posted 01-01-2006 05:54 PM               

Unfortunately, effort spent on making a game inclusive to the less willing/able players is effort not spent on enriching the toughest experience. This tradeoff seems necessary if a game is made to sell.
I suppose there's always Ikaruga.

posted 01-02-2006 06:06 AM            

As soon as you die it resets to the preset difficulty level and fun starts anew

posted 01-02-2006 08:57 PM               

A game that could be considered somewhat difficult with the limited amount of lives you were given by default...

...and the konami code that made it a gaming experience for everyone.

Anyone remember Little Nemo for the Nintendo?

posted 01-06-2006 09:33 PM               

My experience with Civ4 compared to Civ2 (the only other I've played) has been positive. Almost everything is AUTOMATABLE, rather than AUTOMATIC or MANUAL. That means when you build a worker, they will not do anything till you select them. Then you can A) Have them move somewhere and then build, say, a road or a farm or a hamlet or a ... etc.
B) Tell them to automatically build roads/railroads/etc in a line from X to Y (Places)
C) Tell them to build improvements (Roads, mines, farms etc.) to the nearest city automatically
D) Tell them to build improvements to anywhere in the empire automatically.

You can control and micromanage it all, or not. Generally, as you get a larger and larger empire you tend to stop managing all workers and manage less. However, if you want to control each and every one of them, feel free to do so without time constraints in SP; Multiplayer (Online), the timer ticks down (it's enabled by almost all players...). This "Choice" as opposed to forcing players to do it all manually is quite a good design, I find, and is present almost everywhere, especially city management where you can chose where exactly to assign citizens or leave it to default (automate it). It's far better than FORCING everyone to do everything manually (early Civ games, at least Civ 2), or FORCING everyone to let the computer take over. I find it's fun to manage some things, but after a while finding out whether a pasture, a hamlet, a mine, or a farm, or a plantation would best suit a city's grassland square considering the combined effect of the city's other buildings, the other rare resources available, those rare resources which could become available, and the productivity of each choice to be... un-fun micromanagement. If you don't, you can control it.

Another change was that research 'spills over' so that when you're almost done researching a technology, you don't have to adjust your production rate of science to near-zero then back up next turn to minmax production.

Another change were some major rebalancing issues for maintanence costs of cities, etc, so that in higher-level play ICS (Infinite City Sprawl, covering the entire map with hordes of cities) is not necessarily the only viable strategy, and is now distinctly sub-par. This means that players are no longer encouraged to have to manage an insane number of cities mandatorily if they wish to have a hope of winning.

Anyways, DMC 3 had the most difficult gameplay I've ever played (I haven't played Ninja Gaiden). It was also quite fun, as a veteran of the series (DMC 1 and 2). I think it's far better to have something like DMC 3 (insane difficulty) than cakewalk of DMC 2. It was quite rewarding, as well. Sirlin didn't mention the harder difficulties after beating the game. Hard Mode was insane... and I still haven't finished Dante Must Die yet, possibly because of my refusal to ever use items in any difficulty other than the orbs of +max (blue orbs, purple orbs) and yellow continues. I generally think it was an excellent challenge, and really had a deep combat system that is capable of a lot- the enemies were ferocious, and it was satisfying to even retry levels because of bosses, for me, as I could try to max scores via damage avoidance, style rankings, etc. The game wasn't merciful, but it was quite enjoyable once you realize that it was <i> not </i> going to baby you and that it required effort, unlike many (most?) singleplayer games. It was more about dodging and avoiding damage while timing things perfectly than about the buttonmashing one might expect from a game of it's sort.

posted 01-08-2006 11:34 PM               

I believe "Ninja Gaiden" is in much the same vain. That is why I am surprised and disappointed with Sirlin's view of the game as seemingly too hard. I believe that anyone claiming that this game is too hard simply doesn't have the chops to play it. It's odd claiming someone so experienced and intellegent as Sirlin lacks the chops to play ANYthing, but in my view "Gaiden", while certainly challenging at first, is only difficult to gamers who are not familiar with the game's mechanics. Simply put, it is far from impossible.

Learning patterns, learning how to fight effectively, learning how to stockpile lives, and finally learning to navigate the game's trickier platforming sections was key to conquering "Battletoads". The meat of "Gaiden" is developing combat skills--discerning which weapon is appropriate for which type of enemy, learning how to move, attacking smartly and, most important, DEFENDING yourself--as well as learning to navigate the game's trickier platforming sections. The game rewards intellegence and perserverance. Again, it is far from impossible.

It's no secret that mainstream success has necessitated a general dumbing down of videogames. I believe that designers like Itigaki are at least partially justified in their condescension toward certain gamers; a game is not much of a game if the obstacles that it presents are easily surmountable. Of course sometimes games are just poorly designed, but I just believe gamers these days should look to themselves if they're having trouble with a game, before bashing the game itself for being "too hard."

posted 01-09-2006 12:18 AM               

Making really hard single players games only fuels the false egos of people who think they are good. That sounded really harsh, but I need to say something to get you guys out of 1980. You are the minority. We aren't going to sell 5 million copies of something incredibly hard.

A good example of something hard is Resident Evil 4's Mercenary mode. After you beat the relavitely easy main game, you open up this really hard mini-game. Hardcore people have a fun toy. The masses can safely skip it. Great implementation.

Anyway even if it WERE perfectly ok to make a single player game very difficult from the start, I would still fault ninja gaiden. In every possible way, it hates the player. Apart from the challenge of learning the game mechanics, it's clear that the designer wants to make every detail a hassle. It is the closest game to a fighting game set as a single player experience, and it is excellent in lots of ways, but it's a financially irresponsible way to make a game these days. We don't make these games with our own money, and we have some responsibly to make something that has a good chance of hitting it big.

Anyway, I highly suggest any of you who want incredibly hard single player games to take up a competitive multiplayer game. And at least consider the idea that even though you personally like incredibly difficult games, that you might be in the minority. What you should be asking for are games that have well-designed learning curves, and offer fun or moving experiences...that also offer really difficult content for YOU, but that most people will skip. Then you can go back to feeling superior when you finish the super hard mode.

posted 01-09-2006 02:24 AM               

Furthermore, not everyone has online gaming, or large local communities to connect with fellow gamers, and some just like to curl up to a challenging game like some do with a good book. Are those people's needs or achievements invalidated, then? And should game developers ignore them in lieu of the new generation of gamers who won't even rip off the shrink-wrap without accessing a message board or FAQ?

posted 01-10-2006 01:27 PM            

But much like a schmup, once you know the game it's fairly easy( I'm ignoring very hard mode, the hurricane packs, and Black. Especially Black) And in a way it was competitive. The online scoreboards led to one of the most unusual events I've ever seen a video game. The second highest scoring player in the world (who had ~19000000 points on completion) accused the Highest scoring player of cheating (~27000000 points).

posted 01-10-2006 07:58 PM               

A good game experience would have a reasonable difficulty curve and maybe challenge the experts, rather than beat over the head and bore the general market.

--Sirlin