So if "nintendo hard" came back into style , would you be for or against it ?

[KennardKId5]

I think in some games, that sort of difficulty is almost required. A platformer is very simple to begin with, so I think that's a good way to make the game more fun.

 

[Matrixbeast]

Only if it's in the same vein as Super Meat Boy, rather than I Wanna Be The Guy. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, you should.

Pretty much this.

Having a spike come out of nowhere with no prior indication and no reason except solely to fuck with the player isn't fun.
It's hilarious when you're watching someone go through it, but it stops being amusing to play through pretty quick.

 

[Issurru]

I would like it, maybe not as the only thing in gaming like was pointed out earlier, but say the market had a decent portion of it being "Nintendo hard" I would gladly welcome the challenge. I still load up old games of mine, to see how I've improved I guess. Which to my dismay still seems to be not as great as I would like. But I am better, and one day, before I die. I will beat Battletoads for the SNES.

But reminiscence behind, I would still enjoy bringing it back. I feel like they have just as much of a right here as any other game and I would gladly accept some more Nintendo hard challenges, honestly (and this could very well be nostalgia talking) I just felt like I had accomplished more when I beat a game or found secrets in games I used to play as a kid. But maybe it's also the fact that it happens so much nowadays since I buy a lot of games that the feeling is diminished somewhat as to when I was a kid

 

[Epona]

I don't have that kind of patience anymore so I would not support it. I played through the NES era and I spent hours and hours trying to beat World 8-3 but I was a kid then. I won't do that today.

 

[DarkRyter]

Difficulty by itself doesn't make a game better or worse. It just makes it harder.

In the grand scheme of design, the concept of balance is more important than straight up difficulty.

 

[krazykidd]

My ideal game is one that is challenging, but you should never, or rarely die/have to restart.

Having to replay a level 50 kagillion times is just about the most tedious thing you'll ever have to do in a video game. I play most games on easy/medium because dying isn't fun, nor does it equal challenging.

Could you give me an example of a game that is challenging but you don't die ? except of course puzzle game .

I quite liked the difficulty of Donkey Kong Country Returns, and I think that's the kind of "Nintendo hard" people like the most these days, as it gives people who want a challenge something to challenge them, but at the same time doesn't overly frustrate casuals with its difficulty.

But I do think the new help system Nintendo is using now is not the way to help casuals. Just letting the game do everything for you and give you the "Good try" award is not a very rewarding experience when trying to finish a real challenge.

Yeah i remember DKCR , That was quite fun actually, I beat the game in one session because my friend lent it to be , but the last 2 worlds were challenging and fun , something i haven'T seen in a while , thank you for reminding me of that . Two hearts for the win .

 

[Inkidu]

I'd probably be against it. Simply for the fact that it is rote memorization. You can train monkeys to do that kind of stuff. That's not to say I don't like challenge, and it's not to say that challenge can't come in the form of an over-powered boss or two. I'm seriously thinking about picking up Dark Souls myself when the price won't make me rage for having paid too much. However, challenge should be the main goal, not memorization tests. Those are too easy.

 

[Kotaro]

Hard games can be fun sometimes. But only sometimes. Easier games have a place, too. Sometimes I want a game to challenge me, yes. But other times, I just want to relax. So fine, have some new Nintendo Hard games. But don't get rid of the easier stuff.

 

[chadachada123]

It shouldn't be included in all games, but it would certainly benefit a great many games, especially ones like Demon's Souls, etc. So in that vein, I support it.

 

[Danceofmasks]

There should be two modes:
Casual and not casual.

Then, have at least 75% of the achievements/trophies/unlockables locked in casual mode.

That way, you wanna see the ending? You can .. but you're not REALLY playing the game.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

Nope. Trial and error punishes you. You should feel rewarded for your accomplishment, not feel a sigh of relief that its all over with. For an example, see Catherine. I wasn't too frustrated by it, but most were, and beating a boss was just a brief moment of exasperation before you realized you have to do it again the next night. Games should teach you how to fix your mistakes, but not punish you. "Nintendo hard" relies on reflexes rather than strategy, so you can't learn from your mistakes or take anything constructive away from a mistake, only get frustrated that the controls are unresponsive, or the boss' attack doesn't have a tell, or that you can't get a grip on your controller because your palms are so sweaty from the pressure.

 

[ColdBlooded]

No. i want games to be challenging with deep gameplay, sure, but the kind of challenge where you think and prepare and learn from some mistakes (ok some trial and error is good if your going for dynamic or emergent gameplay) with a minor excution challenge too. Not frustrating execution memorization.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

*Shrugs* If I'm playing co-op and we want to challenge ourselves fine, otherwise if a game's difficulty level is taking away from my enjoyment, I'll dial it down. I really don't care about getting the achievement for beating Hell Mode or whatever.

Of course, if, like in Mass Effect, that achievement unlocks a gameplay aspect for future playthroughs then I'll consider it, barring that, I want to enjoy my game and don't care if I never beat Battletoads.

 

[Dango]

Demon's Souls was one of my favorite all-time games, so yes.