The Deterioration of Video Game Difficulty

[GDW]

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.)

And I'm saying that story and content aren't an excuse for lettign you cleave through a game. I found nothing challenging in "Mirror's Edge" (hated the story too, but that's for another time) and the interesting new gamepaly style didn't compensate for how boring, tedious and underwhelmingly easy I found the product. Easily made it into my most disappointing of the year.

Also, if it helps put things in perspective, even though games supposedly "get better as technology advances", somehow "Contra 3" is still my favorite game of all time simply for being so fun and ball-busting.

 

[clarinetJWD]

I never said I don't value winning, and I never said that games need to be incredibly easy. I said that there's no reason to have a game so hard only a small percentage of people have the ability to beat it. All that will do is kill interest in games, and it will become a small niche like it used to be!

This has nothing to do with winning. I don't value the fake ramping up of difficulty by implementing lives, game overs, or any other cheap tactics. I don't value frustration to the point of giving up. I value a scalable challenge so that I still feel like I did something, but don't hit a brick wall.

Edit: GDE - So you think that the end of a story should be reserved for a very small percentage of people who spend hours and hours hammering away at it? Oh, and I hated Contra and all its sequels. There's a reason everyone knows the Konami code, and it's not because the game is enjoyable to most people without it.

Edit: FK - No code in III...wouldn't know, don't care. When a game offers nothing but difficulty, it suddenly loses all appeal for me.

 

[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.

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.

And compare NES NG3 to Ninja Gaiden 1 on the same system. I've beaten 2/3 of the trilogy but after getting busted back to level 6-1 after losing to the Jaquio's second form YET AGAIN...I still have nightmares about it 20 years later.

 

[FragKrag]

Oh, Contra III American release did not have the konami code

That's what made it as fun and enduring as it is. Ball busting action in a 2d sidescroller is where it's at!

 

[GDW]

And compare NES NG3 to Ninja Gaiden 1 on the same system. I've beaten 2/3 of the trilogy but after getting busted back to level 6-1 after losing to the Jaquio's second form YET AGAIN...I still have nightmares about it 20 years later.

You're kidding me? I plowed "NG" like it was nothing after beating "NG3".
Something about taking double-damage and three continues just kicked my ass l ike you couldn't believe.

Edit: GDE - So you think that the end of a story should be reserved for a very small percentage of people who spend hours and hours hammering away at it? Oh, and I hated Contra and all its sequels. There's a reason everyone knows the Konami code, and it's not because the game is enjoyable to most people without it.

In a manner of speaking, yes. I don't think you should be able to move from Point A to Point B with a few variations with no real edge to it. I love the "Contra"s because they make you work to get to those two points, it's always random and always keepes you trying harder and harder. Always. I don't like plowing through a story with a simple 2-minute trial-and-error controls learning (taken away by the tutorials most games offer these days). Games are too damned easy to make me feel I've gotten anything out of them.

Oh, Contra III American release did not have the konami code

That's what made it as fun and enduring as it is. Ball busting action in a 2d sidescroller is where it's at!

Was goign to mention that myself until I saw you did.

 

[FragKrag]

Well all I'm saying is that Contra III was like 7 months worth of fun. That game was 100% value. I think it is only surpassed in value by FFIII (FFVI for you japanese!). Simply beating it on normal was a feat, and I remember spending countless hours of frustration and pleasure on contra. You haven't felt disappointment until you have trudged your way through all the levels to die to a boss when you've almost killed him... for the 30th time that day, and you haven't felt pleasure until you have beaten a level on hard after spending a week on it.

 

[GDW]

Well all I'm saying is that Contra III was like 7 months worth of fun. That game was 100% value. I think it is only surpassed in value by FFIII (FFVI for you japanese!). Simply beating it on normal was a feat, and I remember spending countless hours of frustration and pleasure on contra. You haven't felt disappointment until you have trudged your way through all the levels to die to a boss when you've almost killed him... for the 30th time that day, and you haven't felt pleasure until you have beaten a level on hard after spending a week on it.

Close to my thoughts. Not to mention the sudden bond you feel when you finaly beat "Super C" with a friend...
...pals for life, ya'll are...

 

[JMeganSnow]

*Hefts massive novel-sized instruction books that come with her beloved CRPG's*

Nope, not getting any easier or less complicated here. The only thing that makes my games easier is that I've become more relaxed about digging out the cheats when I need them.

 

[FragKrag]

Well all I'm saying is that Contra III was like 7 months worth of fun. That game was 100% value. I think it is only surpassed in value by FFIII (FFVI for you japanese!). Simply beating it on normal was a feat, and I remember spending countless hours of frustration and pleasure on contra. You haven't felt disappointment until you have trudged your way through all the levels to die to a boss when you've almost killed him... for the 30th time that day, and you haven't felt pleasure until you have beaten a level on hard after spending a week on it.

Close to my thoughts. Not to mention the sudden bond you feel when you finaly beat "Super C" with a friend...
...pals for life, ya'll are...

Me and my friend almost ended our friendship with contra III. I blamed him for dying, and he blamed me for dying. Jeez, we only stayed together because we were the best at the school simply due to the fact that we spent half our lives on it. I was actually thinking about calling him up for another go at it.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

Have you played Street Fighter 4 yet in single player mode?

 

[Crazyshak48]

The trick is balance I think. Take Crysis, for instance. I beat that on Delta with scarcely any trouble. By contrast, I have yet to beat ANY of the Descent games on the basic difficulty level...EVER. The trick is finding the middle ground, something that is both challening but not so difficult you snap your controller. A difficulty level is just about perfect if it gets your blood going trying to get through it, while not frustrating you to the point of kicking your TV screen out. The feeling of accomplishment once you beat it is the important bit.

For examples, I would cite Freespace 2, Half-Life 2, Red Faction, and possibly some of the Ace Combat games (if you're playing on expert or ace).

On the whole though, I agree that games do seem easier. Maybe that's my fault for bashing my head against the wall with games like Descent for so long, but that's still how I feel.

 

[FragKrag]

Ah yes, Red Faction was also a fun game to play. Though I remember playing it for the multiplayer more than the campaign itself.

 

[phar]

I think its just that the average person is more skilled. I know back in the day I didnt play my c64 or nes or snes as much as I play my PS3 and 360. I did play it alot but not for hours on end like I do with some games now.

Plus if you find any 10 year old kid playing anything online they are usually an easy kill.

The thing about games is that most of them have other options such as online play in which people want to play with.. not go back and play a level over and over. I know I probably could finish most games on the harder difficulty but its not worth the frustration..

 

[Valiance]

I read it, I agree that this has happened.

I personally think that this is bad, but a lot of people enjoy a "push button win game" style of game.

Not I, however.

 

[mike1921]

When you played the original SMB, there was a screen that everyone dreaded seeing - and that was the game over screen. Game Over in that game meant game over, as hitting start to try again would take you all the way back to the first level. Imagine if you were at world 8-4 and died by Bowser's claw on your last life. It was infuriating! And yet, we would come back and try again later.

In SMBD (no anagrams please), Beating a level on your file (yes, the GBC version had save files) would 'unlock' the next level. You could essentially re-play the first level over and over again. The problem with this system, is that you can turn the game off, go back to it, and then start at the last level you unlocked with a full slew of lives. Game Over doesn't have quite the devastating effect that it used to have. Game Over is essentially now just something you can walk away from.

That sounds like the single most frustrating thing ever. Restarting the whole game and not the level when you get game over. I don't think you could get much harder than that....maybe if they had you beat both ninja gaidens after every death.......and still had the game over that restarted the level. Also, there's a difference between difficulty and cheapness. That's cheap. It's not getting you stuck at one point because you're not skilled enough to do it. It's getting you stuck at one point because you're either me and for some reason will randomly fail at the simplest thing(which means death in a mario game, either because of falling or not being big) much earlier in the game and never get more than one try at a time or you just find one of the previous levels difficult.

Look at DMC3, that may be the hardest game I've ever played, and that's on easy mode. Yes it's annoying going back to the start of the level and I seriously think there should be checkpoints but whatever. I have fun even when the enemies are kicking my ass because they're not kicking my ass via fighting me for so long that one mistake every 10 minutes kills me or killing me in one hit.


Also, I don't think games in general being easier today is us getting spoiled, it's previous games being hardasses.

 

[SimuLord]

I read it, I agree that this has happened.

I personally think that this is bad, but a lot of people enjoy a "push button win game" style of game.

Not I, however.

Push Button Win can hardly even be called a "game". Children's toy, maybe semi-interactive movie (in the case of 99% of Japanese games)...but not a game.

 

[WILLTHEALMIGHTY]

I don't know, CoD4 has been kicking my ass on veteran for a good week now.

 

[Valiance]

I read it, I agree that this has happened.

I personally think that this is bad, but a lot of people enjoy a "push button win game" style of game.

Not I, however.

Push Button Win can hardly even be called a "game". Children's toy, maybe semi-interactive movie (in the case of 99% of Japanese games)...but not a game.

Then don't look at what Bethesda's doing to their new games.

 

[Scarecrow38]

I think you might have a point there. To this day I've never finished Goldeneye 007 on 00 Agent without cheating (/shame). I guess society is leaning towards challenges... so long as they're aren't too challenging instead of the old idea that it was okay to make games that not everyone could finish on the highest difficulty.

I think it is good to play games on the highest difficulty (at some point even if not on your first playthrough) because it makes it that much more satisfying when you do it. I recently finished cod4 on veteran for the first time and it felt awesome. I remember spending at least an hour (maybe more) trying to move 100 metres from the top of a hill to the bottom where a helicopter was (after killing Al Asad for those who've played it). The feeling I got when I finally got in was incredible.

That said, it is good to still offer easier difficulties.

 

[JemJar]

To compare and contrast two of the "top" games of recent times which best capture the two design philosophies: Oblivion versus Portal.

Oblivion

Massively complex world, non-linear structure, scaling difficulty and player-control over the strengths and weaknesses of the character. Resulted in (aside from it's many other faults) totally erratic difficulty mainly related to the non-scaling of the friendly NPC equipment and the fact that scaling difficulty by character level is not scaling by the character's capability or suitability for a specific scenario. In terms of design principles, probably the most complex RPG to date.

[I ended up ditching my first play-through of Oblivion when my stealth/sniper build got stuck in a fight against two melee warriors in a tiny, locked chamber. No opportunity to start the fight in stealth I was required to start conversation to start the fight. I spent hours running around the room, flicking round to loose an arrow and then running again. Did it eventually. Never forgave Bethesda.]

Portal

Utterly simplisitic world, totally linear structure, non-scaling difficulty and player control over nothing more than movement and interactions. Resulted in arguably the best game of the decade. In terms of design principles, could easily be equated to Super Mario on crack - with an infinite lives cheat.