Unexpectedly hard games

[Snatch1414]

I agree. Admittedly I'm probably not that great at video games but I can enjoy a ballbuster if I know what it is going in and can enjoy slowly progressing bit by bit, but this game was a little ridiculous to me. Just hard for the sake of being hard

This is a phrase I've never understood. Since when did a game being "hard for the sake of being hard" become a bad thing? I can understand having problems with a game using cheap tactics to be hard, but "hard" and "cheap tactics" are not the same thing.

High difficulty can be it's own reward. That's why there are higher difficulty options in so many games, because there's always going to be someone who wants to make a game more challenging for themselves so they feel a better sense of accomplishment. There are also people who go out of their way to play games that are intentionally made to be very hard for the same reasons.


It's like... how ridiculous would it sound if I said "Super Mario Bros. is fun for the sake of being fun" or "Shadow of the Colossus has an amazing atmosphere and matching music just for the sake of having an amazing atmosphere and matching music?"

I guess for me I think you make the game you want to make and if it turns out to be hard, so be it. If it turns out to be easy, so be it. Either way it's the game you wanted to make. You don't say "Let's make this game really hard, and that'll be what makes it unique!". Well there are a lot of hard games out there, and a lot that CAN be hard if you ratchet up the difficulty. I just don't think it's something you do on purpose, unless it is something like a shmup where that's the expectation going in.

If you could ratchet down the difficulty of a Castlevania or Ninja Gaiden, they would still be fun games. What is Dark Souls' big attraction once you remove the difficulty? The game's own publicity played up the difficulty and nothing else.

Keeping with a game like Castlevania, if you asked a dev "Why are these games hard?" I would wager they wouldn't understand the question. They made a game out of their ideas and it just so happened it was a hard game.

Regardless of medium (and here's where it gets artsy and maybe somewhat eye roll-inducing), I think you express yourself and whatever comes out.....well it just IS. Other people might think it's good, maybe no one does except your grandma, but that's not important. Expressing yourself accurately is.

.......but anyways no more tangents

[Sarge]

I think the point of that phrase is that there was no real thought into making it a meaningful, challenging sort of hard. It's what happens when someone walks in, decides a game isn't tough enough, and just blithely ups everything's life meter and decreases your own and calls it a day. It is as I interpret that statement, hard simply for the sake of being hard, hitting the bullet point that says the game must be hard.

I'm all for hard games if it brings something to the table. But it has to be interesting, and as you say, for the right reasons.

[J T]

I guess for me I think you make the game you want to make and if it turns out to be hard, so be it. If it turns out to be easy, so be it. Either way it's the game you wanted to make. You don't say "Let's make this game really hard, and that'll be what makes it unique!". Well there are a lot of hard games out there, and a lot that CAN be hard if you ratchet up the difficulty. I just don't think it's something you do on purpose, unless it is something like a shmup where that's the expectation going in.

I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like you don't understand level design, or even game design in general. So many of the difficult games throughout gaming history have been designed to be difficult. In Castlevania, they didn't have to design the game so that your character fell backwards into pits after being hit, and they didn't have to design the Medusa heads to fly in that annoying sine wave pattern. They did it because these are what make the game challenging, and that challenge is essential for the game to be fun.

Super Meat Boy has nothing if not brilliant game design. It's just a design that caters to the hardcore crowd.

[Erik_Twice]

Keeping with a game like Castlevania, if you asked a dev "Why are these games hard?" I would wager they wouldn't understand the question. They made a game out of their ideas and it just so happened it was a hard game.

I can't vouch for Castlevania exactly, but developers of the time were more than aware of the difficulty of their own games and admit that they often erred on the side of difficulty or indulged on it.

Really, it was more than intentional, you mention Ninja Gaiden which had a glitch during development that would send you to the beginning of stage 6 if you died. The developers thought that was hilarious so they decided to make it official. And gaming is full of that kind of stuff

That said, I agree that developers don't generally set out to make a difficult game. They often made games for experts, or games for arcade settings. But not games that were "hard for difficulty's sake"

[Sarge]

Well, actually, a lot of arcade games do fit that statement. Difficult for the sake of being difficult, with the goal being to munch more quarters. Some of those games are outright ridiculous, full of cheap shots, overpowered enemies, and whatnot... and that was the point.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I think the point of that phrase is that there was no real thought into making it a meaningful, challenging sort of hard. It's what happens when someone walks in, decides a game isn't tough enough, and just blithely ups everything's life meter and decreases your own and calls it a day. It is as I interpret that statement, hard simply for the sake of being hard, hitting the bullet point that says the game must be hard.

I'm all for hard games if it brings something to the table. But it has to be interesting, and as you say, for the right reasons.

Working Designs mucked up some games by doing this: Popful Mail, Lunar 2, Exile: Wicked Phenomenon, Silhouette Mirage...

[nullPointer]

Super Meat Boy has nothing if not brilliant game design. It's just a design that caters to the hardcore crowd.

I definitely agree with the second part of your statement, although not so much the first, as a matter of personal preference. Really it just comes down to the types of games one prefers. To me the statement "Hard for the sake of being hard" implies that the game only allows for a very narrow scope of what it defines as "success". This approach limits the amount of creativity the player can bring into the game, because the developer has effectively said, "sorry, but if you don't complete this level exactly as we intended you to, then that constitutes a failure on your part, (but not on ours by implication)". This sort of design leads to a pattern of achieving success via rote repetition. I do think that's where the hardcore crowd really shines, but ugh ... for me it just gets repetitive and mind numbing. nullPointer = hardcore fail.

Super Meat Boy certainly was lauded as being a difficult game upon release, but TBH I'm not used to seeing hardcore games of this nature gain broad popular acceptance. I think that's part of the reason I was surprised by the difficulty level of this game, and thus I went in with an attitude of, "Well how hard can it really be?"

[Snatch1414]

I guess for me I think you make the game you want to make and if it turns out to be hard, so be it. If it turns out to be easy, so be it. Either way it's the game you wanted to make. You don't say "Let's make this game really hard, and that'll be what makes it unique!". Well there are a lot of hard games out there, and a lot that CAN be hard if you ratchet up the difficulty. I just don't think it's something you do on purpose, unless it is something like a shmup where that's the expectation going in.

I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like you don't understand level design, or even game design in general. So many of the difficult games throughout gaming history have been designed to be difficult. In Castlevania, they didn't have to design the game so that your character fell backwards into pits after being hit, and they didn't have to design the Medusa heads to fly in that annoying sine wave pattern. They did it because these are what make the game challenging, and that challenge is essential for the game to be fun.

Super Meat Boy has nothing if not brilliant game design. It's just a design that caters to the hardcore crowd.

No I understand what you mean. Designing a game is very deliberate and you are well aware of what you're putting in and not putting in. I disagree that the challenge is essential, at least for a lot of games, but point well taken

[Exhuminator]

Rented this as a kid thinking it would be like Bomberman. Well it was like Bomberman if you were sent to hell and every living thing hated your very being. Such a ridiculously hard game... your life is always constantly depleting, just for starters. Nine year old Exhuminator couldn't even beat the first stage.

[ExedExes]

Rented this as a kid thinking it would be like Bomberman. Well it was like Bomberman if you were sent to hell and every living thing hated your very being. Such a ridiculously hard game... your life is always constantly depleting, just for starters. Nine year old Exhuminator couldn't even beat the first stage.

Guess what? It's developed by Hudson Soft, and is known as Bomber King in Japan.

Bomber King: Scenario 2 on the Game Boy is.. wait for it.... Blaster Master Boy.