Or maybe that should read : When did the game developers decide we as gamers are dumber?

I've recently been replaying some of my older games in order to write reviews on them and I've been noticing that they were more difficult in the "old days". They seemed (at least to me) to require you to think more. One example: there was no smart cursor that lit up the screen telling you - here, look here, there's something to pickup here!. You had to check around on your own. The games didn't lead you by the nose like seems to happen a lot now days.

Don't get me wrong there are some tough games out there - Schizm is a prime example - but for the most part the games seem to be lots of pretty pictures on multiple CDs that take about 1/4 of the time to finish as it used to take to play a single CD game.

Guess I'm feeling a bit nostalgic today

I have thought about that too Syd. I think it's too bad that games has to become "easier" in order to sell better. Hopefully, we're just looking at another genre-development, that still holds puzzle-laden games as well as those that are more hot-spot controlled. Like how 3rd and 1st person exist under the same umbrella name.

Hi Syd.

Have to agree with you there

I regularly re play oldies and STILL get stuck ]

Cheers.

Mad

I reckon it is the other way around. I find the games I play these days harder. I guess it's just age catching up with me. I remember so many times thinking how I used to struggle through the old games without any hints or walkthroughs. I didn't have the internet then as it was new and not many people did have access to it. I still managed to get through the games. I just assumed that the games had gotten harder to play but I guess it's more than likely that my brain is getting befuddled as I get older

The graphics in old games were very simple and less detailed then the games today, so a smart cursor weren't needed. IMHO a "non-smart-cursor" doesn't increase the gaming experience, its simply annoying to klick on every object on the screen to find out if it can be used or not.

I'm feeling nostalgic too. As a game developer, I feel I kind of lost my way. I listened to a lot of people who were making software, but not games like these. I became convinced I needed to change the games to something that would appeal to the general public.

It wasn't really that I ever wanted to make a lot of money, but just enough to feel justified in continuing to do what I love to do.

Adventure games are really an artform, I think, unlike anything else.

On the demo for the last game, my testers convinced me to add a lot of helpful hints so the casual gamer can figure it out right away. It really does lose something though.

My last few games were educational too (maybe because I married a teacher?) As a wise person recently told me, the edutainment area is a "tough nut to crack".

At any rate, I think I have one more game left in me, and it will be a true adventure game, I promise you, and not too easy either.

Those are the kind of games that I personally like, and what I should be doing.

I'm going to keep reading the messages in this forum and checking out other games by independents. I know the plot for my new game, and it should be fun. I won't give away too much, but it will involve a mad scientist and talking cats.

Thanks, everyone, for giving your opinions here.

I don't think things like pixel hunts and dead ends enhance the game experience. I like smart cursors. Given a choice between smart cursor and stupid cursor I choose the smart one all the time. (Was it Lighthouse that let you choose the intelligence of your cursor in the game options? Maybe some other games did too.)

And I can't think of anyone who'd enjoy replaying a large chunk of the game because they'd missed picking up some piece of inventory early on.

Games where your character offers verbal hints before you want them are kind of annoying though. There was some of this in the Loch Ness game. I'd rather they'd left out the verbal hints (or kept them confined to the diary) and left out the timed aspect of the underwater maze. The maze was bad enough. Why make it timed?

I don't mind an easy game once in a while. I enjoyed Dracula Resurrection and Road to India. But it annoys me when they try to make an adventure game which is fairly easy as far as puzzles go and then increase "difficulty" by adding timed or action bits that have to be repeated several times (indefinitely if you're not fast enough). What gaming audience are they trying to please by doing that? The largest untapped potential audience for adventure games is not kids or action gamers, but older people who won't appreciate the timed bits.

As for the topic "When did we as gamers get dumber" I think I'm about the same dumbness as I was when I started playing adventure games. I tend to have less patience than when I first started out though. Having been blocked by game bugs before, I'm less patient about trying to solve puzzles myself before looking at a walkthrough. It's really aggravating to find you've been blocked by a game bug that caused something not to trigger. But it's even more aggravating when you've spent days trying to solve the problem instead of just an hour or so.

I just spent the last couple of hours playing the latest Nancy Drew (The Scarlet Hand) and so far the puzzles seem a lot easier than previous ND's, and I've hardly looked at Tally's Ho's WT at all. This is the complete opposite of the last game I played - "The Lighthouse" - where I used multiple WT's and all the help I could get.

The next game on my play list is "Rhem" and I'm sure I'll be wracking my brain over that one. And so it goes.... :wave

Kathy, If your new game concept involves talking cats I love it already !! At the present time 3 cats own me and all 3 have a lot to say !! I'm looking forward to seeing your new game when it is released.

One thing about The Scarlet Hand was that you always knew what you could be doing. At the beginning you get that errand list and you can get to work on it immediately. In the other games, it wasn't always clear what things you should do first. Sometimes you needed to talk to a character, but it wasn't always obvious where you needed to look for them and what time they would be there. There was always one character who I couldn't seem to find when I want to talk to them in the earlier games, even though I set the alarm clock for many different times. (I wish I could fall asleep as easily as Nancy Drew. No tossing and turning for that girl. She takes one look at the bed and she's out like a light.).

I think that we, as gamers, need to stop deciding from our own point of view what constitutes a good or bad game. Each one of us likes different things in a game. I just LOVE easy games, sometimes, and I usually end up keeping them and replaying them. On the other hand I don't like overly difficult games like Schizm. Beautiful but too hard for me. Maybe I'm the reason that developers have made games "easier". Maybe they're trying to appeal to a wider audience.

I have to agree with Jenny (my own opinion ) that timed sequences can be irritating. I don't usually mind them but many people have trouble in this area.

I don't know if I'm even making any sense but I have noticed one thing from this website. Every one of us likes and dislikes different things in a game. There is no set standard for what we as gamers want. Me, I just want some distraction from my everyday life. Take me to a place where I'm the intrepid explorer who figures it all out easily

Thanks, Mugsy! It seems to me that many adventure game lovers also like cats... I've noticed a high percentage of programmers are quite fond of cats. Something about having a quiet and thoughtful nature, I think.

I'm writing a complex (but humorous) story for this game, and I'll try to make the puzzles challenging.

I kind of agree with Saber-Zauber that the older game were easier on ythe eye and you could look around and things to work with or on. Now adays the graphics are so detailed and intense that you can not see something in plain. That to me was part of the problem with Syberia,your eye was taking in so much I could not see objects or places to enter

There's a challenge here for developers to give us games whose difficulty can be adjusted. With an action or RPG game this is simple. Harder for Adventures if anyone was going to try (which I suspect they're not.)

For me comparing new with old I note that dialogue and scripting seems to have got much dumber over time.

For example in some older games if you spoke to the same NPC twice you would get a different response. Or NPCs would vary what they said according to what you had done. You'd get a good range of messages if you tried to do stupid things.

In newer games like Syberia no. There isn't much left in the average budget after the graphics have been done.

Regards, Peter.

Cats with a quiet and thoughtful nature? Must have trained yours. None that we have has had a shy bone about asking for what they want whether it's a itchy ear, food to eat, out, a lap, brushing, or someone to play. Only time play quietly is when into something, they know they shouldn't be. Have two cats that have found out can wake me if need feeding or out. Some have more manners than others and more curiosity.

As for games, think that adventure games are trying to appeal to a bigger range of age groups and not just to ones that like puzzles. Puzzles that the whole family can solve. Nancy Drew with it's junior and senior levels. Same with Jewels of the Oracle. My early adventure games were mostly geared for a more adult audience otherwise wouldn't have gotten some of the jokes or have been able to solve even with the subtle hints/clues. Remember giving up on Timequest cause didn't want to have to go to different times in history to get things to fix this time in history. Had your choice of three or four and had to know which one.