Zelda: OOT Comparison

[PatientZero]

Have none of you ever stopped playing a game because you get stuck and just can't be bothered to keep trying different solutions for hours?
Not everyone has the hours to invest in playing a game that's just being frustrating, personally I play games because I enjoy them, not because struggling through them somehow makes me a better person, I've flat out given up on a good number of games purely because I got stuck and it stopped being fun, including OoT.

With any luck having the option to be walked through that aggravation will stop that happening.

(also: protip, nobody likes elitist gamers.)

[ZaeTelapo!]

Have none of you ever stopped playing a game because you get stuck and just can't be bothered to keep trying different solutions for hours?
Not everyone has the hours to invest in playing a game that's just being frustrating, personally I play games because I enjoy them, not because struggling through them somehow makes me a better person, I've flat out given up on a good number of games purely because I got stuck and it stopped being fun, including OoT.

With any luck having the option to be walked through that aggravation will stop that happening.

(also: protip, nobody likes elitist gamers.)

Sorry couldn't hear you over the excuse of being lazy.

Now days people see an event in a game where you must use your head or have good reaction time as a flaw, but in reality it is nothing more then a simple excuse for them not to attempt at all, maybe some games are stupid with it, but nullifying that will just make you reliant on it and in truth destroying the purpose of the game entirely.

You can't enjoy a puzzle game when the game solves it for you, that is the purpose of the game, to solve puzzles and so forth.

With that in mind, super guide is nothing more then an excuse to not try.

If anything should be done it should be a feature to solve things in different ways to progress, drifting away from the ever so linear one path that people may not see.

Oh yeah, elitism is bad.

[DavidCaruso]

Have none of you ever stopped playing a game because you get stuck and just can't be bothered to keep trying different solutions for hours?

Already addressed this. Selectable difficulty. Harder to implement but the effort pays off because it ensures a balanced and fair game for multiple skill levels, as opposed to "now we can put some random counterintuitive adventure game puzzles in because our Prima Strategy Guide is already inbuilt" or "peek-a-boo laser time right before the enemy appears, kids." I realize this will probably not be a problem with OoT, but here I'm talking about the Super Guide in general and how it will impact future games once it inevitably becomes widespread practice. That's what I've been talking about this entire time.

Not everyone has the hours to invest in playing a game that's just being frustrating, personally I play games because I enjoy them, not because struggling through them somehow makes me a better person, I've flat out given up on a good number of games purely because I got stuck and it stopped being fun, including OoT.

I, too, play games because I enjoy them. People play games to be better people now? Wouldn't the best way to become a better person to go out in the world and do something, as opposed to trying to find meaning in videogames? But anyway it also happens that challenge makes the enjoyment I derive from a game higher in the end. I personally believe that this applies to anybody, it's just that some people are more well equipped for certain challenges than others from the start so they have to put in a bit more effort. But you'll never be able to enjoy anything if you don't put in effort anyway.

As for no one having enough time: people still play JRPGs. The console ones are about 50 hours long on average these days, right? You could clear or master literally any hard arcade or console game (no, JRPGs are not hard games, and neither is OoT really) if you put that much time into it, and you'll probably get a higher sense of self-satisfaction in the end.

(also: protip, nobody likes elitist gamers.)

Elitism: defined as "the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight." So yeah I guess I'm an elitist gamer by that definition, as pathetic as it might sound, since I believe some people are more qualified to talk about games than others. The alternative is being a "massist" gamer, believing that the masses are always right and they will lead the way to the future. (Marketing to the masses gave us licensed games and the movie Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.)

[Sol]

You guys are pissing all over this for no real reason. It's an optional feature. And guess what: People can play their games however they want, and they probably don't give a shit about whether or not you think they're lazy. You've never used a video game guide before? If people want to be led by the hand for the entire journey, that's their choice. Not something I would do, but I'm not them.

Besides, apparently the guide system that's going to be in Ocarina of Time 3D isn't really one that does everything for you, it just kind of nudges you in the right direction: [link]

Also, I think I'd actually rather have a guide system like this instead of adjustable difficulties (excepting harder modes, specifically for people who want more of a challenge) Why have to choose from a blanket difficulty mode when you have a tool that allows the game to ease up on you just when you decide you need it to? It fine-tunes the challenge so that it's personalized, just for you.

[ZaeTelapo!]

I'm just worried that people will rely on it too much in future games.

People intend to rely on something that makes life easier for them and requires less effort continually, so I'm actually wondering how that's gonna work.

[GrooveMan.exe]

Already addressed this. Selectable difficulty. Harder to implement but the effort pays off because it ensures a balanced and fair game for multiple skill levels, as opposed to "now we can put some random counterintuitive adventure game puzzles in because our Prima Strategy Guide is already inbuilt" or "peek-a-boo laser time right before the enemy appears, kids."

Selectable Difficulty Levels are usually way less involved than what you're implying. It usually just involves a change in damage dealt/received, more than actual changes to level design. Master Quest interestingly DOES do this, and even then it's more often than not about enemy placement.

See, aside from an excuse for developers to make games harder, I don't see Super Guides actually doing much of anything for people not interested in using it. Complaining about how other people may play/enjoy a game differently to you is p. dumb. And complaining that it's going to ruin the future of the gaming industry is also pretty misguided (at the end of the day, it's a business. If developers an add a function that makes their game more accessible while not making the game itself inherently easier, they're sure as fuck gonna take it).

Super Guides are only an issue for the people who DO want to use it; and if you're not one of them, then I'm finding it hard to see why you'd care. Oh actually, Super Guides in Nintendo games (and L.A. Noire, kinda!) only kick in when you're doing really badly. *insert burn about you sucking less here*

[Alpha Six]

All of you that are arguing against the Super Guide are either:

1) Stuck in the stone age of gaming, where guides literally did not exist
2) Not giving developers enough credit.

Putting Super Guide in a game is not going to ruin the game. That's not how game design works. You're all making it sound like if a game DOESN'T use a Super Guide, it's automatically going to have great design. That is not reliant on Super Guide, that is reliant on the competence of the developers-- and if the developers decide to make the level design bad "because they're putting in a Super Guide," then don't even bother trying to kid yourself; The level design was going to be bad from the start.

One completely optional feature is not going to destroy a game, especially not one like OoT. I can't even believe this is an argument.

[DavidCaruso]

It's an optional feature. And guess what: People can play their games however they want, and they probably don't give a shit about whether or not you think they're lazy. You've never used a video game guide before? If people want to be led by the hand for the entire journey, that's their choice. Not something I would do, but I'm not them.

See, I never denied that people should have the right to play games however they want to. But what I'm worried about is how this will impact future games, and future game developers and critics who will grow up used to these games. This is a small issue right now since there are only like 3 games that use it, but I think it will inevitably become standard practice as the boardrooms of game companies cry for games to become more "accessible" and for the markets to expand because that way they get more money.

The problem isn't with people like us who have been playing videogames for years. We know how to exercise a little self-restraint with an optional feature, of course. But what of the next generation, who in the worst case may grow up playing games used to having their hand held and being able to skip the "hard parts" of games, and don't know any better either because the feature is directly inside the game? They will be our future game designers and reviewers. How will this impact overall standards and quality of games?

Besides, apparently the guide system that's going to be in Ocarina of Time 3D isn't really one that does everything for you, it just kind of nudges you in the right direction: [link]

Hm, that seems much more reasonable. But what I've been saying isn't focused on solely OoT3D; OoT3D will probably be the same game it originally was for us. (The inclusion of the feature still seems a bit condescending towards today's kids to me, though.)

Also, I think I'd actually rather have a guide system like this instead of adjustable difficulties (excepting harder modes, specifically for people who want more of a challenge) Why have to choose from a blanket difficulty mode when you have a tool that allows the game to ease up on you just when you decide you need it to? It fine-tunes the challenge so that it's personalized, just for you.

I suppose I can see the reasoning in this. I still think a generation used to being able to ease up a game whenever they want to might be bad for future games and game design, however.

See, aside from an excuse for developers to make games harder, I don't see Super Guides actually doing much of anything for people not interested in using it.

Why do they need an excuse, though? The only reason I can think of is that professional game critics right now will only give good reviews to games that hold their hand. For example Flower, an extremely dumbed-down flight simulator with pretty graphics, is now "the kind of soulful nourishment we need more of" while Hard Corps: Uprising, which looks to be (haven't gotten it yet tbh but I've seen videos of some levels, and it was developed by Arc System Works) one of the best 2D side-scrolling action games to be released in years, "feels like paying someone $15 to punch you in the face over and over again." With this trend, what do you think is going to happen when the Super Guide becomes widespread and developers release a great game that decides not to implement it, with both the public reaction and the critical reaction? And it's not that I want every game to be unforgivingly balls-hard either; I enjoy both some easy games (Sonic 1 and Paper Mario are among my favorite games of all time, for example) and some hard games. But I do see a problem when things are skewing in one direction.

Super Guides are only an issue for the people who DO want to use it; and if you're not one of them, then I'm finding it hard to see why you'd care. Oh actually, Super Guides in Nintendo games (and L.A. Noire, kinda!) only kick in when you're doing really badly.

L.A. Noire had a Super Guide? Unfortunately I haven't gotten it yet, but I heard there was just an option to skip the action sequences or something? (Though it makes more sense in this context since L.A. Noire is an adventure game and essentially based around puzzles, as opposed to being able to skip action sequences in an action game.)

You're all making it sound like if a game DOESN'T use a Super Guide, it's automatically going to have great design. That is not reliant on Super Guide, that is reliant on the competence of the developers-- and if the developers decide to make the level design bad "because they're putting in a Super Guide," then don't even bother trying to kid yourself; The level design was going to be bad from the start.

I don't think anyone said that a game without a Super Guide would automatically have great design; the Super Guide is a relatively new concept and plenty of shit games have been released without it in the past. As for bad level design being there regardless of the Super Guide, it's completely true, but the problem I see there is that the Super Guide could be used by the developers as an acceptable excuse for lazy design in the future; "if you think this is completely counterintuitive then, well, we put a guide in." And of course the critics and journalists will all be using the Super Guide whenever they get stuck anyway (they have dozens of games to go through, and they need to "finish" as much of each as possible in a very limited timespan to write a review), so they probably won't tell us anything. (Not that they would anyway, in an industry where paid critics are expected to give fair reviews of the same games that are advertised on their websites, from the same publishers the websites keep hounding for exclusive scoops, but still.)

[GrooveMan.exe]

L.A. Noire has both a hint system for the interrogations, and an auto-driving/combat-skipping function so you an still play the game, regardless of where your strengths lie. Using them (and generally being terrible) lowers your End-of-chapter score. But it doesn't matter because the game is fun. I'm not very good at shooters, and I will probably use the combat-skip function when not getting past that section stops being fun.

Which is the point. Super Guides exist so people can still have fun even if they get stuck; with no delay of checking GFAQs or shelling out cash for a Prima Guide. And I'm entirely ok with that. Why wouldn't I be? As for your example of Flower/Hard Corps - the difficulty of the game doesn't matter if the game doesn't feel fun. And that sticks out a lot more if the game is difficult /and/ not fun. If that guy was complaining, he was most likely doing so because having his ass kicked wasn't an entertaining experience. And that's not impossible, either. Bayonetta, Demons Souls, and I guess Dead Space 2 (I wasn't very good at it) are still fun, even when they're hard. A game being described as 'a punch in the face', says more about how entertaining it is, more than its difficulty.

[Cobalt Blue]

its hard for me to understand how can one get stuck in ocarina of time. none of the dungeons or even the puzzles in the game are particulary complex except maybe for the water tmeple. and then yet, its not hard but rather(at the time) a tedious experience due being forcefully slowed down by the iron boots. but even then OOT isnt a particular hard or complex game.

the one time i remember seeing someone getting stuck at OOT was when my little brother at the forest temple, but even then we worked together to analyze the dungeon and find the way to go. since then, he could work his way thru the rest of the dungeons by the stuff he learned on each previous puzzle. thats the whole point of having an obstacle after all, isnt it?

[Phantom Killah]

its hard for me to understand how can one get stuck in ocarina of time. none of the dungeons or even the puzzles in the game are particulary complex except maybe for the water tmeple. and then yet, its not hard but rather(at the time) a tedious experience due being forcefully slowed down by the iron boots. but even then OOT isnt a particular hard or complex game.

the one time i remember seeing someone getting stuck at OOT was when my little brother at the forest temple, but even then we worked together to analyze the dungeon and find the way to go. since then, he could work his way thru the rest of the dungeons by the stuff he learned on each previous puzzle. thats the whole point of having an obstacle after all, isnt it?

My 7 year old brother was playing OoT on the virtual console recently and was thoroughly stuck in the Gerudo Fortress. So while it may not be too difficult for a mature adult person, little kids could conceivably get stuck. Also there's Master Quest

[PrettyNier]

I only spent like 3 hours max on the water temple, i don't get what the big deal is (i was 8)

the difficulty of the game doesn't matter if the game doesn't feel fun.

this just in:

super guides are an excuse for incompetent game design.

All of you that are arguing against the Super Guide are either:

1) Stuck in the stone age of gaming, where guides literally did not exist
2) Not giving developers enough credit.

/:

[Alpha Six]

the difficulty of the game doesn't matter if the game doesn't feel fun.

this just in:

super guides are an excuse for incompetent game design.

And if you decide to use Super Guides as an excuse for incompetent game design, then guess what?

You're a bad designer!

(:

[PrettyNier]

it doesn't matter if it was chosen to be that or not; it still represents, to some degree, a failing of the developer to communicate or create a properly intuitive system. it is a correction - but worse, it is a lazy correction. unimaginative, broken.
granted, to some degree this also depends upon your definition of a super guide and how exactly that idea is implemented.

the idea that criticizing super guides somehow doesn't give the developers enough credit is amusingly obtuse.

[Alpha Six]

Having a Super Guide does not magically make a game badly developed. Again, if a game is badly developed because the developer decided they didn't have to try to make a good game because they have a super guide, that is the fault of the developer. That is not the fault of the mechanic. The mechanic is not badly designed. The game is badly designed, by a bad designer. That's it. There is no argument here.

Saying a super guide represents the failure of the developer to create a proper system is absolutely ridiculous. Especially considering I have never heard of a video game with a super guide feature that was actually required to play the game, or even to beat it. Why? Because these games were designed well-- even with a super guide.

Also, super guides aren't lazy, it requires additional coding to program in a super guide feature, for every area of the game, and detect where the player is and what they actually need to do to get through the level, etc. If anything, a super guide requires more effort than just making a level.

And like I said, if you think a super guide will automatically make a game badly designed (which is what everybody continues to imply blindly), you are legitimately downsizing developers as a whole. Sort of like saying all Wii games are bad because of shitty developers making shitty waggle ports!