Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 12:07 AM
Thu Nov 26
53 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/10/09
1. Its optional.
2. You have to die 8 FRICKIN TIMES.
3. Might inspire Nintendo to make harder games.
Who knew gamers where such whiny children, its hilarious how so many of you take this as a personal attack on yourselves, like the mere existence of this function brings you physical pain.
You know what? Grow the fuck up, your hobby isn't this exclusive club anymore, its something that everyone can enjoy, this is just an evolution of that concept, deal with it.
I've been gaming for 22 years and have beaten more than my share of hard games before someone starts in one me and calls me a "casual", its amazing how some of you make that word sound like a massive insult or a gaming community racial slur.
Oh and you know how I bonbed with my brother?
We talked, we biked together, he helped with some of my school problems, we hang out together, we discuss many things openly, I also helped him beat bosses he couldn't take down but that's probably the smallest thing that brought us together, many other things did.
And the hard games teach values is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever read, YOUR PARENTS teach you values, important shit like tests, projects, hobbies, that taught me not to give up, not some stupid game.
10/11/09
Disclaimer: this is, of course, just the way I see it, or, if you prefer, baseless conjecture.
10/10/09
To me, that's the single redeemable quality that Video Games possess; challenge. I've still never beaten the original Mario Bros, but you know what? I tried. And I learned that, even though I never beat it, that as long as I was persistent an learned from my mistakes, I would get better. A valuable life-lesson, that was taught to me by a video game.
But this "Super Guide" is going to take that away. The one, honest life-lesson that Video Games can teach kids, without having to endure the physical hardships of life, is being thrown away "Just so they can beat the game in a single sitting".
Also, I mean, if a game takes you weeks, or even months, to beat, isn't that considered a *good* thing anymore?
10/10/09
you have to die 8 times for this thing to activate. It's meant for younger gamers and casuals. You can always help them instead of making them use the Guide. They are kids, you want them to suffer to learn a "life lesson". Really?!? from a video game no less.
10/11/09
That's what I mean; video games can teach a kid to not give up, just because something is hard. But that's exactly what the Super Guide it; the "I give up" option. Yet, they're being rewarded for it, because they still get to see the conclusion of the game.
It would be like letting a kid join the football team, but never show up for practice, never have to even break a sweat. But still get the trophy, and gets treated like the star quarterback. Or how about playing poker, but letting someone else play for you, but you take all the money and glory for it?
To me, this is a serious, SERIOUS issue. "Western" culture is already becoming extremely complacent. Now, they don't even have to *play* a game? Video games are one of the few things kids these days will actually put effort into. Now we're telling them they don't even have to do *that*?
10/10/09
Probably the most memorable multiplayer game I ever played was Secret of mana for the SNES... its the only game I know for that system that let you play with not 2... but THREEEEEE Players. So me and my two brothers played an entire RPG together =D
We didn't really grind (since it was three of us it was hard to find time when we ALL wanted or could play)~ so by the time we got to the last boss we were really underleveled. I remember how epic that battle with the last boss was because we were so weak! But we still managed to win on the last physical hit we could have made!!! It was so awesome we all remember it to this day.
Even single player games... I remember them more for the challenge... Like Tetris Attack for the SNES in the hardest mode. I must have played all summer trying to beat Bowser... when I finally beat him it was like heaven on earth. Me and my brothers still remember this because of the challenge we had beating it. (They were there trying to root me on since I was the only one of the three that could get that far.)
I could go on with alot more examples, but apparently doing a nostalgia run before breakfast isn't working xD
I think that the hard part of games are the most valuable... it teaches kids not to give up... it teaches them to work together... It teaches them how awesome it feels to put forward your all and succeed, it teaches them that the path to get there may have been more important that the goal. Overall... Introducing a "skip" system seems like an excuse for lazy kids and impatient kids who want immediate gratification.
10/10/09
At least it makes you fail eight times before even giving you the option. Here I was thinking it was going to be in the start menu.
10/10/09
Having the game play itself is just demeaning. Why buy it at all if you aren't going to play it? Games are supposed to have a increasing difficulty curve. If you can't beat level 2-3, chances are slim that letting you skip to 2-4 will be any help, as it should be tougher.
More games should take cues from Godhand and The World Ends With You, though. Dynamic or scalable difficulties, with increasing rewards for playing at tougher levels.
10/10/09
For some people, the question is, Why can't I get my money back when I can't play it. The gaming industry is finally taking steps away from the quarter-at-a-time business model and into the $60-worth-of-content model.
I think it was on Gameswipe where a guy was saying that no other medium forces you to display a certain level of skill to get the full experience. There aren't reading comprehension tests in the middle of novels, you know.
I realize that's part of the nature of games -- learning new moves and obtaining new weapons and becoming proficient with them. That's great and it will never change. But where's the harm in letting some players skip parts they find too difficult or frustrating? It's better than pissing them off so much that they just give up on the game. Besides, how little Timmy or old man Jones play has no bearing on your experience. Live and let game.
10/10/09
10/09/09
Different people play games for different reasons. Some people like challenge, and other people just like finishing the game. How does enjoying playing a game a certain way make you superior to people who play another way?
Edit: Original image from an XKCD strip about Rock Band ([xkcd.com])
10/10/09
I find I'm more understanding for dumbed down gameplay in story based games such as RPGs since the goal there is to tell a story with some minor gameplay filler, but it does bother me that "real" games are starting to incorporate things such as this which strip away the challenge. How can you expect people to learn when the answers are readily spooned out and the user rarely if ever has to deal with negative feedback for his or her poor choices? I'd say at this point you're stripping the "game" out of video games and leaving behind an easily digestible "interactive entertainment" shell.
10/10/09
10/11/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
People fast-forward boring parts of movies, and skim books precisely because they are not looking for a challenge but merely entertainment, mind numbing as that seems.
On the other hand someone looking for a challenge will sit and try to understand the deeper meaning of a more somber movie scene, they will delve into every subtext and innuendo that lies in the narrative of a book, they will collect 120 stars on Super Mario 64 just because they can (not because they thought they would unlock ninja mario.. god damn it).
This doesn't do violence to the medium, it extends the medium into a more approachable realm.
If you want a challenge from the game maybe you should challenge yourself not to use the Super Guide feature.
10/09/09
10/09/09
Sure you'd miss out on the coins, the 1-ups, maybe a power-up or two but you got to move on and keep playing the game.
But do you think that would have ruined the game? Would it have damaged the whole future of gaming?
Now imagine that the game handed out the item that you used to do this like all the freaking time, end of a world, hidden in a couple levels, etc.
Would it be bad then?
Now Imagine that if instead of just skipping the level it showed you how it could be beaten?
That would be pretty cool right? Cause then if you ever chose to play the game again you would know what you were doing wrong.
Now imagine that instead of handing out the item the game could just tell when you were having a really hard time and then gave you the option to use the item?
Would that have ruined the game?
(I know some of you are saying yes, Eat poo!)
This is not going to damage games as it's really nothing new, it's just slightly powering-up something that has been in a lot of games for a long time, easy to get power-ups that practically beat the level for you.
Don't worry you will still get to brag about finishing it you just have to add the sentence "I didn't use that cheat mode either" much the way you have to add that you didn't use any cheats, or that you played it on hard mode.
*On a side not I do hope that there is somewhat of a restriction placed on this that would give you a little incentive to try to beat it on your own even when your having a rough time of it, something like having to die a couple of times first on a level even after the feature is turned on*
10/10/09
10/10/09
10/09/09
From a player's point of view; however, I don't think an "auto-play" feature is problematic if it is optional. Such an option seems to be a more illustrated version of say, relying on a strategy guide or looking up cheats/walk-throughs online. If a person really wants to solve a problem, then I think they would be more inclined to do so than to rely on an auto-play. Enlightenment can't be forced, or it ought not be. At the very least, I think it'd satisfy more people out there who dole out their hard-earned cash for games. If I'm paying 60 bucks for a narrative, then I'd like to see it all rather shelf my game and never complete it because of one or a few impassable sections.
Comparatively, I think this is a bigger dilemma for game design. Because you can't undo a design once it's out there, well without further cost. Perhaps retroactively implement the feature as a response to QA performance on certain sections? That way, it would be more of an objective implementation which would be independent from the core design process? Again, I'm not a designer, so I'm not sure if the mere availability of the feature would taint the design process.
10/09/09
Also, I do not attribute this DVD/movie-like potential in games to Nintendo's "genius"; this feels more like a natural evolution in video games. Not to mention the recent Alone in the Dark game apparently did something similar, though without the handholding (you could simply skip the chapter).
I'm excited for the narrative possibilities.
Additionally, this is a great way to replay/re-experience a game after you've already beaten it. Perhaps developers will start treating games more like TV/anime with better pacing, cliffhangers/chapters, etc., etc. etc.
10/09/09
The World of Golden Eggs has a short in which two girls, one a seasoned and one casual gamer, boot up "Zombie Island". It hits all notes perfectly (regardless of gender). I don't know if the Super Guide is any good, but we all know what handholding is like when it's done by a person for another person.
"Zombie Island" clip:
[www.dailymotion.com]
10/09/09
A good point was made on this sort of Guide open up the path to shoddy design, but hopefully the fact that the run-through is created by an average human will help alleviate some of those potential issues.
10/09/09
Because I'm younger then my brother, I didn't start playing games until he felt I was ready....my first game was Pac Man in which he had to pick me up so I could reach the joysticks to play....I died every time but he still worked with me in my gaming experiences. Through Pitfall to RE5...
The great thing is that through my experiences with gaming, I know what I'm ready for and what I'm not ready for. I'm a better racer and puzzle solver then my brother and when we play Co-op games, I'm usually the healer person (even though I want to be the beserker....:pouts:)
I personally think that gaming guides are very useful for gamers that need help....not everyone starts off as uber badass...and of course once a person feels more comfortable with the controls or the level of difficulty they can go on to Normal mode. It takes time to get comfortable to more challenges and that's what's so great about the Wii's super guide, yes it has alot of easy peasy games but you never know what kinda doors can be opened up for a new gamer.
I only say this as a younger sibling though...then again, my brother was often cruel to me. I never learned how to throw a fireball in SF until like 5 years ago...but I suck at Fighting games to begin with.
Half circle down forward! WOOT!