Firstly, let me say that I am not posting to defend Fallout 3. While there are parts of the game that I enjoy I think it is overall a disappointment. If I had paid $50 to play the game I would want my money back, but as it is I find it an entertaining way to spend some of my time.
---
I believe that a good game is one which is challenging, but does not force the player to rely heavily on "creative saving" and can be played through with no prior knowledge of the game. I think that a game on "easy" difficulty should be casually winnable by terrible players. I belive a game on "hard" difficulty should provide a test of ability for veterans of the genre.
The OP made the claim that Fallout 3 and Bioshock can be played through casually, with one eye on the TV. Games of this ease should be reclassified as "interactive media" rather than videogames.
I disagree. If what you are looking for is a casual, relaxed experience, a videogame should offer that in the form of an "easy" difficulty. If you want a challenge, play "hard". If you want something in between, play "normal". Everyone is accustomed to the idea of difficulty settings, and no sane person has ever griped that the Easy setting was too easy for them. If they don't like playing with the Easy setting, then they don't. End of story.
In addition to difficulty settings, modern games are bringing new mechanics to the table to make them accessable to a wider market of people (see: people who are bad at videogames).
Fallout 3 has VATS, BioShock has Vita-Chambers (not plasmids). To criticize a game for having these features is no less silly than to criticize a game for having an Easy difficulty. If you don't like these features, play without them. In Bioshock, load your last save when you die. In Fallout 3, don't use VATS. What you have left is a game which is challenging, and can certainly not be played with "one eye on the TV".
I would, however, be all in favor of a new, easier-than-Easy, "interactive media" setting for videogames.
-------
Second Point: let me say that I am not attacking any particular game mentioned in the previous posts. I have played a handful of these games (Chrono Trigger, Mega Man, Planescape), but not all of them, and am therefore not interested in critiquing any of them specifically.
---
Many of the older games are simply not as "smart" as some remember them being. Many old platformer, RPG and FPS games required practice. Not practice of
skills, but practice of specific content. Practice Boss1 until you know every step he takes, and how many antidotes to bring. Practice the underwater stage until you memorize the one route that gets you to the exit before drowning. Practice Conversation B until you know exactly which lines to say so the NPC doesn't attack you. Or, worst of all, practice the
entire game until you can get to the final Boss with enough lives to stand a chance of victory.
This sort of practice is neither smart nor fun. The player is given no way to deduce a path to success, but succeeds only by repeat trial and error. Gameplay like this is a test only of how much patience the player has, and how little else the player could be doing with his/her time.
Many people, myself included, do not think that a good game should be such a masochistic test of patience and tolerance as some of these older games have been. Rather than relying on trial and error to solve a puzzle, the player should be able to observe subtle hints to deduce the answer. Rather than rely on trial and error (or in an RPG, adequately high numbers) to defeat an enemy, a player should be able to defeat enemies with a combination of skill and knowledge that he/she can acquire
without engaging in suicidal experimentation.
