Tuesday, Jan 22, 2008
It's a frequest criticism in the gaming press, blogs and forums that Assassin's Creed was "too easy". "You only ever have to use one button" is the most common issue raised with the game.
Is there a problem with distilling gameplay to a nice simple, level? It's not like you just have to press the button and you automatically win. It just means that you aren't struggling with hundreds of combinations that you need to remember to successfully play the game.
Are people seriously contending that the game would have been better had it required you to use all the buttons, bumpers, triggers, the d-pad and the sticks in combination for combat? I think that reducing it to the "one button" system made it elegant. It was refined, it was simple, but it was still difficult to master.
Another complaint about Assassin's Creed and its "simple design" is that it made the free-running too easy. Why not? Can you imagine how infuriatingly frustrating that game would be if it had made the free-running hard?
The entire point of the game was to allow the player to be a very, very dangerous man. And it was effortless to do. Which left you as the player then able to think about things like: "How do I make this look awesome?" rather than throwing your controller through your TV after you fell to your death after messing up a hand-contorting button combo to run across some roof-tops.
Being an avid PC gamer I certainly can't claim to be innocent of the occassional "They've dumbed it down!" remark. But in the case of Assassin's Creed it wasn't dumbed down. It was made better. No measure of complexity was lost - instead, the developers chose to not add a level of complexity where it wasn't needed.
As much as I will get flak for saying this (and I don't want to have to say it), I would rate Assassin's Creed well and truly above Ninja Gaiden. Why? Because Assassin's Creed was fun to play. Ninja Gaiden was an excercise is frustration. I'm sure that it would be rewarding if you could spend ten hours learning to play it.
In fact, most people who extoll it's virtues insist that you just neeed to give it time and you'll learn to play it well. In those ten hours I could have finished Assassin's Creed again and be having a great time doing it. I could have played through Call of Duty 4. I could have had a great time in any number of other games.
I just hope that more developers and more importantly, the gaming community realise that hard for the sake of hard is stupid. People play games for fun, not frustration.
Is there a problem with distilling gameplay to a nice simple, level? It's not like you just have to press the button and you automatically win. It just means that you aren't struggling with hundreds of combinations that you need to remember to successfully play the game.
Are people seriously contending that the game would have been better had it required you to use all the buttons, bumpers, triggers, the d-pad and the sticks in combination for combat? I think that reducing it to the "one button" system made it elegant. It was refined, it was simple, but it was still difficult to master.
Another complaint about Assassin's Creed and its "simple design" is that it made the free-running too easy. Why not? Can you imagine how infuriatingly frustrating that game would be if it had made the free-running hard?
The entire point of the game was to allow the player to be a very, very dangerous man. And it was effortless to do. Which left you as the player then able to think about things like: "How do I make this look awesome?" rather than throwing your controller through your TV after you fell to your death after messing up a hand-contorting button combo to run across some roof-tops.
Being an avid PC gamer I certainly can't claim to be innocent of the occassional "They've dumbed it down!" remark. But in the case of Assassin's Creed it wasn't dumbed down. It was made better. No measure of complexity was lost - instead, the developers chose to not add a level of complexity where it wasn't needed.
As much as I will get flak for saying this (and I don't want to have to say it), I would rate Assassin's Creed well and truly above Ninja Gaiden. Why? Because Assassin's Creed was fun to play. Ninja Gaiden was an excercise is frustration. I'm sure that it would be rewarding if you could spend ten hours learning to play it.
In fact, most people who extoll it's virtues insist that you just neeed to give it time and you'll learn to play it well. In those ten hours I could have finished Assassin's Creed again and be having a great time doing it. I could have played through Call of Duty 4. I could have had a great time in any number of other games.
I just hope that more developers and more importantly, the gaming community realise that hard for the sake of hard is stupid. People play games for fun, not frustration.
Comments
Posted Jan 22, 2008 9:14 pm PT
Agreed. People are just way to hard to please these days.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 9:42 pm PT
Hard doesn't necessarily mean frustration to some people. Some people are calm no matter how hard the game and don't mind losing a boss fight 3 or 5 times, they don't throw their controllers at a wall. Instead, they find that the hard difficulty makes games more enjoyable and rewarding. It all really depends on your preference.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 9:48 pm PT
I hear you on this. Call me crazy but my idea of fun is not repeating the same exact portion of a game 30 times over before finally getting lucky and being able to move onto the next section, only to have to repeat that section over and over again too. I don't get the appeal. Maybe I'm not "hardcore" enough.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 9:50 pm PT
Platyphyllum - I'm all for a hard game where it's called for.
Try playing LO:MAC or IL-2 Sturmovik on some more realistic settings. That's hard - because the entire game rests on the realism, and as it turns out, flying a plane in combat is difficult.
If I want to challenge myself by playing through Call of Duty on the hardest level, that's fine. Or play through God of War again, where it was difficult, but not in a frustrating way.
But when a game's sole purpose is to be painfully difficult (looking right at you Ninja Gaiden) I have zero (0) time for it. Especially when there is no need for it to be so damn difficult. 1 hour+ between saves? Yes, that makes it frustratingly difficult/
If you are going to make a game difficult then also make it compelling. Look at Trackmania. I've had my spirit broken many a time by this franchise as I try over and over and over to get that 0.001 of a second to let me get a Gold medal. But the game doesn't stop me from progressing just because I haven't done that. Nor does it require me to spend an hour at a single attempt to do that.
Try playing LO:MAC or IL-2 Sturmovik on some more realistic settings. That's hard - because the entire game rests on the realism, and as it turns out, flying a plane in combat is difficult.
If I want to challenge myself by playing through Call of Duty on the hardest level, that's fine. Or play through God of War again, where it was difficult, but not in a frustrating way.
But when a game's sole purpose is to be painfully difficult (looking right at you Ninja Gaiden) I have zero (0) time for it. Especially when there is no need for it to be so damn difficult. 1 hour+ between saves? Yes, that makes it frustratingly difficult/
If you are going to make a game difficult then also make it compelling. Look at Trackmania. I've had my spirit broken many a time by this franchise as I try over and over and over to get that 0.001 of a second to let me get a Gold medal. But the game doesn't stop me from progressing just because I haven't done that. Nor does it require me to spend an hour at a single attempt to do that.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 9:59 pm PT
I think complicated controls and difficulty are not necessary related. I don't like overly complicated controls like Metal Gear games but I do like difficult games like Mega Man, Viewtiful Joe, Devil May Cry, Rogue Squadron and Contra. To really conquer a really difficult level is a rush of accomplishment for me. Games like BioShock that lack any kind of difficulty are more like interactive fiction and quickly bore me.
I know lots of people that become easily frustrated and start to throw controllers. I don't understand that. If a game kicks my butt I just regroup and work to beat it.
Games are getting easier. Super Mario Galaxy is one of my favorite games of all time but it starts off way too easy. Comparing it to Super Mario 64, a really intimidating game, you can see how easy games are becoming.
I think there is plenty of room for both types of games. One of the great things is the difficulty setting on most games. You can set it to "easy" and I'll set it to hard.
I haven't played Assassin's Creed so I can't comment directly on the game.
I know lots of people that become easily frustrated and start to throw controllers. I don't understand that. If a game kicks my butt I just regroup and work to beat it.
Games are getting easier. Super Mario Galaxy is one of my favorite games of all time but it starts off way too easy. Comparing it to Super Mario 64, a really intimidating game, you can see how easy games are becoming.
I think there is plenty of room for both types of games. One of the great things is the difficulty setting on most games. You can set it to "easy" and I'll set it to hard.
I haven't played Assassin's Creed so I can't comment directly on the game.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 10:01 pm PT
Streamlined controls are a huge factor for me. If I'm juggle buttoning, I'm usually not too interested. I love a good challenge (that's why I mostly play multiplayer...), but I want the game to be challenging not the controls.
Play .sKate if you want to try a game with elegant controls, yet difficult tests.
Play .sKate if you want to try a game with elegant controls, yet difficult tests.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 10:10 pm PT
well said and i completely agree, simple doesn't always mean easy. and simple is sometimes if not most of the time a good thing.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 10:40 pm PT
Another factor that kills the fun in a game is when the game has a CHECKPOINT SYSTEM. It's essentially the developer telling you, "No, don't have fun trying things that might cause you to die, play our game seriously or GTFO". It's really horrible. You'll spend 20 minutes doing some 'epic battle' only to fail a jump over something, get stuck on a corner, get killed by some random object or enemy coming out of nowhere when you're not expecting it...and now you have to redo that whole battle again. After a couple tries, you finally beat it AGAIN...and that's not so bad...until this stuff just keeps happening again and again throughout the game. The most recent game to do this to me: Gears of War. Before that, XIII. I hate checkpoint systems. I say, Implement Quicksave or don't even bother releasing the game. 
Posted Jan 22, 2008 10:47 pm PT
I disagree... Mainly because everyone else is agreeing with you and I want to create some opposition, albeit artificial. I personally didn't find Ninja Gaiden very difficult, but it seems to be universally accepted as quite the opposite. I'm not really familiar with the complaint that AC was too easy- the one I hear most is that it was repetitive plot point-wise.
I personally didn't find Ninja Gaiden very difficult, but it seems to be universally accepted as quite the opposite. I'm not really familiar with the complaint that AC was too easy- the one I hear most is that it was repetitive plot point-wise.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 10:56 pm PT
but i like hard games.I like memorising combos and stuff.
Posted Jan 22, 2008 11:10 pm PT
It's just that they know there are a ton of gamers out there that are willing to repetitively attempt the same actions over and over again like robots until they get passed the point that they're stuck on. The thing is, I really don't end up being patient enough in a lot of those situations to follow through and do it, so I'd have to agree with you. I'd rather play a slightly difficult game that was incredibly fun than one that was constantly proving that I hadn't mastered the frustrating system that the game designers came up with, not ending up being very fun at all. (Getting the five-star achievements for the songs towards the end GHIII on Expert just ain't gonna happen for me!)
Posted Jan 22, 2008 11:25 pm PT
awsome blog i have noticed games geting harder and harder like so dead or alive 4 to dead or alive same with tekken 4 and 5 its getting to the stage where some games i cant play because there 2 hard
Posted Jan 22, 2008 11:54 pm PT
Difficulty is somewhat arbitrary. What is difficult and challenging to one may be fluid and simple to another.
Some people can dominate GH and/or Rock Band on the hardest level while others struggle with the medium difficulty.
Case in point. I don't recall Ninja Gaiden to be even remotely frustrating. At least the Xbox release, now if you're talking the original NES game, that's another story. Much harder then the Xbox version, but no less enjoyable. But I digress.
"I just hope that more developers and more importantly, the gaming community realise that hard for the sake of hard is stupid. People play games for fun, not frustration."
This is a rather extreme generalization. There are gamers who are in it for the challenge. Players who are looking for games that take some degree of skill and effort. To some people, the difficulty and yes sometimes frustration in a game makes winning all the more enjoyable. What a gamer finds to be fun or frustrating is vastly personal and can vary greatly. There are people who become frustrated with a game when it doesn't present a challenge significant enough to satisfy their desire.
I found Shinobi on the PS2 to be a nice challenge. The difficulty over the course of the game gets progressively more difficult. While frustrating at times, finally beating the game left me with a sense of accomplishment. I find that same sense of accomplishment in completing missions in CoD4 on veteran difficulty. Its a brutal task that is extremely frustrating, yet at the same time immensely fun.
Call it a masochistic streak if you like, but a great deal of fun can be derived from facing a difficult challenge.
Harder may not be better. However, by the same token, easy is not necessarily better either. Its all a matter for personal taste. Leave the difficulty alone and let those of us who enjoy a challenge enjoy ourselves. Just because you find a game too hard, doesn't mean I do as well.
Some people can dominate GH and/or Rock Band on the hardest level while others struggle with the medium difficulty.
Case in point. I don't recall Ninja Gaiden to be even remotely frustrating. At least the Xbox release, now if you're talking the original NES game, that's another story. Much harder then the Xbox version, but no less enjoyable. But I digress.
"I just hope that more developers and more importantly, the gaming community realise that hard for the sake of hard is stupid. People play games for fun, not frustration."
This is a rather extreme generalization. There are gamers who are in it for the challenge. Players who are looking for games that take some degree of skill and effort. To some people, the difficulty and yes sometimes frustration in a game makes winning all the more enjoyable. What a gamer finds to be fun or frustrating is vastly personal and can vary greatly. There are people who become frustrated with a game when it doesn't present a challenge significant enough to satisfy their desire.
I found Shinobi on the PS2 to be a nice challenge. The difficulty over the course of the game gets progressively more difficult. While frustrating at times, finally beating the game left me with a sense of accomplishment. I find that same sense of accomplishment in completing missions in CoD4 on veteran difficulty. Its a brutal task that is extremely frustrating, yet at the same time immensely fun.
Call it a masochistic streak if you like, but a great deal of fun can be derived from facing a difficult challenge.
Harder may not be better. However, by the same token, easy is not necessarily better either. Its all a matter for personal taste. Leave the difficulty alone and let those of us who enjoy a challenge enjoy ourselves. Just because you find a game too hard, doesn't mean I do as well.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 12:14 am PT
I have to disagree with you. To me a game that is extremely challenging is also extremely rewarding. I love a game that is challenging to the point where it can break you. The reason why Ninja Gaiden was so great is because it was so damn hard that it made you think, " Ok so this plan didnt work, lets have it this way." Its a way of getting your money's worth, while pushing you to your limit. Both with your reflex's and your ability to actively solve a problem.
AC was a game that was extremely casual and offered no challenge other than having the patience and fortitude to repeat the same mission over and over, until the game ended. It was extremely simplistic and practically played itself.
AC was a game that was extremely casual and offered no challenge other than having the patience and fortitude to repeat the same mission over and over, until the game ended. It was extremely simplistic and practically played itself.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 12:55 am PT
Assassin's Creed did a few things brilliantly. The climbing mechanics were great, and the free roaming was handled well. But I don't agree with you that Assassin's Creeds difficulty was well balanced. The last 2 hours of the game was an excersize in frustration, repitition, and lazy game design. It very nearly ruined the game for me. For a game so built on choices and freedom, the later part of the game and its forced, unavoidable tedium (2 straight hours of frustrating sword battles, for those who haven't played the game) sucked the fun right out of the experience. That, my friend, is a perfect example of unbalanced challenge in gameplay.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 1:07 am PT
You see I can appreciate that Ninja Gaiden is rewarding. I sank some six to eight hours into it. And never made it off the airship. In fact I only made it to the airship boss once.
Why? Because having to replay a monstrous amount of the game each time I died was no goddamn fun.
Sure I was getting better and was enjoying the gameplay, but still - all it took was one missed jump or a press of the wrong button and suddenly you're dead and the last half hour of gameplay was for naught.
Why? Because having to replay a monstrous amount of the game each time I died was no goddamn fun.
Sure I was getting better and was enjoying the gameplay, but still - all it took was one missed jump or a press of the wrong button and suddenly you're dead and the last half hour of gameplay was for naught.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 1:08 am PT
But MuscleCarMan, not everyone have the same amount of skills as another would have. What a developer and a game has to achieve is to make the right balance between difficult and easy. Some people enjoy games just for the sake of the what it offers, some loves to go for the harder, meaner difficulties just to be able to get the bragging rights, which to me is just, ugh, sickening.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 1:13 am PT
What it comes down to, is that AC was designed to be fun and accessible, while Ninja Gaiden was meant to be nearly impossibly difficult, requiring skill and practice to overcome. Whats wrong with having both types?
This is why most games have difficulty levels. Admittedly, im not sure that they would work in AC, but again, thats just how the game is designed. Most games benefit from it.
This is why most games have difficulty levels. Admittedly, im not sure that they would work in AC, but again, thats just how the game is designed. Most games benefit from it.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 2:12 am PT
I prefer a challenge but much like yourself weemadando only if the challenge is reasonable, i tend to play all my games 1st time on the hardest settings due to my experience of playing games i tend to pick them up quickly. As long as game creators keep providing options ("GOOD OPTIONS that work"), like difficulty levels, and the option to Quick save / Manual Save as well as a Checkpoint system i will be happy. Crysis dose the latter well as well as Oblivion which with a good CPU can quickly Auto Save after every door. I have to agree about the points made by yourself and some other posters here regarding Death after an Hours Gameplay and you have no save! The fact that devolopers are still allowing this to happen is not on and should really be removed, unless there game relies on the mechnic.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 2:18 am PT
im going to have to say I agree with your point there FriedConsole for those fans of arcade fighting games, you will probably find games where you have to press buttons really quickly in combination like GHIII very easy other players will find games that require a steady hand and a quick eye could likely play through Doom III on Nightmare difficulty in a few sittings personally I would never enjoy AC due to the overly simplistic stylings, but think of games like UT3 or Oblivion as awesome because of the way both support modding creativity and the possibility of new ways to play the game and quickly get bored of games like Fight Night 3 and Halo 2 MLG because of the manual dexterity that's required but that's my play style and that's my Input.
Difficulty widely depends on the play style of the player and frustration often depends on the players attitude towards repetition. I extremely dislike repetition and prefer new things (because they're shiny :p) in games, but if a game can be extremely difficult and forces you to repeat parts several times, but with some feature that changes combat each time or allows the player to learn something from failing at the combat I'd probably enjoy that.
However I do believe that for some games it is necessary for a limit to saves or possibly a checkpoint system because the game simply wouldn't work any other way.
But finding a way to make the game harder without implementing the above is a challenge and any game that can accomplish that has my support.
Difficulty widely depends on the play style of the player and frustration often depends on the players attitude towards repetition. I extremely dislike repetition and prefer new things (because they're shiny :p) in games, but if a game can be extremely difficult and forces you to repeat parts several times, but with some feature that changes combat each time or allows the player to learn something from failing at the combat I'd probably enjoy that.
However I do believe that for some games it is necessary for a limit to saves or possibly a checkpoint system because the game simply wouldn't work any other way.
But finding a way to make the game harder without implementing the above is a challenge and any game that can accomplish that has my support.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 2:18 am PT
Yeah think we can all agree it just comes down to personal choice. I enjoy both games, AC for it's fluidity and ease of play, I can still play it even if my girlfriend is berating me for something or other. Ninja Gaiden on the other hand requires complete concentration, and can be immensely frustrating but also as a result massively rewarding.
I'm a fan of both, but have been known to throw the odd joy-pad, though not at my TV, it's far too expensive.
I'm a fan of both, but have been known to throw the odd joy-pad, though not at my TV, it's far too expensive.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 2:24 am PT
Same thing when developers try to go with ultimate realism, killing the gameplay and making it extremely hard. Rainbow Six Vegas was frustrating at times because of the poor checkpoint placing, but it seems like the save system could have been as frequent as a Call of Duty game, instead of basically saying "Do it right or dont do it at all!" and forcing you back to a point where you have to go through two rooms and one hallway and then battle it out in a huge room just to get back to the point where you died. I enjoyed it once I got the hang of it though, and it was a great game once I started dieing less.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 2:57 am PT
Hear hear!
There's a reason the saying "Elegance in Simplicity" exists, and Assassin's Creed is just such a fine example.
There's a reason the saying "Elegance in Simplicity" exists, and Assassin's Creed is just such a fine example.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 2:58 am PT
The only problem of keeping it simple is that, if it gets too simple, we will just be mashing one button and it would turn out to be extremely boring. What we do need is to have a few combos that are easy to master, neither having 7-button combinations using the d-pad and action buttons nor having a simple button to mash throughtout the whole of the game.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 3:04 am PT
Nice comments. It's good many developers have taken a step back and realized that just because controllers have over ten buttons, it doesn't mean they have to use them all, all the time.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 3:29 am PT
Good blog! I have to agree, over complicating the controls almost always takes away from the fun of a game. The whole point of games like AC is the visceral experience of feeling like an exceptionally dangerous man, which is hard to do when a guard is kicking the crap out of you while you try to execute a good ol up up down up up a b a up down. If I want a challenge I'll go play an online shooter with real players, I find nothing more rewarding then getting a head shot on a running player in partial cover.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 4:06 am PT
I agree. I hate when games are stupidly complex for no reason at all. I haven't played Assasin's creed but from what I've seen of the game, simple button presses to attack and jump or whatever make more sense then the insane combos that a lot of games in this genre (and others require you to do. Things like Holding down both triggers, rotating the analog stick while rapidly pushing A to kick someone is stupid. Ok I exaggereted that but you get my point.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 4:14 am PT
You got to keep in mind that whats frustrating to some people is challenging to others. I can't really say anything about AC, but I do know a few new games that have made their games a walk in the park
Posted Jan 23, 2008 4:20 am PT
I thought AC was nearly perfect as far as difficulty. It might have been better if they made some of the side missions more complex, but other then that, this game was exactly what I wanted it to be. You should not have to hit ABOXAAB^AOX in order to get an attack in 
Posted Jan 23, 2008 4:39 am PT
see, I agree about the freerunning, but the combat is still too easy, and its not just about the one button system
Posted Jan 23, 2008 4:44 am PT
Sorry dude, have to disagree with you. I haven't played AC and I have to admit that the first time I tried Ninja Gaiden, it was really enraging, I quit playing it in this very same boss, after 3h ou 4h or so. But a few months later, I picked the game again and since I already had some experience, it was still challenging, sometimes frustrating but never boring. It actually made me feel that I was acomplishing something (although you feel kinda cheap sometimes when you have to redo a sequence over 5 times in order to beat it).
When it comes to style, I'm yet to see a game more stylish than DMC3. Hard game (not as hard as Ninja Gaiden, but still), but the learning curve is more forgiving, although forgiving is a word you hardly can use to talk about this game. And getting to its end and never turning down to the easy difficult mode was one of the most satisfying experiences I had in gaming. Even more than beating Ninja Gaiden. Not to mention that both give me bragging rights =p
Maybe AC is fine just the way it is, I have yet to play it, but downplaying games or overall high difficulty on games just for the sake of it is also stupid.
When it comes to style, I'm yet to see a game more stylish than DMC3. Hard game (not as hard as Ninja Gaiden, but still), but the learning curve is more forgiving, although forgiving is a word you hardly can use to talk about this game. And getting to its end and never turning down to the easy difficult mode was one of the most satisfying experiences I had in gaming. Even more than beating Ninja Gaiden. Not to mention that both give me bragging rights =p
Maybe AC is fine just the way it is, I have yet to play it, but downplaying games or overall high difficulty on games just for the sake of it is also stupid.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 4:47 am PT
I have to disagree with posters that want quick saves for everything. If there is no punishment for dieing ala Bioshock, the player stops caring if he dies so it just becomes interactive fiction. I mean why worry about your upgrades when you can just hit the monsters with a wrench over and over?
I don't think the save system should have you replay 10 hours over again but I think there needs to be a balance.
I don't think the save system should have you replay 10 hours over again but I think there needs to be a balance.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 5:54 am PT
Well... Very, very dangerous? Altair is invincible. And game besides being poor is very easy one. White Eagle Down.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 6:14 am PT
you fail to see that some people enjoy a challenge (ninja giaden), and the feeling of reward it brings when you defeat a boss. Also, the combat wouldn't have been such a downer in AC if the AI wasn't dumb as hell. Don't forget the lack of a stealth mechanic. "I think I'll just jump into this roof garden while the enemy refuses to look for me here." or maybe the "Hey you're not praying so you must be the killer!!!". For an assassin game there was severe lack of a stealth element.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 6:22 am PT
I agree by 100% !
Posted Jan 23, 2008 6:27 am PT
Apparnetly I'm alone in saying that Ninja Gaiden wasnt that hard. I beat it on all difficulties with relative ease. The Hurricane pack 2 is hard as hell though. Anyway I find almost any singleplayer game less frustrating than a multiplayer game. Multiplayer games like Call of Duty and Halo screw you over six ways from Sunday. I'm not sure why I even play the games, I just end up angry. Singleplayer games tend to be frustrating when you're stuck or there is a poor checkpoint or save system. Ninja Gaiden had a really good save system you could easily clear a room and then walk back and save if you wanted. I've yet to play Assassin's Creed, but I think I'll agree with what you've posted about it, people do play games for fun over frustration.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 6:33 am PT
I know what you mean. There seems to be a buzz at the moment about games being considered too kiddy and a (misguided) response seems to be getting developers to throw in a load of complicated controls. I think a lot of people forget that games are supposed to be fun and get carried away by the endless guff spouted by critics (and certain knee-jerk afflicted gamers).
Just for the record, I completed Ninja Gaiden: Black and found it tough but fair. At times it wasn't fun but it paid off in the end (despite the tirade of profanities my poor girlfriend had to hear)
Just for the record, I completed Ninja Gaiden: Black and found it tough but fair. At times it wasn't fun but it paid off in the end (despite the tirade of profanities my poor girlfriend had to hear)
Posted Jan 23, 2008 6:43 am PT
I am 100% with you on this, but then I grew up playing games in the days when there only was one or 2 buttons and a d-pad.
I wonder how much of a generational gap there is in enjoying this game. I hear lots of complaints about how it is repetitive and too easy; I could say the same for every game I played as a kid.
I like AC in part because it is repetitive and uses timing for combos rather than buttons; it's kind of like a next gen version of older games.
I wonder how much of a generational gap there is in enjoying this game. I hear lots of complaints about how it is repetitive and too easy; I could say the same for every game I played as a kid.
I like AC in part because it is repetitive and uses timing for combos rather than buttons; it's kind of like a next gen version of older games.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 6:45 am PT
I don't agree because although simplicity is key, I want some variation in my games. I want to be able to be flexible and overcome my goals in video games. I haven't played Ninja Gaiden, and the difficulty must be... difficult. Assassin's Creed is simple to a point where boss fights could be ended in one swift move, which is pretty realistic... if it wasn't for the fact that the person you're fighting is a well-trained soldier... dude, and there are about 20 guards surrounding him, and 20 more guards chasing you when someone sees you chasing him. Yeah... You get what I'm saying... I guess. I love Assassin's Creed, and according to your ratings, I think I actually rated it higher than you rated it. I admit, I like how simple the combat is to grasp and maneuver in Assassin's Creed, but in games like Devil May Cry, where it isn't so easy; where the game is harder and less forgiving (you start from the beginning of each level after you die, and it's pretty damn easy to die at a boss), where you're probably going to do the second level around 3 or 4 times... You're missing the point here, but those games are STILL FUN! They're still amazing, and they're still AAA titles in my book. Either the simplicity and difficulty (easiness) of Assassin's Creed, or the difficulty of the 2D Ninja Gaidens, the games are STILL FUN! I would personally want a difficulty that's more difficult than Assassin's Creed, but easier than that of Devil May Cry. Something like Psychonauts, or Mario's difficulty. That would be perfect. I don't want to play a game where I'll never die, I'll never lose a life, a game that I can just scroll through (unless there's a lot of eyecandy; I'm a sucker for eyecandy)... even you can admit, that is no fun.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:14 am PT
I completely agree. Assassin's Creed had/has a great balance when it comes to the difficulty level.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:16 am PT
Agree. Purposefully long periods between checkpoints is not fun, and neither are battles that take many many tries to win. About 3 is where I start getting frustrated with the developers, unless there seems to be some point to my death (like it's funny or something).
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:25 am PT
i completely agree ! i thought Sands of time was almost poetic in the smoothness and ease at which you preformed freerunning style wall runs and leaps ... controls can be as simple at they like , the dificulty should come from the level design not overly complex controls !
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:28 am PT
I agree. What's so bad about a game you can sit down with, have a great time and not get frustrated. It is entertainment after all. I have too many games that are collecting dust right now because they got unecessarily hard just for the sake of being hard. That's a big reason I avoid games that are heavy on boss battles, just way too frustrating.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:30 am PT
"Is there a problem with distilling gameplay to a nice simple, level? It's not like you just have to press the button and you automatically win."
In the matter of Assassin's Creed, the sword fighting feels so incredibly dumbed down when you can easily handle a six on one by just holding down on the right trigger and waiting for the right time to tap X and get an instant kill on anyone not a Templar. AC is a fun game but I have mixed feelings about the combat.
In the matter of Assassin's Creed, the sword fighting feels so incredibly dumbed down when you can easily handle a six on one by just holding down on the right trigger and waiting for the right time to tap X and get an instant kill on anyone not a Templar. AC is a fun game but I have mixed feelings about the combat.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:33 am PT
There's a difference between a game being accessible and a game being too easy. Assassin's Creed is too easy. When I can walk into a small area filled with twenty guys and take all of them out without taking a scratch 90% of the time... I begin to feel like something's wrong.
After realizing that the stealth portion of the game was really under developed I tried having fun by hackin' and slashin', but nothing was a challenge so after the, "I'm such a bad ass, look how cool I look when I kill things" feeling wore off, I realized I wasn't doing much. So by the end of the game I was excited to have to fight multitudes of guys... even those fights were simple. Not all games have to be Ninja Gaiden. But some challenge would be welcomed. It's frustrating when you can't get the achievment for staying in a single battle for 10 minutes because even when you're trying to draw out the fight it ends too quickly.
After realizing that the stealth portion of the game was really under developed I tried having fun by hackin' and slashin', but nothing was a challenge so after the, "I'm such a bad ass, look how cool I look when I kill things" feeling wore off, I realized I wasn't doing much. So by the end of the game I was excited to have to fight multitudes of guys... even those fights were simple. Not all games have to be Ninja Gaiden. But some challenge would be welcomed. It's frustrating when you can't get the achievment for staying in a single battle for 10 minutes because even when you're trying to draw out the fight it ends too quickly.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:39 am PT
I haven't played AC but I can see where you are coming from. The character you play is very skillful and it would make sense that if its easy for him to perform these tasks, it should also be easy for the player. Then you have games like GH3 that get ridiculously hard with no easing into it. I go from five starring songs on setlist 7 to barely getting 3 stars on Raining Blood on Hard and STILL can't beat Lou - oh and I'm about halfway through Expert...
Posted Jan 23, 2008 7:43 am PT
I agree with you on AC. But NG is only frustrating if you arn't going anywhere and keep trying the same thing over and over. The difference between frustration and bliss in NG is usually just some moves practice away. Switching to a different weapon alone can change things drastically. NG is not difficult because it's broken. It's difficult because it forces you to learn how to play it. And so it very rewarding Imo.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 8:15 am PT
I'll take both. Assassin's Creed, Kane and Lynch, and Halo 3 were all easy games, but they are very fun.
But by the same token, there is something very satisfying about Ninja Gaiden, Vegas on Realistic, COD4 on Veteran, or Bioshock on Hard without vita-chambers turned on.
But by the same token, there is something very satisfying about Ninja Gaiden, Vegas on Realistic, COD4 on Veteran, or Bioshock on Hard without vita-chambers turned on.
Posted Jan 23, 2008 8:33 am PT
Friends
My Friends
rouge-ninja14