# Video Game Difficulties: Too Hard or Too Easy?



## Ryukouki (Oct 1, 2013)

​What is it with video games as of late? It feels like gaming is becoming too easy. Could it be that we as gamers are getting older and becoming more skilled, therefore knowing what to look for in games to progress? Or is it the developers making their games simpler and linear to appeal to the more casual crowd? Final Fantasy XIII, I am staring right at you right now. On the other hand, you get games that are harshly difficult. Early Diablo III and Fire Emblem: Awakening on Lunatic+ difficulty may come to mind here. Where is the proper balance?​​[prebreak]Continue reading...[/prebreak]​​First off, let's start with the games becoming easier. I reference the above image as a perfect example. I do not like the game developers babying us into taking such shortcuts. It removes the rewarding feeling of completion that comes with overcoming a difficult task. In the image above, Mario is in a white Tanooki suit that glows with star power. How is this activated? When the player is deemed "struggling," they have the option to equip a Tanooki suit for that level only, and completely rush through it because the player cannot be killed. In other Nintendo games, you can view guide videos to clear up difficult spots.​​I personally disagree with this method. It makes things too linear, and not rewarding. Games are starting to become a bit simplistic, with a few colorful exceptions, but I actually like those games. It makes the experience more thrilling, and gives me incentive and reason to finish. Sure, I might want to throw my remote at the TV a couple times... or a thousand times, but even so, when I finish a game like that, it feels great. It is one of the reasons why I felt waded out by the newer Mario games. It seems like more of the same old thing, but with shortcuts. Back then, we never really had shortcuts appear in game to help us. You can play a game like Contra and often it feels like a do or die experience. Play a game like the early Ninja Gaiden games (or, more recently, Ninja Gaiden II for the XBOX 360) and they're punishing but completely doable. Play Ninja Gaiden II, and then grab Ninja Gaiden III, and it becomes disappointing. A once brutally hard franchise becomes more of a button mash, and reviewers left scathing reviews about that aspect. Is this where the gaming industry is heading? Are we doomed to see more of these "Quick Time Event" type battles that basically do all the work for us?​​Now, on the other hand, let's talk about the brutally hard games. Some games that can come to mind are early versions of Diablo III, which were almost insane to tackle in later acts. For those of you who are not familiar, Diablo III back when it launched consisted of four difficulties. The first two were absolute snooze fests, requiring absolutely no skill to proceed. The third tier of difficulty was passable, with enemies becoming more difficult and making players learn to use their skills. It was definitely harder to play that third difficulty, because some affixes early on were completely ridiculous. The fourth difficulty was absolutely nuts, with the first act of the game being passable, but the second act becoming a grind fest back in act I due to terrible gear. Early on, it was almost impossible to proceed, unless a player had a lucky day and got a top tier item that could plow through anything. Blizzard later had to revise the game a little bit to make Inferno difficulty a bit more doable.​​

_This was from a popular _Let's Play!_ Youtube video stream._​​We can also look at Fire Emblem: Awakening, more specifically into the Lunatic+ mode, which is the highest difficulty in the game. Enemies in the first chapters now have the capability to one shot you and counter your attacks with brutalizing damage. Guides for this difficulty even made mentions such as "If My Unit is not getting X stat in a level up, you are recommended to restart." In the early chapters of Lunatic+, there was no specific strategy to proceed. The only way to "proceed" was to constantly soft reset to make sure that enemies had the right abilities to make the stage doable, and on top of that you needed to roll the right stat boosts when you leveled, making the game difficulty practically double. The previous difficulty was entirely doable with a bit of careful strategy, but the jump to the next one was almost absurd. I think I spent 500-800 soft resets making it through the first five chapters. I ended up completing Lunatic+ but it took a freakishly long time to get the exact stats and rolls that I needed. There was no more strategy in Lunatic+ Fire Emblem. It became a game of luck and rolls for the right stats.​​Where do I stand in terms of video gaming difficulty and what would I like to see in future? I feel that games nowadays are moving into easier territory, to grab a hold of the more casual audiences and forgetting some of their more hardcore audiences. I have not encountered a doable, "difficult yet rewarding" game in quite some time, if you know what I mean. It's more of a subjective definition at this point as I am sure we all have different definitions of what hard can be considered. I would love to see more games that can get me going. I would like to see more complex games that challenge the user to actually think a little bit more. I need more of the Ninja Gaiden II type games.​​And to speak more broadly, with the casual and grass root gamers in mind, where do the lines need to be drawn in order to satisfy both crowds? Does the gaming industry need to draw the line to draw in more casual audiences at the price of their hardcore audience? Or does it only need to cater to its hard core gamers and slowly ignore their casual audience? What kind of mechanisms can be implemented in order to cater to both at the same time? Do you think that games are becoming a bit too easy for you? Or, on the other hand, are they too difficult and would you like the difficulty lowered? Where do you stand as a user? Feel free to chime off in the comments, and again, keep it civil!​


----------



## Blaze163 (Oct 1, 2013)

It obviously depends greatly on where you're looking, but as a rule I find modern games much easier than their 'retro' brethren. Enough challenge exists these days to keep it interesting, but I've basically abandoned Nintendo at this point, their 'no drooling mongoloid left behind' policy of making damn near everything almost offensively easy took all the bite out of it for me.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 1, 2013)

demons souls


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 1, 2013)

This is one of the bigger reasons I got into the whole ROM hacking gig.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 1, 2013)

Joe88 said:


> demons souls


 

I played that game too! 





This is why I like Dark Souls.


----------



## jargus (Oct 1, 2013)

Most mainstream games these are easy to just play through but offers greater challenge through online/achievements. Then there are some that start off easy but become difficult like Rayman Origins. Some games offer little challenge the whole way through like AC3. Then there are some that retain a stable learning curve the whole way through (most modern Mario) and others that simply have a difficulty option. Right now there is so much focus on casuals that there is little risk of failure. Indy games are showing a greater balacne right now that won't be seen until the majority of casual gamers become regular gamers and can accept greater challenges.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 1, 2013)

There are some hard games nowadays, but then you have the FPS market where even in "hard mode" the games just hold your hand for everything.
But I do it's become a more mixed bag of difficulties when it comes down to gaming nowadays


----------



## UltraMew (Oct 1, 2013)

Well, I like easy games and hard ones, Nintendo ones are easy, ROM hacks are hard.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 1, 2013)

While I don't like the white Tanooki suit no one's forcing you to use it. I never have and I probably never will.
Super Mario 3D Land is rather easy, but once you get to the special levels it starts getting challenging. I like games to be challenging, but not frustratingly so, but it's not like I won't enjoy a game if it's not challenging.

For example Donkey Kong Country Returns, I found too challenging at times. It's worse to have a frustratingly hard game than a ridiculously easy one, if it's too hard I'll eventually give up on it and never play it again. That said I did get through the difficult levels in DKCR even though it made me ragequit more than a few times.

But, it's a difficult question, and the difficulty really varies between different franchises, some are hard, some are easy, some are inbetween, and maybe that's not such a bad thing. It's nice to have some variety.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 1, 2013)

The Real Jdbye said:


> While I don't like the white Tanooki suit no one's forcing you to use it. I never have and I probably never will.
> Super Mario 3D Land is rather easy, but once you get to the special levels it starts getting challenging. I like games to be challenging, but not frustratingly so, but it's not like I won't enjoy a game if it's not challenging.
> For example Donkey Kong Country Returns, I found too challenging at times. It's worse to have a frustratingly hard game than a ridiculously easy one, if it's too hard I'll eventually give up on it and never play it again. That said I did get through the difficult levels in DKCR even though it made me ragequit more than a few times.
> But, it's a difficult question, and the difficulty really varies between different franchises, some are hard, some are easy, some are inbetween, and maybe that's not such a bad thing. It's nice to have some variety.


 

That's the thing I wanted to explore. I see games becoming too easy. The line is more obvious as to where difficulties lie. I wanted to explore whether or not there were ways to possibly blur those lines and make games a complex mix of fun and difficult at the same time.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 1, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> That's the thing I wanted to explore. I see games becoming too easy. The line is more obvious as to where difficulties lie. I wanted to explore whether or not there were ways to possibly blur those lines and make games a complex mix of fun and difficult at the same time.


It might be hard to pull off.
I voted no on the poll, but I'm still not sure if I made the right choice. In general I don't think they're too easy, but there are certain games or franchises that are just too easy.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 1, 2013)

Bioshock 1999 mode.
I died a lot less then I expected.
Also, the Scavenger hunt mode is that you should not buy from vending machines.
Even then, the Sirens where pretty easy to defeat ._.
Died only 3 times at the last battle after you murdered Comstock. 

And I'm a noob when it comes to FPSses.
So yes, gaming has become to easy.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 1, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> We can also look at Fire Emblem: Awakening, more specifically into the Lunatic+ mode, which is the highest difficulty in the game. *Enemies in the first chapters now have the capability to one shot you and counter your attacks with brutalizing damage.*


 
IMO, just ramping up enemy damage doesn't make a game harder, it makes it bullshit. 

Anyways, I find games to be a bit too easy, even on the harder difficulties. There are, of course, a few exceptions to the rules (like Dark/Demon Souls [fuck those games, seriously >.<]) but a majority of them are just too...simple, as you said to appeal to the casual masses. While this is nice and all, trying to appeal to more people, it kind of sucks for the more..."hardcore" market. We need more games like Dark Souls/Demons Souls, games that make us want to throw the controller because seriously fuck them hard.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 1, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> IMO, just ramping up enemy damage doesn't make a game harder, it makes it bullshit.
> 
> Anyways, I find games to be a bit too easy, even on the harder difficulties. There are, of course, a few exceptions to the rules (like Dark/Demon Souls [fuck those games, seriously >.<]) but a majority of them are just too...simple, as you said to appeal to the casual masses. While this is nice and all, trying to appeal to more people, it kind of sucks for the more..."hardcore" market. We need more games like Dark Souls/Demons Souls, games that make us want to throw the controller because seriously fuck them hard.


 

And those are the games I enjoy the most. I swear I've played Dark Souls with my brother and all we do is bitch and argue because shit like that is fun.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 1, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> And those are the games I enjoy the most. I swear I've played Dark Souls with my brother and all we do is bitch and argue because shit like that is fun.


 
I agree, I love Dark Souls to death. But fuck that game with a sideways rake


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 1, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> I agree, I love Dark Souls to death. But fuck that game with a sideways rake


 

Game is fun! I need more Ninja Gaiden type games or Dark Souls games. I don't care if I break my TV, I had fun doing it.  Simply ramping up damage really is just horse shit because it doesn't even become doable without serious luck. ._.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Oct 1, 2013)

RPGs like Fire Emblem rely mostly on luck, so a 'hard' difficulty is basically more gambling than playing.


----------



## ßleck (Oct 1, 2013)

There are challenging games out there nowadays. Yet most retro games seem so much harder in comparison. They are... Less forgiving. Some games today just help you too much, which can reduce the feeling of accomplishment. It doesn't ruin the entire game but my reaction is like "JUST LET ME DO STUFF BY MYSELF!!!". Luckily there are many games today that ARE genuinely difficult.


----------



## Gabbynaruto (Oct 1, 2013)

Is gaming becoming too easy? Yes, that's my answer. Most of the games I played are easy as pie. I'd really wish there were more games out there with locked hard to legendary difficulty, like Dark Souls. That game sure was fun, because it was so hard. But, no, that's not what people want. Sooner or later, people will complain at a 6 hours "game" because they have to press A once. The laziness... And we wonder why mobiles are taking over the "gaming" market. People are too lazy to bother with a hard game... Unfortunately.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 1, 2013)

piratesephiroth said:


> RPGs like Fire Emblem rely mostly on luck, so a 'hard' difficulty is basically more gambling than playing.


 

There are definitely manipulatable elements in Fire Emblem though.


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 1, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> I played that game too!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I hate that game.
I hate it so much, coz of crap like that.
I sold it
#NoRegrets
I've never rage quit an RPG so furiously before


----------



## MAXLEMPIRA (Oct 1, 2013)

I think, like you said before, we're getting older and with that, becoming more skilled, what I've notice is, I can beat, for example, Super Mario 3D Land very easily, but to my nieces (10 and 8) the game becomes so complicated that they gets angry because they can't beat some levels (3th World onwards) at least, that's what I've noticed, and can be a very good example of how we are becoming more skilled, another example, I remember when I played Crash Bandicoot in my "golden" days, about 15 years ago, that game were really really difficult, at least the first one, insomuch that I never beat it, then 15 years later, when I could get again another PS1, I played the same games as when I'm 6, what happen!? this is the easiest game ever!! why I can't beat it before!? ... hahaha ...


----------



## omgpwn666 (Oct 1, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I hate that game.
> I hate it so much, coz of crap like that.
> I sold it
> #NoRegrets
> I've never rage quit an RPG so furiously before


 
Lol Yeah, it is rage-tastic. I beat it just so I could say I did it. XD


----------



## Celice (Oct 1, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I hate that game.
> I hate it so much, coz of crap like that.
> I sold it
> #NoRegrets
> I've never rage quit an RPG so furiously before


You failed a great game :'(



piratesephiroth said:


> RPGs like Fire Emblem rely mostly on luck, so a 'hard' difficulty is basically more gambling than playing.


_what
_The Fire Emblem series is actually pretty predictable, and highly regulated by its own rulesets. It's hardly a luck-fested adventure :/


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Oct 1, 2013)

I've platinumed both Demon Souls & Dark Souls, those were the only difficult games this generation


----------



## piratesephiroth (Oct 2, 2013)

Celice said:


> _what_
> The Fire Emblem series is actually pretty predictable, and highly regulated by its own rulesets. It's hardly a luck-fested adventure :/



The point is that all the challenge comes from gambling. RPGs don't require fast reflexes and usually neither much memorization.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Oct 2, 2013)

The hand holding in many modern games has become fairly ridiculous. I can't recall the last game I played that I can say really challenged me as a gamer to get from start to finish in a fashion that didn't require the repetition of some mundane task in order to proceed through much of the game. It seems that developers are, these days, trying harder to tell a story than they are to make a game. Take big console releases like Uncharted: fun games, but good god, everything short of Crushing is ridiculously easy, with crushing just amping up the damage so much that you'll struggle no matter what, not because you're bad at the game, but because you can't dodge bullets like Neo. Moving to the handheld platforms, you already hit the nail on the head when talking about Super Mario 3D Land. I got that game, and damn it. I'm terrible at Mario, and I blazed through that game. I got halfway through the special levels, and it was still so easy that I just sold it. I was done with a game that didn't even try to challenge me, and that's without usage of the cheat suit.

I feel one of the biggest problems is that classically difficult games were either difficult due to hardware limitations, or were simply bound by the limitations of the time in thinking and skill (see: old NES games that were ridiculously hard to increase play time, or simply because they were just about broken). These days, we can do just about anything with a game that a developer is willing to try to get done, which also means that primarily we see fake difficulty, as being able to do anything you want opens the door to a lot of broken bullshit. For games that have done real difficulty right, Catherine comes to mind as a somewhat recent release that has genuinely challenged gamers to think in order to progress. Very few games do genuinely difficult right anymore though. It's the idea that the challenge will come with a feeling of reward upon completion. You feel like you earned the victory through skill rather than forcing yourself to deal with bullshit for long enough to get to the end. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are also very good modern examples of this within a genre that can present great difficulty when trying to make it hard without it being stupidly repetitive.

It's hard to say if difficulty can really be a thing anymore though amongst the majority of games. Many gamers have come to expect either a cinematic experience, or they are simply more tuned to the easiness of modern gaming as a whole. The biggest problem may be that most gamers don't want to be challenged anymore. They want to game for the sake of gaming, even if it may hurt the overall experience. The idea that you may die in a game 30 times in a well thought out challenge while slowly becoming a genuinely better player is becoming rather rare. I think open world gaming has come to establish a genre that can still maintain the idea of genuine difficulty, but even then, those games only really achieve that due to the non-linearity of the experience as a whole. You have a choice to throw yourself into dangerous, challenging situations, or to take it slow. It keeps everybody happy. I'd say for most other game types though, anymore, we're going to be hard pressed to find legitimately difficult experiences. Nintendo has ruined themselves trying to cater to casual gamers during the Wii/DS generation, and unfortunately, they are unlikely to recover from that as we now have six, nearly seven years of established expectations. That's just one company too. I'm sure with a bit of thinking, it wouldn't be too hard to find other companies that have picked easy over hard to sell games to the modern, more casual crowd of gamers.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 2, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> The hand holding in many modern games has become fairly ridiculous. I can't recall the last game I played that I can say really challenged me as a gamer to get from start to finish in a fashion that didn't require the repetition of some mundane task in order to proceed through much of the game. It seems that developers are, these days, trying harder to tell a story than they are to make a game. Take big console releases like Uncharted: fun games, but good god, everything short of Crushing is ridiculously easy, with crushing just amping up the damage so much that you'll struggle no matter what, not because you're bad at the game, but because you can't dodge bullets like Neo. Moving to the handheld platforms, you already hit the nail on the head when talking about Super Mario 3D Land. I got that game, and damn it. I'm terrible at Mario, and I blazed through that game. I got halfway through the special levels, and it was still so easy that I just sold it. I was done with a game that didn't even try to challenge me, and that's without usage of the cheat suit.
> 
> *I feel one of the biggest problems is that classically difficult games were either difficult due to hardware limitations, or were simply bound by the limitations of the time in thinking and skill (see: old NES games that were ridiculously hard to increase play time, or simply because they were just about broken).* These days, we can do just about anything with a game that a developer is willing to try to get done, which also means that primarily we see fake difficulty, as being able to do anything you want opens the door to a lot of broken bullshit. For games that have done real difficulty right, Catherine comes to mind as a somewhat recent release that has genuinely challenged gamers to think in order to progress. Very few games do genuinely difficult right anymore though. It's the idea that the challenge will come with a feeling of reward upon completion. You feel like you earned the victory through skill rather than forcing yourself to deal with bullshit for long enough to get to the end. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are also very good modern examples of this within a genre that can present great difficulty when trying to make it hard without it being stupidly repetitive.


 
That is a really good point that I didn't think about at the time of writing. And yeah, it's a bit of a shame that games as of late are more of a cinematic experience. Like Final Fantasy XIII, which was so ballsy linear and simplistic that I ended up not beating the game and returning it a few weeks later. ._.


----------



## DS1 (Oct 2, 2013)

For the sake of simplicity, let's not call grind-happy RPGs like Dragon Quest or NIS's 'strategy' games difficult. Finding 5 hours a day with which to toil away at some character's stats is difficult, but in the end it doesn't require any more effort or brainpower on your part (this is why people set up challenges for themselves like low-level, no magic, etc.). *and of course, Ryukouki's example of rerolling a game to get the desired results plays into this as well.

I'll just use this topic to forward my theory of PC gaming habits taking over gaming as a whole: Games like Ninja Gaiden and God Hand were only hard because dying meant you had to go all the way back to the beginning of a level (or back to the beginning of the game, as is the case with games that still use lives). Demon's Souls was something of an extension of that, minus the pain of losing your progress (if you can progress to the same point over and over, you'll eventually gain the strength to not get ****ed the next time. It's only when you get too ambitious/careless that the game rips you a new one).

PC games, on the other hand, have largely allowed players to save anywhere, at any time. I'm guessing this is in part because computers allow easy quick access to memory, while cartridges and later games that interface with little memory cards did not. In any case, starting with the XBox and moving up to the PS3, we've seen more and more PC-style games landing on consoles, and with them, the standards of PC gaming, including autosave and 'save-states'.

So even if Nintendo has made their platformers easier, they are no less difficult than a PS360 shooter that has checkpoints or allows you to save at any time.

Whether or not this impacts the enjoyment of a game is a different debate. First of all, what Ryukouki believes is a 'doable' challenge is completely subjective. I'm reminded of the Simpson's episode where Lisa states that she just wants a challenge that she herself can do, not one that is difficult by way of her own physicality or lack thereof:





We can say that Game A is 'too easy', and therefore not fun because it doesn't take us very long to exhaust the game's content (however enjoyable it is), and Game B is 'too hard', because we don't have the time/patience/skill to exhaust the content (ie; can't unlock everything because one challenge requires you to finish a certain difficulty mode). However, in each of these cases, we're talking about our enjoyment of the game coming strictly from whether or not we can complete it, and how long it takes to do so. Personally, I love roguelikes (of which Demon's Souls is sort-of a derivative), because the gameplay itself is fun. I can die 100 times and still feel satisfied playing, despite the fact that I might not get any closer to the end each time (or with full knowledge that I will NEVER get to the end).


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2013)

Games are becoming easier because it appeals to a broader audience, people nowadays don't have enough time to sit down and play a hard time consuming game. Most people are casual gamers' these days yet people don't seem to realise that, sure it's a sad site, but video games are made to sell. We are the minority in the gaming community, take Angry Birds, "648M downloads" marked in 2012, that game sells well because it's easy mindless fun.

I cannot stress this enough, video games are a business, not a charity.
(Now lets all count down the days till Dark Souls 2)


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 2, 2013)

DS1 said:


> *snip*


 

Good points! A lot of the times with me there is not a right or wrong answer, it really is subjective. I just like to see what can be done theoretically to enhance the overall video gaming experience.


----------



## 2ndApex (Oct 2, 2013)

Depends.

Super Mario 3D Land and FE:Awakening are both games that can easily cleared to the credits but have insanely hard modes on Lunatic+ and Special Level w/o white Tanooki.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 2, 2013)

You're talking about NES hard games though. The reason why those were hard was because of actual hardware limitations. Or developers just made the games damn near impossible to increase replayability.


And every game is becoming easier. It's because developers are scared to push away the casual crowd when they make a huge chunk of the install base.


----------



## Aeter (Oct 2, 2013)

You just reminded me of the game that still haunts me till this day, ghosts 'n goblins.


----------



## KingdomBlade (Oct 2, 2013)

I think that given the amount of indie games out there from a variety of really inventive developers, there's plenty of difficult games out there for those willing to look. Try Cloudberry Kingdom and tell me that's not difficult enough for you. Plenty of the indie games out there are horrifyingly difficult or plain challenging. Mainstream developers are much less willing to alienate an audience, so they avoid difficulties that are too high.


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 2, 2013)

Modern gaming is getting easier. The 14/15 year olds that play modern games are like, "Fuck, this is too hard. Time to look up the online tutorials for beating this section of the game." So instead of keeping the games so hard that you have to look up a tutorial for help, they'll just make the games easier. Besides, if you've been doing something for more than 10 years, chances are that you'll be better at whatever it is you were doing for that ten years. (please no sex addicts comment replies to this)

A personal thought from me: did anyone else think Skyward Sword was hard to play? I don't mean Zelda II: Adventure of Link hard, but just a generally hard game?


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 2, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> Modern gaming is getting easier. The 14/15 year olds that play modern games are like, "Fuck, this is too hard. Time to look up the online tutorials for beating this section of the game." So instead of keeping the games so hard that you have to look up a tutorial for help, they'll just make the games easier. Besides, if you've been doing something for more than 10 years, chances are that you'll be better at whatever it is you were doing for that ten years. (please no sex addicts comment replies to this)
> 
> *A personal thought from me: did anyone else think Skyward Sword was hard to play? I don't mean Zelda II: Adventure of Link hard, but just a generally hard game?*


 

That game was tough at times. I think I wanted to break my wiimote in the Lanayru mines several times.


----------



## DS1 (Oct 2, 2013)

We could even categorize games into 'those that punish mistakes' and 'those that allow for several mistakes'. This can be done by one-hit kills (like many old NES games) VS long/regenerating life bars, restarts VS checkpoints, or simply punishing (difficult, calculating opponents) VS  leniency (weak opponents, room for error).

But of course this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not a game is enjoyable or not. For the most part, we are speaking about two, maybe three genres (action, RPG, shooting). What about sports games? Was WiEl/PES better than FIFA because you couldn't score a million goals per half? Hot Shots vs Tiger Woods? Gran Turismo vs Mario Kart?


----------



## w!! (Oct 2, 2013)

I think it's just a sign of the times and culture now, versus the retro days. Now we have the ability to save every game at almost any point. Back in the day, it was play through it in a sitting, or save infrequently/use codes for level select. Gave you more drive to get through the game. Also, we've now lost the concept of "Lives". I think this is due to the face that the gamers today just want to have a short game, or fun and if a game is too challenging or difficult, they will just move on to another game. Which leads to the availability issue. Back in the retro days, we bought a game for a single platform for a ton of money and played it through. Now you have a huge selection, some that still cost a lot, but tons that are cheap or free. Available on many different platforms.

I think that "kids" now a days have shorter attention spans, feel more entitled to things like achievements and if the games are too hard, they give up and move on. Speaking generally that is... not everyone  Anymore it's about accomplishing the short goals, than winning the game.

I also think games with "Lunatic" modes are just trying to be toss backs to a harder time, but go overboard... but at least they name the mode properly. 

The game companies want to pander to the masses, have people play short or easy games where you have to buy bonuses to get higher achievements to rake in money. The more games you play and the more achievements you get/are challenged with get them more money. If it's too hard, people move on and they don't get the money. If you spend all your time playing one game with no purchase options, then they get a big upfront sum, but no continuing income.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 2, 2013)

To be fair, a lot of games from the NES/SNES era were difficult to pad out the length. Kids might only get one or two games a year if they were lucky, so you had to make sure your game would last. Some developers did this well (Castlevania, Mega Man, etc.), and many... didn't (most titles that make their way to the AVGN).

Games have certainly gotten easier, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I only have so much time to spare for gaming, so I want games that respect my time. I'm all for a challenge, but make it something that tests my skills, not just my patience.

Some recent games have managed this well. Rayman: Origins has an absolutely perfect difficulty curve, and there's extra challenges for players who want to push themselves even further. In Bastion, instead of a difficulty slider, has idols that you can choose to select- each one modifies the gameplay in various ways, forcing the player to adapt their playstyle accordingly. Hotline Miami is hard as balls, but since death has basically no consequences (you respawn instantly, there's no lives to speak of, and the rooms are usually small enough), you're encouraged to experiment and go wild. Dark Souls... well, it's Dark Souls. 'Nuff said.

I'd like to see more developers look to these examples for inspiration. Sure beats the standard "Bullet sponge enemies with improbable aim=challenging" standard that most developers seem to shoot for.


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 2, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> That game was tough at times. I think I wanted to break my wiimote in the Lanayru mines several times.


 
Was that in the part with the volcano? Or the desert? I know I hated that temple in the desert: I hated that more than the volcano, actually. (Can I say one more thing regarding this?) I wish that you could've just slashed through the enemies instead of having to strategize. I know this is part of the classic Zelda games, but there were just some times that I got angry and wanted to decapitate things that move.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Oct 2, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> IMO, just ramping up enemy damage doesn't make a game harder, it makes it bullshit.


 
Couldn't agree more.

I find it terribly enraging when a game's hard mode means you will get killed if I hit you once, instead of twice. There are more ways to add difficulty to a game. Simply overpowering adversaries is stupid and makes the game less enjoyable.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 2, 2013)

WhiteMaze said:


> Couldn't agree more.
> 
> I find it terribly enraging when a game's hard mode means you will get killed if I hit you once, instead of twice. There are more ways to add difficulty to a game. Simply overpowering adversaries is stupid and makes the game less enjoyable.


 

THere wasn't any reason to add an uber counter on the first stage in Fire Emblem Awakening's Lunatic+. 

(although, I think I'm more bitter towards that game because I loaned it to a cousin and he fucking deleted the completed Lunatic+ to make his own shit. )


----------



## Sop (Oct 2, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> I played that game too!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Dark Souls isn't that hard, I'm up to NG + 11 on one character. That is NG+++++++++++


----------



## Fishaman P (Oct 2, 2013)

There are many exceptions, but overall I'd say the difficulty is declining.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Oct 2, 2013)

For me it really isn't an issue. While, yes, sometimes I do like a challenge, I'm more concerned about the story and the experience overall. There really is no reward to me for being punished over and over again in the same area. Most folks would have a reaction like "Yeah! Suck it! I'm Awesome!" Me, I'm more like "Good god, thank fuck that's over."


----------



## WhiteMaze (Oct 2, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> (although, I think I'm more bitter towards that game because I loaned it to a cousin and he fucking deleted the completed Lunatic+ to make his own shit. )


 
I hate when someone does that to me.


----------



## anhminh (Oct 2, 2013)

Why do your think they make cheat code?
Not everyone can play game without frustrating when they fail. I never forget the first time I play Mario, I always end up jump right in to that koppa face.
That just to say it not the game too easy, you guy are just too hardcore, that all.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Oct 2, 2013)

anhminh said:


> Why do your think they make cheat code?
> Not everyone can play game without frustrating when they fail. I never forget the first time I play Mario, I always end up jump right in to that koppa face.
> That just to say it not the game too easy, you guy are just too hardcore, that all.


 
Mkaaaaaaaaay ._.

Well I still think videogames are indeed getting easier in order to appeal to the casual gamer. After all, ever since the Wii that we know that that's where the big bucks are.

What a shame..


----------



## Sychu (Oct 2, 2013)

I have felt this way since the advent of the Wii. I always tell people that mario galaxy would have been my favorite out of the series had it not bored me to death for most of the game with its difficulty level. Easy/Casual games sell far far greater than more traditional cut-throat games but i beleive the key is to always give the player an option in difficulty which many casual games have failed to do.

A buisnesses no.1 priority is always "thier" bottom line and if they can make more $$ by doing things a certain way then it will be done:

Tripping in brawl > >
Casual oriented game system the Wii (I actually am fond of the motion controls for certain titles)
Bullet Magnetism in many FPS games   ()
Increased Randomness in mario kart (honestly mario kart DD was the last great mk imo though mkds was awesome too.)
Casual mode in fire emblem (atleast we got to keep normal mode)
Watered down zelda (i stopped playing after twilight princess, tp  was such an awesome game but just so glaringly easy and thus bland.)
e.t.c e.t.c. e.t.c.

Now compare the sales of each of those games in comparison to there counter-parts and more likely than not the casual version will have broken records in sales. Of course this is just my hunch i haven't "really" looked into it yet so if im wrong then i'll accept the fact.

Also i find that with this new era of casualness the arcade and indie scenes have also risen to the top on the sidelines with many challenging and unique games so its not like hard difficulty is gone for good. Can't wait to play Mighty No. 9!


----------



## EMP Knightmare (Oct 2, 2013)

Honestly I can't remember the last time a game challenged me  It might sound cocky if you will but when you're as old as me things tend to repeat themselves in various forms. Same thing just wrapped differently . . . . . . . . . kinda sucks really


----------



## ILuvGames (Oct 2, 2013)

I am surprised no-one has mentioned the difficulty of the early 80's arcade games, especially japanese shmups. Or maybe my memory and my reactions are just getting slower in my old age  .


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 2, 2013)

I used to think that games were harder when I was younger simply because I was younger, but I've gone back and played some of those games, and they were legitimately difficult.  Super Empire Strikes Back?  Game's still hard to this day on EASY mode.  Back in the golden-age, it was an accomplishment to beat a game.  These days, it's an inevitability.  I love you, Zelda, but I yearn for the days when Navi annoyed you to teach you the mechanics of the game, not solve the puzzles for you and tell you what to do.  Only game I can think of relatively recently that I've played and been unable to finish was Sin and Punishment: Star Successor (that final boss on Hard mode is HARD!).


----------



## elgarta (Oct 2, 2013)

Hmm, I wouldn't say games are becoming too easy, but rather that they were previously too difficult. Remember, alot of older games were built around the "succeed through repetition" or "coin eating" philosophy.

Alot of games do start off rather easy, but they get harder as they go along, and in many cases you can still create your own challenge by using the game mechanics.

Look at Super Mario 3D land for example. I felt it was way too easy until I got to the second set of worlds, and boy was that difficult for me at first. Now, for me the game was very easy whenever I had a tanooki tail/suit, since the slow fall was a god-send. If I wanted to ramp up the challenge, I could play through levels with no powerups or stick to non tanooki powerups since I don't do so well otherwise. And my son-in-law who is now 8 years old finds the game difficult anyway, and he has been playing Mario games for a while now. He still has trouble with NSMB on the DS, but he isn't exactly bad at the game or anything.

Even Final Fantasy XIII-2, which I thought was in itself the easiest Final Fantasy game I have played, made it easy for me to control the difficulty curve, as did XIII (although by default it was harder I thought). Since you control your leveling to an extent, you just hold off on boosting your characters. XIII-2 was a fun and occasionally difficult game for me when I leveled sparingly. The bosses offered more challenge, and even the random encounters took a few attacks to take out. I thought it made it more fun, but if I wanted to do a quicker re-play I could just level whenever I had points and breeze through it.


----------



## marksteele (Oct 2, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> IMO, just ramping up enemy damage doesn't make a game harder, it makes it bullshit.


 

That's my issue with a lot of games now, especially FPS's. What ever happened to games like goldeneye, where difficulty meant NEW objectives. My idea of a hard difficulty is having harder enemies in conjunction with harder objectives. That's what game devs really need to do.


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 2, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> I used to think that games were harder when I was younger simply because I was younger, but I've gone back and played some of those games, and they were legitimately difficult. Super Empire Strikes Back? Game's still hard to this day on EASY mode. Back in the golden-age, it was an accomplishment to beat a game. These days, it's an inevitability. I love you, Zelda, but I yearn for the days when Navi annoyed you to teach you the mechanics of the game, not solve the puzzles for you and tell you what to do. Only game I can think of relatively recently that I've played and been unable to finish was *Sin and Punishment: Star Successor* (that final boss on Hard mode is HARD!).


 
I need to play this game; I want a good challenge. Kick some tail (now there's something I haven't done in a while.) And I like how you say that the final boss on hard mode is hard. This is so satisfyingly amusing.


----------



## DaggerV (Oct 2, 2013)

I've started to come of the opinion that difficulty is mostly psychological. Take Dark Soul and Demon Soul, mostly Dark Soul for me since I only played the latter a few hours, that game was kicking my ass most of the time, normal simple enemies, fuck the bosses. Even after owning the game I year, I still couldn't beat it. However, one day I was at a friend's house and he was playing this game, and the way he played felt soooo much like monster hunter, a game i dominated at. I loaded my game back up and flew through the game, dying only to the crystal dragon really a few times. Once I got over the oh shit I might die and moved on to I'm going to kick you ass, the game was a breeze. Same with the old Ghost and Goblin, I was a bit rusty picking that game up for the first time in over a decade, but I flew through it, and it's dubbed one of the hardest game ever I believe. 


Also didn't read thread, drunk, will come back tomorrow.


----------



## Vipera (Oct 2, 2013)

////


----------



## mr. fancypants (Oct 2, 2013)

yep playing with a shiny leaf mario is pretty easy u only have to touch yes touch bowser to win (in-game cheating)


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Oct 2, 2013)

Wow this is a complex question that I have never really considered that much. I often will say a game is too easy or too hard and I know on the surface that game balance is one of the tougher issues in game design. 

Part of the equation is fun factor, if a game is too hard its not fun and if it's too easy it has no challenge so it's again no fun. Another factor is player skill, sure I can rip through most any game in hours if it's not an RPG (then I enjoy the grind for some odd reason I really enjoy being OP in those cases.) So trying to balance a game for your target audience is also a super hard challenge. 

I guess it's like trying to guess what kind of chili people like, some people like a lot of beans some people hate any beans and there are a million different recipes, as long as it's labeled right I guess you can kind of get an idea of what your getting into...


----------



## Hielkenator (Oct 2, 2013)

Donkey Kong country returns
Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2
Monster Hunter
Xenoblade Chronicles

HARD ENOUGH FOR ME and still AAA FUN!


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2013)

All these long paragraphs of useless repetitive posts. I thought this was meant to be a discussion?

Can we not just sum it up to be:* Games are getting easier because that's what the general audience wants.*


----------



## Issac (Oct 2, 2013)

My main problem with Nintendos hand holding in the recent Mario games is that "if the option to get help appears (even if you don't take it) you will NOT be able to get the rainbow colored stars at the save file EVER". That makes me save and reset and fuck around instead of just focusing on playing. So what if I die 5 times in a row, I don't want any help ever!


----------



## Sakitoshi (Oct 2, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> Bioshock 1999 mode.
> I died a lot less then I expected.
> Also, the Scavenger hunt mode is that you should not buy from vending machines.
> Even then, the Sirens where pretty easy to defeat ._.
> ...


did you played without using the vending machines?? there is a trophy for doing so and god this game is hard without weapon upgrades.



Black-Ice said:


> I hate that game.
> I hate it so much, coz of crap like that.
> I sold it
> #NoRegrets
> I've never rage quit an RPG so furiously before


 
you know, you can turn the camera and explore a little more what you see ahead instead of rush and attack mindlessly like on that gif, he could perfectly had used magic or arrows to lure the enemy.



CanuckBuck said:


> I've platinumed both Demon Souls & Dark Souls, those were the only difficult games this generation


 
you are forgetting Borderlands 2 on vault hunter mode or superior, try to play solo and you'll know what I mean.

EDIT: I didn't even touched the format or anything and the rich text editor added a color code to my text.... weird.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> IMO, just ramping up enemy damage doesn't make a game harder, it makes it bullshit.


 

I would like to expand a little bit on this point. Games that tend to rely on numbers to build the difficulty curve do not benefit from "difficulty" increases. 

Lets use Skyrim for an example. I live in the camp that finds Skyrim boring, repetitive, and dull. This camp is bigger than you expect btw. About a year ago, Bethesda decided that they were going to release a difficultly patch to make the game harder, thus more enjoyable. What Bethesda didnt account for, was that the game was still largely, boring.  If the mechanics arent there to create immerse and enjoyable gameplay, a difficulty ramping does not do what the developer intends. Now a game like fire emblem awakening fares differently TO A POINT. The original gameplay and mechanics are enjoyable. If you want to experience the game again, but with a bit more of a challenge, by all means, punch up the damage. Lunatic+ is where this model breaks.  Rolling for stats and abilities is no longer fun or how someone should be playing a game, its betting against the RNG system. 

The reason we see so much of this "numbers" game is because well... its easy for the developer to do. It takes almost nothing for the game to change up how much damage that guy does now. To make real and challenging difficulty differences, you need to invest time and work into the development process. Different level design, adding enemies, changing enemy attack patterns, and so on. Because numbers don make a game any more fun if you didn't care for the original. 

On the other side of things, yeah, I do agree that games are getting to easy. Story modes are hand holding walkthroughs, and are so short they could be bedtime stories. 

"hey did you get the new Final Fantasy game?" 
"Yeah all 10 hours of it" 

So lets look into another interesting turn of events. 
/Gets out Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy
Both of these games are fantasic, no? But lets look at how devs have changed in their ways from 1996 to 2007. The biggest thing that sticks out (gameplay/mechanics wise) is the two different approaches to difficulty. 

-SM64 is HARD. Ok, you cannot tell me getting 100 coins on rainbow ride is "easy". You cannot tell me you got to the top of tictoc clock and stomped the thwamp with one try. Ok? 
-SMG is... huh. Take a look at this. Its no longer what you would call "hard". It falls into what I can only categorize as... frustrating. 

It would seen that games are getting away from what we used to feel was a "hard" game and lean on characteristics of games the are more frustrating and not fair. SM64 took massive skills to take on. SMG just takes heavy doses of luck to get past the cheap ass ice skating evil mario clone. The same seems to go for the dichotomy between SSB Melee and Brawl. Melee took skills, technique and practice. Brawl changes thing up and makes it anyones game, regardless of prior "training". With the addition of the Smash orb or whatever that unregulated and game breaking thing was called, slower reaction speeds, closer screen edges and various "cheap" characters with unfair mechanics, Brawl was no longer about the true king of the hill and more about how could out cheap everyone else. 

In other aspects, yes i really do thing games are getting easier, shorter, and more hand holdy.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 2, 2013)

A thing to point out - if you want a serious challenge, AAA gaming is probably not the place to look. That's not to say that AAA is automatically awful or evil or whatever, but those games are pretty costly to make. They're designed to appeal to as many people as possible. Developers aren't going to include mechanics that could potentially scare away customers.

Difficulty isn't dead, it's just gone indie for the most part. Those developers are much more willing to cater to the niche.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 2, 2013)

Sakitoshi said:


> did you played without using the vending machines?? there is a trophy for doing so and god this game is hard without weapon upgrades.



Please fix your font colours.
Hard to read on Darktheme.

No, Weapon upgrades don't count for that achievement.
It's purely the Dollar bills ones.


----------



## Arras (Oct 2, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> /Gets out Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy
> Both of these games are fantasic, no? But lets look at how devs have changed in their ways from 1996 to 2007. The biggest thing that sticks out (gameplay/mechanics wise) is the two different approaches to difficulty.
> 
> -SM64 is HARD. Ok, you cannot tell me getting 100 coins on rainbow ride is "easy". You cannot tell me you got to the top of tictoc clock and stomped the thwamp with one try. Ok?
> ...


 
This also heavily depends on the player. The highest amount of stars I ever got in SM64 was 112 or something and the only ones I were missing were 100 coin stars because IMO those were just frustrating to get for several reasons. On the other hand I never had much problems with the Mario clone as long as you were fast (which required skill in quite a few levels). The only really frustrating levels I can remember in that game were the 100 purple-coin collectathons where they were scattered over the entire map. Getting most of them wasn't that bad but you were left wandering around trying to find the final ones for like 20 minutes occasionally.
I do agree that Brawl was much cheaper than Melee though but IIRC Sakurai has said he wants to fix that and make the next game a bit in between.


----------



## N00ByBo0 (Oct 2, 2013)

Games are lacking difficulty settings nowadays, which is mostly what Nintendo games should get. I don't know, but Super Mario Land 6 golden coins is one of the games that did this perfectly. You had an option to press start (or was it select?) in file select screen to enter 'easy mode'. 

Honestly this is what every game should do. Put hard/normal on default and 'casual baby mode' by pressing start or whatever for the ones that need it.

.. Or even just what the old Megaman games did, which is even more simple difficulty setting screen. 

*TL;DR: don't force casual bullshit*

Also, I didn't read this whole thread, but only OP.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Oct 2, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> No, Weapon upgrades don't count for that achievement.
> It's purely the Dollar bills ones.


 
ohhh thank godness.
I think I'll start my 1999 run again some day, too many silver eagles wasted only to revive and missed opportunities to buy upgrades.
I liked the difficulty that my no upgrades run was giving, but on games with good stories I prefer having a more accessible difficulty, even with upgrades I think will be challenging.


----------



## Metoroid0 (Oct 2, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> I played that game too!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's super cool game where you learn through trial and error 

but seriously, there should be more save point than just bonfires


----------



## linuxunil (Oct 2, 2013)

What changed:

*Things that you get on the game:*
back in the NES age, when you push start on Zelda, you start with nothing and anybody tells you what to do. If you die you start all over.
Today, you get a map, 999999 funds and a bazooka. You always have something pointing you the next exit and if you die it's no problem because you restart almost on the exact point you died.

*Information:*
Back on the NES theres no internet. If you dont know how to pass a stage, all you can do is cry. Later the gamer magazines started to show up, with some information that started to help. I will always remember the time that i bought a gamer magazine that comes with the complete metroid map. 

*Basic Gameplay:*
Back there, the idea that you have to press UP to enter in a door was almost ALIEN. 
Today, it's natural.

*People that play:*
Back there, if you play videogames you are a teen nerd that have a nes. 
Today a 2 year child plays videogames. 

*Time to play:*
Back there the nerd plays for a entire afternoon. 
Today, people have less time. And the most sucess games are the ones that you can finish a stage in less than 1 hour

I can go on and on, but people will never read this.. so...

The last game that push me to the limit was Advance Wars 2 on my GBA   (i miss this game).


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 2, 2013)

Sakitoshi said:


> ohhh thank godness.
> I think I'll start my 1999 run again some day, too many silver eagles wasted only to revive and missed opportunities to buy upgrades.
> I liked the difficulty that my no upgrades run was giving, but on games with good stories I prefer having a more accessible difficulty, even with upgrades I think will be challenging.


 

Good strategy is to upgrade your sniper (if you're a bit good with snipering) and Carbine.
Always keep your Carbine even if it's empty.
When Elizabeth says she gots ammo for you, switch to your Carbine before accepting.

As for Vigors, I spammed Murder of crows an awful lot.
And made a lot of use of Posession. 
So it's worth upgrading those as well.

Also, if you just passed a checkpoint and die, just reload your save and try again.
If you're fighting against the Siren, make sure you set her minions a blaze/electrocute them.
So that they burn up instead of die normally (Sirens can't reanimate vanished minions ;])

Also, it could happen (dunno if it's patched or not) that enemies are fighting each other.
Like normal Founder/Vox Populi soldiers are fighting Handymans/Firemen/Patriots, let them attack each other and stand back a little while.
Not only will this damage the heavy hitter, it also eliminates most other enemies.

As for Gear power ups.
If you have the Extra! Extra! Extra! power up (Collectors edition), switch that on before you pick up a recorder.
Sheltered life is a must (grants brief invulnerability when you gain health) 
Other then that.. Bullet boon for larger magazines is a must (more shots before reloading)
Scavenger vest is a must if you killed a group and can safely loot them 
Vampire Embrace is a must if you use Melee.
Urgent care is a must..

Humm, try to find every infusion bottle.
I'd say upgrade your health and shield a lot.
Salts are relatively easy to come by. 



Doing that will make 1999 mode significantly easier ;]


----------



## Vipera (Oct 2, 2013)

////


----------



## Rob Blou (Oct 2, 2013)

Ikaruga is amazing ... the best shoot em up ever imho. It's simple, there's only 5 levels but I never finished the game because it's so darn hard :S


----------



## Sakitoshi (Oct 2, 2013)

Rob Blou said:


> Ikaruga is amazing ... the best shoot em up ever imho. It's simple, there's only 5 levels but I never finished the game because it's so darn hard :S


 
bullet hell cannot be compared with other games, they require waaaay to much practice and skill to complete without struggling and end up using all of your bombs.
basically, bullet hell games meant to be extremely difficult.

the Touhou series is one of my favorites of that genre and with over 14 games I only completed Imperishable Night on normal 1cc, easy don't count. at least I can be proud of defeating Suika on lunatic on Immaterial and Missing Power, but that is a fighting game.


----------



## pasc (Oct 2, 2013)

Glad I'm not the only one noticing this.

Hard in it's definition shouldn't mean:
"Have to repeat by poor design choice".

I wonder if devs get this.



Rob Blou said:


> Ikaruga is amazing ... the best shoot em up ever imho. It's simple, there's only 5 levels but I never finished the game because it's so darn hard :S


 
Have you ever tried Takatis ?


----------



## Thomas83Lin (Oct 2, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> ​What is it with video games as of late? It feels like gaming is becoming too easy. Could it be that we as gamers are *getting older and becoming more skilled*, therefore knowing what to look for in games to progress?​


I like to say this is the case.lol but "most" of the games today just don't feel nearly as challenging. I know this because I don't throw the controller nearly as often.lol


Spoiler









My actual tv, but this was a accident. thanks to Target Toss Pro and not wearing the strap. Damn you Wiiware


----------



## PityOnU (Oct 2, 2013)

Perhaps games have become easier because the technology has improved to the point where the interfaces are genuinely ergonomic and easy to use? :derp:

Mario 64 and Ocarina are difficult games to beat... but only because the graphics and camera controls are so horrible.

Software developers are now able to explain to a player what they are supposed to do. They probably would have done it before as well, but they were so limited in terms of processing power and storage space that they simply couldn't. Cue the NES and SNES games.

Games shouldn't be hard to play. They should be hard to master.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 3, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> Perhaps games have become easier because the technology has improved to the point where the interfaces are genuinely ergonomic and easy to use? :derp:
> 
> Mario 64 and Ocarina are difficult games to beat... but only because the graphics and camera controls are so horrible.
> 
> ...


Um, why would dated graphics make a game hard to beat?

Also I disagree with telling players exactly what to do (id est, tutorials and text boxes constantly shoved in your face). I don't think they should be left completely in the dark like some older games do, but learning and teaching the player should be intuitive and part of the experience, not immersion and pace breaking. And many old games did the former quite well. It all depends on the kind of game, too


----------



## PityOnU (Oct 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Um, why would dated graphics make a game hard to beat?


 
As an example, the first (and only) time I tried to play through OoT on the N64, I got stuck in the Fire Temple because I could not see a ledge to jump to. Its bad textures made it blend in with the rest of everything and was effectively invisible to me.

Also, horrible camera controls are pretty much exclusively responsible for my deaths in Mario 64. Incredibly frustrating.



xwatchmanx said:


> Also I disagree with telling players exactly what to do (id est, tutorials and text boxes constantly shoved in your face). I don't think they should be left completely in the dark like some older games do, but learning and teaching the player should be intuitive and part of the experience, not immersion and pace breaking. And many old games did the former quite well. It all depends on the kind of game, too


 
Do games not do this anymore?

The only game ever that I remember told the player exactly what to do was NSMB wherein if you collected all of the gold coins from a level you could go back to the start of the world and spend them on watching a video of a "pro run" of the level in question. As I am not a speed run maniac, I quickly dismissed this feature and ignored it for the rest of the game.


----------



## Parasite X (Oct 3, 2013)

For those that wine about the White Tanooki suit I just have this to say no one's making you equip it to mario you make that choice I for one like the suit it almost eliminates the need for a gameshark my point is if your against the White Tanooki suit don't use but don't wine about using it because its your choice.


----------



## sporkonomix (Oct 3, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> Modern gaming is getting easier. The 14/15 year olds that play modern games are like, "Fuck, this is too hard. Time to look up the online tutorials for beating this section of the game." So instead of keeping the games so hard that you have to look up a tutorial for help, they'll just make the games easier. Besides, if you've been doing something for more than 10 years, chances are that you'll be better at whatever it is you were doing for that ten years. (please no sex addicts comment replies to this)
> 
> A personal thought from me: did anyone else think Skyward Sword was hard to play? I don't mean Zelda II: Adventure of Link hard, but just a generally hard game?


 
I didn't think so. It was so-so on Normal Mode, but Hero Mode felt great, despite it being just a double-damage, no heart run. I'm a biased Zelda vet, though, and have 3-hearted half of the series... 6-hearted SS just a little while ago. My next challenge is 6-heart Hero Mode, no Heart Medal, no shield!


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Oct 3, 2013)

I would have to say yes, for the most part, games nowadays are easier. It is because of changing views on game development and also because I'm growing up, and am therefore getting more experience and skill.

I got a 3DS recently, and one of the first games I popped in was NSMB2. I played it, and was having a hard time with getting the three coins (I kept dying in the process). Eventually, a golden leaf showed up, and I was like "Wtf is this?" I then used it, and ended up finishing the level with ease. That game has become completely designed for little kids, casual gamers (not that there's anything wrong with them), etc. I have over 150 lives. That's a bit excessive, don't you think? I prefer games that give a choice for difficulties. This is usually only relevant for RPGs, though. Since I mostly play RPGs for the story, I pick Normal for the first playthrough, because while I don't want to spend forever grinding or lucking out in RNG, I also don't want to end up being able to just press X and kill enemies without thinking.


----------



## The Minecrafter (Oct 3, 2013)

Games are definitely getting too easy and pandering toward the casual crowd of facebook and angry bird "gamers" and forgetting the people who actually want a decent challenge. Here are some quotes from the cancelled AMBROV X kickstarter project to give an example of what the industry thinks of gamers' abilities today:



> Over the past decade or two, games have already made great strides on number one. Many (possibly most?) games now offer different difficulty levels, and many (most?) of those allow you to change difficulty on the fly. In Bioware games, there are often load screen hints suggesting that if a fight is too difficult, you reduce the difficulty level so you can get through it. But for* people already struggling on the lowest difficulty*, those hints don’t help, since there is no lower difficulty to bounce to. It seems like an *obvious next step to allow a “skip combat*” or “*press to win*” option that players can select when a particular fight is too tough for them. This way, when you buy a game, you will always know that t*here is a way to complete it and have a satisfying experience regardless of your skill level*.


 
And:


> But the* two thirds of players who never finish most games* are obviously not willing or able to get to the triumph – for them, the game is remembered only as frustrating and eventually games in general become too associated with frustration to keep playing.


 
I find this really sad and pathetic that the industry considers gamers so bad at games that they even _thought _of an option to skip combat or "press to win" in a game. Or the fact that apparently two thirds of "gamers" don't even finish the games because they are "too hard" when they are easier than ever nowadays. I play games because I want a challenge, I don't want an interactive movie where I can press a button and win the game. Games these days do _*so *_much handholding, helping out, checkpoints, guides, etc... that almost all of the challenge is gone. And yet, people still struggle with these types of games. I haven't seen many recent games that are actually fun, but geniunely challenging and difficult.

One game that I was happily delighted with the difficulty was Fortune Summoners: Secret of the Elemental Stone. It was a really fun and entertaining game, and looked very simple and easy. It was HARD. The enemies were not only fast and strong, they were _smart_. They would dodge your attacks, and quickly retaliate. You could not button mash, as your attacks have delays, and you would quickly die.

Some might think that the people who were playing games for a long time have nostalgia goggles on in regards to the difficulty, but then I start playing some of my older games and realize that the old games are still very tough and the games nowadays are a lot easier. True, the games may seem to be easier because of your gained skill and reflexes, but the new games primarily don't have that same level of difficulty. I liked it when games would beat your a** so many times that you lost count, so that when you finally beat the game, you have an immense feeling of satisfaction of crushing the enemies. You just don't get that with most games today.

Anyway, that's my two cents on that topic.

Also, everyone should try out Fortune Summoners. It is a fantastic game.


----------



## tbgtbg (Oct 4, 2013)

Unless you can beat the game while playing with your feet, it's never too easy.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 4, 2013)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Eventually, a golden leaf showed up, and I was like "Wtf is this?" I then used it, and ended up finishing the level with ease.


I'm sorry,but


Spoiler











If you want a challenge so much, why did you use it? It apparently wasn't for you. Now go back and complete it without it.

I think it varieties between games and I don't buy that making the enemies stronger or you weaker doesn't count.

Especially if it unlock new things. It also depends if you are trying to complete everything or just
trying to get to the end.


----------



## MegaBassBX (Oct 4, 2013)

I was waiting for someone to bring this up , back in 2010 when I played the long awaited golden sun 3 I hoped for those difficult puzzles and powerful bosses but what I get is a super easy puzzles and a final boss that looks like a mini boss to me in fact when I beat the final boss I thought the real boss will come now , but instead they surprise me with the end credit , any way I feel nostalgic recently and I wanted to play the first golden sun , take care that I played the first game on the time of release that was like 9 years ago , and get this i failed to solve the first easy puzzle , and lost twice to normal random monster and felt so burdened. With everything in the game ,  I feel sad to the way  the game industry is going to become what a shame


----------



## Fat D (Oct 4, 2013)

To me, a game can be two things. A skill challenge and an interactive story. Personally I prefer the latter, and I am not too happy when games hold the story hostage for a challenge too difficult for my tastes.


----------



## Mythrix (Oct 5, 2013)

I was too lazy to read through the thread so I don't know if anyone wrote something like this already, but maybe they are making games easier so that people can finish them faster and then proceed to buy more games!

Probably not. But I certainly have enough games that I've started playing some of them in "easy mode" just to finish them quicklier... And it's still just barely helping. :|


----------



## Redhorse (Oct 5, 2013)

piratesephiroth said:


> RPGs like Fire Emblem rely mostly on luck, so a 'hard' difficulty is basically more gambling than playing.


 
You are entitled to your opinion however;

I would argue that in the first point, Fire Emblem is a SRPG = strategy role playing game, as is it's sister game Advance Wars, not simply an RPG...

Second point being: on Fire Emblem if you can pull off consistent results on the subsequent play-through [same scenario] that's strategy, not gambling. I can do the same with chess every day. Gambling includes a factor randomly out of your control, again not like simply increasing a difficulty level at start...

I've been replaying Fire Emblem and F.E. Sacred Stone on all levels for over ten years now and can reproduce the exact same results time and again with patience as can many others which proof can be found in play-through s (Let's Play's) found on youtube...

I would exclude the F.E. Awakening from that statement and agree with the difficulty being gambling if it is 'artificially challenging. When a game is designed (read coded) to favor the opponent with disproportionate benefits not given to you also (simply because you chose a higher playing level), that is 'artificially' inflated challenge.

Take a game like Professor Layton whatever, I've been collection puzzles since I was a teen. Many of the puzzles included in that game have been around for generations. HOWEVER, many are presented either mis-worded or leave out some key piece of information when asking for the result as to make the answer only a guess even if you KNOW the proper answer.
Example, if they show you a box of chickens, hens and young chicks, give you some equation and then ask how many chickens are in the result (but are expecting you to exclude the hens to that list) and they fail you for not knowing they required you to exclude a specific criteria (hens here) That ids artificially inflating the challenge for no reason and takes away from the fun, as either answer would have been correct without that pre-requisite...

I feel all your ideas are valid though...

Sorry for the rant just explaining an idea..

Gday.

EDIT1 Just for the record, I was disappointed in this Fire Emblem awakening for these very reasons: One level was too easy another was artificially difficult.

"One mans poison..." I guess...


----------



## piratesephiroth (Oct 6, 2013)

After every challenge there must be a decent reward to keep us interested and motivated. Anything will do: new weapons, abilities or even a surprising new level or boss battle.

These newer games are mostly refurbished old ideas. Some are so dumb they have to make checkpoints and tutorials everywhere to stop the player from quitting out of boredom.
I can remember Megaman 9 and 10, for example. I could never bother to finish them, because they are challenging but also awfully predictable (and really crappy). After 10 minutes I was already bored and moved to other game. Only someone who never played a Megaman game (or some braindead fanboy) would enjoy those.

Also I wouldn't compare Fire Emblem to chess... all the gambling I can see in chess setting up some trap hoping the adversary overlooks something and commits a mistake. And that would hopefully work only against a human opponent.
The game itself is 100% pure logic and that's why nobody can beat a computer (unless it's designed to commit mistakes intentionally).

Quoting Jose Capablanca,
"I always play carefully and try to avoid unnecessary risks. I consider my method to be right, as any superfluous ‘daring’ runs counter to the essential character of chess, which is not a gamble but a purely intellectual combat conducted in accordance with the exact rules of logic."


----------



## Dork (Oct 6, 2013)

I wouldn't say games are getting easier, but all the hand-holding is annoying. I loved Mario & Luigi Dream Team, and it had it's difficult moments, but it's filled to the brim with annoying tutorials that you are forced to sit through.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 6, 2013)

Dark S. said:


> I wouldn't say games are getting easier, but all the hand-holding is annoying. I loved Mario & Luigi Dream Team, and it had it's difficult moments, but it's filled to the brim with annoying tutorials that you are forced to sit through.


Aren't the tutorials in that game skippable? I only played the demo, but there were at least 2 or 3 instances where a prompt asking if I wanted a tutorial on something would pop up, and I chose "no," because I was familiar with the mechanics from the first game.


----------



## MisterGryphon (Oct 6, 2013)

Old games such as Castlevania were so hard because they _had_ to be. The developers had severe, sometimes even crippling technical limitations that they had no choice but to work around, and as such, they made up for the limited color palettes and lack of good ways to tell a story easily with intense difficulty. And yes, some of the games were so bad because they had bad controls and just plain sucked. Some NES sidescrollers are actually very short games but take a long time to complete because they're so difficult. It was sometimes a desicion on the developers part because back then, kids didn't have every Call of Grand Theft Optimus Magnus 2016 in existence. Many people only had a few games, so the developers wanted to make it worth many hours of playtime. The original Zelda is a good example because it gives you almost no tutorial on what to do or where to go. Actually, it never tell you how to do jack, yet it's still a masterpiece.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Oct 6, 2013)

MisterGryphon said:


> Old games such as Castlevania were so hard because they _had_ to be. The developers had severe, sometimes even crippling technical limitations that they had no choice but to work around, and as such, they made up for the limited color palettes and lack of good ways to tell a story easily with intense difficulty. And yes, some of the games were so bad because they had bad controls and just plain sucked. Some NES sidescrollers are actually very short games but take a long time to complete because they're so difficult. It was sometimes a desicion on the developers part because back then, kids didn't have every Call of Grand Theft Optimus Magnus 2016 in existence. Many people only had a few games, so the developers wanted to make it worth many hours of playtime. The original Zelda is a good example because it gives you almost no tutorial on what to do or where to go. Actually, it never tell you how to do jack, yet it's still a masterpiece.



Kirby's Adventure is old and runs on the same crippled hardware as Castlevania and Zelda. It's not difficult and still a great game.
No game HAS to be difficult, it's a design choice. Of course, our progress in Zelda and Castlevania is highly rewarding and the games keep us hooked even after the ending since both have a second, harder adventure.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 6, 2013)

MisterGryphon said:


> Old games such as Castlevania were so hard because they _had_ to be. The developers had severe, sometimes even crippling technical limitations that they had no choice but to work around, and as such, they made up for the limited color palettes and lack of good ways to tell a story easily with intense difficulty. And yes, some of the games were so bad because they had bad controls and just plain sucked. Some NES sidescrollers are actually very short games but take a long time to complete because they're so difficult. It was sometimes a desicion on the developers part because back then, kids didn't have every Call of Grand Theft Optimus Magnus 2016 in existence. Many people only had a few games, so the developers wanted to make it worth many hours of playtime. The original Zelda is a good example because it gives you almost no tutorial on what to do or where to go. Actually, it never tell you how to do jack, yet it's still a masterpiece.


I was going to make a post on this very subject, but didn't have the time earlier. Many games were purposely made difficult and chock-full of secrets because oftentimes when a kid got a game, it was the only game they got for a year, for Christmas or their Birthday. Games were comparatively way more expensive back then, and there were at least one or two that were more expensive than the NES itself (I can't recall which, though). So it was in Nintendo and third party developers' best interest to make the games last as long as possible, until a kid got a new game. Otherwise, if the kid beat it in a month or two, they were more likely to get bored and forget about their NES and lose interest by the time they could get another game.

Plus there was all the money to be made off of Nintendo Power and strategy guides and hint books and the like. Why give in-game logical ways to know where bomb walls are in Zelda, if they can just encourage you to get Nintendo Power instead? For the time, all this was a brilliant design and marketing choice.


piratesephiroth said:


> Kirby's Adventure is old and runs on the same crippled hardware as Castlevania and Zelda. It's not difficult and still a great game.
> No game HAS to be difficult, it's a design choice. Of course, our progress in Zelda and Castlevania is highly rewarding and the games keep us hooked even after the ending since both have a second, harder adventure.


Kirby's Adventure wasn't hard? I just replayed the GBA remake recently, which is famous for being much easier, and I still found it pretty tough. Not Castlevania or Zelda 1 tough, but tough nonetheless. Plus you have to remember that A) Kirby's Adventure was released after the NES was out for a while, so limitations were more known and easier to work with (I don't agree with that previous posters' earlier point on that, but it's still a point to support what he says). And B) Kirby was designed from the beginning to be an easier, accessible game that anyone could enjoy. You'll rarely find a Kirby game that's consistently difficult, though newer ones do add EX modes and the like to appease the longtime Kirby veterans (like myself) who want a bigger challenge.


----------



## The Pi (Oct 6, 2013)

I'd rather a game was too easy than too hard (so I can actually progress and not want to smash my screen) but when it's far too easy it can be boring without a good story or music to keep it interesting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2013)

People often preach about how older games used to be more of a challenge but completely forget to mention why that was the case. Arcade games used to be _(and still are)_ hard because they're designed to choke quarters out of you and their home console equivalents reflected that at the time - not due to the quarters but often due to a rather small amount of substance which had to last.

Games were designed to last for weeks on end because developers realized that video game prices are relatively high and if they want their product to sell, it had to pose a challenge simply to _"make it (artificially) longer"_. If the gamer could breeze through it in a single afternoon, it'd immediately become a rental rather than something the gamer would want to own _(giving money to, say, Block Buster rather than the developer in the process)_. This is why developers often artificially increased the longevity of their titles by cranking the difficulty level and if anything, this was a cheap tactic.

Today, games are for the most part designed as an experience - longevity isn't increased by means of the difficulty level but via downloadable content, not to mention that games became an everyday commodity, not nearly as luxurious as they used to be. If the difficulty isn't approachable, the gamer can just trade the title in and get a more enjoyable game from another developer, never returning to the franchise that simply wasn't _"fun"_ due to the intense difficulty level - there's thousands to choose from.

There are still _"hard"_ games out there and the user can still crank up the difficulty using _"Extreme"_ difficulty modes, which in my opinion is a far better solution than getting a game which is difficult to the point of being unplayable right out of the box, which today is a sign of bad design. There's a difference between _"posing a reasonable challenge"_ and _"kicking the user where the sun doesn't shine"_ and I prefer the former to the latter, especially if I can adjust the level of challenge as I get better at playing the game.


----------



## astrangeone (Oct 8, 2013)

Games can be compelling if they are hard, or they can put you off. It depends on how it is executed. (If every death feels preventable by the player and depending on skill instead of some arbitary state, it's good and compelling.) You know that it is doable, and that's why the game feels good. It feels even better when you do defeat that boss or enemy. (eg. my first victory against Gold Rathian = 10+ deaths, and when I finally managed to capture it - awesome!)

And then there's games that are stupidly difficult because of design. I grew up in the era of unforgiving nintendo games. Even something like Legend of Zelda was difficult. I mean, games like Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden.

Most old-school games were designed like this because most people designed for arcades.  The harder it was, the easier it was to wrench quarters from players.  (I remember Turtles in Time being almost impossible!)  And simpler games were designed to be hard (Space Invaders/Centipede) speeding up because they are designed for longevity instead.    I mean, even Tetris becomes ridiculous at a certain speed.  

**  And games were considered luxury items back then.  I remember begging for a game for months, and not really getting new releases.  (I got my SNES late in the cycle - and only three games for it when I was a kid.)

I feel like there can be a mix of difficult and easy games. There are some times when I want to play something easy...

There is also the question of new blood to the gaming scene. If newbie gamers play something like Ninja Gaiden (which requires huge memory and practice), they might get turned off by the mechanics and gaming in general. I love gaming, but if my introduction was something like hard, I would be completely annoyed. (For reference, my first "real game" was Tetris on an 386 computer.)

There is something called "flow" --> basically scaling challenges to skill and as both increases, the challenges increase to take advantage of the new level of skill. It's like if I threw someone completely new to the Monster Hunter series into G-ranking fights. They would be completely lost and frustrated because of the advanced mechanics and play level. The key to good game design is to slowly build up a player's skill and also match that with new challenges.

*  There are exceptions - Dark Souls (yes, hard, crazy and pretty fun)...


----------

