From: denton@ssd.comm.mot.com (Perry Denton)
Subject: Re: Lynx vs. Game Gear?
Organization: Motorola LMPS
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:20:46 GMT
Keywords: n

In article <BzBsyC.M4z@python.cs.unm.edu> sandia!marms@unmvax.unm.edu (Mike Arms) writes:
>denton@ssd.comm.mot.com (Perry Denton) writes:
>>When they put in EASY NORMAL DIFFICULT level choices, people invariably
>>start out at simple, finish the game, and post to the net about how
>>easy the game is.  (eg. Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, Contra III, etc).
>
>If the people you are referring to are skilled players that purposely 
>play on Easy and then have the audacity to complain that it was too 
>simple, they are fools or braggarts (probably both). 
>
This is what I was refering to.  People (on the net and off) playing the
game for the first time do not want to feel challenged right away, plus
perhaps wants to get the "feel" of the game, plays the game on the EASY
level, ooops, accidentally finishes it, and complains on the net.  I know
I saw that on Contra III recently on the net.

>>But the difficulty level choices should always be available for sports
>>games, which are the most replayable games.  If I beat it at easy, I
>>look forward to playing it on a harder level.
>
>My point is that games of any genre are more replayable AND more 
>accessible when they have enough difficulty level choices and/or 
>user config.  This is not something limited in usefulness to sports
>games.  Looks at it another way, if you maintain that it is appropriate 
>for sports games, why is is not appropriate for shooters, fighters,
>beat 'em ups, or platform games?
>
My comment was referring to that on games people just want to finish,
having adjustable difficulty allows them to accomplish this sooner.
Sports titles on have a goal of winning that particular game and to
be challenged doing so.

>>On side scrolling games, perhaps they should be more like Contra III,
>>where if you play a harder level, there are actually different
>>additional baddies to deal with.  
>
>This is fine.  I like the way ID Software used this approach in the
>4 difficulty levels of Wolfenstien 3-D.  On the easiest level ("Daddy,
>Can I Play"), you generally don't see the blue SS guards and there
>are fewer enemies in general.  This works great for my son who recently
>finished the first floor all by himself for the first time.
>
This obviously would be the best approach.  We agree.

>>If you don't play the harder level, you don't see some of the game.  
>>Or on some, easy only allows you to see the first two levels of an 
>>8 level games (Golden Axe, Smash TV)
>
>I definitely would NOT like to see this approach continue!  My feelings
>are that rational players will play according to their skill level.  So
>if you have to play at a lower difficulty setting than Normal, you should
>still get to play a whole game as far as other levels would go.  If you
>only give them two levels, then what do they do if the next difficulty 
>level is still out of their skill-reach?  "Too bad.  Keep playing these
>same two levels over and over until you get better." ...

Again, difficulty select is misused by the majority of gamers.  If you're
good enough to complete two levels of a game, you could probably jump 
a level.  Of course, in games like Smash TV and Golden Axe, you can do
like I do, and play with the younger child, and be a "protector".

Perry
-- 
Perry Denton
Motorola, Inc.
Schaumburg, Illinois
Internet: denton@ssd.comm.mot.com       Phone: (708) 576-4479
Newsgroups: rec.games.video