Are Games Getting Easier?

Introduction

When the gaming phenomenon really got going in the 1980's, it existed virtually exclusively in arcades. Back then, games were built around a couple of key concepts: they were fun, addictive - and nearly impossible to master. Games like Pac-Man have a seemingly infinite number of levels, and even the best of the best can lose while just barely scratching the surface of the game.

But as games have become more complex, game designers have started wanting everyone who plays their games to get to see everything they put into it. This in turn has resulted in a generation of games that are easier to conquer. In spite of the rapid growth in technology and the ability to make games more intricate, game have become fundamentally less challenging than they were 20 years ago.

This is a trend that has been increasing slowly but constantly since the arcade days. The birth of the home consoles of the 1990's saw some very difficult games, but trends like frequent checkpoints and save points gradually became commonplace. And now, as we delve deeper into the 21st Century, the level of skill needed to complete a game seems to continue to decline.

There are a few fundamental concepts that really underscore this trend. The ominous feeling once associated with seeing "game over" has diminished, due to save games and other conveniences. Instead of complex puzzle solving, strategic elements are now more like connect the dots. Final bosses have become weaker. All of these, along with a couple other factors, really define the degradation of difficulty in gaming. I've taken a look at these elements and will discuss some specific examples. However, I also realize that change is sometimes vital, so I've also detailed what could be done to lessen the leniency provided by so many different games, without completely reverting back to "old school".

Game Over?

There was once a time when, if you saw the words "game over" on your screen, you would be grief stricken because that meant the game was in fact actually over - to play the game again, you would have to start over. This applied to racing games like Pole Position, older arcade titles like Space Invaders, and even early platform games like Sonic the Hedgehog. But now, game over is just a formality that sends you back to your last checkpoint without penalty. Furthermore, it's become common to exploit the leniency of a "game over" sentence. For example, you can easily save your game at a checkpoint and then go to a boss battle just to see if you're ready. You have nothing to lose because if you're defeated, you just go right back to the checkpoint. This almost completely eliminates the necessity of being prepared throughout the entire game.

But the problem goes so much deeper than that. With the definition of "game over" being so lax now, victories are not as rewarding for gamers as they once were. If you ever played the original Mario Bros, you'll remember how great it felt to beat the game after having to start over numerous times; you rarely get that sense of satisfaction from beating a game in this generation. I've had Super Mario Bros for about 12 years and every time I pass that final Bowser stage, I still get a great sense of satisfaction. In contrast, when I conquer a game from this era, I just feel relieved that it's over. I rarely get the feeling anymore that I won because of hard work and determination.

Of course, with games that now last over 80 hours, sending a player back to the beginning for an error 75 hours into the game is unreasonable. But that alone should not mean the death of "game over" as an ominous term. Some games have already set the example for how to balance fairness and challenge. For example, the Pokemon RPG series makes you lose half of your money if you are defeated in battle, before sending you back to your last save point. More RPGs should implement similar consequences. Or, for the less epic games, the idea of a limited number of continues (as demonstrated early on with Mario Bros) is another good idea. Of course, there need to be strict limits on these continues. They should be tough to get, and should make you have to think twice before entering a situation where you lose one. But the more common concept of having virtually no punishment for meeting your demise in a game is just ludicrous.

"Game over" is quite possibly the most well-known gaming term ever created, and it once had an extremely notorious connotation. It's a shame that such a concept with deeply planted roots now means virtually nothing. While we'll probably never again see the day where games make you start over after losing once, there should still be penalties for making mistakes in games. It's one of the most prominent examples of how games are getting easier, and there needs to be a shift back to the stricter side if we want games to continue to challenge us.

Not Exactly Rocket Science Anymore

Before the world of online walkthroughs, companies dedicated to strategy guides, and game cheating devices like the GameShark, there were plenty of games that were not only a ton of fun but really pushed your intellectual skills to the limit. And I'm not just talking about Donkey Kong, Jr. Math here. Some of the earliest computer games, like The Secret of Monkey Island, relied heavily on your ability to puzzle-solve and determine what you need to do next with very little in-game help.

But now, we're in a world where we have robotic vacuum cleaners, "smart" washers and dryers, and GPS systems that tell you every turn you need to make on the road. We've become a society where, outside of our jobs, we want to exert as little effort as possible and give our brains a rest. The gaming culture has shamelessly shifted to accommodate that lifestyle as well. Even games that still revolve around puzzle solving have been reduced to something you'd find in a 3rd grader's adventure book. Furthermore, these games often have an insane number of in-game clues and tips to help you solve these rather elementary challenges.

A good example of this is the Legend of Zelda series. When it was first introduced in 1987, it was heralded for its addictive but challenging tasks. But the latest entry in the series for a home console platform, Four Swords Adventure, has nothing but simple, mundane challenges that are just tedious and not thought provoking at all.

There are a number of factors that have contributed to this change. We've got a new generation of kids who, really for the first time, are growing up with gaming. They're an expanding demographic and games need to accommodate them; having too many games that are overly complex could deter them from gaming altogether. Secondly, the advent of the strategy guide craze probably discourages the developers from making any puzzle too mind-boggling, because gamers will just look up the solution. Finally, the development process of a video game has changed dramatically. It has become much more oriented around special effects, smooth 3D animations, and stunning visuals. There's not as much time to spend on intriguing puzzles, as they are not considered as important. With much more space to work with, games can easily rely on other attributes to make them worthwhile, much more easily that was the case 10 or 20 years ago.

This shift in emphasis - from how the game plays, to how the game looks - is a huge threat to the entire gaming industry. We need a healthy number of games that still stimulate gamers intellectually. We need those challenges that leave us ripping out our hair trying to figure out what to do. Again, it all comes down to the reward factor. Solving a puzzle that would have left Einstein in the dark, like those early 1990's games, is so much more satisfying than, say, figuring out in which order to push blocks that are labeled 1, 2, and 3. There are certainly many of us who want gaming to again be a truly cerebral activity, and integrating some great mind-boggling puzzles back into games is a step in that direction.

The Final Boss Is More Than Just Another Foe

The "final boss" refers to the enemy you must conquer at the end of the game to win; it is a figure that appears in games of virtually all genres: action, adventure, first-person shooter, fighting, RPG, and more. This is yet another term that has had a constantly evolving connotation.

In the early days of really structured games, when the NES and Sega Genesis were in full swing, the final boss was really something about which to be worried. It wasn't a true final boss if you didn't die at least once trying to defeat it. On top of being physically tough, a final boss usually pitted you in a setting unlike anything else previously seen in the game, and required you to use a new game play mechanic to defeat it. For example, there's Super Mario Land for the Game Boy, which has a monstrous final boss that requires minutes of continuous shooting from Mario in an aircraft vehicle that you barely get a chance to get used to, all the while dodging the boss's constant attacks. Now that's a final boss.

However, to come across such an enemy in games today is quite a rare occurrence. The final boss has become much less intimidating, and for most games, is now just treated as another regular enemy; there's not much difference between the final boss and the second-to-last boss. On top of that, final bosses have just simply become easier to defeat in more recent games. There used to be a time where you had to be perfect in the final fight; one hit from the enemy and you'd be out - Sonic 2 comes to mind. But in games today, you can make several flubs and still have no problem defeating the boss.

I would love to once more start seeing games that push you to your limits in the final fight of the game. Those who have just gotten into the gaming world in the last 5 years or so have experienced almost nothing but these predictable, relatively easygoing games. We need to start giving these players some real challenges, otherwise the future generations of gamers will be weaker and the gaming culture as we know it will change dramatically.