/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.439087]

Hey guys do you think difficulty makes a game better? By difficulty I mean the game is hard and not because of crappy controls. Take for instance games like the Ninja Gaiden trilogy on the NES, those games are pretty fucking hard and I only beat the first one but I felt that whenever you beat a hard level there was a huge feeling of satisfaction. Unlike Ikari Warriors for the NES, which I consider impossible to beat without codes, the difficulty only made the game a complete bore along with the crappy level design, moving slow as a turtle, and turning is a chore. So what Im really asking is does difficulty make a game better for the most part?

[Anonymous No.439123]

>>439087

I think you answered your own question? Difficulty for difficulty's sake (ARTIFICIAL) is no fun at all.

[Anonymous No.439160]

I liked how in Wizardry you could step in a teleporter trap to get teleported in a wall or getting quest items stolen by thieves that are needed to finish the game,

[Anonymous No.439163]

Hard as balls games that actually have great controls (like Ninja Gaiden) are a blast to play. That "die to Jacquio = back to 6.1) thing was three hundred different kinds of bullshit though, almost made me drop the game.

[Anonymous No.439204]

>>439087
You kind of answered your own questions. Fair difficulty is great. >>439163 got it right with NG1. I love it, but being sent back to the beginning of 6-4 because you died to the boss is really tedious and not enjoyable at all. It killed my desire to play.

I love Ys because the bosses can be difficult, but fair. This motherfucker, though, I'm not sure. It felt great to finally kill him, but the fight felt like a clusterfuck.

[Anonymous No.439245]

Difficulty that requires trial and error to succeed? Bad.
Difficulty that lengthens gameplay for no reason (grinding)? Bad, unless you like grinding.
Difficulty that includes puzzle-like elements outside a puzzle game? Bad. Might divert into grinding or trial and error gameplay

Difficulty that require raw skill to succeed? Good.
Difficulty that requires accessible tactics to succeed? Good.

Touhou: good.
Mario Brothers: good.
Mario: The Lost Levels: bad.
Super Mario World: good.
FFIV (Japanese version): bad.

[Anonymous No.439268]

It's not just controls, though. The game has to be balanced so that it's actually accomplishable within human reflexes.

I always felt that the control response for Battletoads was very good, very crisp, but the things they expected you to do were complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.439279]

>>439204
The problem with Dark Fact, if you ask me, was the hitbox. For EVERY OTHER ENEMY IN THE GAME, their entire sprite barring the obviously dangerous bits was the place you needed to connect with to do damage. With Dark Fact, it's his damn feet.

As it is, I can deal with the hitbox. I can deal with the danmaku fireballs. I can deal with the floor disappearing. I can deal with any two of those three. But I cannot deal with all three.

[Anonymous No.439280]

>>439245
> Touhou: good
Yep, that series is some good example of fair difficulty. Everything looks INSANE to a bystander, but as long as you keep your wits about you, even Lunatic is doable.

Fuck those 1LC guys though.

[Anonymous No.439303]

>>439245
You forgot to mention "Difficulty because of poor layout and/or bad controls? Bad."

Games that are hard just because they're shit games suck ass.

[Anonymous No.439336]

>>439303
and certain turn based games with moves that mean instant death
(i don't think that falls under trial and error, does it?)

[Anonymous No.439437]

Difficulty can make a game better but only to a point. It's possible to make a game too difficult, and it is also possible to make a game 'difficult' for all of the wrong reasons such as bad design choices.

Difficulty should NOT be used to judge how good two similar games are, however. It should only be looked at for game quality when you're thinking about that specific game. Even if two games in a series have different difficulty, that factor does not make one better than the other.

[Anonymous No.440952]

>>439245
>Difficulty that includes puzzle-like elements outside a puzzle game? Bad.

Go play Doom and say that again, fucker.

[Anonymous No.440969]

A game doesn't have to be really hard to be good, but some difficulty is needed. That's my problem with new Nintendo games. They don't challenge me at all, and treat me like a three year old. When I play a game I don't want to breeze through it, I want to be challenged!

[Anonymous No.441032]

>>439245

Lost Levels, bad? I would argue its one of the best "difficult" games I've ever played. There's really no trial and error, it's all about how skilled you are with the controller. The game never feels cheap, hell I'd argue it's the fairest Mario game of them all.

[Anonymous No.441040]

I think a big reason for difficulty back then was the lack of save systems. If you have to beat the entire game without saving that makes it a lot harder, if you die when you get a game over and have to start all over again.

[Anonymous No.441075]

>>439087
Nonsensical answer for your nonsensical question http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

[Anonymous No.441190]

i think the right difficulty with a smooth curve is important. it should generally be clear why you're doing poorly, too, to facilitate your improvement so the game does not feel frustrating. i would even say that the most important aspect of the difficulty is that the game does not feel frustrating--you don't want a game where you're stuck in anxiety the whole time; you want a game where given a reasonable amount of playtime you can reach flow
i think egorapter nailed the concept of good difficulty when he was talking about level design during his mmx sequelitis, explaining how the game and previous mega man games would start you off with one hazard you would come to understand, then another, then combining them so you understood what was going on but still had to keep on your toes

[Anonymous No.441263]

>>441190
Why does it go from boredom to relaxation depending on your skill level?

[Anonymous No.442378]

>>439087
Depends on the type of game, but in general, absolutely.

[Anonymous No.442545]

Yes and no.

A certain level of difficulty is obviously vital in making a game challenging and hard to put down. You wouldn't necessarily keep coming back to a game if it was a breeze to get through.

However, there is a fine line between being difficult enough to make a game really fun and exciting and the kind of fucking brain-splattering Nazi hard that results in broken controllers and holes in the wall. That's no fun. Then again...when you beat a game like that the accomplishment is huge...so I've contradicted myself.

I'm looking at you Chakan...

[Anonymous No.443080]

>>441032
I agree that Lost Levels is one of the best challenging games I've played. There are some trial and error things, but the fact that the game saves after each world is awesome. Of course, playing on the original NES is no good, but I played it on the virtual console and it was a fantastic challenge for me and my roommate. It took us a long time to get through it but we had a blast doing it.

I highly recommend it, its extremely well designed and I think the guy saying it's bad didn't give it the chance it deserves, or was playing it on original NES.

I also beat it coincidentally on the exact date of it's 25th anniversary, which was cool.

[Anonymous No.443098]

>>439087

>Hey guys do you think difficulty makes a game better?

No.

Good game design makes a game better.

[Anonymous No.443514]

I like variable difficulty settings, in which increasing the difficulty adds complexity to the game rather than just increasing enemy health/damage.

Perfect Dark had the best example of this I can think of. In addition to boosting enemy stats, raising the difficulty setting would add new mission objectives, present new puzzles and obstacles, and in a couple cases even alter the layout of the level.