So if "nintendo hard" came back into style , would you be for or against it ?
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with the question is that people associate Nintendo Hard with fake difficulty.
Nintendo Hard: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard
Fake Difficulty: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty
Maybe having that level of difficulty for an option would be good, but as a default, no.
Nintendo Hard: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard
Fake Difficulty: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty
Maybe having that level of difficulty for an option would be good, but as a default, no.
Just throwing this out there, my friends and I were playing the Gears 3 campaign on Insane and it was extremely brutal. Parts that we breezed through on Hardcore had to be replayed over and over. Things that should have been easy. There's no revives either so if anyone dies it's back to the last checkpoint. Maybe that's not "Nintendo Hard," but it's enough for me.
I don't think games need to be uniformly hard. I like when there's super-hard difficulty options for that added challenge, but I don't agree that such difficulty should be on by default. No to mention that more forgiving gameplay equals more customers equals better business, more jobs, bigger games, etc.
I don't think games need to be uniformly hard. I like when there's super-hard difficulty options for that added challenge, but I don't agree that such difficulty should be on by default. No to mention that more forgiving gameplay equals more customers equals better business, more jobs, bigger games, etc.
Man why not? It's better than this bullshit enemies kill you in two hits and they die in 50. At least if you memorized the game you could do a run through and feel like a bad ass while doing it. Also, nothing is more satisfying than finally beating the game.
Personally I'd prefer a nice healthy balance between "Nintendo Hard" and today's "Lead-you-by-the-hand" system.
I'm looking at the list of Nintendo Hard attributes... and there's at least one I have little interest in seeing in video games: trial-and-error game play. Getting hammered by an enemy in an unexpected location is one thing, as you can often avoid these many of these deaths by playing cautiously. But when not dying comes down to dumb luck or memorization, then it's bullshit.I.N.producer said:
If there's two doors into a building and one door leads to instant death, while the other leads to a tough fight... that's fake difficulty unless there's some sort of clue to help you make that decision. Jumping off the screen to your death because there's no way of telling if there's a platform beneath you or a lava pit... that's bullshit fake difficulty.
I even tend to put most insta-kills in this category, as I came to hate, hate, hate sniper alleys in first person shooters when they don't use laser targeting. Nothing is more frustrating than walking into an area, having your head explode, then spending the next five replays trying to figure out exactly where the shot is coming from.
Considering Nintendo Hard was essentially designed to keep people pumping quarters into arcade cabinets I don't think I'd like games to return to that. They're already getting 240 quarters when we buy a new game. Also, screw you, Battletoads.
Yeah, I come from a generation raised on games that were Nintendo hard, and my response is hell fucking no!
I rather not deal with old gameplay designs like limited continues and cheap tactics brought over from the coin operated " let's see how many quarters we can get these kiddies to squeeze out of their mothers purse" arcade days of gaming.
I rather not deal with old gameplay designs like limited continues and cheap tactics brought over from the coin operated " let's see how many quarters we can get these kiddies to squeeze out of their mothers purse" arcade days of gaming.
I won,t mind (at least for short games like COD) in my opinion Nintendo hard was a technique to extend a game so that people get their money,s worth out of a game.
I would be against it. That kind of difficulty is just badly implemented diffulty: memorizing how you should move and act in general isn't fun, not for me at least. I like difficulty that forces me to make split second decisions and makes me try out different strategies, not the kind where I have train my pixel-perfect jumps until I know the level by heart, that's just not engaging to me.
Nope. I've never enjoyed that style of gameplay. I won't even bother with Bionic Commando because I'm not willing to do the stages over and over if I get a Game Over once.
Against it. A lot of "Nintendo hard" stuff was actually just the game being cheap. It's almost always either trial and error which requires you to keep dying and trying again now that you know what's coming (which is an absolutely shit way to make a game) or a normal difficulty but with no checkpoints, lives, and/or health so that you constantly have to start over from the beginning (which I don't feel makes the game harder, I feel it makes the game more tedious). Sometimes they do both at once.
Nope, I like my games with fair difficulty and checkpoints so that I can try again at the part where I failed instead of having to trek back through all the stuff I already know how to get through. And I like not randomly getting killed by some death trap that I could not possibly have known was there without a strategy guide or having already played the game once.
Also, Demon's Souls: Why did it have to do both kinds of difficulty? I would have been happy to play if it had stuck to the challenging combat, but it had to throw in "Nintendo hard" as well by taking all your money away and starting at the beginning of the level. It's actually the worst thing a game can do to be hard, I think. I got sick of having to replay all the stuff I'd already been able to get past easily and turned it off. Demon's Souls with checkpoints, saving, and pausing and the same level of combat would be a game I'd really like to play, but as it is now, fuck that. I have better things to do than grind through the same easy bits 18 million times just to get another try against the enemy that keeps killing me because I can't get enough practice due to the lack of checkpoints.
Nope, I like my games with fair difficulty and checkpoints so that I can try again at the part where I failed instead of having to trek back through all the stuff I already know how to get through. And I like not randomly getting killed by some death trap that I could not possibly have known was there without a strategy guide or having already played the game once.
Also, Demon's Souls: Why did it have to do both kinds of difficulty? I would have been happy to play if it had stuck to the challenging combat, but it had to throw in "Nintendo hard" as well by taking all your money away and starting at the beginning of the level. It's actually the worst thing a game can do to be hard, I think. I got sick of having to replay all the stuff I'd already been able to get past easily and turned it off. Demon's Souls with checkpoints, saving, and pausing and the same level of combat would be a game I'd really like to play, but as it is now, fuck that. I have better things to do than grind through the same easy bits 18 million times just to get another try against the enemy that keeps killing me because I can't get enough practice due to the lack of checkpoints.
Just look at Ninja Gaiden. The Xbox version had a ridiculous learning curve and was hard as hell, but later in the game I got the secret game cartridges and went to play the original Ninja Gaiden.
Holy shit.
That was arcade hard. That was "We don't want you to ever win so you'll just keep trying and trying and spend all your money" hard.
That has no place in modern games, with the exception of I Wanna Be the Guy.
Holy shit.
That was arcade hard. That was "We don't want you to ever win so you'll just keep trying and trying and spend all your money" hard.
That has no place in modern games, with the exception of I Wanna Be the Guy.
This is why I enjoy games with different difficulties, so you can challenge yourself if you so desire.
While some Nintendo games have lost that ridiculous difficulty setting, most of the games I play (the Nintendo ones) retain a certain degree of it.
Mario Galaxy gets pretty challenging at times, and Metroid Prime (all three) get pretty damn difficult at times.
Most people forget that half of the challenge in old Nintendo games is the whole "we're not going to explain anything" bit.
Ever since I downloaded (for free) Metroid, the first Metroid game ever, I've been struggling to beat it. Not because the enemies are challenging, not because the puzzles are confusing, but because the game doesn't explain anything to you, doesn't help you, and makes things really frustratingly hard.
You can't aim below your waist, you start with 30hp every time you die/start the game, enemies respawn when you move off screen of where they were last, enemies exploit your targeting capabilities and rape your shit, the map is never shown to you, etc.
I don't want to hear the old "new games give you the baby treatment and give you everything" argument, because in this situation, its absolute bullshit.
Its difficult to play through Metroid because I love all Metroid so much, Samus is epic fucking win... but goddamn this game is frustratingly hard in the most frustrating ways =/
Edit: Guess I should give my answers to your questions, lol.
Would I play more Nintendo games if they brought back "Nintendo hard" ? I play games that are fun, not because they are challenging. The challenge just keeps me playing longer. Ideally, you could increase the difficulty yourself.
While some Nintendo games have lost that ridiculous difficulty setting, most of the games I play (the Nintendo ones) retain a certain degree of it.
Mario Galaxy gets pretty challenging at times, and Metroid Prime (all three) get pretty damn difficult at times.
Most people forget that half of the challenge in old Nintendo games is the whole "we're not going to explain anything" bit.
Ever since I downloaded (for free) Metroid, the first Metroid game ever, I've been struggling to beat it. Not because the enemies are challenging, not because the puzzles are confusing, but because the game doesn't explain anything to you, doesn't help you, and makes things really frustratingly hard.
You can't aim below your waist, you start with 30hp every time you die/start the game, enemies respawn when you move off screen of where they were last, enemies exploit your targeting capabilities and rape your shit, the map is never shown to you, etc.
I don't want to hear the old "new games give you the baby treatment and give you everything" argument, because in this situation, its absolute bullshit.
Its difficult to play through Metroid because I love all Metroid so much, Samus is epic fucking win... but goddamn this game is frustratingly hard in the most frustrating ways =/
Edit: Guess I should give my answers to your questions, lol.
Would I play more Nintendo games if they brought back "Nintendo hard" ? I play games that are fun, not because they are challenging. The challenge just keeps me playing longer. Ideally, you could increase the difficulty yourself.
You won't be dissapointed. When fidgeting with the preview code I died 3 or 4 times before I figured out how it worked. (i.e. the famous 'you die on purpose' from Demon's Souls is in there, but with a twist) And that was just the tutorial x3ZeroMachine said:
I liked nintendo hard games really. Trial and error can be frustrating, and obviously it shouldn't be based around trial and error gameplay.
The execution element of nintendo hard was very nice though, and something I missed. Where a single mistake could screw you over. It made success feel a lot more rewarding.
The execution element of nintendo hard was very nice though, and something I missed. Where a single mistake could screw you over. It made success feel a lot more rewarding.