Jimquisition: A Different Kind of Difficulty

[xchurchx]

i prefer this video to your usual
maybe its coz you were talking to the camera about problems in the industy and how we can be more mature instead of yelling down it about why its my fault this industry is going down the crapper, speacking of which, enjoyed your poo?

 

[CosmicCommander]

Have a nice poo Jim. life is too short to only have bad poos. How do you define a good poo though?

Good question.

A good poo is one that isn't slimy- one that slips out in a second, leaving behind little to no gunk to have to wipe up. A good poo takes all the body's lubricant with it, saving one the tiresome process of having to wipe it. A good poo takes ALL the poo with it, so that you are free from needing it for the next while.

OT: Good episode.

 

[Bostur]

As others have said, theres nothing new in it. Back in ye olde 'ardcore days we could make our own challenges and have to dodge death at the same time.

But Jim is right of course. Looking beneath the surface can be worthwhile. I just wish games would have more variety *sigh*. Sometimes I like unforgiving zombies beating me constantly, and sometimes I'd love to glide over a psychedelic landscape full of love and forebearance.
So many games look for the perfect marketing mix these days and they all end up the same.

 

[Raggedstar]

The solution is quite simple, the developers could start putting in just a little bit of effort to make it so that changing the difficulty slider meant something other than enemies simply being able to take 11 bullets in the forehead before dying, because that isn't real difficulty, that's artificial difficulty.

Make the different difficulty settings actually change the game in ways that are just slightly significant, it can't be that hard, or that costly to do.

I agree with you there. It's the difference between being hard and being tedious and it's the easy way out for making difficulty. Spoils the experience, especially if they're grunt-level enemies that take a million whacks. Bayonetta was a game I know that did difficulty quite well without going TOO crazy. Instead of giving monster levels of health, the hard setting would make enemies hit harder, difficult enemies were given earlier in the game (ex the prologue had enemies you would normally seen in chapter 3, 5, and 10), and more importantly act more aggressive. Their "tell" was harder to catch, moved/attacked a lot faster, and punished you greatly for not dodging fast enough. The diffuculty level above it was more or less the same but gave you a handicap of not being able to engage in bullet time. Not impossible, but bullet time was a good way to safely get close and deal some damage. You've seen all these enemies before in both settings, but it does force you to make better use of dodges and parries if you want to survive (let alone get a good rank). Even on the normal setting it has the potential to be a little hard, but you have a BIG jump from the two easy settngs which practically spoon-feed.

OT: I'm a completionist (especially in many platformers) so part of me agrees with Jim. The additional challenges involved in collecting and ratings can be fun and sometimes difficult. Spyro 2 is a really easy game, but getting the skill point for beating Ripto and Gulp without taking damage? That's another story and took 40 lives (each) and calling upon my ninja skills. However, "optional difficulty" really depends on how you play (completionist vs "just playing") and I'm not sure if they can be compared. Or maybe I'm missing the point.

 

[TrevHead]

While i like hard games like shmups but jim kinda makes a point but a game has to be good. In most games if you take away the challenge you are left with a shallow and boring game.

And no im not saying saying that difficulty is something that lazy game designers use to pad out their game. So many gamers use to that arguement without fully understanding what makes a good or a bad nintendo hard game

 

[Realitycrash]

And congratulations Jim, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of the people who complain about games being too easy today.

Of course Kirby's Epic Yarn is easy, Kirby games have ALWAYS been easy, and it goes beyond saying that the point of Epic Yarn isn't the same as the point of fucking Ninja Gaiden.

The people who complain about games getting too easy mean that ALL games have gotten too easy and that the "hardest" difficulty settings for games where the point is still getting to the end of a level without dying have become fucking jokes.

So this entire episode was basically a gigantic straw-man argument.

Bravo i say.

Congratulations, Bringer, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of this episode, that difficulty comes with changing your perspective, and making a challenge for yourself, and not relying on a a fixed set of rules that the game gives you.
Take Total War-series, for example. Most fights vs the AI are pathetic in open field, and you can get a "Clear Victory" from almost every fight, but nothing satisfies me as much as getting a "Heroic Victory!" after beating an army three times my size with nothing but cleverly maneuvered cavalry and putting pressure on enemy weakpoints.
The game doesn't force me to do this. The object of the game is not to win this fight with style, but to conquer the majority of the worldmap. I just changed my perspective, because othervise the game was "too easy".

 

[Quijiboh]

With only a few exceptions, I don't really play games for their challenge/difficulty, so I tend to ignore optional challenges unless they're actually interesting. I appreciate having this choice. Hence, it irks me when you get hardcore gamers (not all of them) claiming to speak for the majority and demanding games to be more difficult on even the standard setting, not understanding they are not in the majority and most people quite happily play on what is considered normal now.

Take Dragon Age 2 for instance, when they toned the normal setting down to something more sensible compared to the first game. I remember seeing someone on here complaining that it was submitting to the 'mouth-breathers'. I breathe through my nose just fine, thank you.

I've got no problem with people wanting a 'hardcore' challenge, but it should stay at the 'hardcore' end of the spectrum.

 

[Sylveria]

Geeze I'm starting to really like this guy.

I know one of the biggest challenges I had on a game of this generation was Bayonetta. Yeah I didn't die often even on ultra hard, but getting a score higher than the turd-trophy was just brutally difficult.

Now compare that to FF-13 where death or sucking doesn't mean anything at all. You die? You start right before the fight and try again. If you just flat out suck at the fight, there's no penalty or incentive. Sure you get a "rating" but it doesn't matter. I guess you could just arbitrarily decide you want to perfect every fight but all that means is you need to grind for a few days.

 

[Keith K]

Totally agree. Traditional difficulty is just a barrier to an experience you've already paid for to artificially extend its life and try and justify its cost. In many cases however, it just keeps you from enjoying the product in its entirety.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Have to say it's the first time I didn't find him grating. Must have dialed back his condescending manner a bit.

well sometimes its hard to NOT be condescending when addressing gamers, who can be a REALLY whiny bunch (ex: WHY THEY CHANGE THIS?! WHY GAMES SO EZ?! WHY PEOPLE ENJOYING WHAT I ENJOY?! CHANGE IZ BAD! just to name a few of the things gamers at large whine about whenever any information at all is released about any game)

OT: As always, there's nothing in this video I do not agree with. He's like a more suave and famous version of me when it comes to our opinions. We'd probably hate each other because we're so similar. I'll be sure to link anyone to this video whenever someone complains about "Streamlining" or games being too easy.

 

[SoopaSte123]

Yeahhhhhh I was with you till you said Kirby is more difficult than Megaman. I understand and agree with you about your other points, but the same meta-game challenges can be had in Megaman, such as trying to get the trophies in Megaman 9. Beat the game in under an hour? Beat the entire game without dying once?? Those are DAMN hard, and that's only if the rest of the game is too easy for you.

So let's say, Kirby base difficulty: 1, Kirby meta-difficulty: 5, Megaman base difficulty: 5, Megaman meta-difficulty 10. And that's being very generous to Kirby by giving Megaman base difficulty of 5.

It's crazy to say that there is no challenge available to gamers in Kirby, but comparing it to something like Megaman is pushing it way too far.

 

[Realitycrash]

And congratulations Jim, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of the people who complain about games being too easy today.

Of course Kirby's Epic Yarn is easy, Kirby games have ALWAYS been easy, and it goes beyond saying that the point of Epic Yarn isn't the same as the point of fucking Ninja Gaiden.

The people who complain about games getting too easy mean that ALL games have gotten too easy and that the "hardest" difficulty settings for games where the point is still getting to the end of a level without dying have become fucking jokes.

So this entire episode was basically a gigantic straw-man argument.

Bravo i say.

Congratulations, Bringer, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of this episode, that difficulty comes with changing your perspective, and making a challenge for yourself, and not relying on a a fixed set of rules that the game gives you.
Take Total War-series, for example. Most fights vs the AI are pathetic in open field, and you can get a "Clear Victory" from almost every fight, but nothing satisfies me as much as getting a "Heroic Victory!" after beating an army three times my size with nothing but cleverly maneuvered cavalry and putting pressure on enemy weakpoints.
The game doesn't force me to do this. The object of the game is not to win this fight with style, but to conquer the majority of the worldmap. I just changed my perspective, because othervise the game was "too easy".

But that's wrong, and here's why.

In the examples he gave, the "optional" difficulty is absolutely integral to the game. Jim didn't "make a challenge for himself" by going for gold medals, gold metal are a goal very clearly given by the game.

If the game can't provide some kind of challenge "optional" or not, that is actually integral to the game, then the game is probably pretty lousy.

I'm pretty sure that nothing in Kirby says that "these medals is what you should go for!", but something like "save the princess/save your friends/save whatever!" (Sorry, haven't played Kirby since NES, so I don't know what his deal is. Some evil Wizard, right?)

If I may make a parallel to Cut the Rope (yes, I'm bringing puzzle-Iphone games into this), the challenge comes with collecting all the stars of the level, but that just gives you extra score. The object is still to just beat the level and get to the next.

Halo has this too. In fact, to just GET the final difficulty (Mythic), you got run around and collect skulls in secret places, etc.
Okey, I don't think a shooter should be about fetch-quests, but still, it's an option.

 

[Sylveria]

And congratulations Jim, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of the people who complain about games being too easy today.

Of course Kirby's Epic Yarn is easy, Kirby games have ALWAYS been easy, and it goes beyond saying that the point of Epic Yarn isn't the same as the point of fucking Ninja Gaiden.

The people who complain about games getting too easy mean that ALL games have gotten too easy and that the "hardest" difficulty settings for games where the point is still getting to the end of a level without dying have become fucking jokes.

So this entire episode was basically a gigantic straw-man argument.

Bravo i say.

Did you even watch this? His whole argument was "not dying alot =/= not hard." Most games boil down to getting from point A to point B alive but that is the absolute bare bones of the game. Even in ultra-hard settings, that part is easy because the programmers want the feebs who don't want to put any actual effort into the game to feel they accomplished something by seeing that end credit roll and tell their friends to get it. If they made just "finishing" the game hard, people wouldn't buy it since their ADD addled brains wouldn't have the tolerance to do so.

Now, the real challenge of games is getting from Point A to Point B but also doing it with a degree of perfection or completionism. Sure, "finishing" most games is easy. But "Completing" a game is much harder.

But hey, if you wanna shell out $50-60 just to rush to the end in less than 10 hours and see that credit roll, no one is gonna deny you that. Not everyone actually strives to be good at the game, just getting to the end is satisfaction enough. In fact, you're the publishers and retailers favorite kind of person. You hurry out, buy the game new, think it sucks/finish it, then trade it in for about half of what its worth so they can sell it again at a mark up.

 

[wildcard9]

You know, Jim comes off as an angry preacher with his suit, sunglasses, and pew. Kinda like a gamer sam kinsion.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I'd sort of half agree. On the one hand, there is certainly something to be said about having difficulty outside of the standard of "You die, you lose; you survive, you win", however it sort of really depends on the person playing the game as much as the game itself. For example, 100% a game is certainly a challenge in that of itself, but if one is renting a game or rather is playing through several other games, then is the 100% goal really a valid proof of challenge or difficulty? For me for example, I go through several games a month, and while I generally do like to come back and finish it too true completion, the base difficulty of the game is going to take precident over the intended difficulty that would come from 100% completion if I want to move from game to game. Take Flower for example. On the surface it is a challange in its own rights, collecting all the petals while also trying to get all the Trophies is indeed a challanging thing to do, but if I played Flower at a time with other games on my plate rather than when I had nothing else new to try I would think the game to be easy, as there is no death and there is no penalty to missing items or failing tasks if all I was trying to do was finish to the end and move on. I think thats the issue with Epic Yarn, in which while there may indeed be the issue of previous notions of difficulty coming into play, there is perhaps a distinct possibility that for most gamers who do play from game to game that if they're just interested in finishing Epic Yarn rather than Completeing it that Epic Yarn is indeed an easy game. I can't really say if it is since I haven't played it, but if as you say the only downside to being hit by enemies is losing gems and therefore having a lower score then I can easily see how gamers such as myself would find the game to easy.

 

[Dak_N_Jaxter]

While its true that degree of skill in victory is a suitable challenge, there's still a place for cold hard brutality.

Take MGS: PeaceWalker. After every single boss, there were two preceding versions of higher difficulty. And each of those individual levels had ratings S A B C.

The bosses as they stood were challenging, but nothing a few tries couldn't thwart. And yes, the rating system gave you something to aim higher for on later play-throughs.

However, when it comes to the last boss, Peace Walker, a massive steepness occurs in the difficulty. I don't know about everyone else, but Peace Walker took me 20 minutes to beat on the one go that I actually beat it. Given the limited equipment I had, I needed to remain fully focused that entire time, not wasting a single missile, not succumbing to a single counter attack.

It was frustrating as hell, but definitely refreshing given the prior status quo for difficulty. It gave me a sense of striving that I just don't get from the optional perfection of other games.

So, I think there's definitely something to be said for the necessity of challenge.

 

[Stall]

God dammit. Can't Jim Sterling go ONE fucking video without some childish comment clearly meant to troll his fucking viewers? Oh wait, it's Jim Sterling, a guy whose sole rise to e-fame is being a troll, so I guess I asked a rhetorical question. He was making sense until he had to insert some retarded comment about Epic Yarn being harder than Mega Man. It was a comment that contributed NOTHING to his video, and clearly there just to piss people off. At that point, I just kind of face palmed and realized he had thrown his logical arguing with a lot of good points out the window for fucking schoolyard taunts. Pathetic. The guy really can't say a line or make some kind of point without trolling people.

EDIT: I don't like Mega Man. Please don't tell me I am "butthurt" about his Mega Man comment. I just can't stand the immaturity of a tactic like that. It's pathetic.