# Getting sick of games that treat me like I'm completely incompetent.



## ADF (Jul 31, 2008)

Since when has zero challenge been a sales point? You have to allow the players to experience the lows of losing if they are going to enjoy the highs of winning; if you take away any chance of losing then where is the challenge? Where is the excitement?

Now as someone who grew up with Ghostbusters I am looking forward to the game; I'm not madly excited but I still look it up every now and then. Well today I watched some recently added videos and some of the stuff mentioned really deterred me from buying the game.

The game has jumped on the regenerative health bandwagon; so instead of trying to avoid getting hit or dealing with health pack resource management you just suck your thumb in the corner for a few seconds and you're good as new. If you do get taken out you don't actually die; you just sit there until one of your team mates gives you a tap and you are right back in the fight.

So what is the incentive to not get hurt? You get hurt you regenerate, you run out of health you get right back up a moment later. You cannot actually lose this game; there are no consequences to playing badly, you just stumble your way through the game until you inevitably complete it with varying levels of efficiency. When you are at that end game screen what are you supposed to feel? Pride? Achievement? Winning isn't a matter of doing well; it's just time.

Then when there is one part of the game where there could be consequences to playing badly; a financial damage metre that racks up the costs of destroying the environment, it does nothing! I thought the damage you did would deduct from your pay, giving you a reason to not totally destroy every building you are told to remove a ghost from, but no in a recent interview we are told the mayor foots the bill and it is just there for show.

What the hell is this? If I wanted an easy game I would turn the difficulty down, you can wail around like an idiot in this game and be just as successful as someone who actually puts effort in.

It's not just Ghostbusters either; loads of games are dumbing down the challenge these days. Games getting easier, simpler, quest compass, regenerative health, no death, no consequences crap like the developers are afraid I am going to throw a fit and refuse to buy their future releases unless I am perpetually rewarded. It's not like I demand every game to be hardcore but if you have something like Prey were you cannot actually lose then it takes away some of the enjoyment in the game. If I fuck up I deserve to fuck up; I don't want the game holding my hand.


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 31, 2008)

Wrong spot? Three Frags left is thattaway. But while i'm here. Well you see, the casual gamer, a new recently-discovered species of gamer, has revealed itself to have very deep pockets. Games are now being developed that in part or completely present themselves to the casual gaming demographic. To jump on this bandwagon, almost every developer is creating casual games, while making their "real" games a lot simpler, in hopes that the casual gamers might invest in the more "rounded" titles.

we've just been caught in the crossfire of a gaming revolution. Just play some retro titles for a while.


----------



## Badballs (Jul 31, 2008)

What you need, my disgruntled aquaintance, is a dose of goold old NETHACK.

It is rock solid and as addictive as sugar-coated crack.
I have been playing it for a year and still haven't seen the bottom.
These new-fangled games are all for pussies.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jul 31, 2008)

You want challenge?

Download "I wanna be the man"

You might end up in tears before you're done with it.


----------



## SparkOfMortality (Jul 31, 2008)

Amen. I really miss the days of ninja gaiden. Challenging but fair and fun to play through. Then once you get so good you just breeze through, boot up the difficulty and remove that room for error. Gaming has bred such a crop of pussies nowadays with all of their failed attempts to copy halo that I feel like an elitist bastard when people rant and rave and have hissy fits at how impossible and unfair and stupid the new ninja gaiden is (the one that added a reactive healthbar and an easy mode for christs sake!). What the hell happened to health bars?!


----------



## Shiriko (Jul 31, 2008)

As technology and innovation goes up, challenge goes down, it seems. There are still some games that are challenging, but none anywhere near as much so as older games generally were. It's either the hardest mode, or easy street.


----------



## Badballs (Jul 31, 2008)

KazukiFerret said:


> You want challenge?
> 
> Download "I wanna be the man"
> 
> You might end up in tears before you're done with it.



Oh yeah. It doesn't get better than that.
I got up to Dracula, and simply could go no further.
That bloody homing apple! And the monologue _every single time_ I lose.

Also the Ghosts and Goblins level can burn in hell.


----------



## ADF (Jul 31, 2008)

Some of you guys are looking at this like a black and white situation, just because I don't like this hand holding crap doesn't mean I want to tear my hair out in another game.

The balance between the two seems to have been completely forgotten in today's games; with most games leaning towards being easier. I mean since when was a health bar considered a hardcore game play element? Or *shock* dying when you run out of health? What is it about loading your last save/check point that developers decided was simply too much for today's gamer?


----------



## Ashkihyena (Jul 31, 2008)

You're just amazing ADF, but I can't say I'm surprised giving that you support that peice of trash called SecuRom.

From what I saw, I like the Ghostbusters game and its going to be great, whenever the hell it gets released, and as for paying for the damage, its not a surprise that they don't want you paying for damage since its going to be inevitable and you're destroying most everything in your path while trying to catch the ghost.


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 31, 2008)

A lot of a game's challenge can come from its level design.  LEGO Star Wars / LEGO Indiana Jones, games with unlimited lives and a weak penalty for dying, had plenty of their own challenges in their own ways, sometimes to the point of annoyance (such as why, in LSW2, your CPU allies can't kill anything).

I'd like to mention _N_ as another example.  Unlimited lives and checkpoints every five levels is no consolation for how damningly tough some of the levels actually _are_.  Such as having to springboard out of a room with no less than _four_ homing-missile launchers, or pierce through a layer of "bouncy" (more like spongy, actually) blocks while being targetted by two or more gauss turrets.  Or the split-second timing required to avoid some of those floor-guards, navigate a minefield, fall down a long shaft without killing yourself upon impact.  My keyboard has taken several poundings from sheer frustration, yet somehow I've made it through almost 300 levels of N.  (200 to go...)


----------



## ADF (Jul 31, 2008)

Ashkihyena said:


> You're just amazing ADF, but I can't say I'm surprised giving that you support that peice of trash called SecuRom.


 It's not my fault the people in that thread have black and white vision; and cannot tell the difference between someone who understands why Securom is in use and an avid supporter. Regardless I don't see the relevance of that thread and my complaint that games are being made with no challenge whatsoever; unless those same B&W vision people cannot tell the difference between complaining about one aspect of a game and hating the entire thing.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jul 31, 2008)

SparkOfMortality said:


> What the hell happened to health bars?!



THERE IS NO HEALTH BAR!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Jul 31, 2008)

I think everyone in this thread needs to play the original doom all the way through on Ultra-violence, before they have any idea what the difference between hard and easy is. 

If you have done so, and beat the game, awsome, you can call yourself a good gamer. If not, do it, you won't regret it.

Games are getting to the point that some actualy adjust as you play, so if you suck, they literaly "hold your hand" by turning down the difficulty. That takes the whole point out of playing it on "hard", because after getting killed, you load the game and it puts you on medium. so even if you start on hard, it's not going to be hard all the way through.

Thats not to say hard has to be retardedly hard, it just has to be difficult to survive, and actualy make you think. Instead of just running in and killing everything and going "DURRRrr, I'm going to throw a grenade at his feet, it'll be totaly awsome." 

It should be "I have this grenade, how can I use it effectively? How can I survive long enough to make it to that MG thats got me pinned down?"

Doom on ultra-violence actualy made me think, and use cover. sometimes I was actualy afraid of death, because I had almost no ammo, low health, and the nearest med-kit or ammo was across the room where the monsters would definately be waiting.

Game developers have lost sight of what made games great in the first place, and that was the challenge, casual gamers can have an easy mode, but they shoulden't screw up the difficulty of hard mode just to fit the casual gamer.

I've been playing FPS games since the VERY FIRST, wolfenstien 3D, that game shaped the future of gaming, and it was insanely hard to play on the harder difficulties. It had 5 difficulty levels, and if you put it on easy, it was a casual game, if you put it on the middle setting, it was actualy challenging, if you put it on the highest, it was INSANE. I probably die in newer FPS games about once every 5 levels, unless you can't die. In Doom I died 5 times or more on a single level, before I started playing smart, which is what you should be doing anyway.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 31, 2008)

ADF said:


> The game has jumped on the regenerative health bandwagon; so instead of trying to avoid getting hit or dealing with health pack resource management you just suck your thumb in the corner for a few seconds and you're good as new.



That's why I hate Halo, and like games like GoldenEye and Perfect Dark.


----------



## AlexX (Jul 31, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> That's why I hate Halo, and like games like GoldenEye and Perfect Dark.


To be fair, I believe Halo 1 can be a nightmare on Legendary even with the regenerating health. I hear the same cannot be said for Halo 2 or 3, though...


----------



## Ashkihyena (Jul 31, 2008)

ADF said:


> It's not my fault the people in that thread have black and white vision; and cannot tell the difference between someone who understands why Securom is in use and an avid supporter. Regardless I don't see the relevance of that thread and my complaint that games are being made with no challenge whatsoever; unless those same B&W vision people cannot tell the difference between complaining about one aspect of a game and hating the entire thing.



You know what, I don't think I'm going to change your mind on this, and I know that you're not going to change my mind at all, I just think that you're very wrong in the case of Ghostbusters.

And SecuRom is still the biggest piece of trash on the internet.


----------



## ADF (Jul 31, 2008)

Ashkihyena said:


> You know what, I don't think I'm going to change your mind on this, and I know that you're not going to change my mind at all, I just think that you're very wrong in the case of Ghostbusters.


In other words agree to disagree, I just wish I knew what exactly you disagreed with as you have been very vague on that so far; environment damage is the only thing you have been specific on.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 1, 2008)

> Some of you guys are looking at this like a black and white situation, just because I don't like this hand holding crap doesn't mean I want to tear my hair out in another game.


 
Good point.

I think you can blame the dumbing of video games down on people dumbing themselves down. Just a thought. ^.-


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Aug 1, 2008)

AlexX said:


> To be fair, I believe Halo 1 can be a nightmare on Legendary even with the regenerating health. I hear the same cannot be said for Halo 2 or 3, though...


 
I found them all to be quite easy on legendary, but thats just me.
The only part I didn't find easy was the library in 1, and it was still like a medium, not hard.
The first one on PC was actualy a bit harder on legendary, because some of the cover from the console version was missing it seems, and the AI seemed to be more accurate.

Halo just seems like a bunch of random ideas slaped together to me, and I didn't like it that much. Multiplayer in 3 is a noob fest at best unless you go with your friends on one box.

As for ghost busters, I had realy high hopes for it, but now I don't know. I think I like the one for sega genesis better actualy.


----------



## IntrepidRedBlueFox (Aug 1, 2008)

I think if you're gonna have regenerating health, have a health bar that reduce your max health so you're not at 100% when you're regenerating. That way, you're be more wary from taking hits because you don't want a max low health bar when you're facing a boss.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 1, 2008)

Well, one game that's going to do away with that system is Far Cry 2, which promises to have such lovely things as bleeding, infection, and the need for good, proper medical treatment. Far Cry has always been very difficult (or at least, it's difficult with a 360 controller), and it's always had the health system. From Wikipedia:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The game will be much more realistic with features such as the player having to use a map and compass to get around, and more life or death related features such as having to use tools to dig bullets out of the body and pat themselves down when on fire.Weapons will disintegrate over time, adding a grimer look to them, and eventually causing them to jam. Several species of African wildlife can be encountered in the game, and will be able to distract the enemy as well as make them aware of your presence [7]. All the large animals in the game will be grazing herbivores, featuring star turns from zebras, wildebeest, gazelle, buffalo, impala, Gemsbok and the like. The reason for this was said by one of the makers "The problem was, if we wanted to put predators into that ecosystem we would have to balance it to make sure the lions didn't eat all the gazelles and then all starve to death."



Honestly, the regeneration made sense in Halo's context, but I feel that the regen capacity should have lowered over time, or something to balance it out. Call of Duty is one example of human bullet sponges that really make no sense and have no purpose other than to make the game easier to play.


----------



## Rhainor (Aug 1, 2008)

ADF said:


> Since when has zero challenge been a sales point? You have to allow the players to experience the lows of losing if they are going to enjoy the highs of winning; if you take away any chance of losing then where is the challenge? Where is the excitement?


Some people don't want a challenge.


----------



## kitetsu (Aug 1, 2008)

Leave it to Treasure.

They put regeneration in paper and one of their mates would most likely to suggest loudly and very enthusiastically that all enemies do massive overall damage to the point that you have to rely on default superhuman player regeneration AND healing items to survive.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 1, 2008)

lol securom support. Enjoy your controlled CPUs while crackers laugh at your face!

Anyway, I agree that games really have become easy. Take note that there is a difference between becoming easy and becoming interface-friendly.


----------



## Suntiger (Aug 1, 2008)

I think it's the gaming industry adjusting their demographic.

Lots of gamers are now at the age where they have a family with kids of their own.
Ergo, you can no longer devote 16 hours a day, or 8, 4, or even 2 hours.
Many doesn't have more than 30-60 minutes they can play on, and that's not always every day either.

However, because they have jobs and families they also usually have more money. 
To be fair though, it's one thing to make a game suited to casual gamers and another to dumb it down.
You don't have to dumb it down to make it enjoyable for a casual gameplayer, there are other ways to adjust the gameplay.

What I'd like to see in future games is toggle options, not just adjusting the difficulty.

Compass that points the way to quest targets - toggle on off.
Regeneration - toggle on off.
Save anytime or only at savepoints.
Upon death, respawn where you died, at a respawn point or at the beginning of the level.
And so on.
AI for enemies is the same, but fewer spawns on 'Easy' compared to 'Hard'.

That way, it should be possible for both casual and dedicated gamers to enjoy the games.
So far, the developers that try to hook the casual gamers seem to have settled for just dumbing the games down but I think that will change as the concepts mature a bit.

And if not, we'll go into business ourselves and make a mint.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Aug 1, 2008)

Many people seem to misunderstand that. For instance, Bioshock. Instead of getting a an user-friendly survival horror, we get a shooter your demented grandma would be able to complete just by pressing random buttons, what with free regeneration and supplies you're tripping over.


----------



## scarei_crow (Aug 1, 2008)

yeah i know what you mean, but wait! theres a cure!
its called the DS. yes this humble machine is home to some of the hardest and classic titles such as space invaders, arkanoid, and of course, contra.
these games dont reward stupidity and barely give out lives, particually contra. then theres newer games, like nanostray that revive genres like top down combat sims (raiden).

seriously, want a challenge? get a DS.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 1, 2008)

Or a PSP. Or a PC emulator. Or Wii with VC.


----------



## Adrimor (Aug 1, 2008)

Hmm...

Most recent console game I remember hearing about as being really, really hard was Mars Matrix on the PS1. Heh...Game Informer called it "revenge of the developer"...but then, since the reviewers were in Square's pockets even back then, I can't say how objective that review is...

Oh! And for adventure players, Alundra (also for PS1) is considered one of the hardest examples of that genre--of its time, if not to this day.

There are a bunch of decently hard games in the open-source realm, though, too...

For Tron fans, Armagetron...
Frets on Fire for GH/Rock Band fans...
Endgame: Singularity, just 'cuz I still haven't figured out how to win it...
Tumiki Fighters for the oddball/sidescrolling shooter fans...
SuperTux and SuperTux 2 for Mario lovers...

There are more, but I've not yet played them.


----------



## kitetsu (Aug 1, 2008)

scarei_crow said:


> yeah i know what you mean, but wait! theres a cure!
> its called the DS. yes this humble machine is home to some of the hardest and classic titles such as space invaders, arkanoid, and of course, contra.
> these games dont reward stupidity and barely give out lives, particually contra. then theres newer games, like nanostray that revive genres like top down combat sims (raiden).
> 
> seriously, want a challenge? get a DS.



Problem: Nanostray's offensive pace was slow compared to the near-seizuriffic evasive pace.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Aug 1, 2008)

One thought: if you want a real challenge, play the Pripyat mission in Call of Duty 4 on Veteran and get to da choppa.


----------



## Petrock (Aug 1, 2008)

I've played some games that, even on easy, are a nightmare, and I've played others that hard = walk-in-the-park. The problem is that what some people find easy others will find challenging, so you cater to the ones with the money.


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Aug 1, 2008)

I would just love to have an FPS that treats me like a REAL person.

That means a list of things.

-Free aim (not like ArmA's, like Insurgency's)
-Enemies die in one shot (even pistol bullets are lethal in real life)
-YOU die in one shot
-Zero heads up display, literaly everything is visual cues
-You have to check your magazines to know how much ammo you have
-Reloads don't take forever, but are not super fast, they are at a realistic pace.
-No cutscenes, everything is first person.
-full body awareness, and full environmental effects (you can't go through a doorway sideways with a long rifle)

If any game had all of this, it would be the best FPS in history.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Aug 2, 2008)

Flashpoint meets most of these requirements.

Remember though, that games are supposed to be fun rather than frustrating, and several of your reqs. are risky - they could make the game a frustrating slugfest rather than an interesting game.

As for one-shot kills - uh, what are you smoking? Unless you hit the head or other vital organs like the heart, lungs or an artery it's not going to be a one-shot kill.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 2, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> As for one-shot kills - uh, what are you smoking? Unless you hit the head or other vital organs like the heart, lungs or an artery it's not going to be a one-shot kill.



Some games (like GoldenEye) have one-hit-kill weapons (like the Golden Gun), or have a setting that you can turn on that it's one-hit-kills.


----------



## Vagabond (Aug 2, 2008)

I started gaming from the beginning. Not because last generation is cheaper to afford, but because I wanted to see where it was going. It was almost an art form in some aspects.

The further and further I worked my way closer and closer to modern times, I became more and more frustrated with the gaming industry. Indeed, there is no challenge. People don't want "games" anymore, a set of rules you work in to beat or be defeated by (a challenge), they want interactive movies and explosions in the most mind-numbingly shiny methods available. It's just not fun anymore because it is too easy. And what irritates me the most is the majority of gamers don't even realize what is happening. Like they've all been brainwashed or something. What ticks me off is these zombies that call themselves "*game*-ers", usually can't appreciate past genius in the industry, and usually haven't even heard of it.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 2, 2008)

Vagabond said:


> It's just not fun anymore because it is too easy.


As I said in ther previous topic, I think it might just have more to do with older players improving rather than new games just being too easy. I think a post I found at another forum illustrates it best:



> My first Zelda was Ocarina of Time, and it took me.... about 2 weeks of consitant playing and about 40-something game overs to complete, and I would say I had about 70% of the items, as I lacked alot of Skultullas, heart pieces, ice arrows, 4th bottle, ect. Now, jump onto Twilight Princess. Took me a week to complete, no game overs, and I had about 90%. Mostly just missing poes now.
> 
> Now, I FINALLY get ahold of what everyone calls the "godsend of Zeldas", Link to the Past, "known" for its insane difficulty and so many things to find. Game took me about a week to beat, with about 12 game overs at max (because the Dark World has an INSANE difficulty curve, with enemies suddenly doing 4+ hearts of damage and armor coming so late), I had found about 18 hearts, and all the other items easily. Needless to say I was dissapointed some. A game they said would keep me looking for everything for months I managed to conquer in a meager week of casual playing.


----------



## Vagabond (Aug 2, 2008)

Veteran gamers being more experienced, so it's easier?
To me, it's the lack of consequences that makes games too easy. System Shock 2 -> Bioshock is my favorite modern example.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 2, 2008)

I loved LTTP because of the vastness, not because of the "ease", of the two worlds.


----------



## DamienFox (Aug 2, 2008)

I think it tends to be a mix of the two, personally. I mean, I've gone back and played games that I used to find mind-bogglingly difficult when I was younger, only to discover that it really wasn't as bad as I thought. And I'm talking about even just a few years ago, not just "When I was 7 I couldn't beat Mario World." However, I can't deny that more games seem easier nowadays than the previous entries in their franchise. I honestly can't remember Mario 64 well enough, and I didn't play much of Mario Sunshine, but with Mario Galaxy... While I do find some of the stages to be rather challenging, what kills the challenge is the fact that when I get there, I have 30 lives. I mean, after a while a little mushroom guy even gives you 5 extra lives from Peach whenever you load up your file! So already starting with 10 lives... But I also realize how utterly frustrating it was for me as a kid to constantly get game overs because of a lack of lives. I don't know if that helped me improve my abilities to play or not, but I at least dont' subscribe to the idea of putting kids through the same hoops I had to jump through. 

So I suppose, with that in mind, I wish more for a decent difficulty curve, and well balanced difficulty options, more than anything. Let the younger players just get to have fun, let the middling guys like me have their difficulty without too much frustration, and let the "hardcore" players have their insantiy levels. Everyone wins! Except the programmers who have to get off their rear and work harder now.

And for the record, I also love Link to the Past. It is one of those games that I found myself easily beating after learning that my gaming skills had improved.


----------



## scarei_crow (Aug 2, 2008)

kitetsu said:


> Problem: Nanostray's offensive pace was slow compared to the near-seizuriffic evasive pace.


Heheh, i suppose thats true, but they defiantly cleaned it up in the second one.


personally, i'd like to see someone get the sorce code for mario world, and double the enemies, and half the land you can stand on, and make flying a lot harder, and speed those moving levels up.


----------



## kitetsu (Aug 2, 2008)

scarei_crow said:


> Heheh, i suppose thats true, but they defiantly cleaned it up in the second one.
> 
> 
> personally, i'd like to see someone get the sorce code for mario world, and double the enemies, and half the land you can stand on, and make flying a lot harder, and speed those moving levels up.



I haven't played the prequel, but i've already finished Nanostray 2. That's the game i have offensive pace issues with, because it's not half as hectic as Bangai-O Spirits, and enemy bullet collision detection isn't like bullet hell shmups.


----------



## Xenofur (Aug 2, 2008)

Games with a good balance:
- GOD HAND 
- Dwarf Fortress


----------



## IceDragonVisy (Aug 2, 2008)

IntrepidRedBlueFox said:


> I think if you're gonna have regenerating health, have a health bar that reduce your max health so you're not at 100% when you're regenerating. That way, you're be more wary from taking hits because you don't want a max low health bar when you're facing a boss.


Perfect Dark Zero comes to mind here.


----------



## LordWibble (Aug 3, 2008)

I've never seen the point in difficult games. I play games simply because I enjoy playing them, not because I want to be challenged. Look at BioShock, one of the most immersive, enjoyable games released recently, and that was piss-easy. One only needs to look at Assassin's Creed for another example. I never found the notorious Devil May Cry 3 to be that difficult however. Which is just as well, because if it had been a challenge, I may never have bothered seeing it to the end. The ease with which Dante pulls off over-the-top violence and acrobatics was what made it fun, not dying and restarting.


----------



## scarei_crow (Aug 3, 2008)

kitetsu said:


> I haven't played the prequel, but i've already finished Nanostray 2. That's the game i have offensive pace issues with, because it's not half as hectic as Bangai-O Spirits, and enemy bullet collision detection isn't like bullet hell shmups.


Never played Bangai-O Spirits, but nanostray 1 had issues with how much you could dodge ridiculous attacks, it was a okay game, but nothing more, just bare basics, kind of like R-type in a way...


----------



## IanKeith (Aug 3, 2008)

I miss games with penalties for death. I even ranted about that recently; see an article of mine on NFopocalypse (http://www.nfopocalypse.com/index.php/2008/07/26/in-which-ian-reminisces-non-sequiturily/) where I reminisce about Genesis games.

Even continues are over-rated, although if they're earned, then they're not as bad.

PS:

About Nethack?
It's not that hard. Really. You just have to be patient and smart. Know how to conserve, how to avoid fighting till you have to, and prevent it in the first place.

PSS: if you want to learn more about Nethack, please, contact me! I've been playing a long time. I know a lot about the game. I've gotten kinda good at it. And if I don't know the answer to a question, I will know who does.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 3, 2008)

IanKeith said:


> I miss games with penalties for death.



I loved the one for Banjo-Kazooie.


----------



## IanKeith (Aug 3, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> I loved the one for Banjo-Kazooie.



Never played that game, what was it?


----------



## kitetsu (Aug 3, 2008)

scarei_crow said:


> Never played Bangai-O Spirits, but nanostray 1 had issues with how much you could dodge ridiculous attacks, it was a okay game, but nothing more, just bare basics, kind of like R-type in a way...



Bangai-O Spirits Level 44

And what Nanostray could've been. Note that one commenter says that the hit collision detection for the bullets is small so that it makes room for more bullets.

zomg!!


----------



## Vexer (Aug 3, 2008)

This is why i like BF|BadCompany it has the good old 100hp system but in the campaign you get and item that fully heals you and it last forever it just takes about a minuet to recharge and if your in an intense battle and you die you just respawn on the outskirts and everyone you already killed is dead those are the only things i found wrong with the game its almost perfect but just to let you know if your gonna play the campaign DO NOT play on easy it is not worth it


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 3, 2008)

IanKeith said:


> Never played that game, what was it?



If you quit, or die, Gruntilda switches forms with Banjo's sister Tootie. (Gruntilda becomes thin and lovely, while Tootie becomes ugly and fat)


----------



## Bokracroc (Aug 3, 2008)

Vexer said:


> This is why i like BF|BadCompany it has the good old 100hp system but in the campaign you get and item that fully heals you and it last forever it just takes about a minuet to recharge and if your in an intense battle and you die you just respawn on the outskirts and everyone you already killed is dead those are the only things i found wrong with the game its almost perfect but just to let you know if your gonna play the campaign DO NOT play on easy it is not worth it


My mate has his. I was playing through this and I stupidly killed myself with an ill-aimed rocket. I _was _hoping to get to replay the whole battle, but nooo.
What's the point of killing the character if there's no penalty? Even online games have a respawn timer at least!


----------



## TehSean (Aug 3, 2008)

Games should not have their hardest difficulty setting Locked at the beginning unless beating the game once opens up new levels to play through on the Hardest/Ultimate difficulty setting. This way, I can play a game one time from the beginning. This is especially annoying in console games because I can't examine the .cfg files and tick the setting that unlocks the extra content from the get-go.

One example of a game that can be replayed many times is Breath of Fire.. 5? .. I think the game forced you to. There are certain plot points you must avoid because you are not strong enough to pursue them. Dead Rising is also similar in that you can restart at a higher level.

Most games aren't fun enough to play through again multiple times. :< I enjoy challenging games. The good thing about the trend of weakening game difficulty is that when people take their game online, they're really fun when they start complaining!


----------



## AlexX (Aug 3, 2008)

TehSean said:


> Games should not have their hardest difficulty setting Locked at the beginning unless beating the game once opens up new levels to play through on the Hardest/Ultimate difficulty setting.


For some games I admit that it's somewhat silly to do that just to force you to replay the game, but for other games it's necissary. For example, people dropped the score of Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn significantly because it was too difficult on normal mode. If you could play hard mode from the start, they would have dropped it even more.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 3, 2008)

AlexX said:


> For some games I admit that it's somewhat silly to do that just to force you to replay the game, but for other games it's necissary. For example, people dropped the score of Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn significantly because it was too difficult on normal mode. If you could play hard mode from the start, they would have dropped it even more.



As long as don't pull a "Castlevania 64". (Limit easy to a few stages, then cut off, medium: add a few stages then cut off, so that the only way to actually reach the end of the game is by hard difficulty only.)


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Aug 4, 2008)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> As for one-shot kills - uh, what are you smoking? Unless you hit the head or other vital organs like the heart, lungs or an artery it's not going to be a one-shot kill.


 

I'm not smoking anything, even if you don't technicaly die from getting shot, unless its a useless round with no stoping power like 5.56x45 nato, you usualy hit the ground in one shot. Even with the 5.56, unless you are seriously pumped or high, you will go down.

The shock just from getting hit will drop most people, even if it's not in the legs. It could be in the arm, or even hand, and the shock will drop them.
Thats one of the biggest things I hate about games, you shoot them and they keep walking like nothing happend.

There was only one game I know that had this, and people stopped playing it because source came out and it was on the out dated gold-src engine.

It was called hostile-intent, in this game, if you got shot you where finnished.
Even if it didn't technicaly kill you, you dropped and where out for the round.
Sometimes you could get lucky, but it was very rare.

To me, if you hit the ground in a game, you are out, even if you don't die from the shot you will need medical attention to keep fighting, unless you are VERY lucky.


----------



## Bokracroc (Aug 4, 2008)

Dragon-Commando said:


> The shock just from getting hit will drop most people, even if it's not in the legs. It could be in the arm, or even hand, and *the shock will drop them.*


But will it shock every single person shot to death? You just don't _die_.


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Aug 4, 2008)

Bokracroc said:


> But will it shock every single person shot to death? You just don't _die_.


 
even if you don't die, as I said, you are out. There is no way you will still be able to shoot with a bullet in you unless you are seriously pumped up or high on something. If it just winged you and didn't go anywhere near anything important, like if it clips your shoulder, then maybe you woulden't go down. But thats not a real hit then.

you may get a shot off fast, just before the shock sets in, but it probably woulden't hit anything.

The only game that has this is Hostile-Intent. One bullet will down you unless it just wings you, even then, sometimes the shock is enough.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 4, 2008)

Dragon-Commando said:


> even if you don't die, as I said, you are out. There is no way you will still be able to shoot with a bullet in you unless you are seriously pumped up or high on something. If it just winged you and didn't go anywhere near anything important, like if it clips your shoulder, then maybe you woulden't go down. But thats not a real hit then.
> 
> you may get a shot off fast, just before the shock sets in, but it probably woulden't hit anything.
> 
> The only game that has this is Hostile-Intent. One bullet will down you unless it just wings you, even then, sometimes the shock is enough.



Sometimes, adrenaline could keep you going...until it wears off.


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Aug 4, 2008)

Well thats what I mean by pumped.

There's also the stopping power to take into account though, but that leaves everyone's beloved AR series of guns (M4, M16) at a disadvantage, the 5.56x45nato is a horrible round for droping people, if they are pumped up just enough, people have been known to take up to 6 shots from this thing, they fall down from the shock, but its so little they get back up.

get any 7.62 round and shoot someone, and you can be garanteed they won't be getting back up to shoot you, even if they don't die.

For gameplay pourpose, unless you want hardcore realisim, this could be overlooked.

Which leads to the thing I hate most about weapons in games, they glorify and overpower the popular guns, and make all the less known, but actualy more powerful weapons shit.

But I could write a whole article about that, and I'd need to for it to be clear.


----------



## Smurgen (Aug 5, 2008)

This isn't related to game difficulty at all but kind of in line with the topic title. I completely felt like Sega was treating me like a moron when playing Sonic Heroes as the Amy team and the game had to stop and explain to me what Rings are.... Then again i guess i should have felt like an Idiot for even playing Sonc Heroes ^_^


----------



## Beastcub (Aug 5, 2008)

kind of on the topic: i felt like twilight princess was kinda short and i figured out why....

part of what made OoT so long was when you leave or die in a dungeon you regenerate at the entrance, so if you were way deep in there you have to go alllll the way from the entrance back to where you were unless you set up a warp point (which i only do if its a boss chaimber or there was some task i repeatedly died at doing in that room...like missing a moving platform and falling to my death) but even that has a price as it uses magic power. and to leave in the early levels you had to go back to the entrance on foot(some times i just killed link cause it was much eaiser to regenerate at the entrance) atleast later the ocarina would take you the entrance but that was it. 

now in TP if you die you regenerate back in the same room (or reallllly close to it) and if you want to leave and you have found Ooccoo (which is easy and you find her pretty early on in each dungeon) you can leave right then and there w/out finding the exit and come back in the very same spot you left off whenever you want from wherever you want (warp points in OoT worked once and only once adn you had to be in the dungeon you made it in for it to work)...

i frankly feel the way OoT was set up was rewarding in of itself as it provides incentive not to get killed as its VERY frustrating to keep repeating the first part of the level. and having to replay parts of the level due to dying or leaving it makes you become very familar with the challenges from point A to point B and thus also raises your skill level for the next dungeon.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Aug 5, 2008)

Dragon-Commando said:


> Well thats what I mean by pumped.
> 
> There's also the stopping power to take into account though, but that leaves everyone's beloved AR series of guns (M4, M16) at a disadvantage, the 5.56x45nato is a horrible round for droping people, if they are pumped up just enough, people have been known to take up to 6 shots from this thing, they fall down from the shock, but its so little they get back up.
> 
> ...



Well you can't actually predict how someone will react to a non-fatal shot, you're getting into complex wound, psychological and individual responces to extreme stimuli and no, one shot is rarely enough to drop someone flat and keep them down especially if it's a maiming wound to an arm; you'll surely fuck the arm over depending on round construction, velocity, caliber and bullet weight for actually ownage. But as far as the force of the shot dragging them down that's not certain, that's a psycholical response, not physical. Even gut shots what's dragging the person down is the response to the extreme truama, bloodloss and pain; but the round is not a defining factor in this. As for shock taking someone out instantly just 'cuz they've been shot or even severally injured; I doubt it. I've seen far too much footage of people being concious and soldiers still able to operate a weapon despite their legs being shredded by fragmentation, shoulders torn apart by 7.62Sovs ect.

As far as what you want to actually bring a person down you want maxium wound cavity size, maxium injury area, rapid blood loss. You want to shred the target's insides so bad they bleed out before shock can set in. For this you DON'T need muzzle energy; this is round performance through a flesh medium, it only needs enough kentic energy to get to the target and peirce the flash. Basically to actually be more effective you want a round that enters and reacts violently INSIDE your target, if you have too much muzzle energy you will have overpenration and you will NOT cause the damage you want. The best is balistic tipped ammunition because it deforms and creates a massive wound cavity very rapidly, hollow points are also very good because they tare themselves apart INSIDE the target and don't pass through in one piece nor are they anywhere near their original diameter. Good 9mm HP can take that .35" slug and make it expand to nearly .72" which as you can imagine is going to fuck the medium it is passing through over. Rifles are more lethal then pistols because the higher velocity rounds are more likely to yaw and fragment and are larger then pistol bullets. The slug from a 7.62x39mm is about the size of a .380 pistol round and if that 7.62slug fragments it is not a pretty thing what it does inside. Ball, also known as FMJ rounds don't react as violently as HP, SP or balistic tipped rounds, they are not good stoppers period. Compare an AK47 slinging HP to an M14 slinging FMJ and you'll see a major difference in carnage to the targets if they are decent flesh analogs; clay works pretty well, as do mellons wrapped in cellophane. 

Caliber and muzzle energy don't matter much when trying to drop a thin skinned, lightly muscled animal that's as 'small' as the average person is. You want violently reacting rounds, now the opposite is true with body armor; you want high velocity FMJ or JHP. However if you want to pierce most modern bodyarmor, even what the troops wear; save for the chest plate, even a 7.62Sov will do; to pierce the chestplate the best bet is a .50BMG slinging FMJ, which will waltz through even Dragon Skin with frightening ease. Now why a .50BMG sling ball is better then a 5.56 sling ball is the simple fact that it punches bigger holes, same with 7.62's or in my opinion if you want the best marriage of FMJ and yawing for whatever reason you want a 7.7 Arisaka, 'cuz those fuckers buzz saw.


----------



## fx1 (Aug 6, 2008)

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, but in case this was not mentioned: games are much bigger business these days, the publishers have to take larger and dumber target audience that is full of newbies into account. Like me, I actually hope that games would be even easier  Too bad for you pro's, I understand..


----------



## Bokracroc (Aug 6, 2008)

KazukiFerret said:


> werds


Aren't HP bullets meant to be prohibited or something?


----------



## diosoth (Aug 8, 2008)

You want a challenge? Call of Cthulhu: Drak Corners of the Earth. No HUD, no health bar. You can die in 1 hit if you get a headshot, a few shots as you can bleed to death... and a sanity system. Look at too much freaky stuff and you will commit suicide no matter what your health is.


----------



## Smurgen (Aug 8, 2008)

diosoth said:


> You want a challenge? Call of Cthulhu: Drak Corners of the Earth. No HUD, no health bar. You can die in 1 hit if you get a headshot, a few shots as you can bleed to death... and a sanity system. Look at too much freaky stuff and you will commit suicide no matter what your health is.


So your average day on a NYC subway then


----------



## gunnerboy (Aug 9, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> A lot of a game's challenge can come from its level design.  LEGO Star Wars / LEGO Indiana Jones, games with unlimited lives and a weak penalty for dying, had plenty of their own challenges in their own ways, sometimes to the point of annoyance (such as why, in LSW2, your CPU allies can't kill anything).
> 
> I'd like to mention _N_ as another example.  Unlimited lives and checkpoints every five levels is no consolation for how damningly tough some of the levels actually _are_.  Such as having to springboard out of a room with no less than _four_ homing-missile launchers, or pierce through a layer of "bouncy" (more like spongy, actually) blocks while being targetted by two or more gauss turrets.  Or the split-second timing required to avoid some of those floor-guards, navigate a minefield, fall down a long shaft without killing yourself upon impact.  My keyboard has taken several poundings from sheer frustration, yet somehow I've made it through almost 300 levels of N.  (200 to go...)



what is n?


----------



## Xenofur (Aug 9, 2008)

gunnerboy said:


> what is n?


http://www.harveycartel.org/metanet/n_v1pc.zip


----------



## scarei_crow (Aug 25, 2008)

Smurgen said:


> So your average day on a NYC subway then


hahahah, snap.
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth sounds pretty sweet, ill have to check it out.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 25, 2008)

I've found there are a few levels of challenge in games. First, there's the ridiculously easy simply laughable level. Next up from that is a competent level that may give you a little bit of trouble but you can get through without much hardship if you just have the will. Then there's ball-bustingly, tear-jerkingly, Contra-style hard where you have to sit there for hours on end and actually focus to get anything done. A lot of the Nintendo 90's generation games sat nicely on that second level, like Ocarina of Time and SM64, and I really miss that. Metroid seems to be the only Nintendo franchise stepping it up anymore, and even that is a tad soft. I find more and more that I have to look to other consoles to get a game I really like.

It could all be fixed with one simple idea: Give the player his own choice of difficulty. I'm looking at you, LoZ/Mario/every other popular Nintendo franchise. It wouldn't take much work, and it would make games so much better and more versatile.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 25, 2008)

Personally, I found Mario 64 to be easy, and the only part that was all that difficult in Ocarina of Time was that darn Water Temple... =/


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Personally, I found Mario 64 to be easy, and the only part that was all that difficult in Ocarina of Time was that darn Water Temple... =/



Well Mario 64 wasn't too hard, but it had it's moments. Compared to Mario Galaxy though, I like to think of it this way: In SM64, there were some stars which, if you were faced with the option of getting the star, or chewing your own fucking leg off, you'd choose the latter option. Whereas with Galaxy it's a lot easier but more fun the whole way through.

Don't even say "Water Temple" to me. :\


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

Mario Galaxy has a number of levels like that, as well. I'd say it and Mario 64 are roughly the same in difficulty.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Mario Galaxy has a number of levels like that, as well. I'd say it and Mario 64 are roughly the same in difficulty.



I kinda have to disagree with you there; I actually GOT all 120 stars in Galaxy :\


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

ChillCoyotl said:


> I kinda have to disagree with you there; I actually GOT all 120 stars in Galaxy :\


I got them in Mario 64, as well. I think most people just think it's harder because it's been like... 10 years between the two games and their skills have improved in that time. Plus I always found the 100-coin stars of each level of the N64 game to be far more annoying than actually difficult... really, a star spawning in the middle of a slide that leads to a bottomless pit isn't a challenge, it's a neusance.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Aug 26, 2008)

ChillCoyotl said:


> I kinda have to disagree with you there; I actually GOT all 120 stars in Galaxy :\



Don't you mean all 242?


----------



## Raving_Dragon (Aug 27, 2008)

It's all about Disgaea. #3 comes out tomorrow. It is the hardest, most complicated rpg I have ever played. hooray for levelling up to lvl 9999...as well as lvling all items to 9999....Ive been playing Disgaea 2 for about 5 hours now and I'm lvl 7 >.<

I swear you can spend more time on this single player RPG than WOW and everquest combined.


----------



## Kegan (Aug 27, 2008)

I'm sick and tired of regenerating health, that's why I have an intense hatred for the halo series, ever since that game came out, it's MANDATORY for all FPS's to have regenerating life bars.

Gimme the old school brutality any day, Bionic Commando, Ghouls n' Ghosts, and Megaman.

Hoo ya.


----------

