Author Topic: Modern GameCube games Need Difficulty Settings (Read 13536 times)

theaveng · « **on:** February 24, 2003, 05:09:33 AM »

Difficulty: My primitive Atari 2600 had difficulty switches and multiple game variations per cartridge, so each player could tailor the game to his/her liking. You could make Pac-Man run fast or slow. Make the ghosts fast or slow. Your choice.

Why don't modern games have this? For example, Zelda: Wind Waker could have an option to start with 1 heart instead of 3 to increase difficulty.... or 10 hearts for children. Why don't modern games do this? I think they should.

Gamer Donkey · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2003, 05:20:28 AM »

There are still a few, but I know of fighting games. Like Bloody Roar and Godzilla: DAMM.

RickPowers · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2003, 06:57:05 AM »

Most games DO, so I don't understand what the point of your complaint is. Even Metroid Prime has higher difficulty settings. With old systems, it was a lot easier to simply flip a bit and have the whole game change, since there was only about 256 KILOBYTES of data. Your MEMORY CARD holds more than that now, so changing difficulty isn't quite as simple.

Alliedrally68 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2003, 07:05:35 AM »

Some games do, just not the one you mentioned. Some that I can think of are Beach Spikers, Rogue leader, Nightfire, RE and RE0, and Super Monkey Ball.

Icons by Size · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2003, 03:16:45 PM »

games have gotten easier over the years. i have trouble beating super mario 2 and i beat mario 64 no problem (i havent played SMS but i assume that is also so easy its not funny? )
i like games to be hard but thats just not nintendo's way i guess.

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2003, 03:24:51 PM »

I don't think it's so much that the games have gotten easier, so much as we have gotten better at them. I played SMB until I was practically bleeding trying to finish the game. It took me forever to finally finish it. Nowdays I can play the game without issue, and most games like it that were considered difficult back in the day.

That being said, a modern game is much more intense. The levels start out easier, and give you a nice gradual learning curve so that the game gets a lot harder the more you play. A lot of older games were just survival matches that made it so that the enemies got quicker as time went on, but no other real challenges.

Termin8Anakin · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2003, 03:27:13 PM »

There is a little something called 'cheats' that would also make your games a little easier.

Uncle Ed · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2003, 04:44:27 PM »

games have gotten easier over the years. i have trouble beating super mario 2 and i beat mario 64 no problem (i havent played SMS but i assume that is also so easy its not funny? )

That's because you got better at it. I could defeat Super Mario Brothers 2 easily.

Tygerqb12 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2003, 04:49:03 PM »

I agree that games have gotten harder. It's alot harder to beat games like SMB where you have to do everything just right, or you won't have enough lives and die. And once you do get a game over, you had to play through the whole game again. Now you can save your game every step of the way, and only have to beat difficult sections once, and never have to play through them again.

RahXephon · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2003, 04:55:55 PM »

i know, i got Super Mario Advance, and i beat all the games in a couple of days each. I think it is us who are changing. And it is not that games are easier, it is that 3d allows you much more area to move around, I always new when games became 3d it would be easier. So i say that it isn't the games, but the outside factors. I don't think games like mario could be harder, what could you do, jump on the koopas twice to get them in their shell, Just kidding. Actually, when i look at games like OoT, it surprises me that young gamers figure out the puzzles which aren't that easy. Oh well. Don't forgewt many games do have difficulty settings, allmost all the T and M games have them.

RahXephon · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2003, 04:58:17 PM »

I think games have changed also that it is about beating them. Old games you just played, with out much care if it was beaten, for the most part. New games work toward an ending, that is also something i have noticed, how you are lead somewhere in games. Only RPG's had save really, and only them lead you to an important ending.

theaveng · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2003, 09:26:45 AM »

I don't think we've changed. I started Mario Bros 1 and Mario 64 at the same time (last November). Mario 64 I beat within 2 weeks. Mario 1 is still not finished. Games have definitely become a lot easier since the 3D revolution.

Of course it wouldn't matter if games had difficulty settings... my original point. Game difficulty should be settable by the user (like RE's easy/medium/hard).

Ian Sane · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2003, 10:17:34 AM »

I think a big reason why difficulty settings aren't as common as they used to be is because games are just so much longer now and it would take too much effort for designers to make mutliple versions of the game. When a game is just a side scroller and has only ten levels it's pretty easy to just add more enemies and have less powerups, etc. However when you have a huge full 3D world where enemies have more complex AI and all sorts of factors can come into play it's not so easy to make different difficulty settings. Plus difficulty settings make more sense in a no-save beat-in-one-sitting game. In something like Zelda where it can take weeks to beat the game it's more frustrating for the user to have started their save on a difficulty that is either too easy or too hard for them and they have to start all over from the beginning.

As for those who complain that games are too easy today you have to keep in mind that the general design of games has changed. Games today are designed for the player to have fun and get the most out of. Back in "the day" when arcade games like Pac-Man and Space Invaders were the big titles games were designed to get as many quarters out of the player as possible. That's a huge change in game design philosophy which is why games aren't as hard as they used to be. Plus let's not forget that NES and SNES games were often pretty short so the games had to be hard or the player would beat them in two hours and have no incentive to play again. With games all having save features and lasting 20 hours there's no need to jack the difficulty up in order to extent game length.

babble · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2003, 11:38:27 AM »

Great reply Ian.

tmoney · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2003, 12:04:24 PM »

I think you've got a good point there , but I think you are making some broad generalizations that aren't entirely true. I entirely agree that adding difficulty settings can make a game more enjoyable in some cases. Take Timesplitters 2 for example. Easy mode is no problem at all - it could take just a couple hours max. Normal is a pretty fair setting - it could take a few days. But hard is really hard. I got up to level 6 out of 10 maybe - and that was after some pretty intense gameplay - and I have yet to get back to it and beat it (Skies of Arcadia and Zelda broke me away from it). And it was pointed out already - Resident Evil 1 would let you choose your setting at the beginning - I never played easy. I'm also playing the Zelda Master Quest - without ever playing the "easier" normal version (yes - I am embarassed to admit I never played it on my N64).

But unless I'm missing something - Rick is being a bit misleading about Metroid in a sense. There is a "hard mode" that gets unlocked by beating it on easy - but you can't choose hard mode for your first time through. I probably would have chosen hard if the option was available - but to be honest - I just wasn't ready to start over and beat it again right after I beat it the first time on "normal". Maybe someday I will get back to it - but I really wish that they had made that option available from the get go. Same thing with Resident Evil Zero I think. I beat it and I guess a harder version is available now - but I just didn't go back to it.

But Tony Hawk 4 has about 6 pro points that I just can't quite get - and there are 4 or 5 blue coins I never found in Mario Sunshine and I still haven't beaten FreakStyle. Some games can be pretty challenging.

Actually - FreakStyle makes the point valid the other direction (sorry - stick with me - that will make more sense in a second). My wife likes to play through games with the girl characters while I play as the guy characters. She beat SSX tricky pretty well - and even Tony Hawk 3. But FreakStyle had such cheap AI racing that even when she was racing well (better times than me somtimes) - she would lose. She eventually caught on that if you just race normal the first 2 laps and then get the shortcuts and race flawless on the last lap you will beat it. She would have enjoyed it more if she could have just toggled the difficulty down a bit. It should be easy to set difficulty in racing games.

But then there are disappointingly easy games like Star Fox Adventures. I thought the puzzles in there were a bit weak when I played it through before - but now that I'm playing Zelda - looking back at SFA makes me even more happy that I traded it in (after beating it of course - hoping it would get better at some point). The flying levels were a complete waste too. BUT I DIGRESS.

It is disappointing sometimes that developers don't take the time to add difficulty options - but what I find even more disappointing is that they make these settings only available the second time through a game. I would like that trend to stop. If you are going to take the time to make a hard mode available (which - yes - it takes a lot more time and resources to do now than it used to) - let us more experienced gamers choose it up front. Sorry to ramble on.

ShockingAlberto · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2003, 01:10:37 PM »

An important note: make sure gamers know about the selections in difficulty. I consider myself a pretty good gamer, but accidentally choosing the wrong difficulty can screw you. I took the hard path in Eternal Darkness accidentally (how was one supposed to know which artifact did what, especially in a rental?) and found playing the game an absolute chore. ESPECIALLY chapter II.

-- ShockingAlberto

RickPowers · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2003, 01:28:03 PM »

Comparing Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario 64 is patently ridiculous. Tell you what, just to make "the aveng" happy, let's never have a game released again that has a SAVE feature. After all, games would be much more difficult without it. Make people beat games in one sitting. Yeah, that's the answer.

Termin8Anakin · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2003, 01:45:21 PM »

Hahaha. Good Idea.
I think having to play Final Fantasy X or Zelda Wind Waker in one sitting would be pretty difficult. Not just play-wise, buy physically and mentally. Imagine what you'd look like after 40hours solid gaming.
Egh!

PIAC · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2003, 03:24:09 PM »

would be a similar result to what someone would look like on a 40 hour bender, but with sore fingers

RahXephon · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2003, 04:34:02 PM »

and more vomit

GoldShadow · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2003, 07:07:00 PM »

"Why don't modern games have this? For example, Zelda: Wind Waker could have an option to start with 1 heart instead of 3 to increase difficulty.... "

This is easy enough - just skip the first two hearts, it comes to the same thing. Ever try to beat OoT with only three hearts? It's hard. But, actually, the fun in Zelda doesn't come from its difficulty in action, but it's difficulty in puzzles. Action in Zelda games is, to me at least, basically a diversion. Puzzles are much, much harder to change the difficulty of.

I think the reason games are easier today is because of a simple save system - you can try as many times as you want to beat that last boss. It's easier, yes, but it's much less frustrating, and it's pretty redundant to go and play back through an entire game.

Also, as it's been mentioned, the difficulty in older games was often fairly cheap - one-hit kills, no saves, faster enemies. I think the difficulty in modern games is more meaningful, with games like Perfect Dark (still can't beat all the PA levels...)

BigDXLT · « **Reply #21 on:** February 25, 2003, 07:28:17 PM »

Perfect Dark took me over a year to get all of the normal missions... I never did go back to WAR! without the cheats on...

Super Mario Sunshine was not challenging, just frustrating. Some parts were easy as heck (like any kind of race) other parts were just plain annoying! (Like getting yoshi to land on that stupid cliff, then over to the square platforms in the shipyard level... I did that over and over... spend 5 minutes getting his fruit... then do a flying leap, hit an invisible wall and repeat... then I'd make it and slip off the stupid palm tree or something dumb...) I was ACE at SM64... I could get on the castle without the cannon 3 different ways (only learned the one off the net) I had EVERY little area down pat... the controls and camera were and are the best of their kind. The biggest problem with SM 64 though, was the lack of enemies. With SMS, well I haven't even had the urge to go back and get the last 10 or so shines, just because it's nothing more than a pain. The camera is a pain to manuever, mario has few moves, and things like that. Mind you, the mini-games are CHALLENGING and fun to boot.

oohhboy · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2003, 12:03:45 AM »

Thinking of old games dificulty, I have just unlocked NES metroid and I agree with GoldShadow about how games were cheap interms of difficulty. For example, in NES Metroid, you start off with only 30 health points, no shooting on angles, no crouching, no map, hint in game hints, a power beam that can only shoot the lenght of samus and not every guy you kill gives you energy and the guys take alot of hits.

In Fusion, you start with 99 energy, a proper gun(Not that toothpick), can shoot on angles, can crouch, maps and briefings and x pops out of every guy to fill you back up, guys yake less hits and are slower.

You could argue that they did not have the technical know how back then, but some of those moves are damn cheap.

With PD, the only mission I have not completed on Perfect would be War!. That is just nuts. That took me aleast a couple of months of on and off playing to get there. Timeslitters is another story, 1 month and I am up to Robot Factory on hard with 83.7 % complete. Older games are indeed harder. (PDC, 3 hours and 33 mins 4 if you count death

, returned the game the next day for fusion, 5.03 first time. with death, close to 6.

)

GE, everything done. that took like 6 months of on and off.

A comparison with SW RS64 and SW RL:RS2, RL is clearly harder due to the fact that everything is more complicated. The objectives were harder, the number of guys after your blood, the number of things you had to control. The medal earning parameters are harder and closer to the human limit of possilbity.

May comman sense save us all from having no save systems in games. I tried to complete tomb raider 1 once on the saturn with no MC, long story short, never did complete it. Playing anything for more than 10 hours striaght is going to kill you and leaving the machine on will only end in grieve

P.S GoldShadow you must have had alot of fun hearing that beeping sound alot.

theaveng · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2003, 02:54:03 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: RickPowers
Comparing Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario 64 is patently ridiculous. Tell you what, just to make "the aveng" happy, let's never have a game released again that has a SAVE feature. After all, games would be much more difficult without it. Make people beat games in one sitting. Yeah, that's the answer.

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. I did not say we should make games shorter or eliminate saves. I said we should make them harder with multiple difficulty settings.

If I was programming Final Fantasy 10, I'd include a "medium" and "hard" setting. The medium setting would multiply all the monsters HP by 2.0, and the hard setting would multiply their HP by 3.0. I would *love* to go back through FF10 with all the monsters having triple their HP... it would make the game a LOT more challenging than it is now! And fun!

With Zelda I'd change the number of initial hearts (as I said in the first post)... depending upon if you are a Zelda God (1 heart) or a Child (10 hearts).

Mario64... not sure what I'd do there. Maybe turn off the "coins=life" part of the game so players have to be careful not to get hurt. That would be fun!

And so on. IMHO, difficulty settings enhance replay value. Children can choose the "child" level so they don't get frustrated. Adult players can run through the game once on "easy"... and then challenge themselves a second time on "hard". That way there's more to a game than just "getting to the end" of it. You can continue to challenge yourself to be better-and-better.

noentiendo64 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2003, 06:13:25 AM »

There was a great idea in Spiderman in the N64, the ´kid mode´. It not only made the game easier, the controls (quite complicated in this game) also became simpler, so young gamers could have fun with the game while older players got a very good version and not the usual watered-down superhero license. I dont have the recent Spiderman game for the gamecube, so I´m not sure if that option has been mantained.

News:

Author Topic: Modern GameCube games Need Difficulty Settings (Read 13536 times)