Nintendo says NO! to Hard games!

[dataDave]

According to Miyamoto, Galaxy's difficult is two-tiered. Some of the stars are so easy that nearly everyone can get them with little practice. Others will be ball-bustingly hard to get, surpassing Sunshine's harder levels in difficulty. Team had arguments about this right from the start of the development. Some developers wanted to make it harder than Sunshine, some easier than Mario 64. Big M himself believes current model will be for the best.


Tough? Annoying yes, but tough?

Sounds just like 'World/64 then!

Awesomes. The 'Cheese Bridge nose-dive under the exit' path and the 'top of the Tick Tock Clock backwards conveyor belt triple jump onto vertically moving block-stomper' automatically spring to mind

[Prophet Hero]

wasent it during the gamecube they mentioned about doing shorter games ? think it was in response for luigis mansions being short

I don't think Nintendo will ever be able to resolve this situation. After the long wait for OoT they released WW in good time and then (IIRC) they admitted that a whole dungeon had been droppped. They then put a massive amount of time and effort into Twilight Princess but so much so that by the finish the Wii was ready and waiting to go.

I differentiate between "difficult" and "challenging". My idea of challenging is a delicate mixture of fun and difficulty. I found Ninja Gaiden challenging but others describe it as stupidly difficult. The easier NGS hasn't pleased everyone either.

I reckon dumbing down can work both ways. Offering a boss fight where you can only remove slivers of an absurdly long energy bar, which at some point is replenished, is just as insulting as a stupidly easy game.

[dataDave]

Offering a boss fight where you can only remove slivers of an absurdly long energy bar, which at some point is replenished, is just as insulting as a stupidly easy game.

I love that though. During Lost Planet I actually felt like Capcom were personally taking the piss out of me. Getting through those bits basically whacks the ball back at them whilst giving them the V's/moonies or whatever.

[peeveen]

I love that though. During Lost Planet I actually felt like Capcom were personally taking the piss out of me. Getting through those bits basically whacks the ball back at them whilst giving them the V's/moonies or whatever.

YEAH! I just finished Extreme mode a couple of days ago, and this is soooo true.

[MikeRox]

I prefer games that are easy to get into and get to the end of, yet if you dig deeper there are more complex things.

I find nothing more irritating than hitting a brick wall in a game, and finding it impossible to get any further. Burnout gets it right with the medal system and star system on revenge. Most people will have very little problem completing events, but getting gold medals while maintaining the awesome rating in the race, to allow you to get the 5* Perfect ranking get really hard later on.

Super Mario Worlds hidden exits and additional secret levels is another example of how challenge can be put into easier "mainstream" difficulty titles, without alienating people who aren't so great.

Lost Planets difficulty was a total mess. About as fun as having needles in your eyes.

[eastyy]

games that give you incentives to get better is always what i like

games such as nights which was really easy but could be replayed alot

[Baseley09]

Good, ive only ever been good with games of style and skill, i cant do puzzles etc so if I buy a game I want to see it through to the end, it better be easy, otherwise it just angsts me on the shelf that i canne get anywhere in it.

[Ady]

This isn't especially good news, but it's nothing new either. Games have been easy since the PS1 and Sony's "80% of gamers never finish their games" mantra. The thought of them getting easier though almost makes gaming seem like a waste of time and money now.

Either way, even if Nintendo never make a challenging game again, it doesn't mean 3rd parties can't.

And to think that, when I suggested Nintendo were taking this stance, I was accused of being 'melodramatic'

IIRC, you suggested this in reference to Nintendo prioritising the DS over the GBA, which isn't the same thing at all.

[Concept]

I stick to normal unless a game offers true replayability at a better difficulty (i.e. Halo), but I can see where Nintendo are coming from. This isn't a dig at you Ady, as I don't know your position, but it baffles me when you have some people on the one hand saying this isn't good news, and then on the other calling for greater market accessibility in terms of an expanded audience.

[Concept]

Well-implemented, selectable, rewarding difficulty levels are all games need. Then everyone's covered.

Yeah, pretty much this. All that's required is balancing for different people (which as David pointed out, Nintendo usually do anyway with the possible exception of Prime).

[dataDave]

but it baffles me when you have some people on the one hand saying this isn't good news, and then on the other calling for greater market accessibility in terms of an expanded audience.

When we pay £40 or whatever (I'm more arsed about the 12-36 months of wasted hype over cash, anyday) we want more than just 8hrs of a 'from start-to-finish' run-through of some rechurnable franchise cash-in.

Some of us aren't 7-9yr old gamers. We expect more. Simple as.

EDIT: Sorry mate, you mean the same people wanting both of those? Hmmm.. It's a tough one to think about for sure, although with the inclusion of fee-based DLC thesedays people are happy with gamerpoints as rewards over finishing stuff in under 2hrs on hard mode - 'Back in the day' you'd be rewarded with all new guns/characters/cars whatever... no no no (lolz) you need to pay for that now, son! (like in the other thread)

What always gets me is that I remember back to playing with Robocop figures as a kid - wasn't that film meant to be an 18 certificate? (I know it's an 18, just using the example ) You can play with the toys, but you can't watch the film! (wtf?)

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, pretty much this. All that's required is balancing for different people (which as David pointed out, Nintendo usually do anyway with the possible exception of Prime).

This assumes that games have to be for everyone. They don't. If a game is a hard game, let it be hard, challenging and, with that, rewarding (those shooters y'all like, or Ghosts and Goblins). If it's easy, let it be easy, fun and, with that, rewarding (Lego Star Wars for example). If it's down the middle, great.

But I'd rather there were different games catering to different people rather than trying to be everything to everyone.

[dataDave]

Perfect Dark 64 (again)... Agent mode = spastic guards and very few mission objectives / Perfect Agent mode = Rock solid guards that don't f*** around, extra mission objectives leading off to yet undiscovered parts of the game, and the opportunity to unlock THREE extra kick-ass missions!

PLus you had to cane 1-player to unlock all the different multiplayer options. Good god I love that game soooo damn much. Perfect Dark really is forever.

[eastyy]

devil may cry 3 was for me perfect difficulty wise as i think it offered action for the average gamer.....but the system was flexible enough for high level play

[EvilBoris]

I think it all depends on the game, some games are just fun to play, they may be easy but they are just fun from start to finish. I can think of plenty of games where I have never died.

Some games need to be hard in order for you to play them correctly, Splinter Cell for instance, if you have it on the lower settings doesn't require you to even be stealthy, I think that it benefits from a harder difficulty.