Topic: Making games challenging again...

I don't think so. Mega Man does not have poor game design yet you encounter the enemies at random times. Almost no scenario (unless it's a rushed game), have I seen poor game design.

Mega Man allows you to randomly encounter new or old enemies and notice what they're about to do before you get hit, thus allowing you to avoid them depending. If your reflexes are absolute shot or your rushing through the game, you will be hit by those enemies.

You just disproved your point though

For some people the challenge to be found in games (Contra, Mega Man, Monster Hunter), makes the game what it is and thus makes it fun and rewarding. I'm one of those people. If Contra o Monster Hunter were easy as, say Donkey Kong Country, it wouldn't have been the same experience.

I've yet to see a single convincing argument that Mega Man has good game design.

simply saying it does because its your opinion doesn't count as proof, BTW

Wheres your proof that it doesn't? If you were to play the game you would know why your point is flat. Also Super Mario World can be guilty of this on many occasions. That must be the worst game in the world, huh?

Edit: By the way, if Mega Man had poor level design (which would ruin the games mind you), why did it have 7 sequels? Plus the branches to other franchise? (X series, Legends, etc.)

Why Mega Man is awesome (NSFW language).
[youtube:8FpigqfcvlM]

What Syko posted. (Even though I posted that video months ago and had a very similar topic to this. Sucks THAT didn't lift off.)

egoraptor rocks.

I feel like 3D sonic games are really easy compared to the 2D ones. I STILL can beat chemicle plant zone easily... but I can zoom right through Eggman land. Maybe it's just me, but 2D sonic games are much harder.

@GundamMac: Well in roguelike games like Shiren the randomness is a major draw in. Each time the area you explore is differant as are the items you find. Sometimes you get your butt handed to you and other times you breeze through until a point.

In the old Dragon Quest games the random encounters make fights more risky because when the enemy attacks it is an ambush. You have no idea how strong the enemy will be and it means you might find yourself in a situation where you have to use all your skills to get out alive. I lament the direction of the new games where you can recognise a strong enemy and go in the other direction. So, yes. For me the randomness does help make the game more enjoyable.

@Viewtiful_Joe: Haha, I didn't even realize that video was already posted in this thread. egoraptor does rock.

Evidently you're missing a key word here: NEED. You don't NEED cheap crap being thrown at the player that they have to memorize instead of reacting to in order for it to be a good challenge.

And for the record, games like Mega Man 2 and Sonic 2 aren't all that cheap. Most of the time you're given enough time to react to things, and they'll introduce new things slower than a cheap game would. That's why I can blow through Mega Man 2 and Sonic 2, yet I can't even get through the second World of Super Mario Bros. 3. Games like those are good despite thier cheap moments, which artificially inflate the difficulty. VVVVVV on the other had is extremely difficult, yet very fair. New things are introduced in an adequet manner so as to keep things challenging without making death anything but your fault, and limiting the frustration level. Outside of some key instances I rarely found myself getting frustrated with VVVVVV, despite always feeling tested.

You don't NEED cheap crap being thrown at the player that they have to memorize instead of reacting to in order for it to be a good challenge.

Never said you did. Just because you're frustrated by this stuff doesn't mean it's officially classified as "cheap crap". Sometimes that stuff is meant to distinguish the theme of the stage you're on (things flying at you like birds, dinosaurs, planes, etc.). Take a few Mega Man 2's stages for instance. Nobody is saying things that fly at you off screen is the only way for these games to be difficult. But then again, you're missing the point that not all games back in the day had a difficulty that revolved around things hitting you in unfair ways. Until you understand that please don't continue this conversation.

And for the record, games like Sonic 2 aren't all that cheap. Most of the time you're given enough time to react to things, and they'll introduce new things slower than a cheap game would.

There isn't anything to record here. If you've ever played Sonic the intentional way (being an awesome speed demon), you will hit everything. Sonic was the worst example to back up your point.

That's why I can blow through Mega Man 2 and Sonic 2, yet I can't even get through the second World of Super Mario Bros. 3.

That amazes me. Is Super Mario Bros. 3 cheap crap to you? Because that's one game that definitely introduces things before you take damage.

All the games today that have stories and are linear, usually the FPS or adventure games, are really easy and present no challenge. Usually it's because they were thinking more about the on-line aspect of the game all the time. It's why I find it a necessity to play the VC games to experience the real difficulty of platformers and shooters - it's much more satisfying, and you don't think that you will necessarily ever beat the game. It's why the Bit Trip games were so great... that ol' school difficulty, one more time feeling. It's a lost art, but it's one of the big pluses of the Wii in general.

I actually do like your ideas here; I think games should be more dynamic and give us much more options in terms of difficulty than just simply three difficulty options that, for all we know, don't change anything besides some minor enemy stats.

• Don't place a bunch of checkpoints in every level. Death in games should be a consequence, not simply a hindrance.

Did you get that mixed up? Because last I checked, I find games that send me back halfway through an hour-long level just because of terrible checkpoint placement more annoying than "Challenging".

• If a game has multiple lives, don't spoil us with millions of 1-ups (looking at you Mario and Sonic). 1-ups should be a reward, not given away like candy.

But the problem is that loosing all of your lives doesn't mean anything anymore. Back in the "Good Old Days", getting to a Game Over screen meant that you would have lost what could be hours of progress. Nowadays getting a Game Over screen in games that do still use a lives system simply means starting the stage from the beginning rather than the mid-level checkpoint.

But MEGAMAN MEGAMAN, those block fall when you step on them!!! HAHAHA

I've laughed about that video all flippin' night!!!

Once again, I wonder why I ever bother reading your posts. I never once said that "Old games were cheap crap" as you're saying. I don't even understand where you came to that conclusion. All I was saying was that most respectable modern platformers had learned from the mistakes of the past and now are mostly devoid of cheap moments, and were still challenging games despite that, thus proving that a platformer doesn't need cheap moments and memorization(another key word I may have forgotten) in order to be challenging. I'm so sorry I didn't mention the 5 or so old games that aren't cheap when it was so much easier for me to mention the 10+ modern games that I actually enjoyed.

You said modern platformers don't "need cheap crap being thrown at the player for the games to be challenging." Which is false and is implying old school platformers do that.

Old school platformers rarely had this problem yet you're saying it like you're right and have provided multiple examples to support your point. Which you have not.

I'll ask again: Is Super Mario Bros. 3 cheap crap to you? Why or why not?

Hahaha! I love it when she like desperately interrupts to tell you whats going on. xD Her eyes are like bugging out of her head. xDDDD

I'm still waiting for proof that old school platformers aren't cheap and/ or random.

I really don't care if you personally prefer them, Viewtiful. I want a legitimate explanation on how Mega Man is not poor game design. Throwing it back at me and saying "prove it is bad game design," doesn't count, since my argument stands: There's a reason that the industry moved away from that crap. There's a reason the board game industry has done away with dice almost entirely. Cheap and random crap doesn't fly any more.

Also: "There's seven games" doesn't count either. Mega Man is a popular character, and remains popular because there's a legion of gamers out there willing to forgive bad game design because it's retro and cool and "hard" and stuff. I know. I still enjoy Final Fantasy 1 and the early Dragon Quest games. I'm not about to claim they're well designed games though. Their charms lie elsewhere.

None of that disproves that the games are bad design.

I'll admit, I have an advantage here. Having played Demon's Souls and Dark Souls I have conclusive proof that there is a difference between cheap and random game design that is hard, and hard through being genuinely challenging and good game design. I doubt you've played either game, because if you had we wouldn't be having this argument.

Games with poor game design are bad games. Bad games don't get sequels mi amigo.

To answer your question here it is:

Mega Man does not have poor game design. The layouts are very well thought out. You are always introduced to the enemies before hand resulting in a difficult learning curve for you to figure out. Trial and error for many. Like what egoraptor was saying the enemy placement is perfectly placed so you won't get hit by enemies from nowhere.

Take Mega Man 9's Galaxy Man's level. The first floor you will realize that the UFOs are steadily coming for you in an up-and-down motion. Place so perfectly that you can avoid them without hesitation. Which is giving you the amount of time to take into account their movements to decide the best COA. (A lot of us here have played MM9 and MM10. So just go play it and realize on your own how great the levels are designed.)

Going all the way back to Mega Man 2.
[youtube:99xFEm-4I1I]

At 0:07 the big head appears from nowhere. The second it appears you are introduced to drills coming from each end before you actually reach it. Along with that are the little guys coming from the sides of it are also introduced in the same way. Up until 1:01 nothing is cheap. 1:15 you are up against Air Man minions that blow you away. Placed perfectly for you to blast them away immediately as shown. And there you go.

Mega Man 6.
[youtube:EL-i-irRoG0]

Witness up until 1:00 every enemy is placed the way egoraptor and I have been saying. They are placed perfectly so you can take them out regardless.

What am i doing? Watching this makes me feel like so powerful. I just gave you two random Robot Masters to watch and explained a third as proof. These three examples are exact proof as how Mega Man is flawless in many ways. One being level design. Bazinga.

Also visit this man's Youtube channel. He inadvertantly shows you how awesome Mega Man is in every way including the difficulty.

Okay now my question!! <3

You didn't watch the egoraptor video, did you? I will admit that a lot of old games WERE unfair, as an artificial way to increase length, but not all of them. And Mega Man is an example of some that aren't. It's cool if you say a lot of old games (well, at least 8 bit. 16 bit games were usually pretty fair) are unfair, but Mega Man is not. And that's coming from someone who isn't even GOOD at Mega Man.

And wait, board games don't use dice? I'll admit I don't play many board games, but I'm pretty sure luck and randomness are still pretty prominent, regardless of if dice are used or not.