Post by: thepoga on August 31, 2007, 11:51:38 AM
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.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 31, 2007, 11:56:33 AM
Post by: LuigiHann on August 31, 2007, 12:01:52 PM
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?
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2007, 12:07:16 PM
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.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 31, 2007, 12:09:22 PM
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!
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2007, 12:19:14 PM
Post by: Armak88 on August 31, 2007, 12:19:59 PM
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.
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2007, 12:24:26 PM
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.
Post by: Nick DiMola on August 31, 2007, 12:37:16 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 31, 2007, 12:41:38 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 31, 2007, 12:48:29 PM
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.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 31, 2007, 12:50:55 PM
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?
Post by: Mashiro on August 31, 2007, 12:51:53 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 31, 2007, 01:00:37 PM
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).
Post by: that Baby guy on August 31, 2007, 01:31:06 PM
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.
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2007, 02:12:09 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 31, 2007, 02:16:02 PM
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.
Post by: that Baby guy on August 31, 2007, 02:21:20 PM
Post by: Kairon on August 31, 2007, 02:26:20 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on August 31, 2007, 02:34:12 PM
Post by: Armak88 on August 31, 2007, 06:30:49 PM
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.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 31, 2007, 07:00:21 PM
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.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 01, 2007, 12:26:54 AM
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.
Post by: vudu on September 05, 2007, 07:55:22 AM
QuoteAmen. I am truly happy that Metroid Prime 3 allows you to play on hard mode from the get-go.
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.
Post by: Plugabugz on September 05, 2007, 09:49:55 AM
Post by: EasyCure on September 05, 2007, 10:12:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Plugabugz
Geist. So difficult to control it gave me motion sickness. I can't play it anymore!
fixed, and agreed in the fullest.
Post by: Terranigma Freak on September 05, 2007, 10:46:55 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 05, 2007, 11:47:42 AM
I don't get this. We were kids once with no previous game experience and yet we were tossed in to the deep end and didn't drown. When I was a kid games were probably the hardest they've even been. I sucked at games then and I suck now and I actually benefit from lower difficulties but lowering the standards for the next generation doesn't make any sense to me. What disadvantage do they have that we didn't?
But then it does all fit this nerf world we live in where kids sit in booster seats until they're 10 and all the playgrounds we all somehow survived have been torn down and replaced for being too dangerous and Tom & Jerry smoking is now going to warp our minds and parents complain if a school bans cell phones because then they can't keep an eye on their kid even though decades of kids somehow made it through life prior to the invention of cell phones. We're breeding a civilization of wimps.
Post by: Kairon on September 05, 2007, 12:55:39 PM
Although I do agree, games don't necessarily need to be easier. Some games will become easier, some games will be harder, and things'll just even themselves out just fine, in my opinion.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 05, 2007, 01:16:28 PM
Post by: Kairon on September 05, 2007, 01:18:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
The main reason why games are "easier" now is because designers actually need to design games (not to say you didn't have ALOT of well designed games back in the NES era though) instead of making you rely on quick reflexes and drowing the player in enemies/bullets with flickering graphics and cheap hits of doom.
This is true as well.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 05, 2007, 01:22:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
The main reason why games are "easier" now is because designers actually need to design games (not to say you didn't have ALOT of well designed games back in the NES era though) instead of making you rely on quick reflexes and drowing the player in enemies/bullets with flickering graphics and cheap hits of doom.
This is true as well.
Honestly I am not even sure developers are focused on making games "easier" per say, but that it comes with the territory when you have 3D gamng where your old tricks can no longer apply to many of the genres. I'm surprised I am bringing this up, but personally I feel games now are more "art" centered then they were back in the NES era, so really the focus has shifted a bit more towards the experience while trying to balance it with challenge.
Post by: Kairon on September 05, 2007, 01:30:00 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 05, 2007, 01:32:44 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 05, 2007, 08:51:46 PM
Failure should bear punishment. Difficulty should be how difficult it is to avoid being hit, not how many times you can allow yourself to get hit (well, not to TP levels at least, permitting 4 instead of 3 hits would be acceptable). It just feels cheap when you take 20 hits from a final boss and can still stand.
If you want failure to not be as severe use a lenient respawn system (e.g. player dies during a boss fight -> move him back to the start of the fight and let him try again, don't make him run though a long level that's no challenge for him anymore) so the player only needs to perfect a small section of the game (e.g. that particular boss fight) but he should have at least some proficiency at the part to pass it, not just slug it out and win because he has more HP than the enemy.
Post by: Kairon on September 05, 2007, 09:08:02 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 05, 2007, 09:10:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Personally, TP did absolutely too little damage all across the board. Quarter-hearts should NOT exist.
Too bad it wasn't any easier than OOT or you may have a point.
Or how about this, don't pick up any hearts! Tah duh it is harder. Amazing how that works.
Post by: Adrock on September 05, 2007, 09:43:15 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 05, 2007, 11:47:28 PM
Post by: Mashiro on September 06, 2007, 12:43:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
Nintendo games are generally too easy. Laughably easy. When they aren't easy, they're frustratingly cheap like in Mario Kart: Double Dash.
Have you played Prime 3 yet?
Post by: KDR_11k on September 06, 2007, 01:50:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Personally, TP did absolutely too little damage all across the board. Quarter-hearts should NOT exist.
Too bad it wasn't any easier than OOT or you may have a point.
Are you kidding me? OOT required that you actually figure out how a Stalfos attacks to hit it, in TP you just spam special moves until you hit.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 06, 2007, 06:11:23 AM
What the hell kids don't end up playing games? The only kids I've ever met who don't play videogames only don't because their parents don't let them. I have never in my life encountered a kid who CHOSE to not play videogames. All this non-gamer stuff accessible stuff is for adults who are either too old to have played games as a kid or who used to play games when they were kids but stopped playing as they got older. In a kid's life videogames are on par with TV and candy. Since the 80's it has just been part of being a kid.
On the NES there was some cheap bullsh!t CHEATING difficulty and as game design moves on the player can do more and thus isn't so vulnerable. Even on the SNES there was a difference because I could change the direction of my jump in mid-air. But stuff like getting creamed by an enemy but still not coming even close to dying? That's just dumbing down the game. Or how about when games hold your hand the whole time and tell you exactly where to go and what to do? That's dumbing down. How the hell is it not? The GBA Metroid games are still 2D and yet they're easier than Super Metroid. Why? Because those games blatantly tell you where to go and what to do. There's a difference between a hint and telling you the answer. There's a difference between making an enemy a more fair opponent and turning him into a non-threat.
Games used to cheat. Now they let you win. There needs to be a balance. The game should be fair and I should need talent to win.
Post by: Kairon on September 06, 2007, 06:24:57 AM
But also, the inherent CHALLENGES that make up gameplay need to change and become more accessible. Changing the direction of your jump mid-air is all well and good... if you're a reflex junkie. But if all games are are tests of hardcore traits like reflexes and pure pattern recognition, then I'm almost certain that there will be TONS of people out there who won't understand gaming.
This is why a game like Sims has helped expand the market so much: the challenge wasn't so much in reflexes, but in mentally picturing the daily lives of your characters. Nintendogs was another game that actually successfully made the challenge about a relationship and not about when and how to press buttons. These games are "easy" by traditional standards, but challenging when we expand the idea of where the video game tests us. These are the games that will finally make gaming acceptable to the rest of the population who don't live and die by the split-second jamming of a button, flick of a control stick.
Post by: Stogi on September 06, 2007, 06:34:20 AM
I have played about an hour into Metriod Prime 3 with hints off and on veteran mode, and I feel like this game is challenging me and damn it, it feels good!
Everyone loves a challenge and when it comes to videogames there needs to be at least a difficulty setting because we all have our own levels of easy and hard so why not cater to everyone. That is what Nintendo is suppose to do right? Blue Ocean and all that sh!t, right?
EDIT: Well said Kairon. And I agree....there are many different types of challenges, but no matter what they are they shouldn't be easy to conquer and that's exactly what makes it fun.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 06, 2007, 06:56:09 AM
I agree there. I have sh!tty reflexes so I'm glad that that's not the only type of challenge in a game. I prefer solving puzzles and figuring out what to do next. But I can't fully enjoy that if before I figure it out myself some blatant hint tell me what to do, and it's something that I would have figured out on my own had I thought about it for another 30 seconds. Different types of challenges is good. Dumbed down easy challenges aren't.
And the jump in mid-air thing isn't relfex based. It made things easier because you could recover from a mistimed jump. Jumping used to be harder because the player had less control. That was a natural way of making the game easier. Really what they were doing was just making things more fair.
Post by: Adrock on September 06, 2007, 06:56:19 AM
Quote
Double Dash was easy peasy. The original Mario Kart was plain cheating.
Easy until 150cc... then it's multiple item attacks and unbelievable comebacks even when you plan to have CPU opponents fall off the track.
Quote
Have you played Prime 3 yet?
Pretty easy so far. The hardest part for me was getting used to the controls in the beginning and even that didn't take too long.
Post by: Stogi on September 06, 2007, 06:59:33 AM
Well that shouldn't be hard...........
Also are playing on normal or veteran?
Post by: KDR_11k on September 06, 2007, 07:16:53 AM
Quote
The GBA Metroid games are still 2D and yet they're easier than Super Metroid. Why? Because those games blatantly tell you where to go and what to do.
Fusion is completely linear but its difficulty comes from enemies doing 300+ damage per shot. Zero Mission doesn't tell you much about where to go (the "unknown upgrades" are really lame though) but it's easier because the enemies are easier. I never beat Ridley in SM but had no trouble with him in ZM (however in hard difficulty I'm once again stuck at Ridley).
Unlockable difficulty strikes me as rather dumb though, isn't the whole point of difficulty to let you choose how hard the game should be? Why require the player to spoil the whole game for himself before "properly" playing the game? Oh right, because you couldn't think of anything better for the end game unlocks...
Personally I found some parts of Metroid Prime pretty difficult, especially the wave pirates were tough IMO. Sunshine had its hard parts (but mostly related to control/camera issues...). Windwaker not that much and Twilight Princess was like "I am Chuck Norris!". Oh, right, Aonuma said he has zero reflexes but yet he's heading development of a game that heavily uses reflexes for combat... Guess his solution was to make the player invincible.
Post by: Kairon on September 06, 2007, 07:23:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Twilight Princess was like "I am Chuck Norris!". Oh, right, Aonuma said he has zero reflexes but yet he's heading development of a game that heavily uses reflexes for combat... Guess his solution was to make the player invincible.
So you agree with me? Aonouma's bad for Zelda?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 06, 2007, 07:31:14 AM
At least they don't physically drive faster than players are allowed. Maybe you just haven't figured out the the game's item system favors the underdogs? Last place is the biggest threat to first place, afterall. *how on earth did i ever get past All-Star Cup?*
And MP3 boss fights are incredible on Veteran.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 06, 2007, 07:36:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kQuote
Twilight Princess was like "I am Chuck Norris!". Oh, right, Aonuma said he has zero reflexes but yet he's heading development of a game that heavily uses reflexes for combat... Guess his solution was to make the player invincible.
So you agree with me? Aonouma's bad for Zelda?
Miyamoto's focus on "accessibility" after the N64 was bad for Zelda. Then Aonuma took that the wrong way and made Link invincible.
Majora's is like "veteran mode" while Ocarina was "normal mode." The game was magnificent to the veterans, those who were well-versed in the established mechanics.
Post by: Stogi on September 06, 2007, 07:38:46 AM
To this day Majora's Mask is one of the most underrated Zelda games! No matter how much Kairon hates it. (well because the games that kairon loves are overrated!)
Post by: Kairon on September 06, 2007, 07:46:01 AM
What is this "focus on accessibility" that you attribute to Miyamoto after OoT? Please explain.
Post by: vudu on September 06, 2007, 07:50:47 AM
QuoteI did; it left me speechless.
Originally posted by: Kairon
I love Metroid Prime 3... didn't you get that Samus Aran postcard I sent you?
Post by: Kairon on September 06, 2007, 07:51:33 AM
Post by: Adrock on September 06, 2007, 09:10:54 AM
Quote
Well that shouldn't be hard...........
Because it wasn't.......... If the hardest part of a whole is itself easy, that suggests that the whole is easy.
Quote
At least they don't physically drive faster than players are allowed. Maybe you just haven't figured out the the game's item system favors the underdogs? Last place is the biggest threat to first place, afterall. *how on earth did i ever get past All-Star Cup?*
I'm not stupid. I know how the item system is supposed to work. Of course, it's supposed to favor underdogs, but sometimes it doesn't which honestly, should never happen because that defeats the purpose of a system that favors underdogs and ultimately makes the game cheap on harder difficulties. I've gotten a banana at 7th place while 4th gets a lighting bolt. It happens and it shouldn't.
Post by: vudu on September 06, 2007, 09:27:29 AM
Post by: EasyCure on September 06, 2007, 09:38:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well expect more.
as long as it doesnt have spoilers i'd like to recieve more
Post by: shammack on September 06, 2007, 09:44:36 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 06, 2007, 09:51:58 AM
I'd argue that end game unlockables should be optional. Isn't seeing the ending and having the satisfaction of beating the game reward enough? I don't mind unlockables but it shouldn't be an expected feature. And some really dumb stuff gets locked. Difficulty levels and multiplayer should never be locked. What logic is there in having multiplayer features get unlocked by SINGLE PLAYER progress? If the single player is good people will play it anyway and if some people don't who cares? You already made the sale, right? So some guy buys a FPS with a great single player but spends his whole time playing deathmatch with his buddies. His loss. Those who want to play it still can. Does it really make any sense to force a player to play all modes? What does the developer care? One can beat Super Mario World without playing even close to all the levels. Most people will try to find and play every level because they want to get the most from their game but if someone didn't want to do that they weren't punished. They still saw the ending. They still had access to all the content. These days it's not uncommon to be forced to beat a training mode just to get the game going. Why the hell can't I skip it if I want to? If I suck because I'm a dumbass and didn't bother to learn the fundamentals before jumping in well tough sh!t for me. Warcraft III did it right. The Orc tutorial level is completely optional. I beat it anyway because it was fun but if I want to go back and beat the game over I don't have to play it.
"Increasing the difficulty of fighting enemies just means increasing the likelihood that you'll have to play through the same small segment of the game over and over again -- how would that make the game more fun?"
Having to repeat areas is something you the player fear so it makes the enemy battle more intense. It's part of the emotion one should feel when playing a Zelda game. You're in charge of saving the world. You should feel afraid to fail. You're supposed to be a great hero so you should be heroic. If the dangers of the world are a push-over what hero are you? Also note that prior to Wind Waker's severely low difficulty Zelda games did have enemies that could kick your ass and make you have to repeat areas. Failure isn't fun but not being able to fail brings no satisfaction. In Ocarina of Time the first time I fought an Iron Knuckle my heart was beating like a jackhammer afterwards. It was a cool moment and it was fun. That moment would never have happened if I didn't feel threatened by the Iron Knuckle.
Losing sucks but if everyone wins it's dull. You know why it's such a great moment to see a team you cheer for win the championship? It's because they could have lost and not won it. They earned it and there was great risk in them losing so the event is more special. I'm bored when my team has already made the playoffs and the remaining games don't matter. I'm bored when they've been eliminated and the remaining games don't matter. I'm bored during exibition games because they don't matter. A game is better if success matters even if you can only be delayed from succeeding, like in a videogame. There is a balance though again. If a person can learn from their defeat and do better each time to go through a difficult part it doesn't become tiresome. But if you have to do it 100 times and still get no farther and sheer luck is required to win then it sucks.
Post by: Adrock on September 06, 2007, 09:56:31 AM
Quote
So you're suggesting that Nintendo takes the randomness out of Mario Kart? Does that mean that the person in first place will get nothing but single banana peels and the person in last place will get nothing but blue shells? That makes no sense at all.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Exactly. Take randomness completely out of Mario Kart. Yes, do that. What? Are you kidding me?
I never suggested absolutes (i.e. 1st should only get banana peels etc.). Rather, I'm suggesting a faulty item system in Double Dash (possibly due to reckless programming) especially when compared to other Mario Kart titles.
Post by: vudu on September 06, 2007, 10:00:27 AM
Quote
I've gotten a banana at 7th place while 4th gets a lighting bolt. It happens and it shouldn't.
QuoteChrist; make up your mind. If items are random then you're going to wind up getting crappy items when you're losing and good items when you're not; learn to live with it.
I never suggested absolutes (i.e. 1st should only get banana peels etc.).
Post by: Kairon on September 06, 2007, 10:01:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: EasyCureQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well expect more.
as long as it doesnt have spoilers i'd like to recieve more
Can I assume that people have at least seen the screenshots from the first boss and hour of gameplay?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 06, 2007, 11:31:40 AM
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 06, 2007, 11:37:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
All games should be like Kameo.
Mediocre with horrible character designs?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 06, 2007, 11:39:30 AM
Face it, winners use Daisy.
Post by: Adrock on September 06, 2007, 01:37:32 PM
Quote
Christ; make up your mind. If items are random then you're going to wind up getting crappy items when you're losing and good items when you're not; learn to live with it.
Christ, calm down. You're on a videogame forum. Stop acting like I slapped your mother.
An item system that favors underdogs doesn't work as it's meant to if the underdog isn't actually favored. Double Dash is the only Mario Kart I've played in which bad items can consistently be picked up when losing. There's a difference between randomness and cheapness. I've lost races when a mushroom is picked up right before the end of the race by another played. Alternatively, I've played numerous Double Dash races where I'm winning then get barraged with several items and once I'm losing, I end up getting bananas and green shells, unable to regain my position or even close the gap. Rare occurrences are acceptable as randomness, but that happens far more often than it ever should in Double Dash.
Post by: EasyCure on September 06, 2007, 01:57:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: EasyCureQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well expect more.
as long as it doesnt have spoilers i'd like to recieve more
Can I assume that people have at least seen the screenshots from the first boss and hour of gameplay?
:[
this is the first time i've avoided so many spoilers in a game, but oh well... I'll take the damn card
Post by: ThePerm on September 06, 2007, 02:23:57 PM
as far as difficulty settings goes i will use viewtiful joe for an example. in the demo the game felt like it had a perfect balance, but when i bought the retail version this changed as there were now difficulty levels. Kid was too easy and not fun, and adult was too hard and not fun. The demo had the balance not the game, and i never beat the game because i just found it either too challenging or too easy to keep by interest. There was a lack of balance that i didn't like.
I think the Metroid series is a little better in regard to bosses than either Zelda or Mario. I havnt played corruption yet, i hope i get it for christmas. Also on anotehr not i cant find 5 of my damn games, i think possibly some of my former roomates stole them while i was packing. Im missing sfa, mkdd, zeldatp, and re0.
Post by: Kairon on September 06, 2007, 04:51:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: EasyCureQuote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: EasyCureQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well expect more.
as long as it doesnt have spoilers i'd like to recieve more
Can I assume that people have at least seen the screenshots from the first boss and hour of gameplay?
:[
this is the first time i've avoided so many spoilers in a game, but oh well... I'll take the damn card
Hmm... I'll find a way! Never fear!
Post by: Plugabugz on September 06, 2007, 08:12:44 PM
Post by: Kairon on September 06, 2007, 08:57:05 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on September 06, 2007, 09:10:20 PM
Super Monkey Ball 1/2 in the Master stages were just plain impossible, sometimes even with an Action Replay..
Post by: thepoga on September 07, 2007, 01:57:04 AM
Just to clarify, I was talking about boss difficulty, and lack of a feeling of danger from damage in regular locales. There's a certain sense of drama and thrill from struggle. Mario Sunshine for example had pretty difficult stages and levels (especially when you had fludd taken away) which were amazing, but quite a few of the bosses fights would have benefitted greatly if they didn't have the 3-hit rule.
Another thing, there are different types of boss fights that make them difficult. One requires precision and timing. Another requires strategy/logic/etc. (and of course, most bosses require both)
The 3 hit rule works for bosses that take a while to figure out what you have to do and therein lies the difficulty, but when you're talking about bosses that require timing and precision, it'd add a lot more to the fight if you had to inflict damage multiple times.
The early Megaman games are a good indication of this. Even knowing the bosses' attack pattern and what is required of yourself to win, it was difficult to execute it and execute it multiple times. (Personally, I think that the Megaman games were a bit TOO hard in this respect btw.) If it took just 3 hits, 4, or 5, a lot of the struggle and essentially a lot of the fun factor would be taken out. It just ends too quickly and easily. Making the amount of hits more is not at all a shallow way of increasing difficulty.
me: "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."
Ian: "I don't get this. We were kids once with no previous game experience and yet we were tossed in to the deep end and didn't drown. When I was a kid games were probably the hardest they've even been. I sucked at games then and I suck now and I actually benefit from lower difficulties but lowering the standards for the next generation doesn't make any sense to me. What disadvantage do they have that we didn't?"
I meant compared to adults and hardcore gamers. You were comparing Kid Ian vs. kids of today. Maybe you were better, we can't really go back in time and empirically discover that. However, I think its safe to say you are a better gamer now, then when you were younger. In other words, Adult Ian>Kid Ian. Your reflexes are more refined, you're smarter, you have more experience, etc. (well maybe you used to play a lot more when you were younger and in that case, maybe younger you was better).
For all players of any age, for a traditional game (not Nintendogs) to have maximum enjoyment, it needs to be a step or two ahead of the player. There's needs to be a challenge that seems within reach, but takes some work to get there. If it seems out of the player's grasp, they will give up. What you ideally want is for there to be a progression, so that the skill level of the player goes up. Let's not lose sight that games are meant to be fun. Difficulty itself doesn't make a game fun. It's just a single, miniscule part of it.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 07, 2007, 06:07:23 AM
I agree with that. But I don't think the games today are difficult enough for a kid to give up on. I STILL find older games harder when I play them with my better reflexes and higher intelligence then I find current games. The standard today is still lower than it was regardless of my age or experience. So why does this generation need that? Why can't they handle what we could? I'm not even asking for games to be that hard. Hell I'd be content with games just not getting any easier than they are now (though I'd prefer about five or six years ago). There is no reason I can see why kids today require easier games than we did. Hell they all live in a world that is much more complex than we did. There was no internet or cellphones when I was a kid. Few people even had PCs. Yet we could figure out the games at the time that for some reason are now too complex for kids that live in a more complex world. Huh?
And even if games today were harder than they were when I was a kid wouldn't that be normal? Look at sports. Most pros from the 20's would be f*cked playing in today's major leagues. New strategies are constantly introduced and the skill level has gone up. And kids playing baseball and hockey and football are all being raised in a different era than the players before them with a higher level of play required. And no one really cares there. So a 12 year old basketball player has to be better now than a 12 year old basketball player had to be 20 years ago. No one cares because it's a natural progression. Even in day-to-day life we have to be "smarter" than people before us. I need to know how to drive and how to use a computer and how to read. Go back in time and you'll find that these skills become optional and eventually you'll reach a point where the skill didn't exist. My job pretty much didn't even exist when my dad was my age. But no one cares because that's just natural progress.
So if videogames just didn't get easier that would be a huge deal compared to what kids have to deal with in the rest of the world. Logically they should get harder but they're getting easier. And all I ask for is that they don't get easier. Seems like a fair compromise and is still a better deal than everything else gives you.
Post by: Kairon on September 07, 2007, 07:24:06 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 07, 2007, 07:25:10 AM
Post by: IceCold on September 07, 2007, 07:42:10 AM
QuoteMaybe it's because F-Zero GX was made for me, but I never found once that the difficulty of the Cups or Story Mode were ever unfair. Sure, they were extremely difficult at times, but never unfair.. There were only two tracks that I would call "unfair" on Master Difficulty - the short Big Blue one and the last one with all those trippy colours.
Originally posted by: Plugabugz
Nobody mentioned F-Zero GX and the insane ultra difficulty that not even all the princesses in the land hyped up on sugar could beat!
Post by: Kairon on September 07, 2007, 07:56:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
They are easier because they're being sold to more than kids who buy one game every three months and can play it all day to get good at it. They're sold to adults who have an hour of gaming time a day and don't want to spend it all on repeating the same section they've been repeating the last few days until they become good enough to beat it. These adults want to play for an hour and get something done which is why most games constantly let you progress and just pad their playtime with repetition (that last bit is just cost saving).
So adults are killing gaming?
Post by: Maverick on September 07, 2007, 08:13:38 AM
...oh, wait.
Post by: vudu on September 07, 2007, 09:02:16 AM
QuoteKids, you've had your fun, now we've had our fill!
Originally posted by: Maverick
Down with adults!
Yeah, you're only here 'cause Marge forgot her pill!
Kids, you're all just scandalising, vandalizing punks!
Channel hoppin', Ritalin-poppin' monkeys...
(But please don't quit the fan club!)
Post by: Kairon on September 08, 2007, 08:57:39 PM
Post by: EasyCure on September 09, 2007, 06:25:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Maybe more games should be easier to play so that she can beat Super Paper Mario.
dirty blonde hair + Cleavage + brittish accent = SPLOOGE IN MUH PANTZ!!!
i <3 kairon for bringing this to my attention.
Post by: Kairon on September 09, 2007, 09:32:21 PM
Post by: EasyCure on September 10, 2007, 01:40:32 AM
You're no fun then
