Is this true?

The thing is, you may think that the games are getting easier or that Nintendo isn't catering to your every whim anymore, but the fact is is that they're trying to widen their markets; by making games a little bit more casual, a little bit more easy to play (while some still maintaining a difficult element - settings?) they are opening up the world of video games to those who have never played.

and yes, while we are swamped by any number of games based on movies that are destined to flop or what some may consider "kid games" (you're never too old to be a kid unless you're dead) the truth of the matter is that this practice is only going to get larger (in theory anyways) because Nintendo is making money and that's what matters now, rather than how their now dwindling-in-comparison-to-casual hardcore gamer crowd reacts.

unless someone sends a letterbomb to a nintendo facility about the playability of games and how they should be harder and less linear, they aren't going to change their minds anytime soon

Originally Posted by man_with_thooo

I have to disagree. LoZ is harder than, say, TP because:

1. Enemies do more damage

Believe-it-or-not, they don't. They start off doing roughly the same amount of damage.

Indeed, by late LoZ every enemy in the game does less damage than in pretty much every other Zelda game ever.

2. MOAR enemies

That are easier to kill, so it's a bit of a trade.

3. Nobody tells you where to go, and the game doesn't hold your hand the whole way through.

Yes it does. The original came with a map highlighting every point of interest so that you always knew exactly where to go.

TP is downright uncaring in comparison.

It's not because of the controls nor the graphics.

Not the graphics, but definitely the controls. The original LoZ had poor controls with a sword attack that was difficult to use.

That's fake difficulty, at best.

This is why you don't see any difference. But just to SHOW you the difference, here are a couple of randomly chosen videos of competitive Melee and Brawl gameplay, respectively:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuaQYZO73Hg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_sKp...eature=related

The main differences between Melee and Brawl are these:
The physics engine was altered slightly so that Brawl is a bit floatier.
Some common glitches were patched.
Tripping was added.

Other than that, it was all individual moves re-balanced, which do nothing to change how competitive the game is, simply what the strategies are.

Please let's not make this another TP-sucks thread, another Brawl-sucks thread, another Nintendo-sucks thread, or another casual-sucks thread. It makes me cry in my sleep.

I'd like to point out that yes, A Link to the Past and Adventure of Link were certainly more difficult, in a sense. Controls have always been a difficult factor in the 2Ds, and ALttP was no different - you had to very precise in aiming where you'd fire your bow, or where to swing your sword. Sometimes your enemies would hit you and push you down an endless abyss. Sometimes you would miss by just an inch. A 3D ALttP would have none of those problems, and therefore be much easier.

To take a recent sub-topic, Zelda HAS gotten easier. Playing Ocarina of Time again recently showed me that in a new light. Even after completing Ocarina of Time about 4 times now (and TP just twice), I can say I had a much harder time playing Ocarina of Time.

The enemies are generally more unforgiving and deadly. I have a suspicion it's because they move more. The enemies in Ocarina of Time move about a lot more and are more decisive in what they are doing, whereas the enemies in Twilight Princess just sit around and take ages to attack. I timed how long it took for a Bokoblin to attack me in Twilight Princess. It took about 4 seconds circling me slowly until it did one slash, and then repeated the process. Compared to a Tektite in Ocarina of Time which would jump roughly every two seconds directly at you.

You also have special moves in Twilight Princess which make enemies much much easier to kill. Fair enough, it's progress. But how about instead of just giving special moves you also give the ENEMIES special moves so they put up a harder fight.

Along with all this the dungeons have an easier layout. They are smaller and simpler in Twilight Princess. I did not get once in a Temple in Twilight Princess, whereas I used to get lost constantly in The Forest Temple and Water Temple (yes, I know that is so overused!). To make a test out of the hypothesis that Twilight Princess is easier than Ocarina of Time, play each of the last bosses from the two games, and see how long it took you and how much health you lost on each one. Unless you've spent several years playing Ocarina of Time non-stop you should find Twilight Princess easier.

Oh, and this is not really a TP vs. OoT argument. It's a means of comparing Twilight Princess (the latest installment) to all the earlier installments. Typically, they've got easier and easier.

Originally Posted by John

Yes it does. The original came with a map highlighting every point of interest so that you always knew exactly where to go.

I'd just like to expan on this point a bit. The game was intended to be played with this map. However many people played it either on emulators, or with old, used copies which often no longer had the maps. This is where the feeling of being left alone comes from. Nintendo didn't actualy hang us out to dry on that one, we just didn't have all the intended resources.

Other then that John covered pretty much everything.

It's a means of comparing Twilight Princess (the latest installment) to all the earlier installments. Typically, they've got easier and easier.

Majora's Mask was ridiculously difficult compared to Ocarina of Time.

There used to be bad games. Remember E.T., for example?

There is no doubt that it has expanded, and that more people are calling themselves gamers, but hardcore gamers are still recognized and exist. There are still good games if one is selective.

The old games were only difficult because games were still new and the producers were not sure how hard they should be. Many of the forlorn "classics" actually sucked but nobody says so due to nostalgia (i.e. Zelda II).

I think a lot of people forget that they are getting better at games as they grow older.

I used to die countless times in e.g. aLttP. Now I can finish most of the game without even using a bottle. The same goes for FPS, I was better in CoD 5 than I was at CoD 1. That doesn't necessarily mean the game got easier, I just got better at it. Difficulty levels help a lot, nobody will say Crysis was easy, not with its Delta difficulty.

That is probably my main problem with Nintendo, there dislike for difficulty levels. It isn't that hard, just make me have an option that a strike by an enemy cost me 2 hearts in stead of 1.
There not the only ones unfortunately, I personally am a big fan of difficulty levels and would like to see one in each game.

To further proof my point: When the Wii was first released, the controls were brand new for everybody, the first two days my friends were able to beat me at Mario Kart, a rare feat. After a while my experience kicked in and I was lapping them again. So controls do make a difference, they have just been so similar over the last years that we have grown acostumed to them and as such have become a lot better.

Originally Posted by Nictel

So controls do make a difference, they have just been so similar over the last years that we have grown acostumed to them and as such have become a lot better.

This point particularly stands out and is very relevant. Controls make a huge difference. OoT is not harder than TP by any means.

Originally Posted by Forte

This point particularly stands out and is very relevant. Controls make a huge difference. OoT is not harder than TP by any means.

True. While I havn't played TP on CGN, I did find it alot easier purely because I was using the Wiimote to aime. I found it to be alot more precise. What was it like on GCN? Was it similar to OoT or did it have the crossair like Wii?

Originally Posted by Epic Flan

To take a recent sub-topic, Zelda HAS gotten easier. Playing Ocarina of Time again recently showed me that in a new light. Even after completing Ocarina of Time about 4 times now (and TP just twice), I can say I had a much harder time playing Ocarina of Time.

I must disagree.

I was...many years younger (13, I think) when I beat OoT. I died once outside of boss fights.

It was also one of my first 3D games and I sucked at using the N64.

TP? Well, I played it two-and-a-bit years back, and I died maybe half-a-dozen (full dozen?) times before the fourth dungeon. After that I didn't die again (though came dangerously close a few times) but that's still quite a bit different from OoT, which I largely breezed through.

The enemies are generally more unforgiving and deadly. I have a suspicion it's because they move more. The enemies in Ocarina of Time move about a lot more and are more decisive in what they are doing, whereas the enemies in Twilight Princess just sit around and take ages to attack. I timed how long it took for a Bokoblin to attack me in Twilight Princess. It took about 4 seconds circling me slowly until it did one slash, and then repeated the process. Compared to a Tektite in Ocarina of Time which would jump roughly every two seconds directly at you.

Nah, it's simply that you've got much better combat in TP.

OoT, while amazingly innovative, still had a bit of a problem with actually making your attacks connect with enemies.

Along with all this the dungeons have an easier layout. They are smaller and simpler in Twilight Princess. I did not get once in a Temple in Twilight Princess, whereas I used to get lost constantly in The Forest Temple and Water Temple (yes, I know that is so overused!). To make a test out of the hypothesis that Twilight Princess is easier than Ocarina of Time, play each of the last bosses from the two games, and see how long it took you and how much health you lost on each one. Unless you've spent several years playing Ocarina of Time non-stop you should find Twilight Princess easier.

I disagree with all of this.

The dungeons in TP were, on average, larger than the dungeons in OoT. That's pretty easy to show.

And the forest temple in OoT was very, very easy. :/.

Anyways, Ganon in OoT is a pushover. Ganon in TP is rather more difficult. I found him a challange, while OoT's...wasn't.

Oh, and this is not really a TP vs. OoT argument. It's a means of comparing Twilight Princess (the latest installment) to all the earlier installments. Typically, they've got easier and easier.

I'd disagree, I really would.

TP is the hardest Zelda game to come out in years, and the hardest 3D one after MM.

TP was made easy because of the Wiimote, really.

But seriously, this topic isn't just about Nintendo, guys.

In general, as I've grown older, certain games have become easy to the point where they're boring. And, if they're not easy, then they just don't have the interesting level design that kept me into the hobby for so many years. It's hard to explain.

If anything, as I've grown, I've become more capable of appreciating the simple approach to games. Big budgets do nothing for me at all. Some of my favorite games recently have really just taken a simple formula and have come packaged with some "new gen" aspects. This is why hype-train games like RE5, while good, are not even as fun to me as Mega Man 9 or Peggle Deluxe. Most of the time, I enjoy when games are more minimalistic and set limitations for themselves; this way they can be constantly fun and rewarding without giving the gamer more than they asked for.

Though, admittedly, if a game has good creative backing, then I support when it wants to be more ambitious.

Another example is Mother 3. I started my second playthrough recently, and yeah, the game is awesome. Why? It didn't need a ridiculous budget. It's focused on pure storytelling and characterization, using simple 2D art. Not only that, but the battle system is also relatively simple by design. It takes the same Dragon Quest sort of system that Earthbound had, and then adds in an addictive rhythm-based combo system that is easy to understand but tough to master, especially when considering the game's large multitude of battle themes. A simple concept drawn out to its full potential. No unnecessary "flash."

If there's any problem I have with gaming, it's that developers are finding it so necessary to squeeze as much out of a game in order to justify a $60 price tag that they overbloat games with unnecessary features and effects, and in some cases, the gameplay suffers and the games themselves end up as bland. But then, you'll have so-called "hardcore gamers" who eat this stuff up, because they like all of their games to be like big Summer blockbusters, while at the same time, they'll give the evil eye to anyone who enjoys Wii Sports or Bejeweled.

Of course, I guess these generalizations are a problem as well. I just think that core values have been lost over time. Gaming has taken some great steps, as I see it, but games do seem to be overstepping their boundaries more often than not, and in a way it pains me to see people loving this so much.

I'm not sure if it's a measure of "degeneration" but I am, in a way, getting tired of the attitudes that the industry has, over the years, spawned in not only the gaming audience, but also in the developers and publishers themselves. Maybe it's always been this way, maybe it hasn't, but there has never been a point in the past where I've been as uncomfortable with peoples' perceptions of the hobby as I am now.

To answer the original question, I said no. Simply because gameplay is being degraded and everything else seems to be the focus. To me, gameplay is the most important thing. That and sometimes the storyline.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

True. While I havn't played TP on CGN, I did find it alot easier purely because I was using the Wiimote to aime. I found it to be alot more precise. What was it like on GCN? Was it similar to OoT or did it have the crossair like Wii?

Harder to aim perfectly, but I'd say the combat is much easier to pull off in the GC version of the game, with the trust buttons for targeting and sword-swinging. I personally much prefer the GC version, but I wouldn't mind the Wii version - it's just that all the Wii waggling reminds me of Star Wars TFU for the Wii, which I'd rather not be reminded of

I dunno about you guys, but I think classic games are better than modern. Seriously, I refuse to pay 50-60 bucks for a new game. rediculus. Not to mention all of this hi-def mumbo jumbo, I don't give a ****. Gimme some classic genesis, nes and snes and I'm happy. Not to mention most classic games can be obtained online for 5 bucks.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

First of all, read this:
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/
Do you think this is ture? Has this really happened? Has videogaming as we know it degenerated?

Another crappy comic from VG Cats huh?

Anyway, I don't think that video games are degenerating. I think that people are mostly overreacting and taking things too seriously.

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

I dunno about you guys, but I think classic games are better than modern. Seriously, I refuse to pay 50-60 bucks for a new game. rediculus. Not to mention all of this hi-def mumbo jumbo, I don't give a ****. Gimme some classic genesis, nes and snes and I'm happy. Not to mention most classic games can be obtained online for 5 bucks.

You do realise that classic games cost just as much (if not more, I believe Super Mario 64 was $80 at launch) than modern ones when they were released, yes?

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

I dunno about you guys, but I think classic games are better than modern. Seriously, I refuse to pay 50-60 bucks for a new game. rediculus. Not to mention all of this hi-def mumbo jumbo, I don't give a ****. Gimme some classic genesis, nes and snes and I'm happy. Not to mention most classic games can be obtained online for 5 bucks.

Yeah these kids and their toys. In the old days yes everything was better we had no playbox no intrenets! We had to switch floppies and blow in cartridge slots so it would all work. No we had no Blur ray we had bits! My trusty 8bit never failed me! /grandfather voice


P.S. The NES would have cost you $200,- at launch, in today's prices that would mean $364,- Games were also around $50,- (today: $91,- (!)) So due to inflation and and average consumer purchasing power the prices have actually gone down.

P.S. The NES would have cost you $200,- at launch, in today's prices that would mean $364,- Games were also around $50,- (today: $91,- (!)) So due to inflation and and average consumer purchasing power the prices have actually gone down.

sure, but nowadays an nes can be gotten for a few bucks at a garage sale or craigslist.

You do realise that classic games cost just as much (if not more, I believe Super Mario 64 was $80 at launch) than modern ones when they were released, yes?

sure, at the time, but now you can get them online or at garage sales/flea markets for almost nothing. That's my point. Playing classics consoles nowadays is better because the games are still tons of fun, and cost alot less.

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

sure, but nowadays an nes can be gotten for a few bucks at a garage sale or craigslist.



sure, at the time, but now you can get them online or at garage sales/flea markets for almost nothing. That's my point. Playing classics consoles nowadays is better because the games are still tons of fun, and cost alot less.

Then buy modern games 20 years from now.

I can't believe the fact that a game costs 50$ is such a big deal. I honestly can't. They pointed out clearly that they costed the same or MORE than they do today. You're complaining about nothing.