smashlampjaw | (no subject)

Depends from game to game, really. Some games, if you were sufficiently skilled enough, I'd say you could beat the game without dying with no prior knowledge. Maybe a run-and-gun.

Others, like the Persona Games which can be ball-bustingly difficult, I'd say that's more the process of trial and error, since if you have no prior knowledge you can really get your ass licked hard in situations like that.

Why, is this about Demon's Souls again.

More about difficulty in general.

See, I don't think SMT games are hard. They're just time consuming. No RPG is really 'hard'

But some games, like Megaman 9, have traps that WILL KILL YOU if you don't know they're there, so they're unfair.

Games like Demon's Souls, Godhand, DMC, or Ninja Gaiden are all beatable without dying, just very hard.

I disagree, but that's me.

Mega Man 9 would've been called bullshit if it didn't, though.

Beatable without dying, but lots and lots of trial and error are needed to do so.

The thing is, trial and error sucks. I don't think any game should require you to be a psychic or to die to figure out a secret or how to proceed.

Fire Emblem games are really shitty about this too.

Icons (especially those on LJ) are kind of the definition of shallow and pedantic, dude. I mean, honestly, imagine for a second that there is such a thing as a deep and meaningful icon. I know I grimaced!

I think the difference between challenging and bullshit lies in a little something called "intuitiveness." So, like, if a game kicks your ass a million times but you can get through it without picking up a manual (only using your intuition), it's only challenging. But if you pick up a game that requires you to pick up the manual or go online to progress at any stage of it (especially the first stages), I call it unintuitive and dub it unfair.

Games that have multiple endings, especially "good" and "bad" endings, often fall into the unfair category because the criteria for getting one or the other can be unintuitive. I realized a while ago that if I hadn't been using an FAQ for Persona 4, I probably wouldn't have gotten the "true" ending for quite some time. This is opposed to a game like BioShock, which has a pretty clear setup of "doing this is good, and doing this is bad." Again, though, it's based off of the ability of an average person with a normal level of intuition to finish the game at all.

"Twitch games," particularly those with portions that you absolutely cannot pass unless you have excruciatingly good skills and impeccable timing, are simply un-fucking-fair. End of story.

...I dunno how to feel about SMT games, really.

They definitely fit in my "how can you know this" category, but at the same time I feel like everyone just has a guide in their lap when they play Atlus games anyway, so.

To be honest, I could have gotten through my first P4 game without an FAQ. I probably would have gotten one of the bad endings, but otherwise I'd be all right. I just... don't care about spoilers and stuff, so I normally go straight for the FAQ so I can blaze through and enjoy the content. Or, uh, something like that. I never regret doing it this way, anyway!

As far as I'm concerned, I think as long as a game doesn't have random traps that you can't ever avoid and instantly kill you or otherwise cripple you, it's okay.

I am talking about traps that kill if you don't already know they are there, yeah.

If you expect to beat a game without dying, then you should go play Wii Sports or Final Fantasy.

Turn-based RPGs and shit like that, fine, but in an action game you shouldn't expect to beat the WHOLE GAME without dying.

When it becomes unfair is QTEs that can knock away over half your health, enemies that completely fuck up priority and can do combos that knock away over half your health that are practically impossible to dodge.

And escort missions.

Fuck escort missions.

(Yes this is all shit I picked up from Prototype)

I don't expect to beat a game without dying. I'm saying it should be theoretically impossible. No traps or anything that require previous knowledge to not get killed by.

While I agree to that, in theory, sometimes that stuff can be funny or help the atmosphere.

Although for the atmosphere, maybe stuff like what RE4 did is better.

A good example of shit I hate is Halo 1 and Halo 3. Both the driving sequences at the end have splits where if you take the wrong one, you die later down the road no matter what. That's fucking bullshit.

I don't remember that from Halo 1.

I know it was in Halo 3. I might be thinking of another game for Halo 1.

Okay, you mentioned Megaman 9 up there and I definitely agree with you regarding that, because Megaman 9's level design can go fuck itself. Nostalgia isn't an excuse to revive level design that we VERY RIGHTFULLY ditched around the time of the N64.

Megaman 9 was worse than the classics in some places, even.

Like that fucking helicopter bot in Galaxyman's stage.

If you didn't get to the Wily Stages, then let me paint a picture for you. if you did, you'll know what I'm talking about:

There's a section where there's no gravity and you slowly float up. Shooting your buster or hitting a bad guy sends you to the side. The walls are lined with spikes, so if you're not careful and you shoot too much you'll go flying into them. This happens twice. The first time it's really fun, and a great concept, and I literally unironically said "WOW this is really innovative!"

Second time it had helicopter bots.

This my expression right now.

But you're thing about traps and not knowing you're there -- that's incredibly prevalent in Sonic 1, 2, 3&K and Unleashed (to my memory, the Adventures, Heroes, Shadow and 2006 never really used it) but because those games are a giant test of reflexes when you're going fast, I don't have a big problem with it.

Even those springs, which I know you were thinking of the second I mentioned Unleashed.

I definitely don't remember that in the first Halo. All I remember is the driving sequence being fucking hardcore and loving it to death.

I think your definition completely strips out any possibility of the game being considering "challenging". Basically what you're saying is a 'gamer' would be able to beat the game the first time through - that's not a challenge. Without a strong or at least considerable chance of failure, there is no difficulty.

A challenging game forces you to get better through trial and error, by figuring out a strategy that is not immediately obvious, and that strategy should require an escalating degree of skill as you progress through the game.

Also any game with a 'level-up' mechanic of any sort should provide the power bonuses at a fair rate. If at any point in the game you have to backtrack (and not because you were a complete and utter moron about picking up money/items the first time through), it's dumb.

And it is entirely possible to make a game hard as balls without it being 'unfair' or 'fake difficult'. I know this because I played Unreal Tournament and got to the very end of the single-player mode. And never beat the final boss. In case you don't know, UT is an FPS that operated entirely on a PVP basis - no bosses or anything of that sort, though there were a couple indestructible automatic turrets. Basically, the final level requires you to defeat a single opponent in a deathmatch, first to 15 kills. And my god is that guy hard to beat. Perfect reflexes, nigh-perfect aim, and always follows the most efficient route throughout the map to pick up items. Same abilities as you, just plays the map perfectly.

Thank god in the 2004 version they added the time limit so you can just blow him into space constantly.

I'm not saying a 'gamer' should be able to beat it the first time through, I'm saying it should be hypothetically possible to do so.

What pisses me off is traps that instantly kill you, that have no visual clue or anything to tell you they're there, they just fucking kill you. That's what pisses me off, shit like that.

I would argue that it needs to be defined by the genre.

In a turn-based RPG, for example, the difficulty is defined by "what's the lowest level you could reasonably get to this point at?", "How hard is it if you're at this point?", and "How much grinding would be needed to make it easy?"

On the other hand, for a platform action game, it's more about the nature of the traps and other elements. In a Sonic game, for example, Robotnik's machines tend to be perfectly predictable, but can nonetheless be very difficult to face.

Challenging is requiring you to be clever and think about your boss or area's construction. You get penalized for using a certain strategy, but you don't get one shot killed immediately for experimenting.

Bullshit is if you decide to use say, a Fire ball instead of an Ice Shot, and get remmed for it, over and over.

Also, exploration games, where you're more dependent on jumping puzzles and enviornment interaction, I can understand there has to be a point where you should be forced to have every upgrade and basically pass a "Pop Quiz" of "R U THE DUMMI OR NOTZ".

But when it's a harmless area, and the sequence is 7 screens long, and the last one is so ridiculously obtuse to do despite YOU KNOW how it should work, and you have to repeat doing this sequence for 3~6 hours? ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.