Can a videogame be ruined due to excessive difficulty?

HAHAHAHAHAHA @ the Battletoads GIF.

Me and my little brother spent DAYS on that sequence when it came out, and we didn't even own the damn thing (we rented it). I think we made it past like ONCE, and then we died shortly after and had to do it all over again. So frustrating but so hilarious at the same time (even when we were kids we'd laugh at stuff like that) :D. Yet what would gamers nowadays do when that happens? "Wahh, there's no easy mode." "Wahhh, there's no savegame I can download to get past this." "Wahh, where's the cheat code I can enter for godmode?" FFS...

Like some others have said, I find myself extremely bored with most games nowadays as their challenges often come from bad programming/game design limiting how well you can play rather than well-planned challenges. Not only is it sickening to see some comments about "if it's too hard, I'll usually skip it" BS, but it says a lot about the difference between gamers today and old-school gamers of before.

BTW, I'm not Pacman era or anything, but I did grow up on NES==>TG16/Genesis/SNES==>N64/PS1/Saturn==>Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube==>This Gen. This Gen is fucking horrible compared to all previous ones in terms of game quality, and after this difficulty topic I may understand why...
 
Last edited:
I found Ridge Racer to be so difficult that it drove me to insanity (haha, pun). Nick one other car, miss a single drift and you've lost the entire 15 minute race. Few games got me that mad in the modern era. Oh, and TaleSpin for Nintendo, fuck off Baloo.
 
First off it seems you guys are playing the NEW Ninja Gaiden go play the old one and come back its way hard, as far as TMNT on the NES I also never got past the level that is after the under water section, yes FUCK ELECTRIC SEAWEED!

Also Super Meat Boy is way way way hard I am suprised at how hard it is but its a nice change of pace.

most RTS I can beat on hard without a doubt, but fucking Civilization on any setting whips my ass each time I have never once beat that game.

Also Legend of Grimrock I did not finish but it was going ok hard as shit, wanna know whats harder? Eye of the Beholder the game its based off of so so hard I dont know anyone that has ever beat it.
 
huxley said:
I found Ridge Racer to be so difficult that it drove me to insanity (haha, pun). Nick one other car, miss a single drift and you've lost the entire 15 minute race. Few games got me that mad in the modern era. Oh, and TaleSpin for Nintendo, fuck off Baloo.
Click to expand...

Lotus Turbo Challenge... SEGA Genesis.

Lotus%20Turbo%20Challenge.jpg
 
Dark Shade said:
http://cdn.duelinganalogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Is-This-Battletoads.gif
Click to expand...

That's the thing about this game. I've beaten it. Granted, I always played with my brothers, instead of playing alone. But it doesn't appear, at least to me, as hard as everyone claims. Classic NG always destroyed me though. So I always thought of it as harder. Contra as well, damn those games. I always needed the konami code to beat contra. And with a ridiculous amount of lives, I don't see how you can lose.
 
Shinobi for the Genesis is a bitch and a half. Especially when the controls stop functioning mid jump. THAT pissed me off.
 
I don't believe so unless you are a casual player or starting to become one. Game difficulty is simply a mechanism of a game , it shouldn't be cast unto the player to constantly deal with. You should only , as the player , interact with it when you feel the game challenge is too high and you want something more forgiving and thus comfortable.

I don't think an excessively hard game should be viewed as "ruining" the experience. That's nonsense. If you think its to hard then maybe you just don't want to play games that hard anymore. Games of the past I often find to be MUCH harder on the player than modern day games. The challenge is also integrated into the gameplay flow which is very important for a well developed and praised game. Pacing is everything and thus it ties directly into difficultly without question.

So no , in conclusion I don't believe higher difficulty ruins any gaming experience. If its too hard for you then either drop down its difficultly , learn to cope with it and thus arise to the challenge or play another game and quit whining about it.
 
Godmachine said:
I don't believe so unless you are a casual player or starting to become one. Game difficulty is simply a mechanism of a game , it shouldn't be cast unto the player to constantly deal with. You should only , as the player , interact with it when you feel the game challenge is too high and you want something more forgiving and thus comfortable.

I don't think an excessively hard game should be viewed as "ruining" the experience. That's nonsense. If you think its to hard then maybe you just don't want to play games that hard anymore. Games of the past I often find to be MUCH harder on the player than modern day games. The challenge is also integrated into the gameplay flow which is very important for a well developed and praised game. Pacing is everything and thus it ties directly into difficultly without question.

So no , in conclusion I don't believe higher difficulty ruins any gaming experience. If its too hard for you then either drop down its difficultly , learn to cope with it and thus arise to the challenge or play another game and quit whining about it.
Click to expand...


Bullshit there are a few games that come out with the difficulty so unrealistic that you have to bash your head against a wall or result to exploits to win. I don't give a fuck who you are or what phony elitist shit you spew that ruins games.
 
It depends on what makes the difficulty. I can deal with hard games, but I dislike cheap games.

E.G.

Battletoads is a hard game. The bike level can eventually be beaten by memorization.

Wizardry IV is a cheap game. No matter how leveled up you are, you can have your game ended instantly by

A) An enemy who is immune to all damage (for the most part), knows where you are at all time, and can chase you through walls.
B) Ninja's who can instant kill you with a critical hit.
C) Mages who can instant kill you by teleporting you into a wall.
D) AI controlled party members who decide not to fight in the battles.

Another thing to take into consideration is what exactly is difficulty. Many games today, even on their hardest setting, are much easier than games of yesteryear (due to the arcade culture of quarter munching). If on an objective based scale of difficulty, we have to remember that going from a 6 to an 8 is not that big of a jump and wouldn't turn off your audience if everyone was use to it, unlike going from a 2 to a 6.
 
Developers almost always take the easy way out and just give AI better accuracy and what not. That makes the game just terrible in my opinion.

They don't take the time to actually make puzzles harder or anything like that. They just turn up a few variables and pass it off as "Hard".
 
Gilbert_pwns said:
Developers almost always take the easy way out and just give AI better accuracy and what not. That makes the game just terrible in my opinion.

They don't take the time to actually make puzzles harder or anything like that. They just turn up a few variables and pass it off as "Hard".
Click to expand...

It's quite a difficult task to make puzzles harder though, especially in the internet age. Don't know something? Look it up. Many older puzzle games of yesteryear are a piece of cake today because of this, and easier than puzzles today. Because sadly, developers have to assume we're cheating ***** who will look up everything before we play the game, and build around that.
 
dj_taboo said:
...oh and Ghosts and Goblins was kinda crazy.
Why don't you pick up Mega Man 9 or 10 on console and give them a try?
Click to expand...

You know I like a challenge and think a lot of games are to easy now a days (even Dark Souls wasn't that hard if you were patient). But seriously Ghosts and Goblins... I would say something like "it can burn in the fiery pits of Hell" but that would probably be like telling it to go home. That freaking game was so insane that I couldn't even beat it when using a emulator with quick save and quick load :mad:
 
I would say yes, they can be too hard. Worse is crappy games that have save points instead of being able to save wherever you want. I won't even play those games anymore. I have WAY more fun playing a game like Skyrim where I can save at any point so that stupid mistakes don't force me to sit through 15 or more minutes of gameplay over and over again. I don't have the time for that kind of repetitive shit. Games are for fun and I don't find that fun at all. I'm not trying to "beat" the game as much as experience it. To each their own, but that's the way I like to play.
 
Killa_2327 said:
Red Alert with brutal AI. So much fun...:mad:
Click to expand...

I managed to beat brutal on the map with two bridges separating the NE and SW corner. I'd kill the top bridge with rocketman, and take the expansion early.. and setup some sort of mega bunker / tank position and hold that pinch spot. They'd cheat like hell and throw tons of stuff at me, but eventually even the brutal AI would run out of resources. They also weren't too smart about fixing the bridge to the north. Once I learned how to take advantage of the AI I could beat it repeatedly on THAT map. Other maps were stupidly unfair.
 
aL Mac said:
I managed to beat brutal on the map with two bridges separating the NE and SW corner. I'd kill the top bridge with rocketman, and take the expansion early.. and setup some sort of mega bunker / tank position and hold that pinch spot. They'd cheat like hell and throw tons of stuff at me, but eventually even the brutal AI would run out of resources. They also weren't too smart about fixing the bridge to the north. Once I learned how to take advantage of the AI I could beat it repeatedly on THAT map. Other maps were stupidly unfair.
Click to expand...

Don't know about Red Alert but in Command and Conquer 3 and Kane's Wrath you could easily beat the brutal enemy AI by rushing. Just build a bunch of infantry and rush as soon as you can. kill their bar, then war factory if they have it, then conyard. Really easy to do with Scrin/Reaper/and maybe traveller (don't remember) and I think one of the factions of Nod. With scrin I wouldn't destroy the bar and would just put 2 anti infantry guys right in front of it and they would kill new enemies right away. Doing that I could beat 1 brutal basically every time and 2 probably 60% of the time and beat 3 a couple of times but 3 was mostly luck or a glitch map I would guess. With a friend I could double that.

However that is what I consider a bad example of game difficulty since its just the computer cheating. The computer doesn't use better tactics it just flat out gets more money than you and over whelms you with enemies that just walk in straight lines into you base non-stop. Its also bad because of how easy it is to exploit but how it seems impossible if you try to play it like a human player. Its like how Seth in street fighter 4 seemed really hard because he would counter almost anything you did but if you learn his patterns you can beat him easily 99% of the time on the hardest difficulty.
 
aL Mac said:
I managed to beat brutal on the map with two bridges separating the NE and SW corner. I'd kill the top bridge with rocketman, and take the expansion early.. and setup some sort of mega bunker / tank position and hold that pinch spot. They'd cheat like hell and throw tons of stuff at me, but eventually even the brutal AI would run out of resources. They also weren't too smart about fixing the bridge to the north. Once I learned how to take advantage of the AI I could beat it repeatedly on THAT map. Other maps were stupidly unfair.
Click to expand...

Late 90s to mid 2000s RTS games are some of the worst offenders. They just give huge bumps in resources to the CPU player. Then again, one can feel validated cheating right back and using whatever exploit possible. Age of Empires 3 on the hardest difficulty is absolutely brutal.
 
I would like to say that annoying cheating AIs can ruin a game. I've been playing NBA Jam OFE on the 360 and can't beat the Orlando Magic gold challenge. You get 3 points for dunking it and the computer will just dunk any time any where while it makes you throw layups and just inexplicably keeps you from dunking. Additionally it'll make you miss your shots and all sorts of just horrible cheap AI programming.

I don't mind challenging games but crappy cheating AI's just make games not fun.
 
I would always select "Too Hard" over "Too Easy" any day of the week. I rarely play games on normal, even on the first playthrough. It always thrills me when developers include super difficult modes because it makes "getting good" at the game worth it. If I have trouble with an area, I will never walk away until a beat it fair and square. I guess it just depends on the individual.
 
only 1 game comes to mind- Dark Souls (PC)...holy crap that game was brutal at times...the fact that you can't quicksave and have to potentially replay large sections makes it even more frustrating...but when you finally defeat that boss that for a while looked impossible, the satisfaction is amazing...don't want to make a habit playing games like this but it's a nice change of pace
 
edifyingkarma said:
I would always select "Too Hard" over "Too Easy" any day of the week. I rarely play games on normal, even on the first playthrough. It always thrills me when developers include super difficult modes because it makes "getting good" at the game worth it. If I have trouble with an area, I will never walk away until a beat it fair and square. I guess it just depends on the individual.
Click to expand...

I used to be the same type of guy until somewhat recently. I had to play the game on a very hard difficulty and finish all the sidequests/extras. Recently, I started playing more games on normal and was shocked at how fun it can be to just enjoy a game rather than being frustrated half the time.
 
Added difficulty modes to me seems to be a lazy way to cover that most games are just too freaking short.
 
Well, I did stop playing Witcher 2 at release - hit a difficulty wall and didn't have a close savepoint to backtrack. Haven't gone back yet, but it's on my list, that was before any updates, here it progresses more evenly now. Need to stop trying to finish Skyrim with 3 characters at once. Then again, I've got a couple big titles in my Steam catalogue.

Ninja Gaiden: Black on xbox was a stupid purchase, I should have known better. Given how they ramp the difficulty for the boss battle in Dead of Alive games (think it was in DoA 2 where the final boss battle happens at a 3/4 view instead of side on... wtf... and DoA 3 where the final boss has a half dozen unblockable attacks).

Remember some Batman game I rented for the NES being damn near impossible, and of course I broke my game gear after a particularly frustrating inning of some MLB game.

So yeah... excessive or uneven difficulty can definitely ruin games. In contrast really well handled difficulty can be really rewarding. Recently I've been really impressed by FTL, takes a combination of the right strategy and some luck (sometimes a lot of luck, or just luck at the right time, nothing worse than seeing the exact upgrade you need in store when you don't have the scrap -- and the freakin rebel fleet is going to capture that system so there is no return trip).
 
dj_taboo said:
@op...how old are you????
Those games aren't even all that rough.

Like others have said, TMNT on NES was pretty bad. The satisfaction of making it out of that dam was great though! I did it. ONCE.
Oh and before the Internet, the mountains on Zelda was rough. You had to remember what that old lady said or know someone who figured it out.
Click to expand...

I am 43. Have beaten R-Type before. And still having fun with F-Zero GX for Gamecube. The difficulty for that one is up there but it seems more playable than some of the other hard games.
 
Nytegard said:
Wizardry IV is a cheap game. No matter how leveled up you are, you can have your game ended instantly by

A) An enemy who is immune to all damage (for the most part), knows where you are at all time, and can chase you through walls.
B) Ninja's who can instant kill you with a critical hit.
C) Mages who can instant kill you by teleporting you into a wall.
D) AI controlled party members who decide not to fight in the battles.
Click to expand...

this makes me think of Final Fantasy Legend 1/2 on Gameboy. Messed up stat increases, enemies that murder you all the time. Bosses who 1 hit you nearly all the time and just lots of other random annoyances.

I always loved those vehicle levels in battletoads....

Thing is, as a kid, the 8bit/16bit challenge wasn't a bother but today, they are just so frustratingly hard I can't stomach playing them for long.
 
Serpent said:
That's the thing about this game. I've beaten it. Granted, I always played with my brothers, instead of playing alone. But it doesn't appear, at least to me, as hard as everyone claims. Classic NG always destroyed me though. So I always thought of it as harder. Contra as well, damn those games. I always needed the konami code to beat contra. And with a ridiculous amount of lives, I don't see how you can lose.
Click to expand...

It's not.
I've beat it many times. The REAL reason to hate that game is the SNAKE PIT.
You can tell who didn't really play the game through when they mention the speed bikes. That wasn't the hardest stage by far!

BTW, another thing you may not have known, if by some miracle you make it to the final stage in 2 player mode, the game will lock up at the final screen and never load the final battle. You must reset to continue. It's a bug that was never fixed. The game is completely unbeatable in 2 player mode. Of course, you would have had to make it there to find out......


Ninja Gaiden
Stage 5-3, and the final boss. If you lose, the game puts you back 3(!) stages and you must fight your way all the way back, just to start the 3 round (lose any round and its back 3 stages again) battle all over again. Now that was just mean. They didn't have to do that. Sooooooooooooooo infuriating if you lose.
 
polonyc2 said:
only 1 game comes to mind- Dark Souls (PC)...holy crap that game was brutal at times...the fact that you can't quicksave and have to potentially replay large sections makes it even more frustrating...but when you finally defeat that boss that for a while looked impossible, the satisfaction is amazing...don't want to make a habit playing games like this but it's a nice change of pace
Click to expand...

If you don't master all aspects of game-play you might still beat Dark Souls on the first pass, but if you go for round 2 or higher your really need to know the inner working mechanics of the game or your going to get your butt handed to you, but nothing in the game is actually cheap and the A.I. always work with a certain pattern so once you know it there is nothing that you can't overcome, albit maby with a lot of trail and error at parts until you learn the secret to defeating enemies.

Difficulty like that I like, not just like make enemies 10x more health and damage then you. I like it if everyone play's fair but they trick you do to actual A.I. But making stuff smarter in games is much harder then the former.
 
Dark Souls is definitely the posterboy for the modern age. The main gripe isn’t just the fact that you can die so quickly, but the fact that the game forces you to go through mundane areas repeatedly if you do happen to die. Half of my deaths relate to getting sick of going through the same thing over and over and trying desperately to speed it up. I’d describe it as intentional nails on a chalkboard.
Beyond that, the game is usually pretty fair…although some enemies are spam-happy at times and while beatable in theory, their difficulty can be VERY inconsistent. Hell, damage can be, too. Sometimes hits insta-kill, other times a single animation frame or roll of the dice can make that insta-kill only 30% damage. I’d say that’s nearly as bad as the repetitiousness. It feels like the game really is out to waste your time in certain sections.
 
yes, but it's more the lack of quicksave... as an adult I don't really have time to play 10-20 minutes of a part of the game over again because something happened. The trend towards getting rid of quicksave is rather annoying.

The original final fantasy for nintendo, played on an NES with no quicksave... to me that's the definition of difficulty. There are numerous other NES games that have no save that come to mind as well. Compared to those old NES games even the most difficuult of modern games seem easy. Games like Twilight princess are a cake walk.

I guess quicksave does make games easier, but I just like the time saving aspect of it.
 
Probably worth mentioning why so many older games forced you to replay sections and had no saves. Back in the early console days they had to have a battery in the cartridge and the devs were charged a premium to have it. The other option was a password, but games with a boatload of variables ended up being forced to have passwords that were insanely long to cover all of those variables.
The 3rd main reason is that games in those days had arcade roots. The idea was to give people enough play time that they didn’t bail, but to get them to keep paying/playing.
Some games were just flat out hard just to do it (Battletoads, TMNT, Blaster Master, etc.), but many others were hard because of other circumstances. I personally find those 3 extra funny because they were aimed at kids.
 
Domingo said:
Dark Souls is definitely the posterboy for the modern age. The main gripe isn’t just the fact that you can die so quickly, but the fact that the game forces you to go through mundane areas repeatedly if you do happen to die. Half of my deaths relate to getting sick of going through the same thing over and over and trying desperately to speed it up. I’d describe it as intentional nails on a chalkboard.
Beyond that, the game is usually pretty fair…although some enemies are spam-happy at times and while beatable in theory, their difficulty can be VERY inconsistent. Hell, damage can be, too. Sometimes hits insta-kill, other times a single animation frame or roll of the dice can make that insta-kill only 30% damage. I’d say that’s nearly as bad as the repetitiousness. It feels like the game really is out to waste your time in certain sections.
Click to expand...

I thought you actually liked the game. ;)
 
Bigbacon said:
this makes me think of Final Fantasy Legend 1/2 on Gameboy. Messed up stat increases, enemies that murder you all the time. Bosses who 1 hit you nearly all the time and just lots of other random annoyances.

I always loved those vehicle levels in battletoads....

Thing is, as a kid, the 8bit/16bit challenge wasn't a bother but today, they are just so frustratingly hard I can't stomach playing them for long.
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is, it was viewed as a ridiculously hard game back when those games were considered the norm. Think of the hardest RPG you've ever played. Now, multiply the difficulty by 10 and you're still underestimating it. (Wiz IV is still a hard game even with a walkthrough).

Not that it was all bad mind you. One thing I do like is that it punished you for saving. Let's face it. Many games the difficulty is all about just adding length, hence save points. Take any JRPG, or something like Dark Souls. The further you get in the game, the longer it is between places to save. I find that tedious and boring, but not difficult. I want to save when I want to save. But too often, being able to save any time makes a game easier. Die? Reload. Repeat. But Wizardry IV gets around that by punishing you severely for saving. Yes, you can save any time you want too, but you probably won't want too. I like that it adds risk to the game. You can push your luck and continue on without saving, and the game will be easier, or you can save, and lower your grind should you die, but you multiply the difficulty of your task ahead.
 
Ugh, I forgot all about Final Fantasy Legend...they were cruelly brutal. No save points for entire sections of the game. If I remember correctly, the final dungeon had no save point and you had to fight every end boss you had faced so far...something like a 4-6 hour dungeon experience. Then you die and start over again....:(
 
Hmmm, I don't seem to recall FF Legends to be difficult at all... *shrugs*
 
Difficulty used to be the appeal of video games. When was the last time you "completed" Mrs. Pacman?

I guess it depends on why the game is hard, if it can be overcome with practice and your personal view on "winning" and "losing".

I think it's amusing that there are games that I never managed to complete - from I-Ball on the C64:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ne_VOeB_AzE#t=144s

to Raiden Trad ( the arcade game ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkJN2IxDouk


Albert Einstein:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
 
It can be ruined if the gameplay does not hold up. Some games are great even if you play it on the higher difficulty settings. It is rewarding and puts your skills to the test. But then there are some games where the difficulty just emphasizes flaws in gameplay and gamedesign. These games are typically just frustrating to play on harder difficulty settings.

For example enemies spawning next to you and there is no way to do anything about it is not a problem on normal difficulty settings. But if that enemy one-shots you before you can even be aware of his presence, it becomes an issue. Same thing with bad hit-markers, or not having the correct weapon with you and no way of knowing you needed to have it beforehand (these are all issues I have run into)

Last game that I enjoyed playing through on harder difficulty setting is Halo 4. Im not really a console player, especially not for FPS. But playing Halo 4 on legendary setting was fun. The game was tough but fair. You know the rules of the game before you step in, and nothing glitchy or random happens. If you die you messed up, and there was a way to get through it without dying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top