Trial and Error Aftermath
Recent games have the bent to be easier than in the past: challenges were tougher, enemies were tougher, also lives were tougher… to find. Mine is a disputed assertion, I know, but there’re undeniable differences between old games and those you can play today. It’s argued if games become less difficult as a way to appeal a wider audience, nevertheless the current trend is to make the player have fun with fair effort, instead of submitting the fun to the challenge.
Well, the “simpleness” is not meant to be achieved by making dummy-proof games, but by improving usability, for example. Developers want gamers to complete their games, even better by surviving rather than by dying every minute.
Death in videogames usually equals to failure, and, let’s face it, everyone hates losing.
Old games had “losing” in their DNA, because of the Trial and Error paradigm: in a given situation where several choices seem equally good, there is just one subjective solution, while the others are bound to fail. Picking up the wrong one will penalize or eliminate the player, who cannot usually foresee the outcome of his choice, until it’s too late.
Arbitrary Trial and Error* does produce desirable effects no more, so why we can still find it in modern games?
Who is interested in casual or browser games may have noticed certain types of them, which use this paradigm.
Is still fun our main goal? A study revealed the capability of failure to stimulate positive emotions.
Said that, apparently Trial and Error should be an incoherent choice: this method of problem solving pertains hardcore style of gameplay (guess and check) that usually casual gamers don’t have time for.
“Know your audience” could be an answer, based on the masochism needed by this one.
