What makes a game hard? (Chapter 3)

there are games where you know exactly what you need to do, but it's hard to do anyway. An example would be dodging bullets in Mars Matrix. Then there are games where you sort of know what to do, but you need to devise a strategy for it to work, and pulling it off can be hard to do, too. An example could be Castlevania, when you fight Dracula. You know you need to hit his head 16 times, and you know you (somehow) need to avoid being hit yourself. But how do you prevent him from teleporting right on top of you? How do you manage to hit him without being hit when he shoots out 3 fire balls the instant he's vulnerable? then there are games that are hard because you don't know what the hell you need to do. Some examples might be MDK2 or Metriod. In those games, once you figure it out, you usually slap yourself in the forehead, and then it's not a problem when you replay the game. Also, when you get stuck in those cases, you can't really do "play through" it. In the first case, you can practice until you get better, in the second you can practice and try different strategies, but when you're REALLY stuck in a game, I often find the best thing to do is turn the game off and think about it for awhile, without playing.

I don't really like difficulty levels. I think that sometimes that's a way for designers to get out of balancing a game - they let players pick whatever difficulty level seems best. For Super R-Type, the game gets worse,rather than more difficult (more slowdwn, for example), as the difficulty level goes up. Also, I sometimes wonder if certain games are INTENDED to be quarter eaters on the highest difficulty level.

One game I thought did difficulty levels superbly was R-Type Delta. Each one has something to offer the game. I get the sense that the designers really thought about which enemies would be in which difficulty level, where they would be, etc. rather than just carelessly plopping more enemies down. Easy is hard enough at first, but once you master the game is good to relax with (I've said I often play games to unwind). And hard has some tough spots - but it's ALWAYS fair. Also, the ships are different enough from each other that you have to use different strategies for the same sections depending on your ship. Since I haven't been able to memorize all the strategies for all the ships for all the difficulty levels, the game still feels fresh though I've beaten it many times, many was - it has nearly inexhaustible replay value. The game also has optional goals, like beating the game without charging your beam (and the game was designed to be beaten under those conditions, since they unlock notes) And, though I've beaten it quite well, I guess I still haven't completed it. Some goals I'm saving for later, though.

BTW, I hear the arcade version of Gradius3 (which is also on PS2, on Gradius 3 & 4) is much harder than the SNES version, even if you crank the SNES's difficulty all the way up, and the arcade version's all the way down. Then again, those same people say that the arcade version is really just unbalanced and too hard... and it seem like they're generally good at games and don't usually call games "too hard". So maybe the SNES version is better balanced.

I think I'm pretty immune to "this is the hardest game I've ever played" syndrome. For one thing, I memorize more than other people just how long it took me to finish other games, and how much trouble I had, and where. As you said, there's also the reverse phenomina. People will say, "This game is so easy... because I finished it!" Not because they finished it on their first try, or the first day, just eventually. That's like saying because some people can play Rachmaninoff's second piano concerto, it's easy. For those people, everything's easy or literally impossible, and I don't pay much attention to them when they talk about game difficulty.

I get more frustrated when I die after 30 minutes into a fight a few times, than dying a million times after about 17 seconds each. When I start up the former again, I think in the back of my mind that if I fail, I'm automatically out 30 minutes again. For the latter, I feel more compelled to keep giving the game one more try, because, hey, if I fail, I'm only out 17 seconds. I does sort of depend on the game, though. I wasn't too frustrated by Vagrant Story. I remember one time when I made it through a big maze in that game (which probably took about a half hour or so) and met the boss... and the boss killed me instantly, even though i was at full health.

I think the reason Vagrant Story never became frustrating was because the game put its emphasis on gameplay. I wasn't annoyed I was being prevented from seeing the next cut scene - I was pleased I was being challenged. One I knew I would be dying a lot, I settled into the game and didn't mind when I'd die.

Heh, heh, I just found this review of Vagrant Story. It leads credence to the idea that reviewers expect mostly story from a game - it's like he's complaining that the game has TOO MUCH game play.

Edited by: Crawl at: 5/7/01 2:16:12 pm

Author	Comment
Facilitypro Moderator (4/29/01 8:02 pm) Reply	What makes a game hard? (Chapter 3) I have no idea where I want to go with this topic, so bear with me. I made this topic because I was doing a mental comparison between Super R-Type and Gradius 3. I think Gradius 3 does a much better job in upping the difficulty with each difficulty setting. For example, in Gradius 3, with each higher difficulty level, the enemies move faster and shoot more, and the bosses shoot more, but don't take longer to defeat. The changes are smooth and appropriate. In Super R-Type, the changes are unbalanced. From Novice to Easy, all that happens is that you don't get your power ups back when you die. The levels and bosses are the same, as far as I can tell. From Easy to Normal, there's almost no difference (as far as I can tell), except that the bosses take about twice as long to defeat, and there's a very small increase in enemies at some parts. From Normal to Hard, the enemies shoot a little more and there's a tiny bit more in some parts (rocket fishes on level 3), and again, the bosses take about twice as long to defeat. From Hard to Pro, there is NO level differences, and the usual harder boss thing. Crawl said it's not really worth playing the harder difficulty levels in Super R-Type, and I think I agree with him. It's kind of lame to just make the boss take longer to defeat, and hardly anything else. With Gradius 3, each increase in difficulty presents a whole new experience, and with Super R-Type, it doesn't. Gradius 3 and Super R-Type also have different philosopies (there's that word again). With Super R-Type, the challenge is to learn the level through repetition. While there's some of that in Gradius 3, the main challenge is to try to beat it on one life, so you don't lose your power ups. The only way I can beat Gradius 3 on Hard is to do it on one life, because if I die and revert to the default ship, forget it. (There's a couple places that it gives you time and oppotunity to get your power ups back, like the cavalcade of bosses.) As long as you're familiar with the level layout and you have all your power ups, finishing Gradius 3 on Hard isn't too bad. In Super R-Type, I've kind of forgotten all about beating the Level 5 boss on hard, because I don't really feel it's worth my time. I've only spent about 3 or 4 hours trying to beat it, but the game doesn't drive me to continue. Now let's go on to MDK 2, my latest obsession. The reason I think the final boss is hard is that it takes a lot of trial and error to find out how to kill it, then you have to actually DO it, and try different strategies. With a game like Zeld OoT, there's absolutely no thinking required to beat the bosses. "Oh lets see. I have all these weapons to choose from. Which one should I use? OH! I know, I'll use the one I just got in this dungeon, just like every other Zelda game!" All the bosses were total pushovers in OoT. (Well, Phantom Ganon gave me some trouble, but only because I didn't bother filling up my hearts before I fought him.) Almost all of them took only one or two tries to beat. Maybe I shouldn't talk, since I've played very few 3-D games with bosses. But I will. Another factor is the "This is the hardest game I have ever played in my life" syndrome. I think that after we have mastered a game, we tend to forget how hard it was, or how long it took us to beat. It's easy for me to say "Rush N Attack is harder than Contra." Now that very well may be the case. But it also may be that I've forgotten how hard Contra is or was. (I'm just using this as an example, although I DO think Rush N Attack is harder than Contra.) That can gereralize to almost any game. And then there's the fact that games I really like seem easier because I am driven to continue and don't get very frustrated. Let's go on to hard games. Is a game hard if the levels aren't so bad, but the final boss has a reputation as being "impossible?" How about the opposite? Ghosts 'n' Goblins (what is it with all these games with the letter "N" in them being so hard?) has very tough levels, and a pushover final boss. Between the two, I prefer the latter. I think Metal Gear had a good, consistent difficulty level. The bosses were a bit easy at first, but toward the end (around where you get Card 7) they got harder. I think Mike Tyson's Punchout does well in upping each successive challenge. notwithstanding the huge jump in difficulty from Super Macho Man to Tyson/Dream. And what makes you frustrated? Say, when fighting a boss, is it more frustrating to die quickly (Like the first 30 times you fight Tyson/Dream, and you get KOed in about 30 seconds), or is it more frustrating when a boss battle is long and drawn out, and then you die (like in MDK2)? I think that can go either way for me. If I find that I'm always dying quickly, and can't seem to find an edge, then that's sort of frustrating. I usually don't get to the point of throwing controllers. I just think that sooner or later, I'll come out on top. It may take a while, but it'll happen. That got me through GnG, and it'll get me through Rush N Attck. I think the most frustrating thing about Rush N Attack is that I seldom get to play it! Any NES game, for that matter. Looking at the subject line, I guess this post had nothing to do with what actually makes games hard, but oh well. Edited by: Facilitypro at: 4/30/01 2:00:45 am
Crawl Registered User (5/6/01 4:43 pm) Reply	I LOVE FO! there are games where you know exactly what you need to do, but it's hard to do anyway. An example would be dodging bullets in Mars Matrix. Then there are games where you sort of know what to do, but you need to devise a strategy for it to work, and pulling it off can be hard to do, too. An example could be Castlevania, when you fight Dracula. You know you need to hit his head 16 times, and you know you (somehow) need to avoid being hit yourself. But how do you prevent him from teleporting right on top of you? How do you manage to hit him without being hit when he shoots out 3 fire balls the instant he's vulnerable? then there are games that are hard because you don't know what the hell you need to do. Some examples might be MDK2 or Metriod. In those games, once you figure it out, you usually slap yourself in the forehead, and then it's not a problem when you replay the game. Also, when you get stuck in those cases, you can't really do "play through" it. In the first case, you can practice until you get better, in the second you can practice and try different strategies, but when you're REALLY stuck in a game, I often find the best thing to do is turn the game off and think about it for awhile, without playing. I don't really like difficulty levels. I think that sometimes that's a way for designers to get out of balancing a game - they let players pick whatever difficulty level seems best. For Super R-Type, the game gets worse,rather than more difficult (more slowdwn, for example), as the difficulty level goes up. Also, I sometimes wonder if certain games are INTENDED to be quarter eaters on the highest difficulty level. One game I thought did difficulty levels superbly was R-Type Delta. Each one has something to offer the game. I get the sense that the designers really thought about which enemies would be in which difficulty level, where they would be, etc. rather than just carelessly plopping more enemies down. Easy is hard enough at first, but once you master the game is good to relax with (I've said I often play games to unwind). And hard has some tough spots - but it's ALWAYS fair. Also, the ships are different enough from each other that you have to use different strategies for the same sections depending on your ship. Since I haven't been able to memorize all the strategies for all the ships for all the difficulty levels, the game still feels fresh though I've beaten it many times, many was - it has nearly inexhaustible replay value. The game also has optional goals, like beating the game without charging your beam (and the game was designed to be beaten under those conditions, since they unlock notes) And, though I've beaten it quite well, I guess I still haven't completed it. Some goals I'm saving for later, though. BTW, I hear the arcade version of Gradius3 (which is also on PS2, on Gradius 3 & 4) is much harder than the SNES version, even if you crank the SNES's difficulty all the way up, and the arcade version's all the way down. Then again, those same people say that the arcade version is really just unbalanced and too hard... and it seem like they're generally good at games and don't usually call games "too hard". So maybe the SNES version is better balanced. I think I'm pretty immune to "this is the hardest game I've ever played" syndrome. For one thing, I memorize more than other people just how long it took me to finish other games, and how much trouble I had, and where. As you said, there's also the reverse phenomina. People will say, "This game is so easy... because I finished it!" Not because they finished it on their first try, or the first day, just eventually. That's like saying because some people can play Rachmaninoff's second piano concerto, it's easy. For those people, everything's easy or literally impossible, and I don't pay much attention to them when they talk about game difficulty. I get more frustrated when I die after 30 minutes into a fight a few times, than dying a million times after about 17 seconds each. When I start up the former again, I think in the back of my mind that if I fail, I'm automatically out 30 minutes again. For the latter, I feel more compelled to keep giving the game one more try, because, hey, if I fail, I'm only out 17 seconds. I does sort of depend on the game, though. I wasn't too frustrated by Vagrant Story. I remember one time when I made it through a big maze in that game (which probably took about a half hour or so) and met the boss... and the boss killed me instantly, even though i was at full health. I think the reason Vagrant Story never became frustrating was because the game put its emphasis on gameplay. I wasn't annoyed I was being prevented from seeing the next cut scene - I was pleased I was being challenged. One I knew I would be dying a lot, I settled into the game and didn't mind when I'd die. Heh, heh, I just found this review of Vagrant Story. It leads credence to the idea that reviewers expect mostly story from a game - it's like he's complaining that the game has TOO MUCH game play. Edited by: Crawl at: 5/7/01 2:16:12 pm
Crawl Registered User (5/8/01 7:23 pm) Reply	I LOVE FO! I think Lifeforce on the NES might be the next game I try to finish, and after playing it for a bit, I was thinking about this again. One thing that I've thought about before is, it seems than many NES fan reviewers, for being fans of a system with some games that are known for being hard, really aren't that good at games. The classicgaming/castlevania dungeon review archive review has a review of Ninja gaiden, and the reviewer says he's never beaten the game, and the end bosses make him feel like pulling the cart out and stomping up and down on it (or something like that). I've mentioned that many people said Contra is impossible without the 30 man code. And many people have also said Lifeforce is unfinishable without the 30 ship code. Well, I haven't finished it yet, but I have gotten to the last stage without cheating, and I would imagine it's finishable if people would take their time on it. There are lots of things that make it hard (it doesn't seem actually easy, like Contra). Of course, one hit will kill you. There are parts in the first stage where walls close shut and you can get trapped. Stage 3 seems like a real pain. Solar flares leap up, covering most of the screen, and they can be difficult to avoid if you're not prepared. considering the entire stage is featureless, it's hard to memorize. also, enemies pop up from the top and bottom of the screen, and if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you'll get killed, and it feels like a very cheap death. The game suffers from "gradius-itis". When you die, you lose all your powerups (though you MIGHT be able to reclaim your options). The game is not balanced to be played with or without your powerups, so while the game might not be impossible, certain areas probably are nearly impossible without powerups. If I made it to the boss of stage 2 without powerups, i'd turn the game off and try again. You have to circle around the boss endlessly as you wait to get shots in. Moving in circles is one thing that's not natural with a d-pad, and fighting the boss that way is thumb-killing. You seem to move too slowly besides without speed ups. Well, like I said, it's hard to memorize stage 3, but the rest of the game seems "learnable" and masterable. So, why do so many people give up so easily on this game (and others, like Contra)? I think nowadays, people don't think about the massive amount of time needed to finish an RPG. 40~50 hours... that's quite a while. But people don't seem to think anything of it. If someone played an RPG for an hour, they likely wouldn't think, "Oh, man, I'm only 2% closer to the end of this game when I started! This game is IMPOSSIBLE!!" Yet, i doubt most people who declair certain games impossible have put 40 hours into them. Why the willingness to sink so much time into RPGs, but not action games? Well, one issue is that RPGs are long but easy, so you chip away at them. It may take a long time, but if you put in the time, you are practically GUARANTEED to win. There's no guarantee that you will definitely beat some action game after x amount of hours. Another issue is that games like Life Force and Contra may be initally imposing. If you die after one hit, it might take some tries just to get out of the first stage. Maybe some people don't like repetition? But I doubt that's the whole reason. Although, since RPGs are usually easy, you won't need to repeat parts often. Honestly, I find repeating one or two parts in an otherwise easy game more irritating than replaying a section dozens upon dozens of times in a game that makes me do that often. But, anyway, maybe people don't really think about how if you didn't have to replay parts of a 6 or 8 stage game multiple times, it'd be over in a half hour? I know I wouldn't have been happy if I payed $40 for an NES game in 1989 and then beat it in a half hour. Even expensive movie tickets cost less than $10, and for those you're guaranteed 90 minutes of entertainment. I think another issue is that when people run out of continues, they become frustrated. When you make progress in an RPG, it's saved right there, and you have tangible evidence that you're making progress through a huge game. When you make it to the end of a game, and the boss kills you, and you're sent back to the beginning, it's like you made no progress at all. I can understand that frustation a bit more in Lifeforce. there's a pretty cheap part after the end boss, and it would be so frustrating to make it there fairly and then be robbed of your lives by that bit. And then, of course, you have to replay the entire game to get a shot at practicing that one part again. Also, when I was talking about making progress.. of course, you should be making progress, because presumably you now know stage patterns better, or your skills have improved, etc. But sometimes it seemed like my sucess with Lifeforce was random, like I really WASN'T making progress.. possibly because of the power up factor. Once you die once, even if by accident at a place you normally can get past, a lot more deaths are likely to follow.
Facilitypro Moderator (5/9/01 3:08 am) Reply	Re: I LOVE FO! I agree that many NES reviewers aren't good gamers, but I don't mind that if their reviews aren't tainted by them complaining about how hard the games are. (BTW, not that I consider myself an inherently stellar game player, but I think I have more patience than your average game player, and this allows me to work at hard games until I finish them. I think if anybody--no matter how lousy of a game player--puts enough time into a game, they can beat it. Eventually.) That Logaroo guy you mentioned--I checked out his review site. I read about 10 reviews, and in every one he rated the game as hard (except Final Fantasy. He said that was easy, which I disagree with. I wouldn't call FF hard, but I did resort to a FAQ to find the caravan. Every other FF I have played [all two of them] were a cakewalk compared to FF. I guess it could be easy if you leveled up a lot). I've always been curious about Life Force, but I'm burnt out on shooters right now. Moreover, I have R-Type III on the way. As for hours put into a game, RPG's may feature 40 hours of gameplay, but like you said, how much of that is repetition? You could play FF VI for 2 hours and make some definite progress. You could play Ghosts n Goblins for 2 hours and not even beat a stage (OK, that's a stretch, but I'm sure quite a few people could manage that dubious honor). Which of the two would seem longer? "Why the willingness to sink so much time into RPGs, but not action games?" I guess because with RPG's, you're always progressing, so it seems like time well spent. Once an RPGer (not to pigeonhole RPGers) tries an action game and spends an hour on the one stage, they're gonna get bored/frustrated. I like the repetition, actually. Finishing an RPG leaves me with no feeling of accomplishment at all. I mean, how hard is it to solve 1,000 "1+1" math problems as opposed to figuring out a revolutionary calculus technique? Sure, the calculus thing may have lots of frustrations and false leads, but in the end, it's more fullfilling to do. And your point about the 40 dollar, half hour game is correct. Maybe that's why modern games are filled with so much crap (FMV, elaboarate stories) nowaday, so people will feel like that got their money's worth. With NES games, pretty much all you HAVE is gameplay, so it better last for a while. Continues and save states? One reason I dislike emulators is because of save states. And about making "Random" progress, that's how Rush N Attack feels sometimes. Like, on one try, I'll finish the first two stages with one life, then the next three tries, I'll die on stage 2, then right after that, I'll make it to stage 4.
Crawl Registered User (5/9/01 8:58 am) Reply	I LOVE FO! Well, this morning I beat Lifeforce [without cheating]. And consider that I just made the commitment to beating it last night. well, I have owned it for a long time, but I almost never played it, because it used to be very dirty and would screw up my NES whenever I played it. I shouldn't have that trouble anymore (which is of course what led me to decide to try and beat it). However, I think I might have gotten better at this game by plaing Salamander (the arcade game LifeForce was based on), and other shooters as well. I think anyone who thinks LifeForce is impossible would probably crap their pants if they saw Mars Matrix. I even had a few credits left when I beat the game. I had 5 lives in reserve when I beat the final boss, and the post-boss area sapped 2 of my lives. Then, on the same credit, I made it to the next to last stage of the second quest (yes, there are a few differences between the quests). I made it through stage 3 that time without dying. My high score, for what it's worth, was 260,910 points. When lifeforce starts, some nice rows of enemies come and you can get power ups from them. It's possible to hit all of them, and I usually do. However, as I said, sometimes my performance seems random and I kept missing at least one enemy, so I kept hitting the reset button. Then, I started again and got them all, but I stupidly crashed into something in the first stage, and hit the reset button again in disgust. Then, I missed a few enemies at the beginning, but just said, the hell with it, I'll keep playing anyway... and then I beat the game! Maybe that's just an example of how random my progress would be. It is a really cool game, though, IMO. The graphics and sound are both excellent. The solar flares that leap up in stage 3 are really cool special effects for the NES. and the soundtrack is one of the best I've heard on the NES, too. I used to hear some people say some more obscure NES games had better soundtracks than games I've played, but now after playing those games, I'd still say that my old favorites, and LifeForce, stand out. I thought it would be impossible to memorize stage 3, but I'm probably wrong. I got the idea of wondering if there was some simple pattern to whether the flares would come from the top or bottom of the screen, so I tried to pay close attention. The first comes from the bottom, then two in a row from the top, and then it seems to alternate. Okay, but back on topic. I'll admit that I, too, can become frustrated by apparently not making progress in games. I've said before that I think Castlevania 3 is a fairly hard NES game, and even as I play other games that are supposed to be hard I would stand by that statement. However, it seems to be a game more people are willing to work through. Part of that may be because the game is exceptionally balanced. However, I also think part of it may be due to the password system. If you'd spend some time on a stage but can't beat it, at least you know that you can turn the game off and come back to that stage later. Also, I remember when i was a little boy, every time I'd beat a stage (since I knew I was about to get a password) I would think to myself, "Good, now I'll never have to play that stage again!" heh heh. Of course, I later did play all of those stages again, many times, but it is sort of a relief to know I wouldn't have to for some time my first time through. The same thing is true for R-Types. The home version has memory card support, so you can go to the start of any stage you've made it to so far. (it does not, however, save making it to the midpoint, even though you can continue indefinitely there, too, as long as you don't turn the game off). So, again, the palapable feeling of making progress was definitely there, and I also didn't mind turning the game off because I could always start where I left next time. On the other hand, Castlevania 3 and R-Types are both hard enough that they aren't ruined by a password system. Contra would be ridiculously easy if it had a password save. I've beaten a few games that many people seem to consider very difficult... for example, i know a lot of people gave up on Castlevania. Maybe I am more patient, but I don't know. I think one possibility is that I just don't like games to beat me. Another is that I really ENJOYED fighting Dracula in Castlevania. I like swearing at the game and yelling, "ARGHH!!! That is so unfair! I can't believe this game is cheating like that!" Well, I used to do that as a child a lot more than i do now. But it seems the very best games have a certain mix of challenge and fun that makes them extremely compelling. I thought of another factor that can make games difficult - or seem like that. game overload. I'm kind of glad I got Lifeforce out of the way so quickly. I have a bazillion other games waiting to be finished. Heck, I've talked about Metal Slug X, Mars Matrix, and MDK2 at this board, and that's just barely scratching the surface of all the games I have. NES games now are pretty cheap, and most "collectors" or NES fans are using that opportunity to build their collection. many people have over 100 NES games, and a few are getting close to having every NES game ever made (which is over 700, I believe - it depend on if you count Famicom games, too). Who has time to finish all those games? In some ways, it's almost hard to blame people for prefering games they beat in day or so to get them out of the way. And if a game is giving someone a little bit of trouble, well, if there are a hundred other games to work on, I guess that's why they move on. But for me, it's the opposite. When I have a lot of games, it's the ones I have to stick with the longest that stick in my mind the most. I think rushing to review games could be another factor in people giving up on games to move onto others. (consider that the people I'm refering to who declair certain games impossible are all fan reviewers) I used to think that RPGs would be the antidote to short games you can beat in one or two days. Then, after playing some of the more mediocre or bad RPGs, I've noticed that most of that length is totally unnecessary - on any level, gameplay, or story. For an RPG to last 80 hours, or even 40, it would really have to justify it for me, and no parts it would be better without. Final Fantasy 4 is sort of the perfect length - not short enough that it could be considered "too short", but not excessively, overbearingly long. I read somewhere (on ign, on the fan's top 10 list, actually) that Xenogears was trying to tell a 200 hour story with only 80 game hours. Give me a break. Any story in the history of humanity could be told in 80 hours. I think I "only" took 32 or so hours to read Ulysses (something like an hour a day for a month), and noone had better try telling me that Xenogears' story is more complicated than that. Edited by: Crawl at: 5/9/01 9:34:12 am
Facilitypro Moderator (5/11/01 3:02 am) Reply	Re: I LOVE FO! There's a thread at Gamefaqs with a guy saying that 2-D shooters are cheap because you can't beat them the first time you play them. He goes on to say that one boss of R-Type Delta took him about 30 tries to beat, thus it was a cheap boss. He further states that 2-D shooters should not have to be beaten on a "trial and error" basis, but should be able to be beaten on reflexes alone. Now personally, I think this guy is suffering from a large blow to his ego, since he obviously thinks that he's so good, if he can't beat a game on the first try, it must be the game's fault. Thankfully, I think everyone disagreed with him.
Crawl Registered User (5/11/01 3:05 am) Reply	I LOVE FO! LOL. Where's the thread? (gamefaqs has a bazillion boards... I don't know how you can keep up if you're hardly interested)
Crawl Registered User (5/11/01 3:09 am) Reply	I LOVE FO! I found it. I don't know if I have the energy to make a reply tonight or not.
Facilitypro Moderator (5/11/01 3:19 am) Reply	Re: I LOVE FO! Well, I see you don't need the link, but it's here in case anyone else wants to read it. Although I don't really like the atmosphere at the Gamefaqs boards, I find them fascinating to read for some reason. I always kick myself for getting involved with stupid threads, because I always end up trying to reason with people like....well, I won't say his name, but he had trouble with Gabby Jay. So I figure I might as well not even register. Anyway, I've gotta get some work done, so I'm out of here. Goodnight.
Crawl Registered User (5/11/01 10:44 am) Reply	I LOVE FO! I don't think I'll reply to that thread - I'd probably kick ~myself~ later if I did. Although I do get annoyed with people who say the PSX has no good action games, or that it's all mainstream FMV stuff, and then when a brilliant game like R-Type Delta comes along they complain because they can't finish it on their first try. ::groan:: If I would have replied, I might have said something like, well, you can say the game surprised you for a death or two, but once you start racking up 30 deaths on a boss I don't think you would have had the skill to beat it on your first try anyway. This sort of argument has amazed me since I first heard it - every single videogame I can think of of any worth was strongly based on repetition and memorization. Chances are, you won't be able to beat the Magi Master on your first try because you won't know it'll cast Ultima at the end. Will you be able to go straight to every dungeon in order and solve each mystery instantly in Zelda if your logic skills are high enough? But it's always R-Type that these people dump on. I heard that one of Gamefan's last issues would be have an article on R-Type Leo, so I was pretty excited - until I read the article. First, the person who wrote the article said that "R-Type introduced memorization to shmups - and I was not pleased." Like we really need to know that (well, we know he's obviously not trying to be objective). I already HAVE R-Type and know what it's like - what's the deal with R-Type Leo?? That article wasn't informative at all. I only gathered two things from it that I didn't know before: That R-Type Delta had sold enough that Agetec would publish another R-Type here if Irem would make it, and that R-Type Leo was more of a "manic" shooter than R-Type. I read another two sentence review of R-Type Leo before that said that Leo's design was not as good as R-Type's. I imagine that that is closer to the truth - that Leo is simply easier than R-Type, and easier to beat with fewer tries. Ug, I'm not happy with this post, but I'll post it anyway. Edited by: Crawl at: 5/11/01 2:13:05 pm
Crawl Registered User (5/12/01 5:46 pm) Reply	I LOVE FO! I was thinking about this some more, as I probably do too much. As I said before, R-Type Delta has 3 difficutly levels. If anyone would think the game has too many stage elements that need to be memorized, they could play easy to memorize the game, then play hard to test their reflexes. Do I think anyone could beat hard that way on their first try? No, because I don't think anyone is that good, not because the game is cheap. I don't think R-Type is about "memorization", anyway, though it DOES involve strategy. and as I've said before, R-Types is a diverse game has lots of challenges, including pure dodging bits. For instance, the end boss of R-Type or the stage 4 boss of R-Type 2. I can't memorize any patterns for those areas, so it's always pure skill for me when I try those areas. And after thinking about this, I got a hankering to play R-Type Delta again, on hard. My brother suggested I play with the POW armor. I was reminded of what the first part of stage 3 was like if you can't destroy that cannon. You have to stay on your toes and dodge fireballs for a huge part of the stage... and often there are bullets or missles moving through that pattern of fireballs. It reminded me of someof the boss fights in Radiant Silvergun. I thought R-Type Delta didn't have any areas like that at all (I thought the closest would have been the final boss - which reminds me, this is another area in n R-Type game whee I use pure skill) but now I know I was wrong.
Aussie2B Registered User (5/20/01 2:13 am) Reply	Re: I LOVE FO! I'm kinda ashamed to admit that I'm experiencing game overload. I remember back when the SNES was the only system I had (I had a NES before that, but that's not important), and I would get games very infrequently. Basically only on my birthday and holidays, though there were a few exceptions. My grandmother bought all three of the DKC games for me the very day they came out. I imagine part of the fondness I have for the series has to do with that. I'll always associate them with how nice my grandmother is to me. Anyway, when I did get a new game, I knew I would be playing that game until I beat it, unless that was absolutely impossible. Then I would go through all my older games (in chronological order, no less) replaying them from beginning to end. Sometimes I would even end up replaying my most recently acquired game if it was a REALLY long time between games. Nowadays, I just have dozens and dozens of games I have barely touched, and many more that I would like to replay... I know that I have less patience than I used to. I want to quickly beat a game and move on to other games. "I want to turn into a little bird and fly away, so leave me alone!"
Crawl and 1OOO Registered User (5/26/02 11:08 pm) Reply	I LOVE FO! "While there's some of that in Gradius 3, the main challenge is to try to beat it on one life, so you don't lose your power ups." I couldn't remember if you posted elsewhere about Gradius 3, so this thread is as good as any to reply to. Anyway, I played a couple games of Gradius 3 tonight. It seems good. What you mentioned seems to be the only "problem" I have with it so far. I'll make it 3/4 of the way through the game without taking a hit, then die, and, without powerups, be unable to get past some part (like, when the tiles of the ceiling and floor fly at you). I imagine after a few games, I might not have problems at those places anymore. And, aside from that, it's a fun game. I set my power up bar like this: Hawk wind (two way) missles, forward or tail double (mostly irrelevant, as I use lasers), C Laser (like the lasers from Life Force), F Options (they form "wings" around your ship, and you can spread them if your bar is powered to option), Reduce shield, and Shield recharge. I'm not sure what my favorite game in the Gradius series is. Sometimes, Gradius 2 almost seemed like a "mini-R-type" - I guess I don't feel like elaborating right now. There were a couple of times it didn't feel like that, though. One was the Moai head bosses. In Gradius 2, without being powered up, they're basically impossible to kill. When I passed them, I survived long enough for them to time out. Then there was the part when the tiles fly at you. I could irregularly pass that part, but I have to confess the one time I beat Gradius 2 so far, I used the Konami code to power myself up there. After I did that, I got past the tile part on my next try. Gradius Gaiden seems to me to be the most "fun" Gradius game. One reason I might not immediately call it my favorite Gradius game is that it's sort of unoriginal - EVERY Gradius game, from 2 on, has an all boss stage, a speed zone, a part where floor and ceiling tiles fly at you, a remix of the first stage from Gradius 1, and so on. And some other stages seen in Gradius Gaiden might cause Deja Vu - like the plant stage. Also, Gradius Gaiden probably isn't one of the harder Gradius games. Gradius 3 seems to be sort of a median between Gradius 2 and 3. (One other thing I like about Gaiden is that I think it has the best music in the series, and possibly the best graphics - though I haven't played Gradius 4) I LOOOOOOVE Flying Omelette!! Crawl and 1000
Crawl and 1OOO Registered User (5/27/02 12:27 pm) Reply	I LOVE FO! Anyway, I beat Gradius 3 on easy. I did die and lose my powerups a few times, but I was fully powered up at the ceiling tile section, which was how I got through (I did take a few hits on my shield, but I had the power bar up to shield restore, and so I got my shield back automatically). I'll try the other difficulties later. Well, I did sample them a little already, and they look promising (more bullets and excitement, as you said). I also beat King's Knight again. I'm actually considering writing a faq for it. I probably know it just about as well as anyone. I LOOOOOOVE Flying Omelette!! Crawl and 1000
Facilitypro Moderator (5/27/02 2:24 pm) Reply	Gradius III Those are the exact same weapons I use for Gradius 3. When I play Gradius 3 and 4 for PS2, I'll probably play Gradius 3 first. The graphics look smoother than the SNES version (from screenshots)--Maybe it's a direct arcade port.
CRAWLand1000 Registered User (6/6/02 12:07 pm) Reply	I LOVE FO! I suppose one thing that might make a game seem hard is if it's not particularly enjoyable. Like, I've made it to the final boss of stage 8 in Lightening Force after just a few tries; so, why haven't I beaten the game yet? Because I just don't enjoy it; after finishing a game, I have absolutely no desire to start another one. I often am motivated to do things in games again and again until I get them right, but other games just don't motivate me to do that. I could go on about ~why~ I don't find Lightening Force fun or captivating, but I'll put that off for a bit. BUT. When I love a game my first time through, it seems I'll always love it. Games like Castlevania 3 have not fallen in my esteem after years of heavy play. Games that I thought were too easy, simplistic, stupid, etc., at first, I always think that. But there are a few games that can seem better after repeated play. I guess it's probably better, as a general rule, for a game to be somewhat less fun because it's frustrating, than for it to be immediately accessible and easy. Games that weren't fun at first can become fun after you've become acclimated to them, but games that are too easy can never become harder. I LOOOOOOVE Flying Omelette!! Crawl and 1000

Liontamer's Lair > Video Game Jungle > What makes a game hard? (Chapter 3)
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>