Topic: Difficulty levels on Nintendo games

[thepoga]

I've thought this for a long time, and think that regarding Mario and Zelda games, they're too easy most of the time for the people who have been playing games for awhile now.

I'm totally for levels of difficulty such as Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced (or perhaps Casual and Hardcore) and it could easily be implemented. But yeah, there's two major things that have to be fixed, amount of damage received, and given.

Bosses die too quickly
The number three. What is it with the three attacks that it takes to beat most bosses in Zelda and Mario? It often feels so satisfying to do the different things in order to attack, and I want to do it several more times. Battles are simply too short. It's not necessarily the difficulty, it's the length and the amount of fun you have doing something. It's over far too quickly sometimes. Its seriously so entertaining, yet I find myself feeling after a boss fight, I wish I could've pulled a few more flippers from that squid

Too much health
And NWR mentioned this in the podcast, that changing the amount of damage is a cheap way to increase difficulty. That would be true, but often the attack patterns/AI of bosses are really great. It's Mario or Link that are flippin' invincible, Link especially with all those hearts lying around in those jars in the boss battles. Let's compare the SNES Super Mario World, and the GBA Super Mario World. In the SNES version, with a cape, you'd get hit and you'd go back to being small. In the GBA version, you just lose the cape. This broke the game and made it too easy because I could just run through enemies (especially you have the extra item on top). Even worse than this is New Super Mario Bros. (I love this game to death btw). It gives you all that, PLUS  THREE extra items. That means you could be hit SIX different times... and still be fire mario, and still have the ability to be hit two more times. I didn't use it the whole game just because it made it too easy, to where I wouldn't worry about being hit. I'm not saying make it go back to one hit and you're gone, because in 3D, you need that extra wiggle room, but the amount of wiggle room is far too great.

As a side note, for some boss fights, I think that the three hits is a great number. It should be adjusted per boss.

Nintendo should, for the kids and newcomers, make things easier. I'm all for that. For the industry to survive, kids need to be able to break in. However they've got to be an "and" company like they so frequently state and make bosses not so weak, and the heroes so overpowered for those who don't need the hand holding. I miss caring about getting damage in the game. I miss the difficulty.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Tell me, when was the last time you really played a difficult Mario platformer? Nintendo game's difficulty level has always been easier than most.

[LuigiHann]

I approach boss fights like a puzzle, most of the time, so I don't see why "do the same thing more times" would make the game much more fun. I do think that adding replayable boss fights to Zelda games would be a nice touch.

As for damage, I suggested this to a friend of mine, but I don't think he actually tried it: skip every other heart container. Just pick up one for every 2 dungeons you beat. That should make things more challenging, eh?  

[Kairon]

I, for one, am pretty comfortable with the difficulty of these games. They're a bit on the easy side for me, but that's fine.

What Nintendo games should do is continually strive to challenge us with EXPERIENCES. It's not the jumping puzzles that make Mario magical after all these 20+ years. It's the discovery. It's not the boss fights that we really care about in Zelda. It's the adventure. Just look at Kirby, a perfect example of a Nintendo game beloved by the hardcore DESPITE being so easy, so so easy, that it was originally conceived as a platformer for beginners.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I, for one, am pretty comfortable with the difficulty of these games. They're a bit on the easy side for me, but that's fine.

What Nintendo games should do is continually strive to challenge us with EXPERIENCES. It's not the jumping puzzles that make Mario magical after all these 20+ years. It's the discovery. It's not the boss fights that we really care about in Zelda. It's the adventure. Just look at Kirby, a perfect example of a Nintendo game beloved by the hardcore DESPITE being so easy, so so easy, that it was originally conceived as a platformer for beginners.

Hold on there, the boss fights in Zelda games are some of the best parts of the series in addition to the other things!

[Kairon]

Yeah...but not because they're hard.  

[Armak88]

A friend of mine and myself actually had an OoT challenge where we skipped every heart container and beat the game using only 3 hearts. The rules were that if you died you must either hit save and continue (so it would count your death on your file) or start the whole game over. While it did provide a few moments of panic here and there, the competition was bust in the end as we tied with zero deaths.

I think with nintendo games, there has always been difficulty to be found. Not necessarily going as far as skipping hearts, but usually there are optional side quests and things of that nature to test you. TP had the cave of ordeals, for instance. However, while i do enjoy and appreciate these little extras, I deffinately think that the main quest could be more difficult. The thing that ticks me off most about bosses isn't that they die in three hits, it's that the three hits are often delivered swiftly and one immediately after the other. The window in which you're able the hit most these bosses it too huge, and after they're hit, they often open themselves up to be hit again almost immediately. Sometimes I kill a boss without ever finding out what attacks the boss even has. The water temple boss in TP for instance never touched me, granted that battle was epic and fun, but I still to this day don't even know if that boss even has an attack...... Sorry I let that get away from me a little.

And to GP: The last time I played a difficult mario platformer was in sunshine when you enter those warp zones where you lose your pack.

At least metroid has always been a haven for true difficulty.

[Kairon]

EDIT: NVM, reread, I misunderstood, BAH, ignore the spoielrs But armak, close that window of opportunity and it becomes a test of reflexes, which is an extremely hardcore gamer thing to do and adversely effect a large number of Zelda players.

Zelda should be easy to play, but always challenging to experience and truly master. That's not a test of how well you play the game, it's a test of how well you live it.

But I DO agree with your contention that they're not giving their bosses a fair shake. They need to showcase the bosses and the ways player's need to adapt to them, not neuter them almost completely.

[Nick DiMola]

It's always seemed obvious to me that Nintendo games in general, the difficulty is made as transparent as possible. The games often have a set of easy challenges to complete the game and a set of tougher challenges for the more experienced player. More important than this fact, is the simple fact that Nintendo games have much stronger focus on the feeling, from control to the aesthetics, of playing the game. Though the games may not always be the most challenging, I always feel the most satisfied after completing a great Nintendo game such as Mario or Zelda. Miyamoto has created a very distinct style for Nintendo and it seems to work well. He always seems to be able to achieve that perfect balance between difficulty and enjoyment. The difficulty is never overwhelming killing the fun, but it's never too easy either where it feels like a joke to complete a task.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Nintendo games are one of the few that keep me entralled from beginning to end, the difficulty in most of their bigger titles, especially for consoles seems about right. It has been this way since the beginning (Heck I'd say that their games are harder if you compare them to the NES Mario games).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Making the difficulty a transparent experience of growth and development is a great thing.

But Nintendo lately needs to do a better job of ensuring the "proposed challenge" matches up with the "player's challenge".

When you face up against THE GREAT KING OF EVIL, he's better not be a panzie whose backside is always vulnerable to a simple dodge-move.  He's fast enough to block a sword thrust, but not fast enough to keep his back turned away from you -- just doesn't add up.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Making the difficulty a transparent experience of growth and development is a great thing.

But Nintendo lately needs to do a better job of ensuring the "proposed challenge" matches up with the "player's challenge".

When you face up against THE GREAT KING OF EVIL, he's better not be a panzie whose backside is always vulnerable to a simple dodge-move.  He's fast enough to block a sword thrust, but not fast enough to keep his back turned away from you -- just doesn't add up.

What about the great king of evil shooting fireballs and lets you hit him with your sword and shoot a silver arrow into him? Or the great king of evil letting you hit his vulnerable tail? Or or, letting you stab a sword into his head?

[Mashiro]

I wish Gannon fights in Zelda involved more of your gathered weapons =)

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
I wish Gannon fights in Zelda involved more of your gathered weapons =)

True, that is something all the games have lacked. If I recall in OOT you used your hammer and then hit him with your sword. It would have been so cool if he did require you to use your weapons (Though Zant did some of that in his fun boss battle).

[that Baby guy]

It took me four attacks to beat the final boss of Super Paper Mario.  I didn't get to see his attacks or his combos.  I didn't power level, but I did all three of the secret challenges that were available before the end of the game, the second one, as most people know was the same as the third, and a flop on the first.  Now, that's just far too easy.  Nintendo should have allowed a hard mode, since there's a different between wanting attacking a boss doing the exact same motions about a hundred times and wanting to have to dodge the boss at least once.  Seriously.

Yeah, and unlockable difficulty levels are stupid.  Let me play the hardest one right away.  I don't play all my games as is, I don't want to have to play yours five times to get the full experience.  Unless you're Astro Boy: Omega Factor, or just made by Treasure in general.  Then you can make me do whatever you want.

[Kairon]

I personally don't like Difficulty levels. Make the game easy enough for anyone to beat, but include awesome stuffs for those willing to do 'em, like Zelda, I say.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I personally don't like Difficulty levels. Make the game easy enough for anyone to beat, but include awesome stuffs for those willing to do 'em, like Zelda, I say.

I agree, really I think difficulty levels, more times than not are an excuse to not try to balance the game or to give players more challenging but optional tasks. It is so much easier to slap in a few more enemies, give them more energy, you less and call it a day.

[that Baby guy]

I firmly disagree.  Making multiple difficulty levels helps to assure that everyone can get access to the entire game, regardless of skill.  I personally like to be challenged, so I almost always choose the highest one.  However, my family, friends, and new gamers probably aren't ready to handle something so difficult.  Should they be punished for that with absurdly difficult secrets or sidequests?  Personally, I don't think so.  Should I be forced to play through a weak main game just because I'm good at it?  No.  Difficulty levels are a wonderful wayf to make the game reach more than one group of people.

[Kairon]

That's fine, as long as they're willing to do the extra development, and as long as they don't give you guys an ending any different from ours then.

[that Baby guy]

Oh yeah, I agree on that one.  All games should have the same features in every difficulty.  I hate when unlockable stuff appears in harder modes.

[Armak88]

I don't think that games like zelda or mario are very well suited to a system that uses difficulty levels. I don't mind the system that exists now in those games where the difficulty is there for you to find, I just wish that the main quest in recent games was a little bit harder. People act like dying in a game is the end of the world, as long as the game is well designed, getting back to where you died shouldn't be too long or tedious. Then you learn and progress. When I posted about the window of opportunity for hitting bosses, I was by no means suggesting that things become a test of reflexes, I just want to spend some time running and dodging attacks before I bring'em down. I want to feel enough resistence that there is a little bit of accomplishment when I beat a boss.

I think I might be coming off a little bit harsh. I loved TP, WW and mario sunshine. I enjoy these games because they are more than just a challenge, they are an experience. Nintendo has fun locked down, but the sense of accomplishment which has always been part of that experience we all play to get has been slipping.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
I firmly disagree.  Making multiple difficulty levels helps to assure that everyone can get access to the entire game, regardless of skill.  I personally like to be challenged, so I almost always choose the highest one.  However, my family, friends, and new gamers probably aren't ready to handle something so difficult.  Should they be punished for that with absurdly difficult secrets or sidequests?  Personally, I don't think so.  Should I be forced to play through a weak main game just because I'm good at it?  No.  Difficulty levels are a wonderful wayf to make the game reach more than one group of people.

I don't think either Kairon or I would disagree with that, but that is why I said that developers take the easy way out when implementing difficulty levels. Granted there are exceptions but far too often it is something lame like enemies with more hit points, or you has less health.

[KDR_11k]

Newer Zeldas have three-hit-bosses because they're mostly just figuring out how to actually inflict a hit, after that it's so trivial that demanding more hits is just wasting the player's time. Try LttP for a comparison, you'll hit those bosses till you lose count.

Twilight Princess could have used a difficulty setting. I think the game started out good but later on enemies gained far too little damage to keep up with your health, healing and magic armor.

I think it's fine that a power player can wreck the bosses before they attack, makes speedruns more fun to watch.

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Yeah, and unlockable difficulty levels are stupid.  Let me play the hardest one right away.  I don't play all my games as is, I don't want to have to play yours five times to get the full experience.

Amen.  I am truly happy that Metroid Prime 3 allows you to play on hard mode from the get-go.

[Plugabugz]

Geist. So difficult it gave me motion sickness. I can't play it anymore!