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

[emeraldrafael]

Wasnt this the demon souls philosophy?

...

Actually, after watching rob moran play some old games from that era (like Jurassic Park 2, Zombies At My Neighbors, and other such titles, nintendo hard isnt so much about making you better at gaming as its more just constantly firing ahead so nothing can get within ten feet of it. And if it was an arcade port (and especially a poor one), then it was meant to be so insanely difficult because it was meant to drain you of your money, and developers wouldnt care or be bothered to change it.

So I'd say no.

 

[TrevHead]

I like bothe hard and easy games they both have their place, one is similar to a movie like experience and the other is a game in the sense EverythingIncredable is talking about.

However I think hard games really do need to make a comeback however there are different types of difficulty with different types of gamers liking each one. I think its a great shame when gamers brand one type of difficulty / game mechanic as totally bad when it might be just that it was implimented badly.

For example gamers nowadays have gotten used to autosaves, instant respawns and checkpoints every minute and really hate having to replay anything and find it frustrating.

VVVVVV and Super Meat Boy are fun games but they are missing something that older games and that is the penality of death.

What I mean is that if die in a game that sends you back to the start of a long stage, where you have to replay again makes the play not want to die. It raises the stakes and makes the player play in a more skillful and intense way because the player has more of an investment in staying alive.

Im sure anyone here who plays arcade games like shumps with a single credit knows about that shot of adenaline you get when youre fighting a really difficulty last boss with your last life, followed by a cathartic feeling when you see it blow up.

Im not saying that only these games have this feeling but its certainly more intense than a game with regular checkpoints like VVVVVV where the only place I felt the same was beating Vendi Vici.

I havnt played Demon's Souls (getting Dark Souls on the 360 though) but it seems like theres a longer penality of death, my guess is thats a part of why so many gamers love it.

 

[liquidsolid]

I'd be against it, I don't really care for that much challenge. I like to feel accomplishment when I finish a game and I certainly don't want it to be too easy. However, if everything were like it was in the "old days" with everything hovering around the difficulty of Castlevania III or Megaman I wouldn't be able to beat a single game and I would most likely just give up.

 

[Twad]

Im all for a challenge, as long as its a fair one that also doesnt require perfection.

Hard for the sake of being hard (nintendo hard) isnt fun at all except for a very few people. I play to have fun. I dont play to get punished for not being perfect.

 

[Netrigan]

I've never been a particular fan of Nintendo Hard. I kind of skipped over most of the Nintendo Era, jumping from the old style arcade games to PC gaming, so padding out a gaming experience by making you do it over and over and over and over and over again until you finally learn the pattern through the level really doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Squilookle]

As long as the quality of gameplay and/or story was good enough to make me want to see it through, then yes, I'd be all for it.

 

[archvile93]

I'd be against it. Games are supposed to be fun, and those games tend to be made on the flawed assumption that difficulty, regardless of form, was synonomous with fun. Games aren't fun if you're too busy screaming in rage and frustration about how hard it. Also, these games tended to get their diffuculty through unfair means. Such as enemies attaking so fast you'd need Superman's reflexes to avoid them, limiting equipment to absurd levels, limited lives so failure meant starting the game all the way back at the begginning no matter how far you were, trial and error gameplay, enemies designed to respawn in the worst places and times possible, bad contols, requiring pixel perfect jumping, loads and loads of instant death traps you'd need clairvoyance to detect, trial and error gameplay, not bothering to give you even the slightest hint where you're supposed to go or what you should do in open world games, and my personal favorite, respawing without full health upon dying (fuck you Zelda, and you too Metroid!) These aren't fun, they're just frustrating and annoying.

 

[Nazulu]

I prefer if they had an easy, medium, hard and nightmare option like a lot of old games had. That way a lot of people could see the ending while those looking for a super hard challenge will get their fill. And instead of making the enemy's do a lot more damage than usual for higher difficulty, they should fill it with more enemy's and new bigger baddies.

Also, a niche market where there is no easy option and those with time and talent can make it through.

 

[TheBritishAreComing]

If and only if it can get the Demon's Souls kind of challenge, where you can see where you screwed up, so you can go back, fix it, and be rewarded for your efforts.

 

[Lancer873]

Fuck. Yes. Maybe it's just me, but I love Nintendo Hard platformers. I laughed at all the silly ways to die in IWBTG, I'm getting back into Yoshi's Island now (especially the bonus levels), and most of all, I just love platformers. That said, there is something to be said for the LBP style of hard, where it's easy to beat but hard to beat perfectly...

 

[Spud of Doom]

Mostly against.
I'm fine with it if there are difficulty settings. Recent Castlevania games on DS for example have "hard mode" which really is pretty hard. Usually 2 or 3 hits kills you, sometimes 1 from bosses.

 

[SSoSFAGTiaCaGwaP]

Being thirteen, I was never around to experience "Nintendo hard" for myself. I'd like to see it make a small comeback, but not take over the whole market. Then maybe I would see what it was like to be in the old days.

 

[krazykidd]

I'd be against it. Games are supposed to be fun, and those games tend to be made on the flawed assumption that difficulty, regardless of form, was synonomous with fun. Games aren't fun if you're too busy screaming in rage and frustration about how hard it. Also, these games tended to get their diffuculty through unfair means. Such as enemies attaking so fast you'd need Superman's reflexes to avoid them, limiting equipment to absurd levels, limited lives so failure meant starting the game all the way back at the begginning no matter how far you were, trial and error gameplay, enemies designed to respawn in the worst places and times possible, bad contols, requiring pixel perfect jumping, loads and loads of instant death traps you'd need clairvoyance to detect, trial and error gameplay, not bothering to give you even the slightest hint where you're supposed to go or what you should do in open world games, and my personal favorite, respawing without full health upon dying (fuck you Zelda, and you too Metroid!) These aren't fun, they're just frustrating and annoying.

Yet , these games paved the road to what gaming is today , the popularity of the games you mentionned allowed the video game industry to developpe and become the multimillion medium that millions of people enjoy . Saying this games aren't fun is to spit in the faces of those that strived to make the video games a artform and a mean to entertainement . Had those games not existed or were they not fun , no one would have played them , they wouldn't have been popular and videogames would have died out a LONG time ago.

 

[Veylon]

No. I still remember Battletoads. Even that monstrously frustrating game was on the "good" end of Nintendo Hard. Many of them relied on nigh-impossible gameplay (or broken mechanics) to pad out their paltry four or five levels of platforming.

That being said, I don't mind the occasional title being ludicrously difficult, so long as it doesn't become common as it once was.

 

[TheDooD]

Yes because I shouldn't be able to beat a game in a single sitting. I like trial and error in my games. If something doesn't work or work well I want to learn how to do it right or better then before. True "Nintendo Hard" was due to shit in the game being glitchy, just plain hard to do without a lot of practice and or programmers had some evil intent in their design choices. To me games should challenge your reflexes just as much as they challenge your mind.

 

[archvile93]

I'd be against it. Games are supposed to be fun, and those games tend to be made on the flawed assumption that difficulty, regardless of form, was synonomous with fun. Games aren't fun if you're too busy screaming in rage and frustration about how hard it. Also, these games tended to get their diffuculty through unfair means. Such as enemies attaking so fast you'd need Superman's reflexes to avoid them, limiting equipment to absurd levels, limited lives so failure meant starting the game all the way back at the begginning no matter how far you were, trial and error gameplay, enemies designed to respawn in the worst places and times possible, bad contols, requiring pixel perfect jumping, loads and loads of instant death traps you'd need clairvoyance to detect, trial and error gameplay, not bothering to give you even the slightest hint where you're supposed to go or what you should do in open world games, and my personal favorite, respawing without full health upon dying (fuck you Zelda, and you too Metroid!) These aren't fun, they're just frustrating and annoying.

Yet , these games paved the road to what gaming is today , the popularity of the games you mentionned allowed the video game industry to developpe and become the multimillion medium that millions of people enjoy . Saying this games aren't fun is to spit in the faces of those that strived to make the video games a artform and a mean to entertainement . Had those games not existed or were they not fun , no one would have played them , they wouldn't have been popular and videogames would have died out a LONG time ago.

I wasn't saying those games weren't necessarily fun, though with such first entries I still wonder how they survied past their first game. Zelda didn't get good until LttP IMO, and I didn't play any other Metroid games. I think you misunderstood me though. I was reffering to the game mechanics described not being fun, not the games themselves are bad, even if they are to me. They do have historical significance, but that doesn't mean I have to like them, and they do have things I really think they shouldn't have. Both have a habit of not telling you what you should do, leaving you to wander aimlessly, praying to god that you stumble onto something useful. It's also really annoying to restart in in area where the enemies can take an entire healthtank with one attack and you only start with less than half of one, when you have about seven. I think it's a good thing games have shaken these off and am not eager to see them return, no matter how much the historically significant games embraced them.

 

[NedroidPrime]

I would personally love it!

The sense of accomplishment and satisfaction is mostly unmatched today. Especially in RPGs

 

[TehCookie]

I enjoy a challenge but not plain hard. I'd stick with having multiple settings so everyone can be challenged, from the hardcore to the casuals. Of course when it comes e-penises (do people really care about gamerscores?), harder difficulties should earn you more points.

 

[Jared Domenico]

I would not condemn a Nintendo Hard setting, which makes sadomasochism optional, but I would protest it being mandatory.