• rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The old old games - the arcade games - were made difficult on purpose to farm coins for continues, in fact. Then with video games, publishers gradually started flipping it over to encourage players to complete their games and buy new ones

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah I was never into arcade games as a kid. I realized right away that they were made to be difficult for that reason, so it felt like they were not worth it.

      But games at home, at my commodore 64 or Amiga, were often difficult too. There was often no tutorials even. You just started playing and figured things out. I remember feeling like I had all the time in the world back then. As an adult, I often feel my time is limited and I should be doing something useful with it.

      • leggettc18@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well there’s a few things for early at home games, for one the instruction booklets were actually worth a damn, often containing the story, tutorial, and more. Also, size was at much more of a premium, so since instruction manuals were a thing, it was considered a waste to have all of that stuff in the game itself. I’m sure there are exceptions but that’s the general idea.

        Much as I lament the loss of good instruction manuals, it’s understandable why they went away in light of why they were necessary before.

        • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s okay, most* games have good wikis that do an alright impression.

          *Less so now that we have the plague that is fextralife and similar doing their damndest to elbow out useful wikis for any and every game.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            For PC in 1986, those are pretty good graphics. Arcades were where the best graphics were back then.

              • samus12345@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m using PC in the literal “personal computer” sense. I don’t recall PC = Microsoft being a thing back then, though I may be wrong.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        it didn’t help if you were in (eg) the uk where games cost £1 a go, rather than 25c. Which was nearly $2 in 1992, so 8x as expensive

      • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I swear I probably spent like 2 solid weeks after school just running into walls in the Water Temple because I couldn’t figure it out. And I used to 100% like everything I played. You’d find out every secret, every cheat, and spend hours. Especially once things like GTA came out, just hours and hours of doing functionally nothing. Fuck even games I didn’t really even like I was an expert in. These days, I’m lucky to get a few hours a week on a game, and I rarely finish anything that’s not exactly the type of game I’m extremely into, and 100% is a thing that basically never happens anymore.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The real scams were games with countdown timers that went down constantly unless you were able to get a lucky object. Notably, Gauntlet. You had to keep putting in quarters or you would die even if you were really good.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kinda. Publishers often found arcade difficulty spikes useful in home console games because it would mask how little content there was. Super Mario Bros could be beaten in an hour or two by most people if the lives system didn’t send you all the way back to the beginning of the game when you ran out.

      • teamevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remember buying a book with the secrets of Super Mario Bros (and other NES) games typed backwards so you had to use a mirror to know how to warp from 1-2 to 4-2 to get to 8-1.

        I doubt I’d have finished…but I’ve got a TG-16 I can’t beat anything on.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I still have my Nintendo power guide book for all the super Mario Bros, The legend of Zelda 1, link, all the mega Man games… And a few others. I also have two original NES systems, a super Nintendo, N64, PS2, and a Wii.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Making the game harder also made a smaller game last longer. If you remove the difficulty factor of lots of most old games, either by tweaking it or mastering it, then it becomes possible to beat the game in a matter of minutes.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I was surprised when I first started watching longplays and discovered that most 16-bit and under games took 20-30 minutes to beat if you knew what you were doing.