to the bar fridge every now and again.
Console games just have more of an arcade, pick up and play feel to them, in the end. From my limited amount of time spent playing PlayStation back in the day, it was pick up disc, insert disc, play game, and the most important thing you had was your memory cartridge where you stored savegames. It's simple, and that is attractive to many people.
PC games have always had to be installed for the most part. Then we struggle with drivers and other conflicts. Then we have to settle for medium graphics because high is causing rolling blackouts in the house. PC games have a steeper learning curve. We like gadgets, nobs, dials, meters, and graphs, etc. We like complex control systems that have hotkeys all over the board—because keyboard keys outnumber controller buttons by at least 10 to 1.
His tone was light and good-humoured throughout. And on my living room table is Trivial Pursuit. The game is not adored by our family, nor is it even liked. It just is. It is what board games are. Everyone has this game by now. Every table in every living room has a copy of Trivial Pursuit right there, ready for some post-dinner play. So what is Trivial Pursuit? It is a game that tests your general knowledge, a game that will most likely be won by the most well-read person in the room.
Trivial Pursuit is not a good game. But there was a time when there was a great deal of importance placed in how smart people were, on the most superficial of levels. And there was a breed of board games that made a priority of the appearance of intelligence. Being that kind of smart used to matter. Is Chess fun? Perhaps only a little. And yet — and yet — chess might very well be in your home right now. Chess is in the foyer of many a hotel. Chess is a default board game shipping with your new computer, your new phone.
Purely because of tradition. Chess is the game intelligent people would play, and so we would play it too. Because we once cherished feats of intellect, even in games. New games, constantly, many of them with very similar base mechanisms, but many more with new twists. With enough experience, some games almost initiate a kind of muscle memory in us, and we fall into readily understood patterns.
We roll dice. We build decks.
0コメント