07-11-2012, 09:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2012, 09:04 PM by Archon_Wing.)
When people praise old school games for difficulty. It was mostly the kind that had unforgiving mechanics but provided precision control and intuitive gameplay so that every time you died, it was your fault. If you could beat the game on your first try, no matter how unlikely it was, it was a fair challenge.
However, it should be noted that only a minority of these games actually did that and get remembered, while the rest were just thrown into the trash bin because of inspid, poorly thoughtout design. It is not enough that a game should be challenging, but the challenge should be well thought out. You can't have this when you don't test said challenge out. Even if the designers can't beat it, they should have at least visualized concepts. So just making the game "harder" isn't going to solve the "easy" problem. Any random person can add an extra dight to everything and call it a day. That's not a particularly exciting concept, especially if the numbers aren't balanced.
However, it should be noted that only a minority of these games actually did that and get remembered, while the rest were just thrown into the trash bin because of inspid, poorly thoughtout design. It is not enough that a game should be challenging, but the challenge should be well thought out. You can't have this when you don't test said challenge out. Even if the designers can't beat it, they should have at least visualized concepts. So just making the game "harder" isn't going to solve the "easy" problem. Any random person can add an extra dight to everything and call it a day. That's not a particularly exciting concept, especially if the numbers aren't balanced.
With great power comes the great need to blame other people.
Guild Wars 2: (ArchonWing.9480)
Battle.net (ArchonWing.1480)
Guild Wars 2: (ArchonWing.9480)
Battle.net (ArchonWing.1480)