The Deterioration of Video Game Difficulty

[SquirrelPants]

Something else that did the whole deterioration thing in one game, even: Bioshock.
At the beginning, it's rather challenging, and it's hard to move on because the game is freaking SCARY.
But then, you make it past a certain point, somewhere around the part where you get the shotgun. The fear goes away, and it just becomes another shooter. So much easier, and it's all pretty much easy going from there. When you go from a horror game to a basic shooter with the added bit that is magic(Plasmids), you've gotta be doing something wrong.

Yeah. I remember my first few battles with Big Daddies were pretty fucking epic. But by the end, I just use the electricity plasmid or the electricity gun and they were instantly toast. That was on normal difficulty, though.

It works the same way on Hard, I tried the other day. It's really really freaking scary up until a bit after you get the shotgun. It also goes from hard and constantly dying to pretty easy.
Also, another deterioration thing from Bioshock is the Vita-Chamber. I mean, seriously, we couldn't have just died?

 

[keptsimple]

It works the same way on Hard, I tried the other day. It's really really freaking scary up until a bit after you get the shotgun. It also goes from hard and constantly dying to pretty easy.
Also, another deterioration thing from Bioshock is the Vita-Chamber. I mean, seriously, we couldn't have just died?

I opted not to use the Vita-Chambers. If I died, I just loaded.

I started a second run through on Hard but I didn't make it very far. Too bad if what you say is true.

Not to say Bioshock wasn't a great game, but the difficulty was very uneven. Let's not even speak of the final battle with Fontaine.

 

[SquirrelPants]

It works the same way on Hard, I tried the other day. It's really really freaking scary up until a bit after you get the shotgun. It also goes from hard and constantly dying to pretty easy.
Also, another deterioration thing from Bioshock is the Vita-Chamber. I mean, seriously, we couldn't have just died?

I opted not to use the Vita-Chambers. If I died, I just loaded.

I started a second run through on Hard but I didn't make it very far. Too bad if what you say is true.

Not to say Bioshock wasn't a great game, but the difficulty was very uneven. Let's not even speak of the final battle with Fontaine.

Indeed, VERY good game. It's in my top ten. But its difficulty was just...bleh. At one point it's white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat horror, and the next moment you're using a machine gun to mow down a bunch of splicers. Not only does the difficulty get fucked up, the gameplay does.
No offense to it, though. Its formula could just use some work.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

There is a reason the older games had you start from the begging when you died. I was because they were originally designed for the Arcade and to mindlessly suck every quarter out of your pocket playing it. Now that we have consoles we don't need to have the live system any more because we just pay a one time fee for games. While game levels should remain just as hard beating the level should mean just that, beating it. Loosing at the last level in the game only to start back from the begging will only end up with you throwing your controller across the room in despair.
This is not what I play game for, I play it for the fun visceral action not for the frustration, of a hard game.

Absolutely true. Arcade difficulty was there to make money, but now that we have the consoles there is no need for such difficulty.
And remember, not many companies are going to make their games so bloody difficult that nobody can see to the end of it. For all you WoWheads out there, remember how blizzard kept making raids easier and loot easier to get so that more people could see endgame? The extreme difficulty ended up being a problem because nobody was going to see the end, so they lowered the bar until more people could appreciate what they developed.

 

[keptsimple]

Indeed, VERY good game. It's in my top ten. But its difficulty was just...bleh. At one point it's white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat horror, and the next moment you're using a machine gun to mow down a bunch of splicers. Not only does the difficulty get fucked up, the gameplay does.
No offense to it, though. Its formula could just use some work.

Yeah. It may be my favorite game of this generation. Definitely some of the best writing.

I kind of anticipated the drop off in difficulty, though. That happens in almost any game with RPG elements or which otherwise allows for your character to increase considerably in power.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

how did u beat Twilight princess in a couple days, u mean couple days = total hours? or couple days as in a few hours a day. Because that game can be 50 + hours if u get everything.

Also, yes, games baby us to get to the end now. I just played through gears of war 2, and at no point was it hard to figure out how to kill any of the bosses. I miss the old days of hard games, but don;t miss the "so hard I will never actually beat it" difficulty.

 

[Soap6]

It'd be pretty funny in like 50 years or so, one bullet would drain like !%% of your health bar and the guy would be "Oh my god, I took so much damage, this game is so hard!"

 

[Doctor Panda]

As far as I'm concerned, a problem with lack of difficulty arises when it doesn't feel *satisfying* to beat a game. If you don't have to concentrate at all, if you can just sit there going 'tap tap tap'. Well, it works in some games. But not in RTS, FPS, fighting games, platformers...

I think that feeling of satisfaction, so badly absent from most games these days, has lead to the current explosion of rhythm games on the market. Challenges are short, can be set with wide-ranging difficulties to fit your skill level, and are very satisfying.

 

[GDW]

Love the OP.

Also, the arcade thing is only half-true, old games were also hard because, were they easy, you could play them, beat them and never want to paly them again. You'd be done with them and have met no challenge. Feel you've accomplished nothing. AND they'd be too short... who'd pay out the ass for somethgn they could beat in 5 hours?

 

[SimuLord]

Take a look at a game like Victoria or Ninja Gaiden (which are difficult for decidedly different reasons) and you'll see that the hard games are there, you've just got to go look for them.

 

[Gitsnik]

But even games that have featured enemies with dynamic leveling tend to get easier as you progress. Take Fallout 3. I had to be pretty careful in the early levels. But by level 15 or so, I was practically indestructible. And even if I took damage, I had enough supplies to heal myself 20 times over. I remember Final Fantasy VIII being the same way.

That's the game ramping up for your experience level, but not for your capabilities.

The ultimate game for me would be one some sort of sci fi game, where every door I walk through "scans" me for what ammunition and weapons and skills I have (I'm laying back story here, genre and plot are non-essential to device). Then, instead of throwing "fire" daemons at me when I've got lots of water, throw water daemons at me, or Ice or whatever. Basically, figure out what I'm going to suck at most, and make me fight it.

But a game like that would probably be considered too hard. Which is a shame I think.

 

[keptsimple]

That's the game ramping up for your experience level, but not for your capabilities.

Yeah, but I wished the designers would account for that. Even in games with static enemies, it would make sense for the difficulty to take into the likelihood that I will have an expanded repertoire and more useful items at higher level.

 

[GDW]

Take a look at a game like Victoria or Ninja Gaiden (which are difficult for decidedly different reasons) and you'll see that the hard games are there, you've just got to go look for them.

Now, compare Itagaki's "Pussy Gaiden" to "Ninja Gaiden 3" on the NES and you'll see that they're still deterirating even in the "hard-games" racket.

 

[clarinetJWD]

This is pretty simple. In all those NES games you mentioned (with the possible exception of the LoZ games...never played the early ones), the story is minimal if it exists at all. The point of beating a game was to beat it, it was the difficulty. Now games have complex stories, and I would be pissed if I spent $50 on a game, and couldn't see the end of the story because they decided to make it too hard.

Oh, and it seems like you're a proponent of the Game Over, Start Over method. NO. Yes, it makes it difficult, but it in no way, shape or form makes it fun.

 

[GDW]

This is pretty simple. In all those NES games you mentioned (with the possible exception of the LoZ games...never played the early ones), the story is minimal if it exists at all. The point of beating a game was to beat it, it was the difficulty. Now games have complex stories, and I would be pissed if I spent $50 on a game, and couldn't see the end of the story because they decided to make it too hard.

Oh, and it seems like you're a proponent of the Game Over, Start Over method. NO. Yes, it makes it difficult, but it in no way, shape or form makes it fun.

Disagreed. If I don't feel I accomplised anything (i.e. "Mirror's Edge", "Gears of War 2", "Final Fantasy 314", etc., etc.) then I didn't have fun at all.

 

[Rogue of Hearts]

My friend was telling me about his brother who happens to be very good at some game, I think it was Warcraft. Anyhow, whenever he lost he would become enraged and start screaming cursing and tossing things everywhere. When my friend told him "You know you're good, and you can just leave and join another game, you don't have to get all angry about it," his brother replied "No, I can't" and my friend asked "why?" to which he replied, "because then I'm not having fun."

Somewhere along the line, screaming and kicking things in frustration became equivalent to having fun.

I think to please a hardcore gamer, you really have to cause them a whole lot of pain upon losing the game or else their over-conditioned minds will not be able to appreciate the victory they have achieved when they have finally achieved it. Think "definition by negation".

Ever try teaching a child to play a video game? They don't know what winning and losing is, but they can mimic the smiles and other things we use to express our happiness (don't turn that into a dirty joke please) when we do "win" and the sadness when we "lose".

In much the same way, early games conditioned the hardcore gamers into knowing what a "real victory" was as opposed to these newer games and their easy to attain victories (easy relative to our earlier games, which people who began gaming when there was newer games available don't always play).

And now these games developed today seem to make victory available to your average joe, and it seems to dilute "winning" in any game.

 

[Peach_hat]

The Futile, the futile it out weighs the beautiful.

 

[clarinetJWD]

Disagreed. If I don't feel I accomplished anything (i.e. "Mirror's Edge", "Gears of War 2", "Final Fantasy 314", etc., etc.) then I didn't have fun at all.

I didn't say anything about not feeling like you accomplished anything. I'm taking about games so difficult many people can't finish them. Super easy isn't the answer, but it most certainly isn't super difficult either. It has to strike a good balance, and have selectable difficulty levels, that actually do something. (Mirror's Edge difficulty doesn't really make it any harder. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed ME...one of my favorites from the year. If you want difficulty, go for 3 stars on each of the time challenges.)

So in closing: Yes, games are easier, but for the most part, they are not too easy. If they are, most have difficulty levels that let all players enjoy that right amount of challenge.

 

[FragKrag]

This is pretty simple. In all those NES games you mentioned (with the possible exception of the LoZ games...never played the early ones), the story is minimal if it exists at all. The point of beating a game was to beat it, it was the difficulty. Now games have complex stories, and I would be pissed if I spent $50 on a game, and couldn't see the end of the story because they decided to make it too hard.

Oh, and it seems like you're a proponent of the Game Over, Start Over method. NO. Yes, it makes it difficult, but it in no way, shape or form makes it fun.

So you don't value winning? I mean some games on the SNES were pretty outrageous, (Contra III: Alien Wars, anyone?) but when you beat it at the hardest difficulty, you were proud of yourself. I mean now, come on. A bunch of these games are cakewalks. FFXII, GoW2, Halo... they're made to be easy to beat. I don't get any satisfaction. Whereas when I beat Contra, I was ecstatic.

Anybody who has beaten Contra III will laugh extremely hard at anybody who thinks Halo on Legendary is hard. I think the closest game that measures up is God of War on Titan. That was actually a pretty decent challenge.