The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
.. or if you aren't. What am I talking about? The fact that there's always someone complaining about the difficulty of games. Either they're complaining that a game X is a pushover, or that game Y has a learning curve that isn't so much a curve as a vertical cliff face. Certainly, I've found that games seem to be easier than they used to be, but it's likely because I've been playing games since the days of the Megadrive. And that's where the problem lies - ideally games companies have to make sure their games are accessible to both newcomers to gaming and gamers but tend to err on the side of the latter. Granted, multiple difficulty levels might help, but who decides just what is considered 'easy', or 'hard?' It's an insurmountable problem, right?
Not quite. Because there is a solution, one that's been touched on in the past but for some reason never really caught on - the idea of 'dynamic difficulty'. Which basically means that a game would actually see how you were playing and if you were losing badly, or getting stuck in the same spot again and again, it could make things a bit easier. Perhaps by reducing the number of enemies you were facing for a while, or spawning a health powerup near you. Or conversely, if you were storming through the game, taking next to no damage, the game might decide to double the number of bad guys in the next wave.
But would it work? The answer is, 'it already has'. This idea was used to great effect in 'Gods' an Amiga game from way back that did some of the things I've described, and it worked superbly. Rarely did you feel like the game was impossible, yet it was tough enough to be entertaining and challenging. So it's mystifying that other companies haven't put the same idea/system to good use? It'd put an end to 'this game is way too easy/hard' arguments since it'd be different for each person who played. I know I'd like to see something like that in action.
Not quite. Because there is a solution, one that's been touched on in the past but for some reason never really caught on - the idea of 'dynamic difficulty'. Which basically means that a game would actually see how you were playing and if you were losing badly, or getting stuck in the same spot again and again, it could make things a bit easier. Perhaps by reducing the number of enemies you were facing for a while, or spawning a health powerup near you. Or conversely, if you were storming through the game, taking next to no damage, the game might decide to double the number of bad guys in the next wave.
But would it work? The answer is, 'it already has'. This idea was used to great effect in 'Gods' an Amiga game from way back that did some of the things I've described, and it worked superbly. Rarely did you feel like the game was impossible, yet it was tough enough to be entertaining and challenging. So it's mystifying that other companies haven't put the same idea/system to good use? It'd put an end to 'this game is way too easy/hard' arguments since it'd be different for each person who played. I know I'd like to see something like that in action.
Lipe wrote:
> ßulle†† wrote:
> This may because I've been given an easy ride due to the games of
> this/the last generation being dumbed down to appeal to the mass
> market. Something I don't really mind, but after playing Midway
> Arcade Treasures 2 and getting torn apart by the first opponent on
> MK2/3, I really feel I have lost the touch I used to have. Back in
> the day I could defeat any game. Now, that's not the case.
>
> Yeah I feel the same way. I completed all of the games I had on my
> SNES and my N64 but some of my Gamecube games I still haven't
> completed. I prefer the hard games since they are better value for
> money and if something is REALLY hard then when you beat it you will
> get a great feeling of accomplishment.
Absolutely right. Metroid Prime was a b*****d of a game to finish, but when I finally did, it actually felt like an achievement.
> ßulle†† wrote:
> This may because I've been given an easy ride due to the games of
> this/the last generation being dumbed down to appeal to the mass
> market. Something I don't really mind, but after playing Midway
> Arcade Treasures 2 and getting torn apart by the first opponent on
> MK2/3, I really feel I have lost the touch I used to have. Back in
> the day I could defeat any game. Now, that's not the case.
>
> Yeah I feel the same way. I completed all of the games I had on my
> SNES and my N64 but some of my Gamecube games I still haven't
> completed. I prefer the hard games since they are better value for
> money and if something is REALLY hard then when you beat it you will
> get a great feeling of accomplishment.
Absolutely right. Metroid Prime was a b*****d of a game to finish, but when I finally did, it actually felt like an achievement.
ßulle†† wrote:
> This may because I've been given an easy ride due to the games of
> this/the last generation being dumbed down to appeal to the mass
> market. Something I don't really mind, but after playing Midway
> Arcade Treasures 2 and getting torn apart by the first opponent on
> MK2/3, I really feel I have lost the touch I used to have. Back in
> the day I could defeat any game. Now, that's not the case.
Yeah I feel the same way. I completed all of the games I had on my SNES and my N64 but some of my Gamecube games I still haven't completed. I prefer the hard games since they are better value for money and if something is REALLY hard then when you beat it you will get a great feeling of accomplishment.
> This may because I've been given an easy ride due to the games of
> this/the last generation being dumbed down to appeal to the mass
> market. Something I don't really mind, but after playing Midway
> Arcade Treasures 2 and getting torn apart by the first opponent on
> MK2/3, I really feel I have lost the touch I used to have. Back in
> the day I could defeat any game. Now, that's not the case.
Yeah I feel the same way. I completed all of the games I had on my SNES and my N64 but some of my Gamecube games I still haven't completed. I prefer the hard games since they are better value for money and if something is REALLY hard then when you beat it you will get a great feeling of accomplishment.
Ninja Gaiden wasn't hard in my opinion, just had a nack to it.
Quite surprised this topic has stayed reply-free.
The Dynamic Difficulty system was also incorporated into the Max Payne series, alongside the standard system. It worked well, and that's a good thing.
Now, a game which really should have used it, is Ninja Gaiden. I will openly admit I simply could not complete that game. Had it used a Dynamic system, I might have stood a chance, but I just got murdered repeatedly, which quickly tired me, forcing a prompt trade-in.
This may because I've been given an easy ride due to the games of this/the last generation being dumbed down to appeal to the mass market. Something I don't really mind, but after playing Midway Arcade Treasures 2 and getting torn apart by the first opponent on MK2/3, I really feel I have lost the touch I used to have. Back in the day I could defeat any game. Now, that's not the case.
Still, I'm not complaining. These days I'd rather have a game that was fun and do-able, rather than have me tearing my hair out as I can't get past level one. I just don't have the time for repetitiveness.
The Dynamic Difficulty system was also incorporated into the Max Payne series, alongside the standard system. It worked well, and that's a good thing.
Now, a game which really should have used it, is Ninja Gaiden. I will openly admit I simply could not complete that game. Had it used a Dynamic system, I might have stood a chance, but I just got murdered repeatedly, which quickly tired me, forcing a prompt trade-in.
This may because I've been given an easy ride due to the games of this/the last generation being dumbed down to appeal to the mass market. Something I don't really mind, but after playing Midway Arcade Treasures 2 and getting torn apart by the first opponent on MK2/3, I really feel I have lost the touch I used to have. Back in the day I could defeat any game. Now, that's not the case.
Still, I'm not complaining. These days I'd rather have a game that was fun and do-able, rather than have me tearing my hair out as I can't get past level one. I just don't have the time for repetitiveness.
.. or if you aren't. What am I talking about? The fact that there's always someone complaining about the difficulty of games. Either they're complaining that a game X is a pushover, or that game Y has a learning curve that isn't so much a curve as a vertical cliff face. Certainly, I've found that games seem to be easier than they used to be, but it's likely because I've been playing games since the days of the Megadrive. And that's where the problem lies - ideally games companies have to make sure their games are accessible to both newcomers to gaming and gamers but tend to err on the side of the latter. Granted, multiple difficulty levels might help, but who decides just what is considered 'easy', or 'hard?' It's an insurmountable problem, right?
Not quite. Because there is a solution, one that's been touched on in the past but for some reason never really caught on - the idea of 'dynamic difficulty'. Which basically means that a game would actually see how you were playing and if you were losing badly, or getting stuck in the same spot again and again, it could make things a bit easier. Perhaps by reducing the number of enemies you were facing for a while, or spawning a health powerup near you. Or conversely, if you were storming through the game, taking next to no damage, the game might decide to double the number of bad guys in the next wave.
But would it work? The answer is, 'it already has'. This idea was used to great effect in 'Gods' an Amiga game from way back that did some of the things I've described, and it worked superbly. Rarely did you feel like the game was impossible, yet it was tough enough to be entertaining and challenging. So it's mystifying that other companies haven't put the same idea/system to good use? It'd put an end to 'this game is way too easy/hard' arguments since it'd be different for each person who played. I know I'd like to see something like that in action.
Not quite. Because there is a solution, one that's been touched on in the past but for some reason never really caught on - the idea of 'dynamic difficulty'. Which basically means that a game would actually see how you were playing and if you were losing badly, or getting stuck in the same spot again and again, it could make things a bit easier. Perhaps by reducing the number of enemies you were facing for a while, or spawning a health powerup near you. Or conversely, if you were storming through the game, taking next to no damage, the game might decide to double the number of bad guys in the next wave.
But would it work? The answer is, 'it already has'. This idea was used to great effect in 'Gods' an Amiga game from way back that did some of the things I've described, and it worked superbly. Rarely did you feel like the game was impossible, yet it was tough enough to be entertaining and challenging. So it's mystifying that other companies haven't put the same idea/system to good use? It'd put an end to 'this game is way too easy/hard' arguments since it'd be different for each person who played. I know I'd like to see something like that in action.