I thought I had something to add to this, but I sort of suggested it here:

Quote:
The common attitude I see now is that it's okay for people to complain about a game being too hard, but it's not okay to complain about a game being too easy.



Maybe another way to put it is, when someone complains about a game being too hard, it's seen as a serious complaint. I mean, if the game is too hard, a player will swear at it, might toss the controller, might not even finish the game!!

But if I'd complain about a game being too easy, it's not seen as a serious complaint. It's something I should be able to overlook somehow.


I was thinking about that when FO was talking to me about the changes in Super Mario 64 to make the game easier. WHY make it easier? The game wasn't all THAT hard, imo, to begin with. Did people really complain about it? And even if they did, didn't some OTHER people like the challenge that was there? Why change the game to suit the first group exclusively? It's not even like the designers would have to craft new challenges; they could have just kept what was already there.

Well, the answer must be that the people that complained about it being too hard must be seen as having the more serious complaint.

I really think that to make a great, challenging game, it has to have NO compromises. It has to go all the way to the limit. Anything less than going to the limit will, of course, take away from the climax. But not only that, compromises are a sign of timidity. Once you give in to the fear that something will be too hard for your audience, there's no turning back. And gamers will attack challenges from many angles. Even if some angles would be challenging, if there's a weak solution, they'll find it (example: Being able to superjump past the three trouters in Super Mario Bros. 2)



Anyway, so it seems like the attitude is, if I play through a game, and it's too easy, and I didn't like it for that reason, then I didn't REALLY dislike it. So, if there's a higher difficulty, I should be willing to give it another chance. Well, no.


I might think that challenge is the most important part of a game, but that doesn't mean I don't like to enjoy myself. In particular, what I'd really like with a game is to be able to enjoy it from beginning to end. Not, Start it, beat it, not enjoy it much, play it again on a higher difficulty, and maybe enjoy it a little more, but maybe not....

Having to play through the same game multiple times is WORK. Who would want to watch a typical movie two times in a row? And games are even longer, so why should I be willing to play a game twice in a row.



Here's a concrete example. Perfect Dark's highest difficulty, based on what I played of it, really did seem like it was much harder than the first two difficulties. But by the time I played through the whole game twice (plus some bonus levels, plus some cheats, plus some simulation combat, plus the Carrington Institute...), it was just too much. I was tired of the game and had trouble forcing myself to play more of it.


And Perfect Dark isn't even a bad game. There are other games that are quite a bit worse that people think should be played multiple times on higher difficulties, or while attempting other different things. It's a drag.

"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood."
-Orwell