Miyamoto and Tezuka Discuss the Difficulties of Balancing Games for Players of All Skill Levels

Let me first say that I actually think they did a really good job with the difficulty in the last couple of games. Mario 3D World I thought, had a really nice ramp-up, and with Yoshi I always saw the challenge in collecting all the stuff more than just running through the levels...and that was not easy at all.
In general though, I think this again just shows one of Nintendo's big problems: The make the game for everyone-mentality. It just doesn't work. You have to live with the fact that a game is only for a certain group of people or with the fact that some just won't finish the game and others will be bored right away.
I also still don't understand who these super frustrated first-time-players are supposed to be who apparently can't even get Mario onto a Goomba. Cause I know little kids who just started playing Video Games and play much harder games. And when I was a kid I also played Mario for the first time at one point...I just don't understand that point...

I think games that allow the player to choose the difficulty from the beginning is the best way to handle the different skill levels of players. By letting the player choose the difficulty, it allows everyone to be able to beat the game, and have fun with it.

What about Zelda 2: The adventures of link? I guess they expand the gap from advanced players and insane skilled players.

@Monsti Explain how Awakening sold huge. If it wasn't for the casual mode, new gamers that wouldn't have gotten the chance to get into the series like me would mostly not try the game out. Even when you look at games like Uprising, the fact that the intensity level is there to make it easier to play the game further proves how something like that matters a lot.

In general, devs want more people to play their games and they do whatever they can to make that happen. The only people that don't focus on wide audience are the ones that kickstart their games because of their audience being niche.

@Haynime that one was made ages ago.

@Blue_Blur
Well, the problem there is how a player interprets the options. What is hard in a game you've never played? What is easy? You have to play for awhile and then you are either bored or it's too hard and I'm not sure the typical player cares to try again at a different skill level and no one wants to do the same stages again.

Some smart solutions include giving separate paths that are clearly more challenging with more reward but more novice players can skip. Different for every game though.

I'm starting to design my Mario Maker stages that way because it just isn't fun to get those super challenging levels when you are doing the challenges, yet the easy ones (the auto stages — ugh) are worse. I even try to include a challenge in the title of my stage like "4 1-ups!" so the savvy players will be trying to find them while the regular players will just tromp on through to the end.

@Artwark Then, there's Dark Souls.

There are certainly players who seek a challenge and are immediately put off by something too simple. This is why online competitive games reach a big audience because you can auto-split skill levels — sometimes even effectively.

There is certainly the opposite as well, who are interested in stories and experiences but have little and sometimes NO patience for retrying or getting very skilled at something.

It's all gaming, and all different expectations, and I think Nintendo has a tough battle when trying to make all its games universally appealing. Especially with notions like "Nintendo hard" still in the zeitgeist.

Depends from game to game. Sometimes it's just right, sometimes it's too easy, sometimes it's very challenging. Its really a problem when they add features like offering to do the level for you, or when your in the bubble you can manipulate more skilled players into carrying you through difficult levels. Extreme handholding isn't cool. Kids are capable of beating a level of getting far into the game by themselves and if they can't or don't like it, they can trade it in for something more to there taste.

@aaronsullivan
That is a good point... I guess I was thinking from the perspective of a experienced player that knows what the expect with difficulties.

Separate paths are a really good idea... the only drawback I could really think of is if someone wants to explore the entire level, they would have to replay the same stage again; it would be a little different, but it's still the same stage. I hate it when games have multiple paths, and have secrets or treasures you need to find in order to 100% it, like stamps in 3D World, on both paths. Your idea would work really well if the advanced path had the treasure you needed most of the time. Like you said though, it's different for every game. In most cases, your idea works better than mine, and is probably the best answer for everyone to enjoy the game.

Difficulty differs from person to person. For me, I hate the repetitive, no checkpoint type of difficulty. It doesn't make the game harder, but more frustrating.

Simply don't. Some games aren't suitable for everyone and they're perfectly fine this way. Monster Hunter is the best example. Take the steep learning curve off and replace it with massive tutorials and hand-holding and you have anytjing but a MH true experience.

They ruined so many franchises and their core experiences with this "for everyone" concept: Mario & Luigi with Dream Team, Metroid with Other M, Zelda with Skyward Sword, Donkey Kong with Returns and Tropical Freeze, Mario with various entries since they put the super guide function and many tutorial levels, Star Fox with SF64 3D... I mean, they're far from being bad games, most of them are 9/10 and 10/10 games overall, but the hand holding always leave a bad taste in your mouth, they force you to watch all the intro movies, stages and display several how-to-basics on screen that the whole joy of discovering new things and secret moves is gone. Gaming is becoming less and less intuitive, and I'm not fine with that. Why is it so hard to read the manual (included digitally with all recent digital and retail copies!) and learn something if you completely suck at the game? God, not even a "I know how to play, let me skip tutorials" option is available in most Nintendo titles.

On the difficulty side, I say the same: make the game easier for newcomers if they want it that way, but save us an option to play in a challenging difficulty from the beginning of we want to. Kirby Return to Dreamland is the pinnacle of boredom despite having cute graphics, you only get the taste of a true platformer when hard mode is unlocked... after f* beating the game!!! Why? Why can't we start a Master Quest or Hard Modes from the first time we launch some games? Why do they always hide such options as much as they refuse to give us tools to customize controls, camera, analog stick sensitivity and such?

Worst example of Nintendo "balancing" things for all ranges of players? Mario Kart 8. They made the game so luck-based and chaotic that, in fact, a person who never played it before may end up in 1st place. But is it fair to those who spent dozens of hours learning the basics and the advanced techniques? Hell no.

I think they did a damn good job with Super Mario 3D World. Make the core game for easy and moderate players but bring on the paint for bonus levels for the experts.

Balancing for incompetence doesn't make sense. You can't balance around the assumption that the people playing are incompetent. Assuming 2 people are highly and equally incompetent, a sword will be superior to an assault rifle because the person using the assault rifle may not be able to figure out how to disengage the safety or load the gun, but that doesn't make the weapons equal.

For single player games, if you are afraid of alienating incompetent players, have different difficulty settings. That's much better than just making the game very easy and having no difficulty options. And please, DO NOT LOCK THE INCREASED DIFFICULTY SETTING BEHIND THE REQUIREMENT OF BEATING THE GAME FIRST. That is blatant game length padding and NOT FUN.

And we are not just talking about something like how much health the player or the enemies have, which can be part of difficulty settings to make the game more or less forgiving, while keeping enemies advanced enough to be interesting, but how much hints are given in the game and how much "hand holding" there is. For example, there could have been a difficulty in Skyward Sword that makes it so the game doesn't show you exactly what to do all the time and make it so Fi isn't pausing the game to warn you of low health.

For multiplayer games, balance around the assumption that the people playing are component, and offer a ladder and rankings so people of different skill levels can play people of similar skill levels. Between two or more equally and highly incompetent people, a fast attack for example, is equally hard to avoid. Trying to develop a game that forces people with massive skill differences to play together is NOT FUN FOR ANYONE.

But don't just say satisfying people of different skill levels is "hard", change nothing, and keep making every game very easy and with the assumption that the people playing are incompetent. Doing that is essentially saying you value the opinion and money of incompetent players far more than that of the competent ones.

I wish the Super Guides and the White Tanooki blocks never existed. It just feels like an insult whenever it shows up.

A perfect example of how they got this balance right, for the first time was with Kirby's Dream Land 3. Easy to beat normally. but have fun getting all of the unlockables towards the later levels to get 100% game completion! They've managed to get it right back in the later SNES days, so it's all about both the competency of the design, and what they actually truly wish to accomplish.

@EarthboundBenjy It's their way of saying you suck

Nintendo is like the only company with this problem. I don't know why they find it so hard to put in proper difficulty settings and it is particularly true in Miyamoto's series like Mario and Zelda. Like, to them, things being uber easy is somehow fun for everyone as it makes the game easier to complete but that is an incredibly naive way of seeing things. Not everyone wants to plow through the game with no challenge so basically, you have failed in making a game that is accessible to everyone.

I have to agree with the posts about Mario 3D world. It starts out easy but can get quite challenging near the end, especially in the post game. I won't call it a hard game when all is said and done, but it was challenging yet fair.

Of course, I like the 'casual' option in games like Fire Emblem Awakening, the problem is I find casual too easy and classic a bit too hard for me. (I suck at tactical games, k?) I remember my brother telling me that his Casual/Lunatic run was pretty fun though.

Hand holding is a problem in a lot of newer games, and Nintendo is no exception.
Games are getting more and more "complicated" and the idea of plopping the player down into the game to figure things out nowadays is becoming uncommon. Which I can kind of understand.
During the NES days you had only 2 real buttons and a D-Pad. Even if the game explained nothing, you'd likely figure out how to play it by pressing every button in combination with each other. Compare to now where controllers have an up most of 10 buttons not including motion controls, and control systems themselves getting more and more complicated due to modern game design.
Asking any player to figure it by themselves completely is asking for them to rage quit.
That being said, there is no reason why you can't make a game fairly challenging for both new and old players. "Getting good" should be the end goal of any player regardless of skill level, so the idea of solving things for them or making them completely invincible is utterly insulting. They're not improving at the game, they're reveling in their failures to do so and the game is letting them win. Not every player is good at every game, I know, but sometimes you just gotta rise to the challenge and do your best.

I honestly don't care if a game is too easy or not. If the game is well designed and fun, I'll enjoy it on any difficulty, maybe sans the hardest one.

@rushiosan I'm shocked that you would think the DKCR games are easy, given they are much more brutal then Rare's DKC games ever were.

They are fun games, but the modern DKC games are chock full of cheap difficulty that was never in the rare ones. Let me put it this way, I have blow upwards of 20 lives in DKCR on the Wii trying to beat a level, while I have rarely seen the Game Over screen in Rare's DKC games.

As for Mario Kart 8, I don't get how that complaint does not apply to other games in the series. Its pretty much a given that if you're in the top three in a race, you will likely be hit by some item that screws you over, and as long as the Blue Shell exists in the series, 1st place will never 100% be for the taking even you are really good. I have dominated races in Mario Kart games by being in first place for the first couple of laps before a Blue Shell ruins my day and screws me over.

That's one of Mario Kart's major flaws, some of the items are so powerful, they can mess you up no matter how good you are. At least in Smash, a talented player can dodge many items and all players have an equal chance of grabbing them. But in Mario Kart, it kinda screws you over being in the top spot at times because the lower ranked racers will get some item that is nearly impossible to counter.

If anything, MK8 took some major strides to improve the issues the previous games had by finally giving you an item that nullifies the Blue Shell and making fall off the track less costly.

@Blue_Blur The other issue is the way you handle the difficulty. Say for example I think Minecraft is too easy. I would still never play hardcore mode because it doesn't actually make the gameplay itself more difficult, just makes it so you get one-shot by anything. I'd rather there be more enemies and better enemy AI not "one shot I'm dead". That's not hard, that's just stupidly annoying, imo. Just like Mario platformers, I'd rather the levels be more difficult then just not giving me any power-ups. Who wants to play a Mario game with no power-ups? Not me, anyway.

Related to the article, I totally agree. It's really difficult because most players are either low on the skill spectrum or higher on it. If you put it right in the middle you risk losing those players on the lower end because they can't beat the levels, and you risk losing the players on the upper end because it's not difficult enough. And I think the problem with Nintendo is if you cater to just one end of the spectrum you don't get enough sales. The Dark Soul developers are able to get by on just the hardcore players. Nintendo, on the other hand, cannot; or at least, they don't want to annoy their player base on the other end of the spectrum, whichever end it is.

I liked how 3D World handled difficulty and tutorials. The only time text appears on screen for tutorial purposes is A/2 to jump, or ZL to crouch, or every time you toggle that R-button camera controls, which is to say, rare enough to forget that they even exist. Mind you, this is a game I was genuinely stumped on some of the latter levels, like practically every World Star level or that Rush level or that Champion's Road. And, well, that Tanooki suit was really there to just taunt me

On the other hand, we have examples like Dream Team. Need I say more?

@Caryslan Well, DKCR games introduced an easy difficulty setting (the 3-heart mode introduced on 3DS port), the ability to purchase lots of lives, a parrot to find collectibles, a balloon to save you from pits and an extra heart. Not to mention the super guide which is activated when you die too much so the game says "here's a hand, want me to teach you how to beat the stage?", plus all the tutorials displayed by that pink pig. I'm not a big fan of any of those and I think they made the game much easier than the originals simply because you can infinitely (and easily) collect lives, get extra health and have a second chance when falling. The best you could achieve in DKC 1, 2 and 3 was the 50 lives trick. Oh, and don't forget in DKCR and TF you autosave whenever a stage is cleared, but in originals (1 and 2) you had to unlock the save points and the granny charged 2 coins per each save. Much like New SMB DS.

You said you rarely seen a Game Over screen on Rare DKCs, I saw them a couple times back in the day too... but hey, what about never-ever reaching Game Over in the Returns series? That's my case right here. I guess I never dropped below 20 lives mark because the game offers you about 3x more possibilities to earn lives. My Returns save on 3DS was beaten with about 70 (even if I died over 200 times in those special and secret world stages).

Also, I think the 2nd worst MK in a matter of balancing is MK Wii, which was surpassed by MK8 only because... the return of coins. If you're in 1-3rd places you basically only get coins. A banana maybe. Green and Red shells come at a very low rate. Since coins don't provide you any extra defense against hazards, and you can't hold more than one item at once (even if you hold down behind your kart), this makes you completely vulnerable to the blue shell and lightning storms from last racers. The little window you had between "luck" and "ability" is gone, you will likely end up relying on luck to either: a) get a protective item and save it for the right moment among tons of coins or b) don't get hit by a lethal item at all, or of hit, is lucky enough to get an useful item to recover. Consider restarting the cups multiple times to get a golden 3-star trophy if in single player mode which is, being very honest, one of the most frustrating experiences I ever had in a game.

I think they do a pretty good job. I found New Super Mario Bros U challenging, but not impossibly so. The use of extra pickups which are hard to get seems a nice way to appeal to both parties.

Nintendo's trying to sell more software and let's face it, most people aren't going to get far in a Mario game if you're asking people to use certain advanced techniques skilfully like a triple jump, just to continue playing the game. World 2 was my limit for Super Mario Bros. 3; I've never finished the original game. Until the Wii U, the only Mario games I had played through were Super Mario Land on Gameboy and Super Mario Galaxy (and I couldn't do the shadow races to unlock Luigi there). So from my perspective they're getting better.

If you can't be bothered playing games because they're "too easy" well frankly that's not unique to Nintendo: all the Arkham games are plagued with button prompts and wasted time doing presses to open doors to pad out the game and make it feel like you're doing something. QTEs fill the same role of substituting for actual gameplay and let's not get started on aim assist in first person shooters to compensate for dual stick controls. I think Nintendo does a decent job considering - if they ever have (press A) popping up every time Mario reaches the end of a platform, then you'll have a problem.

Some people almost make it sound like adding options to make the game easier for others somehow automatically diminishes the experience for them.

Most of those games also have options to make the game harder. Be crafty and figure new ways to play. It's really easy to do.

I think they need to worry about it a bit less. It's quite possible that they end up making it worse by focusing so much on it. Most developers dont do this at all. They just make the game they want to make and force people to adapt.
3D World was good. Although stayed very easy for a bit too long.

Difficulty is also rather tricky, because its highly subjective.

One thing that comes to mind is a recent Shovel Knight debare. While pretty much everyone i talked to sait, that Propeller Knight was hands down the hardest Stage / Boss i beat that without death and grew desperate facing Plague Knight, Why ? Because i grew up with platformers, which is why i had zero problems with this finichy stage. What game me trouble was Plague Knight, simply because he lacks a definitive pattern. And "pattern recognition" is hardwired into my system, so everything erratic and im out.

Im still not sure if introducing a downright game breaking feature such as the Golden XY Powerups in recent Mario games is the way to go.
But the overall difficulty curve was rather nice overall, with a very leasure beginning and a hairpullingly frustrating finale.

Im personally not a huge fan of difficulty that makes me lose progress.
The Souls seires comes to mind and its also a very good example for this.
I have no problem with its difficulty per se. I love games where even the smalles enemy is on equal terms with the player. It also helps that enemy patterns are strictly scripted, so you can actually learn a certain section.

What i dont like is its experience system. Sure, it prevents you from simply power leveling you way through the game, on the other hand, a slight misstep or even a cheap death, which this game is full of, can cost you several hours of playtime.

This is the reason why i quit the series for good, because i dont lack the skill or the will to complete it, but the patience and time. I would have prefered it, if the game solely dependet on its equipment system in terms of progression. It would still have been skill based, since you had to aquire new gear, but it would have been a steady progression curve.

They generally do a good job of balancing the games for everyone, but yes, I think too they should use Difficulty Settings. Much better.

Overall, I think Nintendo does a fairly good job at getting the difficulty correct. Super Mario Maker has made me realise that it's actually fairly tricky to get the balance correct.

I think they do quite good at trying to balance things. There are glaring exceptions in which the player is treated like an idiot (I'm looking at you, Skyward Sowrd!), but usually you have the option to choose your game mode/difficulty.
Do I like hard games that will force me to get better at the game before advancing? Yes! But I can't deny there are people that can't stand that/don't like it/etc, so the more choices the merrier. That way, everyone can play.

@Haynime I was just talking to someone about that game！
About how freaking hard that game is！ the difficulty gap between the first Palace and the Second is just too wide！
It's the only Zelda game that I've played that I haven't beaten yet ):

I feel like the 3D Mario games have recently done a good job with difficulty.

They need to talk to GF about the difficulty in pokemon.

@rushiosan lol mario kart 8 is the best balanced mario kart to date, the fact that you think mario kart wii is more balanced than it shows you either haven't played the game or just plain suck at it. It's not unbalanced just because you're a terrible mario kart player bro. People can almost consistently place top 4 whenever they race online, something which definitely could not be said about mario kart wii. It sounds like you don't want any items at all in order to have it be balanced, in which case you should go play forza or something.

I always found the difficulty in 3D Mario games (except Sunshine) to lack an understanding of its own design. Many supposedly difficult parts can be avoided or have very high failure/error lenience while also being so drastically different from one another that the expected skill for one certain obstacle is never asked for again. You often don't need to learn any specific tricks or solutions because they're all one-shots, which means that the player might not learn how to deal with other situations to begin with due to inconsistent intensity.
To be frank, Nintendo nailed the difficulty in Super Mario World, where both conquering and avoiding unique and recurring obstacles required a progressively increasing amount of skill while being very straightforward in terms of design. But that was 2D, and the level design was restricted to that plane.
3D games are simply harder to balance because of 3D. Example: I found both Super Mario Galaxy games to be laughably easy, while many cite either games' Grandmaster Galaxy stage as one of the most challenging levels in Mario History. That's a subjective thing where it's basically impossible to deliver an equally challenging experience for different folks.

So, to cut it "short": Miyamoto must realize that the difficulty (or lack thereof) lies within enemy placement, power-up distribution, and the requirement level for platforming challenges. This can all be individualized depending on a players' performance (like extra blocks appearing at a jump the player died at multiple times), but should also be clearly explained in Difficulty Settings that allow you to turn various helper features on and off. Basically, don't give players a simple [Easy|Normal|Hard] choice - let them choose what help they want: frequency of powerups/enemies/coins, getting level assists/golden powerups/item radar functions if they die too often, and probably some other stuff I can't think of right now. The possibilities exist, but Nintendo (and especially Miyamoto) needs to simply leave the choice to the player instead of dictating every possible thing.

i can definitely see why it would be hard to make a Mario game that is balanced difficulty for all. making a Easy, Medium, Hard game option would be even more work also for 3d games. I personally would love to see Mario sunshine 2 but then you would think "would they make it the same difficulty? or would they make it easier than the original? " but that's my thoughts on it.

@Mijzelffan Mario kart 8 has a terrible item balance therefore its almost luck based and yes I played it and think mario kart wii and mk 7 are more balenced games , i mean come on having coins in item boxes is the worst idea ever. when your in first you always seem to get coins more often then shells. If mario kart wii had online still id be playing mario kart 7 and wii more than mk8. I cant stand that item balence in mk8 at all.

@simonthomas6 that's what makes it balanced, if you got nothing but gold mushrooms in first place it wouldn't be very balanced would it? In Mario kart Wii there was a guaranteed 2 blue shells each race, in mario kart 8 I don't see them in about 60% of the races I'm in. I don't think you understand what balanced means and I have no doubt the reason you think it's unbalanced is because you're as bad at mario kart 8 as you are at the english language.

@Monsti Perhaps as the current generation of kids grows up, they'll replace those who currently are into video games and this whole difficulty gap problem will burn itself out. The problem occurs with the difference between people growing up with this level of tech and those not, I think.

@Mijzelffan Be nice bro. Voice your opinion but don't go insulting people when they didn't attack you.

Obviously Mario Maker has highlighted this point, as the type of levels I like to make for myself and enjoy playing are simply too hard for most Mario players.

Thing is, game difficulty is unique in that it can be broken into three categories: difficulty of command, purpose, and action. Most advanced gamers strictly refer to the difficulty of action as they have mastered the commands and are familiar enough with the subject matter to relatively easily decipher the purpose. Unfortunately for the average gamer these two aspects are significant barriers that might make a level with difficult actions seem oppressive to the point of giving up. That's the problem.

Your game is a failure if it leads people to give up on it before they have a chance to overcome the difficulty of command and purpose. This is where the Mario games excel and where the true challenge in level design lies.

@Mijzelffan *slowly claps * bruh I was just saying my opinion lol and it was just a simple spelling mistake that I made in my comment. chill. and you shouldn't judge others on a game that you have no idea of how they legitimately do in a game.

I hate multiple difficultly levels to choose from, because I like to choose Hard off the bat in many cases. I feel like I haven't truly beaten a game without clearing the mode that gives you the most credit or best ending. I grew up on games like Mega Man, Castlevania and Contra. Super Mario Bros was my first game. I struggled, got better, was thrilled when I made to world 5 on my own, and in time I beat it. Today its been beaten dozens of times. So, I think that the game should just be really well made and appealing. Getting stuck on a level or it getting extremely tough is part of the enjoyment of "mastering" your purchase. Things like golden tanooki suits or an easy mode, or a hard mode that denies you features of another mode, are to me things that cause your experience to be less memorable. Therefore, making it a contemporary experience, and not a classic experience long time players will fondly share memories of. So I guess its like a music argument. Do you sell out to a wider audience or do you make your game exactly the way you intend? If a game is too easy, its brain numbing and theres nothing to be proud of or look forward to. A game, to me, is meant to bring out your competive edge, concentration and contemplation. A perfect example is Mario 3. I showed a co-workers 4 year old son how to beat it in 15 minutes. The first levels are just right, the whistles are really neat well placed secrets, and he was really entertained when I was playing the game more seriously through world 8, and even losing a life or two. I guess long story short is, just make the game good, where the need of difficulty levels aren't as stark, and people will want to get better. Remember how rewarding it was to make it to Giant Land for the first time? Or your initial struggle to get the Master Sword on Link to the Past? New players who can't finish the first few levels of Mario just need practice, not gimmicks. Keep it fun for all of us.

I've loved the difficulty in the last few (and come to think of it most) Mario games. For me it's nice to have the first world or two fairly easy to build you into the rhythm of the game and then make things more difficult. I've really enjoyed beating the games, saving the princess, seeing the credits, and then coming back for an additional world or two with a more difficult challenge. This makes it so less dedicated players can "beat" the game and have that accomplishment, but then that more dedicated players have more to do.

Some of my favorite levels in recent games (Galaxy and the 3D series) have been the platform levels where you jump and one set disappears while another appears. The concept seems so easy to beat but at times represents a real challenge. The balance between difficulty and seeming so easy keeps me replaying them many times until I finally complete them.

One thing I like about modern Nintendo's approach to difficulty is that without introducing settings they've been able to add different layers of challenge into their games. The way Star Coins and Green Stars in New Super Mario Bros and Super Mario 3DLand or 3D World are used are a well implemented layer of difficulty/achievement.

They aren't simply collectibles to inflate play time and force the player to scour the levels to find without actually demand them doing anything other than looking for them(which many modern games are guilty of). While some are easy to obtain(which is important since they're tied to progression in some games) they represent optional challenges and require skillful play or mastery not normally required to beat the levels. This way lesser skill players don't have to master advanced techniques and slide down a wall and do a last second wall jump(one of the later stars in 3D World) to avoid lava to beat a stage or the game but Nintendo can add these kind of challenges for their advanced players to collect stars or star coins and then reward them with even bigger challenges later on(e.g. Champion's Road and the Final Mystery Box House).

@Torterror Honestly Gamefreak could easily make the games so difficult the people who complain about it being too easy would not only be silenced it woud be completley reversed. While the story content of Pokemon has always been easy, ever since they introduced the Battle Tower in Crystal or even earlier ever since HAL Labs created Pokemon Stadium they've proven that they could turn Pokemon into an incredibly challenging RPG that requires an understanding of all of the systems in order to beat.

Though because they want their games to be accessible they need to strike the right balance, the annoying thing about Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire is that they could have re-introduced the Battle Frontier to give substantial content for their advanced players. I don't mind the Pokemon games main story being something any player can beat, they just need to give their advanced players an equivalent to Super Mario 3D World's multiple post game worlds rather than just a single Battle Tower.

@aaronsullivan Who says you should have to start a game over to change difficulties (unless it's a score attack game or otherwise designed for multiple playthroughs)? The smart developers give you the option to change the difficulty level as you play.

@Mijzelffan i am in total agreement with you re: mk wii and mk8 but still dude, there's no need to insult the guy. He may or may not be bad at mario kart but he's just stating his opinion just like everyone else here.

While i personally find nintendo games tend to lean towards being too easy, it is an understandable predicament they find themselves in due to wanting to appeal to people en masse. I have always wondered why they don't adopt a viewtiful joe type system (two tier difficulty with kids and adult option and then the adult option is further broken down into standard normal, hard etc).
it may not be a perfect solution but it's better than a game being patronisingly easy as far as i'm concerned.
I guess the bigger issue these days is developers assuming people don't want to improve their skills and get better and they're probably right. It's also a lot easier not having to bother with a properly distributed skill floor and skill ceiling arrangement. Presumably, publishers don't like wasting money on such trifling matters.

@heyzeus002 exactly everyone should be able to state there opinion. and @Mijzelffan i honestly don't understand still why you even bothered to say to me that " I have no doubt the reason you think it's unbalanced is because you're as bad at mario kart 8 as you are at the english language" i mean to be honest you didn't even offend me . and yes i am actually good at mario kart 8 and the rest of the series as I already stated.

I think all of this wouldn't be an issue if video games would be taught in school already. I mean, they are part of our (pop) culture. You learn several sports disciplines inschool, you watch and analyze (= how to watch/interpret) movies, read and analyze (= how to read/interpret) books, etc. Why not play video games and learn how to play and interpret (if there is a story) them?
If people would be taught how to play in school, we wouldn't need handholding or easy difficulties.

@aaronsullivan Excuse me, but I doubt that people "who are interested in stories and experiences" will play a platformer. They rather will play an adventure or RPG. So defining difficulty also depends on the genre.

@AceDefective Yeah handholding is really annoying and I don't know a single person (even non-hardcore players) that doesn't rush through or skip a tutorial. But the worst example of handholding came with New Super Mario Bros. and annoys me until today: When you repeatedly fail, you get the possibility to be carried through the level by the AI and simply complete it without doing anything. That really bugs me! Not only shouldn't it be possible to clear a level without earning it, it's totally annoying when this fairy comes along with that annoying bell sound when you died repeatedly. Like, I almost complete a level in the first try, then I die 5 times in a row because I'm too impatient and everytime this annoying bell sounds off! Sometimes that almost made me rage-quit New Mario Bros. (U).

@Caryslan There actually was already an item to escape the blue shell: a good old mushroom. If you activate it in the last possible moment, you evade the blue shell. Adding the Super Horn actually made the game easier and more suited to casual players.
Another way to evade the Blue Shell is to quickly fall back when you are first, so the other guy gets hit. But of course there's not a lot of time to do it.
I generally never liked the Blue Shell, but it kind of adds another layer of difficulty to it. It would be easy to dominate the race like in every other racing game but in MK you also have to look out for blue shells and play more carefully. So just driving ahead of everyone isn't always the best option (although I sometimes managed to get hit by the blue shell and still be first because of the lead).

@Kaze_Memaryu Have you really played Mario Galaxy 2 till the end? Have you got all the green stars? I found the difficulty in this game perfect. It starts easy like every Mario game, but the later stages become more and more difficult. And the last stage was even harder, but not as hard as getting the green star. Because for that you have to complete the level without getting hit. No mushrooms and you only have one life point left. That last level was hard on its own, but the modification for the green star nailed it. I really like the concept with the Yellow and Green stars. Getting the yellow stars is something for not so experienced players and even that should pose a challenge. But for those who want more, finding all the green stars adds a lot of difficulty. Not just difficulty in reaching a specific platform, but also difficulty in terms of thinking hard about where the star could be hidden.
It's a shame they misused the green stars for something completely different in 3D World (I dislike that game anyway).
Although I have to say I didn't play Mario Galaxy 1 through because it was too easy for me.

@mjc0961 Ok now I'm curious, what about Fi did you consider as handholding? I mean sure, she would give inexperienced players hints etc, but if you don't ask her she doesn't do any handholding. I didn't play Hero mode because I don't see the point in playing this huge game again after I already saw everything (the story etc).
But what would annoy me too would be not being able to skip text boxes (regardless if it's Fi or someone else talking). I already hate that you can't just skip them in the first run of any Zelda game because often it's redundant (especially when backtracking) because you already talked to that person before.

@shani I sure did, since I was hoping to find a challenge, only to 100% the game empty-handed (and kinda frustrated, since Miyamoto's anti-plot agenda made the 100% reward completely pointless). I did lose a few lives, of course (partially to stupid mistakes, partially to not paying attention), but the challenge curve to me felt like a joke. The 100% route never moves beyond the skill required for just finishing the least required amount of stars to reach the final boss, so there's also no higher skill level involved. Just more time - MUCH more time playing levels up to three additional times for the lazy Green Stars.

@Kaze_Memaryu Well yeah, isn't that what makes this game so beautiful? Using existing moves while still making it more difficult (at least for most players and I consider myself experienced in platformers like Mario) is the best way to got in my opinion. If you have to add new moves to make it difficult, it's not really a big accomplishment development-wise.

I don't completely agree with you regarding your statement "so there's also no higher skill level involved". If you define skill solely as being able to press some buttons with the right timing, you would be right. But for me skill doesn't only depend on your muscle memory, but also on your brains. I think it requires some "skill" to find the green stars because first you have to find them. And they're put in places that you never would expect from what you're used from the regular yellow stars.

@BulbasaurusRex who says? I was responding to @Blue_Blur who suggested difficulty choice at the the beginning. Changing difficulty manually during the game has similar issues with the added subtle feeling of failure or even guilt because it feels like a cheat being used to make any challenge go away each time you do it. Like most options there are some games where it works well.

@shani I'm not sure why you thought I was only talking about platformers. I was talking in general terms. Also, platformers and stories go fine together.

@shani I don't think I do. I always consider the postgame an area for people who want harder challenges, and also outright new kinds of challenges to prevent the game from feeling repetitive.
But Galaxy 2 doesn't give me that feeling at all. None of the postgame feels new or fresh, just slightly different with a bit less margin for error. It expects you to know what you do, but what you need to know isn't much at all.
Also, most of the Green Stars are visible during the stage intro already, and the ones that aren't were never really hidden all that well, either, partially due to the more linear game structure. I can't recall any particular Green Star that gave me trouble for more than a few seconds.

@Kaze_Memaryu Wow, than you have to be MG genius! ^^ It's true that you can find most stars if you know what you're doing (besides, you can hear the star if it's near), but we actually had to search longer for some of them. One was even hidden so good we had to look it up.