<!--QuoteBegin-Nil_IQ+Apr 3 2004, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nil_IQ @ Apr 3 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Apr 2 2004, 07:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Apr 2 2004, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Apr 2 2004, 06:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Apr 2 2004, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, all the Zelda games WERE of a unified storyline up until Wind Waker, which retroactively rewrote the storyline (my only gripe about the game).
Zelda 2 takes place right after Zelda 1.
A Link To The Past says in the manual & other places it takes place before Zelda 1 and 2. Link's Awakening takes place right after A Link to the past and has the same link.
Ocarina of Time takes place before any of the original Zeldas, but just because its a "prequel" didn't mean the others didn't happen.
But here comes Wind Waker with screwing up all the chronology. All of a sudden the game developers are insisting Link To The Past came <i>after</i> Zelda 1&2 (its named A LINK TO THE PAST ffs) and Ocarina came after that. Throw in Oracle of Seasons & Oracle of Ages trying to squeeze into the timeline and you can see how it got messed up very fast within the last few years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Really? I never notcied. I just started seeing all these long involved analyses of the timeline with convoluted explainations of the various inconsistanies and, having never concerned myself with the storyline consistancy before, assumed it must have always been that way. Either way, fans will probably be alot happier just ignoring them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I always just assumed that all the games were set in different worlds, much like the Final Fantasy games (and FFX-2 showed nicely why this was a good system; programmers find it impossible to resist recycling enemies and bosses).
I mean, Link is clearly a different guy each time (and with different coloured hair might I add), so why don't they just let them all be seperate worlds? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In each Zelda game there is a new link, except OoT and Majoras Mask.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Apr 3 2004, 06:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Apr 3 2004, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What good is a three hour game?
Go ask my sixty dollars. :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you really only took three hours to beat the game and decide it didn't have any replay value, it's not the devs fault that you didn't return it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Game had a lot of potential, but serious lack of execution.? Difficulty is nessesary to any game in order to make it fufilling when you beat it.
We are talking Game Theory 101 here.? Achievement is an important factor to utilize in order to make the game feel worthwhile, and lasting without actually creating enourmous levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You see, this is where the fundamental disagreement starts: As of yet, there is no established Game Theory - we don't have an Aristotle laying the grounds for interactive art. Achievement and challenge may be fundamental to you and many others who take games as a sort of digital sport, which is what the words 'to beat a game' imply, but I, along with just as many, base my understanding of games on their value as 'interactive literature', as a means of entertainment of whatever form. To me and my likes, a game shouldn't be hard, it should have high content, either quantitatively or qualitatively, which is why I had more than enough fun with WW.
It's all best understood looking at antique Greece: Back then, there was no clear divide between theatre and physical competitions - they were both parts of celebrations in honor of certain deities. Playwrights and actors saw themselves just as much as competitors as athletes regarded entertainment as their task. Well possible that people twohunded years from now won't be able to understand how we could even begin to compare each others schools of thought, because the evolution of gaming split it up to accomondate for them both.
Oh, and maybe my gaming sk1llZ are just sub par, but to me, the island hopping of Wind Waker occupied my while for the better part of two weeks (and I didn't finish the game - unfortunately, my TV broke during the search for the Trifoce shards). Admittedly, I strayed pretty far from the main quest on times, but who's to say that this shouldn't be possible?
Well, just to let you know I'm not the type to rush a game through fast, the first time I play it I play for 100% and WW took me less than 17 hours.
Now that's sad man, and no I did not use any guides or anything untill I was about 95% done or so.
You know metriod prime?
Less than 20 hours to beat it, at like 95%+
I mean, COME ON... add some freaking difficulty to the game, please!
A good example of both a difficult AND long lasting is Final Fantasy tactics... One of the best games ever IMO
Same goes for Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past, another quality game that is very engrossing and challenging (one of the hardest final boses in my history of gaming). That game is a long time favorite of mine, and also hailed as one of the greatest games ever made. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When I speak of game theory 101, I refer to what made the games of old great, and I speak of the basics. It appears to be lacking in today's games tbh.
Also, keep in mind you can't make the game too difficult or too exploration based;
good example of insanely difficult games would be Ghouls and Ghosts (I have it, it is so tough to beat... level memorization anyone?) and Super Mario Sunshine (beating the game is a cinch! Finding all the blue coins is a task outta hell, I mean, spraying random parts of a WALL with water to find blue coins isn't exactly fun...)
You need some difficulty, and many mnay many games on the gamecube are lacking it. Hell, most games of today are.
I thought HL on hard mode was too easy, but that's probably because of the auto-save function. Once I learned how to use that well I would redo every area till I got through it perfect.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Here we go.....
I do actually have a personal theory on game design, and I believe Nem Zer is right, while I draw on some of Forlorn's theory too. I'm not going to outline the full thing here, because frankly it exists in the privacy of my own head and would take too long to write down, but......
There are several key points that need to be correct to make 'the perfect game' and while none have ever achieved this goal (and were they to, I'd simply set the bar higher for the next generation) each should be attempted to be fulfilled in order to make the game the best it can be.
One of these is :
<b><i>intuitive</b></i> : The game <b>NEEDS</b> to be pick up & play at the basic level. Huge numbers of games fall down because you spend 20 minutes wondering <i>"Why can I do this this way? It'd be much more logical."</i> I'm talking mostly control systems here, but often character abilities & methodology of puzzle solving drop in here occasionally. Without this, a large amount of your playerbase simply won't be bothered to try.
Example of it done well : Most console games. Example of it done badly : Earth 2150, any number of D&D PC games.
NB: My examples are precisely that. I'm not saying they're bad or good, just they did that facet badly or well.
Next,
<b><i>Scalability</b></i> : This ties to point 1. While it has to be easy to get in to, I want to feel a sense of achievement as I learn to do this move or that trick, and preferably not have them spoon fed to me, and not be vital to game completion straight after getting them.
Example + : Many 1 on 1 fighters (Soulcaliber, SFA3), Deus Ex Example - : Quite a lot of Nintendo games, much to my dismay.
<b><i>Difficulty</b></i> : This is partially because I want a sense of achievement, and partially because I want the damn game to last a while. The best comparison here is Star Fox vs Lylat Wars. When Star Fox was released, the magazines & reviewers were practically screaming about how you'll die 20 times during the training level, never mind finish the game. Nintendo noted this, and when they released Lylat Wars, I finished it the same day I bought it, on Hard, with 1 life. Now, apart from the difficulty, Lylat Wars was superior in every way, yet I still own (and play occasionally) my Star Fox cartridge, while Lylat Wars get took back to the store the same day.
Games should get harder the closer you get to the finish. However, (And Squaresoft, please note) <i>changing the colour or the name of a monster does not a new enemy make</i>. That trick is just cheap, lazy & frankly makes me want to conduct a ninja death assault on your HQ spearing your staff through the necks with serrated game CD's.
A game can still follow these points and still be difficult & fun to play. Ghouls & Ghosts, the Star Wars arcade game, Vandal Hearts, Zelda 3, Deus Ex, Secret of Mana, Diablo 2, Doom. These games achieved that balance in my opinion, and who cares how simple the game itself was, we had <b>fun</b>, and that's all I want from my gaming.
Just my random thoughts, thanks for reading my usual rambling. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Apr 4 2004, 12:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Apr 4 2004, 12:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, just to let you know I'm not the type to rush a game through fast, the first time I play it I play for 100% and WW took me less than 17 hours.
Now that's sad man, and no I did not use any guides or anything untill I was about 95% done or so.
You know metriod prime?
Less than 20 hours to beat it, at like 95%+
I mean, COME ON... add some freaking difficulty to the game, please! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's do a little maths...
You spent twenty hours on the sixty dollars Metroid Prime (which is drastically overpriced, I got MP for 30 Euro from Amazon). That's three dollars per hour. Now, your average movie lasts a little more than two hours and a ticket to a theatre costs between eight and nine bucks where I'm living. You can now either stop going into cinemas, or pipe down about game lengths.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A good example of both a difficult AND long lasting is Final Fantasy tactics... One of the best games ever IMO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Never played it for lack of a GBA, but I'll keep an eye out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Same goes for Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past, another quality game that is very engrossing and challenging (one of the hardest final boses in my history of gaming). That game is a long time favorite of mine, and also hailed as one of the greatest games ever made. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When I speak of game theory 101, I refer to what made the games of old great, and I speak of the basics. It appears to be lacking in today's games tbh.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you really think that the mere difficulty of the games was what made them great? What the hell is fun about having to live through the same scene multiple times because you die? Is it a great feeling of achievement to beat an enemy after the fifth attempt? I for mine only feel frustration at that point.
Legend of Zeldas end fight is to me an example of well adjusted difficulty - I managed to get through it on the first attempt. Link to the Past didn't need to prolong the game because there was already enough content to it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, keep in mind you can't make the game too difficult or too exploration based;
good example of insanely difficult games would be Ghouls and Ghosts (I have it, it is so tough to beat... level memorization anyone?) and Super Mario Sunshine (beating the game is a cinch! Finding all the blue coins is a task outta hell, I mean, spraying random parts of a WALL with water to find blue coins isn't exactly fun...)
You need some difficulty, and many mnay many games on the gamecube are lacking it. Hell, most games of today are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now we're down to <i>some</i> difficulty. It is of course true that a game should offer some challenge to the player to keep him focussed without of frustrating, but I maintain that most contemporary titles succeed at providing just that - you have just the problem of having played too many online games competitively, which is why your 'skills' are a little out of scale. Not exactely the games fault, if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought HL on hard mode was too easy, but that's probably because of the auto-save function. Once I learned how to use that well I would redo every area till I got through it perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...Which is exactely what I despise as 'content bloating'. A good game shouldn't have to force the player into repetitions.
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Apr 4 2004, 08:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 4 2004, 08:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A good example of both a difficult AND long lasting is Final Fantasy tactics... One of the best games ever IMO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Never played it for lack of a GBA, but I'll keep an eye out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Final Fantasy Tactics is a Playstation game. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=Post&CODE=02&f=28&t=67488' target='_blank'>All meaningful discussion taken to this thread</a>
Comments
Zelda 2 takes place right after Zelda 1.
A Link To The Past says in the manual & other places it takes place before Zelda 1 and 2. Link's Awakening takes place right after A Link to the past and has the same link.
Ocarina of Time takes place before any of the original Zeldas, but just because its a "prequel" didn't mean the others didn't happen.
But here comes Wind Waker with screwing up all the chronology. All of a sudden the game developers are insisting Link To The Past came <i>after</i> Zelda 1&2 (its named A LINK TO THE PAST ffs) and Ocarina came after that. Throw in Oracle of Seasons & Oracle of Ages trying to squeeze into the timeline and you can see how it got messed up very fast within the last few years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I never notcied. I just started seeing all these long involved analyses of the timeline with convoluted explainations of the various inconsistanies and, having never concerned myself with the storyline consistancy before, assumed it must have always been that way. Either way, fans will probably be alot happier just ignoring them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I always just assumed that all the games were set in different worlds, much like the Final Fantasy games (and FFX-2 showed nicely why this was a good system; programmers find it impossible to resist recycling enemies and bosses).
I mean, Link is clearly a different guy each time (and with different coloured hair might I add), so why don't they just let them all be seperate worlds? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In each Zelda game there is a new link, except OoT and Majoras Mask.
Go ask my sixty dollars. :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you really only took three hours to beat the game and decide it didn't have any replay value, it's not the devs fault that you didn't return it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Game had a lot of potential, but serious lack of execution.? Difficulty is nessesary to any game in order to make it fufilling when you beat it.
We are talking Game Theory 101 here.? Achievement is an important factor to utilize in order to make the game feel worthwhile, and lasting without actually creating enourmous levels.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see, this is where the fundamental disagreement starts: As of yet, there is no established Game Theory - we don't have an Aristotle laying the grounds for interactive art. Achievement and challenge may be fundamental to you and many others who take games as a sort of digital sport, which is what the words 'to beat a game' imply, but I, along with just as many, base my understanding of games on their value as 'interactive literature', as a means of entertainment of whatever form. To me and my likes, a game shouldn't be hard, it should have high content, either quantitatively or qualitatively, which is why I had more than enough fun with WW.
It's all best understood looking at antique Greece: Back then, there was no clear divide between theatre and physical competitions - they were both parts of celebrations in honor of certain deities. Playwrights and actors saw themselves just as much as competitors as athletes regarded entertainment as their task.
Well possible that people twohunded years from now won't be able to understand how we could even begin to compare each others schools of thought, because the evolution of gaming split it up to accomondate for them both.
Oh, and maybe my gaming sk1llZ are just sub par, but to me, the island hopping of Wind Waker occupied my while for the better part of two weeks (and I didn't finish the game - unfortunately, my TV broke during the search for the Trifoce shards). Admittedly, I strayed pretty far from the main quest on times, but who's to say that this shouldn't be possible?
Now that's sad man, and no I did not use any guides or anything untill I was about 95% done or so.
You know metriod prime?
Less than 20 hours to beat it, at like 95%+
I mean, COME ON... add some freaking difficulty to the game, please!
A good example of both a difficult AND long lasting is Final Fantasy tactics... One of the best games ever IMO
Same goes for Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past, another quality game that is very engrossing and challenging (one of the hardest final boses in my history of gaming). That game is a long time favorite of mine, and also hailed as one of the greatest games ever made. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When I speak of game theory 101, I refer to what made the games of old great, and I speak of the basics. It appears to be lacking in today's games tbh.
Also, keep in mind you can't make the game too difficult or too exploration based;
good example of insanely difficult games would be Ghouls and Ghosts (I have it, it is so tough to beat... level memorization anyone?) and Super Mario Sunshine (beating the game is a cinch! Finding all the blue coins is a task outta hell, I mean, spraying random parts of a WALL with water to find blue coins isn't exactly fun...)
You need some difficulty, and many mnay many games on the gamecube are lacking it. Hell, most games of today are.
I thought HL on hard mode was too easy, but that's probably because of the auto-save function. Once I learned how to use that well I would redo every area till I got through it perfect.
I do actually have a personal theory on game design, and I believe Nem Zer is right, while I draw on some of Forlorn's theory too. I'm not going to outline the full thing here, because frankly it exists in the privacy of my own head and would take too long to write down, but......
There are several key points that need to be correct to make 'the perfect game' and while none have ever achieved this goal (and were they to, I'd simply set the bar higher for the next generation) each should be attempted to be fulfilled in order to make the game the best it can be.
One of these is :
<b><i>intuitive</b></i> : The game <b>NEEDS</b> to be pick up & play at the basic level. Huge numbers of games fall down because you spend 20 minutes wondering <i>"Why can I do this this way? It'd be much more logical."</i> I'm talking mostly control systems here, but often character abilities & methodology of puzzle solving drop in here occasionally. Without this, a large amount of your playerbase simply won't be bothered to try.
Example of it done well : Most console games.
Example of it done badly : Earth 2150, any number of D&D PC games.
NB: My examples are precisely that. I'm not saying they're bad or good, just they did that facet badly or well.
Next,
<b><i>Scalability</b></i> : This ties to point 1. While it has to be easy to get in to, I want to feel a sense of achievement as I learn to do this move or that trick, and preferably not have them spoon fed to me, and not be vital to game completion straight after getting them.
Example + : Many 1 on 1 fighters (Soulcaliber, SFA3), Deus Ex
Example - : Quite a lot of Nintendo games, much to my dismay.
<b><i>Difficulty</b></i> : This is partially because I want a sense of achievement, and partially because I want the damn game to last a while. The best comparison here is Star Fox vs Lylat Wars. When Star Fox was released, the magazines & reviewers were practically screaming about how you'll die 20 times during the training level, never mind finish the game. Nintendo noted this, and when they released Lylat Wars, I finished it the same day I bought it, on Hard, with 1 life. Now, apart from the difficulty, Lylat Wars was superior in every way, yet I still own (and play occasionally) my Star Fox cartridge, while Lylat Wars get took back to the store the same day.
Games should get harder the closer you get to the finish. However, (And Squaresoft, please note) <i>changing the colour or the name of a monster does not a new enemy make</i>. That trick is just cheap, lazy & frankly makes me want to conduct a ninja death assault on your HQ spearing your staff through the necks with serrated game CD's.
A game can still follow these points and still be difficult & fun to play. Ghouls & Ghosts, the Star Wars arcade game, Vandal Hearts, Zelda 3, Deus Ex, Secret of Mana, Diablo 2, Doom. These games achieved that balance in my opinion, and who cares how simple the game itself was, we had <b>fun</b>, and that's all I want from my gaming.
Just my random thoughts, thanks for reading my usual rambling. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
- Shockwave
Now that's sad man, and no I did not use any guides or anything untill I was about 95% done or so.
You know metriod prime?
Less than 20 hours to beat it, at like 95%+
I mean, COME ON... add some freaking difficulty to the game, please! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's do a little maths...
You spent twenty hours on the sixty dollars Metroid Prime (which is drastically overpriced, I got MP for 30 Euro from Amazon). That's three dollars per hour.
Now, your average movie lasts a little more than two hours and a ticket to a theatre costs between eight and nine bucks where I'm living. You can now either stop going into cinemas, or pipe down about game lengths.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A good example of both a difficult AND long lasting is Final Fantasy tactics... One of the best games ever IMO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Never played it for lack of a GBA, but I'll keep an eye out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Same goes for Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past, another quality game that is very engrossing and challenging (one of the hardest final boses in my history of gaming). That game is a long time favorite of mine, and also hailed as one of the greatest games ever made. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When I speak of game theory 101, I refer to what made the games of old great, and I speak of the basics. It appears to be lacking in today's games tbh.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you really think that the mere difficulty of the games was what made them great? What the hell is fun about having to live through the same scene multiple times because you die? Is it a great feeling of achievement to beat an enemy after the fifth attempt? I for mine only feel frustration at that point.
Legend of Zeldas end fight is to me an example of well adjusted difficulty - I managed to get through it on the first attempt. Link to the Past didn't need to prolong the game because there was already enough content to it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, keep in mind you can't make the game too difficult or too exploration based;
good example of insanely difficult games would be Ghouls and Ghosts (I have it, it is so tough to beat... level memorization anyone?) and Super Mario Sunshine (beating the game is a cinch! Finding all the blue coins is a task outta hell, I mean, spraying random parts of a WALL with water to find blue coins isn't exactly fun...)
You need some difficulty, and many mnay many games on the gamecube are lacking it. Hell, most games of today are.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now we're down to <i>some</i> difficulty. It is of course true that a game should offer some challenge to the player to keep him focussed without of frustrating, but I maintain that most contemporary titles succeed at providing just that - you have just the problem of having played too many online games competitively, which is why your 'skills' are a little out of scale. Not exactely the games fault, if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought HL on hard mode was too easy, but that's probably because of the auto-save function. Once I learned how to use that well I would redo every area till I got through it perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...Which is exactely what I despise as 'content bloating'. A good game shouldn't have to force the player into repetitions.
Never played it for lack of a GBA, but I'll keep an eye out.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Final Fantasy Tactics is a Playstation game. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->