l

[TheBlueReptile]

l

 

[octorok74]

I love this idea. Trial and error gameplay is one of my favorite's, but generally you only have two options. Having the player experiment with tons of different methods would create some really interesting conversations. People could discuss what method they felt was better to get through a room or defeat a boss and then they could try it their friends way and see if it suits them better. Great idea Reptile and I hope it actually gets implemented in the near future.

 

[Turo602]

Sounds kind of dumb and it won't sell. First of all, games can be challenging without being broken or needing to go through such an outrageous development process. It's nothing new. Battletoads, Streets of Rage 3, Resident Evil REmake (invisible enemy mode), Dead Rising, and many current games that offer harder difficulties that can be extremely frustrating unless you the player, play smart and learn how to change your strategy and your usual tactics. For example, Alan Wake on Nightmare difficulty. It was still a pain in the ***, but it required me to play smarter which when complete, felt much more accomplishing.

But here's why it won't sell... developers today are trying to squeeze everything they can out of their products and the only way to do that, is to cater to today's generation of gamers. You know, the one's that made Call of Duty popular that need everything spoon fed and made easy, otherwise they'll put the control down and change the game back to Call of Duty. I mean, remember how RE use to be? Now look at it. Remember Tomb Raider? Well guess what, that's changed too. Not that those games are bad now or anything, but they've been dumbed down for the common man instead developed for the gamer. And it seems like the only kind of difficulty we're ever gonna find in games these days, are through options. It's still a good challenge, and of course that's not the case with all games, but it's no longer as diverse as it use to be. Games like back then just aren't as profitable as they use to be, and you can thank the Call of Duty generation of "gamers". They're success is what all the developers want, so they have no other choice, but to conform.

 

[octorok74]

But here's why it won't sell... developers today are trying to squeeze everything they can out of their products and the only way to do that, is to cater to today's generation of gamers. You know, the one's that made Call of Duty popular that need everything spoon fed and made easy, otherwise they'll put the control down and change the game back to Call of Duty. I mean, remember how RE use to be? Now look at it. Remember Tomb Raider? Well guess what, that's changed too. Not that those games are bad now or anything, but they've been dumbed down for the common man instead developed for the gamer. And it seems like the only kind of difficulty we're ever gonna find in games these days, are through options. It's still a good challenge, and of course that's not the case with all games, but it's no longer as diverse as it use to be. Games like back then just aren't as profitable as they use to be, and you can thank the Call of Duty generation of "gamers". They're success is what all the developers want, so they have no other choice, but to conform.

I didn't think of that. You are right, plus I guess there wouldn't be much room for DLC since there would be so many different ways to get through everything.

 

[MW7]

I really like this idea. By shifting from "how can they complete this" to "how can we stop them from completing this," obvious solutions to problems disappear. It would be a very fresh gaming experience. Really as you talk about this all I can think about are gaming examples that coincidentally seem like they were designed this way.

They may even create a near impossible obstacle course filled with armed enemies and a counter that ticks down to your death. "How can the player complete this?"

This reminds me so much of Silo from Goldeneye 007 on the N64 played on dark license to kill mode. Players turn enemy attributes all the way up so that enemies kill you in one shot every time, and enemies take several bullets to the head before dying. Every other level in the game has been beaten under this extreme challenge except for Silo which is loaded with enemies in a long linear level with a time limit.

Another game that felt like it was designed in this manner was Donkey Kong Country Returns' last few secret levels. The levels are brutally designed with collectibles needed for 100% completion in evil places in some cases. I've also watched hacks of Super Mario Bros and Super Mario World on Youtube that might actually have been designed by fans with this mentality that you are suggesting. Some of the levels in these hacks are totally absurd, and I'd guess I'd die at least a dozen times for each unique obstacle they throw at you.

You can create some challenges that feel like they were designed in this manner within existing games though. For instance in Ocarina of Time beating the Shadow Temple without the Lens of Truth, Ganon's Castle without the Fire Arrows, or the Fire Temple without the Goron Tunic (impossible on a 3 heart challenge unless you have all four bottles I think though) are all totally possible. Other interesting challenges I've come up with are in A Link to the Past like beating the Ice Palace without the hookshot (you literally come to a point facing a chasm with the door shut behind you and have to figure out how to proceed without glitching) or finishing Misery Mire with 4 small keys left over.

 

[A Link In Time]

I think that this question sets up a dichotomy of either games are too easy and we need to significantly increase their difficulty or the challenge already exists in videogames but some are unsatisfied with its level. During the arcade and NES days, titles were designed to be hard as nails but this predicament was erased over time to allow for a broader gamer audience to flourish.

While I myself enjoy a great challenge difficulty levels should always be in place to allow everyone to complete a game. Gaming adroitness shouldn't be a prerequisite to enjoy a great story or play experience. Your idea reminds me of the Contra franchise where traditionally one hit means game over. Experiences like this can be truly nerve racking and transform from being challenging to irritating. Why should one second of unawareness erase several minutes of hard work?

As Turo maintained, business conform to a set standard in order to snag maximum sales. This means not alienating a specific part of the target audience. Take the example of New Super Mario Bros. Wii. The game is much tougher than the DS original but offers a variety of progression methods for every walk of gamer. Those who wish to test their skill will continue to endeavor blunder after blunder but the softer among the crowd will take the easy way out and use Super Guide. The immersion of a videogame is lot in translation if it cannot be completed or doing so is near impossible.

 

[Turo602]

I never said it would sell, it's just a developer ideology I'd like to see adopted for the sake of an enjoyable game. And yes I agree games can be difficult without being broken. But despite such difficulty I still feel as though I am walking a path already expected of me rather than forging my own.

I'm just seeing things realistically. As for the sentence in bold, you need to be specific. What kind of game are you talking about? Not all games need you to "forge your own path" to be difficult. Plenty of games require you to use your brain in many ways while still giving that real feeling of accomplishment. But I would like to suggest a game to you since it kind of fits your description of "forging your own path". Dead Rising, that 7 day survivor is a real challenge.

Not every game developer out there conforms to this spoon-feeding formula. There are plenty of games out there that don't and that's before you even explore the indie market. The most notorious of these games I can think of is I Want To Be The Guy. Yet that still suffered the same fate of having your path laid out before you. You simply had to tread carefully.

Did I say every developer conformed to the way of spoon-feeding? The majority of them are, or have found ways to include the option without outright spoon-feeding you. Like Nintendo and their recent games. And come on, don't make me laugh... Indie games? Have you played Fez? You might like it. I could care less for it, but it could be what you're looking for.

I think that this question sets up a dichotomy of either games are too easy and we need to significantly increase their difficulty or the challenge already exists in videogames but some are unsatisfied with its level. During the arcade and NES days, titles were designed to be hard as nails but this predicament was erased over time to allow for a broader gamer audience to flourish.

I don't believe games during the NES era were meant to be as hard as they were. I'd say it was the primitive technology and poor development. I'm sure Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles wasn't purposely made to defy logic, it was just poor development. And Zelda suffered from primitive technology. Being lost in a giant map with no indication as to where to go, is just a little unfair, adventurous, but unfair. Especially in the Lost Woods segment of the game. That map was just terrible. As for arcades... dude, they wanted your money.

 

[A Link In Time]

I don't believe games during the NES era were meant to be as hard as they were. I'd say it was the primitive technology and poor development. I'm sure Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles wasn't purposely made to defy logic, it was just poor development. And Zelda suffered from primitive technology. Being lost in a giant map with no indication as to where to go, is just a little unfair, adventurous, but unfair. Especially in the Lost Woods segment of the game. That map was just terrible. As for arcades... dude, they wanted your money.

The Zelda franchise has a loose definition about itself as do many early NES and arcade franchises. Essentially the developers were free to do as they wish in an industry that had yet to be fully established. While hardware constraints were present the decision to place enemies in specific areas or craft areas to a particular vision was clearly intentional. It can be argued that some parts of older games are unfair but there were conscious decisions in play when developing these titles.

A segment from a Zelda interview to prove my point contained below:

Spoiler

What I think about The Legend of Zelda means that there is a Link with a sword, and there is a Princess Zelda, who Link has to protect, and there is a bad guy. But that's all about Legend of Zelda, and anything else is up to our autonomy. In other words, Zelda doesn't have any specific constraint in itself. In other words, whenever I think about new game ideas, that game ideas can fit into the broad universe of The Legend of Zelda. If I can think about anything that cannot fit into that broad perspective of the Zelda universe, I should aim to produce something else. But the fact is that so far whatever I can think about as new ideas can be fit smoothly into the Zelda universe.

 

[hilt134]

i think its a great idea it would be time consuming and hard to do but not impossible the only reason it wouldn't work is to have then be able to do it they would have to be conected to your game which wouldn't work if you have 3 million games sold and 400 workers so i think its a good idea just not practical

 

[Ventus]

This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but maybe I'm a close minded individual

I mean, if the devs are trying to make it so that you can't complete the game, isn't that basically making the game have artificial difficulty? In other words, isn't that just adding a difficulty level called "Game Master" or something similar to that effect? I just don't think that this concept should be the focal point of the game. Maybe if the dev team has limited resources and is looking for a joke game to release, but not something for a big project.