Finish giggling at the title and then consider what Im about to ask you. There are many things that make a game ennjoyable. A riveting story. Sympathetic characters. Shiny graphics. Pulse pounding gameplay. But one thats often overlooked or scarcely noticed is challenge. There are many things that motivate you to complete a game, but one of the most significant is difficulty. Knowing that you overcame everything a game through at you and that you have bettered the game completely and entirely. But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing am I right? If A game becomes controller snappingly difficult you just think to yourself "Fuck this" and go and do something else. So I am asking you what makes a game too difficult?, Why does this make it too difficult? And give me an example.

There isn't such thing. No matter how hard it is you can always cheat/mod/hack.

EDIT: I ignored the pun because its in gaming discussion not off topic.

It wasnt a deliberate pun.

excessum ado:
It wasn't a deliberate pun.

Really? Wow.

There really is no too hard so far. If there is, you can always train to get better... The only thing that does happen is some games become a nuiisance to play and are dull at a harder setting, though I've heard that Ninja Gaiden 2 is pretty hardcore, but I haven't tried it as of yet, adn the more I play games the more I play on toughest difficulty and wish it was harder...

What pun, the title?
And I would say, so long as the developers can pass it, its not too hard.

I wouldnt even call it a pun actually.

shatnershaman:
There isn't such thing. No matter how hard it is you can always cheat/mod/hack.
.

i wouldn't cheat if it was too hard.

nightfish:

shatnershaman:
There isn't such thing. No matter how hard it is you can always cheat/mod/hack.
.

i wouldn't cheat if it was too hard.

So you would just lose and lose? I don't mean NG2 Hard I mean RTS hard because the computer cheats hard.

shatnershaman:

nightfish:

shatnershaman:
There isn't such thing. No matter how hard it is you can always cheat/mod/hack.
.

i wouldn't cheat if it was too hard.

So you would just lose and lose? I don't mean NG2 Hard I mean RTS hard because the computer cheats hard.

Theres always a way to do things without cheating. Once you cheat whats the point, you've just ruined your experience of a game.

nightfish:

Theres always a way to do things without cheating. Once you cheat whats the point, you've just ruined your experience of a game.

Says who? COD4 is much more fun on easy with slow mo and cluster bombs or GRAW with infinite health, or Dark Crusade with extra resources to swarm with IG.

shatnershaman:

nightfish:

Theres always a way to do things without cheating. Once you cheat whats the point, you've just ruined your experience of a game.

Says who? COD4 is much more fun on easy with slow mo and cluster bombs or GRAW with infinite health, or Dark Crusade with extra resources to swarm with IG.

In COD 4 the cheats are part of the game and don't actually ruin the game. In an RTS however if you cheat for unlimited resources it will completely ruin the experience. Part of the RTS experience is gathering/managing your resources

tooktook:

In COD 4 the cheats are part of the game and don't actually ruin the game. In an RTS however if you cheat for unlimited resources it will completely ruin the experience. Part of the RTS experience is gathering/managing your resources

To each their own.

EDIT: Wow I'm stupid.

shatnershaman:

tooktook:

In COD 4 the cheats are part of the game and don't actually ruin the game. In an RTS however if you cheat for unlimited resources it will completely ruin the experience. Part of the RTS experience is gathering/managing your resources

To each there own.

"Their" own. I suck at RTS' and I cheat sometimes but the more games I play, the less I have to cheat, and it varies from game to game... some games ghost mode can skip a boring load of things, but in a puzzle game or a really well constructed fun game with a story, it just spoils the game.

Depends on why it's had. Devil May Cry, for example, is rock hard, especially the third one, but it's hard for the right reasons. It's always your own fault.

CoD4, on the other hand, is just frustrating. At all times you are constantly aware that there infinite enemies being re spawned at you, and the game becomes you just legging it through fields of gunfire, dying, retrying, dying...(this is on Veteran, anyway). And that Ferris wheel level is just a joke, as is the Mile High Club.

That's too hard.

Hard: A level where you are ten of the weakest units fighting in a large map full of the enemy's strongest units while the money you have only gives you one extra man and everywhere can kill half your squad...that was hard.

Very hard: An old game called 11th Hour. A puzzle game...try to beat the computer on three puzzles: Connect 4, a puzzle where you have to have more colour on the picture than the computer and a puzzle where you have to five in any row or taking 5 sets of two from the computer while he kicks your arse every time leaving you angry and wanting to throw the computer screen out of the window or the puzzle where you have to move one object to the other side while moving others so it can move...harder than it looks. ((unless your my mother who was the first to ever complete those puzzles at all))

Extreme: Gouls and Goblins orginal...I heard not even the game designers could complete or anyone on the planet.

OurGloriousLeader:
And that Ferris wheel level is just a joke, as is the Mile High Club.

That's too hard.

By ferris wheel level you mean One Shot, One Kill? Or does that bloody place return a second time in the game even more annoying then the first?

When your as good a gamer as me, as long as it is physically possible, there is no such thing as too hard.

But if you want your game to sell good, than I would advise developers to make their games between cakewalk easy and maybe-die-once-or-twice normal.

But I'll be honest and say this. It does depend on how they make the game difficult. If the game is challenging in a reasonable way it's ok. Like if the enemies are simply strong, or if the environment put's you in a disadvantage in a way that isn't ralted to the camera, than that's all good becaus it's part of the challenge. But when it feels like the computer is simply cheating, it's not a challenge it's just being difficult for difficulties sake. This tends to be one reason why I get angry when I play games with an obviouse random component that's important to the game. If the computer get's lucky or when something bad happens to me because of the random component, it feels like it's cheating.

But I'm willing to take a video game "challenge" any day.

Dody16:

But I'm willing to take a video game "challenge" any day.

Yea its not meant to be taken literally but you want challenge try Halo 3 legendary all skulls on. If you can beat the campaign you'll be one of three.

There's no absolute "too hard" unless the difficulty is related to a game interface problem and not a player problem. Examples would include bad camera angles, bad/unresponsive controls or just the computer cheating to an extent that it is beyond player ability.

There is a point where a game is too hard to difficult for most players to bother playing, and for that level it's entirely dependent on the player. Some people can play CoD4 on the hardest setting without a problem while others will struggle with easy mode.

the only that I really thought I could not do was Freya on hard on GH2 and that was mainly because my hand was in too much pain to have another game. I took a break didn't play it for a week came back and completed it first attempt. I don't know why but I find that rather than endlessly retrying something on a game the best solution is to just to take a break from it. relax have a cup of tea and come back to it when you feel calm and ready.

Wow, I'm really going against the grain here. I hate games that are too hard. I don't have much dexterity, so I'm pretty bad at games with time sensitive controls. That's probably why I love jRPG's so much. All that being said, I do feel a greater sense of accomplishment after beating a game at higher difficulty levels. I think the best thing for developers to do is have variable difficulty. Make hard ridiculously hard and make easy obscenely easy. Then everyone's happy.

Nugoo:
Wow, I'm really going against the grain here. I hate games that are too hard. I don't have much dexterity, so I'm pretty bad at games with time sensitive controls. That's probably why I love jRPG's so much. All that being said, I do feel a greater sense of accomplishment after beating a game at higher difficulty levels. I think the best thing for developers to do is have variable difficulty. Make hard ridiculously hard and make easy obscenely easy. Then everyone's happy.

Not really because a couple of games require u to beat the game on its hardest difficulty in order to unlock the secrets (for example God Of War I & II)

Ninja Gaiden.

While challenging games are fun, and make you feel pretty damn awesome when you manage to beat them, there are indeed games that are set a bit too high on the difficulty scale. The most obvious of which, and the only one to which the developer actually admitted that they made it really hard intentionally, is Ninja Gaiden for the original Xbox.

There is something very wrong with a game in which, if you didn't play through it the precisely correct way with skills you should be expected to have developed near the end, not the beginning, you will end up having to restart multiple times because you've come to a point where you can no longer advance due to A) Lack of Health B) Lack of restorative items C) Abundance of overpowered mini-bosses.

Allow me to give an example. One of the early bosses is a flying demon girl that is apparently the sister of the demon huntress you encounter earlier. Her attack patterns include flying in the air [Which makes it difficult to hit with Gaiden's clumsy camera controls and limited aerial attacks], picking you up and slamming you into the ground for a grand total of half your health bar, telekinetically launching columns at you, diving in a spinning formation at you, and one or two other attacks she'll use off and on.

The only save previous to this is one in the bottom of a well which gives no access to a store with which to acquire healing items, and there is no way to backtrack to a store or an area with other health potions.

So, if you had problems with the previous boss fight of a skeletal dragon and didn't think to go back and grab some restoratives then and you get here with one or two health potions left, you'll have to pull some elite bullshit combination moves out of your ass that most people probably wouldn't have gotten the hang of until several sections of the game later in order to kill her without dying.

And this is the standard difficulty level.

Then, not much longer after that, you have to fight off a divebombing helicopter in much a similar position as the previous stated inadequate amount of healing supplies, right after fighting off a pair of tanks that whip the shit out of you. I stopped playing the game there because I wasn't about to go back through the game just to remember to grab a few extra healing potions before I get to the helicopter boss.

That, in essence, is what it means to be too hard. When you put a player in a position of being expert or dying, you're asking too much. Thankfully, Ninja Gaiden 2 rectifies this mistake from what I've seen thusfar by lowering the difficulty level several notches.

apmpnmdslkbk:
Not really because a couple of games require u to beat the game on its hardest difficulty in order to unlock the secrets (for example God Of War I & II)

The decisions for unlockable content requirements are made independently of decisions for difficulty (unless they aren't, in which case I'm wrong). Even if you can only unlock content on the hardest difficulty, everyone may still be satisfied with regard to how difficult the game is, even if they aren't satisfied with how easy it is to unlock stuff.

Offtopic: May I inquire as to the origins of your name?

Recently I've been playing Guilty Gear XX Accent Core, and that game takes some serious dedication to be any sort of good at. The final two battles in arcade mode, in particular, are insanely frustrating. This does, however, drive me to practice and get better at the game.

I like an extreme amount of difficulty in the game, if its presented correctly. I don't like the stupid timing puzzles, really hard to find items, or anything else that is basically wasting my time.

I enjoy games where there is a beatable scenario, like a lot of enemies, and you have to be clever about getting through it. Perhaps you have limited ammo so you can't just stay still and shoot them as they advance, or some other reason you have to be constantly on your feet making use of the different parts of the environment to duck behind and whatnot.

For multiplayer parts I also like a challenge, any game which gives me the option of using some overpowering item to my advantage in multiplayer irritates me. I often specifically avoid that weapon or tactic, and win without it, as long as that is reasonably possible. When the balance is thrown off so badly that no matter how good I am I'm going to lose half the time unless I only use "this" gun or do "this" move, I don't even play.

I'd rather go around pistol whipping people in a game than use the gun that sees through walls, shoots through them, auto targets the victims, and/or kills them with one hit. Its better to have fun and be challenged while losing half the time than win every time with no skill.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. This recharging health bullshit has to stop. Otherwise the whole "consequences for your stupid actions" feeling to games will be completely removed.

shatnershaman:

So you would just lose and lose? I don't mean NG2 Hard I mean RTS hard because the computer cheats hard.

Yeah... that's one of the problems with "hard" parts of games nowadays. Most games aren't designed to be much of a challenge in the first place, and so a lot of design flaws aren't very apparent because of the huge margin the game gives you. When you crank up the difficulty, they start becoming very obvious. The basic systems just don't work well enough to be challenging without being tedious or making you feel more like you're trying to fight the controls than the enemy.

Ninja Gaiden II is a rare exception, to the point where it's funny to watch some people trying and failing to wrap their heads around the idea that you're actually supposed to be able to keep up with it's chaotic combat.

That, in essence, is what it means to be too hard. When you put a player in a position of being expert or dying, you're asking too much.

I dislike the idea that every game should be made such that anybody can beat it with no more than moderate effort.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. This recharging health bullshit has to stop. Otherwise the whole "consequences for your stupid actions" feeling to games will be completely removed.

No it won't- it just means that doing something stupid leads to instant death. On their higher difficulty settings, the games with recharging health that I've played will easily kill you in 1-2 seconds if you get into a bad situation. I much prefer that to the "Well, I won the fight, but I lost too much health, so let me reload the quicksave" that used to be. Or, even better, "oops, that one shootout in an otherwise flawless run when bad. Better die and go back to the one check point in the entire level".

First of all I mainly give up on games due to poor gameplay mechanics and awkward user interface (gamepad control-mapping to avatar behaviors), and only occasionally 'mood'. I gave up on GTA IV, Bioshock, Prey, and F.E.A.R. because I didn't like how they made me feel - although, I did hate the whole "Pipemania" mini-game in Bioshock. So, assuming that a game's user-interface can be quickly habituated to (so you don't have to pause and think what button/thumbstick combination do you employ to utilize to yield a desired effect, allowing you to forget that you are manipulating your puppet-avatar somewhat and mentally transfer yourself into their shoes to deal with the circumstances that confront them) and it helps if you are slightly 'overpowered' here (i.e. can aim better than an individual enemy, have more health, etc.) as it will help to compensate for the frustrating fact that you are having to mediate your control with a device not dissimilar to Davros's wheel-chair and then the game can be "balanced" by sending a lot of cannon-fodder in your direction. Halo does this with the grunts, whilst the Elites are more on a par with the Spartan (but they all tend to hold back and let you choose how to engage them), Hunters deserve respect, but only Gold Elites generate real fear. However, good though it is, Goldeneye on the N64 remains the best FPS. Whilst Perfect Dark went a bit silly towards the end, so spoiling the mood it had initially set up that when I discovered that there was nothing much beyond the final alien boss, I decided to stop wasting my time trying to defeat it. The same can be said about Super Mario 64 which would have to be the best game I have ever played and I don't really even like platform games! That said, despite wanting to be able to have completed it, I still am minus one star. If you know the game (and you really should) when you face-off against Bowser you seem to get to the end as you get some very nice animated credits. However, you are actually one star short of maximum points. Going through the final level again, fighting Bowser again (who is much, much, harder to defeat) gives you the last star. Why would you want this? Miyamoto said that the Penguin could be bigger... so that means that you can race the Penguin again on the slope on the snowy level (sorry, I forget its exact title... I'm doing this all from memory). Well, I tried to beat Bowser the second time until I decided it was too hard and I was in danger of falling out of love with the game. Just imagine if films were like this - I suppose "The Empire Strikes Back" has a bit of an 'off' ending. Then there is the plot-line for the TV series 'Lost', which seems to walk the tightrope of mystery over the chasm of audience frustration; I expect if it didn't have some potted dramatic flashbacks and sexy actors with unreasonably nice hair no one would watch it.

Secondly, Goldeneye had skill levels, which didn't just make the game harder, but gave you supplementary objectives - extending playtime.

Thirdly, and most significantly with relevance to this thread's topic, Goldeneye allowed you to tweak the settings of the AI aiming, etc. when you completed the game, so you could make it as hard as you liked. This became like an 'anti-cheat' mechanism. You had to unlock it by completing the game on the hardest setting, but could then make it even harder, but in a way that suited your playing style. Whilst the developer couldn't be expected to 'mix' up all the different recipes of game-dynamics that these sliders offered, the aficionado could. It would be nice to be able to change the dynamics of the weapons in Halo 3 Multiplayer Custom Games, so that people could get back the old Halo pistol (as it stands you can only change the damage of all weapons across the board, not one weapon relative to another; pity).

Fourth and finally, Halo: Combat Evolved's level selector needs to be more widely copied. You could complete the game on Normal and reattempt individual levels on harder or easier settings without having to start a new Campaign. So, if you really got stuck fighting against the Flood (and let's face it "The Library" did go on too long), you could drop down to Easy, then go back to Heroic on a later level. Bungie wouldn't let you get the award of 'crossed-swords on a shield' at the end of the Campaign, but at least you had been allowed to complete the storyline and play the parts of the game you could manage in a challenging mode. After all, developers don't always know where the difficulty 'spikes' in their games - yet, I wouldn't recommend adaptive or dynamic difficulty, which some developers have suggested, which is where a player is analyzed and the game stops killing them repeatedly if they get particularly bogged down in some mission.

Sethran:
Good Stuff.

I pretty much agree (I quit at the demon bitch, if you were wondering). It's not that I resent needing to better myself to beat a certain point in the game, it's that I resent games that have placed artificial hoops you need to jump through to beat that certain point. I resented having to a) swim through a pool, b) take an elevator, c) fight three demons who weren't exactly challenging but, considering the health potion predicament you outlined, I had to kill very efficiently, d) do an even harder fight involving those demons and some teleporting scythe demons and, again, save those scarce potions, to finally fight the bitch, who would hand me my potion-deficient ass every time. When fixed save systems, omgwtfbbq difficulty, high damage boss attacks, a bad camera and enforced resource scarcity (beyond a certain point where it's fun and challenging) are all put together I know the programmers are just asking you to prove your penis is 10 inches long and shoots rainbows. I don't need Team Ninja's respect to feel like a man, but I'd like to finish their game without jumping through their bullshit hoops.
The COD 4 One Shot, One Kill was stupid too (I played that part on Normal after dying the 50th time), but, being on hardcore difficulty, I never saw the problem with War Room. It's funny that by making those segments so difficult they actually ruined the feel they were trying to create: one of desperate defence and attack respectively. It becomes a very different type of desperation when you've died your umpteenth death.

This sounds like Ninja Gaiden frustration. If it's too hard now, take a break for a while and try it again latter when you think that you may have a few more tricks up your sleeve.

If you were to ask me "How hard is too hard?" I would point you to a 10(ish)-year-old PC release by the name of Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines. I picked it up several years ago as part of a multipack set and after about a week of frustration I had managed to reach halfway through the second level of 30. Other than this, though, I've never played a game that I would describe as 'too hard', I don't think they're all that common.

I'd have to say it's to hard when the strategy guide can't help you.