|
|
Post by justjustin on Aug 21, 2009 22:58:45 GMT -5
Man, I don't even need to post here anymore, kyouki's got my opinions covered. Couldn't have worded it better myself; a huge difference between backtracking in games today versus years ago for those very reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Aug 21, 2009 23:29:37 GMT -5
OK then! If that's what you mean by needless backtracking... then I believe we are in agreement. (:
Not many games I've personally played seem to do what you've described, though. Maybe I'm just lucky. (: Only one I can think of off-hand is Metroid Fusion, and it seemed to fit Metroid Fusion's general feel and story, so I really didn't mind it one bit.
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by sunwoo on Aug 21, 2009 23:36:32 GMT -5
There is also a difference between the older games and how they handled it. They were like puzzles to figure out, that's why a game like Castlevania II (which has no reflex-based challenge whatsoever) is endearing. Games now will stop to show you a cinema of the camera sweeping around the key you have to pick up. Then another cinema or perhaps a codec conversation spelling out for you where to take that key, even though the game has kindly locked all unecessary doors for you. That is needless backtracking. The games you and I played when we were kids were not so kind, so the challenge was figuring out what the hell to do with some crystal or key you just found. That is why I say "needless." Whether that is awesome or terrible, that is the way it is. If the game tells you exactly what to do, and you really have no other options anyway, there is no need for it, and I would rather be playing something else. I like this guy. |
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Aug 22, 2009 5:53:50 GMT -5
Sounds to me like you guys have more a problem with the needless hand holding than anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Aug 22, 2009 7:01:17 GMT -5
Wait, wait, wait, wait... Are we actually praising games like Zelda II and Castlevania II for making you wander around aimlessly until you find out what you're supposed to do?
Why?
That's not fun, that's masochistic and awful. I hold both of those games in fairly high regard, but if they were to be remade, I would want the aimlessness taken away from them as soon as possible. Ssome of the things you have to figure out are completely fucking asinine and require you exhausting nearly every possibility imaginable before you finally come to a conclusion.
I can safely say I would have never bothered finishing either of those games without a guide (or help from friends/acquaintances), the same is true for quite a variety of old games with similar forms of non-linearity. I don't consider that any sort of fun, just a frustrating waste of time and sloppy design. It takes absolutely no skill in game design to make games non-linear like that.
Some of you people sound like you would be satisfied with a game that gave you a hundred cities to explore, and the only way to find out how to get past a certain point would be to speak to a specific NPC behind a secret wall in ONE of those cities. I mean, did you all play so many old games that you really became so used to them that you WANT frustration to enjoy them? It seriously sounds like some of you have become so addicted to arbitrarily challenging game design that you actually want MORE of it, and scoff at those lesser than you for being able to enjoy games without having to go through and torture themselves into enjoying the same frustration you have.
I enjoy genuinely challenging games, and I enjoy games with nonlinear puzzles that force you to do some thinking, but I absolutely despise it when games give you some arbitrary trial & error puzzle to solve that do nothing but burn time. I would rather know about where point A is so I can walk there from point B instead of wandering across the entire game aimlessly searching for point B. I would find no more pleasure in obtaining it after relentless searching than I would knowing an approximation of where it was.
I dislike unnecessary hand-holding, too, and I do believe some modern games have way too much of that, but I really think that puzzle-solving has mostly gotten better with time. Sure, puzzles are easier, but do they really require much less thinking? I don't think so, they just require much less trial & error. They're more streamlined, and I like that... Most people like that.
I don't see what's wrong with taking finding A and B out of the equation and just skipping straight to adding them together. Some games definitely do hold your hand too much, but I believe a lot of modern games have puzzle-solving design infinitely more intelligent than the games of yonder; it really takes a lot of effort to really perfect pointing one's nose in the right direction without giving the puzzle away (as opposed to older games, which didn't even point you, and instead just expected you to search, without direction, for hours on end).
I mean, some of you say that games add needless backtracking just to add extra time to the game... That's exactly what games like Castlevania II and Zelda II did to artificially inflate the replay value, only they did it in an infinitely poorer manner by hardly even giving you a hint towards where you were meant to backtrack to.
"I am error."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 7:56:21 GMT -5
I just remember when the first Metal Gear Solid game came out, how people were bitching about how it was "too short." Hideo Kojima replied with something to the effect of "gamers are getting older, and are having less time to spend on games, so I think it's an acceptable amount of time." And this was on a game that had a cute, but totally pain-in-the-ass series of backtracking missions right before the climax of the game.
Honestly, I'd rather have a game that was planned to be shorter or more streamlined from the get-go than something with unnecessary backtracking. That was something you had in the olden days, and something that can still be relevant today provided the game designers provide something new during that "backtracking" time, like all-new enemies or some kind of new experience based on newly-acquired powers. But too often they just have you backtracking from point a to b, and it reverts into a gaming trend that should have died years ago. Right now, I'm thinking of "The Library" in Halo.
BTW, the original Strider arcade game was the epitome of the streamlined experience; with the exception of some re-used bosses (the Tong Pu squad), it was always forcing you to move forward or die, and you were fighting or dealing with something new on a constant basis. Oh, and pretty much most of it was fun and new and exciting, even after you played it the first time...sort of like a cliffhanger action movie that you were able to control. And this was in 1989; talk about forward-thinking. Nowadays, it's a pain to have to pay $60 for something that lasts 4 hours, but at the same time, if it's infinitely replayable and fun that becomes a moot point. People were able to overlook that back when I was a young'un; hopefully people will overlook that in the event we get something similarly good these days.
Sorry if this jumble doesn't make sense, I am officially old and senile today. Being drunk on Hennessey's "Official Commemorative Booze of the 44th President" doesn't help much either...
|
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Aug 22, 2009 8:08:54 GMT -5
Wait, wait, wait, wait... Are we actually praising games like Zelda II and Castlevania II for making you wander around aimlessly until you find out what you're supposed to do? I dunno about what "we" are saying, but I am saying that I prefer those to something like MGS or any of the new Zeldas or most any recent action game that has "adventure" elements added to pad out the length, but explains to you exactly what to do so that it really is just a waste of time. I'm not saying I would play a game where you have to explore a hundred cities for one guy. But that is also quite an exaggeration. Even games like Castlevania II or Deadly Towers or Legacy of the Wizard are certainly beatable if you go in with patience and are armed with a notebook. As long as the game is enjoyable, I don't mind spending hours wandering around figuring stuff out. But there has to be something to figure out!! I don't want this challenge replaced with something that basically breaks down into a $60 25 hour session of connect the dots. My problem is when designers feel like they need to add "rpg" or "adventure" elements to games, but give you no actually puzzle to solve. If you're gonna make me get a key and then show me where to use the key, and lock all the other doors on the way there, then just skip that whole part and put some enemies there to fight. I like linear action games too. It's not that I specifically like vague games you have to wander around in, it's that I don't like being spoon-fed anything. Once there is no challenge, I'll go do something else. |
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Aug 22, 2009 8:17:02 GMT -5
OK then! If that's what you mean by needless backtracking... then I believe we are in agreement. (: Not many games I've personally played seem to do what you've described, though. Maybe I'm just lucky. (: Only one I can think of off-hand is Metroid Fusion, and it seemed to fit Metroid Fusion's general feel and story, so I really didn't mind it one bit. -Tom Metroid Fusion is a good example, haha. I am thinking mostly of most modern Zelda games and the MGS games I have finished (1 and 2) or played briefly (3 and 4). Ryu ga Gotoku Kenzan also. Actually most RPGs now that I think of it. I liked the first few Dragon Warrior games, they had a good mix of nonlinearity and gathering info. |
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Aug 22, 2009 8:22:57 GMT -5
Honestly, I'd rather have a game that was planned to be shorter or more streamlined from the get-go than something with unnecessary backtracking. Yeah, but those days are gone forever. Reviews make a point of comparing cost per hour, which is just ridiculous. Can you imagine reading a movie review and the reviewer goes, "yeah, this film was really good!! But only 90 minutes!!! So I guess I can't really recommend this movie, it's just too short and not worth the $9 ticket... $9 could buy you a ticket to GI Joe, which is like over two hours long." But that is the state of game reviews and we are stuck with it. So generally even the good developers are forced to pad the games out, thus we have the keys and locked doors and going back through levels but in the opposite direction or fighting the bosses all over again or what have you. |
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Aug 22, 2009 9:32:22 GMT -5
I'm not saying I would play a game where you have to explore a hundred cities for one guy. But that is also quite an exaggeration. I believe I was being about as hyperbolic as you were with - "If you're gonna make me get a key and then show me where to use the key, and lock all the other doors on the way there, then just skip that whole part and put some enemies there to fight." I honestly think the gameplay is a hell of a lot more important than having to figure out something as arbitrary as crouching before a cliff (or was it a lake?) with the right jewel equipped to get picked up by a tornado. Why do you need something to figure out if it is that asinine? Why not just have the game be a bit more straight-forward? Yes, a lot of modern games do have excessive hand-holding, but many still have intelligently designed puzzles that don't require you to scour the entire game to even find the means to figure them out. I don't consider the "challenge" in games like Zelda II and Castlevania II to be as fun as they are just straight-up frustrating. I don't see any satisfaction in figuring out their puzzles, as they're largely just trial and error or involve exhausting every possible option at your disposable. Like I said earlier, you claim modern games add backtracking filler to extend the replay value, that is what these older games did, only they did it MUCH worse by making the process aimless. |
|
|
|
Post by loempiavreter on Aug 22, 2009 11:06:11 GMT -5
I hate puzzles in my videogames, any type. I hate Backtracking in my videogames... And worst of all I hate searching in my videogames.
I don't want my hand holded and everything told to me, because I don't want to play videogames that would need that kind.
I just wanna move forward!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2009 11:17:44 GMT -5
Honestly, I'd rather have a game that was planned to be shorter or more streamlined from the get-go than something with unnecessary backtracking. Yeah, but those days are gone forever. Reviews make a point of comparing cost per hour, which is just ridiculous. Can you imagine reading a movie review and the reviewer goes, "yeah, this film was really good!! But only 90 minutes!!! So I guess I can't really recommend this movie, it's just too short and not worth the $9 ticket... $9 could buy you a ticket to GI Joe, which is like over two hours long." But that is the state of game reviews and we are stuck with it. So generally even the good developers are forced to pad the games out, thus we have the keys and locked doors and going back through levels but in the opposite direction or fighting the bosses all over again or what have you. It's sorta funny how things are almost opposite between games and movies; people bitch when a movie is 2 hours or longer, yet they bitch just as much when a video game isn't over ten hours. Value is relative I guess. I like getting a lot of game for my money, but the older I get (which is happening faster and faster these days) the more I notice stuff like backtracking halfway across the freaking game world just to sit in a freezer for five minutes or whatever; ten years ago I would have bitched about games being shorter, but nowadays I'm almost apt to bitch in the opposite direction. As for reviewers and their opinions, they're all a bunch of assholes anyway that spew negative stuff whenever it's safe to do so (that is, when it's not about a Halo game, or other games that are likely to bring advertising revenue to their publication or website), because it's fun and it's easier than actually playing the game or creating a criticism for it that requires actual thought. P.S. I just posted some "fanart" on Pixiv for DIssidia that consisted of a bunch of zippers; I wonder if anyone over there will get it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Aug 22, 2009 11:27:50 GMT -5
Games are also less replayable (in my opinion) if they go on for too long. Even games that I thoroughly enjoyed playing through for the full 10-30 hours, I'm sure as hell not gonna start back at the beginning and do it all again! Give me a solid, tight, 4-6 hour game, and yeah, I'll run through it more than once, maybe even try it on a higher difficulty setting.
The more I think about it, the way things are now, shorter games generally give me more bang for my buck.
|
|
|
|
Post by kimimi on Aug 22, 2009 11:52:53 GMT -5
I actually prefer hand-holding these days. Not because my aged brain lacks the capacity of thought, but because gaming time is now a precious fleeting thing and every drop of it must be spent working towards whatever the games goal is.
That isn't to say I like my games simple, but I need to feel like the time I'm spending is worthwile and progressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Aug 22, 2009 12:12:12 GMT -5
Most of the time, I do like my games simple. That's why I'll still shell out for Tetris, over and over again, and I know I'll get many more hours worth of play out of it... but I suppose that's neither here nor there, topic-at-hand-wise.
|
|
.jpg)
