Do You Think Its Right To Deduct Game Review Points Because Of Difficulty?

I don't know about you but I like my games to have some kind of challenge. I mean sure its fun to play some easy games casually, but I'm at a level where I want to challenge myself. I think difficulty just adds to the replay value. It's just sad that some reviewers deduct points because of the games difficulty.

Lark Anderson doesn't. In fact, he finds easy things to be "hell." What a joke of a review.

I like challenge, but I don't like it when games are overly difficult to artifically lengthen the game. In example, retro games from the NES and SNES games.

I don't know about you but I like my games to have some kind of challenge. I mean sure its fun to play some easy games casually, but I'm at a level where I want to challenge myself. I think difficulty just adds to the replay value. It's just sad that some reviewers deduct points because of the games difficulty.

ReverseCycology

it should be kept according to games genre and type of gamer who would play it has to be variable it cant be too hard or too easy.

What if a game is too easy, should they still deduct points for being too easy? I mean what if its still fun, which I think that all that matters.

What if a game is too easy, should they still deduct points for being too easy? I mean what if its still fun, which I think that all that matters.

ReverseCycology

Agreed. I think it's very unprofessional for the reviewers to complain about the difficulty in games. If they are having a really hard time with the game have someone else review the game. We all know NG is known for it's difficulty so why even try to complain about it? silentobi

If someone who plays games as a proffession finds a game too hard, chances are a good amount of the people that play it will find it too hard. If a game is too hard and makes it not as fun, that's a fine reason to take away points. Ninja Gaiden isn't a good example for this because even with it's extreme difficulty it doesn't get frustrating for the most part, and the review scores reflect that. But there's been plenty of games that I've played that a point just got so hard that stopped playing it. To punish a gamer that much to me just seems like bad design.

It's perfectly acceptable to deduct points on a game that is too hard. If the difficulty level just makes the game not fun to play, or it makes you want to give up before seeing the rest of the game, then certainly. There's a lot of ways to make a game challenging, some ways are a lot better than others. Games like Ikaruga super challenging but are not frustrating at all, others just plain make you mad with cheap kills, crappy inflated difficulty ("just give the enemies more health and damage!") or things you dont' control like bad camera or controls._BlueDuck_

NG's difficulty is hard but never impossible. If you can't get passed a certain part then your not good enough yet. If NG2's difficulty is harder than the original then that's awesome 8)

Difficulty is a factor if the game stops being fun because of it.

Normal shouldn't be the hardcore difficulty level. Thats what HARD and INSANE are for.

There's a balance that has to be reached. I think it depends a lot on the game as to what difficulty level is appropriate.

You don't want to make a game too easy. When that happens, there's no excitement or tension. The game is a cakewalk. You go through the motions of the game, but you aren't being engaged, because you know that your character isn't in any significant danger.

But when you make a game hard, the difficulty is an obstacle to progress. For some titles, that's the point. The enjoyment of the game comes from mastering the gameplay. In these cases, it might make more sense to have a challenging title, because if the player progresses without being significantly challenged, there's not much of a sense of accomplishment. However, if the enjoyment of the game comes from a different place, excessive challenge will only frustrate, even if the challenge comes from legitimate reasons. People won't feel the need to persevere over those odds.

Also, some kinds of challenge don't feel fair to the player. If the player dies repeatedly without feeling like their death was within their control to prevent, they're going to be fed up with the game, and they'll likely stop playing.

[QUOTE="silentobi"]Agreed. I think it's very unprofessional for the reviewers to complain about the difficulty in games. If they are having a really hard time with the game have someone else review the game. We all know NG is known for it's difficulty so why even try to complain about it? _BlueDuck_

If someone who plays games as a proffession finds a game too hard, chances are a good amount of the people that play it will find it too hard. If a game is too hard and makes it not as fun, that's a fine reason to take away points. Ninja Gaiden isn't a good example for this because even with it's extreme difficulty it doesn't get frustrating for the most part, and the review scores reflect that. But there's been plenty of games that I've played that a point just got so hard that stopped playing it. To punish a gamer that much to me just seems like bad design.

theres a difference between challenge and frustrating. but imo, no.

P.S. NG is neither.

This issue while bad is still not as bad as the cherry picking that goes on when a game is bugged at release.

Bully got stomped all over in its review for 360 for the exact same issues that GTA 4 had.

Deducting points from some games for bugginess while other get a free pass is a way worse problem than the difficulty one.

When I pay 60.00 for a game, I want my money's worth. Therefore, I want a game to be of considerable length, with considerable amounts of content, while having at least a respectable difficulty level. Or if it is a game of average length, then the more of a challenge, the merrier. As I actually want to feel like I accomplished or earned something from devoting hours of my life to a game.

On a side note, I think that this is one of the main reasons for multiplayer's popularity. It is just so competitive online against real people, and there is always a challenge waiting....always.

[QUOTE="silentobi"]Agreed. I think it's very unprofessional for the reviewers to complain about the difficulty in games. If they are having a really hard time with the game have someone else review the game. We all know NG is known for it's difficulty so why even try to complain about it? _BlueDuck_

If someone who plays games as a proffession finds a game too hard, chances are a good amount of the people that play it will find it too hard. If a game is too hard and makes it not as fun, that's a fine reason to take away points. Ninja Gaiden isn't a good example for this because even with it's extreme difficulty it doesn't get frustrating for the most part, and the review scores reflect that. But there's been plenty of games that I've played that a point just got so hard that stopped playing it. To punish a gamer that much to me just seems like bad design.

Reviewers are profesional journalists that have an interest in games, not profesional players. They write articles about games as a proffession, not play games. And they are not better players than the average guy.

I fail at life, so I need the satisfaction of perfecting hard video games.butteater86

lol

When I pay 60.00 for a game, I want my money's worth. Therefore, I want a game to be of considerable length, with considerable amounts of content, while having at least a respectable difficulty level. Or if it is a game of average length, then the more of a challenge, the merrier. As I actually want to feel like I accomplished or earned something from devoting hours of my life to a game.

On a side note, I think that this is one of the main reasons for multiplayer's popularity. It is just so competitive online against real people, and there is always a challenge waiting....always.

ironcreed

Point, is the people who marked the original Ninja Gaiden are also marking this lower, quite often for unfair difficulty. There's a difference between a a death where you understand , and a cheap death.

what i dont get is people who want to be a zombie while they play games

"oh i can only play from reclining in a couch or in my bed, i like to relax while gaming"

gaming and relaxing have never been in the same sentence for me... to me they're a challenge and it requires my utmost attention and focus...

That depends on the type of difficulty. When it is difficulty that challenges you to become a better player, such as RPGs, Ninja Gaiden, etc, then i think thats fine, and the game should not be criticized for it.e

If the game is cheap, buggy, and puts you in sometimes unwinnable situations and then forces you to start again from a good way back (see DMC 3, GTA IV, and apparently ninja gaiden II from what ive read) then the game should fully be penalized for it. Im fed up of reviewers passing off frustrating difficulty that saps the fun out of a game as a good thing that aids the longevity of the title.

I think its a rightful deduction depending on how hard the game is. when i picked up NGS last summer I knew it was supposed to be hard but it surprised me in its difficulty. I still enjoyed it and beat it (although I didnt like it as much as GoW or DMC) but it was hard and I usually play games on hard the first time around and on normal it was hard.

So for someone who isnt as good at games it would be near impossible to beat it. So yeah I think its a legit deduction.

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

[QUOTE="silentobi"]Agreed. I think it's very unprofessional for the reviewers to complain about the difficulty in games. If they are having a really hard time with the game have someone else review the game. We all know NG is known for it's difficulty so why even try to complain about it? Tykain

If someone who plays games as a proffession finds a game too hard, chances are a good amount of the people that play it will find it too hard. If a game is too hard and makes it not as fun, that's a fine reason to take away points. Ninja Gaiden isn't a good example for this because even with it's extreme difficulty it doesn't get frustrating for the most part, and the review scores reflect that. But there's been plenty of games that I've played that a point just got so hard that stopped playing it. To punish a gamer that much to me just seems like bad design.

Reviewers are profesional journalists that have an interest in games, not profesional players. They write articles about games as a proffession, not play games. And they are not better players than the average guy.

Okay so if they reperesent the average player skill wise (fair assumption) then if its too hard for them then its probably too hard for your average player. Reviews are for all gamers, not just the skillful elite.

Depends on the game, but for the most part...No they shouldn't. Only warn those who don't want a extremly difficult game some where in the review. But they should deduct points if winning is not always rewarding when extremely hard.

This is so simple yet reviewers cant seem to grasp it. My suggestion is play the game on Normal and if its fun give it the score you experienced during normal but add to the reader if you want it to give you that challenge their is a Hard and insanely Hard mode and if the reviewer also plays it in those modes mentioning it will be a bonus.

If a game is hard I do not want to keep repeating easier things I have already beat every time I die. Replaying a level over and over to get to a hard bossfight makes me get tiered of a game very fast.

And yeah I think it is fair, if a gmae is so hard that it is more frustrating then fun to play it should ge lower scores.

There is a fine line between challenging and brick wall frustration. games need to be able to ease you in and not to frustrate you. It is really bad design just to throw you into the deep end with a difficulty that starts out impossible but doesnt progress. A game needs to offer some kind of progression in its difficulty in that a game starts out easy but then increases in difficulty. Another area games need to work on is the idea of difficulty spikes.

games should only be deducted point for difficulty if its very hard to a point where you need to be dead on for everything or else game over restart level.

some games that need checkpoints but dont and it makes the game very hard repetitive and boreing eventually

but some games are good when they are hard. like fighting games(not my faverite genre but i have played some). because it forces you you learn/master things for that final boss fight,

I think this is why different reviewers are assigned to different genre of games. Just hope the game you like are reviewed by the right reviewer for that game.

Depends on whether it's real difficulty, or, if it's just "cheapness".

Like, a dumb example, if you get a -12 in a round of tiger woods, suddenly everyone else will a -20 the next round (cpu enemies), that's just plain cheap.

Real difficulty is great, cheapness for the sake of cheapness is not difficulty, it's stupidity and poor AI, and therefore should have points deducted.

Also, Gamesradar which gave it 7/10 while they gave Ninja Gaiden 9/10 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma 9/10

:|

Greg May Cry anyone?

It's unfortunate that GS does tend to lower score points if they find the game too difficult for them. (though it might not be as difficult for other players)

Also, Gamesradar which gave it 7/10 while they gave Ninja Gaiden 9/10 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma 9/10

:|

thrones

Makes sense, if it didn't progress as a series, as in, if they didn't update and really improve the controls, if it's like sigma 1.2 or something instead of gaiden II (and they said it wasn't really an upgrade, not really a sequal), then it deserved the massive deductions.

No. DMC3 anyone?Verge_6

DMC3 was pretty damn hard. it wasnt until a year later that i went through it at the harder difficulties. but imo DMC3 was the best action game i've ever played. The graphics for its time and the action, moves, weapons, combos were awesome. 4 was kinda a dissapointment even tho dante can use 5 styles at will. (should've been better implemented)

But I digress, those twin monster sword bosses were hard as hell. Took me so long to beat them the first time.