The VG Resource

http://www.p4rgaming.com/majority-of-gam...ario-bros/
Two year old article I stumbled upon.   So this is the basis for Nintendo's games getting easier.

I can't help but lol in some regards.  The fact that they based this assessment on people who didn't read the whole manual that came with it, or never ran once.  Isn't the first thing anyone should do with a game, if they don't know the controls, is try the buttons and combinations of buttons and see what happens?

I can understand not knowing buttomless pits the first time around.  If you've never played Mario, but played something else where you can explore a world by going vertically as well, it would be a beginner's trap.  However, once you do learn you can't go down from dying the first time, you simply avoid doing it forever, lol.


EDIT:  Apparently site is satirical, so from this point the thread is just talking about the shift in difficulty of games in general.

Quote:We explained that Mario could shoot fire balls with the Fire Flower power-up, but then they wanted Mario to start with more weapons like a sword or a gun.

lmao


This is kind of a clickbaity thread title, but it's kinda true - a lot of people overlook Nintendo's selection not because they're easy (in fact, games lately like DKC Returns, Mario 3D World, etc. get pretty frustrating later upon trying to 100% the game) but because of the goofy, childish presentation and ridiculous advertising of many of the system's newer titles. With that childish presentation, comes the assumption of "oh, this game looks SO kid friendly - check out these characters with their big eyes and big feet. it's probably easy"
Of course, you could argue "what are you talking about, Kosh, Metroid Prime Hunters is pretty manly" - well, when you have posters that look like this



and a commercial spot like this

It's easy to see why people would overlook a title like this at first glance, unless you actually play video games and realize it's a pretty sadistic game, and when you have one awesome, moldbreaking game on the console, it's not easy for Joe Gamer to see E3 coverage and say "Man, I really need to buy a Wii U for this one title"

Instead, the game with the cool-as-fuck advertising, a Hollywood score and an assist dog are going to wow you more once you're not buying videogames with Mom's money.

As silly as it sounds, maybe Nintendo should make like their different development teams have actually varied names, as opposed to "Nintendo EAD" and "Nintendo Software Technologies" - with one of those more mature titles (Zelda, Metroid) being under a separate "banner" so more people will flock to that, instead of people having a whole stigma against the company because it's literally videogame Disney.

(like, imagine Disney and Marvel today - that kinda transparency needs to exist. Really left-field example, but imagine if Platinum Games was a subsidiary of Nintendo. Something like that needs to happen)



basically: nintendo's advertising game needs some work

I learned from another board I frequent that this site is satirical, so my bad on that end. But! Doesn't mean we can't talk about this subject, as it's still true that, for the most part, games have gotten easier.

Advertising does have a factor with appeal, I agree with that. I'm not sure how much it affects the onlook of the difficulty of a game. You've got games that are cute, but ridiculously difficult, like Touhou or something.

I don't mind seeing games that are easier. For some games, its just a matter of the demographic changing I suppose. What I like is when games have more diverse of a difficulty curve. Sure, I thought Bravely Default was easy. I played it on easy, and I grinded a lot. I wanted to experiment a bit with the classes, see what stuck more damage and what was least risky.

I have a spectrum of difficulty...There are various examples for each level.

• - A fun and easy romp (ex. World 1 of Mario games)
|
• - A fun challenge (ex. 50cc in Mario Kart)
|
• - A tough challenge (ex. Leveling up Pokemon)
|
• - An unfair challenge (ex. Later dungeons in a Zelda game)
|
• - An impossible challenge (ex. Every SNK fighting game boss)

(10-13-2015, 11:39 PM)JazzGW Wrote: [ -> ]I have a spectrum of difficulty...There are various examples for each level.

• - A fun and easy romp (ex. World 1 of Mario games)
|
• - A fun challenge (ex. 50cc in Mario Kart)
|
• - A tough challenge (ex. Leveling up Pokemon)
|
• - An unfair challenge (ex. Later dungeons in a Zelda game)
|
• - An impossible challenge (ex. Every SNK fighting game boss)

I can't say anything about Mario Kart, since I never played it, but Leveling Up Pokemon isn't hard at all.  It's just a long and boring grind session of walking in the same 2x2 section of tiles, or farming the same trainers you've already beaten.

The only unfair dungeons I can think of in Zelda are present in the second quest of the first game, where it's required to walk into or bomb at walls randomly in hopes you'll find where to progress.  Zelda 2 is unfair all around, with the ridiculous butter knife attack range, and constantly being sent back to the beginning of the game.  Every other Zelda game has been incredibly fair when it comes to the map, compass, continuing, and so on, but none of them besides Zelda 2 have really been hard...You don't ever take that much damage, and when you do, there's always the copout of full-restore potions, or reviving bottle fairies, so it really holds your hand in that regard xD.

Fighting game bosses tend to be a bit irregular indeed.  Often it's them juggling your character and taking out more than half your life bar in one session of hits.

Some games can become easier as more mechanics are implemented in the fray. Lets follow the Max Payne series example.
In Max Payne 1 you can’t use cover at walls or scenario objects, melee attacks needed to be switched manually and you can’t walk while crouched down.
In Max Payne 3 it’s possible to perform all these features, giving you more gameplay mechanics turning the game walk a little more easier since both still follow the same core style.
Of course, this applies only when the game follows the same core mechanic with the game in comparison.

Age of empires also follows this setup with resource gathering

AoE 1 and 2 your settlers had to collect the resource and stock them at a specific building. Age AoE 3 you didn’t had to bother with this.

(10-14-2015, 07:23 AM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2015, 11:39 PM)JazzGW Wrote: [ -> ]I have a spectrum of difficulty...There are various examples for each level.

• - A fun and easy romp (ex. World 1 of Mario games)
|
• - A fun challenge (ex. 50cc in Mario Kart)
|
• - A tough challenge (ex. Leveling up Pokemon)
|
• - An unfair challenge (ex. Later dungeons in a Zelda game)
|
• - An impossible challenge (ex. Every SNK fighting game boss)

I can't say anything about Mario Kart, since I never played it, but Leveling Up Pokemon isn't hard at all.  It's just a long and boring grind session of walking in the same 2x2 section of tiles, or farming the same trainers you've already beaten.

The only unfair dungeons I can think of in Zelda are present in the second quest of the first game, where it's required to walk into or bomb at walls randomly in hopes you'll find where to progress.  Zelda 2 is unfair all around, with the ridiculous butter knife attack range, and constantly being sent back to the beginning of the game.  Every other Zelda game has been incredibly fair when it comes to the map, compass, continuing, and so on, but none of them besides Zelda 2 have really been hard...You don't ever take that much damage, and when you do, there's always the copout of full-restore potions, or reviving bottle fairies, so it really holds your hand in that regard xD.

Fighting game bosses tend to be a bit irregular indeed.  Often it's them juggling your character and taking out more than half your life bar in one session of hits.

Yeah I just picked out random games. I haven't invested time in a game for years, so my memory of games I played back then is a bit fuzzy.

I do agree, Zelda 2 is unfair. But I think the main issue is that it doesn't provide much about what to do in the game (In reference to the Game Grumps playthrough) Everything has to be dug up using a walkthrough, which I imagine was close to impossible back then - otherwise, all players could do was subscribe to Nintendo Power to get mere hints. I hear this is why Castlevania II is heavily looked down upon.

To be frank, an actually unfair challenge to me would probably be online gameplay in general. When I tried to play fighting games or role playing games online, I was always playing against either trolls who can only use one button or players who have a century's worth of experience compared to me. With Smash 4 being the only competitive game I play these days I don't even play online - playing alone against CPU is a fair and enjoyable challenge. It's a shame that I don't really have any close friends, because I'd much rather play games with them instead of online.

I'm sorry to derail the topic, Koh, but how

(10-14-2015, 07:23 AM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]I can't say anything about Mario Kart, since I never played it

How is this possible
HOW

All of the Mario Kart games are really fun and to hear someone who um, plays a lot of a videogames say "I haven't played Mario Kart" is like someone in their 20's admitting that they've never eaten pizza in their life

Though, it does sorta illustrate the Nintendo mindset - it's sort of the sheer opposite of what I brought up. Mario Kart is, depending on the title, easy - but it's not easy enough to bore yourself to death while playing it. At the same time, the Mario Kart series always gets top advertising and generally appeals to all ages, and rarely will you hear "Oh, Mario Kart is such a kid's game - I'd rather play Need for Speed" - Mario Kart defined the mascot kart-racing genre and proved that you don't have to know an iota about actual racing in order to fully enjoy Mario Kart. It's a great experience whether you're playing by yourself, with friends, or online with strangers. It's fucking Mario Kart.


Which, now that I've said all that, if you've at least played Crash Team Racing on the PS1, I guess I can be not-as-shocked because that's a pretty amazing kart racer too. A lot of the concepts seen in CTR were "borrowed" by the Mario Kart series later on in its lifespan (which is...ironic, because it's like Nintendo saying "welp, you were right - you guys did it better, Naughty Dog")

Yes, we had Crash Team Racing (as well as the rest of the PS1 Crash games), and I absolutely loved it, lol. Once you mastered power sliding, the whole game became cake...until you tried to beat Oxide's time trial ghosts. Mad frustration right there.

We didn't own any of the Nintendo TV consoles until the Wii much later. Just the Gameboy line (sans Micro) and DS Lite before then. So all the games I've played that are on them have been through emulation. I did intend to try a Mario Kart game at some point, but I've already got a backlog of games to get through that I missed out on, lol.

(10-14-2015, 11:35 PM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, we had Crash Team Racing (as well as the rest of the PS1 Crash games), and I absolutely loved it, lol.  Once you mastered power sliding, the whole game became cake...until you tried to beat Oxide's time trial ghosts.  Mad frustration right there.

We didn't own any of the Nintendo TV consoles until the Wii much later.  Just the Gameboy line (sans Micro) and DS Lite before then.  So all the games I've played that are on them have been through emulation.  I did intend to try a Mario Kart game at some point, but I've already got a backlog of games to get through that I missed out on, lol.

For me it's kinda opposite...I missed out on a lot of games like SNES and N64 since I skipped from NES to GCN, so nowadays I emulate to play games that I didn't play back then. I had the typical mainstream games back then, so now that I've discovered more obscure titles...I also emulate arcade games via MAME and Raine, since arcade gaming is a dead industry in America.

Like most aspects, difficulty depends on the game. Not only the magnitude, but even its presence; Proteus is a game where you literally just walk around and look. There's no goal, thus no obstacles and no difficulty. It's not easy or hard, because you're not trying to do anything. But I suppose, then we'd start a discussion about what exactly defines a "game", as this might just be a "simulation". And let's not get into that.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think it's as much about video games being easier rather than, there are more games in general and difficulty spread has grown with that. 20 years ago the ratio of "difficult" games was higher, but the amount of games was also smaller. The target market was also much narrower, and most people who played video games actually had the persistence to put up with the difficulty, because that's just how video games were. It's kinda like TV; black and white TV looks terrible now, nobody would sacrifice colour TV for that (unless you want to specifically watch on an antique TV or something), but back in the 50s it was amazing and awesome, because that's just how it was.

It's also got to do with how familiar you are with video games. A modern Zelda or Mario game might be just as difficult for a new gamer as Link's Awakening or SMB was for people who grew up back then.

I'm not making an argument for anything by the way, just putting out some thoughts.

Game difficulty is something to be analyzed in tandem with the current technology.

Back then, the very first games were simple in concept, such as "defeat all aliens", or "eat all dots". If you really think about it, old games were not difficult in concept due to the hardware of that time - but variables (such as speed, different/pseudorandom patterns, input) got progressively harder and since old games had no ending, the only reason a player would endure hours of gaming would be to get the high score.

Old games were made to kill you - there is no actual final level and every time you progressed, surviving became even harder until all your lives were lost. The reason for this is mainly two: the limited hardware as I said earlier, and game credits.

Games were purposedly made hard to eat up all the nickels from gamers back then. Every time they died, a coin would be deposited to try again, and so on and so on, until you ran out of lunch money. The feeling of incompleteness and frustration when you failed drove many players to spend tons of money - and SNES/Mega Drive games, mirroring that ideology, had many games with limited lives and continues even though you didn't need coins to boot the game.

Nowadays, I believe this ideology isn't required anymore - there are games without lives, or without continues, and even games where you can't even die. Because of the advancements on hardware, developers could make inventive games where 'surviving' isn't the main point, but rather 'telling a story' or 'experimenting new ideas'. Some even subvert the idea of classic difficulty by making the protagonist immortal, but challenge him with head splitting puzzles and enigmas.

At a first glance, looks like games became easier. And they did - but it's not like old games were fairly balanced, either. Games deemed 'easy' aren't a problem if it does its fundamental job of entertaining.

Now, we have a plethora of games for you to play - easy games, hard games, and Dark Souls. If you look well, you will find things that will please you.