Gaming is dead

[Foxi4]

Or as we real gamers like to call it, "a challenge". Foxi4causal ;O; Nowadays they artificially inflate longevity with online multiplayer.

Challenge is fine as long as it's reasonable. Reasonable challenge was not a characteristic of "retro" video games. As for inflating longevity of games with multiplayer, it only works with certain genres, really.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Challenge is fine as long as it's reasonable. Reasonable challenge was not a characteristic of "retro" video games. As for inflating longevity of games with multiplayer, it only works with certain genres, really.

I had kind of a flashback to the first Ninja Gaiden for the NES. I don't know if that game was unreasonably difficult, but to me it was just unfair as fuck.

 

[Veho]

Challenge is fine as long as it's reasonable. Reasonable challenge was not a characteristic of "retro" video games.

Foxi confirmed 4casual ;O; There's no such thing as "unreasonably hard", there's only such a thing as a whiny quitter. ;O;

Because it's there.

As for inflating longevity of games with multiplayer, it only works with certain genres, really.

Of course it works. Multiplayer replaces a storyline, campaign, missions, levels, enemy AI... You don't have to do anything, just give people a map and let them slug it out. Whee

 

[Foxi4]

Foxi confirmed 4casual ;O; There's no such thing as "unreasonably hard", there's only such a thing as a whiny quitter. ;O; Because it's there.

Of course there's such a thing as "unreasonably hard", the concept spawned an entire genre of so-called "unfair games" like Cat Mario and the likes where the only way to "win" is to repeat the process over and over again until you memorize every pitfall. When the game hasn't got any clean-cut rules and is designed to trick the player, it's unfair. If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there (especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre), the game's unfair. A fair challenge is a challenge that requires the player to master the rules of the game and apply them in the process of playing it, not memorizing the level like a dope - that's not skill, that's Simon Says. A huge number of oldie titles expected you to attack enemies before they're even on-screen specifically because the games were programmed to "get you" at that point if you don't know about the upcoming danger - that's not fair, that's bullshit and trickery that's supposed to kick you back to the start of the level so that the game is 15 minutes longer.

Of course it works. Multiplayer replaces a storyline, campaign, missions, levels, enemy AI... You don't have to do anything, just give people a map and let them slug it out. Whee

Two little words - Co-operative Campaign. One of my favourite kinds of multiplayer because it adds a new layer of narrative to the game.

EDIT: You know what? Scratch that - Simon Says is a bad analogy because that's fair - it shows you the correct input and either you get it or you don't. What I'm talking about is Simon Says that doesn't show you the input and if you guess wrong and fuck up, well, you should start over. Not fair, not a challenge - random chance.

 

[zeello]

Strictly speaking, all gaming is casual unless it's like a tournament or something.

 

[Veho]

Of course there's such a thing as "unreasonably hard", the concept spawned an entire genre of so-called "unfair games" like Cat Mario and the likes where the only way to "win" is to repeat the process over and over again until you memorize every pitfall. When the game hasn't got any clean-cut rules and is designed to trick the player, it's unfair. If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there (especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre), the game's unfair. A fair challenge is a challenge that requires the player to master the rules of the game and apply them in the process of playing it, not memorizing the level like a dope - that's not skill, that's Simon Says. A huge number of oldie titles expected you to attack enemies before they're even on-screen specifically because the games were programmed to "get you" at that point if you don't know about the upcoming danger - that's not fair, that's bullshit and trickery that's supposed to kick you back to the start of the level so that the game is 15 minutes longer.

EDIT: You know what? Scratch that - Simon Says is a bad analogy because that's fair - it shows you the correct input and either you get it or you don't. What I'm talking about is Simon Says that doesn't show you the input and if you guess wrong and fuck up, well, you should start over. Not fair, not a challenge - random chance.

So you want every pitfall to be clearly labelled as such, every trap to have a red exclamation mark above it, the enemies to telegraph their movements and attacks ten seconds in advance, and want the telegraphing to be clear enough to figure out what it is and how to avoid it the first time you see it? Foxi4iPhone-game-level-of-casual ;O;

It's not "unfair" random chance if the level layout and enemy movement is scripted and identical in every go.

If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there (especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre), the game may be aggravating and frustrating, but it's perfectly fair. If the game rearranged the obstacles at random and the only way to beat it was chance and dumb luck, that would be unfair. If the obstacle is possible to avoid once you know it's a trap, that's not unfair. You could complain about things like that with arcade games, where replays cost money, but it's pointless on PCs and consoles.

And besides, threats jumping at you from off-screen without any warning, and having to replay boss battles because you had to die a few times in order to learn what telegraphs a new type of attack after you've managed to evade the initial type, happened in Super Mario as well. And they still do. Would you really call Super Mario games unreasonably difficult or unfair?

Two little words - Co-operative Campaign. One of my favourite kinds of multiplayer because it adds a new layer of narrative to the game.

Two words*: games where single player mode is just a half-hour tutorial at most and there's no campaign and the game is PVP-multiplayer-only because derp that's popular at the moment.


*Actual number may vary

 

[Foxi4]

So you want every pitfall to be clearly labelled as such, every trap to have a red exclamation mark above it, the enemies to telegraph their movements and attacks ten seconds in advance, and want the telegraphing to be clear enough to figure out what it is and how to avoid it the first time you see it? Foxi4iPhone-game-level-of-casual ;O;

It's not "unfair" random chance if the level layout and enemy movement is scripted and identical in every go.

If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there (especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre), the game may be aggravating and frustrating, but it's perfectly fair. If the game rearranged the obstacles at random and the only way to beat it was chance and dumb luck, that would be unfair. If the obstacle is possible to avoid once you know it's a trap, that's not unfair. You could complain about things like that with arcade games, where replays cost money, but it's pointless on PCs and consoles.

And besides, threats jumping at you from off-screen without any warning, and having to replay boss battles because you had to die a few times in order to learn what telegraphs a new type of attack after you've managed to evade the initial type, happened in Super Mario as well. And they still do. Would you really call Super Mario games unreasonably difficult or unfair?

You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing that games should be easy and players should be able to finish them on their first try which is not what I'm saying - a learning curve has to be present in any game to be challenging. What I'm saying is that it's unfair to trick the player, especially if it also involves being inconsistent. We're riding on a thin line of game design logic here, but bare with me for a moment and I'll explain.

Take for instance the obstacles in Prince of Persia - I think that game is both hard and fair. It quickly introduces players to a very basic concept - there are spikes on the floors. Spikes are clearly telegraphed by the fact that the floor has little dots on it and the player doesn't know that they're spikes until he/she steps on them. Once a player does step on the spikes, he/she is given a split second to step off them and incoming danger is telegraphed by the sound of spikes preparing to deploy - this gives the player a chance to step off the pressure plate and learn that they're dangerous. From this point onwards the player knows that these are spikes and has to plan movement around that obstacle ahead in order to effectively navigate the dungeon. It's that split second that makes a difference between a "f*ck you, git gud" trap and a fair trap.

The same applies to enemies attacking you from the off-screen area - there's nothing wrong with that as long as the player is given sufficient leeway to dodge them. There's a big difference between an enemy attacking you from off-screen, requiring you to flex your reflexes and dodge the attack and an enemy dropping on you saying "f*ck you, git gud, sh*thead!" with no chance of dodging the attack. It's even worse when due to technical/technological difficulties the enemies are able to shoot the player from the off-screen area, but the bullets shot by the player character disappear once they reach the edge of the screen - this is a problem that appears in many retro games and it gives the enemies a clear unfair advantage.

Challenge as an idea implies the possibility of a winning scenario - if a trap or an enemy doesn't have any options to mitigate it, it's not challenging, it's unfair. Killing the player repeatedly with unfair traps and enemies does not present a challenge, it just introduces frustration. A truly good game and a good challenge should present players with threats and teach them how to avoid or overcome them, and not with a bunch of tutorial screens (this is a digression, but an important one - we need less tutorial screens. I'm sick and tired of games explaining themselves with walls of text. Games are an audio-visual medium - show, don't tell!) but with simple audio-visual cues.

Two words*: games where single player mode is just a half-hour tutorial at most and there's no campaign and the game is PVP-multiplayer-only because derp that's popular at the moment.

A distinction has to be made between games that are primarily made for multiplayer and games that are primarily made for single player campaigns. In the case of the former, the campaign is usually tacked on as an extended tutorial prior to the experience proper - competitive multiplayer. In the latter, it's the multiplayer that's an afterthought since the campaign is the main focus and multiplayer is just dessert after a hearty meal.

 

[zeello]

So you want every pitfall to be clearly labelled as such, every trap to have a red exclamation mark above it, the enemies to telegraph their movements and attacks ten seconds in advance, and want the telegraphing to be clear enough to figure out what it is and how to avoid it the first time you see it?

No, but if it isn't done that exact way, then inevitably the player must suffer hits or losses until they figure out how to avoid those attacks. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, that's just a fact. In a way, taking damage and losing is essentially serving as tutorials for each of those traps/enemies.

If the only way to avoid an obstacle is to fall into it previously and remember that it's there (especially if it doesn't telegraph itself as one as it's often the case in this genre), the game may be aggravating and frustrating, but it's perfectly fair.

Avoiding an obstacle shouldn't come 100 percent down to memorization. Even in a game with trial and error gameplay, audio and visual warning signs help jog the player's memory so they don't repeatedly forget what comes next.

Anyway: Yay! I'm participating!

 

[Veho]

Challenge as an idea implies the possibility of a winning scenario - if a trap or an enemy doesn't have any options to mitigate it, it's not challenging, it's unfair. Killing the player repeatedly with unfair traps and enemies does not present a challenge, it just introduces frustration.

I argue that, if you have a good chance of evading them once you learn where they are, traps and enemies aren't unfair. Compare it to Guitar Hero and rhythm games, where the only way to complete with a perfect score is to learn the part by heart, it's impossible to do by reflexes alone. Difficult, yes. Unfair, no.

Besides, frustration is cathartic. Wanting to hurl the controller into a wall is the hallmark of a truly cleansing experience

A distinction has to be made between games that are primarily made for multiplayer and games that are primarily made for single player campaigns. In the case of the former, the campaign is usually tacked on as an extended tutorial prior to the experience proper - competitive multiplayer. In the latter, it's the multiplayer that's an afterthought since the campaign is the main focus and multiplayer is just dessert after a hearty meal.

And more and more developers make their games online-only because it's easier than developing a single-player campaign.

Even in a game with trial and error gameplay, audio and visual warning signs help jog the player's memory so they don't repeatedly forget what comes next.

If they have memory problems, they can take ginkgo biloba

 

[Foxi4]

I argue that, if you have a good chance of evading them once you learn where they are, traps and enemies aren't unfair. Compare it to Guitar Hero and rhythm games, where the only way to complete with a perfect score is to learn the part by heart, it's impossible to do by reflexes alone. Difficult, yes. Unfair, no. Besides, frustration is cathartic. Wanting to hurl the controller into a wall is the hallmark of a truly cleansing experience And more and more developers make their games online-only because it's easier than developing a single-player campaign. If they have memory problems, they can take ginkgo biloba

Presenting a player with a challenge that cannot be overcome is not challenging, it's a "f*ck you". It's the equivalent of hitting a sleeping person in the face with a shovel and laughing "Ha ha! Idiot!" - Funny? Yes. Fair? No.

If there's no chance to plan, predict and dodge, there's no challenge. An obstacle isn't challenging unless the player is aware of it and if the only way to find out that it's there is to die, it's poorly designed. If memorizing the level is the only way to win, it's just a poorly-designed game.

Even in Guitar Hero you can see the button inputs coming your way, the game tells you what to do and whether you do it or not is a matter of your eye-hand co-ordination, not memorization. The moment you start memorizing the song is the moment when you stopped playing a video game and started being a robot.

As for multiplayer games being "easier to make", I'd argue that they necessitate a different kind of design, but they're not necessarily easier to make. Multiplayer games present different kinds of challenges to the developers - multiplayer maps are different than singleplayer maps, there's issues with balancing, mitigating lag and ping issues, introducing fun game modes etc. - it's just a different kind of development.

 

[Sakitoshi]

Good shooter = UT99 or Touhou (depending on the meaning of shooter), and Touhou plays nice on gamepad.

Except that Touhou games aren't FPS or shooters(very loose definition to call it a proper genre if you ask me, but generally used to refer to FPSs) are Danmaku/Bullet Hell/shmup, very different genre.

Good'ol FPS aimed for keyboard alone. Wolfestein 3D, DooM and others from that time played nice with keyboard.

God, whenever I hear people crying foul about how gaming is dead and how the classics were so much better I imagine an old folks home with grandpas and grandmas waving their walking sticks at the whippersnappers outside, yelling that they should turn their noise aka rock music down. That's what's actually happening here - you're getting old. You're grumpy and you grasp at the few straws of childhood memories you have in the vain attempt at being young again. Games haven't gotten any worse, in fact, they're becoming increasingly good and they're too much for you to handle anymore. It's like the 90's again when people couldn't fathom how a platformer could work in three dimensions and vowed to never pick up a 32-bit system, I'm seeing it all over again. I've got bad news for ya - the "good 'ol days" sucked and they're not coming back, shave that handlebar mustache, old be gone, embrace the new.

Foxy, just say "I remember Cranky Kong" two words that resume all your post.

I argue that, if you have a good chance of evading them once you learn where they are, traps and enemies aren't unfair. Compare it to Guitar Hero and rhythm games, where the only way to complete with a perfect score is to learn the part by heart, it's impossible to do by reflexes alone. Difficult, yes. Unfair, no.

Besides, frustration is cathartic. Wanting to hurl the controller into a wall is the hallmark of a truly cleansing experience


And more and more developers make their games online-only because it's easier than developing a single-player campaign.


If they have memory problems, they can take ginkgo biloba

Presenting a player with a challenge that cannot be overcome is not challenging, it's a "f*ck you". It's the equivalent of hitting a sleeping person in the face with a shovel and laughing "Ha ha! Idiot!" - Funny? Yes. Fair? No.

If there's no chance to plan, predict and dodge, there's no challenge. An obstacle isn't challenging unless the player is aware of it and if the only way to find out that it's there is to die, it's poorly designed. If memorizing the level is the only way to win, it's just a poorly-designed game.

Even in Guitar Hero you can see the button inputs coming your way, the game tells you what to do and whether you do it or not is a matter of your eye-hand co-ordination, not memorization. The moment you start memorizing the song is the moment when you stopped playing a video game and started being a robot.

As for multiplayer games being "easier to make", I'd argue that they necessitate a different kind of design, but they're not necessarily easier to make. Multiplayer games present different kinds of challenges to the developers - multiplayer maps are different than singleplayer maps, there's issues with balancing, mitigating lag and ping issues, introducing fun game modes etc. - it's just a different kind of development.

To say truth, neither of you is correct. you two are approaching the problem from the wrong angle.
A game doesn't need to play like other games, for example, normally in a game where you have a gun to shoot you just go and shoot everything in the screen and leave nobody alive, correct??
Then a revolutionary game came, Metal Gear, you can't go and blindly shoot at everything like other games, is this game unfair for that?? nope, it just plays differently than usual.

Same thing happen with the so called "unfair" games, they just play differently. you start playing the game walk a few steps and suddenly, the floor isn't there anymore, but it happened something similar to the blocks a character stepped on in the background before so you had a clue that something was wrong. or maybe you see an object too suspicious to be good, or a convenient platform so convenient that could let you get past that obstacle, but wait, you step on it and it wasn't a platform it was a sword that looked as a platform thanks to 2D vision and your character got sliced in half.
in "unfair" games you CAN find hints of danger and can let you progress a little more, but the objective of those games IS TO PREVENT YOU FROM ADVANCING and often will tackle something without a hint.
Much like Metal Gear has a focus on stealth instead of trigger happy action, unfair games have a focus on trial and error instead of well timed jumps.

 

[Foxi4]

*Snip!*

There's nothing wrong with stealth, avoiding an obstacle is as good as destroying it and it's also a challenge. This isn't about what kind of gameplay is employed, it's about the idea of what a fair challenge is. In MGS sneaking is an established mechanic that the player is taught, it's not unfair. Your argument about unfair games is moot because the whole point of obstacles is to prevent the player from progressing, not just in unfair games, but in all games. Obstacles make a challenge, however they have to be fair obstacles to result in a fair challenge.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that "unfair games" do have merit. There's a kind of player that enjoys unfair challenge - it's called a masochist. Some people enjoy being punished for no reason, but that doesn't make the punishment fair - it's not fair and it's not supposed to be. A truly well-designed game should be hard while remaining fair towards a player - that's a hallmark of a good game, a reasonable challenge that requires the player to hone his/her skills in order to progress. A test that you have to take 20 times in order to pass regardless of your level of preparation is not a good test, it's sheer memorization. If a game is supposed to test memorization, like Simon Says, that's fine. If that's not the case, it's not being fair to the player.

 

[Sakitoshi]

There's nothing wrong with stealth, avoiding an obstacle is as good as destroying it and it's also a challenge. This isn't about what kind of gameplay is employed, it's about the idea of what a fair challenge is. In MGS sneaking is an established mechanic that the player is taught, it's not unfair. Your argument about unfair games is moot because the whole point of obstacles is to prevent the player from progressing, not just in unfair games, but in all games. Obstacles make a challenge, however they have to be fair obstacles to result in a fair challenge.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that "unfair games" do have merit. There's a kind of player that enjoys unfair challenge - it's called a masochist. Some people enjoy being punished for no reason, but that doesn't make the punishment fair - it's not fair and it's not supposed to be. A truly well-designed game should be hard while remaining fair towards a player - that's a hallmark of a good game, a reasonable challenge that requires the player to hone his/her skills in order to progress. A test that you have to take 20 times in order to pass regardless of your level of preparation is not a good test, it's sheer memorization. If a game is supposed to test memorization, like Simon Says, that's fine. If that's not the case, it's not being fair to the player.

Anyway, you say that while playing D* Souls and Bloodborne, where often you have enemies jumping out of nowhere and snipers with perfect accuracy shooting at you while having other monsters ganging you or little space to evade the arrows/bullets(and if you do, you fall to your doom). those are the fairest game in the world.
Your actions contradict what you are saying Foxy4arguingbecauseIliketoargue.

Obstacles make a challenge, however they have to be fair obstacles to result in a fair challenge.

why can't you accept that unfair games have a more steep challenge and leave it at that??
I personally don't like unfair games because they're frustrating, but I can see why they are appealing and accept them as a unique genre. I have played Demon's Souls and Bloodborne and liked the ambient, system and everything else except the bullshit difficulty they have at times.

also, you mentioned that in Metal Gear you are taught how to take a stealth approach in the game, well there are games that doesn't explain how to do certain actions and the player still need to use them without knowing, is that unfair??
the prime example is the intro stage of Megaman X. you fall and you get trapped in a pit, you are expected to know how to walljump, but the game has barely started and you couldn't never do anything similar in previous games. oohhhhh Megaman X is unfair!!!! prepare your torches and pitchforks!!!!.

 

[Foxi4]

Anyway, you say that while playing D* Souls and Bloodborne, where often you have enemies jumping out of nowhere and snipers with perfect accuracy shooting at you while having other monsters ganging you or little space to evade the arrows/bullets(and if you do, you fall to your doom). those are the fairest game in the world. Your actions contradict what you are saying Foxy4arguingbecauseIliketoargue.

I see no contradiction at all. You're taking my digression from the main subject, meaning "unfair games" as a genre, as my statement on gaming in general. Both DS and BB are love letters to unfair challenge and artificial difficulty which brings them down from a perfect 10 to a respectable 9, but the key difference here is that both DS/BB and unfair games in general are not leaving the player any delusions - they're unfair by design and the player knows he/she is signing up for that. BB's done huge strides in making the game more fair by the way, there's far less "f*ck you" moments in the game and I don't think I came across one that couldn't be mitigated somehow or killed me outright. That's besides the point though.

why can't you accept that unfair games have a more steep challenge and leave it at that??

Because they don't have a steep challenge at all. Tricking the player into a false sense of security is not challenge, it's trickery. You're not testing anything, you're just being a d*ck towards the player.

I personally don't like unfair games because they're frustrating, but I can see why they are appealing and accept them as a unique genre. I have played Demon's Souls and Bloodborne and liked the ambient, system and everything else except the bullshit difficulty they have at times.

There you go, you've said it yourself. Artificial difficulty is something that pushed you away from otherwise fantastic games. You say that it's not a problem in one sentence and then point out exactly how it's a problem in another, and you're calling me the king of contrarians? C'mon.

Also, you mentioned that in Metal Gear you are taught how to take a stealth approach in the game, well there are games that doesn't explain how to do certain actions and the player still need to use them without knowing, is that unfair?? the prime example is the intro stage of Megaman X. you fall and you get trapped in a pit, you are expected to know how to walljump, but the game has barely started and you couldn't never do anything similar in previous games. oohhhhh Megaman X is unfair!!!! prepare your torches and pitchforks!!!!.

Good job stealing an example from Sequelitis. You've also forgotten how the video explains exactly how this is entirely fair. Skip to 10:10 if you're impatient.



You don't have to drown the player in a wall of text to teach him/her how to play a game. Again, video games are an interactive audio-visual medium - show, don't tell. We need less tutorials, I've already stated that, we need less holding the player by his/her hand and more subtle cues on how to play. You know what's a good way to show a player how a trap looks like without killing the player outright? Make an NPC fall into a trap. There, done! The player now knows what to avoid without being unfairly killed. That, or make the trap dangerous, but non-lethal - leave the player with a sliver of health so that he/she learns his/her lesson. It's game design 101 - don't alienate your player with unfair challenge, otherwise only masochists will play your game.

 

[Sakitoshi]

I see no contradiction at all. You're taking my digression from the main subject, meaning "unfair games" as a genre, as my statement on gaming in general.

That explain your point better, if is by that I agree. I was thinking in games like Syobon Action(cat mario) and IWBTG that are deliberately designed to be cruel to the player for the sake of it.
Smash CPU level 9 is unfair, reads your controller input and powershields everything. same for level 50 amiibo, I'm pretty sure I didn't teach Mario how to powershield.

Good job stealing an example from Sequelitis. You've also forgotten how the video explains exactly how this is entirely fair. Skip to 10:10 if you're impatient.

*video*

You don't have to drown the player in a wall of text to teach him/her how to play a game. Again. Video games are an interactive audio-visual medium - show, don't tell. We need less tutorials, I've already stated that, we need less holding the player by his/her hand and more subtle cues on how to play. You know what's a good way to show a player how a trap looks like without killing the player outright? Make an NPC fall into a trap. There, done! The player now knows what to avoid without being unfairly killed. That, or make the trap dangerous, but non-lethal - leave the player with a sliver of health so that he/she learns his/her lesson. It's game design 101 - don't alienate your player with unfair challenge, otherwise only masochists will play your game.

That was a sarcasm, I was just thinking on that video while writing my previous post. because you called whatever it doesn't the game say to you something explaining a pit or giving a warning like "hey, you can get out of pits by walljumping" for example it would be unfair. but nevermind that, I know was a terrible sarcasm and example.

unfair is when the random number god makes your pokemon miss an aqua tail and make it receive a critical hit thunder in return.

 

[Foxi4]

That explain your point better, if is by that I agree. I was thinking in games like Syobon Action(cat mario) and IWBTG that are deliberately designed to be cruel to the player for the sake of it. Smash CPU level 9 is unfair, reads your controller input and powershields everything. same for level 50 amiibo, I'm pretty sure I didn't teach Mario how to powershield. That was a sarcasm, I was just thinking on that video while writing my previous post. because you called whatever it doesn't the game say to you something explaining a pit or giving a warning like "hey, you can get out of pits by walljumping" for example it would be unfair. but nevermind that, I know was a terrible sarcasm and example. Unfair is when the random number god makes your pokemon miss an aqua tail and make it receive a critical hit thunder in return.

I see some common ground here - good. My entire point is that a good game should convey danger in a way that allows the player to mitigate it. How the game does that is entirely up to the designers and there are good and bad ways to go about it, but it's something that you have to do in order to be fair to the players. Cat Mario and the likes are games for masochists, that's fine, some people like this sort of thing and they know that's how the game's going to play out the moment they dig into it, but it's the fringe of video games that belongs in its own genre. The general rule is that games should be consistent and transparent with the players so that they challenge the player's skills, not the player's patience.

 

[Hungry Friend]

While incredibly frustrating, it feels damn good when I beat games like Ghouls n' Ghosts.(arcade, World or JP version) A lot of the difficulty of that game is keeping the knife up until you fight beelzebub during the 2nd playthrough; dodging shit weapons in that game is part of what makes it hard, and it's much better to die than pick up the shitty ass torch, axe or really anything other than the knife or psycho canon during your 2nd playthrough. The SuperGrafix version is the hardest though because it has very limited continues along with being just as brutally hard as the World/JP arcade version.(US Genesis version allows you to continue right before boss fights even on professional mode)

Super Ghouls on the other hands simply kicks the shit out of me and I have yet to beat it. When I say beat it, I mean zero fucking savestates. The first Ghosts & Goblins & SGNG are harder than Ghouls imo, but game sin that series, while cheap as fuck and frustrating, are very rewarding to beat. I suck at platformers too so it's not like you have to be great at the games; just try over and over.

 

[zeello]

You don't have to drown the player in a wall of text to teach him/her how to play a game. Again, video games are an interactive audio-visual medium - show, don't tell. We need less tutorials, I've already stated that, we need less holding the player by his/her hand and more subtle cues on how to play.

EASY THERE RIGEL 1
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/5815026