Poll: Difficulty in games is changing.

Recommended Videos

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
I don't think there is a good answer here. New games tend to get easier when you learn the things you need to do. I can play through Super Mario 64 without problems, because I know where the stars are. Playing through Super Mario The Lost Levels is something I need to work hard on making.
There are frustratingly hard new games, and there's frustratingly easy old games.
 

BitterRebel

New member
Aug 2, 2010
23
0
0
I didn't vote because i like the old difficulty for RPG's and the new for shooters. Wonder why that can't include both though the setting menu?
 

NickFury90

New member
May 15, 2011
36
0
0
bussinrounds said:
It's a shame they don't make more games like OFP:CWC.

I will never understand why the boring ass COD formula is so popular compared to a real gem like OFP.

People just have bad taste, i guess. Look at the most popular movies and music these days.
I know, I too hate when people have different opinions then me.
 

Da_Schwartz

New member
Jul 15, 2008
1,849
0
0
I'm gonna have to go with oldschool on this one. The "problem" with todays games are that they are so damn big budget and truck loads of money go into them for professional voice overs, and motion capture. beautiful cutscenes, and backgrounds that i think devs make them an easier play so all of their efforts can be experienced. Overall sure games are far superior by leaps and bounds, but instead of getting your bang for buck by repeating levels and learning by trial and error and pure skill to complete levels in the old days. For the most part now it's all about going through the motions, letting the game tell the story and then on to the sequel or next dlc.

I know modern shooters are the most popular comparison for a debate like this, but it's really not the shooter itself its the idea of taking 50 bullets to the chest then ducking behind a halfwall and being a.o.k. in 15 seconds. Replace regenerating life with healthpacks and or armor upgrades and even games like call of duty will be completely transformed. Even jumps in sidescrollers, back in the day if u missed a jump u MISSED a jump. there was no ledge grab or the idea that no matter how far you fall and grab on your limbs wont sever from your shoulders. Save points too. Game over was game over. Back to level 1. there was no...well lemme save before i fight this boss. Or wow i ran that section perfectly, lemme save in case i die because next time through it probably won't go that smoothly. Shit we're all guilty of it and these features have also allowed games to grow larger and greatly improve over the years. But definetley not more difficult.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
I like the hard modes on new games...

Challenge without absolute failure. No "lives" system and all that it implies.
 

Craorach

New member
Jan 17, 2011
749
0
0
I think what people forget about older games is that they were not generally "hard" but rather "unfair".

The AI, such as it was, would outright cheat. The Developers had few tools available to make games challanging, and they needed to pad the games length by making it so hard it was near impossible at times because they wanted people to keep playing their games.

Many of the mechanics of the time were born from gamings root in the arcades, where more "Continues" meant more coins which meant more money.

As the technology and budget available to developers becomes better, and as the gaming audience grows older, the devs have more abilities to engage us beyond frustration and we have less patience due to having less time to play.
 

pliusmannn

New member
Dec 4, 2008
245
0
0
thats why i always loved OP Flash and older Ghost Recon series, they are fucking really hard on highes difficult, I loved how you have to think about your every move. Sometimes I was pissed because game mechanics was out of my tactic capabilities (like having a sniper shot target, and rest of enemies already knows the locations of nearby campers with shortrange silent weaponry, GR)
 

GrimSheeper

New member
Jan 15, 2010
188
0
0
What I have to say is that I enjoy playing the Wither 2 and Dwarf Fortress. Those games are convoluted messes of difficulty in some points. I like the X games for being inaccessible behemoths of content. I love games that give you everything you could want but don't tell you where to get to it and don't pave you a nice broad road directly to the sweetest content. You often screw up beyond possibilities in Dwarf Fortress, but at least it allows a player to go absolutely batshit bonkers with their game.
What I'm saying is: being unfairly hard isn't fun unless the game provides equal amounts of a rewarding feeling for beating it.
I fondly recall Deus Ex, Homeworld and UFO for being just hard and then beating them felt incredibly good. With almost all games aimed at a broad audience, often console ports but not exclusively those, it feels like you get handed the fun in nice, casual packagages and the challenge resembles just that. Nice, controllable packages with no big surprise. It's safe, predictable, but also really boring. It can still be a fun experience, but compare that to the feelings of rage you get when crashing into an asteroid at 1200% time enhancement in X or the joy of seeing a massive enemy battleship finally buy it in a rewarding explosion, the fun of destroying a Shivan Sathanas in Freespace 2 or the utter nonesense that is Dwarf Fortress as a whole.
It is emotionally way more rewarding to beat something that is really, really hard and you remember it more fondly, even if you almost rammed your keyboard through the monitor more than once.
 

GrimHeaper

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,012
0
0
Vault101 said:
well I guess current games have story as a main pull...where as older games..although you could tell a story it wasnt the main focus
I've seen old games have more story than the new ones...
The only challenge you will get now is ...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfImposedChallenge
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Well there are always different ways to make things difficult, I prefer the mechanics and puzzles to be challenging.

Always hated the "haha you just died and lost 1 hour of gameplay" bullshit, not to mention the retarded spawn points where you would be thrown back 30 minutes of travel every time you exit the game... just save where I fucking am you assholes.

The worst part is developers still put this bullshit into games, even into triple A titles, do I really need to find a hack for every game to fix your shit?
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
Craorach said:
I think what people forget about older games is that they were not generally "hard" but rather "unfair".

The AI, such as it was, would outright cheat. The Developers had few tools available to make games challanging, and they needed to pad the games length by making it so hard it was near impossible at times because they wanted people to keep playing their games.

Many of the mechanics of the time were born from gamings root in the arcades, where more "Continues" meant more coins which meant more money.

As the technology and budget available to developers becomes better, and as the gaming audience grows older, the devs have more abilities to engage us beyond frustration and we have less patience due to having less time to play.
I agree with this one. I recently played Mario Kart on the SNES and it's only difficult because the AI just uses cheats. The one guy who has more points than you will always win the race if you don't, simply by just using a cheat which gives them about twice the top speed of anyone else.

And don't even get me started on older RTS games like C&C where the AI was just able to build a lot faster than you.
 

EHKOS

Madness to my Methods
Feb 28, 2010
4,815
0
0
The old difficulties kicked my ASS. While I love those old games I could rarely beat them. Still now they just destroy me.
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
New. as yahtzee himself said "Old school gaming troped died out for a good fucking reason."

There's nothing wrong with people of any age or skill level having the right to finish a game. The nintendo-hard elitists must have something wrong with other people getting enjoyment out of what they want to play.

Nimcha said:
Craorach said:
I think what people forget about older games is that they were not generally "hard" but rather "unfair".

The AI, such as it was, would outright cheat. The Developers had few tools available to make games challanging, and they needed to pad the games length by making it so hard it was near impossible at times because they wanted people to keep playing their games.

Many of the mechanics of the time were born from gamings root in the arcades, where more "Continues" meant more coins which meant more money.

As the technology and budget available to developers becomes better, and as the gaming audience grows older, the devs have more abilities to engage us beyond frustration and we have less patience due to having less time to play.
I agree with this one. I recently played Mario Kart on the SNES and it's only difficult because the AI just uses cheats. The one guy who has more points than you will always win the race if you don't, simply by just using a cheat which gives them about twice the top speed of anyone else.

And don't even get me started on older RTS games like C&C where the AI was just able to build a lot faster than you.
You're telling me about the oldschool C&C games! I would see the A.I. drop multiple buildings at the same time!

Jaxtor said:
MisterMaster said:
Why can't it present both?

''We'll make games with better graphics and stuff, but the difficulty... yeah, that has go.'' - to me that doesn't make sense at all.
Because you win more consumers with an experience than with a challenge.

Most people would rather have an experience they get for free, than an experience they have to work hard for.

If people have the choice between running a marathon and then being rewarded with a vacation, or just going on a vacation. Most will choose the latter.
couldn't have said it better myself. it's not even about laziness. a lot of people's lives are stressful enough without even their entertainment *****-slapping them for not being "good enough"
 

Mallefunction

New member
Feb 17, 2011
906
0
0
Akihiko said:
Can't we have an inbetween? A game doesn't have to not have checkpoints or only have 3 lifes to be challenging. You can have the most challenging boss in the world, and every time you die, you start back right before it, but that doesn't mean to say you're going to get past the fucker.

In conclusion, I like a challenge. I don't like having to redo an entire area that I've already done because I died, especially considering it doesn't add any challenge at all because you've already done it.
Agreed. A challenge is one thing, but a game should be fun more than anything else.

Also, the lives system is obsolete in modern gaming since we don't use arcades on the same scale we used to. That gimmick was only created to get more quarters out of competitive kids.
 

GrimHeaper

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,012
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
New. as yahtzee himself said "Old school gaming troped died out for a good fucking reason."

There's nothing wrong with people of any age or skill level having the right to finish a game. The nintendo-hard elitists must have something wrong with other people getting enjoyment out of what they want to play.
Opposite we just love the abuse is all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard
There is also Atlus hard, but that's entirely somethign else.
Shooters and the like don't provide real challenge campaign wise anymore.
I can get far more challenge out of real time RPG's and games that require extreme planning.
Basically shooters are easier than pokemon nowadays.
 

Hugga_Bear

New member
May 13, 2010
532
0
0
I prefer the games which give me a choice.

I like tough games, I do. I get a lot of enjoyment out of being good enough, fast enough, smart enough or just lucky enough to pull off a win in tough circumstances.
Some people don't.

So, the obvious answer is an adaptive difficulty where easy is actually easy and hard is actually...well, hard.
Sometimes that's not possible, where gameplay can't be changed by difficulty so exploits exist then the difficulty is more or less set after a point.

That said, fuck finite lives. In some games it works, notably the old games which were shorter than the current ones (I mean seriously, save cartridges exist for a reason, when they didn't finite lives kinda made sense). Nowadays games are simply too long for it to be fair, if you cock up or hit the wrong button or just don't get it (it happens to the best of us, you see a puzzle and just solve it the wrong way, so you start following your solution through and death occurs) forcing you to start over is just horrible.


I also like the ability to save practically anywhere but I get that sometimes it should be limited (to stop people saving during important events so they can reload if it goes wrong). At the start of sections though or if you're just running around you should be able to save, apart from anything else not everyone has the time to devote to reaching that next checkpoint, I tend to stop playing games when I need to replay the 20 minutes I played last time because I was just shy of a checkpoint when I needed to go...
 

hopeneverdies

New member
Oct 1, 2008
3,398
0
0
Personally, I like the new form of difficulty better. And I'm not judging it based on your standards. I'm judging it on fairness. I'll compare two games you'll likely have never heard of, but they're of the same series, just about 15 years apart.

Story of Eastern Wonderland: The stages are short, your character is slow, the bullets and pickups are fast, there is no slow movement key, and bosses are often bullshitty. However the patterns are much simpler and easy to read. The lives system isn't very generous but is rather easy to use. Bombs are reset to three after every death. Deaths do not affect Power very much. Continuing starts where the player died.

Undefined Fantastic Object: The stages are longer, your choice of shottype is much better with multiple movement speeds. Lives and bombs are more common but there is more risk to getting them. Bombs are retained after each death unless below three. Death is very hard on Power. Bullets are larger, more varied, and the patterns are much more complex. Continuing restarts the stage. Hitbox is visible during focused movement.

Of the two games UFO is far superior. SoEW relies a whole bunch on Fake Difficulty to beat the player due to crappy hitbox programming, enemies colliding with the player, bosses doing things that would be impossible to avoid without foresight, and just overall unfairness. UFO on the other hand is difficult, but it's not for unfair reasons. The game doesn't try to trick you often and while it would be incredibly difficult, it is possible to win on a first attempt on any difficulty.

The difference between the old difficulty and today's is how fair the games are being. Lots of older games are difficult for unfair reasons. This is what makes I Wanna Be The Guy so hard, as it emulates the cheapness of the games it references.