Topic: Making games challenging again...

@JarvanZheitk That video made me laugh my butt off!

@tendoboy You might want to sit down for this, but... I agree with you!
Yes, there are a few games today that give us a challenge, so many games are watered down to please everyone. It's becoming a bit ridiculous in my opinion. Mass Effect 3 has an option to allow players to only experience the games dialogue, without any shooting segments - because it's too hard for them. Ninja Gaiden Simga Plus and Ninja Gaiden III offer modes that auto-blocks, so gamers without hardcore skills can play the games - when the game's already offer an Easy Mode! This is development time that could have been better used for the main game in my opinion.

It bothers me that gaming is moving into this crazy idea that "everyone is equal" nonsense. Some like their games difficult and others don't: so we do what? We buy the games that cater to our desires!

But...this is also why the younger generation of gamers today despise the word hardcore. Why? Because it's something that they aren't and us gamers from the days where nearly all games were hardcore, we get frustrated about today's games that the younger generation adore so much. I do understand why younger gamers are frustrated when we we're infuriated at Nintendo's push to the casual market. Regardless, I'm so sick of all the "Press X button to Jump", "Press the joystick up to move forward" ...etc. It makes me want to scream "NO !@#$%$ !@#$, I'M NOT A $%^&*# IDIOT" at the TV screen EVERYTIME!

It bothers me that gaming is moving into this crazy idea that "everyone is equal" nonsense. Some like their games difficult and others don't: so we do what? We buy the games that cater to our desires!

And if games only cost a few thousand dollars to make, developers wouldn't feel such an urgent need to make games that cater to everyone

I dunno. This difficulty question annoys me. I'm pretty good with games, and if I turn a game on the hardest difficulty level, I'm challenged in all those things that people like Tendoboy perceive to be "difficult" - my reactions are tested, my frustration level is tested, and the game ususally picks up a few cheap tricks over the normal or easy difficulty level.

What more do you guys want, exactly?

In conclusion: if you want challenge, don't play on easy.

As for in-game tutorials, they annoy me too. But hey, that comes as part and parcel with the industry getting rid of instruction manuals, and that is something that we were all complicit in.

(don't believe me? You've all bought games that had shocking or non-existent manuals. Ergo you supported that trend). Developers need to introduce the less experienced gamers to gaming in some way, after all

I was just about to say this, though with an adendum that saus that normal is the new easy these days. Yes, a lot of games won't challenge you on normal (I'm not that good at shooters, yet the only one I'm having much trouble with lately is Uncharted, for instance), but diffculty options are standard these days, so just set it on a higher difficulty and you'll probably find yourself rather frustrated. Seriously, Tendoboy, a lot of your ideas are ones already implimented, at least on the higher difficulties.

Agreed. Have you played MW2 and missed an opportunity to get an achievement? Restart from last checkpoint. Apply that to Black Ops and you have to redo the entire mission. It is very annoying.

I actually don't agree with some of what you're saying here. Without the need to memorize levels and patterns to succeed I think platform games become quite boring to the point where players are just running through like mindless drones. i.e you need those "cheap" moments.

As for random encounters these are a staple of RPG games so it's pretty obvious that when you remove these the game is going to be straightforward. Those battles are meant to wear you down and make it difficult to move forward.

Yeah, you wouldn't be saying that if you played VVVVVV, N+, Rayman Origins...pretty much any good modern platformer. Most of those are challenging without requiring memorization.

...in the most unnecessarily annoying way possible, which proves his point.

I can agree to this to an extant. (also agree about dark/demons souls haha)

That's is one reason why I can't wait for kid icarus uprising. The whole intensity setting thing. But the best part is that you are rewarded for playing it on a harder setting. That's what I want, to be rewarded for taking the harder route. Otherwise what's the point? I mean Yeah a harder challenge, but if the game kicks your butt hard enough you'll switch down to at least medium and never think twice knowing the outcome is the same.

my two cents have safely been thrown in the pile.

If you're worried about the game kicking your but too much, you're probably not gonna start on Hard. Usually for the people who start on hard, they usually like the challenge and won't turn down the difficulty no matter what.

I think one of the problems is that the line between "hard", "frustrating", "challenging", and "unfair" is so blurry.

For instance, in the Halo series, Legendary mode makes the AI smarter, and insanely strong. It could be argued that it's just fair, because it's supposed to be hard. However, it could also be argued that it's unfair, because of the enemies' obvious physical advantage over you.
Another example is Mario kart (in the post-blue shell days). On 150cc, the computers get unfair stats, get a lot of blue shells, and get random boosts. Most people complain that it's unfair and frustrating. But, no one can argue that it's hard.

I think the main question is: Is "difficulty" defined by amount of skill required, or amount of time/attempts put in, or a combination of both? It would make sense that a balance would be perfect, but I think a lot of "hardcore" gamers only want games that require skill, and don't have the patience to play a game that requires a lot of good fortune as well (case in point, mario kart).
_{Definitely a hard thing to think about}

@GundamMac: I've played Rayman Origins.

In RPG games you're MEANT to grow and get stronger. Encountering difficult enemies encourages players to buy better equipment and spend some time levelling up so that the player is strong enough to breeze through encounters. I don't see how that makes it cheap.

Obviously not enough.

Because it's unexpected, unavoidable, and leads to unnecessary death. I'm actually surprised I have to explain that to you. That's pretty much the definition of "cheap"...

Anyone here played The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night, on GBA? That game let you choose between some pretty well-balanced Easy, Normal, and Hard Modes, and once you finished the Hard Mode you get an extra mode. Difficulty selection in this game was perfect, in fact, even in Normal one of the later bosses was quite a challenge.

@GundamMac: Okay. Whatever. How would you suggest RPG games be less "cheap" then?

You wouldn't be saying that if you played Super Mario Bros. 3, World, Sonic, Contra, or anything else from back in the day.

Maybe by having enemies visible on the world map and in dungeons like in the Tales series, Xenoblade chronicles and Chrono trigger.

My friend, when I say your dead-on point, you're absolutely on the spot. I can't play Mario Kart online anymore... I just can't do it. I'm too competitive and the fact that I usually always run away with the lead, only to be taken down and losing the race because of a 'fairness' weapon, it's just puts me off horribly. And I didn't purchase Mario Kart 7 because of this.

EDIT: Alright alright...I was only saying that because he said "you need those cheap moments in a platformer," despite there being plenty example of good games without those "cheap" moments. Those "back in the day" games do nothing to disprove my point.

where to start...

literally any modern western RPG (I suggest Dragon Age Origins or Skyrim) and the good modern JRPGs have managed to have interesting level design that doesn't rely on obscene random encounter rates to pad out the game's length.

Random encounters are poor game design. There might still be a good game in there, but that is despite, not because of, the random encounters. Randomness in general is poor game design, since it pulls control away from the player.

Want proof? Look at modern board games. They have usually removed the important of dice entirely. In fact, most of the board games I play now don't feature dice. Why is that? Because dice mean that success is not based on skill.

@PolkaDotChocobo: I just can't agree with your statement that random encounters are poor game design. It doesn't sit well with me, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I personally lean towards the old Dragon Quest games and enjoy Roguelikes where even the dungeons are random so I have a pretty strong taste for games that have some random elements.

I don't think any of us would argue with you on that, but I will ask this: Is the randomness really the reason you play those games? Do they really help them? At this point, I'm just asking...