Are Video Games RUINING Gaming? (COD, Far Cry, BioShock & More) – Wisecrack Edition
Articles Blog

Are Video Games RUINING Gaming? (COD, Far Cry, BioShock & More) – Wisecrack Edition

August 27, 2019


Whether you’re solving mind bending puzzles
in Portal, managing resources in Starcraft, or pulling off sick no scope headshots in
Call of Duty, video games ask you to master skills to overcome challenges. And how do
they do this? With carrots and sticks. The carrots are how the game rewards players
for doing well: Think points, better weapons or unlockable content. The same way you’d
give a horse a carrot for doing… horse stuff. The sticks are the ways that the game punishes
the player. Like being wacked with a stick. Lots of horse metaphors here. And the strictest
punishment short of Game Over? The Fail State. Death. So let’s talk about fail states: how they’ve
evolved and how they are threatening the very existence of videogames as we know them!!
But don’t worry, it’ll be fun… Let’s go back to the infancy of video games
— the arcade: failure cost lives (and quarters) – but not progress. If you die, you simply
respawn in the exact same spot, minus 1 of some limited number of lives. Lose enough lives and it’s time to hit up
the change machine again buddy. This design was pretty smart: Arcade games were meant
to be quick and digestible. And with games that sat in public spaces, the business model
was built around converting your frustration into stacks of your hard-earned quarters. That all changed when games moved into the home. Odyssey: a new dimension for your television. With the rise of console and PC gaming, suddenly it wasn’t necessary to focus on bite
sized gameplay. People were gaming for long periods of time. And I mean looooooooooong
periods of time! It would be decades before developer revenue would be tied to gameplay
again (in the form of microtransactions). Suddenly, when you bought Super Mario Brothers
outright, you could die over and over again. It didn’t matter how long it took
you to kill that Hammer Brother, you never had to pay another cent! Those changes weren’t immediate — it would
take years for games to slowly outgrow their old contrivances. Some games stayed with the
“3 lives and you’re out” system for a long while, making many games impossible to beat
without cheat codes. (Everyone claims to know a guy who knows a guy who beat Contra without
the Konami code, but I have my doubts.) Still, it was in this environment that games
evolved past the death and quarters paradigm, and into the diverse offerings we have today.
Games could start to tell stories. Today, failure usually means returning to a checkpoint.
The clock and enemies are reset and you get to try again. It’s like Groundhog Day or Edge
of Tomorrow or dating — you get to learn from your mistakes and take that wisdom with
you on the next go round. “I’m an immortal.” The game provides a little bit of punishment,
a minor wack from the stick, but doesn’t prevent you from completing it once you’ve developed
the skills. There’s no need to restart from level 1-1. Just dust yourself off and try
again, sport! Even still, those resets have changed dramatically
over the past 15 years. Today, setting you back even 5 or 10 minutes is likely to garner
criticism for “poor checkpointing” or “sucking ass” and fosters a lot of rage quitting and
broken controllers. “Holy f*cking sh*t.” By contrast, modern games like Arkham Knight
or Tomb Raider rarely ask you to replay even 60 seconds of gameplay. This hasn’t always
been the case. One of the most well-remembered console action games has to be GoldenEye for
the Nintendo 64. That game was awesome. But Golden-Eye’s single player missions were brutal,
sometimes requiring perfect stealth. A failed mission would send you back to the very beginning
of the mission. But that sort of punishment wasn’t so uncommon
for the time period. Until things started to change: First, games started telling more
intricate stories “That’s right.” with stories as an increasingly critical piece of the games package, developers
started to see how challenging checkpointing could also undermine storytelling. When a
game has a narrative with a beginning, middle and end, replaying the same part without ever
seeing the payoff lets all the air out and well… kinda sucks. This is especially true as games started to
add cutscenes, dialogue, and tremendous technical set pieces. No one wants to watch the same
three-minute cut scene over and over again. The narrowing of checkpoints also reflects
an aging gaming demographic: When gaming was in its infancy, it was associated with children
or young teens. For younger gamers, it’s not a big deal to spend the day replaying a mission
to perfectly master a level. But I’m a grown-ass man. I’ve got precious little time to game. As gamers get older, they’ve become more likely
to have a full time job, children of their own or other obligations that would leave
less time for gaming. For them, being forced to replay a lengthy section (or to continue
playing for a long stretch to reach a distant checkpoint) creates fatal levels of frustration.
So maybe this narrowing of checkpoints is good for gaming… As with all things, there
are some downsides too. By smoothing over friction, a developer drops one of the most
powerful instruments in his toolkit: Fear. Yes, the fear of that stick we were talking about
earlier – since we’re all just a bunch of horses. Even in virtual world of video games, dying
means loss. Lost money or loot or points or respect or whatever. In almost all cases,
it means lost progress and time. By minimizing those losses, games minimize the risk. And
just like in real life, you can’t have thrill without risk. Without the stick, that carrot
wouldn’t taste nearly as sweet! We all play games to engage with that risk.
It’s why we don’t play games on God Mode. Without that fear of loss, there is no pleasure
in the triumph. Nowhere is this evolution clearer than in the Far Cry franchise. The
console version of Far Cry 2 was much maligned by people who hated respawning enemies, dreary
landscapes and yes, a jacked up checkpoint system. Instead of dying, an NPC friend would
appear to drag you to safety. In some cases, the NPC could get injured or even die in the
rescue effort. Nice work, dude. And when they did, they were gone forever. If you died without
an NPC friend to bail you out, you were forced back to your last stop at a save cabin, which
could be far away and make for tons of lost progress. To add insult to injury, the map was spread
out with extremely limited fast travel options. Even getting to a mission in Far Cry 2 required
crazy long treks across desert and jungle where you could be ambushed at any second.
The result was a game where failure could lose you substantial amounts of time, effort
and progress. Combat in Far Cry could be terrifying just by virtue of how much you could lose
by failing. And fail you could. Enemies were smart and
accurate. And how about that infamous weapon degradation? Your weapons rusted over time
causing older guns to jam unexpectedly! Talk about gettin’ the stick! Yet Far Cry 2 quickly developed a passionate
cult following. Every firefight seemed to matter. If you didn’t want to lose all of
your work and time, you had to plan carefully, to keep your wits about you and to expect
the unexpected. Some masochistic fans even tried to take the game’s strictness a step
further with “Permadeath playthroughs.” Essentially, these sick people would give themselves one
life, forcing themselves to cautiously inch their way through the entire game without
a single death or reload. Talk about fear of loss. To this day fans fondly remember how engaging
Far Cry 2 was, however they played it. But as I said, Far Cry 2 pissed off many gamers,
and Developer Ubisoft Montreal responded to those complaints in the franchise sequels.
Far Cry 3 and it’s sucessor, Far Cry 4, removed almost all of the fear and discomfort for
which Far Cry 2 was known. Producer Dan Hay even addressed the issue directly in his interview
with CVG in the months leading up to launch: Regarding that crazy degrading weapons thing,
he commented. The Buddy system, was removed (good riddance),
and autosaves and plentiful safehouses were added to the game. Far Cry 4 doubled down
on that modernization, employing automatic checkpoints before any significant encounter.
By Far Cry 4, failure rarely cost more than a few minutes of progress. The marketing also played up whimsy and mayhem.
The message was clear. Come have fun. Fuck shit up. Don’t worry about making a mistake
— we won’t give you a hard time about it. You have nothing to lose. And the message
as well received. Far Cry 3 and 4 were incredibly well reviewed — and they are undeniably fun
games that anyone can casually pick up and play for a few minutes on a relaxed afternoon. But after playing all three games, it’s hard
not to think that something cool was lost when the harsh edges of Far Cry 2 were sanded
down. It’s not just that the difficulty was dramatically reduced. It’s that the player
was no longer compelled to learn. The fear of loss was gone. Too many carrots. Not enough
sticks. Given the fact that everyone likes to win,
it’s not surprising that developers have continued to look for new ways to help players
finish their games without pissing them off too much. Games like Bioshock and Battlefield:
Bad Company abandon the checkpoint for a respawn system. Instead of rewinding time, the player
is remade in a fight that is still ongoing. It’s almost like the old arcade games but
with infinite quarters. While common in multiplayer gaming, such systems have always been unusual
in home single player games.It’s like gaming with training wheels. In Bioshock, dying would lead to respawn in
VitaChambers without any lost progress. The cost was a little in-game money, but other
than that you could respawn infinitely. You were more like the agents in the Matrix movie
than Tom Cruise’s character in Edge of Tomorrow. The benefit? Players never waste time — they
never have to explore the same rooms, listen to the same dialogue or kill the same enemies.
But Bioshock’s VitaChambers is also a great example of how reducing frustration undermines
learning from risk. You see, in traditional checkpoint games,
repeating the same failing strategy is bound to produce the same result. Rush into a situation
without careful consideration, and you might find yourself facing a game over screen. But
in a Respawn game, that isn’t true. Players can just whittle down challenges by dying
and retrying, essentially Rambo-ing their way through tough situations without ever
understanding why the game keeps beating them. You can beat Bioshock without ever actually
getting better at Bioshock. This was incredibbly apparent with the game’s
Big Daddy fights. Big Daddy’s were the bullet sponge bosses, and they were unique in that
players got to choose when to fight them. Smart players would lay traps for Big Daddy’s
and trigger them into fights with enemy A.I., beating them or at least devastating them
before firing a single shot. But a player could also rush in guns-a-blazing
wihtout a thought to any sort of strategy. The result? Player death. Lots of it. And
a significantly weaker Big Daddy that might be vulnerabble to the second or third attack
upon respawn. The player could be rewarded for winning without ever having to change. Similar reasoning applies to the Down But
Not Out systems that have become increasingly common in AAA Shooters, like Killzone 3, Gears
of War 3, Halo 5, just to name a few. In these games, instead of returning to a checkpoint,
the player falls to his kness and waits to be resurrected by an AI controlled teammate.
Besides the infuriating wait for the slowest AI buddy ever, this has the same effect as
Bioshock’s VitaChambers. You don’t have to understand those games or be good at those
games to beat those games. Where’s the fun in that? In an attempt to reach more players with more
diverse liftestyles and limited time, these attempts at time-saving features are admirable.
But they also pose an existential threat to what games are. The loop of learning and reward
and punishment is exactly what makes a game a game. Leave videogames aside for a second, and think
of a basketball. You can dribble it. You can pass it. You can bounce it off your friend’s
forehead. But it’s still a toy. It’s not a “game.” Basketball become a “game” when it
has rules, when it is constrained by success and loss, risk and strategy. This is why the
Illiad is not a game, but chess is. We risk nothing when we read the Illiad. Except a
possible papercut. It’s worth stating the obvious here: It is
no more inherently wrong to reduce player frustration than to say there is something
wrong with the Illiad. There is nothing wrong with storytelling for its own sake. Some of
the most entertaining titles of the last few years have met that description: In Gone Home,
the player gets to inhabit a woman returning home from college to find revelations about
her family. There are no puzzles or fights. You can’t lose at Gone Home, and the only
way to “beat” Gone Home is to finish the story. By the definitions I’ve discussed, Gone Home
is definitely not a game. It’s probably best described as some new form of interactive
entertainment. We can make similar arguments about “games” like The Stanley Parable and
Journey. They’re pretty far from being pure games, but they’re still awesome. But now you see how removing the punishment
of failure in traditional games, like shooters and racing games undermines so much of what’s
cool about playing a game. By smoothing all of that risk and loss, we also smooth out
strategy and success. We lose engagement. All because we’re all so eager to eat that damn
carrot!

Only registered users can comment.

  1. It's the same retort to people who say "music is worse today than it was before". It's irrelevant since there's more of games and music than ever before. So if you can't find something you like, you might be bad at searching.

  2. 0:37 – best Mario death sound ever, it should be in CoD multiplayer and drive everyone nuts hahahahaha

  3. This narrow definition of the point of games is constricting your definition of a game. Sure in basketball and chess the only point is to win, but that's not the case in video games. Take Path of Exile for example. The easiest way to win is to look up a build online and bum-rush to the end. That would be a "ruined" game by your definition. And it's just not the point. No, what people enjoy about it is messing around with this skill tree or tweaking that armor, or what happens if I combine these skills. By your definition, sandbox games aren't a game. Not everyone's idea of fun is a trophy and I suspect you know it. Fuck right off with your click-baity faux disdain for creativity.

  4. Honestly far cry 2 wasn't so bad if it wasn't for the fact your guns decayed like you threw them on a beach for 10 years in about 10 rounds fired

  5. Games have become somewhat more like movies. Narratives wanting to be told, gameplay copy and pasted. Games used to be extremely different from each other, now it's like, "Is the story any good?" I miss good gameplay

  6. You had too complain huh? Now there's no more single player, also no more stick an d you pay extra and hope you get a carrot from a crate…

  7. Arcade games seem divided between those with finite lives and those which allow a player to just continue. I found that in order to make Final Fight as addictive as Pac Man you have to limit yourself to one credit ONLY. Then it becomes shit hot.

  8. Great vid, I was actually thinking this is much more like an extra credits video lol. Nice shout to them. I've been subed over there since 2013

  9. I think the only valid solution to this problem is to change save and checkpoints with difficulty system. Like if you chose easy then you get a lot of checkpoints etc vs having hard mode limit checkpoints and forcing some issue like breaking guns or something

  10. "Are X ruining games/gaming" videos are overdone and tiresome. Nothing is Ruining games. There are good games and bad games. We never had as many good games being released at once. If most AAA titles suck, just explore the indie scene. if you enjoy AAA titles, that's it. Nothing is ruining games because games aren't getting progressively worse. Some people keep playing progressively worse games because they don't do proper research before buying.

  11. developers are ruining gaming
    desire to get more money for releasing the same shit over and over again is ruining gaming
    focusing game buisness on one platform only (mostly consoles) ruins gaming
    whiny pieces of shit constantly begging for nerfs are ruining gaming
    taking away quicksave and replacing it with shitty checkpoints is ruining gaming
    people accepting piles of crap called "games" instead of wanting something better are ruining gaming
    fuckload of dlcs are ruining gaming
    this is material for at least 4 hours of civilised debate…
    not 10 minute video

  12. Games were you can save whenever you want as long as it's not in a fight or a cutscene are the best. Better then checkpoints and better then autosaves.

  13. This is the first time I strongly disagree with a Wisecrack video.
    What games like Far Cry 3 are doing is just giving the player more options.
    You may have played in Baby Mode, but it doesn't mean that's all the game has to offer;
    it only means that you're such a lazy gamer that you couldn't adjust the challenge yourself.

    I've always played this FPS's in Hard Mode, and choosing some achievements to accomplish,
    like that one in FC3 that requires you to capture all the outposts without being detected;
    and it was HARD AS HELL.

    "You don't have to understand those games, to be good at those games, to beat those games."
    If you think that, then you're assuming that "being good at" and "beating" the game are the same thing.
    You could win at Chess playing against your little sister, and that would mean nothing.
    You could lose playing against some Kasparov, but making him sweat for his victory,
    and people would know you're a badass.
    Victory and excellency are very different things.

    A guy that doesn't try different things and just keep getting killed by a Big Daddy until he dies of old age
    is either too young for such a violent game, or is mentally challenged.
    A player that can't or isn't interested in getting better should have that right.
    After all, it's their money.

    The ones who aren't able to adjust difficulty and choose achievements to accomplish,
    and choose to blame the games for the unsatisfactory experience,
    now, those are really bad players.

  14. One of the reasons I adored Alien Isolation was the spaced out save stations. If I died between them, I'd lose from a few to several minutes and effort. That fear worked to the game's advantage.
    It's like Darkest Dungeon, you want those toons to stay alive and functional!

  15. What I find interesting is how quick respawns is the whole point for games, such as Limbo and Inside, yet I wouldn't call them easy. The difficulty comes from the puzzles not death.

  16. Well I think the best answer for this problem is always leave the option open for players to have tougher difficulties. Not just your basic easy, medium, hard but with more details like for far cry games have the options for one life play and having more realistic mechanics like having guns jamming up on you. Everyone from casual to masochist players would be happy.

  17. I have a slightly different argument, IMO We're changing and so are our games. For good or bad, humans have changed a lot on how they consume entertainment. The unfortunate part is that we're just in the middle of the change and some of us would not want to see the "games" go away.

  18. Far Cry 2 was the direction the franchise needed to go. Too bad Ubisoft folded under pressure. That's how in the long run we got Fra Cry 5.
    Sure, snowflakes had a point about it being frustrating at times, but there is another word you can use to describe this game; "challenging". That's what matters.
    If you can't handle the heat, stay out of Africa.

  19. 7:30 this is why you should stick to Rick and Morty. The buddy system let you form attachments to lifeless NPCs without the need for long walking or talking scenes where you can't move and the game almost literally holds your hand. Sure, Pagan and Vaas are entertaining, but they won't risk going single-handedly into a firefight just to save you, a brother-in-arms. When you lost a buddy, it actually hurt as it wasn't some button prompt choice, but actual circumstances which determined it. Your choice of words at this mark makes you sound like the IGN reviewer who reviewed Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, somebody who is clearly paid to jerk off the new by dissing the old.

  20. AAAACCCCHHHIIIEEVVVVMMMMEEEENNNNNTTTT UUUUUUNNNNNNLLLLLOOOO CCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEDDDDDD HHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRSZSSSSSSEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS AAAAAAAASSSSSSS AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNAAAAAAALLLLLLLLOOOOOOGGGGGGGY +15G ruined games imo f🎈✨ken hatred Feb that device crap. EDIT:Fak. Yes just ADD RANDOM AS 🙌 you're genius you tube

  21. I find myself suddenly wanting a full video on the philosophies of Vas and Pagan Min. You guys can make that in like 2 days to accommodate me as I post this comment on a 2 year old video right?

  22. I think online games are ruining gaming. It's no longer about the fun factor or the challenge, it's about leaderboards and trash-talking.

  23. Making a video about game difficulty without mentioning Dark Souls is very much the Dark Souls of videos about game difficulty.

  24. That sounds like Kevin MacLeod's "Crunk Knight" in the background at various points. I feel like you need to do a better job crediting your sources, both for the benefit of the artists and the benefit of the audience that might be curious about them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_n7it4hKw

  25. Far Cry 2 was very immersive and the punishment of starting at your last save or losing allied mercs is the result of that it required thinking before taking risk

  26. "To this day, fans fondly remember how engaging Far Cry 2 was."
    WTF are you people smoking. What on earth is your metric of success here? Yes, Far Cry 2 has a small cult following, emphesis on 'small', but when reflected on by gaming as a whole it was utter mess, panned and detested by most. Every game has a small cult following. Ride to Hell: Retribution even has a cult following! And on Bioshock, you also failed to mention that the Vita-Chamber system is optional and one that you can turn off at any time making it no different from a game's Easy Mode, and is only turned on by default because of it's relevance to the story.

    Also you managed to put together an entire video about game difficulty and respawn mechanics without ever mentioning Dark Souls, which would have been a far better example than Far Cry 2. Bad Wisecrack! And as a complete counterpoint to everything said in this video: Hot Miami. A game where you will never waste more than 30 seconds of playtime after a respawn with a high amount of difficulty that forces a player to learn it's system if they want to succeed.

  27. This is actually why I never got into Dark Souls/Bloodborne. Not because I disliked the gameplay, or even because I minded dying a lot, but because I hated having to spend as much as 20 minuets grinding through the same areas over and over and over again.

  28. Actually Vita chambers aren't a valid strategy in Bioshock 1 especially on the highest differculty as you need money for upgrades, ammo etc.

    It's actually taking advantage of good save points also part of what made the game more difficult is that you are forced to vary attacks as doing the same thing deals less and less damage if you just repeat… Also ammo becomes very scarce yet you also need to explore to become more powerful.

    Bioshock 2 lacks the higher difficulty mode and Infinite unfortunately just gets rid of the variety combo system and well lacks greatly in gameplay because of lack of enemy types on top of that.

  29. When Contra is all you have for your entire childhood you kinda have to go through it with the 3 lives you got, I'm actually surprised people say Contra is difficult because to me it's just another game

  30. I personally hate how games a spoon fed to you nowadays. Harder games are more enjoyable in so many ways. You get those feelings a accomplishment and I always remember them the most.

  31. Gotta admit, I love Spider-man PS4 but web of shadows having fall damage and being able to go to fast and smack into a wall or window like a bug on a windshield really takes away from feeling as if you had to swing or certain way or you know, eat glass and/or asphalt. When fighting criminals cars could actually explode and you got tasked with saving the civilians trapped inside of em, you could leap into the air, pull them from the car, sling them to safety in a variety of ways, all while being in the middle if the action. It forces you to remember the friendly neighborhood side of the web head, not only endowing you with his powers but also his responsibility. The same was done in the ultimate spider-man game (which insomniac's interpretation of civilian interaction seems to draw a few pointers from) where you had to stop fighting bosses to help circumvent some of the damage inflicted on the city. This all made both of the games stellar replays even to this day. Insomniac definitely had a lot of cinematic set pieces and are far from slouches when it comes to crafting interaction. I hope there sequel makes thing just a little more challenging for the hero. Then again one could always argue he's been at it for 8 years, knows the ins and outs, and is just an og. Guess it really does fall to perspective

  32. Curiously, in the later Far Cry iterations, they added fail states back in with conditional missions. The most obvious (and most frustrating) are the total stealth missions, where even being seen once will result in a game over and mission restart. ( FC2 never had conditionals like that.) Also, parts of the game until completing tasks cleanly (such as clearing two outposts without being seen). It's especially aggravating since the enemy AI can see you the player just by getting too excited so the player is left having to hide in corners after and waitiing for the remaining mooks finish freaking out about the bodies they've found.

    FC2 had very bad stealth, but it never forced the player to depend on it. Going loud was always an option (and the game was designed that going loud got messy). That was part of the intent of FC2. Combat could not be controlled, and often wasn't necessary (hence the rapid reinforcement of guard posts). The player was meant to realize it was better to circumvent encampments and pass combat rather than expose himself to risk.

    Then there's Vaas in FC3 which was an excellent but lucky merging of actor and character, and Ubi's been trying (and failing) to reproduce that serendipity ever since. FC5 is notorious for long preachy cutscenes that many players just skip and ignore.

  33. I think it's dangerous to suppose the term game has a definition that is narrowly defined and agreed upon at all. PS: I'd argue the safe in Gone Home is a puzzle, but for now, the experience is presented is as a game. (Similarly, choose-your-own-adventure books, or the Steve Jackson Sorcery books are presented in classical codex form, but have decisions, consequences, chance and even a memory mini-game, so that might count as a game.

    I think Gone Home and Tacoma get to qualify as games until someone gives good cause to excluding them.

    I'm curious how Wisecrack would categorize Frog Fractions.

  34. Failing missions in GTA IV and having to start them all the way over is now frustrating to me because GTA V introduced mission checkpoints. You make a good point about checkpoints

  35. I feel like every problem presented in the video can easily be solved with well designed hard modes as an option. Too many games just increase enemy health/damage and call it a day.

  36. This is a clickbait title and the premise is that games don't punish you enough. Well, there's this thing that's been around for a while called "harder difficulty levels" so if you suck, you can play on easy. If you want a challenge, play on hard.

    The punishment for losing in older games like Far Cry 2 is usually having to slog through that trek to your destination, which took forever and you were usually met with randomly spawning enemies along the way, always in the same places. It was irritating. This didn't mean you weren't learning the game just because you lost. Same with Bioshock, big daddies get back some of their health when killing you, and on harder difficulties you needed to know how to strategize. So this idea that you didn't have to learn games only applies to the easiest difficulty level.

  37. Far Cry 2 was better in terms of gameplay, the gun jamming and the fact that there's not so much vehicle made it unique and more challenging if u ask me, and that's what most players are asking for I guess

  38. I think Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice has an amazing solution to this issue of revival mechanics while still requiring adaptation and maybe deserves an episode of it's own.

  39. Rogue-like games are pretty good for this, losing means you lose all you worked for but you can just go back in and have a different game because of different loot making you change up your strategy to get further than last time.

  40. I loved how Shadow of Mordor rewarded you for dying in a way. Dying makes the story progress in a way. Opponents punish you for reminding you they killed you earlier when you met them later, but these interactions were interesting. An opponent that killed you multiple times became more than 'just an orc', because you develloped a relationship of sorts with it. These interactions added to the game instead of taking something (like time) away on dying. Punishment and reward were one and the same.

  41. There’s a very delicate balance to be had in this regard. I’m surprised that Dark Souls wasn’t explicitly mentioned.

  42. I would love more games that offer modes. Casual gamers who play for the story can finish without having to dedicate weeks of their lives to gitting gud. Gamers who have nothing better to do can beat their heads against the proverbial wall. Everyone wins. I'd love to take a whack at Dark Souls, for instance, but I also have things to do so I'll stick with Assassin's Creed and Just Cause.

  43. Also how multiplayer ruins gaming !!! Having me ,a GOD ,starting a game ,where zero mistakes ,zero death and 100% of all knowledge about everything have to be gained as soon as possible = Hence GOD !!!
    —>>>
    HAve to play multiplayer with drooling autistic duck-fucker( s). retard-ted people ,who dont even know the buttons on controller after playing 2 years ?? HAve you ever try GTA online heist setup ?
    —>>>>
    People have to play with normal level ,vans setup where no1 is shooting you and still they fuck it up . And moreover ,good and decent players have aDD ,and they cant wait 3 minutes ( or 3 hours ) for a good crew. instead they change level to commendate those drooling cunts . There is no fix to this problem. If there is no immediate threat of violence or some penalty , people NEVER LEARN !!!!

  44. I’ve beaten contra 1 without the 30 lives plenty of times and seen people do it 1 and 2 player. It’s very possible it’s just not fair till you memorize the game with the cheat code. Takes about 28 minutes to beat

  45. Ok I get the point but let’s not put Vaas on the thumbnail Farcry 3 is a brilliant story about insanity

  46. New Game Iron Throne is more lethal than far cry u can loos endless amounts of progress from 1 mistake the game has been out about a year and a half people loos months of progress at times

  47. Still there are good and hard games. For example Xcom 1/2 you play it you waste 10h in one playthrough and boom you realized that you cant win campaign because of something you did on 3th hour of playthrough, you wasted 10h for nothing but knowlage, DS is same story you die and you die and you die until you learn. Its majority of stupid and boring games but what can we do but to play them on hardest dif. if its worth playing at all.

  48. This easy game moods make players leave their brains at the door. It’s frustrating when players online don’t think, because there’s no penalty. In FPS games you can get rewards even when you lose. Why reward players when they don’t put the effort?

  49. That was interesting. While there is a lot of bad sides to video-games' democratisation (toxic communities, abusive dlcs, price increase seriously 70€ for a pc game wtf..), there are now so much games that come out that anyone can find a product that fits them. Whether that is an indie skill based game likehyper light drifter, hotline miami, or the last AAA "press x to win" game by any of the fat money factories (ubi,EA,Activision…), is up to the player. Look on the bright side, this helped the gaming culture… Mostly.

  50. Regurgitating game history and game format overview is not synonymous with insight. Your point is beyond short-sighted and lacking in depth. Der.

  51. You know this is the first video ive ever seen bash on farcry 2 for treating you like a mercenary stuck in a cut throat war in africa. Instead of treating you like a 2 year old that cant handle punishment in the future titles.

  52. Halo 5 on heroic or or legendary is not easy
    Your teammates just die when trying to revive you plus the opponents regain their shield

  53. Rage Coop mode was brutal where every time we died we would have to start all the way at the beginning of the mission. That really made us smart about every single step of the mission and nervous as hell

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *