I wish people had a difficulty setting - December 2nd, 2000 - Drew Cosner
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. I am so tired of waking up to the sound of vomiting. Don't say we didn't warn you.
So Incredible Crisis looks like a lot of fun. With all of the games I've been playing recently tackling
difficult concepts like the insemination of planets, I'm in the mood for something of a lighter fare. Plus any game
wherein infidelity is a crucial plot point and balding, middle-aged Japanese business men are getting blown up
is okay by me.
And before you accuse me of being a racist, let me point out that I find the idea of balding, middle-aged
business men of any nationality being blown up absolutely tickling. There's nothing un-PC about that, now is
there?
| He likes it when games play hard to win |
|
Hey Drew!
I like a bit of a challenge in my games. I don't think it's a big loss
that games have gotten easier lately, because I play RPG's for the story
anyway, but I prefer to have some trouble with boss battles at least.
This was the case with FFIX, which I think had a great difficulty level,
but the best example of one hell of a hard RPG has to be Legend of Legaia.
Bosses hit for 75% of everyone's hp there most of the time, and one boss
even kills your entire party without warning, if you didn't just happen to
be blocking right then.
Even LoL is just a matter of healing all the time, though. I'd like to
see a bit more strategic challenge in RPGs. For instance, you could
encounter a boss you couldn't kill without having first received the right
clues to its destruction, or more Vagrant Story-like elemental attack and
defense (your strongest fighter does little damage, but draws the attention
of the beast by attacking, while your mage charges up an elemental spell,
and your thief backstabs it with the legendary sword Dragon Killer(or
something)).
-Sir Farren, reverting to sleep mode
|
Yeah, I think that FFIX hit the desirable difficulty level right on the head. I don't want to be able to breeze
through an RPG like I did with Final Fantasy VII, but I also don't want to blow hours at a time levelling up my
characters so I don't get absolutely obliterated by some standard end-of-dungeon boss. The example you cite in
Legend of Legaia doesn't sound like very much fun at all, to be honest. I think that the best kind of boss is
not one that's difficult simply because it's overwhelmingly powerful, but one that is difficult because it
requires a specific strategy to tackle, however the developers may handle that. Chrono Cross was excellent about
that, even allowing you to run away from any boss battle so you could reorganize your magic and equipment when
you realized your current strategy wasn't going to get you very far.
Just to go off on a tangent, I was wholly impressed by CC's battle system. Quite frankly, I think that levelling
up and random battles are both RPG mainstays that should have been done away with along with stairs that you
have to "check," but that's a different discussion entirely. And since that's a different discussion entirely,
do you really even need to read the closing comments to know what tomorrow's topic is gonna be?
| Sit back and watch |
|
I honestly feel video games going downhill because of their lack of challenge. Whatever happened to the games
that took mass amounts of thinking and skill to beat? Where the old saying 'if at first you don't succeed, try
try again' used to apply. Now it seems that everybody and their dog can beat anything these days; games have
steered away from the 'challenge' category into the 'storybook' category. No longer do you 'play' the game, you
more or less sit back and watch it.
I don't blame this on game developers. I put the blame the people who designed the hardware. Over recent years
we've seen a huge video game revolution. 3D realistic gaming with amazing sound is now a normal thing for us.
But the hardware developers have forgotten one thing -- game control. We still use the same basic type of
controller hardware we used to use for games like Donkey Kong and Pac Man, with only a small number of
enhancements. Game developers can't use the full potential of the system's power without running into problems
concerning controlling complexity. So things have to stay simple. Simplistic controlling belongs with simplistic
games. Until we see advanced, completely revolutionized game control, we won't see the amazingly powerful and
challenging games.
-Jeff
|
There are several reasons why older games were more difficult. For one thing, cartridge space was pretty limited
back then, and a high difficulty level ensured that people had to play the game through several times to get it
right. Hence people felt they were getting their money's worth. Also, the technical limitations of the hardware
of the time need to be taken into consideration: in years past, videogames were pretty much just "finger games,"
as a friend of mine liked to call them, and the satisfaction lied in your personal display of skill.
Today, developers are capable of a lot more thanks to more advanced hardware, and enjoyment is derived from the
gaming experience itself, rather than proving to your pals that you can get past those damned Hammer Brothers in
world 8-3. Don't get me wrong, there were games in the early years that were heavy on the gameplay as well (SMB3
comes immmediately to mind), but developers couldn't exactly create mood or intertwine a storyline like they can
today.
As an example, again using Mario Brothers because I'm a Nintendo whore, when I used to play the original Super
Mario Brothers, the levels themselves were ornate obstacles, and I felt good about my gaming skills when I got
passed them. Now we have Mario 64, where I enjoy the actual exploration of the levels, as well as finding and
unravelling the challenges laid out within. I think that videogames in general have progressed in a similar
manner.
And just on a final note, I doubt I would have the patience to play the same levels over and over and over again
today like I did when I was a kid. That trick to drag out the game may have worked on me when I was 6, but I
think I speak for most gamers when I say that I'd see right past it today, and wouldn't exactly be thrilled with
the game.
| FRUSTRATION! |
|
I think that challenge, while it can be nice and all, is can be frustating
if it is incredibly hard, or nigh-impossible. In RPGs, I think that huge
challenge is being diminished in some RPGs because they are lowering the
difficulty to do other things, such as story and graphics. Also, I think
they are lowering it in RPGs because they don't just want the fanatics to
play their games who will level up for 20 hours at a time, they want to sell
to the mainstream audience. I think this applies as well to all other
genres.
However, it would be really cool to have a fun, long, challenging (not
impossible! just challenging!) sidescrolling shooter like Einhander or
Gradius. But it's not really going to happen that often in the US because
the mainstream audience wants things that are 3D, feature bright graphics,
and are something you can play for 30-40 minutes, and be able to advance a
bit. Not games that have you die and die and die and die over and over in
the same spot or level. Anyway, that's all I've got to say. This doesn't
mean I'm not a fanatic! I've leveled up for huge periods at a time and died
and died and died, but it just seems like the game companies are trying to
appeal to a larger audience, not just the gaming fantatics.
-Taerin "No Cuttin' Corners!" G-P
|
I think that's probably a part of it, yeah. And, like I said earlier, even seasoned gamers like myself wouldn't
have the patience or time to put up with an overly difficult game anymore. Being a college kid and all, I like a
game that I can pop in, play for 40 minutes, and save. And progress within that 40 minutes.
| Whoah, wait. You mean there's parents that aren't fundamentalist nutcases? |
|
Hi,
Sorry I'm not sticking to the topic, but one of the letters yesterday (the
one about magic & parents groups & Harry Potter & stuff...) struck an
interesting chord with me. While there are these parents and religious
groups trying to get books like Harry Potter banned, there happens to be
another organization called Muggles for Harry Potter (which is about to, or
has already, changed its name to Kidspeak, with a broader focus) that exists
entirely to challenge these groups. There's also the Comic Book Legal
Defense Fund, which does basically the same thing for imperiled comic
stores. So an odd thought popped in my head: what if a similar organization
existed for video games? When the next Joey Fundamentalist decides to sue
Konami or Square and get their games banned for leading our kids down the
road to hell, this organization...let's call it "Moogles for Solid Snake"
for now...could come up to defend them in court, appeal their pants off, and
try to get them unbanned. Wouldn't that be kinda neat?
...unless, of course, there IS an organization out there that's just like I
described, in which case, just forget what I said.
-Alex Scott, who passed up Mega Man Legends 2 for Harry Potter and the Goblet
of Fire.
|
My irritation with fundamentalists is not that they make decisions for their own children, but that they try to
make decisions for everyone else's children. (I think Chris said something to that end, and I couldn't agree
more.) If you don't let your kids watch Sesame Street because you think it's too violent, that's fine, but don't
try to get it ripped from the airwaves.
At any rate, I'm glad to hear that at least some parents realize how stupid their peers can be. I don't know what
gene is responsible for transforming otherwise normal human adults into righteous crusaders for the trivial, but
I sure hope mine is recessive.
| Get in touch with your inner hateful curmudgeon |
|
I hate side scrollers.
Don't ask me why, or we'll be here all night, and you don't want to be
here all night with me, baby, cause once I get started, I just don't stop.
I just don't like them. Mario, Contra, Mega Man...I'm sorry, I just don't.
Give me plot! Give me character development! Give me thought-provoking
dialogue from the hero and witty banter from the villain to prove his
innate superiority! But, please, don't give me a giant robot hamster that
throws three million missiles at you while firing his nipple-lasers, and
all you get to defend yourself is a submachine gun. Oh, don't get me
started on side-scrollers. Don't. Cause if you do, someone'll shoot me
before the sun comes up. I swear. Give me a magic system! Give me a
turn-based battle sequence! Give me victory dances like the ones you see on
Superbowl Sunday! But, please, don't give me Super Pitfall! I can't take
anymore. It's all gotta stop! No, don't tell me to put down the gun, I'll
show you who's boss! That's right, just take a step back, there, fella! No,
to your right, stupid! Wait. What's going on?! I'm holding a gun and I can
only go to the right! I can't walk back the way I came! Oh, sweet Jesus,
I'm in a sidescroller! Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani!?
I hope you're all happy.
-Banjax, who forgot to take his meds.
|
You know, there are side-scrollers that weren't action games. And Symphony of the Night has a magic system. Just
calm down, we can work this out. And speaking of SotN...
| I reckon as I'd like a sequel, too |
|
That topic reminds me. I've been meaning to ask...
Where the Hell is a sequel to Castlevania:SoTN? One of the best damn
games of all time, yet it could be made so much greater by simply
applying the philosophy of More Is Better.
What, Konami? Can't figure out how to make a sequel without screwing up
the Castlevania storyline?
And yes, I want it to be 2D.
~Ian P.
|
There is a Castlevania game coming out for the Game Boy Advance, and from what little I've heard and seen, it
does sound like it will follow the formula set forth in SotN. As for a true, 128-bit sequel, I wouldn't hold
your breath. Despite the accolades heaped upon it by virtually every gaming site and mag in existence, its sales
weren't exactly spectacular. It did all right in North America, but over in Japan I think it sold something ridiculous like
175,000 copies. Considering how readily the Japanese supported
a mediocre RPG like Dragon Quest VII based solely on the legacy of its namesake, you'd think an excellent title
with a well-known name like C: SotN would've cleaned up. Go figure.
But hey, you never know. Maybe Konami will find a way to create a sequel that's both of high quality and
marketable. And yes, I too would like it to be 2D.
| Cranking 'em out |
|
Someone wrote in pointed out the development time between some of the
FF games showing the trend of how the development time is decreasing between
each game. This guy didn't write this but a lot of people have bitched that
this shows Square is rushing production of each subsequent FF just to make
more money, and there by decreasing the quality of the newer FF games that
have come out. Hasn't Square also increased a hell of a lot in size and
power since FF6? My impression was that Square has been able to belt out
FF's quicker just because they have more of the resources to get it done
quicker where as before they would have to take more time because of that
lack of extra resources they have now. Am I wrong or am I hallucinating?
Pendy, lead web master of the Dragon Quest Dragon Warrior News Network
|
I'm pretty much in agreement with you, Pendy. Square's development team has increased exponentially in the past
few years, so it's not too surprising that the company is able to crank out the titles faster than they used to.
I'm just amazed that they're able to get 100+ people all working on different aspects of a single game and still
come out with a single, coherent product in the end. Whenever I got a school project that involved more than,
like, 3 people, we'd end up with an essay about Adolf Hitler with Benjamin Franklin on the cover and
illustrated posters of three-toed sloths as visual references.
| Are you sure that's such a good idea? |
|
God I hope Enix doesn't deside on releasing DQ7 based on Torneco no Daibouken 2's US success. T:LH is kinda a..
um.. nitch game -- like the legendary Rogue or Nethack (http://www.nethack.org) it's a turn based Roguelike
game.. and you either love Roguelikes or you hate them. I personally enjoy them and plan to grab it next time
I zoom off to the store, but I doubt most American gamers share my opinion (altho I would mention that Diablo 2
is basically a very very pretty Roguelike).
Either way, if Enix of America decides to release DQ7 in America they had BETTER release it as a PS2 game. Not
only would they actually be able to SELL copies of it in the US ("Oh, it's an early title for the PS2, it's okay
that its graphics are a bit odd") but they would also gain the graphic improvements that the PS2 is supposed to
give DQ7 -- I haven't had time to look, but from everything I've heard DQ7 is supposed to look a whole lot
better on PS2 than on PS1.
You guys are rich enough to own an import copy of DQ7 and a PS2 [hahahahahah - ed.], how about some screenshots so us curious Enix
fans can see? =)
|
I hate to be the pessimist, but I doubt people would be so easy on crummy graphics after they just shelled out
300 bucks for a new machine after seeing how good the games for it looked. Companies like Eidos are using the
power of the PS2 to make even Lara Croft look vaguely human, so you can't expect gamers to take poor visuals in
stride on a console that advanced.
And as for improved graphics, there's hardly any difference at all, as is the case with all PSX titles being
played on the PS2. The textures may be a bit cleaner every now and then, and pop-in is occasionally reduced, but
that's about it. If you really want your PSX games to look more visually appealing, your best bet is to grab a
copy of Bleemcast. Maybe with that, DQVII would look as good as some second-generation PlayStation
titles!
Wow, 2 Dragon Quest slams in one day. I'm really asking for the flames, ain't I?
| Keeping the column serious, as always |
|
Hey man,
Has, uhh, anyone ever pissed your pants?
-the Retailer of Completely Useless and Otherwise Unortodox Stupidly Phrased Bull Shit
|
No, although I have gotten so scared that I shit everybody's pants before.
Closing Comments:
Alright, here's your topic for tomorrow. As you are all well aware, we're amidst a change over between console
generations. This means that we're going to begin seeing next-generation iterations of our favorite genres. So I
ask you: what mainstays of the RPG genre would you like to see altered or even done away with in the name of
progression? How would you handle these changes? As an example, Square has continually experimented with
ways to handle "levelling up" that doesn't actually involve fighting random enemies for hours on end. And I
certainly hope the company takes that notion and runs with it in FFX. Things like random enemy encounters, foes
that drop behind cash upon their defeat, and citizens that don't mind you going through their drawers have
become ubiquitous, but they don't need to continue to be. So, readers, what do you envision for the RPGs of the
future? I think that's a fun topic for fun boys like yourselves.
-Drew Cosner, putting carcinogens in your ass since 1987
|
|
|
|
