[Editor's note: sourpk wrote this in-depth opinion article about the difficulty of videogames today. What do you think? Are videogames harder or easier today then they were back during the retro period? -- CTZ]
In general, are videogames becoming more difficult? Well, it all depends on who you ask, because after all, difficulty is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, videogames are becoming progressively easier over time. In this article I'll tackle the issue of videogame difficulty in its many forms and how this affects the gaming community.
When I think about the difficulty of videogames today, my gut reaction would be, yes, they are becoming more difficult. Many other gamers agree with me. However, that's just looking at the surface of the situation – the gaming controller. Gaming controllers have become much more complex since the days of the Atari. Comparatively speaking there is much more advanced technology housed within present controllers, and many more buttons. A non-gamer will always choose the less complicated looking controller. The more buttons and the more complicated the device looks, the more daunting the task becomes. "You hand somebody a game controller and it's like you've handed them a live gun or a hand grenade with the pin taken out," said former Sony Executive Phil Harrison at GDC 2008 (Martin, 2008).
A perfect example of this would be the Nintendo Wii remote. The Wii remote was intentionally designed to have as few buttons as possible in order to appeal to as many people as possible, not to mention the form factor which resembles a TV remote. For many people out there, specifically non-gamers, complicated controllers give off gut reactions that are telling them "that looks too difficult to play". Joakim Sandberg, creator of the PC game Noitu Love 2, said "In terms of controller layouts and catering to the old audiences, it can be hard for people who don't play to get into it, which I suppose is why the Wii is succeeding" (J. Sandberg, personal communication, June 17, 2008). Much like my own gut reaction, these perceptions of difficulty are often unorganized and biased -- but that's not stopping the non-gamer from making those snap decisions. To them, gaming with a complicated controller might appear to be a near impossible task.
When I step back and critically analyze the difficulty of videogames today, not just on the surface, but the gameplay, without a doubt, games are becoming much easier. But to understand that, you first need to understand what the "easier" is being compared to. Back when people were going to the arcades to play games such as Pac-Man, Galaga, and Space Invaders, those games were designed to be endless, not completeable or beatable. Typically, there was no end, no conclusion, no end credits, just the satisfaction of a high score. Games that can't be completed -- that sounds downright evil! It is evil, but in retrospect, it's also extremely clever! From a business stand point, an unbeatable game means unlimited cash revenue. It's an infinite product, and if you make that product fun, yet difficult, customers are more likely to keep playing, especially if the cost of admission is 25 cents.
Perhaps the most popular arcade game of it's time -- Pac-Man.
But as videogames developed and translated from arcade gaming to home gaming, the quarter concept no longer applied. This didn't happen overnight however. The majority of early console games still had that "arcade feel". The Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was one of the first gaming consoles to truly make an effort to switch from an arcade feel to a modern-day feel, while also bringing this new concept to the masses. In part, this was due to technological advances, such as on-board cartridge memory. This led to the concept of "game saving". Instead of completing a game in one sitting, I could now leave the room, eat some pizza, pay the bills, go to sleep, and come back the next day to finish what I started. Ah the luxury!
Despite the popularity of videogames at the time of the NES, this was ultimately a new hobby, one that was blossoming, changing, and evolving. I remember when I was a young kid playing the NES. The difficulty of most NES games was just too much! So difficult, that I remember subscribing to Nintendo Power Magazine, buying strategy guides, turbo controllers, and even calling the notorious tip hot-line. Because of the infancy of the medium, gaming had no clear formula of how a game "should" be played or even what to expect. Anyone who remembers playing an NES can tell you, it's a hugely mixed bag! How was I supposed to know that Battletoads was going to be near impossible to complete? Joakim Sandberg, creator of the PC game Noitu Love 2, had this to say: "You could argue since it was the dawn of games they were also difficult for lack of product testing and developer experience … I think games have been made easier for that reason" (J. Sandberg, personal communication, June 17, 2008).
Strategy guides, and gaming magazines during the early days, were your key to successfully completing a videogame. Think about this for a moment -- really think about it. Now ask yourself this question, when was the last time you used a strategy guide, or a gaming magazine to get through a videogame? You more than likely don't use either of those two methods anymore. But now you're saying, well that's a weak argument. Why would someone use a strategy guide or a gaming magazine when they could alternatively use the Internet? Very true, but just because people use sites such as GameFAQ, doesn't necessarily mean they need to. Is the average videogame today really so difficult that you have to turn to the Internet in order to complete the core game experience? Not likely. A lot of people turn to the Internet for the quick solution to an otherwise solvable problem. In fact, the Internet provides so many options for gamers today that some might even say it spoils the experience. With sites such as Wiisaves.com and PS3gamesaves.net, now gamers don't even need to play the game! If all you wanted to do was skip to the end or unlock everything instantly, you could! Convenient? Yes. Removes the difficulty/challenge? Yes, and that's my point.
To further emphasis my point, a recent Triple A (AAA) blockbuster game called Alone in the Dark, lets players skip to a further point in the game without playing what had happened previously. When I first saw this play mechanic, I was both surprised and offended that a AAA game would so blatantly remove the challenge. I couldn't help but think "what's stopping me or anyone else from abusing this option?" This should be seen as a huge red flag to the gaming community and a possible sign of things to come! Kian Bashiri, creator of the flash game, You Have to Burn the Rope, added:
" … AAA-titles are getting more streamlined and "dumbed" down in concept to appeal to as big an audience as possible. And this is definitely a terrible thing for gamers. Of course, it's all about business; making games today is extremely expensive and therefore they won't take chances." (K. Bashiri, personal communication, June 18, 2008).
In-game screenshot of Alone in the Dark
So what about instruction booklets? We need those, right? Not necessarily. Videogame genres are becoming so formulated that you rarely need to crack open an instruction booklet. Let's take the First Person Shooter (FPS) genre for example. If you play any FPS, chances are the next time you play a different FPS, you'll be able to figure out how to play it within a matter of minutes. This holds true for many game genres: sports, RPG, MMORPG, etc. I want to avoid the phrase, "if you've played one, you've played them all", but honestly, that's what it feels like. Let me emphasize, I am in no way saying that all games in a specific genre are the same. I am, however, saying that too many games feel the same, and play similarly. This is both good and bad, as it lets the player jump into the game much quicker, but it can also make the game feel generic in form.
This also brings me to my next point -- in-game tutorials. As a gamer, I feel like in-game tutorials are being shoved down my throat. You'd have a hard time finding a game today that didn't include some form of in-game tutoring. It makes the inclusion of instruction manuals all the more useless. As far as I'm concerned, limited use of in-game tutorials is a good thing. I'd much rather know what the heck was going on than shooting in the dark. However, game developers are too frequently abusing the inclusion of in-game tutorials. When should the gamer be allowed to think critically, instead of being told what to do? This is a question every developer should strongly be asking themselves before even considering in-game tutorials. Being able to discover, explore, and use critical thinking are all themes that in-game tutorials frequently hinder. I also find it extremely frustrating when in-game tutorials deter me from a game's storyline. I enjoy being fully immersed in a game's story and I hate when pop-up boxes remind me that, no matter how deeply engrossed I get, it's still just a game. This is especially frustrating in cinematic intensive games, where in-game tutorials are the equivalent to a person interrupting, or seeing the bright light of an open cell phone at a movie theater. Dave Fillion, of DXF Games, said:
"I think if you're going to make one, have it be optional or skippable. Nothing's worse than having to play through 10 stages of tutorial again whenever you start a new game … If more games were made where the tutorial was optional, I don't think many people would complain." (D. Fillion, personal communication, June 18, 2008).
So why do developers insist on using in-game tutorials? There are many reasons for this, but the bottom line is that videogames are expensive to make. They cost a lot, because they require a lot of man-power in development. With so much labor behind the development of their game, they want to make sure gamers can complete their game. In-game tutorials make games easier to play, and by making games easier, it allows you to do just that -- finish their game. Too much time, effort, talent, and money was spent, for you to not complete their game, and with the average cost of video games costing roughly $50-$60, providing an easier experience is crucial to keeping the customer happy. You'd less likely feel cheated after spending all that money, if you could experience the entire game with ease. Q-Games President, Dylan Cuthbert, acknowledged, " … most people can make it to the end of the game. In fact, the gamer of today almost expects as a given to be able to complete every game he plays" (D.Cuthbert, personal communication, June 18, 2008).
Do people want easier videogames? Well from a business stand-point, yes. In fact, a huge part of Nintendo's recent marketing strategy is to reach out to a more casual gaming audience. This is done by developing games that are typically less difficult, simpler, and appeal to a broader or non-traditional audience. With this strategy, Nintendo has proven that there is indeed a market for simpler video games. Other companies such as EA have noticed this profitability trend and followed suit. Just last year, EA announced a new gaming division called EA Casual Entertainment, which will focus on "highly accessible games" (Bardinelli, 2008). When asked about the casual gaming trend, Dylan Cuthbert, President of Q-Games responded, "I think as more and more casual gamers learn to enjoy games you will naturally see a rise in the number of games developed to suit that audience across all markets" (D. Cuthbert, personal communication, June 18, 2008). So, the casual gaming trend is definitely a force to be reckoned with. Casual gaming is on the rise and it won't be stopping anytime soon.
In-game screenshot of Wii Sports; an example of casual gaming.
This may be great for Nintendo, EA, and casual gamers, but this is not great for hardcore gamers. Speaking as a hardcore gamer, I'm annoyed and I'm frustrated that so much money is being invested into casual games. It's good that the industry is expanding by appealing to a broader audience, but frankly, this fact doesn't mean much to hardcore gamers. In fact, I'd argue that the industry is slowing down for the hardcore gamer! The money being spent on casual games is money that I would rather be spent on the next great AAA title. However, a lot of casual games are mixing things up and innovating the way we think about traditional games -- this is good. Two good examples are Brain Age and Wii Sports. Brain Age won the EIEF 06 Edge Award for innovation (Jenner, 2006), and Wii Sports won in six BAFTA 07 categories, including gameplay and innovation (Gamasutra, 2007). The problem is that I'm still waiting for these innovations to capture my personal gaming needs, and lead to better games.
In the end, the videogame industry is a billion dollar industry. That's a whole lot of money floating around! All aspects of game development are all strongly influenced by money, and rightfully so – it is a business after all. It's that business aspect that's making games easier in general. In order to make as much money as possible, you need to appeal to as many people as possible. However, it's like the concept of teenage car ownership. If your parents bought you a car, you wouldn't appreciate it, but if you earned the money yourself to buy the car, then you'd truly appreciate it. This analogy can be applied to easy videogames. Games that are too easy, don't allow gamers to fully experience ideologies such as, reward, personal achievement, replayability, addictiveness, and appreciation. Difficulty can be a good thing, and I wish the gaming industry had more of it, but it's like I said before – difficulty is a matter of opinion.
Written by Timothy Russell
References
Bardinelli, J. (2008). EA announces casual games branch. Retrieved July 5, 2008 from http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/05/ea-announces-casual-games-branch/
Martin, M. (2008). Harrison: non-gamers see controllers as live guns. Retrieved July 5, 2008 from http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/harrison-non-gamers-see-controllers-as-live-guns
Jenner, L. (2006). Brain Age wins innovation award. Retrieved July 5, 2008 from http://www.gamespot.com/news/6156124.html
Gamasutra (2008). 2007 UK Bafta Game Award Winners Led By Nintendo. Retrieved July 5, 2008 from http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15975
Contest:
4:53 PM on 07.12.2008
| 
I think games are getting much easier over time, actually. This is especially apparent throughout the Zelda series. It seems like every new game that comes out ends up being easier, and I finish it in a much shorter time. I'd love a new Zelda with a killer difficulty level.
Also, where in Utah are you? I'm in Sandy, myself.
However one thing you forgot to include:
Older games are also harder to play because on many games, the timing of the controls were poor. Of course, many games had their characters' moves timed perfectly, but some were near impossible.
Also, people nowadays tend to have more time constraints, so they want an a gaming experience that will be long enough to be satisfying but short enough to deter frustration.
"Difficult" is a bit of a vague term. Like you mentioned, older games had to be difficult because there wasn't many other ways to prolong the experience due to the technical limitations. But they were also extremely linear and usually only had one way to complete it. Nowadays, beating the main storyline or adventure portion of a game isn't as difficult, but games are now much more involved and have far more stuff to do, which is what prolongs the gaming experience instead. So what makes them difficult - and why most people go to GameFAQs or get strategy guides - is trying to get every shiny object and every achievement.
Look at Ninja Gaiden 2. The series is known for its brutal difficulty, but they included a less punishing track for people who aren't necessarily blessed with the ninja skills required to beat it normally. So in that sense it's easier. But to beat the hardest difficulty in addition to that makes it far more challenging than most retro games.
I agree with your final point, difficulty is a bit of a balancing act. Games that are too hard scare away possible consumers, and ones that are too easy drive away the audience you already have. It's the challenge that many industries face of appealing to as many customers as possible.
1. "I'm good. Looks too complicated for me."
2. "How am I supposed to hold it?"
3. "Do you have Super Mario on this 360 thing? I know that game."
4. "I'm sorry, my brain stopped working the second I looked at the screen. What's an 'analog stick'?"
I'm not one for dumbing down a game, but as long as it paves the way for developers to make better gaming experiences because they now have money to experiment, i'm all for it. I don't belive the market will be dominated by casual or hardcore. As long as we still have money in our pockets, there will be developers making a game to flip us upside-down and take it.
Also, the instruction booklet comment? Nail on the flippin' head. Most games today don't even need you to read the booklet to know how to play the game anymore. Heck, I cant tell you how many times now I've just picked up a booklet just to get some snippet of info on characters or backstory because chances are that the game mechanics are pretty much just the same as the last 100 games of its same genre.
I prefer a little bit of difficulty in my games. Which is why I've been quite pleased with my most recent pick-up "Supreme Commander". Now, I love me some RTS games and I know I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I've had to go over the booklet a number of times now and watch the tutorials just to figure out some tactic i've missed or looked over so that I can find someway to stop the opposing force from ripping my face off.
But like you said, difficulty is a varied opinion, what's hard to some is easy for others. And while it's nice that the gaming community as a whole is reaching out and trying to garner the attention spans of the "casual user" I personally don't think that games today are getting easier. Yes, there's a broader range of games to choose from, and yes, a lot of newer games have been dumbed down, but if you practice enough on older games, you too can be good at them.
On the converse side, alot of the "difficult" games that are out now have artificial difficulty added to them (i.e. camera difficulties, cheap deaths, unblockable attacks), and that to me is cheap. I'd rather take an easier jaunt through mushroom kingdom where you won't die at the whim of bad tracking over hardcore ninja action that won't follow along with me anyday.
Besides, I've been playing for a long time. I know I'm damn good.
Game difficulty is definitely getting easier over time. What's becoming more difficult is actually caring about newer games enough to finish them or even find any enjoyment in playing them. It's very, very rare that I see that "hook" that makes me excited to play a game in current-gen or PS2 era games - something older games, or games with oldschool playstyles offered me (and still offer me) in spades.
But I'm just a grumpy, jaded bastard. So ignore me. Carry on. :)
Again, awesome writeup.
Just because you think that you know how to control dual-analog doesn't mean everyone does. The article is awfully elitist.
I think games have gotten easier, while control schemes have gotten too complex. That's why many new gamers are not intimidated by the Wiimote. I recall being annoyed when I tried to show Prince of Persia: Sands of Time to a friend a few weeks after finishing it and not remembering the controls. That's especially disturbing when I can download Samurai Shodown on the Virtual Console and still play it after a 10 year span of time.
I also object to the use of hardcore and casual in reference to games. I truly believe that hardcore or casual is defined by how a gamer plays game. Take the Evo crowd, for example. Most of them only play fighters but they play on a completely different level than most gamers. Also, consider most old-school arcade games, like Raiden Trad. If casual games mean easily understood games with simple pick up and play mechanics, Raiden perfectly fits the bill. The challenge of using the tools properly makes all the difference.
A true hardcore gamer is retro and neo, plays everything from Katamari Damaci and Professor Layton to Bioshock and Lost Oddysey. A true hardcore gamer enjoys the plethora of variety that gaming has to offer.
Unfortunately, the term "hardcore" has been stolen by those that think only one type of gaming is made of fun and win. These snobs aren't hardcore, they are lamecore. By choosing to only play FPSs, RPGs, or Madden, these jerk-offs are choosing to limit themselves to one genre and missing out on all that gaming has to offer.
Oh, and I like pie.
That is all.
Ascythopicism: Yes, a college writing class.
Blarg the Destroyer: Excellent point! "Katamari Damaci and Professor Layton to Bioshock and Lost Oddysey." I've played and love all of those games, more so the second Katamari than the first.
Dexter, I think that he's making the point that video games have become so difficult until recently that game makers have been excluding more and more people. Yet here comes something like the Wii and suddenly there's an explosion -- people who couldn't be into video games before can now be *very* much into them. Wii Sports bowling and retirement homes being the most prominent example.
I think the premise of the article is slightly flawed in that it talks about "difficulty" but really means "complex". The two are not the same.
Having more buttons on a controller doesn't make a game "difficult". It makes it more complex, but not necessarily more difficult. As hardcore gamers, we've adapted to more complexities whereas those who want to get into gaming are overwhelmed. This is why his examples of the Wii taking off are so spot on -- it made gaming available to everyone, not just "gamers".
"Difficult" is like the very first Prince of Persia where if you were one f**king pixel off when you tried to jump, you'd die on the spikes below. We're taking about an early platformer, so "complex" doesn't possibly enter the discussion but "difficult" most certainly does.
As to the final few paragraphs, there will always be enough demand from the hardcore gaming crowd to justify such games coming out. Don't let the current flood of "casual" games deceive you. NeverWinter Nights 3 and Diablo 3 are most certainly not going to be "casual" games, but you can bet that they're going to sell like crazy.
As for some so-called casual gamer turned off by a "complex" game despite the presence of things like an in-game tutorial and a handy little button map in the corner of the screen that tells you exactly what each button does, eh, sorry, game devs, you're not going to be able to dumb down your product enough for them. You just aren't.
Ego stroking and and semi-unintentional bragging aside, I do recognise that games are getting far easier and that graphical appeal is becoming the area of importance. Still, it's not yet difficult to avoid games that are laughably easy. There are also plenty of games that make up for it. Super Mario RPG is a good example though it comes from before the difficulty downslide. The game requires little strategy and there are setups that allow for total invincibility against even the super-powerful secret boss (Lazy Shell + Star Egg = dead Culex). Yet it manages to be beloved by a massive amount of people and I have personally beaten it multiple times after willingly spending more than $50 for a cartridge copy of it.
With complexity comes more strategy: more than one way to solve any given situation. However, simplify things, and you can ramp up the difficulty to the point that the game feels broken sometimes.
In terms of pure difficulty, I think that games today tend to be easier. Heck, to this day I still haven't beaten the 4th level boss for Spartan X.
If DMC3 is the only game that you find difficult you must be really young, or haven't experienced Ghosts and Goblins.
Saves, save points, and the concept of "quick saves" dumbed down an entire generation where now everything has to be spoon fed otherwise they bitch and complain. How many whiny reviews do you read that say "The save points are too far apart", "there isn't a quick save option". Boo hoo. If you think games are getting easier, try and go "retro" without any saves at all. Finish your favorite game without saving and give yourself 3-5 lives. Take COD4 for example, if you die 5 times...reset the game entirely and start from the beginning. Sure, there will be that one mutant that can get through the entire game, but the rest of the "it's too easy" crowd will be complaining "it's too hard now".
FPS games really only demand you to get better and better at aiming a reticle and leading a shot. If you aren't great at that, you're forced to repeat the level until you are, and then you're allowed to win. I don't find that fun, though it's difficult as hell. Instead of making enemies impervious to anything but repeated headshots, why don't developers make them smart? Make them learn from what you did the last time you played the checkpoint and try to fool you. That's real difficulty, rather than just frustrating repetition.
If only we got a second hit at the Super Nintendo...
Some games are made with love and dedication and that makes them extremely fun to play! It is almost too easy to find a game that seems like no one cared about it when they made it. (Wall-E demo anyone?)
I was raised on NES games and I have to agree with you some were easy while others made you cry poop they were so hard!
I don't think he's saying that ingame tutorial levels are bad, but the in game prompts to tell you HEY YOU CAN USE THIS ATTACK NOW or things like that are becoming far to prevalent to a point where a person doesn't even really need to think about what they are doing and just wander around until they see prompts saying they can do this or that. Like there are some FPS's that when you run out of ammo it brings up big text in the middle of your screen saying "HIT X TO RELOAD". how necessary is that? It's not the tutorials themselves that are bad but the complete over use of them to a point where you feel like people must be morons to need all these prompts
When I was working at EB, I dont think a day passed when the question was asked "will this game be easy to work out" and we always said "almost all games have an ingame tutorial, you should be fine"
On the subject of tutorials, sometimes I think they really are necessary. For example, my wife is new to FPS's in general. So to her, trying to absorb all the knowledge at the start, or from a manual, can be difficult. We take a lot of stuff for granted, because we've been playing FPS's for a decade (well, some of us) and by and large not a lot has changed. Jump, duck, walk, run, prone, shoot, alt-fire, quick-switch, melee, inventory, use, change fire modes, check scores, chat, team chat, throw grenade, change teams amd change class are all options that a lot of games have. Trying to learn all this, when you've never done it before, can be incredibly hard.
In my opinion, the best route is the optional tutorial/training, I.E. Deus Ex. The ability to skip it if you already know it, and the suggestion you try it for newer players.
That's exactly my point. Do you guys remember what Super Metroid was like? Were there in-game tutorials in that game? I can't remember, if there were, it was very little. And yet I consider that to be one of the greatest games of all time. Getting to the next point in that game was all about exploration. They never spelled anything out for you.
For example, when you get the ability to wall jump, instead of using a text box which walked you through how to do it exactly, you had to practice and learn it by yourself. When I eventually reached the top, I felt pretty good about myself. That was a great feeling of accomplishment.
New games hold my hand with their tutorial levels and over explanatory cut scenes. Game manuals used to give you some back story and the button configuration, then the game would laugh at you until you figured it out. Games like Castlevania and Mega Man throw you into the game. Your only rewards were telling the legends of how you beat through them. You didn't have guys broadcasting it for charity. You didn't win achievements. It was all about you and that feeling of satisfaction games gave to you. Now with you tube anyone can see the ending of any game. So all our hard work for something we could share with other gamers is stolen from us.
Our culture as gamers has changed.
Looking for help or information was a challenge in itself. You were mostly stuck with a code from a friend of a friend or a quick strategy written down on notebook paper. I know we actually had maps drawn out for Zelda and a notebook filled with cheat codes and fighting game combos. At any time you can type in the name of any game and find tons of information on it. Who made it. How they made it. Movies they ripped off. And so much more. You've got blogs that give you news tips everyday about gaming, if you're the type that just can't read enough. Podcasts with people talking about games. Trailers for new games. You can download demos quickly from the internet of new games. There is no more mystery with video games left. Once the curtain came back, gaming culture changed.
At the same time tutorials and cut scenes are necessary additions for people that don't play games all day everyday. You've heard that buzzword they use so casually. I won't use it, but you know what I'm talking about. Games aren't made for guys like us anymore. The old school gamers. The guys who saved princess peach even when she was in another castle. The guys who had several final fantasies. Those of us who have finished our share of beat em ups. The gamers who have nearly every console and try to play as many games as possible. You know who you are. Its looking like our style of games is on the decline.
I'll sum up my argument in a humorous but sad way:
There just ain't no country for old men. If there is, its being pushed onto the hand held or download services.
It's certainly down to the players choice whether they desire that additional challenge. I have yet to beat shadow of the colossus, but I have also gotten through 12 of the baddies without going to GameFAQs. However, if you do look at one game in particular, Final Fantasy, I think almost everybody could agree that they are now getting down to being practical cakewalks. Even power leveling feels easier.
I have to admit, even RPGs seem to have been sliding down the difficulty scale. I guess in the end I would have to agree.
1) Are games becoming more difficult?
2) Are games becoming more complicated?
3) Are games becoming more patronising?
1) Out of the hundreds of C64 games I amassed up until 1993, I doubt I completed even 5%, yet I recently made a list of all my PS2 games for my brother to borrow and found I'd completed about 37/72 (with a dozen still untouched) so 37/60 is my 'completion rate' for PS2.
2) My mom spends a lot of time on her PSP, but won't touch anything with a 3D camera or analogue controls. Of the games she plays, most menus or save systems might as well be in japanese compared to the simplicity of the in-game controls.
3) A well implemented training stage (Assassins' creed - even though the training was clunky story-wise) or mini tutorials when you discover something new (Super Mario World) can really help a game, especially as manuals become streamlined or non-existent for DLC.
However games such as God of War 2 are especially annoying with with constant button prompts layed over the screen. Ico and Prince of Persia both had cranks in the floor you needed to push/pull but neither had a permanent spinning graphic. Likewise, the last Pop game had GoW style prompts during certain fights but kept it consistent in the realms of the game, i.e. the shining dagger. I was hoping Heavenly Sword would do something similar (Maybe a glowing tramp stamp?) rather than big ugly buttons covering the screen but alas no. Also, after opening my 200th door is it necessary to tell me I need to hammer the circle button?
Fire Emblem 5: Thracia 776 was the hardest Fire Emblem game ever made, with many many enemies, an RNG that totally scrwes you over when you don't want it to, a crappy Lord, etc.
Compare to Fire Emblem 8: The Sacred Stones...wth, that game didn't even require strategy - keep your units away from enemies, send Seth in with 3 elixers and let him solo the game -.-
This is the main reason why I go WTF when reviews slam Radiant Dawn for its difficulty (like the one on Destructoid and GameSpot) - I have no problems with the scores, just the complaints about difficulty. It's a strategy game, OBVIOUSLY it is difficult.
I like Radiant Dawn's tutorials though. You always get the option to watch or not to watch the tutorial, and if you felt the need to access the tutorial but said "No", you can bring up the tutorial from the ingame menu.
Seriously, if any of the Japanese Fire Emblem games get translated and VC'ed, I bet everyone would complain of the difficulty...
All games should have skippable tutorials. Just like I believe all games should have skippable cutscenes. More freedom for the player please. Camera view options like inverse X and Y should be a given these days but sadly there are still games that get released without these simple options. Why? Makes no sense.
I also wish more devs put more thought in to scalable difficulty. Instead of just a blanket choice at the beginning of the game, why not have the option to turn up/down the difficulty at a save point or something if you feel things are not right for your tastes.