|
Liontamer's Lair > Video Game Jungle > When is a game hard enough? |
|
| << Prev Topic | Next Topic >> |
| Author |
Comment
|
|||||
CRAWLand1000
 (6/10/02 4:59 pm) Reply |
When is a game hard enough? One thing I've been thinking about is, when is a game hard enough? Obviously, when a game can be beaten on the first try (like I did with SMB2 or SML) it's too easy. Sometimes, I use the subjective standard. If I feel exhilarated at the end of the game, or frustrated at first, but exhilarated once I over come the game's obstacles, it should be hard enough. When I was a child, I used the "6-day rule" - an action game should take about 6 days to beat (RPGs are trickier beasts to catagorize, because it's easy to make them ridiculously long). Not necessarily 6 full days, but at least 6 after school afternoons. Now it seems like very few action games can live up to that standard. Of course, very few games reach the highest standards, regardless of the number of perfect scores handed out by whatever review sites I may be alluding to. Either way, the 6 day rule isn't just intended to make games LONG - it should be to make sure there's a sufficent number of frustations and exhilarations in one game. I read an essay by Edgar Allen Poe where he said that there was no such thing as a long poem. Of course, he's aware of long poems like Paradise Lost. He said the purpose of a poem (I may be only imperfectly representing his thoughts) was to put your mind in the momentary state of experiencing the sublime. When you read a long poem, you invariably will go through, if not periods of outright boredom, periods of mixed feelings, so that, ultimatily, a long poem's sum effect is zero. Or, at best, long poems function as a series of sequential short poems. But I almost think a videogame, a great videogame, can put you in a state where you're experiencing the sublime for extended periods of time. This sort of potential is perhaps unique to videogames, so videogaming's best should take advantage of it as much as possible. Anyway, the real problem for me is for games that are in the middle. I thought Castlevania 4 was too easy. Maybe I'm harder on it for being a successor to Castlevania 3, but I don't think so. I didn't think Gargoyle's Quest 2 was too easy. It might not be hard enough, though... I might be inclined, subconsiously, to go a little easy on it because it was a game I enjoyed when many other games did not give me enjoyment. Certainly, because I enjoyed it, it was a good game... but that is independent of if it's hard enough. Contra was a good game, but it wasn't challenging enough. One reason I don't think I'm being too hard on CV4 is that some stages were just really dull. (Take away the cool background in 4-3, and what you have left is just a series of uninspired platforms. Almost all of stage 7 was pretty dull). And even when Gargoyle's Quest 2 started challenging me less, it still had some nicely designed stages, with obstacles placed very carefully. Sometimes, when you like something, you want it to be good enough to deserve to be liked even more. I try to be a bit more objective, though. I guess I'm still just hammering out my standards. Crawl and 1000 |
|||||
Facilitypro 
Moderator (6/10/02 6:30 pm) Reply |
Hard Games and Soft Women
Well, there are several points that make a game "hard enough."
1. My first try though an area/boss I get stomped, but with each successive try, I notice a slow improvement. Example: Punchout. Agains Tyson/Dream, I probably didn't even land a punch my first time. But at one point, I could make it past the first round. Then I knocked him down. Then I made it to the final round. (It happened over a LONG period of time...probably over 10 years, because I played so sporadically until I actually got the game. Even after that, it took a while to master.) 2. The game is short, but intense. Example: R-Types. R-Types doesn't pull any punches after the first stage of each game (Especially II). Anyway, R-Type can be beaten in less than an hour, but you'll spend 3 weeks on that hour before you beat it for the first time. 3. I feel driven to play the game. Example: MDK 2. Although I died a bunch of times, I couldn't put the controller down. MDK 2 only took me a week of playing to beat (which is short by comparison to what other people say), but I was so into the game that I played a good 6-7 hours a day. 4. It's still a challenge after you beat it. Example: Devil May Cry. I've finished it three times, and I'm still on my toes when I fight bosses and tougher enemies. As for length, MDK 2 was hard and long, which can be a bad combination if done incorrectly. I have a hard time gauging how long it takes me to beat NES games, because I play the system so infrequently. |
|||||
Flying Omelette 
 (6/12/02 8:57 am) Reply |
Re: Hard Games and Soft Women Sometimes I think difficulty is subjective. I thought the first three stages of R-Type were pretty easy. Levels 2 and 6 of Abadox are much harder than those, imo. It seems like R-Type picks up at Level 4 though, because that's as far as I've gotten.  I  Crawl and 1000 
|
|||||
|
Crawl and 1OOO
(6/12/02 9:51 pm) Reply |
I LOVE FO! Regarding what FO said: Yes, difficulty can be subjective. I thought Dracula from Castlevania was a pretty hard boss, but I don't think Facility Pro thought he was hard. But sometimes there are specific things to look for - the demand placed on your reflexes, the amount and positioning of obstacles, etc. Of course, if someone some how manages to, with little effort, get through some stage with many well-placed obstacles, they perhaps might not be persuaded that that stage had challenge potential. But this reminds me of something else. I once watched my brother play the first stage of R-Type. It was incredible. I never had any idea that stage could be so difficult. There was just something about the way he played that caused all the enemies to swarm him... For the first few stages of R-Type, if you're doing things "right", you should do okay, but that really pointed out to me how crazy it can get if you don't do things right. (Anyway, obviously the first few stages of R-Type are not the most challenging in the game. But I do think they are enjoyable. I've played several shooters which are completely pointless before their difficulty curve begins to pick up - Blazing Lazers and Gate of Thunder, to name two) Regarding what Facility Pro said: Those are all excellent examples. Of course, those are also all top notch games (well, I haven't played Devil May Cry myself, but if you say it's so good, I'll take your word for it). Speaking of which, a few days ago, before I read this post, I decided to replay some stages of MDK2, and I had a blast. There were some things I was planning on asking you about the game, but I forgot what they were. Oh, well. Anyway, while those qualifications could make a gold standard, I think a game could be less difficult than those games and still not be too easy. I've heard people say Super Ghouls N Ghosts was one of the hardest games ever. I don't think it was as hard as those games you named... but I also don't think it was too easy at all (it's still not one of my favorites, though, mainly because I don't think it's quite "fun" enough) Bah, there were other examples I wanted to give, but I dont' remember them. I LOOOOOOVE Flying Omelette!!
|
|||||
|
<< Prev Topic |
Next Topic >>
|
 Email This To a Friend Topic Commands Click to receive email notification of replies  Click to stop receiving email notification of replies |
|
- Liontamer's Lair - Video Game Jungle -
