Monster Hunter Tri publisher says "there's a place for hardcore skill, and there's a place for progression and story." (VideoGamesDaily)
i know they aint the same team ... but coming from capcom with idiotic unlocks in sf4 , and the stupidest combo trials ever (with 70% of them not even usefull in a mid-high level fight , and with better alternatives against newbies and weak players) , this is rich ... I still love sf4 but come on , that was plain dirty and cheap . And re5 is actually one of those pushover mentioned earlier , and actually like uc2 is weirdly accused of here, out the blue decides to introduce some sort of difficulty and challenge . The critics are valid and warranted at least in parts , but clean your house first :p
And let's not forget that Monster Hunter is basically the hardest game in the universe :p
the first monster hunter on the ps2 had a pretty steep difficutly level. You could hardly do anything offline unless you were really good.
Capcom has had the cheapest bullsh!t bosses since sf3. The first and last time I played it single player I thought I beat the game. You all know what happened.
It depends on how it's done, honestly. For example, Call of Duty on Veteran is just crap. The enemies always know where you are (even if they never saw you), they respawn faster than you can kill them and they spam grenades endlessly. Killzone 2 on Elite, however, is awesome. The enemies aren't cheap, they don't have infinite greandes, and they don't always know where you are if they haven't seen you. But they are VERY tough and a lot smarter than on lower difficulties. You don't have crosshairs, either, so you have to aim down your sight more often. It's a legitimate challenge, while CoD on Veteran is 90% luck and 10% Aim-assist. @[email protected]
Uncharted 2 only becomes a game at the end? Epic fail, sport.
Dumbing down and overexplaining for the sake of sales and the casuals is even more insane.
I agree with all of what you said but would add that difficulty caused by unnecessary complexity violates axioms of design. Dumbed down games tend to fail. Simple games with complex gameplay arising out of a well-designed premise succeed. Smash Bros has what, 2 buttons? Punchout is very simple but the game is extraordinarily difficult. Tetris is as simple a premise as possible and is much harder than most games ever made. You can almost always guess the quality of a game like that and to some extent how it sells by asking yourself if it seems like developers look down on the audience. Nintendo never does this. Compare something deliberately dumbed down like Dead Space Extraction or Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest that rightly suffered as a result. I bubbled you up cause whenever I think of Unicron I remember Orson Wells did his voice.
Monster Hunter is not that hard...every game your aren't superman....It just takes some getting use to and it begs you to play multiplayer and collect
"Dumbing down and overexplaining for the sake of sales and the casuals is even more insane." ---------- In essence, I agree. But I would also say that I think some devs are underestimating the more "casual" game crowd. If there's no challenge, no one comes back to playing a game. I mean, Super Mario Bros. is essentially a run and jump platformer. It's a dirt simple design. But that doesn't make it easy. Yet you could hand anyone that game, and they'll be able to play it. But no one would KEEP playing it if it was so easy that everyone could beat it on the first try. It's all about balance. I'd say it's "insanity" to make a mind numbingly difficult game, because it turns people off from ever picking it up again. OTOH, it's equally foolish to make a game so easy that there's no point in ever going back to it.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.