Well, the original post for this thread asks "should we mark Nintendo Hard as YMMV". Some people agree, others don't. Since the discussion is starting to repeat itself, we should probably get a crowner here to find out which of the two parties is the vocal minority.
What, exactly, would an In-Universe example entail, should it pop up?
Maybe a work that is intended to be hard as told by Word of God? A character can't beat a game within a work?
Single prop crowner created and hooked.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff@Onaga: No dissection intended, I've just always wanted to use that joke. Carry on, as I haven't really formed an opinion on this matter yet.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.............which was created as a result of this discussion. Cirular Logic =/= justification. Of course, neither does pushing a point debunked by the dictionary itself, but I digress.
In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.For those asking for an 'objective definition of difficulty,' I can think of two (...Which don't necessarily overlap) without even trying, albeit they only work for games that have no saves:
i) A game is difficult if at the top level of play the percentage of successful plays is lower than a certain percentage. (For example, a game where at the top level of play 60% of plays result in a win is harder than one where at the top level of play 99% of plays result in a win)
ii) A game is difficult if a low percentage of players have successfully completed it (For example, a game where 20% of players have beaten it is harder than a game where 80% of players have beaten it)
What the threshold should be isn't so much subjective as, to a certain extent, arbitrary.
The first one relies on aggregating player skill, and the second one is not necessarily indicative of difficulty.
I think the most common and objective way to measure difficulty boils down to this one thing:
- A steep penalty for failure.
This includes lack of checkpoints/Save Points (i.e. having to replay long segments if you die), Everything Trying to Kill You, having to make series of improvised precision jumps (usually over Bottomless Pits), enemies that pretty much require a No-Damage Run, and so on.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Of course this trope is subjective. Even which game is more difficult than another is going to be subjective given variation in different kinds of skill among different gamers.
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart@52 The best example I can think of is in Toy Story 2, with the running discussion of the Buzz Lightyear game being ridiculously hard and needing the guide to complete (also a discussion of Guide Dang It!).
For the trope itself, I'm loathe to define it based on "top players" because "top players" is so seldom defined. Players are generally only actually ranked for a couple select games (generally, ones that attract Tournament Play). And even then, said ranking only focuses on that particular game. Crippling Overspecialization can come into play (it's part of the reason that I like to say that you can beat me in one game; I can beat you in a hundred).
The point about a steep punishment for failure is a reasonable suggestion, but that alone in a vacuum isn't enough. Early role-playing games, with harsher limits on save games and more brutal results for game over (e.g. you can only revert to your last save, instead of being sent immediately back to the last savepoint losing only half your cash) frequently had steep punishment for failure, but they weren't necessarily that hard to overcome.
Not only that, but quite a few of the examples don't have a steep punishment for failure. Castlevania sets you back at most a chunk of a single level. Metroid restarts you close to an area where you can easily refill all your energy and lets you keep all the stuff you have. I could go on by picking out examples currently on the page, but I think the point is made.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Metroid restarts you close to an area where you can easily refill all your energy and lets you keep all the stuff you have.
Having to spend the time grinding your energy back up to maximum is a steep penalty for failure. It's the equivalent of lack of checkpoints making you have to replay long segments, except that the long segment you have to play is just you sitting there killing monsters for energy.
Time penalties are still penalties.
I can think of several really hard games that don't have a steep penalty for failure, such as IWBTG or Rayman.
I can also think of several games with a steep penalty for failure that aren't particularly hard, i.e. anything with limited lives and no save points.
Note that "steep penalty for failure" is already a different trope, i.e. Continuing Is Painful.
@65 It really doesn't take that long to get back up to full health - pretty much every single restart point is extremely close to a Mook Maker where you can quickly take out weak Mooks to farm energy easily. And that's even assuming you haven't done things like acquire the Screw Attack (which makes said farming so much easier) yet.
I think it's more than reasonable to take a fresh-from-continue Samus (at exactly 30 health) and get back up to the maximum health (which I believe was 699) in a couple of minutes of little effort. This is not to preclude calling it Nintendo Hard, but I think that the time frame involved, plus the fact that it's a game with unlimited continues means that it isn't a case of Continuing Is Painful.
But all of that is neither here nor there; it's a discussion about whether the original Metroid belongs on a completely different trope page than the one under discussion here.
I think the problem we're running into is that people are mistaken on just what would make this trope objective. Pretty much every single definition thrown out is dependant on the opinions of a group of people, or measurement that doesn't actually take into effect whether or not a person is "skilled." There have been no proffered definitions that cannot be questioned. In fact, every single proffered definition has been shown to be inherently subjective.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.edited 17th Aug '11 8:49:47 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Unless a mod feels the arguments in favor of making this YMMV carry that much weight, I think it's time to concede defeat on this crowner for now. I honestly feel that we've shown that this trope is "you'll know it when you see it" - in other words, inherently YMMV. But I take it that few agree.
Interestingly, an artcile I've seen to consider along with this here
. For whatever reason, games typically aren't finished, regardless of difficulty level. Personally, I suspect this is related to the amount of gameplay one is required to do to actually finish (not everyone has 60 hours that they'll dump into a game before something else comes up), but challenge does deserve mention as well.
There aren't that many 60 hour long games any more, for that very reason. Anyway, if the crowner hasn't settled on making a change, and as of now it hasn't, I see no need to push this further. We still need to carefully curate the article though, as it is a natter magnet.
edited 17th Aug '11 8:20:37 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I've got a whole shelf of games that have come out in the last 12 months that'll show that companies are just as prone to the 60+ hour game as they were ten years ago.
That said, I think that 60+ hours might be a bit extreme for calling a game "long." If you consider that a reasonable amount of time to play a game (while dealing with school/work/eating/sleeping/other life essentials) is two hours per week, you could probably take it that a game of at least 25+ hours (taking about two weeks to beat) is on the long side. Of course, if you skimp on certain activites, you end up fitting in more gaming time... but damn it, I've got tropes to read!
I suspect this will come up again in a couple months; I'll just refine my arguments in favor of a YMMV shift for that point.
edited 17th Aug '11 8:19:52 AM by 32_Footsteps
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I wonder maybe we are coming at this the wrong way, we already have a bunch of difficulty tropes what if we make it so each example require listing said Hard tropes for each example with added details. (Index it like This Index Is Hard or something.)
If the tropes don't exist make them.
That would be an objective way to go about it I think.
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!I think NH is subjective, but it doesn't have to be. Too many people are using it as a synonym for "very hard" instead of a specific type of unfairly hard, which presents itself almost exclusively in platformers, where the jumps require pixel perfect timing, the enemies are many and nearly impossible to hit if the game even let you (many gave you no attacks), and harsh punishments for dying, which range from a hard limit on your lives and continues if you're given any to checkpoints set very far apart.
Mario: Lost Levels was nintendo hard. FF 2 was just hard. Even if FF 2 was harder to beat than Mario, that doesn't make it Nintendo hard. They're not the same thing. A decent clean up could fix this trope.
The problem is, who defines fair? Considering that jumping from platform to platform is inherently part of the purpose of a Platform Game, the challenge of making the jumps require a giant level of precision is to be expected - it's up to the player to figure out what the rules of jumping are, and that should be learned pretty early in play (it's always the first thing I experiment with in a platformer, even if it's in a series I'm quite acquainted with, like Mega Man).
Also, what qualifies as "many"? What's the arbitrary cutoff for the number that qualifies, and is it influenced by how rapidly one can destroy enemies? And is it further influenced if the enemies can attack at range, particularly if you cannot or can only do so in limited quantities? This is quite important when one has to factor the rate of medusa head appearance in a Castlevania game versus enemy density in a Bullet Hell game. The harsh punishment for dying only comes into play if you can also somehow come up with an objective measurement to show that it is impossible to avoid dying every X period of time (which is covered by Continuing Is Painful, as noted before).
This comes closer to being able to define a strict, objective guideline for this trope, but I fail to see how one makes the decisions as to the dividing line. But then again, I also always failed to see how people didn't figure out how to trigger Demonic Spider spawns so that they happened before you made the jump... which is why I keep pushing for this trope to be subjective. I think everyone who can't beat the first Castlevania, Battletoads, and Mega Man 1 without using the pause trick are complaining too much when games like Solomon's Key, Cobra Triangle, and Bart's Nightmare were out there. I bet someone else could come along and express the exact opposite opinion.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Crown Description:
Vote up for yes, down for no.
