The Gamer's Quarter

[Nana Komatsu]

So I just got into this discussion of difficulty in video games with one of my coworkers. He refuses to play anything that isn't immediately accessible to him, and will stop playing a game as soon as it becomes "impossible". He doesn't even try.

I, on the other hand, actually have this masochistic fetish for games that I can't beat. I've spent at least six hours playing Megaman Zero 2 and have yet to even beat a single level other than the introduction (yes I know, I suck). I figure that if a game is too easy, unless it has some other factor (like amazing gameplay or a decent story [ha!]) it isn't really that interesting. Many of the games on my pile of games to be played are things I know have very high difficulties (Ninja Gaiden Black, Ultimate Ghosts and Goblins) and I will probably never beat these games, but that doesn't deter me.

Am I crazy (Note: I am, in fact, pretty crazy) to think that anything that isn't difficult is not worth playing?

[Shapermc]

I completly agree with you... to an extent. Without splitting hairs, I will pretend to totally agree with you.

I think that perspective got skewed somewhere though. I mean, shit that people consider "impossible" now are cakewalks in relation to many of the harder 8/16bit games. And other games that are hard now aren't in fact hard, the controls just really suck (thought that hasn't really changed much).

I also think that game designers are well aware of your co-worker. I think this is why about 60% of the time you have to beat the game once to unlock "hard mode" and I am starting to hate this trend in games.

All this said, I can highly recommend Trauma Center to you. Highly!
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"

[Cycle]

I get frustrated easily these days, so I tend to avoid games that I know will feel cheap and unfair to me. However, if a game is hard while still being fair (and has decent controls etc), I'll tend to love it and play it again and again. This is very rare though, because I'm very picky. If there is ONE thing that feels cheap and unfair, ie when you're fighting with the game mechanics rather than games enemies (unless, in some cases, the game mechanics ARE the enemies), I'll say "fuck it" and never play the game again. If a game is hard, it has to be a really well designed hard game. What can I say, I'm a man of high standards (and no patience).

I miss difficulty modes.

I hate it when a game with an interesting story or world is hard though, in those cases don't want to be challanged, I just want to be part of the story and not get held up by some ridiculous set-piece.

[simplicio]

What I dislike about difficult games is replay. I don't enjoy frustration as entertainment, and that sense of finally getting it right doesn't thrill me enough to warrant the time spent getting there. When I replay something (or a part of something) it should be on my terms, because I want to. So HL2 wins again for providing the chapter system, in my mind.

Nana, when you say "immediately accessible," do you mean something with complex rulesets (ala Tactical RPGs or RTS) or extreme precision required (ala fighters, shooters, and Devil May Cry)? I'm fine with the former, but not the latter.

[disneyland]

Where you had a lot of pattern-based Hard in ye 'olde days, we now have more computationally advanced AI to play with/against, the juxtaposition of scripted and physics-based environment hazards and yet more scripts and openness of ridiculous magnitude. Difficulty has become rather more fragmented and subjective in the games people seem to be playing a lot of. Previously it was easier to coalesce. But then -

I have and always will start and finish games on the medium difficulty, when offered. I've been known to beat a game, then immediately begin playing anew on the harder difficulty for a couple of hours, to get a sense of what’s harder. I suppose we all enjoy an amiable tough challenge when the game is fair about it. That being said, I have a friend who strictly plays games on Easy. He's been doing that shamelessly since 16-bit. He adores games. Shrug.

[dhex]

i don't like difficulty and am a huge wuss.
_________________

[dessgeega]

you wusses are all so wussy.

i like difficulty. i like having to replay stages until i get good at them. i can't find accomplishment in games that are meant to be played straight from beginning to end. i enjoy them, sometimes, but i never keep them.

i have a hard time being interested in games that don't record my high score.
_________________

[wourme]

I'm sort of nostalgic about the time when I simply knew that I wasn't going to get to the end of a lot of the games I owned--it wasn't even a concrete goal, really. They were good enough to be worth playing again every so often, and each time I might make it a little farther. Blaster Master is a good example of this for me.

The only modern games I can think of that have this quality are shooters. But I guess those really aren't modern games, but prettier versions of old games. Not that I'm complaining about shooters--I still think they're great. I still haven't finished either Gradius V or Ikaruga. I think I've made it to the last stage of each, though. I cheated to beat R-Type Delta and Final, after reaching the point I simply was never going to pass in each.

[Scratchmonkey]

I almost always play for experience over score. It's not that I can't appreciate the idea of games where the focus is on learning and refining your skills within the gameplay system to the point of Arcade Zen, it's that I'm too bad at videogames to turn that appreciation into practice. I just never had or developed the hand-eye coordination, which means that these games are always exercises in frustration -- I know what I'm supposed to be doing and when, I just can't do it.

Notable Exceptions: Gradius V, Outrun, Winning Eleven.

[player 2]

I am designing a game with a friend where difficulty is totally dependent on the player. It's completely possible to muscle out the game through time and effort, but you can take also risks to make the game move at a quicker pace. The idea is to have a main hub so full of tiny little quests that individually they mean almost nothing, but if you can economize and do multiple at a time while finding shortcuts... you cut out a lot of the work and advance faster. The real problem, I find, is that players don't want to put in effort wasted. When you put in effort, for example try a game, and don't get anything... you put down the game. But if you somehow manage to dole out the rewards in smaller and smaller amounts to the player - you still give the player something for any effort at all.

Btw, this isn't an RPG.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dessgeega]

umihara works sort of like that, in that skilled players are allowed to bypass portions of the game or access entirely different paths.

umihara is one of the most perfectly-designed games in terms of difficulty, in fact.
_________________

[Dracko]

If a game is to be a story-telling experience, I'd rather the diificulty be balanced enough so that it isn't unfair, but it's satisfying to complete as well. If I lose, it should be because of my own cock-ups.

When it's not a matter of story-telling, when it's pure gaming bliss, then difficulty is welcome.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"

[dessgeega]

that's why i ended up cheating through r-type final too.
_________________

[Dracko]

Yeah, it's just that a story should flow. When there isn't one to be found, or it's told via the level design and development and other such dehumanised fashion (an obvious strength for video games, I'd say), like in Alien Soldier, Metal Storm or Prince of Persia, then it doesn't bother me. I see it as the challenge it should be, as the story as a result is totally reliant on my abilities, that I'll gladly play through the game, only to fail, and start again later.

It's when you toss in the human element, like dialogue and detailed characters, that high difficulty will annoy me. It's inconsistent with the plot and just plain jarring. I think Half-Life 2 succeeded in making the game balanced enough that death is the player's fault, really.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"

[Scratchmonkey]

[Dracko]

I didn't have issues with the first Half-Life 2 game. I think may just be due to lighting, as you said. The part that pissed me off was the elevator sequence at the beginning of Episode One.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"

[OtakupunkX]

[dhex]

the elevator sequence is hilariously difficult unless you know TEH SECRETS!

there's all sorts of lighting and blowing up stuff strewn around. bring it back with you and kick out the jams, motherfuckers
_________________

[Dracko]

Wait, are we talking about Half-Life 2's Ravenholm, Episode One's elevator sequence inside the Citadel or the zombie fight at the end of the Lowlife chapter?
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"

[dhex]

ep 1
_________________

[dessgeega]

[disneyland]

Wait, what was so hard about this elevator sequence in Ep.1? I can't recall getting hung up on any elevators. I was killing myself in the underground parking with barrels and on the hole-blocking sequence, but I don't remember any pesty elevators. That section where you run down the hall as neutron balls zoom towards you was tough enough.

[Shapermc]

[dhex]

[TheRumblefish]

I really feel bipolar about this whole subject, and I mean that in the way that I fall in between loving difficult games, and loathing "difficult" games. I used to be hardcore into Shmups (Shooters, et.c.), but lost interest because I couldn't find myself getting into different systems for a lot of games, and learning new patterns and tricks it was a to much as I began to invest more time in school.

A lot of games that are deemed insanely hard come easy for me. Chaos Legion was a pretty tough game until I just began to practice combinations with my legions and learned how to properly evade attacks, like any other skill oriented game it took practice. I thought that Resident Evil 4 was stupidly easy, while many others found it to be exteremely difficult. I crank up the level to Professional and still I can't find any solid challenge, it's harder but not impossible.

It really falls between what I like and can get into, and what I just deem to be stupid and useless. What takes more time away from studying just to play, and what takes less time just to sit down and play. That's how it breaks down for me. I love playing some of my old 8-bit/16-bit games, but I still get pissed off at how stupidly "designed" they were. It's not a strict design problem as it is me not playing them like I used to. I used to be able to get to the last stage of Metal Warriors without dying with great ease, it would be impossible to do that now. I suppose I have lost a great deal of focus, or gained it. I don't really know.
_________________

[wourme]

I almost always play 3D games on their easy settings, regardless of genre. That's not to say I want to enter invincibility codes--I guess there has to be at least the possibility of losing, even if it never happens. And it's a given that the game must be interesting enough to be worth playing without significant challenge--at least, the kind of challenge that makes me keep repeating something until you get it right (which, of course, kills the narrative flow).

I've been thinking lately about the possibilities of video games that don't have any traditional challenge--where the goal isn't to keep from dying--but that just have worlds filled with interesting things to do. A lot of games that make you contantly fight things wouldn't hold your interest otherwise. But what could the designers change so that they would?

[Shapermc]

[kirkjerk]

This question, and my own "wussiness" (I blame the old black-covered Nintendo player's guide, and it's lovely map of Metroid, which not only made me go out and get an NES over my technologically superior and pirate-riffic C=64 but made be the GameFAQ-using weenie I am today) brings me right to the question, why do I game?

I mean, in general, I prefer playing a game to watching a walkthrough (Dess's excellent videos not withstanding, I mean w/ games I might otherwise get to myself) And I don't enjoy difficulty for its own sake, though I only use cheat codes as an absolute last resort, or for "fun". And narrative in games just isn't that compelling to me, I do feel other genres tend to do it better, except in rare cases.

So why do I game? Am I just in it for the small rewards, for those little rushes of "accomplishment", even though I'm being coddled by the game designers? Well, that's part of it, but I think more to the point, I'm seeking Novel Interaction. That's what video games provide much more readily than almost any other form of media. You have new systems, new worlds, to interact with, so you can make these systems that adhere to my neomorality of "Interesting = Good".

It brings me to some odd places. Like, it's a kind of badge of honor for me not to use any cheat codes in the GTA series (which overall has some great instances of novel interaction, the way you can find surprises in the physics and weapon engines) 'til I get through it, though I will use walk throughs when stuck, because I'm also out to decrease my "fun to time" ratio. So I guess I'm often interested in sounding out the interaction of a game as the designers set it up for "normal" play (though I usually switch things to "easy" when given the chance, like in Halo...)

Anyway...