/vr/ - Retro Games

Define 'fair'.

Most of the difficulty in video games comes down to pattern recognition which is ultimately just trial and error. Play a super difficult game enough times and you can beat it. Anyone can beat it.

>>4811556
>Most of the difficulty in video games comes down to pattern recognition which is ultimately just trial and error
Christ. Are you serious? If you are vague enough with words you can say everything in life is fucking trial and error.

Almost nobody is good enough to beat Mike Tyson on the first try. But the tells are there. You can dodge evade and counter everything with a bit of observation and experimentation. Some people can do it after a only a bit of practice. Some people, no matter how much "trial and error" they do, will never be quick enough to get the patterns down.

Now, if Mike Tyson randomly did a punch with NO tell, that would instantly knock you down, that would be unfair.

>>4811550
Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup

Dodonpachi

>>4811550

>>4811550
Street Fighter II: The World Warrior (arcade)

It's a great single player game that everyone should try to complete 100% with all 8 characters on the hardest difficulty. Just think of it as a game like Punch-Out!! rather than a competitive fighting game.

>>4811550
No better game for that than God Hand

oh wait no god hand is 2006 it's not retro enough oh nooooooo i'm fading away

>>4811673
how do I play it for free

>>4811550
Sokoban

>>4811556
No shit anyone could. Anyone (not mentally retarded) can learn how to be a theoretical physicist if they just try hard enough. The whole point is that the trying is difficult.

>>4812061
>Anyone (not mentally retarded) can learn how to be a theoretical physicist if they just try hard enough
No. Somebody could not be mentally retarded and still not be smart enough to be a professional theoretical physicist, even if he spent all his time studying. Genetic limits exist. Some people can't beat certain games no matter how hard they try, even if they're not mentally retarded. You could never beat Cypher at a duel in Quake, even if you played the game 10 times as much as he did. Even if you put 3 billion hours into the game he'd still smack you on your ass due to his natural superior talent (aim, map awareness, prediction, reflexes, planning, movement, etc). Only one guy has ever managed to beat a full single session run of Plutonia on Nightmare, and you bet your ass loads of people have been trying to do so for untold amounts of hours for the last 20+ years.

>>4812061
>hurrr if I wanted to cure cancer I could I just don't try hard enough
You don't suck because you don't try, you suck because you suck m8.

>>4811550
Contra. And I don't care what anyone says Ninja Gaiden is fair just get fucking good

>>4811556
made me think of all the games with bad controls I've owned over the years. A lot of the difficulty came from how badly thought out the controls were but you end up adjusting when you've got nothing else to play at the time.

>>4811550
Nethack is a great example.

>>4811550

Where did you find this picture of me?

>>4811619
The final boss of the second loop puts that into question

There's something interesting to think about concerning this topic.
The usual way of thinking that a game is fair, at least here, is "possible to beat the first time (no memorization required for survival), even if it may require very high reflexes or ability to quickly analyze patterns on reaction".
However, this goes for individual games; I'll explain.
I was able to clear the first loop of Batsugun Special Version on my first try of the game. Granted, it's an easy arcade shooter. But this was only possible because I've been playing similar games for years.
What happens then to people that, while smart and quick good reflexes, have never played games in their lives? Think of a 25 year old that is now playing this for their first time. He may even struggle with the controller itself at first!
I tested this some weeks ago, a friend of mine that, while has experience, has never been good at games. He no missed till the first boss, and barely survived till the third stage.
I think games used to be made to be fair to people that got into them. The shift to today's modern game design is that they take into consideration those people that have never touched a controller or don't know what WASD is. They want all of their games to possibly appeal to them, to be on the right amount of challenge for them to be engaging and not unfair.
Likewise, what a lot of people into games may find unfair those into harder stuff like most arcades won't.

>>4811550
The only game that comes to mind is pic related, which was released in '01. Even if you know it by heart it still has a lot of challenges

>>4812087
And this is why "Math is hard" and "Asians are good in Math" myths exists:
Idiots who are so preoccupied with assuming things aren't possible or doable, so they don't even try. This particular case is super jarring, as there is no association between difficulty and Math for all the "Confucian countries", while there exists a very strong incentive toward training and trying until you can do something.
So go fucking figure how you are literally crippling yourself by saying something just can't be done.
>inb4 some extrapolated example of things that are always impossible regardless of trying
Yeah, your reading comprehension and logical reasoning are also fucked. I bet someone told you reading is for fags

>>4812102
Contra is ez as balls m8

>>4812418
How so? Everything is very well telegraphed since the bullets move very slow. It's just insanely hard, not unfair

>>4812736
Ah, you're right, I was thinking of another final boss in the series. Had to check on YT to remember
Then yes, the game is quite fair, though getting used to its hitbox if you don't know it's so small in the first place can lead to some trial and error at first, nothing major (unlike, say, un ESPRADE where it's harder to get used to that)

>>4812437
This thread is about hard but fair videogames. WTF are you on about?

>>4812305
It's entirely possible for Nethack to kill you before you get to do anything. Unlikely, but you can generate a floor on the first level that has an artifact of opposing alignment on the tile you start. Since autopickup is still on it will blast you to death.

>>4811550
Hard things aren't fair.

>>4812429
it seems that video games were a niche product before, but then they got popular enough for companies to think about the people who never played one and want to get all of its fun at their first try

>>4811550
Twisted Metal 4 the first time you play it

then it gets so easy you can beat it like another 8 times, even when the difficulty supposedly gets higher every time you start it all over again

>>4811550
Gunstar Heroes

Every time.

>>4816013
They were never super niche, they just exploded

>>4812432
i LOVE zoo tycoon, i used to play it in school

great, another homm thread

>>4816873
>homm thread
a wot

>>4812305
Fuck this fucker, he's been fucking with me for days and I can't get past level 7. Seriously?

>>4813306
That's technically possible but such a rare case it doesn't really matter. Nethack is hard for sure, but the best player has ascended 30+ times in a row which shows It's pretty fair and beatable as well with skill.

>>4816015
A game that's only challenging on the first playthrough can't really be called hard.

>>4818167
Why not?

>>4818181
Do I really need to explain it to you? Lol

>>4812102
Ninja Gaiden is moderately difficult for 90% of the game, until it becomes cheap bullshit on 6-2. I have a problem with it being called a hard game, it's just developers being fucking assholes to pad out the ending of the game.

If you made a romhack that made 2 minor changes (one, fix the retarded jump on 6-2 and two, give a checkpoint on 6-3) I wouldn't even put Ninja Gaiden on a list of top 20 hard NES classics.

>>4818184
I was just wondering if you'd actually thought through what you wrote and it's very clear you have not.

>>4818195
I thought it through plenty. A game that's only challening on your first try isn't really hard by any measure.

>>4818218
You can't even write one sentence without contradicting yourself. You're making all kinds of assumptions but really have no idea how to articulate any of them.

For example: what specifically changes from a first playthrough to a second? Was the first playthrough so demanding that by the time you finished, you were an expert at the game? Consider Mike Tyson's Punch-Out. By the time you can beat Tyson, the rest of the game might be a complete cakewalk for you. Does that mean the game itself is "not hard by any measure."

Or maybe you're only talking about games where there's some kind of hidden knowledge that, once known, trivializes the game. Is a game like that worth playing more than once anyway? If a game isn't worth playing again, is the difficulty of subsequent playthroughs even worth measuring or discussing?

What if 80% of the game is really easy after you get the basic mechanics down on your first playthrough, 15% is easy after 2 playthroughs, and the last 5% takes 4 playthroughs to really master? Is the game "hard" or "not hard by any measure" based on your reasoning?

It's painfully obvious you haven't thought about this issue from any of these angles.

>>4818218
>all puzzles are easy because when you know the answer you can get it right every time, because I say so

I bet you play through games using a guide and then complain that everything's too easy to find.

>>4818256
>Is the game "hard" or "not hard by any measure" based on your reasoning?

That's a game which is not hard. Or at least I wouldn't consider hard. I guess you can disagree, but tome a hard game is still challenging even with practice and knowledge. >>4812305 for example.

>>4818258

Nope.

>>4816109
you gotta be a newtype to beat this one, I don't even think you can memorize

the last level is like 50 hair's breadth reactions that are all less than half a second

but I could never get in the zone for it, a single variation in position throws everything into chaos because of how fast the adds are and the precision of the hitboxes and the coordinates of objects

some kind of fucking genius made that shit for sure

a game made by geniuses for geniuses

>>4818262
>That's a game which is not hard. Or at least I wouldn't consider hard. I guess you can disagree
What I really disagree with is even using the binary classification "hard" and "not hard" when discussing different types of difficulty.

A game that is hard the first time is a game that is hard the first time. A game that remains challenging with practice and knowledge remains challenging with practice and knowledge. They're both hard in their own way, and unless there's a relevant reason to disqualify the first, then don't worry about whether it's "hard" or "not hard." In the context of "is it hard but fair" it's totally reasonable to talk about a game that's only hard the first time through, so long as it's a good example of whatever we agree constitutes "fair" difficulty.

>>4811550
The 7th saga, Romancing SaGa(Snes), Paladin's quest.

>>4811673
Surely you jest, anon. At higher difficulties the AI characters basically have magic powers including teleportation and mind reading. The computer cheats like a motherfucker.

>>4811979
>2018
>Still no HD God Hand sequel or remaster

>>4812765
Well, he got into commentary about how the difficulty of games really transposed into the difficulty of everything. In theory, nothing is impossible, if you are dedicated enough toward achieving a goal, then the goal can be achieved. Take John Carmack for example. He is famous around here for being a computer wizard. But his real power is that he was obsessed with computers from an early age, and has researched and practiced software creation for almost his entire life. He is the product of obsession and eternal devotion. Yes, maybe he had a genetic superiority of some kind. I won't deny that at some point, nature does play a part as does nurture. But a huge part of his success is his constant nurture effort. He has obsessed over his subject for a long time and we see the fruits of it in his results. Now we can say that if you got up and started right now, chances are slim you would get to be as good as Carmack. But if a kid right now was as dedicated and obsessed as Carmack was/is, then he probably could be on the same level, even if it would probably take decades.

I know I got off-base here a little but what I'm tying into is that video games almost all exist on a scale of "can do" activities. Almost any game actually complete is capable of being finished. It is just a matter of how much time and effort are required to get to the point that you can do it.

>>4818405

I would argue that the only place where natural limits really make an appearance is in contests, ie. Vs. Mode. In a fighting game or shooting game, you are probably more likely to see natural superiority come out, because, all other elements taken away, that is almost all that is left to separate wins and losses. Note that this implies physical limitations are the end all for who wins in a contest, where in reality there is still things like the meta of the game rules and the inherent mental game which factor in as well. But in terms of beating a game, I would argue that anything beatable is ultimately fair. The real question to me is, does the challenge entertain or does it only frustrate? I think that is what is really meant in most of these discussions, and I really feel it is too subjective to reach a valid basis for it, only a subjective majority at best could be obtained, and it would vary depending on the group that you asked.

>>4818412
Most people don't enjoy challenge at all, including video games. So an unfair game for them is one that isn't beatable on the first try without even concentrating.

To me, an unfair element in a game is something that, while beatable once you know it's coming, it's humanly impossible to see coming. So yeah, to me memorization shouldn't be required for basic survival.

>>4817252
Ha, level 7. You have no idea how far you have to go.

>>4818412
just shut the fuck up man

>>4818421
As the Great Lord of Mustard Race put it:
"But none of this made me stop playing the game. I'd slide of some janky geometry into lava, and then the hilarious commander would insult me and I would fantasize impaling the voice actor with an ocean liner piston butthole first. But then I'd slam the reload button and furiously nod my head in time with the loading music and try again. You see, I get angry, but angry is not bored. Angry gets shit done."

How do you define ‘hard but fair’?

For me, it’s about how the internal rules of the game are consistent, even if they’re used to be ball-bustingly difficult.

Like you press a button in a certain way and it always does the same thing. Enemies always react the same way, always have a consistent hitbox, etc.

Essentially when I die I want feel like it was my fault and something I can learn from and not because that cunting bat teleported into me from across the screen again.

>>4818616
Like >>4812432

>>4818642

Never played. Most recent game that comes to mind is Cuphead. As many times as I died I never felt like it was the game screwing me over.

Nothing felt as good as finally beating that fucking dragon for the first time after two hours of struggling

>>4811550

Mr. Gimmick. The controls are fucking spot on. You can get gud but that's up to how much you want to practice. When you die it's something stupid that you did.

>>4818616
It's all about effective communication of threats. For games to be fair they have to be made with the average human's ability taken into consideration. From average reaction times being the basis of attack animation lengths to human attention allocation ability being the basis of how much multitasking you can demand to memory limits being used to make sure information is given at the right time for things like puzzles. But the lines between fair and unfair are only clear when dealing with extremes, overall they are very blurry and subjective. Not all games should be fair to the average player either, some are aimed at a more skilled and knowledgeable audience.

I may be a tiny minority but I don't think fairness is very important for the player. Ultimately what it comes down to is how interesting and deep a challenge is, rather than how fair it is. A game could be very unfair on your first playthrough but still be extremely fun on repeats because the unfairness won't exist anymore but the rest of the game's challenge and depth will. This fairness above all mentality is primarily the result of games shifting towards a play once and never touch again model of newer games. The "Sonic was never good" discussion is a great example of this, its two different types of players clashing.

>>4818842
Good point. Psikyo games have unfair parts but the games are so good you keep coming back

>>4818853
Agreed, and they're even unfair if you're an experienced shmup player, for a player new to the genre they will be 100% bullshit. And yet they're very fun to learn and even more fun to play once you figure out good routes and how to fight bosses

>>4811556

>>4818861
Yeah, I'm one of those "experienced players". But some of their patterns seem just way too fast to dodge on reaction.

>>4811981

>>4818268
I beat this game several times when I was 14ish

>>4818187
kek okay it's been a while since I've played this. Which jump exactly?

>>4819829

>>4818346
>The 7th saga
That's the US subsidary punishing legitimate consumers with increased grinding in a shallow attempt to increase play time artificially to discourage rentals.
In fact the difficulty is so bullshit and botched the game can be UNWINNABLE with some party setups and enough grinding (you'd do because the game is hard and you want better stats)

Not exactly a paragon of "fairness".

Add to the pile of trash US versions of:
>Spike Mc Fang
>Popful Mail, Silhouette Mirage, Vay, Exile, Lunar... by Wrecking Designs
>Thousand Arms
>Dynamite Headdy
>Konami arcade games, World versions
>Lunar Magical School Saturn, a rare JP example

Cheap deaths because the game designer was shit (like Maria's fire spamming move in some versions of SOTN that are unavoidable AND can kill the player theorically, or games where a no damage 1cc run is mathematically impossible or down to luck or doable with patterns against common sense) aren't "fair" either.
Games that adjust for player performance to punish him and force a loss (rubber band AI in racing games, the sadistic version of Tetris, slot machine games) isn't fair.

Now on the other hand...

a game like Paladin Quest/Lennus 1, and Lennus 2, which have been designed to be difficult (no easily accessible healing methods) and properly balanced game design around it ARE FAIR, because the game designer thought about player enjoyment or giving him an out from difficult situations.

modern gaymers spoiled on pay-to-win microtransactions and handholding whining about old school game design doesn't make it "not fair".

>>4820151
How is 7th saga hard? All you need to do to win is grind a little and abuse buffs.

>>4818421
That might be a generally applicable situation, but games can be made for multiple people and they can have different ideas of what is hard and of what is fair. That's why I said it was ultimately subjective.

I agree with >>4818842 in that games don't need to be fair, they just need to be engaging. For some people, hardship causes them to disengage. For others however, hardship is what makes them want to keep on playing.

And great point about sonic games, I've never looked at it that way before.

>>4820651
>games don't need to be fair, they just need to be engaging
Exactly what I feel about these >>4820620

>For some people, hardship causes them to disengage.
These seem to heavily outnumber the other group, though