Zelda: OOT Comparison

[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.)