surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
No arguments here. An enjoyably difficult game is one that I will willingly throw in from time to time to chip away at. An annoyingly difficult game is one that I play once, then never return to again. Life's too short for terrible games.
There was quite a difference between both articles but both really good.
I have never been a fan of games that are hard just to be hard if that makes any sense. I don't mean I don't like a challenge, to me Ninja Gaiden isn't really that hard but what you said probably best sums it up
"Once a game crosses a certain challenge threshold, it too becomes as boring as an easy game"
I don't want to be doing the same bit a hundred times over just because the game is cheap, to me there is no enjoyment from it. No doubt you will get some people saying that you get a sense of achievement from it but I don't and I'm sure we will hear people saying that it's not cheap your just shit but whatever. I would rather just drop it and play something enjoyable + challenging rather than cheap. Just because a game is hard doesn't mean it's good or enjoyable but you will always have people who like games in that mould because it gives them something to crow about.
I have never been a fan of games that are hard just to be hard if that makes any sense. I don't mean I don't like a challenge, to me Ninja Gaiden isn't really that hard but what you said probably best sums it up
"Once a game crosses a certain challenge threshold, it too becomes as boring as an easy game"
I don't want to be doing the same bit a hundred times over just because the game is cheap, to me there is no enjoyment from it. No doubt you will get some people saying that you get a sense of achievement from it but I don't and I'm sure we will hear people saying that it's not cheap your just shit but whatever. I would rather just drop it and play something enjoyable + challenging rather than cheap. Just because a game is hard doesn't mean it's good or enjoyable but you will always have people who like games in that mould because it gives them something to crow about.
I agree, but disagree. I don't think games should be "cheap" hard, i.e. environmental hazards with no indicator that they're there, enemies that can one-hit kill you while others don't, etc. But I also don't want games to be too easy, I feel like if a game is too easy, I wasted my money on it.
Excellent article! I generally dislike difficult games, but I don't think I've really understood why i dislike them. I've always thought it was something like "I play games to have fun, not to get frustrated." But the points you make are all ringing true, and I think you've hit the nail on the head.
An interesting thought you put forth regarding "the harder a game is, the more well-crafted it needs to be to be palatable" - taking that to its logical conclusion, one might also say "the easier a game is, the less well-crafted it needs to be," but that's another article in and of itself (and somebody else has probably already written it).
To a large extent I agree with you on this - as a personal example, Henry Hatsworth could be pretty darn hard at times, but it was so well-tweaked and charming that I saw it through to the end (though I have yet to tackle Gentleman Mode). On the other hand, there was Prinny, where I felt that most of the game's challenge was based on a player's ability to mash buttons quickly, memorize patterns, and put up with wonky jumping controls - and if you read my blog you already know my thoughts on that. Of course, I certainly hope that less challenging titles make it their mission to be high-quality all around as well, but as you say, if I'm going to be challenged I'd like it to be the type of challenge I can enjoy tackling and feel I've got a fair shot at conquering eventually, as opposed to something openly and blindly sadistic.
That said, though, for whatever it's worth I couldn't take the "grinding for grinding's sake" in DQVIII (or any DQ, really) myself, but to each his own, heh heh.
To a large extent I agree with you on this - as a personal example, Henry Hatsworth could be pretty darn hard at times, but it was so well-tweaked and charming that I saw it through to the end (though I have yet to tackle Gentleman Mode). On the other hand, there was Prinny, where I felt that most of the game's challenge was based on a player's ability to mash buttons quickly, memorize patterns, and put up with wonky jumping controls - and if you read my blog you already know my thoughts on that. Of course, I certainly hope that less challenging titles make it their mission to be high-quality all around as well, but as you say, if I'm going to be challenged I'd like it to be the type of challenge I can enjoy tackling and feel I've got a fair shot at conquering eventually, as opposed to something openly and blindly sadistic.
That said, though, for whatever it's worth I couldn't take the "grinding for grinding's sake" in DQVIII (or any DQ, really) myself, but to each his own, heh heh.
I wish all games were too easy and too hard, depending on what you choose in the options menu. I think the worst thing a difficult game can do is include an easy setting in the options yet still make it the most frustrating experience possible. If you're going to call it easy, make it easy god damnit.
Well for me, the line between "Challenging" and "Cheap" in regards to difficulty comes when you compare Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden. DMC games (especially 3) have always been challenging, but they've never reached the point where they just throw tons upon tons of over powered enemies at you. The DMC titles, up until Dante Must Die mode, usually just throw the same amount of enemies at you and simply crank up the damange and health of the enemies. So in most cases with DMC titles you're doing the exact same things you would do in a lesser difficulty, instead you just have to do it while taking less damage and being more careful and precise with your attacks. The enemies remain the same and still have the same exploitable flaws. That isn't cheap by any means and DMC titles usually will only add one or two extra bad guys to higher difficulty fights, so it just adds to the challenge.
Ninja Gaiden on the other hand is one of those games that's hard for the sake of being hard. They throw tons of enemies at you, and in some cases have rooms were enemies will spawn infinitely until you advance to the next area, something that can humble even the most expert of players. When you crank up the difficulty the games become noticeably cheaper, substituting enemies for higher difficulty enemies in early points of the game that some times make no sense and again throw them at you near infinitely.
The best way I look to describe the difference between a cheaply hard game and a challengingly hard game is this; when a game constantly tests your skill and precision in a game then that is a challenge, but if a game more or less is simply testing your endurance seeing how long you go before you inevitably fuck up (aka, the game turning things into a war of attrition) then its cheap. Another good comparison of challenging versus cheap would be comparing Halo's Legendary difficulty versus COD:W@W's Veteran difficulty.
But there are also rare cases where people simply aren't playing the game right, and are interpreting it as a cheap game (ie: Sterling and inFAMOUS)
Ninja Gaiden on the other hand is one of those games that's hard for the sake of being hard. They throw tons of enemies at you, and in some cases have rooms were enemies will spawn infinitely until you advance to the next area, something that can humble even the most expert of players. When you crank up the difficulty the games become noticeably cheaper, substituting enemies for higher difficulty enemies in early points of the game that some times make no sense and again throw them at you near infinitely.
The best way I look to describe the difference between a cheaply hard game and a challengingly hard game is this; when a game constantly tests your skill and precision in a game then that is a challenge, but if a game more or less is simply testing your endurance seeing how long you go before you inevitably fuck up (aka, the game turning things into a war of attrition) then its cheap. Another good comparison of challenging versus cheap would be comparing Halo's Legendary difficulty versus COD:W@W's Veteran difficulty.
But there are also rare cases where people simply aren't playing the game right, and are interpreting it as a cheap game (ie: Sterling and inFAMOUS)
while I do feel the vast majority of todays games are too easy , difficulty for no good reason does tick me off a tad. FF1 ( and their remakes )is one of my favorite games but that first playthrough was miserable, too easy to get lost and monsters came often and in hoards.
both ninja gaiden and devil may cry don't strike me as too difficult, they just have cameras that are difficult to work with , and I often get caught by an a attack I just couldn't see coming
however I prefer that to a game where your invincible or where death carries little penalty. In the older games gamers used to FEAR death because it was just that, DEATH , the end , your kaput and back to level 1 with your ass, now death means you get pushed back 5 feet to try again, and regenerating health doesn't help ( I loved resistance 1 heath and weapons system did they have to haloize it). but I do get where your coming from difficulty for no good reason is just as annoying as a game thats too easy, some kind of balance has to exist .
that being said however I get the feeling devs would rather play it safe than risk alienating the bitch crowd as the bitch crowd would rather return a game to gamestop and find some game were they can feel badass because the enemy can't chuck anything larger than a scone at them and their armed with all the weapons under the sun than actually challenge themselves and develop better skills in the process.
both ninja gaiden and devil may cry don't strike me as too difficult, they just have cameras that are difficult to work with , and I often get caught by an a attack I just couldn't see coming
however I prefer that to a game where your invincible or where death carries little penalty. In the older games gamers used to FEAR death because it was just that, DEATH , the end , your kaput and back to level 1 with your ass, now death means you get pushed back 5 feet to try again, and regenerating health doesn't help ( I loved resistance 1 heath and weapons system did they have to haloize it). but I do get where your coming from difficulty for no good reason is just as annoying as a game thats too easy, some kind of balance has to exist .
that being said however I get the feeling devs would rather play it safe than risk alienating the bitch crowd as the bitch crowd would rather return a game to gamestop and find some game were they can feel badass because the enemy can't chuck anything larger than a scone at them and their armed with all the weapons under the sun than actually challenge themselves and develop better skills in the process.
Kind of contradictory to say games should reward you for their difficulty. Any Atlus fan can tell you just how rewarding most Atlus games are (though I personally never saw them as "hard").
Being called retarded by someone stupid enough to post the same ridiculous diatribe three times in a row is pretty insulting.
The last game I played that offered a satisfying well-balanced increase in difficulty was Punch-Out!! on the Wii.
Davram: Well like I say, Atlus games are well crafted. I'm just using them as an example of how a game that's too hardcore and unforgiving can bore me just to hear about. Dale North is always talking about how near-impregnable some of the games are and that personally just turns me off. Not enough time for that shit.
SephirothX: I love DMC games, but I felt that DMC3 in particular was just trying too hard to be hard. I played the game to the end, it's not about me being frustrated, it's about how the game was made. In my opinion, the way they chose to present difficulty (gracelessly throw enemies at you that come in from all directions, not helped by your aforementioned camera) was a bad way of making a game hard.
DMC is probably my favorite Capcom series btw, so don't think I believe the games suck or anything. Just saying that sometimes its idea of difficulty is obnoxious.
SephirothX: I love DMC games, but I felt that DMC3 in particular was just trying too hard to be hard. I played the game to the end, it's not about me being frustrated, it's about how the game was made. In my opinion, the way they chose to present difficulty (gracelessly throw enemies at you that come in from all directions, not helped by your aforementioned camera) was a bad way of making a game hard.
DMC is probably my favorite Capcom series btw, so don't think I believe the games suck or anything. Just saying that sometimes its idea of difficulty is obnoxious.
I myself find games to be a lot easier then they used to be. With everything that's on the XBLA and PSN I find myself struggling more with those games more then I do disc games.
I downloaded Mega Man 9 the day it came out, and since then I still have never finished one stage, and trust me I have tried many times also. I just don't have the skills I used to cause now of days BIG games give you some many options and ways to fight or shoot your way out of a issue it's dumb us down. I have downloaded 36 arcade games on my 360 and all of the but one (REz cause I love that game so fucken so much) have never beat. But that's just my side of it.
I downloaded Mega Man 9 the day it came out, and since then I still have never finished one stage, and trust me I have tried many times also. I just don't have the skills I used to cause now of days BIG games give you some many options and ways to fight or shoot your way out of a issue it's dumb us down. I have downloaded 36 arcade games on my 360 and all of the but one (REz cause I love that game so fucken so much) have never beat. But that's just my side of it.
@Jim
In regards to DMC3, did you play the original, or Special Edition? The real version had it's "standard medium" as "hard", so it was a tad more challenging than it "should" have been, so I can see where a lot of people wrote that game off. However, I don't think it threw that many enemies at you, or at least as much as Ninja Gaiden did. If you want to talk about 5 metric shit-tons of enemies too many: Prototype is probably the guiltiest game I've ever seen, haha. I remember reading a few reviews and writing off the "it gets too hectic" claims, but now I see exactly what they mean.
As for the topic, I've written a few articles on this myself, because I think it's a really important issue nowadays with the gigantic schism between "casual" and "hardcore" gamers. I'm damn glad that Bayonetta will be shipping with an "Easy Automatic" setting, so a lot of people who suck at games will find some merit in the title, rather than writing it off as "too hard so it sucks". In my opinion, this is the missing link between casuals and hardcores: simply make the game very challenging, and include a super-duper dumbed down version of the game, so the casual player can eventually learn the necessary tricks of the trade to scale up to the hardcore level, if that is desired.
In terms of real difficulty vs. "fake" difficulty, this is an excellent resource that explains it for people who are interested.
Also, "The Computer is a Cheating Bastard" is a pretty funny read.
In regards to DMC3, did you play the original, or Special Edition? The real version had it's "standard medium" as "hard", so it was a tad more challenging than it "should" have been, so I can see where a lot of people wrote that game off. However, I don't think it threw that many enemies at you, or at least as much as Ninja Gaiden did. If you want to talk about 5 metric shit-tons of enemies too many: Prototype is probably the guiltiest game I've ever seen, haha. I remember reading a few reviews and writing off the "it gets too hectic" claims, but now I see exactly what they mean.
As for the topic, I've written a few articles on this myself, because I think it's a really important issue nowadays with the gigantic schism between "casual" and "hardcore" gamers. I'm damn glad that Bayonetta will be shipping with an "Easy Automatic" setting, so a lot of people who suck at games will find some merit in the title, rather than writing it off as "too hard so it sucks". In my opinion, this is the missing link between casuals and hardcores: simply make the game very challenging, and include a super-duper dumbed down version of the game, so the casual player can eventually learn the necessary tricks of the trade to scale up to the hardcore level, if that is desired.
In terms of real difficulty vs. "fake" difficulty, this is an excellent resource that explains it for people who are interested.
Also, "The Computer is a Cheating Bastard" is a pretty funny read.
Couldn't read the entire article. Too hard.
Speaking of which, I recently wrote an c-blog about the "easy" difficulty.
Speaking of which, I recently wrote an c-blog about the "easy" difficulty.
I don't know why people get mad about games being easy. Super Mario RPG is one of most loved games ever and it's easy enough for an eight-year-old child to beat without a guide. I'm not outstanding at every game in every genre but I'm really good at videogames and by the time I got a PS2 (at launch) challenge pretty much stopped being a factor for me. Good games shine regardless of difficulty.
I agreed with everything here...and then Mr. Sterling attacks my Atlus. kidding. I agree about the Atlus issue in some games. Currently one of the games I keep circulating through is Operation Darkness, which isn't difficult, its just amazingly awkward. In this awkwardness it alienates so many people. The worst offender of the game isn't the camera so much as the rules. You go into nearly every main storyline with a set of 3 or so out of your entire party of usually 10 that can't die in battle. This isn't really hard for most strategy fans, but many battles have overwhelming enemies with advantages in range and armor, or reinforcements that appear right in front of your party. It makes the game a bout of replaying over and over the same map, or actually forcing you to grind up your characters which is a fairly unusual tactic in a SRPG since they cater to strategy winning a battle instead of power. The only thing that keeps me playing is the fairly competent voice acting and the interesting zombie werewolf nazi style to the game (that and I'm an SRPG whore with a 360, so it doesn't leave a lot of options). That is one thing that I always respect about Atlus is the fact that they'll put a good translation in on an extremely niche game like this which makes it easier to purchase these games even in the face of bad review scores (Operation Darkness: 46 on Metacritic).
Also, I don't have a ps3 so I can't compare this to Valkyria Chronicles. This game might be a piece of crap compared to that.
Also, I don't have a ps3 so I can't compare this to Valkyria Chronicles. This game might be a piece of crap compared to that.
I think one of things about this article that throws me off is the notion of difficulty being independent of quality. "If the game is difficult", you say, "you better make damn sure it's good". Do you think that difficulty and quality are, in many games, mutually exclusive?
It seems like the better way to phase this dilemma might be might be, "I think games that try to justify their own bizarre gameplay quirks and horrendous design by being cheap and difficult and unforgiving need to be shot in the head, and then shot in the head again." In that regard, I think you are absolutely right; what video game should force masochism onto the player?
But I think the problem isn't with difficulty in it's own right, as you state in the article; there are plenty of hard video games that are good. I love me the Max Payne games, even though I had to "bind the quicksave to the right mouse button", if you will. And I fought my way through the hardest levels of Elite Beat Agents, even when I had to replay the same level 50 times, but I loved it all the same.
So I guess what I'm saying is that....difficulty needs to be considered in the game design process, and it should never be uses as a means of justifying awkward and decrepit mechanics.
.....did I just reiterate the point of the article in comment form?
So.....yes. The answer to the article is yes.
It seems like the better way to phase this dilemma might be might be, "I think games that try to justify their own bizarre gameplay quirks and horrendous design by being cheap and difficult and unforgiving need to be shot in the head, and then shot in the head again." In that regard, I think you are absolutely right; what video game should force masochism onto the player?
But I think the problem isn't with difficulty in it's own right, as you state in the article; there are plenty of hard video games that are good. I love me the Max Payne games, even though I had to "bind the quicksave to the right mouse button", if you will. And I fought my way through the hardest levels of Elite Beat Agents, even when I had to replay the same level 50 times, but I loved it all the same.
So I guess what I'm saying is that....difficulty needs to be considered in the game design process, and it should never be uses as a means of justifying awkward and decrepit mechanics.
.....did I just reiterate the point of the article in comment form?
So.....yes. The answer to the article is yes.
In my time with Black Sigil, the enemy encounter rate is hardly "every two steps". Honestly, it's a lot lower than most of the RPG's I'm used to. And personally, the "pointless" additions to Chrono Trigger's battlesystem actually make the thing palatable. CT's battle system was broken as fuck, and the fixes in Black Sigil are welcomed.
I agree with the rest of the article, though. A game that's hard for the sake of being hard isn't fun; it needs to be hard but fair. Old "hard" NES games were often just complete bullshit and devs need to realize this. I always like to point to Godhand as an example of "fair hard", and really wish devs would follow that example.
I agree with the rest of the article, though. A game that's hard for the sake of being hard isn't fun; it needs to be hard but fair. Old "hard" NES games were often just complete bullshit and devs need to realize this. I always like to point to Godhand as an example of "fair hard", and really wish devs would follow that example.
I wish someone would write an article regarding the "dumbing down" of modern games as well. Unless that's already been done. If so, kindly point me in its direction.
For example, as much as I love the recent console Zelda titles (namely Wind Waker and Twilight Princess), I'm starting to feel a bit beleaguered by the continued division of the Heart unit. In past Zelda titles, enemies could take out two to three hearts in one blow; it didn't seem unnecessarily harsh, it just made things interesting. Now we're seeing hearts divided into fourths just to express how little of a threat any of Link's adversaries are to his well-being. I wouldn't be surprised if the next title took it up (or rather down) a notch further.
To prove your point, I am personally so distraught by "nerfed" challenge in games today that I couldn't be bothered to care about the opposite trend outlined in this article.
For example, as much as I love the recent console Zelda titles (namely Wind Waker and Twilight Princess), I'm starting to feel a bit beleaguered by the continued division of the Heart unit. In past Zelda titles, enemies could take out two to three hearts in one blow; it didn't seem unnecessarily harsh, it just made things interesting. Now we're seeing hearts divided into fourths just to express how little of a threat any of Link's adversaries are to his well-being. I wouldn't be surprised if the next title took it up (or rather down) a notch further.
To prove your point, I am personally so distraught by "nerfed" challenge in games today that I couldn't be bothered to care about the opposite trend outlined in this article.
The DMC games pissed me off not because of the difficulty, but because of how harshly you were punished for not being awesome at it. Let me get this straight: Buying extra lives gets MORE expensive the more you buy, regardless of how many lives you actually have? So basically, you have to grind for extra lives on earlier stages in order to have a chance against bosses who throw out attacks you have no way of anticipating before you've been raped by a few of them?
The games themselves are fun, but I'd rather just have, you know, a set amount of lives per level. Don't freakin' punish me on a NEW level for barely scraping by on the previous one.
The games themselves are fun, but I'd rather just have, you know, a set amount of lives per level. Don't freakin' punish me on a NEW level for barely scraping by on the previous one.
I love it how you can make a perfect argument for what you believe and then either taunt the other side with sarcasm or tell them that they aren't wrong as well and then they come in here and piss all over their keyboards trying to make fun of you.
Your a saint Jim, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Your a saint Jim, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
@Platypus
HAHAHAHAHA!Right now im laughing in my head at you as i imagine you and your other 12 year old friends playing through Ninja Gaiden for the 12th time and thinking how badass it makes you.
HAHAHAHAHA!Right now im laughing in my head at you as i imagine you and your other 12 year old friends playing through Ninja Gaiden for the 12th time and thinking how badass it makes you.
If by Atlus games you mean Megaten games, pretty much all of the difficulty is greatly exaggerated. The key is in preparation and knowing what you're up against.
Personally it's my favorite level of difficulty, as you can be completely decimated by a boss one try and completely decimate them the next try thanks to planning and forethought. There has never been a non-optional boss in any Megaten game that was an insurmountable obstacle to me.
While there are some things that are cheap (i.e. instakills), by the time they pop up there are numerous counters to them.
Personally it's my favorite level of difficulty, as you can be completely decimated by a boss one try and completely decimate them the next try thanks to planning and forethought. There has never been a non-optional boss in any Megaten game that was an insurmountable obstacle to me.
While there are some things that are cheap (i.e. instakills), by the time they pop up there are numerous counters to them.
I really liked Mirror's Edge, i think that even in the Hard setting it's still not a relly challenger game. Now i'm playing the Speed Runs and Time Trials and those surely got some pretty high difficulty, but i like it, it improves me as a gamer.
But it depends of the game, Gears 2 i finished the SP in Insane and have a shitload of fun with it, however in Halo 3 SP i can't even finish it in Heroic, but then again, i think that Halo 3 SP is too overrated.
But it depends of the game, Gears 2 i finished the SP in Insane and have a shitload of fun with it, however in Halo 3 SP i can't even finish it in Heroic, but then again, i think that Halo 3 SP is too overrated.
I wouldn't say that God Hand is ever fair at all. The game gets MUCH HARDER if you play it properly. In fact, i think the thing that makes it such a success is that it's so uncompromising - you're always so close to a dirt nap that the game becomes so much more exciting and joyful to play when you're really on a roll. The game itself is dead simple and brutally hard - it just feels great to be good at it.
I think that percieved difficulty comes as a result of a lot of other elements of design, and if these things aren't coming together properly, then it's easy to mistake a difficult game for a flat-out bad one. I don't think any game can actually be 'too hard' if the mechanics and difficulty curve are graceful enough.
I think that percieved difficulty comes as a result of a lot of other elements of design, and if these things aren't coming together properly, then it's easy to mistake a difficult game for a flat-out bad one. I don't think any game can actually be 'too hard' if the mechanics and difficulty curve are graceful enough.
I'm not sure how I feel on this topic.
Difficulty, like most experiences, is a completely subjective thing. What's acceptable or unacceptable to a given person isn't something that can be actively quantified or given form. Some of the games listed in this article, like Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry 3, are games that I had a great time with. The difficulty just wasn't something that bothered me in my experiences with the games. For others, however, the difficulty resulted in so much frustration that there's not even a remote chance of completion. While we can easily identify traits that make a game "easy" or "hard", it's important to realize that these designations carry very little weight in terms of the actual experience imparted on the individual player.
Trying to determine what elements result in a frustrating experience rather than a rewarding one in gaming is basically an exercise in futility; in the end, you only succeed in determining those factors for yourself. Though, if that's what you sought to do here, then I'd say you've achieved your goal.
Difficulty, like most experiences, is a completely subjective thing. What's acceptable or unacceptable to a given person isn't something that can be actively quantified or given form. Some of the games listed in this article, like Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry 3, are games that I had a great time with. The difficulty just wasn't something that bothered me in my experiences with the games. For others, however, the difficulty resulted in so much frustration that there's not even a remote chance of completion. While we can easily identify traits that make a game "easy" or "hard", it's important to realize that these designations carry very little weight in terms of the actual experience imparted on the individual player.
Trying to determine what elements result in a frustrating experience rather than a rewarding one in gaming is basically an exercise in futility; in the end, you only succeed in determining those factors for yourself. Though, if that's what you sought to do here, then I'd say you've achieved your goal.
"(A bad "hard" game) demands so much, yet gives nothing to the player in return."
That's the heart of the issue over whether or not a certain level of difficulty can add to or take away from enjoying certain games. As such, Jim has made a sterling and worthwhile point.
What I would add to the game difficulty conversation is outside of the gameplay mechanics and tackling hordes of monsters, and get into the story/level progression aspect of the gameplay.
I have long associated a game's difficulty level, and whether it's worth my time to play a game, with my ability to non-combatively navigate the game world to reach the next objective. That has been my biggest hindrance to enjoying certain games over the years, specifically the Zelda and Metroid games.
Two and a half years ago, Twilight Princess (on GameCube) was the first Zelda game I had ever beaten. I'm 25, and it took me that long to reign in my prejudice against the series and complete one of its marvelous entries. Now I'm a fan, simply because I finally overcame my hangups over (and understood the appeal to) the idea of having to thoroughly explore a Zelda game's environment to get to the next objective. For the longest time, I could not bring myself to get into Ocarina of Time, A Link to The Past, or even The Wind Waker because of how [i]abso-frickin-lutely vague[i] the level/story progression seemed to me in those games. But I own a dozen of the Zelda games, and now I can go back and enjoy them all at my leisure.
As for the Metroid series, I've beaten Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. Even though I've owned Super Metroid (on Super Nintendo, ya whippersnappers) about four separate times, I still haven't beaten the thing because I haven't hunkered down and allowed myself to powerball every little nook and cranny in its 2D world. But I HAVE beaten Metroid: Zero Mission. And I absolutely [b]adore[b] Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and the GBA and DS Castlevanias, which of course people have called "Metroidvania" over the years.
It's kinda strange, but wonderful, that I've been able to overcome that hangup with certain games. And I guess that's thanks in part to being able to look up hints on the Internet.
I looked up a hint on the Internet ONCE to get me through Twilight Princess, looked up quite a few hints to beat Skies of Arcadia (Dreamcast), and only looked up hints three times to beat Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne.
Jim, if you want a [b]hard[b] game, play through Nocturne. Although I have heard DQ VIII is no breeze.....
That's the heart of the issue over whether or not a certain level of difficulty can add to or take away from enjoying certain games. As such, Jim has made a sterling and worthwhile point.
What I would add to the game difficulty conversation is outside of the gameplay mechanics and tackling hordes of monsters, and get into the story/level progression aspect of the gameplay.
I have long associated a game's difficulty level, and whether it's worth my time to play a game, with my ability to non-combatively navigate the game world to reach the next objective. That has been my biggest hindrance to enjoying certain games over the years, specifically the Zelda and Metroid games.
Two and a half years ago, Twilight Princess (on GameCube) was the first Zelda game I had ever beaten. I'm 25, and it took me that long to reign in my prejudice against the series and complete one of its marvelous entries. Now I'm a fan, simply because I finally overcame my hangups over (and understood the appeal to) the idea of having to thoroughly explore a Zelda game's environment to get to the next objective. For the longest time, I could not bring myself to get into Ocarina of Time, A Link to The Past, or even The Wind Waker because of how [i]abso-frickin-lutely vague[i] the level/story progression seemed to me in those games. But I own a dozen of the Zelda games, and now I can go back and enjoy them all at my leisure.
As for the Metroid series, I've beaten Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. Even though I've owned Super Metroid (on Super Nintendo, ya whippersnappers) about four separate times, I still haven't beaten the thing because I haven't hunkered down and allowed myself to powerball every little nook and cranny in its 2D world. But I HAVE beaten Metroid: Zero Mission. And I absolutely [b]adore[b] Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and the GBA and DS Castlevanias, which of course people have called "Metroidvania" over the years.
It's kinda strange, but wonderful, that I've been able to overcome that hangup with certain games. And I guess that's thanks in part to being able to look up hints on the Internet.
I looked up a hint on the Internet ONCE to get me through Twilight Princess, looked up quite a few hints to beat Skies of Arcadia (Dreamcast), and only looked up hints three times to beat Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne.
Jim, if you want a [b]hard[b] game, play through Nocturne. Although I have heard DQ VIII is no breeze.....
DMC isn't all that hard but ninja gaiden is a bit ridiculous at times i stopped playing it after i beat it once cause the next difficulty up just isn't fair.
NO FUNNY? GO MOLEST CHILDREN PHYSICALLY. It's more personal that way. I also thought that you liked hard games no matter what, because you like hard dicks in your ass. ARARRARARARAR BIAS!
Seriously though, good read. Just not what I expected from a Jimmles weekend post.
Seriously though, good read. Just not what I expected from a Jimmles weekend post.
Heh, this made me laugh
"Gears 2 i finished the SP in Insane and have a shitload of fun with it, however in Halo 3 SP i can't even finish it in Heroic, but then again, i think that Halo 3 SP is too overrated."
Overrated because you couldn't manage it? :P
Lol I agree that Halo 3 is overrated but your wording made it sound like because you couldn't manage heroic it wasn't as good as Gears
"Gears 2 i finished the SP in Insane and have a shitload of fun with it, however in Halo 3 SP i can't even finish it in Heroic, but then again, i think that Halo 3 SP is too overrated."
Overrated because you couldn't manage it? :P
Lol I agree that Halo 3 is overrated but your wording made it sound like because you couldn't manage heroic it wasn't as good as Gears
I think in the case of games like Ninja Gaiden, or say Ikaruga, it's not solely a case of designer epeen and throwing a fuck-ton of stuff at you for the sake of it. It's a consequence of having polished the interface to such an extent that they believe the player is capable of that much more. They truly believe the player interface isn't an obstacle and is a fully realized performance tool.
It's sort of like saying, "now that the interface isn't in your way and is masterable, let's test your mastery." And damned if they don't test it.
It's sort of like saying, "now that the interface isn't in your way and is masterable, let's test your mastery." And damned if they don't test it.
Normally I would read through the sea of comments, but it's late, I may tomorrow. I enjoyed the articles Jim and agree with most of your points. I like Mirror's Edge personally for being what I wanted it to be (a proper flowing running game).
I also hate DMC, because of the system of levelling, levels and the hard difficult just for the sake of being hard. As for Metal Arms I've never played it so I cannot judge that.
There are few games I can think of that deserve to be hard (at specific stages not the whole thing), LBP, COD4/5 (even if grenade spam is very cheap on Veteran), MGS2, ,3 and 4 and SF4. As I feel like I've actually accomplished something when I beat parts of these games. They're only a few, there's plenty of older generation games I could list such as Ikaruga and Jet Set Radio, LTTP etc.
I also hate DMC, because of the system of levelling, levels and the hard difficult just for the sake of being hard. As for Metal Arms I've never played it so I cannot judge that.
There are few games I can think of that deserve to be hard (at specific stages not the whole thing), LBP, COD4/5 (even if grenade spam is very cheap on Veteran), MGS2, ,3 and 4 and SF4. As I feel like I've actually accomplished something when I beat parts of these games. They're only a few, there's plenty of older generation games I could list such as Ikaruga and Jet Set Radio, LTTP etc.
Ninja Gaiden is awesome. I agree that the difficulty curve is fairly steep but the difficulty loses its bite once you get a hang of things.
I believe that there are two different types of games: the kind you "play," and the kind you "experience." Shadow of the Colossus is a game you "experience," while a game such as Mega Man 9 is the kind you "play." The difficulty of a game should be subject to the type of game it is.
Metal Arms is my measuring stick for difficulty as well. That game was awesome and one of my favorites as well, although I didn't play it on the xbox, I got it as an xbox original on the 360 marketplace. As for DMC, honestly, I never found any of them to be that hard. I mean of course DMD mode is tough as hell, but the default difficulty didn't feel 'hard for the sake of being hard'. Ninja Gaiden is 'hard just to be hard' as that game just gets cheap, with homing explosive shurikens, enemies just as or more quick than you, and a shit camera.
I think there's a certain beauty that comes with Ninja Gaiden 2's blatantly broken and cheap difficulty, ESPECIALLY in the higher difficulties. Later on, if you're an above average player, you're gonna be forced to use a very limited amount of moves that make you invincible during the animation that if you want to survive, you're gonna have to spam them.
The frustrating camera angles that limit how many enemies you can see at a time, cause they come from everywhere and throw everything at you, hinder the use of your most advanced tactics against the toughest enemies. There's sort of a masochistic reward to completeing something so unesisarily hard and the fact that you can overcome it is what's special about NG2 to me.
The thing about the DMC games is, they require you to be a near-perfectionist in the harder difficulties. They give enemies damage and health increases to see if you can use Dante's abilities to the max without breaking focus, they should call it "Don't dick around mode" because as fast paced as the game is, I think the devs went with a mindset that a focused player should go through when the odds are stacked even greater.
The frustrating camera angles that limit how many enemies you can see at a time, cause they come from everywhere and throw everything at you, hinder the use of your most advanced tactics against the toughest enemies. There's sort of a masochistic reward to completeing something so unesisarily hard and the fact that you can overcome it is what's special about NG2 to me.
The thing about the DMC games is, they require you to be a near-perfectionist in the harder difficulties. They give enemies damage and health increases to see if you can use Dante's abilities to the max without breaking focus, they should call it "Don't dick around mode" because as fast paced as the game is, I think the devs went with a mindset that a focused player should go through when the odds are stacked even greater.
ummm DMC isn't hard. it has an Easy mode and that is EASY. Plus its not cheap hard either. Sure you're facing a bunch of bad guys at a time but you can easily dodge them. DMC3 is my favorite DMC game and whenever I get it, I think wow, I could've avoided it. Ninja Gaiden on the other hand, you're gonna get hit no matter what. But both games have an ez mode so there really is no point to complaining about those games
@Protomark: Godhand also rewards you for getting to the higher difficulties. Every enemy you kill in the increased difficulty ranks nets you more cash at the end of each chapter, which means you can buy more powerups and attack scrolls to really dig into the meat of the combo system. So when you "Got on a roll" the game wasn't punishing you, it was giving you an opportunity to get better shit. It's one of the reasons the game is so brilliant.
A lot of Mega Man games are hard for the sake of hard. Where you WILL die until you have the level memorized.
However, games like DMC, Ninja Gaiden, and God Hand don't fit into that category. Once you learn the mechanics and the moves, and are able to read your enemies, you can defeat anything the game throws at you.
However, games like DMC, Ninja Gaiden, and God Hand don't fit into that category. Once you learn the mechanics and the moves, and are able to read your enemies, you can defeat anything the game throws at you.
"Whatever happened to Swinging Ape studio?"
They were bought and subsequently destroyed by Vivendi, who refused to make anymore Metal Arms games, *or* sell the game's rights back to the original creator. I spoke with the guy who created Metal Arms a few years ago and he told me of his horrible experience trying to get his creation back from a publisher that refused to do anything with it.
Activision currently has the rights to anything Metal Arms-related, but obviously it's an IP they're just going to sit on until the end of the time.
They were bought and subsequently destroyed by Vivendi, who refused to make anymore Metal Arms games, *or* sell the game's rights back to the original creator. I spoke with the guy who created Metal Arms a few years ago and he told me of his horrible experience trying to get his creation back from a publisher that refused to do anything with it.
Activision currently has the rights to anything Metal Arms-related, but obviously it's an IP they're just going to sit on until the end of the time.
@manta
A old school Mega Man game isn't being hard for the sake of being hard. You memorizing the levels in that game is just like knowing what combos to pull off in DMC, Ninja Gaiden, or God Hand. One of Mega Mans mechanics is memorizing the levels and knowing how to navigate them so that you don't take damage instead of causing it.
A old school Mega Man game isn't being hard for the sake of being hard. You memorizing the levels in that game is just like knowing what combos to pull off in DMC, Ninja Gaiden, or God Hand. One of Mega Mans mechanics is memorizing the levels and knowing how to navigate them so that you don't take damage instead of causing it.
Ya, whatever Jim. You're just mad because you suck at inFAMOUSSSSSS!
Jk, anyway pretty good read. I think the art here is making a challenge. Forget about easy vs difficult and make something simply challenging. o wait, that stands on its head. All well.
When I think of a hard game I think of the Commandos games from way back. They took dedication and very precise work to advance even a little bit. It was unforgiving and time intensive... But I found it a challenge so I loved it. I think the issue is that people are very different and a challenge to one person is just arrogant and aggravating trash to another. I suspect this balancing act is where most niches in games come from. It is also where lots of crap games come from.
Jk, anyway pretty good read. I think the art here is making a challenge. Forget about easy vs difficult and make something simply challenging. o wait, that stands on its head. All well.
When I think of a hard game I think of the Commandos games from way back. They took dedication and very precise work to advance even a little bit. It was unforgiving and time intensive... But I found it a challenge so I loved it. I think the issue is that people are very different and a challenge to one person is just arrogant and aggravating trash to another. I suspect this balancing act is where most niches in games come from. It is also where lots of crap games come from.
On the flip side, you have players lamenting the fact that game A (such as Bioshock) is too short and simple because the developers elect a story focus rather than a difficulty curve.
For my money, Eat Lead was the last game I played where a spiked difficulty in the final hours felt so damn cheap. If it wasn't for the pure will to complete the game I'm sure I would've stopped there in the 11th hour. I think I lost count of the baddies flanking my "cover" while still getting shot from assholes beyond the feeble camera's range...
Another example is the Phoenix Wright series. God help you if there isn't a save constantly updating during a trial because who knows when you'll get hit with a pass/fail question. At which point you get to re-do everything from the beginning of the chapter.
But these two games, I feel, represent the two great crimes of difficulty: unfair numbers like Jim says and disproportionate consequences.
For my money, Eat Lead was the last game I played where a spiked difficulty in the final hours felt so damn cheap. If it wasn't for the pure will to complete the game I'm sure I would've stopped there in the 11th hour. I think I lost count of the baddies flanking my "cover" while still getting shot from assholes beyond the feeble camera's range...
Another example is the Phoenix Wright series. God help you if there isn't a save constantly updating during a trial because who knows when you'll get hit with a pass/fail question. At which point you get to re-do everything from the beginning of the chapter.
But these two games, I feel, represent the two great crimes of difficulty: unfair numbers like Jim says and disproportionate consequences.
Dynasty Warriors. With its copy/paste characters, braindead enemies that do nothing but stand around and die and absolutely nothing interesting to do in the way of combat, Dynasty Warriors is everything wrong with action games.
Ninja Gaiden is the complete opposite. The enemies are varied, they attack relentlessly, you have to switch tactics and weapons to defeat certain enemies and no, there aren't as many, but I would rather fight ten worthy opponents with an interesting and varied moveset than a hundred brain dead idiots that can be defeated with mashing one button.
Calling it poorly developed because it's hard for the sake of being hard is like just another way of saying "this game sucks because I suck at this game".
You know what's worse than a game that's hard for the sake of being hard? A game that's long for the sake of being long. Dragon Quest goes on for hours, not because there's hours of content, but because you spend hours grinding through unavoidable random battles.
Learn to play the game and you will find its not very difficult. And please, don't praise Dragon Quest for being a paragon of excellent difficulty where the way to win is to grind mindlessly for hours for incremental stat improvements.
Ninja Gaiden is the complete opposite. It doesn't matter how long you play, unless you get better, you're not going anywhere.
Stop being a pussy and l2play.
Ninja Gaiden is the complete opposite. The enemies are varied, they attack relentlessly, you have to switch tactics and weapons to defeat certain enemies and no, there aren't as many, but I would rather fight ten worthy opponents with an interesting and varied moveset than a hundred brain dead idiots that can be defeated with mashing one button.
Calling it poorly developed because it's hard for the sake of being hard is like just another way of saying "this game sucks because I suck at this game".
You know what's worse than a game that's hard for the sake of being hard? A game that's long for the sake of being long. Dragon Quest goes on for hours, not because there's hours of content, but because you spend hours grinding through unavoidable random battles.
Learn to play the game and you will find its not very difficult. And please, don't praise Dragon Quest for being a paragon of excellent difficulty where the way to win is to grind mindlessly for hours for incremental stat improvements.
Ninja Gaiden is the complete opposite. It doesn't matter how long you play, unless you get better, you're not going anywhere.
Stop being a pussy and l2play.
@RJG: I'm guessing you've never fought Lu Bu in Dynasty Warriors, then? Lu Bu on Chaos difficulty put anything in Ninja Gaiden to shame. Saying "The generic enemies are easy" and leaving it at that really shows how little you even know about the series.
And the way you phrase it, NO RPG can ever be difficult because "you can just level up", when this is hardly the case.
And the way you phrase it, NO RPG can ever be difficult because "you can just level up", when this is hardly the case.
Essentially difficulty and subsequent frustration is measured by what kind of gamer you are.
On the one hand we have the gamer who gets off on a kind of "memorization" difficulty - which I think could include anything from early platformers (where you had to know each level off by heart in order to save those precious lives) to something like guitar hero (hand-eye coordination is required, but there's also a degree of pattern memorization)...
On the other hand there's "problem solving" difficulty. Adventure games like Zelda or detailed RPGs like Fallout require thorough exploration and research in order to solve the problems of the game's characters.
Each can be viewed as frustratingly diffucult to the opposing gamer. I personally fit into the latter category: I despise putting in the effort to memorize levels etc, and yet seem to have no problem devoting hours upon hours reading dialogue trying to pinpoint where my next quest location is. But to the "memorization gamer" this kind of leg-work can feel unfocussed and boring. I understand this.
Perhaps I'm over-simplifying the issue at hand. I can however admire the dedication of those who play games the kind of games I find frustratingly difficult - but ultimately we all play for games for our own enjoyment. Call me a "crappy gamer" but I'll stick to my adventure/role playing games because that's the kind of game I find rewarding.
On the one hand we have the gamer who gets off on a kind of "memorization" difficulty - which I think could include anything from early platformers (where you had to know each level off by heart in order to save those precious lives) to something like guitar hero (hand-eye coordination is required, but there's also a degree of pattern memorization)...
On the other hand there's "problem solving" difficulty. Adventure games like Zelda or detailed RPGs like Fallout require thorough exploration and research in order to solve the problems of the game's characters.
Each can be viewed as frustratingly diffucult to the opposing gamer. I personally fit into the latter category: I despise putting in the effort to memorize levels etc, and yet seem to have no problem devoting hours upon hours reading dialogue trying to pinpoint where my next quest location is. But to the "memorization gamer" this kind of leg-work can feel unfocussed and boring. I understand this.
Perhaps I'm over-simplifying the issue at hand. I can however admire the dedication of those who play games the kind of games I find frustratingly difficult - but ultimately we all play for games for our own enjoyment. Call me a "crappy gamer" but I'll stick to my adventure/role playing games because that's the kind of game I find rewarding.
follow
