The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The whole concept of difficulty levels in games is to offer a challenge. When you need skill, speed and knowledge to complete something, not just button-bashing skills. While a game can be incredibly simple to finish on easy, it could be almost impossible on the legendary setting. Difficulty levels are pointless though. Games are meant to be fun, and if you're literally screaming and pulling your hair out at something which is just too hard, you definitely AREN'T having fun.
I bought Maximo upon release earlier in the year. Supposedly amazing because it had a prequel, although I think this is just an unfounded way to make it look good. One thing which ran solid in Maximo and its spiritual predecessor was the challenge rating. They were both awefully hard. As I said, I bought the game, not because it was the spiritual successor to ghosts 'n' gouls (or whatever its called), but because it was a platformer not designed for a five year old or with a difficulty setting to match. Guess what? The next week it went back to the shop.
Because games like this, which rely on players' skill rather than just letting them have fun do not work. I do not buy games for frustration, but all too often I see games trying to extend their lifespan through difficulty levels. They aren't good. Sure, it can be a laugh in games like Halo to just have the crap beaten out of you, but in all seriousness, in this game only frustration and edginess result from playing the game in hard difficulties.
The simplest games, without difficulty levels are the best. Tetris. Probably the simplest game around. No difficulty levels as such, but an ever increasing speed which results in needing quick relexes. And the game ends if you can't keep up. It's simple. You don't start a game at speed 1 and play until you just make a mistake. You start at speed 1 and the game gradually builds up the challenge until its about 9. Games like this are good - they guide the player in gently, then allow them to devise various methods to cope with the difficulty curve.
So why then do developers see the need to include five different difficulty levels. It is just to increase the lifespan, but it makes the game less fun. A game like Maximo which is devilishly hard can't be fun because it is too stressful. Games are only fun when you can play them an not have to worry about anything. "Oh dear, only five minutes on the clock". "Oh no, I only have one health cookie left". Tension doesn't mean fun, but stress.
And this is why I think the best games don't rely on various difficulty levels. A challenge is great, in the way Tetris does it, but merely giving enemies more health, faster reflexes or less armour doesn't work. I can't see how somebody can have fun playing MGS2 on the hardest difficulty, nor can I see somebody not have fun in GTA3 killing innocent pedestrians. Not gun toting one shot kills people, but no-consequence bystanders.
A good game has to be fun. It shouldn't have harder enemies, but harder objectives. It shouldn't rely on difficulty levels, but have a well balanced curve which continues to stretch a player, but not too far. Fun games, most of all, have to contain gameplay which is fun, and more often than not the case is just to lengthen the enemies' lifebars.
I bought Maximo upon release earlier in the year. Supposedly amazing because it had a prequel, although I think this is just an unfounded way to make it look good. One thing which ran solid in Maximo and its spiritual predecessor was the challenge rating. They were both awefully hard. As I said, I bought the game, not because it was the spiritual successor to ghosts 'n' gouls (or whatever its called), but because it was a platformer not designed for a five year old or with a difficulty setting to match. Guess what? The next week it went back to the shop.
Because games like this, which rely on players' skill rather than just letting them have fun do not work. I do not buy games for frustration, but all too often I see games trying to extend their lifespan through difficulty levels. They aren't good. Sure, it can be a laugh in games like Halo to just have the crap beaten out of you, but in all seriousness, in this game only frustration and edginess result from playing the game in hard difficulties.
The simplest games, without difficulty levels are the best. Tetris. Probably the simplest game around. No difficulty levels as such, but an ever increasing speed which results in needing quick relexes. And the game ends if you can't keep up. It's simple. You don't start a game at speed 1 and play until you just make a mistake. You start at speed 1 and the game gradually builds up the challenge until its about 9. Games like this are good - they guide the player in gently, then allow them to devise various methods to cope with the difficulty curve.
So why then do developers see the need to include five different difficulty levels. It is just to increase the lifespan, but it makes the game less fun. A game like Maximo which is devilishly hard can't be fun because it is too stressful. Games are only fun when you can play them an not have to worry about anything. "Oh dear, only five minutes on the clock". "Oh no, I only have one health cookie left". Tension doesn't mean fun, but stress.
And this is why I think the best games don't rely on various difficulty levels. A challenge is great, in the way Tetris does it, but merely giving enemies more health, faster reflexes or less armour doesn't work. I can't see how somebody can have fun playing MGS2 on the hardest difficulty, nor can I see somebody not have fun in GTA3 killing innocent pedestrians. Not gun toting one shot kills people, but no-consequence bystanders.
A good game has to be fun. It shouldn't have harder enemies, but harder objectives. It shouldn't rely on difficulty levels, but have a well balanced curve which continues to stretch a player, but not too far. Fun games, most of all, have to contain gameplay which is fun, and more often than not the case is just to lengthen the enemies' lifebars.
Page:
Cheers.
I expect I'd learn more about it in Computer Studies.
I expect I'd learn more about it in Computer Studies.
HTML (HyperText Markup Language) is specifically for web programming. But knowledge of it certainly can't hurt. Especially since other forms of programming you are likely to encounter (C, C++ etc) can easilly link into web programming as well using CGI and the like.
Put thinly, HTML is a formatting code. It tells the page where to put certain things, and how to dispplay them. For all intents and purposes, HTML itself is a static programming tool, as opposed to a full on programming language.
Put thinly, HTML is a formatting code. It tells the page where to put certain things, and how to dispplay them. For all intents and purposes, HTML itself is a static programming tool, as opposed to a full on programming language.
I'm taking Computer Studies for A level in 6th Form - stuff like programming an' all that.
Will I be able to use HTML, or is it for web design?
*Knows very little about this stuff*
Will I be able to use HTML, or is it for web design?
*Knows very little about this stuff*
you can learn HTML in 30 minutes if you're paying attention, althoug it may take 24 hours to gain sufficient competence.
I'm completely self-taught, and I've done professional internal web-sites for British Gas, which goes to show how damn easy it is to learn.
I'm completely self-taught, and I've done professional internal web-sites for British Gas, which goes to show how damn easy it is to learn.
cookie monster can only be a god amongst men, for he has completed Monkey Ball!
Insane Bartender wrote:
> without having looked at the source code, it looks like asimple but
> pointless bit of JavaScript (onClick sort of crap). I suggest you
> learn HTML, since it is a piece of cake anyway, and within 24 hours
> you could code that page better than you have done.
My brother has a big book on HTML, apparently you can learn it in 24 hours. It may be something to look into, and a worthy thing to do during the holidays.
> without having looked at the source code, it looks like asimple but
> pointless bit of JavaScript (onClick sort of crap). I suggest you
> learn HTML, since it is a piece of cake anyway, and within 24 hours
> you could code that page better than you have done.
My brother has a big book on HTML, apparently you can learn it in 24 hours. It may be something to look into, and a worthy thing to do during the holidays.
without having looked at the source code, it looks like asimple but pointless bit of JavaScript (onClick sort of crap). I suggest you learn HTML, since it is a piece of cake anyway, and within 24 hours you could code that page better than you have done.
I, as already guessed by insane bartender have no skills when it comes to web pages, so i used that wizard. It looks crappy. Whats going on with the links i dont know, i thought i had a virus when they started doing that "true" thing. I guess maybe the servers have been hacked or something, as they never done that before.
I had that thought.
"true"
What's the point of that, eh?
"true"
What's the point of that, eh?
although your web authoring skills suck HARD
Page: