Hard games VS more casual games

[levusbevus]

I got into a discussion with a friend the other day about the different type of feeling I get from beating a casual game to beating a really challenging game.

Like for instance, one of the games we were talking about was Metroid. The feeling I got when I beat Metroid for the first time without a map, a walkthrough or savestates was one of the most satisfying feelings ever, especially considering how difficult that game got towards the end.

Then contrast that to a game that I really love, Super Mario 3D Land. It's a game that doesn't get TOO challenging at any part but is just great fun to play. But when I beat that game 100%, I didn't get the same sense of satisfaction that I got from beating the first Metroid.

It's kinda weird but it's like I enjoyed the general experience of Mario 3D over Metroid's but I felt more like I achieved something from beating Metroid. I get the same feeling when I beat any one Mega Man game on the NES. In more modern times, beating a campaign on Left 4 Dead 2 on expert is always one of the most satisfying things ever.

So this has got me wondering, do you guys prefer the sense of achievement that you get from beating a difficult game to the general experience of a game that doesn't try to be anything but fun, or do you think that hard games are more effort than their worth and cause too much frustration?

[II2none]

Definitely prefer games with a sense of skill. I remember when me and my bro experienced are own victories and fails from beating Left 4 dead 2 on expert. The AI spamming of a well placed chargers attack always shook the moral a little but nothing is more satisfying then being then being a few feet from a safe house while knowing you were able to get everyones back be it the computer or your brother.

But I have learned recently that sometimes hardcore gamers do need a fuck around game. Less we forget what gaming is originally about "fun". Most of us are to bastardized into thinking a game always needs to be "serious business" some times you do need the kung fu panda after getting your ass kicked in Left 4 dead Some times you do need to let Disney universe cool you off after some asshole in MW 2 used a nuke for 3 games in a row.

While they may not be the addictive action games were use to they do remind us what the true gaming experience is all about: FUN.

[Kunera]

Honestly, I prefer a balance of the two. A game that you can just kind of piddle around on for shits and giggles, but if you want a serious challenge, you can find/make one, too.

[Back-From-Purgatory]

I get satisfaction from both... although in varying ways/degrees.

For a "fun game" to give me any amount of satisfaction it has to tell a great story without being overly cliché or give me a sense of progression (Ala Battlefield 3 multiplayers unlock/level system), both together is even better... but rare by my standards.

For a "Hard game" to give me satisfaction, it has to be hard, but not made to be frustratingly so, it has to be within a believable realm of difficulty... An example would be CoD (Before I began my Activision Boycott) on Veteran... It's hardly believable that enemies throw 4-5 grenades to kill one person, nor is it believable that they have such reflexes and perfect aim that the moment you stick your head around the corner you're dead... You'd have a better chance surviving in a real warzone.
A perfect example for my ideal challenging game would be Demon's Souls and/or Dark Souls... Where every time you die, you can learn from your mistake and use your new-found knowledge to progress further.. Each and every death is a learning experience, not an unnecessary frustration.

It's from challenging games like Dark Souls that I get the most satisfaction from overcoming the challenges throughout.

And then there are games like Saints Row 3... They're just time wasting fun. You can enjoy playing it, but it's not necessarily challenging or overly satisfying... you can play it just because you love blowing up dildo wielding mascots while riding around on a straight-from-the-future flying jet-bike completely naked before taking a tiger for a joyride around the city.

[Freaki-boy92]

it's a fact of life, the more effort you expend trying to do something the more satisfying it is.

just beating a level can be really satisfying in some games.

[Gasthecar]

Maybe its that you get a better feeling from games which give you a longer experience not nessecerialy a fun one.

[IrishGun]

Hard games, by far.

A good example of an easy game is Fallout 3. Its atmosphere's ruined by every fight in the game being a cakewalk, and because of how easy it is, it doesn't take long for it to get stupidly boring because you know you're going to overcome every obstacle that comes your way, whether it be a supermutant behemoth that can be beat to death in a few seconds with bare fists or a pack of deathclaws that can't do diddly to your health.

Another example is Saints Row 3. Ignoring the other few thousand things that make it terrible, its difficulty's insultingly easy. On the hardest difficulty, your health regenerates in only a few seconds and enemies go down really quick, hardly doing any damage to you. In contrast to SR2, which was actually really good, your health took about 20 seconds to regenerate on the hardest difficulty, food healed you less and enemies did a lot of damage to you. The same feeling of boredom from Fallout 3 happens with SR3, only it happens within the first 5 minutes of starting up the game.

Easy games are just devoid of any kind of satisfaction or fun.

[Death]

^ SR3 is about beating people with dildos and using mortar strikes on random people on the street, and you expect it to be hard? I think you got that game for the wrong reasons

[keyransolo]

I don't have a problem with playing casual games or the people who play them more than hardcore games, but I personally prefer games with a bit more skill - something you can be proud of finishing when you've completed. I play all games if they're good, but yeah I am definitely more of a hardcore gamer.

HARDCORE!

[IrishGun]

At 12/30/11 10:19 AM, Death wrote: ^ SR3 is about beating people with dildos and using mortar strikes on random people on the street, and you expect it to be hard? I think you got that game for the wrong reasons

In all honesty, I got it expecting a more finely tuned SR2 with more content and the same likeable characters. SR2, despite being OTT silly, was still able to have pretty serious, hard-hitting moments when it wanted to.

What I got with SR3 was SR2 with the amount of content cut in less than half, unnecessarily simplified clothing options, unlikeable characters and a douchebag protagonist, weapons and vehicles appealing to the "lmao so randumb im such a gamer xD" crowd (like that dildo bat you mentioned), dramatic moments replaced with retarded humour than I'm hoping no one on our planet finds funny, among a ton of other problems. I cringed when watching that terrible, terrible intro and wanted to shut off my PS3 when the new Shaundi said, "Put in your tampons and let's go".

I'm really not surprised that her original voice actor quit after looking through the script. There's literally nothing good about SR3.

[ChaosWisdom]

I have no problem with casual games that have that 'addicting' factor to it, but I don't like when they hold your hand. Most immediate example I can think of is Kirby's epic yarn. Other kirby games are fairly easy, but this one takes it too far. But on the other side of the coin, you had your fair share of NES titles, like Ninja Gaiden, or Contra, that were just way too freakin' hard without cheating.

Basically, nothing of the two extremes plz. A game needs to feel rewarding, but also fair. Different difficulties help always.