Why is Kirby Called So Easy?

[Blue Star]

Well, Kirby and Zelda are kinda different; comparing them is like comparing an apple to an orange. Kirby's harder than Zelda in the "staying alive" aspect. Zelda's harder than Kirby in the "figuring out how to complete the dungeon" aspect.

Comparing Kirby to other platformers, I would say that the old Mario and Sonic games are much harder than the Kirby games, at least for me. XD Not that I didn't die a million times in Kirby, I just never beat the old school Marios or Sonics. Yes, I'm a pathetic gamer. OTL

 

[Deeds]

The reason that you find Kirby harder then LoZ, based on the fact that you haven't died in ages on LoZ is simply because you're used to the game. You're used to the controls and the formula, which makes it easy to progress. I notice that you seem to be new to Kirby - Honestly, I've never gotten into a Kirby game, just because the character, Kirby, puts me off it. I reckon that the reason reviewers say it's easy is probably because it's a side scrolling Nintendo game, they can't say it's hard otherwise they'd be hated on by the vast majority of review readers - PS360 lovers. It's harsh, but it's the truth.

 

[DarkestLink]

The reason that you find Kirby harder then LoZ, based on the fact that you haven't died in ages on LoZ is simply because you're used to the game. You're used to the controls and the formula, which makes it easy to progress. I notice that you seem to be new to Kirby -

Actually I've been playing Kirby longer than I've been playing Zelda. But when 3D gaming came along, I got more into Zelda than Kirby.

Honestly, I've never gotten into a Kirby game, just because the character, Kirby, puts me off it. I reckon that the reason reviewers say it's easy is probably because it's a side scrolling Nintendo game, they can't say it's hard otherwise they'd be hated on by the vast majority of review readers - PS360 lovers. It's harsh, but it's the truth.

It IS easy...I'm just surprised Mario doesn't get the same crap. And especially Zelda. Mario feels roughly as "challenging" to me. But Zelda....it's easy in both regards. As an action game, the combat is very very very easy and as an adventure game, there's very little reason to get stuck with such obvious and pandering puzzles.

 

[Deeds]

Actually I've been playing Kirby longer than I've been playing Zelda. But when 3D gaming came along, I got more into Zelda than Kirby.

Ah okay. Sorry, I couldn't really tell that with your main post.

It IS easy...I'm just surprised Mario doesn't get the same crap. And especially Zelda. Mario feels roughly as "challenging" to me. But Zelda....it's easy in both regards. As an action game, the combat is very very very easy and as an adventure game, there's very little reason to get stuck with such obvious and pandering puzzles.

I'm confused as to why you're asking 'why it's called easy', if you, yourself, found it easy.
I think that the reason Mario doesn't get called easy because it's Mario. It's such a famous and loved game that if anyone were to say something bad about it, it would be frowned upon.

 

[Ronin]

Kirby, as a whole, is a sidescrolling/platformer series. Its pace moves many times faster than most Zelda titles, as I believe the screen will oftentimes keep moving to the right as the player does, and stops as Kirby pauses. But of course the main factor in a sidescroller is obstacles, and the path is laden with them [it certainly was in Return to Dreamland]. I had to take my time at a lot of sections, analyzing how my current "ability" should be used or how to get a special collectible. Again, this had to do with the lateral perspective of any given Kirby game, which shows a lot of possible hindrances all at once. The key is to ultimately survive long enough to reach the "goal" at the end of each stage.

Now, in comparing such a series to the Legend of Zelda in terms of difficulty, of course Kirby is going to largely be harder. Most Zelda titles are 2.5D or 3D, and have a bird's-eye point of view. This makes obstacles easier to go around, and can most of the time be completely skipped unless the villains need to be beaten in order to progress. Overall, though, Zelda is a casual franchise, with bouts of increased difficulty here and there; it's consistent enough to match the preferences of all sorts of players, from casual to hardcore.

On the other hand, Kirby is pretty darned fast-paced. It gives off more intensity in its gameplay and puzzle-solving due to the multiple split-second decisions that transpire. The difficulty is fitting for a sidescroller, and obviously will differ from Zelda. The only applicable similarity between both series to this topic, though, is The Adventure of Link.

 

[Hanyou]

1. Difficulty and quality are two different things. An easy game can be awesome. See: Okami.

2. Why is difficulty being measured by number of deaths here? You can't die for the most part in Myst games, and they're some of the most challenging games I've ever played.

 

[DarkestLink]

I'm confused as to why you're asking 'why it's called easy', if you, yourself, found it easy.

It's not so much that it's called easy...more that it gets a lot more crap for it. It's much more heavily criticized for its easiness than Zelda and Mario are put together.

1. Difficulty and quality are two different things. An easy game can be awesome. See: Okami.

2. Why is difficulty being measured by number of deaths here? You can't die for the most part in Myst games, and they're some of the most challenging games I've ever played.

1) I never brought up quality.

2) Is there anything else to judge it on? It's not like Zelda has challenging puzzles that keep gamers stuck for hours or days, trying to figure it out. At best, it's 5 minutes before you come to the conclusion.

(I also have no idea what "Myst" is. Sorry. ^.^; )

 

[Mido]

Partly the reason why Kirby games tend to be easier is the audience in which the series is directed to. Kirby has always been a more lighthearted series, and directed towards a younger audience. Games like Kirby's Epic Yarn had no health whatsoever, thus making the game easier. Challenging games in the series, at least in my experience, included the older 2D games and Kirby 64. I think the difficulty of these games all depend on each games individual design. This is why Kirby gets this 'easy' stereotype, it really all depends on the player's own experience.

 

[DarkestLink]

Partly the reason why Kirby games tend to be easier is the audience in which the series is directed to. Kirby has always been a more lighthearted series, and directed towards a younger audience. Games like Kirby's Epic Yarn had no health whatsoever, thus making the game easier. Challenging games in the series, at least in my experience, included the older 2D games and Kirby 64. I think the difficulty of these games all depend on each games individual design. This is why Kirby gets this 'easy' stereotype, it really all depends on the player's own experience.

I don't know what the audience was intended for, but I always found it funny how none of the younger kids I know can beat the games. My sister (8 at the time) gave up before completing the 2nd world of Kirby 64. My nephew (6) couldn't read, so he really struggled figuring out instructions for Kirby Return to Dreamland and even then couldn't beat the 2nd level of World 1. My cousin (7) just barely beat world 2 in Kirby Return to Dreamland and is literally too scared to try World 3 (Yeah, I know it's weird to be scared of a game level, but that's just how he always is.)

 

[Hanyou]

1) I never brought up quality.

You talked about Kirby games "getting crap" for being easy relative to other franchises, which I think is a statement about at least the perception of quality. No games should get any crap for being easy.

I hear people observe that Kirby games are easy, but I've never heard anyone say that's a bad thing. It's simply how the games are.

For the record, the only Kirby game I have extensive experience with is Kirby 64. It's harder than the 2D Sonic games, but other platformers, like Mario and Donkey Kong Country, have a much higher difficulty level IMO.

2) Is there anything else to judge it on? It's not like Zelda has challenging puzzles that keep gamers stuck for hours or days, trying to figure it out. At best, it's 5 minutes before you come to the conclusion.

(I also have no idea what "Myst" is. Sorry. ^.^; )

It's a series of adventure games with intricate puzzles. You can die in a couple of them--it's a "bad ending"--but you're unlikely to die more than once or twice, if at all.

I think difficulty should be measured by effort required in the game. You might think Zelda puzzles are easy, but I know I was stuck in several parts of Majora's Mask (particularly the third dungeon) for a long time. Lots of people find the Water Temple in Ocarina of Time painful. The difficulty here doesn't come from dying, but from figuring out the puzzles. If you're good at that, fantastic--but there are enough people for whom these puzzles are difficult that calling every section of Zelda games easy is probably inaccurate.

Kirby 64 is significantly easier, in my view, than The Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past, Oracle of Ages, The Minish Cap, and Spirit Tracks. Perhaps there are harder Kirby games.