83 réponses à ce sujet

[SurfaceBeneath]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
The most depressing thing about the whole ME2 launch, for me, has been how few serious critics even acknowledge the major shift in gameplay, typically writing off a huge change in style and philosophy as something like a minor tweak. In this case, BioWare has "minor tweaked" out most of the aspects of the genre that led me to the original game in the first place.

As a serious fan of RPGs of all kinds, my favorite being Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape: Torment, I am just afraid I have to disagree with you here. Serious gaming journalists universally mention how the game has been streamlined and in some ways simplified... they all almost all agree that these changes make the game much better for it. This comes from critics that are very much hardcore RPG fans. I myself am a hardcore RPG fan and were I to give the first Mass Effect a X out of 10 score, it'd probably get an 8. Mass Effect 2? An easy 10. Possibly the most I've enjoyed a game since BG2. Everything about the game just seems better in every way, from the gameplay, to the story, to the characters (oh god especially the characters x10). Roleplaying to me has always been about the experience... not the rules that inform the game. If I wanted to Rollplay, I would go play some more Dragon Age, which was an almost equally amazing game that really satisfied that desire.

I respect your opinion, however I cannot help but wonder if so many people that are upset at the game went in with their feelings of the game already made. And upset is the word... no one seems to "not enjoy" the game or think it's "a bad game". But because of something that they prized about the first game being stripped back or even just altered a little, they feel personally betrayed by Bioware for some reason. Even if the overall effect is earning the game universal acclaim from critics everywhere.

The problem is, people have expectations, and they have pride, and those aren't always easy to drop. I know for a fact that you can hate something even given no real reason for it and even if it is utterly brilliant, as you're watching or listening or playing to it, your mind convinces itself that there's no real art there. The game needs to be enjoyed on its own merits, and after a person has beaten it and had time to really decide what worked and what didn't, then have a retropective with the first game.

[Inarai]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Veen130 wrote...

What makes an RPG?

As defined 13 years ago? Final Fantasy 7. As defined by the evolution of capability of modern video games? Heavy Rain.

...

...

...

How's about we go a little further back?  Crono Trigger, I think, stands as a defining RPG.  On the western title front, I think some of Bioware's earlier titles are very good representations of the form - think Baldur's Gate, KoTOR...

[FireSarge]

streamlined is dumbed down.



sorry no if and or buts about it.



they made this for the Xbox 360 shooter fans. the controls for the PC are terrible. and the RPG elements that made the first one great and the reason i even played it arent there. if i wanted to play a shooter i would play HL2. what you call streamlined and polish i call lazy and boring. i have 3 weapons to choose from. my actual choices have not mattered at all. the game actually has a mission complete screen.



yeah pretty much makes it fugly.

[Inarai]

FireSarge wrote...

streamlined is dumbed down.

sorry no if and or buts about it..

Wow...  Just...  Just wow.  There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

Streamlining makes the experience work better.  It's taking things that channel you to the experience, and making them better at doing that.  Now, whether or not that goal has been accomplished is a different question, but this merited a direct response because, frankly, it's one of the sillier statements I've seen lately.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

hawat333 wrote...

They obviously don't understand the concept of role-playing. Well, there are -and there were, there always will be- some people who think that role-playing means point spending. Which is blind, stupid.

Stat-management (which can include, but is not limited to, "point spending") is a major element of role-playing games, if not role-playing itself, in the same way that aiming is a major element of F/TPS games. You may well role-play the character of Shepard, but that doesn't necessarily make the game an RPG under any meaningful definition of the term.

Look at it this way: there are a number of Super Mario-style platform games where you have projectile-based attacks (Mega Man, Contra, etc.). In short, your character shoots things while being observed from a third-person perspective. Oddly enough, these games are not typically defined or accepted as third-person shooters. The TPS genre, as commonly understood, consists of a whole basket of elements that may not be reflected by the three-word name. Certainly, a TPS game doesn't need to adhere to every single one of these elements to be accepted as an entry to the genre, but the more it deviates from these standards, the less likely it is to be accepted as part of the genre and, in all likelihood, to be embraced unquestioningly by fans of that genre.

The same issues apply to RPGs. Yeah, role-play in the sense of putting yourself in the shoes of a specific character is a fundamental aspect of the genre in the same way that shooting projectile weapons is a fundamental aspect of the shooter genre. But there are plenty of games, particularly nowadays, that invoke some level of role-play that shouldn't be categorized as RPGs.

[Closing-Gap]

As i see it, Mass Effect was created for console players in the first place (thus Mass Effect 1 was released for consoles before PC) so it has to be dumbed down and hyped up to appeal to the commoners who have consoles.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

As a serious fan of RPGs of all kinds, my favorite being Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape: Torment, I am just afraid I have to disagree with you here. Serious gaming journalists universally mention how the game has been streamlined and in some ways simplified... they all almost all agree that these changes make the game much better for it.

This is kind of my point, and exactly why I've found this whole launch rather depressing. The trend towards ever-more action-oriented RPGs isn't a new one, and ME2 isn't even the worst offender in recent memory (I'm looking at you, Borderlands...), but the most noticeable change, to me, has been that the battle system now relies on reflexes I don't have and don't care to develop. ME1 certainly leaned more heavily on my limited action-gaming skills than, say, Baldur's Gate (which in turn required quicker-thinking than, say, Might and Magic V, or the first few Wizardry games), but also incorporate enough traditional RPG mechanics (what you seemingly derisively dismiss as "roll-playing," but I would describe as one of the fundamental features of the role-playing game genre) that I found the experience worthwhile and rewarding.

The sequel, frankly, doesn't. I won't attempt to place an objective value-judgment on it: you and the majority of reviewers may find the new combat system superior. I might even agree with you that certain flawed aspects of the original have been successfully addressed (poor combat AI, broken cover system, etc.). But the fact that the system is now almost completely based on player skill and incorporates no "roll-playing" whatsoever means that it is a fundamentally different thing. And with any change of that magnitude, like it or not, there are going to be folks like me who get left behind. I respect that you find ME2 "better in every way," and I agree with you in certain regards (story and character-wise, certainly). But I can't agree with you.

Roleplaying to me has always been about the experience... not the rules that inform the game.

My attitude there is that such a broad definition of the genre effectively strips the term of any useful descriptive power. It's not that I don't value the ability of a game to put me in its protagonist's shoes, it's just that there's no reason that a good book, movie, or (if you're looking for less deterministic plot development) video game of any other genre can't do that just as effectively. While the overall experience is certainly a part of it, "RPG" means something beyond such vagaries, IMO.

I respect your opinion, however I cannot help but wonder if so many people that are upset at the game went in with their feelings of the game already made. And upset is the word... no one seems to "not enjoy" the game or think it's "a bad game". But because of something that they prized about the first game being stripped back or even just altered a little, they feel personally betrayed by Bioware for some reason. Even if the overall effect is earning the game universal acclaim from critics everywhere.

Two things: first of all, "universal acclaim" doesn't really enter into the picture once I've bought and played the game. Reviews help me decide if I'm interested or want to invest my time and money into a title, but once that decision has been made, they don't do much other than give me warm fuzzies inside. And I certainly don't feel "personally betrayed" by BioWare: they did what they felt made for a good game, as was their prerogative. More power to 'em.

But yes, I am upset with the game. I'm upset with the game because I was expecting something very different from what I actually got, which is the point I'm trying to make here. I liked the first game, in part, because of the combat mechanics, which I found challenging without being frustrating, based on my own skills and style of play. It was of a style ("rollplaying," if you insist) that I found comfortable and entertaining. I didn't expect the sequel to be identical in that regard, but I expected it to be recognizable. In my opinion, it's not. If Nintendo had modified the Doom engine to replace the demons with goombas and put a little portrait of Mario in the HUD and then released that game as Super Mario 64, a lot of people would have been seriously disappointed. Not because the game was bad, but because there are certain things you expect from a Super Mario game, and Doom isn't it. And if people were really looking forward to the next "Mario game," the disappointment is all the greater. And it's greater still if the change results in a game that is no longer entertaining to a given player.

That's manifestly not the same thing as saying that it's a bad game, just that it's not my kind of game.

The problem is, people have expectations, and they have pride, and those aren't always easy to drop. I know for a fact that you can hate something even given no real reason for it and even if it is utterly brilliant, as you're watching or listening or playing to it, your mind convinces itself that there's no real art there. The game needs to be enjoyed on its own merits, and after a person has beaten it and had time to really decide what worked and what didn't, then have a retropective with the first game.

Well, that's just it. If ME2 didn't have the ME name, I would have likely passed it by entirely. That I have been giving it a chance is a testament to how much I enjoyed the original (and, to a lesser extent, my faith in BioWare as a developer). In order to reflect upon it after completion, I need to be able and willing to beat it. And since I find the entire combat system both obnoxiously difficult and unrewarding, it's not looking like I'll be able to do that. So at this point I may not have a choice other than to shelve the game and just accept that the ME series left me behind. C'est la vie, I suppose.

[TheGuv]

Here's a question.

Was System Shock 2 an RPG?

But the fact that the system is now almost completely based on player
skill and incorporates no "roll-playing" whatsoever means that it is a
fundamentally different thing

So was System Shock 2.

Look, RPGs are not all about character builds.  Mass Effect's stupid decision to try and mix Gears of War and Knights of the Old Republic didn't work - up until level 10 your character played like a hyperactive six year old in power armour.  There was nothing interesting about it.  The thing that saved that game was an epic storyline, a brilliant looking world, and the fact that at its base the combat was interesting.

Bioware were not "pressured" into anything.  If anything they have refined the elements in the original game that worked really well (cinematic style, storyline, character development), revamped the things they could make work (combat system) and gotten rid of the things that were rubbish (Mako).

And since I find the entire combat system both obnoxiously difficult
and unrewarding, it's not looking like I'll be able to do that

What exactly are you doing differently in this game than you were in the last?

You point at stuff and shoot it.  If you were good in the first game with your untrained guns having the spread angle of a continent, you shouldn't have any problem this time round.  Unless your problem is that your Immunity abusing Shepard was virtually invincible, in which case you should be pleased they made the game more difficult.

Modifié par TheGuv, 28 janvier 2010 - 11:25 .

[AntiChri5]

@ Wildfire: You make a lot of very good, clear points and have been shockingly reasonable (compared to some i have seen) but the description of the Caual difficulty includes the words "for those who wish to experience the story" so i think you should just turn down the difficulty if you are having trouble.



If you are already on casual then i apologise, and it seems that, as you have said, shooters are just definately not your thing. I know i would likely curl up in a little ball and sob if ME 3 started to include racing game gameplay.



I hope that there is still enough traditional Roll Playing elements to keep you interested through the shooter gameplay, i have always been one to go to extreme lengths to keep in a series i love (my loyalty is very hard won but almost obsessive) and I fell in love with Bioware during KotOR.

[TheGuv]

This reminds me of those people on the WoW forums who whine endlessly about how the game sucks now because every class is playable and you can get gear that works for you reasonably easily.

People seem to want an artificial challenge through bad game design and I can't for the life of me understand why.  I can only assume you are all masochists.

[_Infiltrator]

It's an TPS/RPG hybrid so it hasn't got as much RPG elements as a "pure" RPG title like DA. Which is fine as long as you know what you should expect.

[hexaligned]

It's a mediocre game, good for what it is, but not great by any means. The only way it's going to get GOTY is if 12 year olds are the only people voting. (Or if EA buys them off)

[TheGuv]

relhart wrote...

It's a mediocre game, good for what it is, but not great by any means. The only way it's going to get GOTY is if 12 year olds are the only people voting. (Or if EA buys them off)

The assumption that someone is a kid because someone doesn't disagree with you is the most childish thing you can do, by the way.

Just for future reference.

[brgillespie]

"inventory management"



I hate those two words. I find tinkering with endless useless crap floating around in lists to be ridiculously-boring.



Complaints about "limited weaponry": Who played Mass Effect 1 and actually stored away weaponry that had inferior stats? Nobody. You sold the **** to the nearest vendor. I understand this particular "critique" even less than I do the critiques about the nonexistent inventory garbage-can.

[leo687]

ok im relativly new and he gams not out over here till 2moro but from the things i've read its led me to belive alots been changed and largely not for the better? i no its my personal opinion that should count to me but having things implememted like the notmandy sr-2 needs fueling? that seems to go against ME lore also the ammo clips was happy with the cool down system and mako exploration only thing that really bugged me was deleting things form inventory and it goes back to the top of the list lol thanks for reading my wall of text lol



S

[Wildfire Darkstar]

TheGuv wrote...

Here's a question.

Was System Shock 2 an RPG?

Nah. Like the original Mass Effect, System Shock 2 was a fairly effective shooter/RPG hybrid: combat-wise, it was closer to shooter than ME, but it had a more thoughtful character build system, IMO. ME2 is probably best classified as a hybrid, as well, although its moved distinctly closer to the FPS side of the equation than its predecessor.

Look, RPGs are not all about character builds.  Mass Effect's stupid decision to try and mix Gears of War and Knights of the Old Republic didn't work - up until level 10 your character played like a hyperactive six year old in power armour.  There was nothing interesting about it.  The thing that saved that game was an epic storyline, a brilliant looking world, and the fact that at its base the combat was interesting.

Obviously, I disagree, and I suspect this is why I'm the one complaining about the sequel. I certainly loved the original's story, and I won't argue that there were definite flaws in the character build system that needed to be addressed for the sequel. But I would never have claimed that "there was nothing interesting about it." Ultimately, while I appreciate story and atmosphere, that's never been enough to propel me through a game that I find otherwise uncompelling. Case-in-point, I really enjoyed watching friends play through the Penumbra games for the story, but I've never been able to slog through them myself to any significant degree.

Bioware were not "pressured" into anything.  If anything they have refined the elements in the original game that worked really well (cinematic style, storyline, character development), revamped the things they could make work (combat system) and gotten rid of the things that were rubbish (Mako).

I never claimed they were pressured into anything. As I said, they made the changes they thought needed to be made. I don't agree with them, but oh well. But I'm not sure I really accept the oft-repeated argument that the changes were all simply addressing issues with the original. What it comes down to is the fact that there were any number of possible ways to address the problems with the original game, and that the specific solutions adopted by BioWare for ME2 pushed the game in a direction that I found less enjoyable than the original (warts and all). My particular complaint (the actual mechanics of the combat system) was addressed by all-but-completely eliminating the idea of shooter/RPG hybridization. I don't have to think that the original hit that nail directly on the head to feel that forgetting the idea entirely was a good solution. Ultimately, yeah, it addresses the problems with the original, after a fashion. But since I like RPG combat mechanics and I don't like shooter combat mechanics, the effect, for me, is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There was something compelling, IMO, about the combat system in the original, imperfect as it was. It had a certain degree of viscerality (visceralness?) that traditional RPG, calculation-based combat didn't, but still had an appeal to a gamer like me, who finds aim-and-click shooters fall somewhere into a weird no-mans-land between boring and obnoxious. The sequel lacks this, and the alternative it provides may well be more polished, and may well appeal to a larger number of gamers (and reviewers) but it doesn't appeal to me. And I can speak to no one's preferences or opinions but my own.

[_Infiltrator]

brgillespie wrote...

"inventory management"

I hate those two words. I find tinkering with endless useless crap floating around in lists to be ridiculously-boring.

Complaints about "limited weaponry": Who played Mass Effect 1 and actually stored away weaponry that had inferior stats? Nobody. You sold the **** to the nearest vendor. I understand this particular "critique" even less than I do the critiques about the nonexistent inventory garbage-can.

Inventory in ME1 was quite a chore and it looked like you were browsing through an excel sheet. Oblivion also had a horrible, horrible inventory that was further diminished with the tedious repair mechanism.

BUT, some games have a complex yet very functional inventory. The Witcher comes to mind.

I am still waiting on ME2 to activate for me (EU) but I am glad they ditched the ME1 inventory, it was very bland and you had absolutely no sense that you were carrying any items.. just a stupid list.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

leo687 wrote...

ok im relativly new and he gams not out over here till 2moro but from the things i've read its led me to belive alots been changed and largely not for the better? 

Mmm, no, not necessarily.

The thing is, a lot has changed, in some potentially fundamental areas. The combat plays entirely differently, for instance. That being said, I can't deny that it's certainly more polished and refined than the original. If you don't mind, or are willing/able to go along with said fundamental changes, you may very well still find it a rewarding experience. If you can't (like me), you may not. But you shouldn't get the impression that it's a bad game, it's just quite a bit different.

[lokiarchetype]

I like how on one hand the game's detractor's will claim it's dumbed down.



Then they'll immediately turn around and complain about how they run out of ammo too fast, they can't just spam powers because they need to get rid of shields first, and the aim assist doesn't hold their hand enough.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

AntiChri5 wrote...

@ Wildfire: You make a lot of very good, clear points and have been shockingly reasonable (compared to some i have seen) but the description of the Caual difficulty includes the words "for those who wish to experience the story" so i think you should just turn down the difficulty if you are having trouble.

If you are already on casual then i apologise, and it seems that, as you have said, shooters are just definately not your thing. I know i would likely curl up in a little ball and sob if ME 3 started to include racing game gameplay.

Heh, yeah, about that.... I'm on casual. I only pulled my way through the original on casual difficulty, as well (first time I had to do that for a BioWare game, actually: as I've said, I'm not very good at shooter-type games ). It's still pushing me to the limit. Which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, I suppose: I struggled quite a bit with the Baldur's Gate games. But it's difficult to have to keep reloading and trying again when you find the combat itself unrewarding.

I do like the story, though, so I may just wait until I can get my hands on a trainer and god-mode my way through the combat. I'll see how it goes, I guess.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
The trend towards ever-more action-oriented RPGs isn't a new one, and ME2 isn't even the worst offender in recent memory...

I don't think of this as a trend Wildfire, at least where Bioware is concerned. Remember that barely 3-4 months ago, Bioware released Dragon's Age, which was an almost stubbornly old fashioned RPG filled with stats and inventory and all sorts of rollplaying aspects. The Mass Effect series was always supposed to be Bioware's attempts at creating a fusion of Action and Roleplaying, however the first game was still mired in gaming conventions that Bioware was just used to including in their games. These parts however, do not mesh well in the context of a shooter. In order to make the Roleplaying and Shooter parts of Mass Effect blend more perfectly together instead of having some strange beast with odd roleplaying mechanics sticking out ever which end, Bioware removed or replaced those mechanisms. It seems like you valued those parts simply by virtue of the parts being such a customary deal in most roleplaying games, however I do not think that in terms of Mass Effect as a whole they made for a better game.

As for the rest of what you said, I think it essentially boils down to you not being a fan of shooters and Mass Effect 2 simply not being for you. Now, I'm still not entirely sure how one can be a fan of ME1 and not like ME2 since it seems to me that ME1 was every bit as much a shooter as ME2, just not as well implimented, but that's neither here nor there. If it's not the game for you, it's not the game for you.

I would urge you to take solace in the fact that the Dragon Age IP ain't going away any time soon and seems to be the current Bioware outlet for "old skool" RPGs that I am sure you love as much as I do.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 28 janvier 2010 - 12:03 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

lokiarchetype wrote...

I like how on one hand the game's detractor's will claim it's dumbed down.

Then they'll immediately turn around and complain about how they run out of ammo too fast, they can't just spam powers because they need to get rid of shields first, and the aim assist doesn't hold their hand enough.

I actually don't think I'd call the game "dumbed down," myself. Different, certainly, but still complex in its own right. But to play devil's advocate, I don't think these are mutually-exclusive attitudes. Case in point, look at a lot of old NES platformer games. Really simple game mechanics, usually amounting to little more than "run from left to right while jumping on/punching/shooting monsters and try not to get hit more than X times." And yet there are a number of such games (Contra, Ninja Gaiden, Battletoads) that are still up there in the pantheon as some of the hardest video games ever made. A lot of really simple games can be back-breakingly difficult, and, conversely, a lot of really complex games can be ridiculously easy (a number of the later Final Fantasy games fall into this category, IMO).

[TheGuv]

Nah. Like the original Mass Effect, System Shock 2 was a fairly effective shooter/RPG hybrid: combat-wise, it was closer to shooter than ME, but it had a more thoughtful character build system, IMO. ME2 is probably best classified as a hybrid, as well, although its moved distinctly closer to the FPS side of the equation than its predecessor.

Just to put it into perspective.

System Shock had a very, very complicated inventory management system.  Much more so than Mass Effect ever did.  It was integral to the design of the game.  You were a lone hacker making your way through a ship that was overwhelmingly hostile.  Inventory management was a skill.  Did you or didn't you pick up that weapon?  Did you keep one in reserve or repair your old one?  Your success in the game often depended on what you had in your inventory.  You can tell that when they designed the game, that was what they had in mind.  That panic decision about whether or not to take that shotgun.

So when people look at Bioshock and say "dumbed down" I completely agree.  I felt that as good a game as Bioshock was, it lost that certain element of skill from having a complicated skills tree, and good inventory management.

Obviously, I disagree, and I suspect this is why I'm the one complaining about the sequel. I certainly loved the original's story, and I won't argue that there were definite flaws in the character build system that needed to be addressed for the sequel. But I would never have claimed that "there was nothing interesting about it." Ultimately, while I appreciate story and atmosphere, that's never been enough to propel me through a game that I find otherwise uncompelling. Case-in-point, I really enjoyed watching friends play through the Penumbra games for the story, but I've never been able to slog through them myself to any significant degree.

I'll provide a case in point.  WoW is undergoing a redesign of talent trees to remove %increase talents from them because, and I quote, "they aren't interesting."

They're right, they aren't.  When I put a talent point into something, I want to see an immediate difference.  This happens in DnD.  Everything you do in DnD is visible.  You take a feat choice and it does something you want it to.  Sometimes it's +1 on a persuade roll.  Sometimes it's a new weapon skill.  Sometimes it's a spell memorised for today.  Eventually it's going to make a difference.

A percentage damage increase is never going to.  I'm never going to look at that point and think "yes, that's good".  It's not good.  It's boring.  Why not slave that into the weapon upgrades?

My particular complaint (the actual mechanics of the combat system) was addressed by all-but-completely eliminating the idea of shooter/RPG hybridization. I don't have to think that the original hit that nail directly on the head to feel that forgetting the idea entirely was a good solution. Ultimately, yeah, it addresses the problems with the original, after a fashion. But since I like RPG combat mechanics and I don't like shooter combat mechanics, the effect, for me, is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

All that the shooter/RPG thing did was complicate it.  You admit this yourself here.

There are games that you'd like - Fallout 3 had a brilliant hybrid combat system that I enjoyed using to pull off impossible shots.  But in the case of ME1, all it did for me was make it inconvienient.  I'm playing a professional soldier.  I should be able to shoot straight!

You can't produce a combat based RPG with lacklustre combat no matter how good the story is.  Reviewers savaged Mass Effect 1 for that problem and I'll be honest - if I compare even something like the James Bond game from a few years back to ME1 it looks flawed by comparison.  Bond even had the better cover system.

Modifié par TheGuv, 28 janvier 2010 - 12:10 .

[EchoTango]

Surberus wrote...

It's a great game, by any measure. But it's not many of us wanted/were expecting. The character customization is a joke, the meager selection of powers makes every battle the same, inventory management is lack-luster (when it's even available). This is not the second chapter of the original Mass Effect; this is a very different game that happens to have the same characters/setting.

I am enjoying it, but I'm still quite let down.

I pretty much agree with this word for word.

I list ME1 as my all-time favourite game.  I loved the slow parts, I loved the action parts.  I loved getting that new gun.  And almost above all, I loved exploring.  Granted there were some problems with it, but when Joker dropped the Mako and flew off, and the Normandy faded out... you felt like you were there... desolate... wind in the background... strange atmosphere... it was intoxicating (and still is when I play it).

ME2 is a good game and I'm enjoying it, but it's just a different game than ME1, which makes me sad.

[lokiarchetype]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

I actually don't think I'd call the game "dumbed down," myself. Different, certainly, but still complex in its own right. But to play devil's advocate, I don't think these are mutually-exclusive attitudes. Case in point, look at a lot of old NES platformer games. Really simple game mechanics, usually amounting to little more than "run from left to right while jumping on/punching/shooting monsters and try not to get hit more than X times." And yet there are a number of such games (Contra, Ninja Gaiden, Battletoads) that are still up there in the pantheon as some of the hardest video games ever made. A lot of really simple games can be back-breakingly difficult, and, conversely, a lot of really complex games can be ridiculously easy (a number of the later Final Fantasy games fall into this category, IMO).

I didn't say you specifically, it's just a general observation.

And there also needs to be a distinction made between "Real Difficulty" and "Fake Difficulty"
http://tvtropes.org/.../FakeDifficulty

Missing a target even though your reticle is directly on it because you havent invested points into that weapon is Fake Difficulty.  It makes the game harder, but it has nothing to do with the skill of the player.

Earlier games were based on an arcade format, they were meant to be unforgiving in order to milk you for coins.  ie
No save points
No checkpoints
limited lives
dying from being hit once
Areas that you can only reasonable pass if you have already played them since it's impossible to anticipate or react fast enough (Battletoads, I'm looking at you)

Modifié par lokiarchetype, 28 janvier 2010 - 12:12 .