So, extending my... extended
Castlevania kick recently, I started playing
Dracula X Chronicles on the PSP over the weekend. Firstly, it's a toe-curlingly good remake -- when Richter first crosses the bridge and it begins to rain as the theme plays, your hair
will stand on end. Ayami Kojima is one of the best character illustrators in the history of game art, and the whole works just looks great-great-great. A remake of
Chi No Rondo was long overdue, and finally having this update on the PSP is like filling in a big, naked gap in your bookshelf. Dude, it's like you had a collection of really fancy encyclopedias and you just now finally bought the letter "S".
I can't freaking beat the first boss.
For a while, as I died repeatedly, struggling to get through the first stage, I wondered what the hell was wrong with me. I've been playing games since I was quite small, and I've fancied myself, if not a competition-quality maestro, at least possessed of a certain competency. Maybe it's that I've only a little while ago gotten a PSP and haven't had occasion to play much on it, and I'm just not used to it. But the more I thought about it, the more it became clear to me:
holy crap, old games are hard. We've got it so easy these days.
I recently got
Ecco the Dolphin on XBLA, recalling a soothing, intellectually challenging romp through the shimmering sea. But this go-round, my dolphin didn't romp with intellectual grace. It sort of flopped around on jumps it didn't clear, bumped spikes repeatedly with its nose, was accosted to death by jellyfish and suffocated in the depths of the sea. "Just gotta... give myself a few minutes to get back into it," I said, about a dozen times. "I used to be really good at this game."
I did. Used to.
I was thinking about this while playing
Phantom Hourglass, which I only recently got around to starting.
Phantom Hourglass could be the finest title released for DS to date -- when I did that double-screen bomb battle with the tornado squid thing, I have to say, I found it pretty amazing. In fact,
Phantom Hourglass might possibly be the most technically excellent
Zelda title ever made. It's just so much
fun.
But it's so
easy, man.
I mean, there are some challenging moments, sure. But it made me remember the days when we had to draw game maps ourselves on dot-matrix printer paper just to figure out what the hell was going on, when we couldn't buy potion without a bottle, and we couldn't even buy bottles -- we'd have to trudge twenty miles uphill in the snow to search for 'em.
Phantom Hourglass literally draws you a map, and you can frickin'
pay dudes in dungeons to show you where the treasure chests are.
I feel a little conflicted that the lack of difficulty does not take away from my enjoyment. I mean, I'm not a little kid anymore, and with the comparatively limited time I have to spend on games these days, I appreciate that I can spend it having fun and being engaged, rather than singlemindedly trying to leap the same glitchy, irrational platform gap again and again, or dying repeatedly in the same mazelike dungeon, only to have to start all over at the beginning again and again. I appreciate no longer having to peer dumbfounded at an opaque game mechanic, wondering at the nature of weird power-ups and scrutinizing the inscrutable. And I appreciate that, because of this accessibility, society understands me a little bit better -- when people watch me play DS on the subway, generally, they
understand what I'm doing and are interested. If I were to hand
Phantom Hourglass to a galpal, maybe even one of my parents, for a sec, they'd immediately be able to try it, be able to understand why it's fun. The era of confounding, grueling button-mashing is mostly over, and we live in a time of "user engagement," "social gaming," and lots and lots of talk -- from myself, too -- about the "reward center."
But, man, being unable to handle Richter Belmont anymore made me feel soft, inadequate, guilty, like J-Lo pretending she still hangs out in the Bronx. I had become the thing I hated -- some impatient adult mashing confusedly at buttons, cringing in embarrassment, and wailing sadly before looking for a pro to hand it back to.
We no longer live in the time of the arcades, and nor does gaming continue on in the arcade-inspired period that lasted way too long, considering home entertainment had become widespread -- I'm talking about giving the player "lives" and "credits," confronting them with "levels," and pitting them against enormous odds, all in the quest to make them spend as many quarters as possible. Somewhere along the line we realized we have more fun when in-game death is not a final frustration; the autosave developed, the limitless Continues. Developers began to realize they ought to reward, not penalize the player, because games should be fun. Good; great. I'm not saying they shouldn't. But I feel the anxiety of a warrior in peacetime, and I find myself missing that sense of perverse satisfaction I achieved when I finally conquered a challenging title, mastered an impossible control scheme, discovered a secret room so obscurely hidden, so well-cached that I couldn't be sure it wasn't a bug.
I miss the days when I found those kinds of things because I played for hours, practicing, searching, intent on working for my rewards -- and not because an NPC shouted for my attention and described the location several times with "hints" so blunt a kindergartener would get it. I am quite sure that a return to that era would suck a lot of the relatively newborn, naturalistic joy out of a gaming space that's just begun, at long last, to climb the hill toward maturity. But what do you think? Are new games too easy? Do you suck at
Ecco the Dolphin, too? And if so, how's that feel for ya, champ?
Contest:
10:42 AM on 11.05.2007
| 
I urge you to sit down, with a Nintendo, and load up the original castlevania. Or perhaps find your old gameboy and sit down with the first castlevania that was released for that and compare difficulties.
I never did beat those games. Looks like I have work to do today.
Remember Leigh, you CAN do it.
P.S. I'm generally upset/angry at how easy games are nowadays. Probably why I love Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry 3 so much.
I need to hone my skill for handling frustration with some Strider tonight methinks.
I think a lot of it does actually have to do with the reduced difficulty of games today. Without that practice, my skills have deteriorated and it leaves me wondering how I can be so much worse as a 22 year old adult at NES games than as an 8 year old.
Of course, studying the enemy's cycles of movement will let you easily beat any enemy in mostly any game.
@ TheMartino
The first Castlevania on Game Boy was an affliction on mankind. Do not ever, ever play The Castlevania Adventure.
I was going to start playing Phantom Hourglass, but then I started reading how easy the game was, and that immediately made me decide that it wasn't worth my time. Games to me are only fun if there is some sort of challenge is presented.
The bosses in Castlevania aren't particularly tough. I think the biggest thing you have to keep in mind is that for most games today you can simply rush into a boss and start pounding the attack button with little strategy. For old-school games you need to learn the boss's attack pattern, how you are going to avoid their attacks, and then an effective way to attack without getting hit. It's great video gaming!
Each one would ding me slightly, and then the last phase/boss would hit a lucky punch in.
I'm actually struggling with some of castlevania 3's bosses atm, because I keep on expecting to be able to out maneuver them, but I simply don't move fast enough/jump high enough. Jamming on the turbo button seems to work best.
I've beaten that game several times, but I only made it a couple levels in that day.
I guess I need to go pro-up on Gradius or something to make up for it.
That, and games today are better designed. In the days of the video arcade, home console games still had lives and high scored attached to them. Arcades are dead, and it makes no sense for home games to have a finite number of lives for which the player to beat the game in. I can't insert another quarter to continue, so let me start from the beginning of the current area, as gimped in powerups as deemed suitable by the developers. Also, we couldn't really save back in the NES days; Super Nintendo changed that a bit, and now you can save in almost any game, sometimes wherever you want. How much less frustrating are games today now that you don't have to start all over from the beginning because one section midway through had you completely stumped and you died in that area over and over and over again?
I should make a blog post about this. Games are harder? Poppycock, games are _better_. Don't let nostalgia fool you, as if Xbox Live Arcade and Virtual Console haven't taught us that yet.
Conversely, I sat down recently with the original Castlevania, and I can't cut it for this reason: I just can't remember the ridiculously precise pattern to jump across those platforms without getting killed by those GOD-DAMNED medusa heads. I love old games and the challenge (that I am, admittedly, no longer up to) that they provide, but I will take a hard game that rewards skill over one that rewards memorization any day.
However, once you do learn to kill the bosses of Rond, it's quite a blast.
Unlock Maria on stage 2 and you'll have a much easier time of it. You can beat the first boss with her in about 8 seconds.
and all that was in preparation for this (i am currently at stage 4)
As I have grown older I do not have the need to prove my skills in games. I just want to enjoy them. And I enjoy a game more when I complete it.
We definitely need to be challenged but I prefer a too easy game which I actually get to play all the way through (assuming I like it) to a too hard game of which I only get to see the first couple of levels and then give up in frustration.
I couldn’t even get past the first fight without failing at least five times, and after realizing I wasn’t going to get much further than the third opponent, I gave up. Of course, it probably would’ve helped if I had remembered any of the moves, but even when I looked them up on GameFAQs, I couldn’t pull them off (not even the Fatalities/Babalities/Friendships).
Obviously, games are easier nowadays, and, not to open an old can of worms, but the culprit is almost certainly the casual gamer. As others have mentioned, in their efforts to make games accessible to a wider audience, developers have dumbed them down. I just started playing through Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, but from what I’ve heard, it’s a ridiculously easy game, especially once you start to upgrade your weapons — and I’m sure it will be. The only reason I died in the demo was because I accidentally fell off a path.
But it makes it that much more special when a game comes around that is both awesome and hard — and these games are great because of, not in spite of, their difficulty. I’m talking about these games (not an all-inclusive list, of course): the God of War series; the Metal Gear Solid series; the Ninja Gaiden series; and the Devil May Cry series (except for the second game).
Ideally, we old-school gamers would always get the best of both worlds. You’d think that a choice of difficulty level would ensure that, but it’s not always the case. Still, it’s awesome when you have a game like Guitar Hero, where your non-gamer friends can plod along on Easy and Medium while you shred on Expert. God, I love Guitar Hero...
Today, new challenge comes from dynamic appraoches. Look at how many options you have in Ninja Gaiden? That game is still punishingly difficult (and hella fun!). Or Half-Life's grunt battles.
Or even look at Ikaruga. Just the little additon of polarity makes you have to play two games at once, but though the bullet-maze never changes, the solutions can still be dymanic AS WELL as static. I think that's the difference between what was and what is: Inventing at least parts of your own approach.
Its been so long since I've played it, and I would probably go into a fetal position if I tried again. Even Megaman makes me roll up in a ball and cry (ok save sake.. most of the series after 1-3) X just made me feel worse, it mocks you for sucking.
Let alone playing fighting games, i took a retro trip with SF2, and it beat me (after 10+ plus tries against M. Bison / Vega). Not to mention KOF, if i transcend myself from early entries, and then 2k3 (it goes way too damn fast.. and i still cant get the hang of tag team cancel supers, and the hdsms.. )
In addition, Panzer Dragoon Orta and GunValkyrie also made me look deep down inside. "Gotta try again.." next time. I dunno whats with some of my gaming library, either im losing touch, or its actually showing its true self. Games are meant to be fun, but Ikaruga will make any gamer cry.
*on that note, im definitely going to work an article about gaming difficulty "then & now". Gotta admit, maybe we do have it too easy lately.
Being a huge fan of the old Megaman games I am always up for a challenge. There is a huge sense of accomplishment when you finally manage to achieve your goal.
However, I would also like to point out the emphasis on multiplayer gaming lately. Instead of receiving a challenge from the game itself, you are getting your challenge from other players. So in a way modern games can derive their difficulty from the multiplayer component.
But I'd would still like to see some tough single player games.
I still get murdered way too much by Castlvania bosses. I know I just need to learn the pattern and use the right secondary weapon or soul or magic spell or whatever, but I rarely succeed in an admirable manner. If I end up winning I will only have about 50 HP remaining - and that makes me hurry to the nearest save room.
Great writeup!
I do have great curiosity on how I would do in Battletoads now, I used to pwn that game as a kid and didn't consider it difficult until I started reading everywhere about how difficult it was.
(# 13) on 11/05/2007 11:19
If you can't beat the first boss I think you need to have your video game journalism license revoked. sorry.
I agree, most people who I have met who write about games can't even play them. WTF!?!?! Also Rondo is not hard but if you wanna get your twitch back up, play some Touhou shooters from Japan or some ol' fashion Quake 3 Arena. Or just sit down and tell yourself "i can't use the toilet till Ninja Gaiden 1,2,3 are beaten"
Also, In games such as Sega Genesis collection or Mario All Stars where they more or less have save states, I cant help myself from using them. I have no willpower, and it's deriding any skills I have left.
Though after 2 years I'm finally making progress on playing Guitar Hero with 5 buttons!
The GBA and DS versions of Castlevania are a joke compared to Dracula X and the older Castlevania games, difficulty wise.
Well said!
Except Ecco... I was never good at Ecco. God damn.
So like books, films and art, we now have games that cater for the masses. It's the reason that the Wii is so popular: it allows even the lowest common denominator to be good at a game with no real knowledge of a control system. Yes, sometimes we get a game that is hard, really hard, and the gamers who remember when they were all that punishing can put their worn skills to the test once again... and lose.
Whereupon we realise how soft we've become, playing the mainstream games (watching the Hollywood blockbusters, reading Dan Brown). How many of us would rather pick up a copy of the latest graphic novel, Iain M Banks book or even just surf the net, rather than trying to work our way through the Divine Comedy, the Iliad or some Chaucer?
We used to be Spartans but we have become fat and Greek.
MOAR!!!
;)
=P
Congratulations miss, you are hardcore again! Shout it from the rooftops!! You're a winrar!! =D
Do you reckon you can beat the game though...