Video Game Difficulties: Too Hard or Too Easy?

Is gaming becoming too easy?


  • Total voters
    116

PityOnU

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,183
Trophies
1
XP
1,617
Country
United States
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.

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

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
636
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
Katy Tx
XP
173
Country
United States
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

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
80
Trophies
1
Website
sporkbox.us
XP
259
Country
United States
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! :D
 

Pedeadstrian

GBAtemp's Official frill-necked lizard.
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
3,966
Trophies
2
Location
Sandy Eggo
XP
3,899
Country
United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TripleSMoon

The Minecrafter

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
195
Trophies
1
XP
1,665
Country
United States
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 there 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteMaze

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
13,507
Trophies
2
Location
Netherworld
XP
7,998
Country
United States
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
You_don%27t_say.png
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

The Noble Sate User
Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
330
Trophies
1
Location
Abu Dhabi
XP
209
Country
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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
1,136
Trophies
0
XP
454
Country
Germany
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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
145
Trophies
0
XP
202
Country
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

Warehouse 13 Curator
Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
608
Trophies
1
Location
Between a Rock and a Hard Place for now
XP
1,142
Country
United States
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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TripleSMoon

piratesephiroth

I wish I could read
Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
3,453
Trophies
2
Age
103
XP
3,234
Country
Brazil
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."
 
D

Dork

Guest
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.
 

TripleSMoon

GBAtemp's Umbran Witch in [T]raining
Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
6,444
Trophies
2
Age
34
Location
Central NC
Website
twitter.com
XP
3,331
Country
United States
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

Member
Newcomer
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
14
Trophies
0
Website
mistergryphon1.tumblr.com
XP
54
Country
United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TripleSMoon

piratesephiroth

I wish I could read
Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
3,453
Trophies
2
Age
103
XP
3,234
Country
Brazil
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.
 

TripleSMoon

GBAtemp's Umbran Witch in [T]raining
Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
6,444
Trophies
2
Age
34
Location
Central NC
Website
twitter.com
XP
3,331
Country
United States
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.
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

Lurker
Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
1,637
Trophies
1
Location
Scotland
XP
410
Country
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

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,828
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,860
Country
Poland
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arras

astrangeone

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
2,228
Trophies
0
Age
40
Location
Canada
Website
www.shophandmade.com
XP
1,326
Country
Canada
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)...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TripleSMoon

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    AncientBoi @ AncientBoi: wait +1