Science...once again proves what we already know.

[DarkestLight]

Yeah, download and read it. Very interesting article..

I found alot of truth to it, especially with the LOST LEVELS >_O

[classy_cat18]

I agree. I'm close to beating Super Mario Galaxy 2 for the second time but still have trouble with Super Mario Bros. 3 and haven't beaten it once, even with warp whistles.

And don't get me started with the first few Zelda games...

[Oslo]

Cool read. I'd love to see this as a chapter of a book that dealt with more game mechanics than just transversal movement. The abstract is also a little misleading: the article doesn't prove that the games themselves are hard to play but rather select mechanics that underlie these titles have the potential to make plotting speed runs difficult. There's sort of a massive difference there. I still really enjoyed it, though.

I also love how all the overworld sprites are Super Nerds. I guess the researchers picked a Trainer class they felt the could relate to?

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Made by Belgian scientists, surprise surprise..

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

I agree. I'm close to beating Super Mario Galaxy 2 for the second time but still have trouble with Super Mario Bros. 3 and haven't beaten it once, even with warp whistles.

It's pain with warp whistles. You need to gather more than one P-Wing, Hammer Mario to get through 8-2, and Jugem's Cloud to skip the last castle unless you really are a Super Mario.

But old games were hard because you couldn't save.

[Jeff]

True. I have yet to beat Super Mario Bros. (*gasp*) But thanks to the 3DS version with save states, I'm finally making some headway.

[Lady Vulpix]

This proves another thing that we already know: that people are willing to write papers about anything, and the ones that get published are not usually the most meaningful or useful, but the ones that attract more attention.

Oh, and my brother always says that the new games are too easy.

[Austrian ViceMaster Alex]

I really think it depends on the game. Many old games were hard, but mainly because of bad controls, unfair desgin, endless trial and error etc.

And why is this in GD anyway? *moves*

[Telume]

Anyone ever play this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_ghouls_and_ghosts ?

[Oslo]

This proves another thing that we already know: that people are willing to write papers about anything, and the ones that get published are not usually the most meaningful or useful, but the ones that attract more attention.

Scroll through the database and look at the majority of the other articles archived there and you'll see that this isn't necessarily true at all. There's nothing particularly flashy or sexy about Relativized Propositional Calculus, for example. And besides, who's to say the above article isn't meaningful/useful?

[Becky]

This proves another thing that we already know: that people are willing to write papers about anything, and the ones that get published are not usually the most meaningful or useful, but the ones that attract more attention.

Oh, and my brother always says that the new games are too easy.

I agree so much with this...I don't think this type of research, at least from what I gathered by reading this article, is particularly a good use of university resources or funding. I hope this was an unfunded project.

I'd like to know more about what their methods were before classifying this as science.

EDIT...reading the actual ms now. I'm not buying some of their arguments, but I appreciate that there's at least some semblance of scientific inquiry, but then there's comparisons that rely on more qualitative deductions, which aren't discussed as methodological considerations.

[DarkestLight]

Alex: put in gd for the mathematical and scientific components that were stated, didn't think it was enough to have it in VG. But eh, it goes both ways.

[Jeff]

gd=pokemanz

You were thinking misc.

[Link]

This article is good. Not many are of the quality of this, but I did enjoy reading it.