What are your thoughts on hard videogames?

[Don Patch]

This is an excellent question, btw.

Personally, it depends.
In general:
I don't mind challenge (Souls fan here) so long as it's fair, but I also feel people should have options if they so choose.
But... I also feel that, as a creative, the creator's intent and the environment and experience they want to create and present is equally important.

I like using Elden Ring as an example of non-linear difficulty curbing wherein there isn't a "difficulty selection" but there are ways of playing (items, weapons, etc.) that certainly make the game easier.
And also harder, if one would like.
That type of design doesn't/can't work for all games but it's a great way to go about it (provided the devs are clever enough to design it in a way that works)

As for older/"retro" games a few distinctions needs to be made:

People (adults and children alike) typically had more patience and focus for things like slower grind-yer games. That's a fact.
In general, the average person's attention span and threshold of patience and focus is WAAAAAAAY smaller, even compared to just years ago. It's just how the average person has evolved and adjusted to deal with the bombardment of information and change.
So, it makes sense that slower-paced older games may not appeal to younger peeps. The slowness can make it difficult.

There's also modern conventions to take into account:
Constant iteration and, to an extent, homogenization of ideas, themes, and mechanics have set an expectation with gamers. Up-to and through the PS2 era developers were still experimenting with mechanics and controls and weren't expected to adhere so rigidly to now normalized schemes. Thus, older games that break or, have not met these modern conventions can be "too hard" for both older and younger players.

Games from, and coming off of, the arcade-era and mindset also have the issue of pretty objectively unfair towards the player. This is intentional. Devs and publishers were trying their damnedest to separate kiddos from their quarters. There's "difficult" and then there's "predatory" some of the nastier arcade titles fall into that later category. But, on that same note, it makes it even more badass if one can master a ruthless arcade game.

And then there's the issue of games that were just buggy jank messes but somehow endured. But, sometimes bad games that are "difficult" because they're bad are fun.


So... I dunno if I answered your question.. I just kept typing, lol...

 

[Deleted member 171852]

This is an excellent question, btw.

Personally, it depends.
In general:
I don't mind challenge (Souls fan here) so long as it's fair, but I also feel people should have options if they so choose.
But... I also feel that, as a creative, the creator's intent and the environment and experience they want to create and present is equally important.

I like using Elden Ring as an example of non-linear difficulty curbing wherein there isn't a "difficulty selection" but there are ways of playing (items, weapons, etc.) that certainly make the game easier.
And also harder, if one would like.
That type of design doesn't/can't work for all games but it's a great way to go about it (provided the devs are clever enough to design it in a way that works)

As for older/"retro" games a few distinctions needs to be made:

People (adults and children alike) typically had more patience and focus for things like slower grind-yer games. That's a fact.
In general, the average person's attention span and threshold of patience and focus is WAAAAAAAY smaller, even compared to just years ago. It's just how the average person has evolved and adjusted to deal with the bombardment of information and change.
So, it makes sense that slower-paced older games may not appeal to younger peeps. The slowness can make it difficult.

There's also modern conventions to take into account:
Constant iteration and, to an extent, homogenization of ideas, themes, and mechanics have set an expectation with gamers. Up-to and through the PS2 era developers were still experimenting with mechanics and controls and weren't expected to adhere so rigidly to now normalized schemes. Thus, older games that break or, have not met these modern conventions can be "too hard" for both older and younger players.

Games from, and coming off of, the arcade-era and mindset also have the issue of pretty objectively unfair towards the player. This is intentional. Devs and publishers were trying their damnedest to separate kiddos from their quarters. There's "difficult" and then there's "predatory" some of the nastier arcade titles fall into that later category. But, on that same note, it makes it even more badass if one can master a ruthless arcade game.

And then there's the issue of games that were just buggy jank messes but somehow endured. But, sometimes bad games that are "difficult" because they're bad are fun.


So... I dunno if I answered your question.. I just kept typing, lol...

Don't worry i don't make threads to actually answer questions, just to generate discussions and see different points of view lmao.

You are the first person i've seen discussing this kind of stuff in this way here and it's exactly how i think about things.
Many of people opinions about what is considered bad, good, difficult, easy, fast or slow about games is pretty different going from a certain demographic to another, and i also think it's deeper than the way a ton of people simply regard this matter as "zoomers are dumb with low attention span" or "boomers are dumb and slow".
I think people that grew up in different periods think in different ways about games they consume because they essentially lived "different realities" economically, socially, culturally, etc. You see too much people being in this "my generation is better than yours" mindset because they simply didn't take their time to adapt to a different thing and/or have a difficult time to accept new things. This often generates a conflict of interests since the gaming community literally ranges from kids that just learned how to walk to people that are 80+ years old and have been gaming since videogames started existing.

Developers usually need to balance a creative aspect and a profitable aspect when developing their games nowadays, and it's not really easy to get this balance with different demographics, there is always a disconnection that i see more clearly in spaces with the "older gamer" demographics like in this forum compared to places were people are usually very young for example like reddit or other social media.

I'm not a developer but i often put myself in their shoes thinking "so what do i do now? the game must not be too slow and grindy for the younger generation, but also not be too fast and technically demanding for the older generation" and i understand how this can lead someone to make the game "as safe as possible" making it too homogenized and "samey" both in mechanics and pace.
Obviously, i understand that there is plenty of people from the newest generation of gamers that doesn't enjoy fast and difficult games or people from the oldschool that really loves fast-paced challenges.

In the end i kinda realized that the game being difficult or fast or slow or even "janky" is completely acceptable as long as the game manages to be fun.
That's the essence of the whole videogame thing in the end, to have fun. If you manage to implement mechanics on your game that are genuinely fun to play and genuinely engaging, most people won't care about it being difficult, grindy or technically demanding

 

[Shad79]

I have seen many times before people in retro gaming places state that they don't want to play certain games because they are too difficult or grindy, i assume because retro gaming fans tend to be older and face more responsibilities like having a family so they don't want to spend their time playing challenging games when they could just be chilling with a game after a day of work.
In my case i often seek difficult games by default(even uncounsciously) and i think the whole challenge is what makes it fun for me, losing and struggling never was something that made me have less fun with a game but i guess i'm just a dirty NEET zoomer

I am actually curious to know what people in RGT think about difficulty in games since i noticed that this community is very diverse but with people's average age being a little higher than most gaming communities out there. I've also noticed that most people here are more leaning into sort of casual RPG games in general rather than competitive, flashy or notoriously challenging games.

You think difficulty is detrimental for your enjoyment of the game or you don't care at all as long as the game is good?

View attachment 89559(gif unrelated)

for me personally i dont mind it if a game is difficult or not, but i will say some of my favorite games are built upon being super difficult
Ive noticed this can make it hard for people to get a start when playing them, but once they pass a certain barrier, they end up enjoying the whole ride. Still i am an old fg fan so i love games being super difficult or being chill and on the easier side i only dislike difficulty in games like hydlide 2 where the game intentionally softlocks you for not playing a certain specific way (this is an extreme example as most old games aren't like this lol)

 

[KaiserMk7]

for me personally i dont mind it if a game is difficult or not, but i will say some of my favorite games are built upon being super difficult
Ive noticed this can make it hard for people to get a start when playing them, but once they pass a certain barrier, they end up enjoying the whole ride. Still i am an old fg fan so i love games being super difficult or being chill and on the easier side i only dislike difficulty in games like hydlide 2 where the game intentionally softlocks you for not playing a certain specific way (this is an extreme example as most old games aren't like this lol)

Ooh. What's the story about Hydlide 2?

 

[Deleted member 132407]

Ooh. What's the story about Hydlide 2?

Hydlide II: Shine of Darkness – Hardcore Gaming 101

www.hardcoregaming101.net

 

[Grumpy_Old_Man]

I like it hard, but in a progressive way... you start simple so you feel at ease with the controls and the game rules. Then the game begin throwing new variables your way, like changing the rhythm of the enemy attacks or the enemy actively trying to flank you, etc.

 

[Shad79]

Ooh. What's the story about Hydlide 2?

i played that game from start to finish. Actually it was part of me playing the hydlide series as a whole
i think 1 was an incredible product of its time, and 3/super is awesome. With virtual being not that bad as it was kinda chill to play
2 is hell on earth. i played the msx version specifically, so i can't comment on other versions of the game, but both chests and mimics are invisible so you randomly walk into them and you automatically open them and that could be an insta kill
The strongest weapon is dropped in the first dungeon, so if you ever decided to drop it thinking there would be something better, you can't clear the game anymore. You get a specific invincibility item during the halfway point of the game, if you use it anywhere besides a specific part in the final dungeon you soft locked the game
Somehow, all of what i said doesn't come close to the absurdity of the final dungeon that consists of 4 maps, and they all have the most evil enemy design that can take you out easily and each part of the map has atleast 3 to 5 invisible poison or insta kill traps some of them are sandwiched between real chests just to make you regret actually taking the chest and in order to progress through you have to take teleports and if you take the wrong one it's a kill trap aswell its hilarious how absurd it is
i only managed to beat the game following an image on gamefaqs that shows you the map layout and all the secrets that the game hides from you, you can see it if you want just to see the hell that you have to go through while keeping in mind a map shows you nothing besides enemies not even chests which is funny cause even the first game showed you chests on map the 2nd game specifically hid it just to make it harder
Anyway this was a ramble on hydlide 2 lol the game does have some cool mechanics which ultimately led to hydlide 3 a really cool game imo

 

[Boularingos29]

Respect for the people who have the patience to master a game, i simply dont have it, sometimes i wish i had it but i get bored playing the same scenario again and again.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

I can understand that a short arcade game is hard on purpose since they're meant to have players mastering it (and get many quarters as well).

8-bits game took that philosophy because most of them were rather short (Super Mario Bros 1 was literally beatable in less than 45 minutes if you knew what to do and even less with warp zones) so they had to give limited lives so the kids wouldn't ask for a new game until next Xmas/New Year or Anniversary.

Games already started getting easier in the late 8-bits era with RPGs becoming commonplace (aside from grinding but that's more of a patience thing than pure reflexes and memorisation of the level design).

A funny note I had: I read somewhere that Ys on the PC-88, a game that is still seen as quite challenging in the whole franchise, was made by Falcom with making it fairer than most computer games of its time in mind. So it shows how relative difficulty would be seen since apparently the RPG of that era before this game were seen as obnoxiously hard.

Hard mode in everything, I like to scream blasphemies at the screen.
In truth hard mode and beyond makes you use the entire gameplay designed system.

When the Hard Mode is done well, not just making enemies more spongey with a ton of HPs but adding more patterns if not having more variety in the enemy types.

Kirby since its first game had great Extra Modes that would change a lot of things.

I also liked that in Doom there were many more enemies in Ultraviolence or in Goldeneye with more objectives per levels.

That's more engaging than just having to hit the enemies with one more strike than usual.