Quote:
Originally Posted by matious
Games back then didn't have a memory card. They were easy to get into and play.
It's annoying having a game that invests so much into the CGI cutscenes and other bull that the actual game ends up only being 5-6 hours.
Games these days cost 60$, you can't blame people for feeling entitled to more.
|
Games in general aren't that much more expensive than they were 20 years ago. And back then nobody complained about a game only having 6 levels if it took them a long freaking time to beat it.
Back then they couldn't put as much content into a game obviously, so to pad it out they had to keep it challenging enough to make sure it had a lot of replay value and make the game seem as long as possible. That's one reason the old games are so much harder than what we have today, because now that games have so much content and weeks worth of gameplay, it dosen't seem to matter if their difficulty level makes Kirby seem like Ninja Gaiden.
So, short and challenging or long and easy? That all goes down to personal preference of course. But the lack of difficulty is one thing that bugs me about modern games, now sure not all classic games are hard. Sonic is a cakewalk and Mario and Zelda have never been too hard, but they make up for it with tremendous replay value and extra goodies that are optional but take more time and effort to earn, like collecting all the chaos emeralds or finding all of Hyrules hidden treasures .
I find today's market to be too overcrowded with shooters that are extremely monotonous and offer too much instant gratification too fast, and they get boring quickly. Now I'm not saying the difficulty determines a games quality, absolutely not, Sonic and Kirby are among my favorite franchises after all. But while platformers and action/adventures can be fun on any difficulty level, I at least expect some challenge from my shooters.
One reason why shoot em ups > first person shooters.