|
|
|
»Common Sense: Difficulty is Hard
"Jeremy Parish, go f**k yourself."
Admittedly, as both a writer and reader of game reviews, I've gained a
set of annoyances in regard to most reviews. While most of them are
minor and generally rare in most game reviews and articles, there is
one annoyance that reigns supreme: complaints about the difficulty of a
game. Be it about a game's ease or difficulty, every comment revolving
around a game's challenge generally pains me, with the sensation being
similar to swimming through a pool filled with lemon juice after
falling face-first into a pile of razor blades. Of course, I've never
felt this sensation in reality, but common sense dictates that it hurts
like hell. The fact is that this bias against games that are "too hard"
has affected me at least a few times, through the Mega Man Zero series,
and more recently and importantly, Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins.
In order to understand the anguish caused by such moronic statements
that can be summed up as either "OMG diz gmae is 2 hrad
lolololololololll!!1#2" or "This game feels like it was made for
three-year-olds! How could someone take such a mind-numbingly easy game
to [insert child-oriented franchise here]?” one must delve into the
psyche of the critic himself. Ranging from the morons who spam message
boards with messages compiled of bad syntax and worse grammar, to the
most seasoned professionals who use their experience and long history
in the field to rend anything that didn't come out at least 10 years
ago. Simply put, what a critic generally wants is a paradox. A game
that doesn't waste the entire budget on graphic design, but offers
great eye candy, even compared to what's available five years from now.
A game that is deep and involving, but can also be picked up and
played. Of course, the thing that most video game reviewers are
extremely critical of, the game's learning curve. This is what either
makes or breaks it in terms of gameplay and fun factor. If a learning
curve is too steep, the game is too hard. If it's too flat, it's too
easy. There is an ideal balance between the two, but frankly, I haven't
seen any game achieve it.
The main problem with the way some critics review a game's difficulty
is the fact that they don't take into account a game's audience when
factoring in the game's difficulty. A game that is intended for
children is going to be easy, at least in the traditional sense. On the
other hand, a game that is a sequel to one of the hardest arcade games
in all of video game history is probably going to be hard. But both of
the extremes on the difficulty scale have reasoning behind them: the
game developers' have simply tuned the games' difficulties to their
core audience. This alone is easily understood. Kids won't want to play
a game that takes a great deal of skill to master, while old-school
gaming aficionados would be outraged if a sequel to a difficult classic
didn't have at least comparable difficulty, let alone something easy
enough for a casual gamer to beat without any hardships. I mean, that's
just common sense, really.
Another factor that is widely ignored is the fact that there are two
kinds of difficult games. The good kind, in which the difficulty is
present by the game's level design and actual occurrences in the
gameplay; and the bad kind, where the difficulty is simply attributed
to bad coding and design flaws. Sure, both seem to invoke anger in a
gamer, when the game is considered "unbeatable", but the good form of
difficulty can at least hone the gamers’ reflexes, and eventually, the
he or she will end up getting past the hardship. Bad difficulty, on the
other hand, simply causes aggravation, because achieving the
challenge's objective will simply be a matter of luck, as opposed to
skill. If a game's difficulty is solely based in the "good" form of
difficulty, it should be praised for it. Only the difficulty brought
about by design flaws and other miscellaneous screw-ups should be
punished.
Finally, the most important factor that should be taken into account
is: does the difficulty of a game adversely affect the gameplay (in
terms of control and fun factor)? If this is the case, then the game
should obviously suffer. But in my case, I enjoy difficult games. They
offer a greater feeling of satisfaction when you complete a certain leg
of it, or better yet, the entire game itself. Yes, for me, the more
difficult the game, the better. Then again, I am a fan of puzzle games.
And as most fighting game fans will attest, SNK Syndrome bosses take a
god-like amount of patience to overtake.
So in conclusion, unless a game's difficulty doesn't fit the game's
core audience, isn't based solely on design flaws and other mistakes or
doesn't make the game any less controllable or fun, it shouldn't have a
heavy bearing on the score. It's just that simple.
Wonder what I'm complaining about? Discuss the inspiration.
Article by: Wolfdogg
Posted on: Sep. 28th, 2006 |
|
|
|
Comments |
|
December 30, 2006 |
Knives |
|
Well, depends on the game, I guess. Some games, if too difficult, are no fun, and the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genre: Platform
Developer: Capcom
Publisher: Capcom
Release Date: TBA
Save Type: 1 Slot
Players: |
|
|
 |
