Topic: Does Game Difficulty Really Matter?

I must have just gotten lucky with order and I definately search for every piece of a heart and master ore I could, and upgraded my items often. I thought it was the easiest and shortest Zelda I have played. But still a really good game. O i also carried around 3 fairies at all times. I will definately try hero mode in the future.

I was just wondering this a couple of days ago. I generally love super challenging/frustrating games (ie. Super Meat Boy), but I also love games that are pretty easy for me (ie. Mega Man II, which I love to death, but I almost beat it in a day).

...I think I had so much trouble because I didn't explore at all, I just did what I was told, basically... I beat everything (minus the final boss) without:

• The second item slot;
• The Pegasus Boots;
• The Red Mail;
• The gold Master Sword;
• or the Bug Net.

...I didn't even know any of those things existed until I started asking people why I was having so much trouble with the final boss... I ended up taking something like 10 tries to beat him...

Please tell me that was your first Zelda game...

@Gioku Lol, I went the whole game without the Pegasus Boots, too. Well, for the most part. I got them before the final boss. I knew who HAD the boots and that they existed.. I just couldn't figure out how to get him to give them to me, like an idiot. I finally asked a stupid hint ghost and felt so dumb that it hurt. I've come to expect that from Zelda games.. that will make me feel really dumb at least one time per game. I love them for that.

I imagine the final boss and many other parts may have been a bit harder without the golden master sword, so more deaths would be expected.

Sorry, but this is my third (I've previously played Four Swords Anniversary Edition and Ocarina of Time 3D)... heh...

...I got stuck on the second dungeon of the Master Quest for three months in OoT because I had never known you could break crates by somersaulting into them... needless to say... I don't do exploration or experimentation... for better or for worse...

to be fair, when I was younger I had no idea how to get to the basement of the Great Deku Tree.

Have you figured it out yet?

Depends on the game, really. Certain games are designed to be a stiff challenge, and most of the satisfaction of playing them comes from that. On the other hand, criticizing a Kirby game for being easy is like criticizing water for being wet. Kirby games are almost always easy, and it would be weird if one suddenly decided NOT to be.

It really depends on the kind of game, and the sort of experience you want to have with it. But yes, it does matter.

Yeah...Adventure games - exploration = You're gonna have a bad time...

Ocarina of Time has a lot of points in it where it is easy to have no idea what to do. The aimless wandering about, trying to figure out the one thing you need to do next to advance the game is one of the reasons I didn't enjoy the original LoZ at all, and one reason why I wasn't too hot on OoT. It's just bad game design.

And, to be fair, I didn't fully upgrade my master sword in ALBW, either. There was no point. The game was so easy and short that it wasn't really worth the effort. I didn't even die once while playing it. :/

I see the point in this.....

For platform games, In my experience, there suppose to be easy at the first half atleast. Lives are a way of helping you how to overcome a level segment. Punishment on the other hand is a complete different thing because depending on the game, it can either be not much or something that you wish you'd never play it again.

Kirby Mass Attack is a perfect example for me because of two reasons.

1.As Kirby, its not easy as I expected. Completing 100% isn't fun but rather a chore.

2.The game mechanics are neither precise nor fair. You will get lots of frustration tapping the screen so hard that I gave up and just beaten the game without 100%.

Usually when I enjoy or love a game, I would complete 100% as a way of saying that I enjoyed it as long as the difficulty is balanced.

The original Rayman is considered to be hard though to me, it wasn't that obnoxious and it ended up being my favorite games of all time.

@Ralizah
OoT:
player " I'm gonna play again after months thankfully Navi will remind me what I was doing"
twenty minutes later
player "still nothing..... maybe I need to stand still for Navi to give me a hint"
more 10 minutes later
player "oh hell nothing yet!!!! I'm gonna find out myself!!!!"
one hour later, exactly when you find what you were suposed to do
Navi "Hey, Listen! we have no time to waste go to insert location here and do insert action here"
and that's my story with Ocarina of Time..........

All Zelda games are known to have situations on where to go except ALBW(If you're smart enough.) But I can say that except OOT which did a fantastic job in adding replay value, I don't like this hero mode option just to play the game safe.

Hah. This is why I'm glad they added that hint system to OoT3D. Makes the game much more playable.

Outside of the Deku Tree, I don't think I've had that experience with OoT. It's actually a pretty straight forward for Zelda...I've had more trouble figuring out what to do in Wind Waker than OoT. :/ It's problem is just that it's kinda boring and several of the dungeons are have outright terrible design.

Besides, getting lost is part of the experience in an adventure game. It forces you to think outside the box and experiment, which is always rewarded.

There's a common problem that people often forget to address, and that's the difference between a good challenge and pure frustration. They aren't the same thing, even though they can overlap. They are two completely different sides of level design however, and will often mark the difference between a rage platformer and something that's just plain difficult.

Take Champion's Road from Super Mario 3D World, for example. This level has a bit of both elements mixed in. It's long, it's difficult, and it's probably one of the scariest platforming levels you'll see, this generation. Nintendo did not hold back, with this one. Certain elements, like the length, or the obstacles themselves, are readable and make the challenge that much more satisfying. Some, however, such as the lack of a checkpoint, are really just infuriating, after a while.

That said, they did something very smart. If you're masochistic enough to reach this level, you're also masochistic enough to enjoy the less fair parts as much as the more fair ones. This won't deter players, as anyone getting to this point was prepared for it. (Or at least should've been) and as such, they even refuse to give you the white tanuki suit.

Now, for an example of difficulty done wrong, look at just about any "hardcore platformer." These things are painfully unfair. Trial and Error runs rampant, and that's if you can even manage the precise movements or timing required to get back to where you last failed. Cubit the Robot, on the 3DS eShop, is great example. You can't wait and learn a pattern before rushing the obstacle. Your frame of vision is too limited to really see much coming, and the timing is instantaneous, so if you jump even the tiniest margin after losing ground (which is not clearly marked, as the hitboxes are wonky, anyways), you don't only lose your initial jump, but you also lose your double jump, so there's absolutely no recovery, when this game decides you've lost. This gets infuriating extremely fast and causes even dedicated rage gamers to quit, after a while. If it weren't so short and didn't only cost $2, it would be absolutely unbearable to play.

On another side of this issue, you have Dark Souls, which is easily one of the hardest 7th gen games out there. This game is brutal, but entirely fair, for the most part. What's infuriating is how absolutely soul-crushingly unforgiving this game can be. Dark Souls is a niche game, however, and trial and error is contained. There are a few bosses that will murder you where you stand, if you don't know what's coming ahead of time, but really, they give you everything you need to handle the boss, the first time. You just often don't know what to expect. This is a good kind of trial-and-error where the game makes you understand the boss before you can beat it, and by such, lets you understand on your own how much you're progressing.

Difficulty is great, but the key is to be difficult without being frustrating. This is something that infamous rage platformers, such as I Wanna Be the Guy, and Super Meat Boy didn't quite get. To Meat Boy's credit, though, the way the game is set up is perfect for being difficult and frustrating without losing the niche players that it's aimed at: the rage gamers.

I think you're looking at it slightly wrong. I believe difficulty is very important. Just not necessarily the way you'd think. I want a good balance of good and bad games. Of course, it's more important for a game to be fun, but really, I want there to be at least some challenge, but I don't want an experience to be frustrating. It also depends on the game and the mood I'm in. Sometimes, I just want to play an easy and fun game instead of a challenging game that may occasionally annoy me. Also, the genre matters. I think games like RPGs should have some tactical difficulty whereas 2D Platformers should be slightly easier, and more creative and fun (not saying RPGs shouldn't be, but you get my point). There are a lot of factors in play with this question, but my overall answer is: difficulty is important. It's just not important in the way that every game has to be hard to beat.

...I still can't believe I beat the entire regular game of OoT without ever knowing one of the moves you could do...! XD

32 times???? That's incredible.