Is 'holding your hand' part of gameplay now?

T

The_Onesin

First time out of the vault
Well I was talking about DMC reboot in one of the gaming community.

I told that I was disappointed with it because I grew up playing Devil May Cry 1,3, and 4, and new DMC was dumbed down in terms of gameplay. They removed all the styles except maybe something similar to Quicksilver, and the boss fights were oversimplified from previous installments.

I was expecting some people to disagree with me using some proper logic, but instead these were all they posted


"Devil May Cry classics did not tell me what to do, no direction and whatsover"

"It was so damn uncomfortable to play" - Funny they didn't mention camera problem which I do recognize that it is uncomfortable

"Combat too hard"


And well I got bit pissed off because it was full of things like that. No objective criticism or whatsoever. Not even mention or comparison between reboot and classic.

Ended up having some childish arguments sigh..



Anyways, is 'Holding hands' new aspect of gameplay now?

I don't know if its just me who hates it when games do it now, but I do respect the opinions.

But I just don't get how not 'holding hands' is becoming logical criticism to some classic games.
 
The_Onesin said:
Anyways, is 'Holding hands' new aspect of gameplay now?
Click to expand...

I have the strong feeling that for a lot of people videogames are more about the "experience" rather than...well...the actual game. That's why games that ooze atmosphere but are lacking structurally can be quite successful/praised. Holding your hand of course hepls having a smoother "experience".
 
Complexities, faction mechanics, choice and consequence, good writing, good dialogue choices, deeper and more tactical challenge and extra choice can lead to a far better experience however.

Here's what happened: That's gamers. That's not us. Gaming started off seriously simple. It gained in complexity as technology evolved sure but the fundamental building block was and still is a combination of ego stroking and slot machine like mechanics, with the necessary challenge to keep it interesting. That is, just enough challenge for the biggest audience. And this is talking about non-rpg, non tactical, mostly console focused games.

We're just that niche that started off in the nineties as a result of certain landmark titles that grew into it's own great lineage. We're the younger brother basically, who has found a liking in cultured things and can critique what he loves. We just have to deal with our older brother who had complexities at birth leading to impaired mental ability.

It even mated and spawned a child of it's own. . . casual gaming! For mom's and dad's and facebookers and tweeens! *que evil tune*
 
well, there is a difference between hand holding and eliminating frustrating gameplay though. This is a pretty decent article about the subject, at least I think it is, as far as game design and difficulty goes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toVNkuCELpU[/youtube]
 
mobucks said:
Well fuckin said brother.
Click to expand...

1375401580947.gif


Crni Vuk said:
well, there is a difference between hand holding and eliminating frustrating gameplay though. This is a pretty decent article about the subject, at least I think it is, as far as game design and difficulty goes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toVNkuCELpU[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I decided to avoid extra credits after they said Mass Effect 3 was "An artistic statement." (Their literal words), though.
 
It's quite sad. If you want to make a game successfull nowadays you have to do that, because that's all the majority of triple a games have done! So it's actually expected of games. It's like they created their own endless cycle of stupidity.

The reaction to Dead Money is really all you need to confirm this. People hated it. I think I read that Avellone specifically made it to counter the hand holding nature of games nowadays. The pip boy comment by Elijah comes to mind. But that simply does not catch on, and is actually despised.
 
Akratus said:
It's quite sad. If you want to make a game successfull nowadays you have to do that, because that's all the majority of triple a games have done! It's like the created their own endless cycle of stupidity.
Click to expand...

That's what the publishers think, which is stupid.

Or how do you explain the popularity of games like Dark Souls then?
 
Akratus said:
I decided to avoid extra credits after they said Mass Effect 3 was "An artistic statement." (Their literal words), though.
Click to expand...
I understand your resentment, but I would not totally dismiss it just because of their opinion with Mass Effect. A lot of stuff they say is just "theory", but a lot of their stuff is also quite interesting. At least the part they say about difficulty, where they make a difference between punishing gameplay, that is really only there to serve as a road block and gameplay that is difficult but because of the mechanics. And who knows? Maybe Mass Effect was even some kind of "artistic statement", who says that all artistic statements have to be good though? (see Mass Effect 3 and the *still* shit ending)

Diablo 3 is a prime example for that, at least when the game was still fresh right after its release. The game for it self is very simple a lot more then D2, and the difficulty of the game really does not kick in before you reach the late game, which was Inferno (for those that don't know it, Diablo 3 has 4 difficulties). Inferno was so hard, that people had to use all kinds of "exploits" to get trough the the game, because there was literally almost no chance to do it by just playing the game. As said. Almost. But I don't consider spending 24 hours each day on a game a viable play style. Anyway. The game wasn't difficult because you had to think a lot or because it required some insane skill like memorizing attack patters or something like that. No. It was difficult simply because the monsters did a ton of damage and finding items that would improve your character was a huge pain in the ass. Particulary if you played one of the classes that had no exploitable skills.

This is a difficulty that is simply wrong. It is full of road blocks that are extreme. Now I don't mind a game that is using road blocks here and there, as long they are somewhat subtle (arcade games, like Super R Type or Battle Toads is a different experience in my eyes here you want this road blocks). For example, I agree with the idea that a game should be difficult, but it should also give you the tools to beat it.

Take Jagged Alliance as example. It can be quite difficult, particularly if you decide to play it on Iron Man mode where you cant save in combat, a turn based game for those that don't remember. But, the game gave you a hell lot of options to deal with the situations in front of you and it never felt unfair, not for me at least. Even if I lost half of my squad, because most of the time the game it crystal clear what you did wrong and how to improve on it when you try it again.

of course, I can not talk about Devil May Cry and I agree with you that hand holding mechanics done wrong, as we saw it with Oblivion and Fallout 3 for example, is a serious plague to gaming, as it promotes lazy developing. What is lazy developing? Well instead of making intriguing quests for example and creating a coherent and believable setting/world with enough clues and ways for the player to solve the task, you just slap a "quest compass" on it. No need to create clues or find out how to get the player to actually get from point A to B. I saw the changes from Morrowind to Oblivion a dumbing down of the gameplay and story telling. And the worst of it? The press and many gamers welcomed that change ...
 
Extra Credits also stated that the Courier had amnesia and that his starting gear never changed based on skills despite both things being completely disproven in the first 5 minutes of gameplay.
 
I will say this again, their video about difficulty in games is pretty decent. Do I demand from you people to love them and become their fans? Hell no. Anyway, dont focus to much on extra credits. I just thought why should I writte a novella when there is a video that explains a lot of what I think is true.
 
Surf Solar said:
That's what the publishers think, which is stupid.

Or how do you explain the popularity of games like Dark Souls then?
Click to expand...

Games like that don't sell a lot and the unexpected success of DS itself doesn't prove anything anyway. Even if all the buyers of DS are "hardcore" players it's 2 millions out of a pool of ~140 millions players.

Not that I think that a triple A game with ton of marketing would sell much less without the game constantly telling you what to do, but I guess that in the eyes of the producers there's nothing to lose and everything to gain by having it.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBgI76zBIGo

This guy pointed out some good stuffs about holding the hand.

He also said that Dark Souls was commercial hit because the timing of this game was perfect. People were getting tired of games without challenge and holding their hands. Its like in 2006, people were still primary school kids who wanted their parents to hold their hands, but now they've grown up and are looking for challenge.

I may be wrong, and this guy made be wrong too, but it makes sense since hand holding were extensively featured from about 2005 with Quick Time Events popping out in games and stuff. Also they WERE popular.

I personally love dark souls as well and I do think this is top notch game, but I also think that one factor why it sold so well was the trend in gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top