Reflections on the Evolution of Gaming (Part 1)
Reflections on the Evolution of Gaming (Part 2)
Reflections on the Evolution of Gaming (Part 3)
Difficulty as a feature, not a bug.
Sometimes while looking back at games we can spot obvious flaws once newer and better ideas come along. Other times we see them through rose-colored glasses because we played them as kids or whatever.
There are some things that I think modern gamers look back on older games and see as bugs/flaws instead of features. One example is the ‘knockback’ from enemies in games like Castlevania or Ninja Gaiden. It’s part of a penalty system for getting hit and part of the purpose of game is getting better at timing/jumping to avoid running into enemies.
Sometimes better programming/systems allow for new moves that make older mechanics obsolete. A couple of instances come to mind. In the original Metroid, Samus couldn’t crouch so there was no way of hitting enemies that were shorter than Samus. But bombs and the Wave Beam could hit those enemies, so it took a little practice/skill to be able to effectively deal with those short enemies. But in subsequent games she could kneel and point downward, and this is something that I would suspect that was suggested to the developers as an improvement after hearing player feedback.
The other example is the whip in Castlevanias 1-3. While it was the primary weapon, it had its limitations, but the other sub-weapons could help. Holy water went down, the axe went up, and the knife was longer range. But the whip in Castlevania IV was so versatile and useful that it made the sub-weapons practically superfluous.
Sometimes those limitations are there for a reason and were intended as a feature. Other games have restrictions that help keep the game interesting. Basketball doesn’t let you just pick the ball up and run, football has limitations on who can move before the ball is snapped, and card games like Solitaire or Freecell restrict which cards can be placed on other cards. These rules and restrictions are features of the game, and not bugs. Without such limitations, the games would be unfair to one side and would soon careen into Calvinball territory.
I know most people were frustrated by Final Fantasy’s battle system when they instructed two characters to attack the same enemy, but it happened to be killed by the first character. The result is that the second attacker just swings at air instead of automatically changing targets. This was seen as a programming oversight, but I think it was intentional. It would be similar to a football defense attempting to double-team a star offensive player who ends up not being part of the play, leaving fewer defenders to block the actual one with the ball. Less astute Final Fantasy players got frustrated that there were so many wasted attacks in battle. What it did to smart players, though, was force them to keep a running mental count of how much damage could be done by the characters and how many hit points enemies had so as to not waste turns.
I think sometimes players don’t want the limitations, not realizing that the game would be completely different and/or not interesting to play without them. If Mario could just jump so high that he can skip the entire level, what would even be the point of playing it? Dragon Warrior was single player against a single enemy during combat, then Final Fantasy was four characters against up to nine enemies. But if it was like 28 Light Warriors against 1 enemy, it wouldn’t be fun due to being too easy.
Another example is the ability to save everywhere. While saving after obtaining every star in Super Mario 64 is nice, there's no real penalty for losing all your lives other than having to navigate the menu and castle stairs. In Super Mario World, there were certain levels that prompted a save after completing them (fortresses, castles, and ghost houses). So if you managed to get through a few levels but weren't able to complete the ghost house, for instance, then upon losing all your lives you'd have to re-do those levels. It kinda forced players to 'git gud' enough to make it to a save point.
I think in some cases, player feedback might open developers’ eyes to something they hadn’t considered, like kneeling in Metroid. But other times technology might be a limiting factor. Yoshi was an idea that Miyamoto-san tried to get going for SMB3, but couldn’t implement without the additional horsepower that the SNES provided, so Yoshi showed up in SMW.
Limitations breed creativity. We can definitely see instances where the hardware couldn’t handle things. Double Dribble only had 3v3 on either side of the court to prevent sprite flicker, while Tecmo’s NBA Basketball 5v5 was a bit of a mess. But the SNES Bulls v Blazers had no issues due to superior hardware.
Clu Clu Land was based around the concept of swinging around a pole, and the difficulty is getting used to the control scheme and learning how to properly maneuver around the screen avoiding enemies. It was not well received, but if it had been programmed with a “regular” control scheme, it would have been much easier, but it also would not have been unique, and would have been another Dig Dug.
Newer hardware can come with more freedom and more abilities, but it also might take away part of what made something unique/special.
