3 ms·

Whenever people complain about the difficulty of Fromsoft games, I just think back to the early days of Atari and the pre-battery-save NES. No continues, you j

Whenever people complain about the difficulty of Fromsoft games, I just think back to the early days of Atari and the pre-battery-save NES. No continues, you just go as far as you can and if that's not good enough, you get to start from the beginning until you get past it.

Trasmatta 4y ago
There have been so many clickbait articles about how Fromsoft games are "the hardest games in the world" or other nonsense like that. That's never even been Fromsoft's goal, and it's not even close to accurate. They're arguably not even the hardest games of their type, Nioh is a lot harder from my perspective, and its gameplay was largely inspired by Fromsoft's games.
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  My point was that virtually ALL games used to be harder than Fromsoft games. Even the idea that you could actually "finish" a game was rather rare in the Atari 2600 generation of games. "Flipping the score" was a widely known concept among kids at the time. It meant that you were able to play the game for so long and your score got so high that the score reset so that it didn't go negative.
ryanmcbride 4y ago
They're both hard for the same reason (to me anyway). The pain point in both classic games and fromsoft games for me is the amount of time it takes to try something again. The feedback loop is often so long that I get annoyed with how long it takes to even ATTEMPT the part that tripped me up again. Say I'm struggling with a particular screen in megaman, and say that screen is maybe the 10th screen in a level. I get to that screen, I die, I start back on screen 1. I now have to go through all 10 screens again just to try the part I'm stuck on. And then after a few tries I progress to screen 11 and I die. I'm back on screen one again and the cycle continues. Yes, this results in me getting really good at every part before then, and it can look visually impressive once I know the whole map because I have the whole thing memorized at some point, but that takes a lot of time and I just don't play games like I used to. I have the same issues with fromsoft games, but it's actually better for me with classic games, because they usually have the kindness to put a checkpoint right before the level boss. But dark souls rarely puts a bonfire within spitting distance of a boss. I didn't mind when I was younger, which is why I can 1cc Castlevania and Sonic 3, but it's just not something I'm willing to put the time into these days. And that's fine, I don't think they should make the games easier or anything, it just means I'm probably not going to play them. Edit: This is also why I don't really play competitive multiplayer games anymore. I may have the time to put in to get good enough to have fun, but I'm not willing to commit it to getting good.
- munificent 4y ago
  It's an interesting psychological design challenge. Games are trying to do two things simultaneously: 1. Give you a deep sense of gratification when you succeed. 2. Keep the stakes low and make the game feel safe to play. Humans experience things in terms of contrasts, so the easiest way to ramp up the gratification on winning is to punish the player if they lose. But what punishments are available to a game? You could imagine a game that demanded access to your bank account and withdrew cash every time you lost. Or maybe it deleted a random file off your hard disk. Playing would definitely work up a sweat and give you a profound sense of relief if you won. But it would completely undermine the sense of safety needed to make a game feel like a game and not a job or task. Because of (2), most games can't really take much from you. The main punishments they are able to mete out are: 1. Waste your time. Give you timers or cut scenes that have to be replayed before you can jump back in. 2. Bore you by making you replay stuff you've already played. 3. Destroy virtual items. If the game randomly generates treasure, then losing it on player death can be particularly anguishing because you don't know when you'll get it back. But, really, that all boils down to wasting your time. Because you can always get back that lost item if you grind long enough. That means that the cost model for playing the game varies widely based on player free time. Like you, I simply no longer have a lot of free time that I'm willing to pour into games. So, while I still like them, they're effectively too expensive for me to afford.
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  I got good at DS1 by using a trainer so I could replay each boss instantly. Now I can manage the game in an afternoon without it.

Trasmatta 4y ago

There have been so many clickbait articles about how Fromsoft games are "the hardest games in the world" or other nonsense like that. That's never even been Fromsoft's goal, and it's not even close to accurate. They're arguably not even the hardest games of their type, Nioh is a lot harder from my perspective, and its gameplay was largely inspired by Fromsoft's games.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago
My point was that virtually ALL games used to be harder than Fromsoft games. Even the idea that you could actually "finish" a game was rather rare in the Atari 2600 generation of games. "Flipping the score" was a widely known concept among kids at the time. It meant that you were able to play the game for so long and your score got so high that the score reset so that it didn't go negative.

ryanmcbride 4y ago

They're both hard for the same reason (to me anyway). The pain point in both classic games and fromsoft games for me is the amount of time it takes to try something again. The feedback loop is often so long that I get annoyed with how long it takes to even ATTEMPT the part that tripped me up again. Say I'm struggling with a particular screen in megaman, and say that screen is maybe the 10th screen in a level. I get to that screen, I die, I start back on screen 1. I now have to go through all 10 screens again just to try the part I'm stuck on. And then after a few tries I progress to screen 11 and I die. I'm back on screen one again and the cycle continues. Yes, this results in me getting really good at every part before then, and it can look visually impressive once I know the whole map because I have the whole thing memorized at some point, but that takes a lot of time and I just don't play games like I used to. I have the same issues with fromsoft games, but it's actually better for me with classic games, because they usually have the kindness to put a checkpoint right before the level boss. But dark souls rarely puts a bonfire within spitting distance of a boss. I didn't mind when I was younger, which is why I can 1cc Castlevania and Sonic 3, but it's just not something I'm willing to put the time into these days. And that's fine, I don't think they should make the games easier or anything, it just means I'm probably not going to play them. Edit: This is also why I don't really play competitive multiplayer games anymore. I may have the time to put in to get good enough to have fun, but I'm not willing to commit it to getting good.

munificent 4y ago
It's an interesting psychological design challenge. Games are trying to do two things simultaneously: 1. Give you a deep sense of gratification when you succeed. 2. Keep the stakes low and make the game feel safe to play. Humans experience things in terms of contrasts, so the easiest way to ramp up the gratification on winning is to punish the player if they lose. But what punishments are available to a game? You could imagine a game that demanded access to your bank account and withdrew cash every time you lost. Or maybe it deleted a random file off your hard disk. Playing would definitely work up a sweat and give you a profound sense of relief if you won. But it would completely undermine the sense of safety needed to make a game feel like a game and not a job or task. Because of (2), most games can't really take much from you. The main punishments they are able to mete out are: 1. Waste your time. Give you timers or cut scenes that have to be replayed before you can jump back in. 2. Bore you by making you replay stuff you've already played. 3. Destroy virtual items. If the game randomly generates treasure, then losing it on player death can be particularly anguishing because you don't know when you'll get it back. But, really, that all boils down to wasting your time. Because you can always get back that lost item if you grind long enough. That means that the cost model for playing the game varies widely based on player free time. Like you, I simply no longer have a lot of free time that I'm willing to pour into games. So, while I still like them, they're effectively too expensive for me to afford.
anothernewdude 4y ago
I got good at DS1 by using a trainer so I could replay each boss instantly. Now I can manage the game in an afternoon without it.