TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

TropeDecay: Nintendo Hard

Go To

Raso Cure Candy Since: Jul, 2009
Cure Candy
#26: Aug 8th 2011 at 8:33:24 PM

[up] This make an example explain itself objectively like

Only with more words.

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
OnagaIsComingToTown Gamer/Moviegoer Since: Jul, 2011
Gamer/Moviegoer
#27: Aug 8th 2011 at 8:40:44 PM

. That's almost the definition of subjective, in fact: what some people find x other people find not-x.

Not quite, subjective means there is no true way to define something, as it is based on perceptions only. Difficulty, is defined by objective measures.

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.
RobinZimm Since: Jan, 2001
#28: Aug 8th 2011 at 10:57:49 PM

Any person who intends to defend the idea that difficulty is objective needs to prove it by providing an objective definition — that is, a definition which makes no reference, explicit or implicit, to the experience of any player of the game.

I don't believe it is possible.

edited 8th Aug '11 10:57:57 PM by RobinZimm

OnagaIsComingToTown Gamer/Moviegoer Since: Jul, 2011
Gamer/Moviegoer
#29: Aug 9th 2011 at 6:33:42 AM

Not necessarily. If something is subjective, it will change with your thoughts and perception of things. For instance, is the "best" color blue? Not if you think it is actually Red, right?

With difficulty, this does not work. You can change your perception all you like, you're still going to fail at it just as much. Just the same, no amount of perception will make the Boss in Mook Clothing go away, the Temporary Platform permanent, the SNK Boss more fair, or the Bullet Hell fill the screen less. It will remain as is, regardless of perception. The skill of the player may vary, but that is not a result of difficulty being subjective, not by any means.

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.
Shale Since: Jan, 2001
#30: Aug 9th 2011 at 7:01:34 AM

How long does a Temporary Platform have to stay afloat before it stops being a challenge to move across? What's the threshold for "screen full of baddies" where it becomes truly difficult to navigate?

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#31: Aug 9th 2011 at 7:24:18 AM

I find it a bit difficult to cite any Mega Man entry beyond the first two for requiring pixel perfect jumps when all of them since MM3 give you a springboard (the Rush Coil) to make those jumps significantly easier.

Similarly, many enemies are pattern-based, so you're meant to learn the pattern and then react before the attack in said pattern executes. If you're reacting to the shot, you're moving too late.

Now, you can argue the former is hard if you prefer to not rely on subweapons given out in a game, or the latter is hard if you primarily are reactive instead of planning when confronting foes. On the other hand, people who like subweapons find the former laughably easy and folks who are highly analytical handle the latter without problem.

At the same time, while you might find an area where you've been disarmed of everything but the basics simple, the guy reliant on subweapons is going to pull their hair out over such a section. And a truly random enemy (or at least as close as one can get with a video game's randomizer) that gives one time to react to attacks is going to be murderously hard to someone with poor reflexes but great strategic planning.

I think it's one of those things that we can all agree exists (which is why the trope is going to continue no matter what), but we can't agree on objective measures as to what defines it. Thus, by definition, it must be a subjective trope.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
RobinZimm Since: Jan, 2001
#32: Aug 9th 2011 at 10:44:09 AM

I'm with 32 Footsteps, but I'm willing to put it to the vote: shall we open a crowner (are they still called that?) to rule on whether Nintendo Hard should be considered subjective?

edited 9th Aug '11 10:44:53 AM by RobinZimm

Spark9 Since: Nov, 2010
#33: Aug 9th 2011 at 11:37:20 AM

I think a page action crowner would be a good idea. We can add "mark as YMMV" as a possible action, and people can put in other actions as they see fit.

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#34: Aug 9th 2011 at 11:42:55 AM

Just as long as we keep the rename option distinct for a different round of voting. I do think a rename has merit; I just worry bringing up the YMMV and the rename at the same time muddies the waters a bit.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
RandomDude Since: Aug, 2010
#35: Aug 9th 2011 at 2:56:48 PM

I'd say difficulty can be objectively measured when comparing two games that are identical or nearly so in gamestyle, e.g. the original Super Mario Bros vs The Lost Levels or Fire Emblem 6 vs 8. Compared to the original the Lost Levels added more difficult enemies, tougher jumps, blind leaps of faith, poison mushrooms, and backwards warps, among other objective facts, while FE 8 literally runs on the exactly same game engine as 6 but with stronger PC characters, weaker enemies, and random encounters that can be easily exploited for safe and easy level grinding.

On the other hand when comparing difficulty cross-genre (quite possibly) even within significantly different takes of a single genre) an individual player's competencies become a huge factor in evaluating difficulty. Someone with good platformer skills but terrible FPS skills is going to find most FPS games harder than most platformers and vice versa. I suspect this is an intractible problem, there's no practical way of establishing an objective baseline of skill for every genre.

In theory we could attempt to evaluate the difficulty level of games purely in comparison to other games in the same genre and say that only games extraordinarily hard relative to its genre peers count. In practice there's enough room for variation within a single genre, not to mention games that blend multiple genres, that I'm not sure this is really feasible.

edited 9th Aug '11 2:57:17 PM by RandomDude

Stratadrake Dragon Writer Since: Oct, 2009
Dragon Writer
#36: Aug 9th 2011 at 5:56:10 PM

How long does a Temporary Platform have to stay afloat before it stops being a challenge to move across?
Depends. What's underneath the platform to catch you if you fall? Is it a single platform between fixed ledges, or do you have to navigate a rapid sequence (possibly in blind faith)? Are there enemies nearby that you have to worry about?

edited 9th Aug '11 5:56:47 PM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
OnagaIsComingToTown Gamer/Moviegoer Since: Jul, 2011
Gamer/Moviegoer
#37: Aug 10th 2011 at 4:25:28 PM

How long does a Temporary Platform have to stay afloat before it stops being a challenge to move across? What's the threshold for "screen full of baddies" where it becomes truly difficult to navigate?

You can't insinuate that something objective is subjective by looking for hard lines within a continuum. Sentience for instance is objective, not subjective. But you can't label it subjective with questions like "At what point does a human child truly become sentient? They are not sentient as infants." This isn't philosophy class, this is reality.

A Temporary Platform will always present something of a challenge, however mildly so. Same with enemies on screen. With the measure of difficulty increasing or decreasing depending on how it is implemented. But there is nothing subjective about that.

@32Footsteps: What you are describing is different people having different skill levels. Some people can indeed be naturally better at some things than others, but that is a measure of their skill, not subjectiveness.

Also different genres are irrelevant. They challenge different things in the first place, if we're seriously trying to say difficulty is subjective because, say, a skilled gamer is not necessarily skilled at bricklaying (dramatic example, yes, but still), then I really think this argument has gone to hell in a handbasket.

edited 10th Aug '11 4:33:30 PM by OnagaIsComingToTown

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.
RobinZimm Since: Jan, 2001
#38: Aug 10th 2011 at 6:22:47 PM

The problem, Onaga, is that it's not a straight line "challenge = difficulty/skill" kind of relationship. It's perfectly possible to have a pair of games where Alice struggles to finish the one which Bob finds easy and vice-versa.

Night The future of warfare in UC. from Jaburo Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
The future of warfare in UC.
#39: Aug 10th 2011 at 6:31:18 PM

[up][up]We need an objective definition before we can even begin to make this work as an objective trope. Provide one or you're not going to make any progress.

Nous restons ici.
OnagaIsComingToTown Gamer/Moviegoer Since: Jul, 2011
Gamer/Moviegoer
#40: Aug 10th 2011 at 6:44:38 PM

[up]

1. You are not a moderator, you will not make demands of me.

2. If you have a polite request, I will gladly oblige, but be more specific.

[up][up]

If it helps, the dictionary definition of difficult is:

"not easily or readily done; requiring much labor, skill, or planning to be performed successfully; hard: a difficult job."

So just because you are skilled does not mean it is not difficult.

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.
Night The future of warfare in UC. from Jaburo Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
The future of warfare in UC.
#41: Aug 10th 2011 at 7:22:07 PM

Oh, I can make demands of anyone I want, however that doesn't mean they're going to get done.

However in this case I am making a statement; without an objective definition of Nintendo Hard your argument is predoomed to failure. Simply defining difficult isn't going to get you there, as difficulty is inherently subjective; what is difficult for one is not difficult for all.

Further we are attempting to define something where there is an interplay of many factors; task overload, hand-eye-coordination, critical thinking skills, reaction to various sorts of pressure, etc. Situations will incorporate some or all of them and you will have a difficult time simply establishing which ones are actually in play (time pressure, for example, will be treated completely differently by different people), much less quantifying when they are and are not unreasonable. Then we throw some random chance in too.

This is too complex a system to produce the consistent results of an objective trope.

Nous restons ici.
Shale Since: Jan, 2001
#42: Aug 10th 2011 at 8:56:37 PM

Night puts it way more clearly than I ever could.

So yeah, [up] that.

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#43: Aug 11th 2011 at 7:37:42 AM

First off, let's cool tempers a little bit. Being feisty isn't going to win either side any converts.

Now, as for the point about skill levels - we don't even have objective standards for someone's skill level. I've beaten a few thousand video games in my life (I've been playing for 30 years, though, so that's not quite as ridiculous as it first sounds). Does this mean I'm inherently better than someone who has only beaten a hundred? No; while I might actually be better than that person, the number of games I've beaten speaks more to opportunity than actual skill (i.e. we might beat the same percentage of games played; I just have the advantage of having played more).

It also doesn't necessarily make me an expert player. It doesn't tell anyone which games I've beaten (did I beat games on the level of Kirby's Dream Land or did I beat games on the level of Battletoads?), it doesn't necessarily say how well I did at them (can I beat the final boss blindfolded, or did I just get lucky once?), and it certainly doesn't speak to what level of challenge I accepted (saying you beat Final Fantasy I doesn't say whether it was done with a powerhouse party or four white mages).

The problem is that there are no independent ways to objectively judge what makes a skilled player or a Nintendo Hard game. The closest we have is circular reasoning - an expert gamer is someone who can clear a Nintendo Hard game, and a Nintendo Hard game is such if only an expert gamer can clear it.

If we can define either term in a vacuum from the other, then maybe we could create an objective version of this trope. Otherwise, as I do not believe that is possible, we must render it subjective.

edited 11th Aug '11 7:38:05 AM by 32_Footsteps

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Spark9 Since: Nov, 2010
#44: Aug 12th 2011 at 4:21:08 AM

A suggestion: we can break this up into certain objective subtropes. Several of those already exist, such as Everything Trying to Kill You. A lack of save points or continues is a trope; difficult jump controls is a trope; swarms of enemies is a trope. These are all pretty objective.

Then all examples can go on those pages, and Nintendo Hard can be an "index of hard game elements", have its examples cut and link to these pages instead.

Would that work?

OnagaIsComingToTown Gamer/Moviegoer Since: Jul, 2011
Gamer/Moviegoer
#45: Aug 12th 2011 at 11:00:58 PM

First off, let's cool tempers a little bit. Being feisty isn't going to win either side any converts.

Not to worry, when the dictionary definition of something debunks a point that a person keeps pushing, it is clear to me that I need not continue trying to reason with said person.

Your post on the other hand, did make a good point, the real problem with your argument is that it assumes that because on objective definition has not been found, it is not there. Life for instance, there is no objective definition for it (at least not one which truly defines it, many attempts have been made, but none satisfy all possibilities). Yet, it is an objective matter, perception does not effect life.

Just the same, perception will not effect difficulty. It may be hard to truly define, but that makes it no less objective.

One thing we could do is label tropes such as this with a new category like "ambiguous", meaning it is hard to define, but not really subjective.

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.
0dd1 Just awesome like that from Nowhere Land Since: Sep, 2009
Just awesome like that
#46: Aug 12th 2011 at 11:31:08 PM

"Life…there is no objective definition for it…"

Ahem, Google begs to differ:

life /līf/ Noun
1. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
2. Living things and their activity: "some sort of life existed on Mars".

But I digress.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
OnagaIsComingToTown Gamer/Moviegoer Since: Jul, 2011
Gamer/Moviegoer
#47: Aug 12th 2011 at 11:49:38 PM

Ahem, google begs to differ:

Thank you for dissecting my post out of context to omit the part where I clearly said that attempts have been made, yet do not cover all possibilities.

In any case, that does nothing to debunk my point that some things are hard to define, but yet are not subjective just because of that.

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.
Night The future of warfare in UC. from Jaburo Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
The future of warfare in UC.
#48: Aug 12th 2011 at 11:52:39 PM

[up][up][up]Look, the bottom line is unless we have an objective definition to use on the page, we can't use it as an objective trope. If an objective definition hasn't been found, then we clearly do not have an objective definition to use on the trope page. Until we have one, it will remain subjective because entries are based on the subjective definition currently existent.

Now, we think this is far and away a subjective trope and will remain one. We have no interest in finding an objective definition because we do not believe one can exist. If you believe one does, create an objective definition and present it to us and we will see if it stands scrutiny enough to warrant calling for a vote. Simple semantics will not get you to something we can use on the trope page.

Without something to use on the trope page, it stays the way it is.

edited 12th Aug '11 11:53:21 PM by Night

Nous restons ici.
Spark9 Since: Nov, 2010
#49: Aug 13th 2011 at 2:45:51 AM

[up] It can't "remain" subjective because it's not presently listed as a subjective trope.

Night The future of warfare in UC. from Jaburo Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
The future of warfare in UC.
#50: Aug 13th 2011 at 2:53:18 AM

[up]Eh, details. It's an audience reaction trope at best, why isn't it?

Nous restons ici.

SingleProposition: NintendoHard
13th Aug '11 5:20:32 AM

Crown Description:

Vote up for yes, down for no.

Total posts: 85
Top