When is difficulty a design flaw?

[StarMist]

This is a continuation of a response I posted to Melf's "Battletoads: Too Fucking Hard" thread, a game which is reviewed as a 7 on this site. It's properly a question of criticism, but I can't post new threads under those forums. I believe that when a game reaches a wholly unplayable point it is flawed and the reviewer should thenceforth deduct for each lv that keeps on in this mould. For one thing, the game advertises its # of lvs, and they don't count if we can't play them; for another, most of us will push past the stage of enjoyment in order to try to finish a game we liked early on, so this isn't vg sissy talk. Finally, this is meant to apply to games that basically play well and aren't hardened by graphical glitches (Contra) or bad controls (Johnny Bazookatone...maybe not the best example). For me in Battletoads this begins toward the end of lv 8.

[CurlyPaul]

I beleive its a fine line between being enjoyably challenging and frustration city. I think a hard game is one that is designed that way, and slowly gets harder thoughout the game as the player learns to play. Games that are hard because the controls aren't right, have bad collision detection, blind jumps etc are broken due to poor design or implementation

[Mr Smith]

I agree with CurlyPaul.

[Olls]

What CurlyPaul said.
In Battletoads, the difficulty doesn't scale up properly. That's a design flaw for sure.

[QuickSciFi]

@starmist:
Well, you've experienced Darwin 4081 first-hand. The difficulty level is all over the place, as you may have noticed. As for my two cents: After beating the game, though, it doesn't feel like a design flaw. It's as if it was intentionally made thus.

I can't comment on Battletoads, because I haven't played it yet.

But Contra: Hard Corps, even though it does have perfect controls, the vast difference in difficulty from it's original form is too much evidence that it was laziness on the part of Konami's devs (whoever was in charge of localizing it to the States).

[StarMist]

I'm not all about the scaling difficulty. There's logic in it to be sure, but I also admire the logic of "after you've beaten 20 hard levels you've earned a break. Enjoy beating the game". All the talk on this site about Contra Hard Corps, which I haven't played since renting it on its release, has given me a slight itch to play it again (there we are, venereal videogaming). Currently I'm embarking on Hagane, and so far, at lv 3, have found it at least as fair as Battletoads--though it's SNES so the control could be better.

[sheath]

I've always hated difficulty created by bad level design, cheap AI and loose controls. I particularly dislike games that are hard because of a reliance on bottomless pits. I think a hard game should teach you how to play it in the early levels. You should have to adapt to the gameplay and learn how to use everything appropriately as the game progresses, not all up front. Basically, the early levels should put you in "the zone" for playing the later ones.

I think the later levels also shouldn't introduce a completely different gameplay mechanic, especially not something that is difficult to learn and only lasts for one zone.

[havok666]

It becomes a design flaw as soon as I smash my controller to hundreds of pieces.

[Mark Robert]

Sometimes the controls can be tight but the gameplay is just too damn hard to be enjoyable. I can't get past level 1 of Adventures of Batman and Robin for instance. The game is ace in many respects: cutting-edge graphics, good soundtrack, responsive controls. However, the enemies are on you like white on rice. Instead of having fun, I get majorly pissed off. They could have incorporated some difficulty selection which was sorely needed in a game like this. Ordinarily I would play this one to death given its many pluses but, in the end, it's the extreme difficulty that makes me shy away from this one.

[CurlyPaul]

I agree, some games are designed to be hard, and desgined well but they are just not enjoyable. I like a challenging game, but I need to see that some progress is being made otherwise the frustration/satisfaction balance is all lopsided.

Also the game should slowly ramp up the difficulty at first, but I dont mind spikes after the first level or so. I thought Flashback had it about right, the first level is pretty simple, then it starts to get hard and throws in some sections where you have to be step perfect for a few screens, before easing of and letting you enjoy the satisfaction of having beat a tough section.

Difficulty is a big thing for me -If I'm just getting my arse kicked then its no fun, but if I'm breezing thru a game I get bored. Sometimes I find it fun to play a game thats difficult because its broken, beating it is even more satisifying in a twisted kinda way

[BrYaN]

I always wondered if the Level 6-2 in Ninja Gaiden 1 for the NES was genuinely designed to be hard, or the difficulty was caused by the enemies respawning and left like that by the developpers. Or if they used this "glitch" to create a challenge in this stage. I think this is a good instance where the line between flaw and geniously planned difficulty is hard to tell.

[MonkeyDLenny]

Silver Surfer for NES. That is all.

[Lan-Di]

Megaman Network Transmission - Gamecube. This game is Brick too!

[zetastrike]

Ninja games are a good comparison. A game like Revenge of Shinobi is the good kind of challenging because it rewards experimentation and you learn how to beat it as you play and it eventually becomes easy. Ninja Gaiden 1-3 are the bad kind of difficulty, as they just force you to replay sometimes very short sections again and again because of poor enemy placement/leaps of faith/poor level design. Those games are really the anti-shinobi. Mega Man 9 is another game that is completely ruined by unreasonable difficulty.

[BrYaN]

Ninja games are a good comparison. A game like Revenge of Shinobi is the good kind of challenging because it rewards experimentation and you learn how to beat it as you play and it eventually becomes easy. Ninja Gaiden 1-3 are the bad kind of difficulty, as they just force you to replay sometimes very short sections again and again because of poor enemy placement/leaps of faith/poor level design. Those games are really the anti-shinobi. Mega Man 9 is another game that is completely ruined by unreasonable difficulty.

I agree with you on everything except for Mega Man 9... Where is Mega Man 9 cheap?

There's an achievement to finish the game without being hit once, and it's "doable" if you're really good at the game. Otherwise, finishing the game normally shouldn't be a problem at all. Mega Man 9 is an exemple of solid level design and enemies placement! Every places you think are cheap, it's probably because you didn't find the right way to pass them.