This one's obvious, but just to get it out there: Gradius is hard because you lose all of your weapons when you die. If this happens in later levels, you're usually so under-powered that the game is unplayable. There are many games like this, but since Gradius is the most unforgiving, it received the honor of naming this phenomenon as "Gradius Syndrome".
Other NES notables for this:
Adventure Island (die in the wrong place, no hammer for you)
Blaster Master (taking DAMAGE downgrades your gun)
Castlevania (keep that Holy Water!)
Life Force (not as bad as original, since death doesn't bump you backwards)
Adventure Island (die in the wrong place, no hammer for you)
Blaster Master (taking DAMAGE downgrades your gun)
Both great examples. There are levels of Adventure Island (like 6-2) where if you die, it doesn't matter how many lives you have, you're not going to make it far enough to get a weapon, let alone the upgraded weapon you need to make it through.
Blaster Master, if you're careful about keeping track of weapon upgrade locations, at least you can backtrack and recharge, though you still have to fight your way through whatever part made you take damage.
(not accounting for boss fights that can basically become unwinnable if you lose your upgrade)
Maybe this is just from the stance of an experienced player but I don't think in Zelda 2 "leveling-up is expected of you in the early game". Sure, you will stumble around in the beginning. And probably avoid all the caves until you run out of options. But I think it gives you a lot more than the first game, with safe paths, towns to recover health and get the shield spell, and the lone square of forest that contains a 50pt bag giving the first level up for free. But I don't remember ever needing to specifically grind until much later.
Maybe this is just from the stance of an experienced player but I don't think in Zelda 2 "leveling-up is expected of you in the early game". Sure, you will stumble around in the beginning. And probably avoid all the caves until you run out of options. But I think it gives you a lot more than the first game, with the towns to recover health and get the shield spell, and the lone square of forest that contains a 50pt bag giving the first level up for free. But I don't remember ever needing to grind until much later.
Agreed. You can get a couple of palaces into the game without grinding.
You don't need to make the death mountain run until after the second palace.
By that point you probably have a few naturally acquired experience levels (from combat) and two "automatic" level-ups from completing the palaces.
And if you explored areas of interest you have found at least a couple of experience bags that are worth automatic early-levels as well.
If the usefulness of leveling up (i.e. hitting harder) isn't obvious by that point, I question the player's abilities of observation.
There seems to be a lot of "perceived difficulty" that seems to stem from people trying to play these games without ever having looked at a manual... back-in-the-day you'd have the instruction booklet to read... nowadays there are plenty of online copies of that same manual.
Playing the game blind is your own fault and generally shouldn't factor into whether a game is considered "hard", objectively.
Maybe people just play games faster these days. I notice in modern games there is this expectation of reaching a major milestone very quickly (even with 20 minutes of cutscenes involved). I don't know if Nintendo games are meant to be played like that, but I certainly didn't BITD
Maybe people just play games faster these days. I notice in modern games there is this expectation of reaching a major milestone very quickly (even with 20 minutes of cutscenes involved). I don't know if Nintendo games are meant to be played like that, but I certainly didn't BITD
All of the classic Zeldas you are into the game and through the first dungeon in that amount of time, give-or-take 10 minutes.
I don't think any of those games are paced unreasonably, even by modern standards of impatience.
Granted, Zelda 2, in particular, does have two noticeable plateaus of difficulty (the death mountain run, and the run to the final palace) where the game takes a leap in difficulty that isn't expected the first time you get there.
Depending on how you play the game, and how good you are, grinding isn't necessarily required at either point, but for inexperienced players both of those zones would seem to call for it.
You're right... and agreed on perceived difficulty without manuals. I just looked up the manual for details on Zelda 2 and it does give the map to the first palace, as well as explain points and leveling up. I just remember beating it for the first time in a matter of months, not days or weeks--and liking it that way.
You're right... and agreed on perceived difficulty without manuals. I just looked up the manual for details on Zelda 2 and it does give the map to the first palace, as well as explain points and leveling up. I just remember beating it for the first time in a matter of months, not days or weeks--and liking it that way.
Oh yeah. Completely agree on the actual calendar timeline expectations being different nowadays.
I think my dad and I spent months mapping the original Legend of Zelda.
And probably at least a few weeks figuring out the chart of boss weaknesses in Mega Man 2.
Maybe a lot of it had to do with just less stuff available to play, at the time, so you felt less like you were missing out of you took your time to get really deep in a game.
I'm curious if there are any other particular parts of games that are as equally-infuriating as the last stretch/loop of Ninja Gaiden?
The Double Dragon section with the piston-blocks in infuriating because it either DOESN'T have a pattern, or the pattern is really well concealed in its complexity.
It can really ruin the enjoyment of the game for me, because compared to any other timed-platforming in that series, it is seemingly random whether you'll make it through unscathed or get pummeled by pistons to near-death.
Story time!
I was playing through Double Dragon and I had two or three games in a row where I came to a dead halt at the pistons. My wife was messing around on her phone watching me occasionally and generally enjoying herself that I was having so much trouble there. I got back to the same spot again and my wife asks me if she could try. She does not play games but I figured I wasn't having any luck so she might as well give it a shot. So she takes the controller and almost makes it all the way through unscathed ... she got hit by the very last one. I was stunned ... how did she figure that out on her own? The answer is while I was playing she was searching online for the visual cues and she executed it near flawlessly! The lesson here is that there is a method to getting through that section without getting hit!
I'm curious if there are any other particular parts of games that are as equally-infuriating as the last stretch/loop of Ninja Gaiden?
The Double Dragon section with the piston-blocks in infuriating because it either DOESN'T have a pattern, or the pattern is really well concealed in its complexity.
It can really ruin the enjoyment of the game for me, because compared to any other timed-platforming in that series, it is seemingly random whether you'll make it through unscathed or get pummeled by pistons to near-death.
Story time!
I was playing through Double Dragon and I had two or three games in a row where I came to a dead halt at the pistons. My wife was messing around on her phone watching me occasionally and generally enjoying herself that I was having so much trouble there. I got back to the same spot again and my wife asks me if she could try. She does not play games but I figured I wasn't having any luck so she might as well give it a shot. So she takes the controller and almost makes it all the way through unscathed ... she got hit by the very last one. I was stunned ... how did she figure that out on her own? The answer is while I was playing she was searching online for the visual cues and she executed it near flawlessly! The lesson here is that there is a method to getting through that section without getting hit!
I've read about it, but I'm on the verge of believing it's just a myth and the people that claim to pull it off just got lucky and could never do it consistently
The point is, they made the pattern so obscure as to appear completely random and hopeless.
I've read about it, but I'm on the verge of believing it's just a myth and the people that claim to pull it off just got lucky and could never do it consistently
The point is, they made the pattern so obscure as to appear completely random and hopeless.
From what I remember you have to stand and wait for a specific sequence where you can pass safely, however the sequences themselves occur randomly and there is still an element of timing to it also. It's on the fringes of what could be considered a pattern and it's poor design overall.
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
Maybe this is just from the stance of an experienced player but I don't think in Zelda 2 "leveling-up is expected of you in the early game". Sure, you will stumble around in the beginning. And probably avoid all the caves until you run out of options. But I think it gives you a lot more than the first game, with safe paths, towns to recover health and get the shield spell, and the lone square of forest that contains a 50pt bag giving the first level up for free. But I don't remember ever needing to specifically grind until much later.
I understand what you're saying here, but I have to respectfully disagree, sir!
Leveling up is kind of the entire point of the gameplay mechanic in Zelda II. If you don't level up, you won't make it very far. While it's debatable that the game "expects" grinding from the get go, it's without question that you're required to level up ASAP to get far at all. For me, how each of us personally feel about leveling is irrelevent, because it's a required portion of the game.
Waiting until the end to grind absolutely sucks because it takes forever, hence why most of us opt to leave the Palace Crystals alone until the end to max out. Perhaps the difference in our opinions/experience is due to the fact that you may just use the Crystals immediately?
In the original LoZ, there are fairy locations that are stable and there every time you turn the game on. You can plan paths through Hyrule so you can get them when needed, and typically your heart meter is pretty resiliant less than halfway through the game. In Zelda II, fairy locations appear randomly on the board, with secure fairy locations being sparse. Yes, they're there, but they're a pain to get to in most cases.
In most instances, you get to a fairy, refill your meter, then take a ton of damage anyway on your way to wherever it is you're going next.
In Zelda II, even with max health and magic, you're using resources like crazy just to make it to places. The patterns of some enemeis (fence-hiding bastards on the way to Palace 6) will absolutely rape your health and magic if you don't know how to navigate those asinine fireball patterns. In the first LoZ, you really only had to be careful around Darknuts and Lionells.
In LoZ, you just need a full heart meter and you're pretty set. In Zelda II, your life meter can be full, even on the highest level attainable, and you're still going to get your ass kicked.
Originally posted by: Arr_Adam
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! This is precisely what I'm talking about, and what you just said is the basis of why I started this thread.
I'm curious if there are any other particular parts of games that are as equally-infuriating as the last stretch/loop of Ninja Gaiden?
The Double Dragon section with the piston-blocks in infuriating because it either DOESN'T have a pattern, or the pattern is really well concealed in its complexity.
It can really ruin the enjoyment of the game for me, because compared to any other timed-platforming in that series, it is seemingly random whether you'll make it through unscathed or get pummeled by pistons to near-death.
Story time!
I was playing through Double Dragon and I had two or three games in a row where I came to a dead halt at the pistons. My wife was messing around on her phone watching me occasionally and generally enjoying herself that I was having so much trouble there. I got back to the same spot again and my wife asks me if she could try. She does not play games but I figured I wasn't having any luck so she might as well give it a shot. So she takes the controller and almost makes it all the way through unscathed ... she got hit by the very last one. I was stunned ... how did she figure that out on her own? The answer is while I was playing she was searching online for the visual cues and she executed it near flawlessly! The lesson here is that there is a method to getting through that section without getting hit!
I've played a LOT of Double Dragon 1. It's one of my favorite go-to NES games for a quick play through. I've never figured out a pattern for those pistons though.
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
This is a common trope, but I cannot accept it. I am curious how many people who say this grew up with these games vs discovering them after, let's say the age of 15.
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
Originally posted by: NostalgicMachine
I'm going to export this to your Zelda 2 thread where it will be more relevant and not take this one over with Zelda 2 talk
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
I'd agree with that.
I find a really tight, well designed, 1 - 10 hour experience, following dozens of hours of practice/mastery, more satisfying than a game where you're more-or-less going through the motions for 20 or 30 hours and "anybody can beat it".
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
This is a common trope, but I cannot accept it. I am curious how many people who say this grew up with these games vs discovering them after, let's say the age of 15.
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
THIS.
My favorite kinds of games are ones that take hours to master, but you can beat them quickly when you know what you are doing. It's so satisfying beating a tough Nintendo game in 15 or 20 minutes.
My favorite kinds of games are ones that take hours to master, but you can beat them quickly when you know what you are doing. It's so satisfying beating a tough Nintendo game in 15 or 20 minutes.
Indeed. The NES comes from that era in video games before the technology was robust enough to support the lengthy, "epic" designs of later console generations. With these limitations came the classic addage commonly associated with the Atari and early acrade games: "Easy to learn, hard to master".
I think that still remains largely the appeal of games on the NES to this day. The fact that I can boot up Contra, be playing within literally a few seconds and probably even finish the game in 20-30 minutes is such a pure and liberating gaming experience, especially when you compare it to, let's say, Assassin's Creed X (boot up, wait for logos, start game, watch opening cutscenes, play through tutorial, etc.).
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
This is a common trope, but I cannot accept it. I am curious how many people who say this grew up with these games vs discovering them after, let's say the age of 15.
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
Paradoxically, I agree with both stances entirely. The issue with the first lies in proving programmer/designer intention, which is very difficult to do unless someone comes out and says "Lol, you guys are retarded; we made this game in a week and intentionally made it more difficult due to RAM limits" etc. I seriously feel some games are/were made this way, but I wouldn't doubt if most were not.
The part I agree with arch_8ngel on, is the part about games taking a bit to beat, but once you complete them once, you can beat it much quicker.
HOWEVER....
GETTING to this point is going to vary greatly from player to player, in a highly-subjective manner. What's easy for you guys (Zelda II) is difficuly for others (myself). As discussed in the Zelda II thread, you guys make great points, but almost none of that applies to someone walking in fresh with no idea/history of the game. I agree with whomever said "I'm curious how many of you played this before age 15/after finding out about it heavily", and that's a damn solid point and line in the sand IMHO. I admit I have more knowledge than the newbie player, and thus should in theory have an easier time playing through, but I'm finding the opposite to be true via experience...mostly due to my personal level of skill in the game as I've said.
It's that very experience that comes from playing the game over and over that makes it seem easier to some, and like a giant uphill battle to someone who lacks that same experiene with the game.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
I think you'll find that all NES game cartridges are of the same material and consistency, and thus any one cartridge is as hard as another. Hope this helps.
I think you'll find that all NES game cartridges are of the same material and consistency, and thus any one cartridge is as hard as another. Hope this helps.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
To me the hardest games are the ones with wonky play control. I love Castlevania and games like that but jump mechanics made it extremely hard. Maybe I just wasn't very good at them but play control would always make or break a game for me.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
Thanks for the tip! I'll see if I can get past him.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
Thanks for the tip! I'll see if I can get past him.
No prob! That boss gave me a little trouble at first as well. Then I realized that I was focusing too much on the hunchback which only wastes your time. After that, it's really not that bad.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
Thanks for the tip! I'll see if I can get past him.
No prob! That boss gave me a little trouble at first as well. Then I realized that I was focusing too much on the hunchback which only wastes your time. After that, it's really not that bad.
Yeah, Frankie gave me some problems, too. Usually if I don't have the holy water I try to dodge Igor and whip the crap out of tall, dark and gruesome. I can usually get enough strikes to do damage, retreat, and try again. Haven't done as much with the knife, though it might be good, too.
Frank can be a total bitch if you've never beaten him before; he used to be my biggest speed bump in the entire game. As others have said, watch the jumpy guy's pattern and stay clear, and just attack Frank with whatever you've got. That last stretch of hallways before the fight is my least favorite part of the entire game for this reason!
Comments
This one's obvious, but just to get it out there: Gradius is hard because you lose all of your weapons when you die. If this happens in later levels, you're usually so under-powered that the game is unplayable. There are many games like this, but since Gradius is the most unforgiving, it received the honor of naming this phenomenon as "Gradius Syndrome".
Other NES notables for this:
Adventure Island (die in the wrong place, no hammer for you)
Blaster Master (taking DAMAGE downgrades your gun)
Castlevania (keep that Holy Water!)
Life Force (not as bad as original, since death doesn't bump you backwards)
Bingo!
Castlevania is even worse than Gradius IMHO.
Other NES notables for this:
Adventure Island (die in the wrong place, no hammer for you)
Blaster Master (taking DAMAGE downgrades your gun)
Both great examples. There are levels of Adventure Island (like 6-2) where if you die, it doesn't matter how many lives you have, you're not going to make it far enough to get a weapon, let alone the upgraded weapon you need to make it through.
Blaster Master, if you're careful about keeping track of weapon upgrade locations, at least you can backtrack and recharge, though you still have to fight your way through whatever part made you take damage.
(not accounting for boss fights that can basically become unwinnable if you lose your upgrade)
Maybe this is just from the stance of an experienced player but I don't think in Zelda 2 "leveling-up is expected of you in the early game". Sure, you will stumble around in the beginning. And probably avoid all the caves until you run out of options. But I think it gives you a lot more than the first game, with the towns to recover health and get the shield spell, and the lone square of forest that contains a 50pt bag giving the first level up for free. But I don't remember ever needing to grind until much later.
Agreed. You can get a couple of palaces into the game without grinding.
You don't need to make the death mountain run until after the second palace.
By that point you probably have a few naturally acquired experience levels (from combat) and two "automatic" level-ups from completing the palaces.
And if you explored areas of interest you have found at least a couple of experience bags that are worth automatic early-levels as well.
If the usefulness of leveling up (i.e. hitting harder) isn't obvious by that point, I question the player's abilities of observation.
There seems to be a lot of "perceived difficulty" that seems to stem from people trying to play these games without ever having looked at a manual... back-in-the-day you'd have the instruction booklet to read... nowadays there are plenty of online copies of that same manual.
Playing the game blind is your own fault and generally shouldn't factor into whether a game is considered "hard", objectively.
Maybe people just play games faster these days. I notice in modern games there is this expectation of reaching a major milestone very quickly (even with 20 minutes of cutscenes involved). I don't know if Nintendo games are meant to be played like that, but I certainly didn't BITD
All of the classic Zeldas you are into the game and through the first dungeon in that amount of time, give-or-take 10 minutes.
I don't think any of those games are paced unreasonably, even by modern standards of impatience.
Granted, Zelda 2, in particular, does have two noticeable plateaus of difficulty (the death mountain run, and the run to the final palace) where the game takes a leap in difficulty that isn't expected the first time you get there.
Depending on how you play the game, and how good you are, grinding isn't necessarily required at either point, but for inexperienced players both of those zones would seem to call for it.
You're right... and agreed on perceived difficulty without manuals. I just looked up the manual for details on Zelda 2 and it does give the map to the first palace, as well as explain points and leveling up. I just remember beating it for the first time in a matter of months, not days or weeks--and liking it that way.
Oh yeah. Completely agree on the actual calendar timeline expectations being different nowadays.
I think my dad and I spent months mapping the original Legend of Zelda.
And probably at least a few weeks figuring out the chart of boss weaknesses in Mega Man 2.
Maybe a lot of it had to do with just less stuff available to play, at the time, so you felt less like you were missing out of you took your time to get really deep in a game.
I'm curious if there are any other particular parts of games that are as equally-infuriating as the last stretch/loop of Ninja Gaiden?
The Double Dragon section with the piston-blocks in infuriating because it either DOESN'T have a pattern, or the pattern is really well concealed in its complexity.
It can really ruin the enjoyment of the game for me, because compared to any other timed-platforming in that series, it is seemingly random whether you'll make it through unscathed or get pummeled by pistons to near-death.
Story time!
I was playing through Double Dragon and I had two or three games in a row where I came to a dead halt at the pistons. My wife was messing around on her phone watching me occasionally and generally enjoying herself that I was having so much trouble there. I got back to the same spot again and my wife asks me if she could try. She does not play games but I figured I wasn't having any luck so she might as well give it a shot. So she takes the controller and almost makes it all the way through unscathed ... she got hit by the very last one. I was stunned ... how did she figure that out on her own? The answer is while I was playing she was searching online for the visual cues and she executed it near flawlessly! The lesson here is that there is a method to getting through that section without getting hit!
I'm curious if there are any other particular parts of games that are as equally-infuriating as the last stretch/loop of Ninja Gaiden?
The Double Dragon section with the piston-blocks in infuriating because it either DOESN'T have a pattern, or the pattern is really well concealed in its complexity.
It can really ruin the enjoyment of the game for me, because compared to any other timed-platforming in that series, it is seemingly random whether you'll make it through unscathed or get pummeled by pistons to near-death.
Story time!
I was playing through Double Dragon and I had two or three games in a row where I came to a dead halt at the pistons. My wife was messing around on her phone watching me occasionally and generally enjoying herself that I was having so much trouble there. I got back to the same spot again and my wife asks me if she could try. She does not play games but I figured I wasn't having any luck so she might as well give it a shot. So she takes the controller and almost makes it all the way through unscathed ... she got hit by the very last one. I was stunned ... how did she figure that out on her own? The answer is while I was playing she was searching online for the visual cues and she executed it near flawlessly! The lesson here is that there is a method to getting through that section without getting hit!
I've read about it, but I'm on the verge of believing it's just a myth and the people that claim to pull it off just got lucky and could never do it consistently
The point is, they made the pattern so obscure as to appear completely random and hopeless.
I've read about it, but I'm on the verge of believing it's just a myth and the people that claim to pull it off just got lucky and could never do it consistently
The point is, they made the pattern so obscure as to appear completely random and hopeless.
From what I remember you have to stand and wait for a specific sequence where you can pass safely, however the sequences themselves occur randomly and there is still an element of timing to it also. It's on the fringes of what could be considered a pattern and it's poor design overall.
Maybe this is just from the stance of an experienced player but I don't think in Zelda 2 "leveling-up is expected of you in the early game". Sure, you will stumble around in the beginning. And probably avoid all the caves until you run out of options. But I think it gives you a lot more than the first game, with safe paths, towns to recover health and get the shield spell, and the lone square of forest that contains a 50pt bag giving the first level up for free. But I don't remember ever needing to specifically grind until much later.
I understand what you're saying here, but I have to respectfully disagree, sir!
Leveling up is kind of the entire point of the gameplay mechanic in Zelda II. If you don't level up, you won't make it very far. While it's debatable that the game "expects" grinding from the get go, it's without question that you're required to level up ASAP to get far at all. For me, how each of us personally feel about leveling is irrelevent, because it's a required portion of the game.
Waiting until the end to grind absolutely sucks because it takes forever, hence why most of us opt to leave the Palace Crystals alone until the end to max out. Perhaps the difference in our opinions/experience is due to the fact that you may just use the Crystals immediately?
In the original LoZ, there are fairy locations that are stable and there every time you turn the game on. You can plan paths through Hyrule so you can get them when needed, and typically your heart meter is pretty resiliant less than halfway through the game. In Zelda II, fairy locations appear randomly on the board, with secure fairy locations being sparse. Yes, they're there, but they're a pain to get to in most cases.
In most instances, you get to a fairy, refill your meter, then take a ton of damage anyway on your way to wherever it is you're going next.
In Zelda II, even with max health and magic, you're using resources like crazy just to make it to places. The patterns of some enemeis (fence-hiding bastards on the way to Palace 6) will absolutely rape your health and magic if you don't know how to navigate those asinine fireball patterns. In the first LoZ, you really only had to be careful around Darknuts and Lionells.
In LoZ, you just need a full heart meter and you're pretty set. In Zelda II, your life meter can be full, even on the highest level attainable, and you're still going to get your ass kicked.
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! This is precisely what I'm talking about, and what you just said is the basis of why I started this thread.
I'm curious if there are any other particular parts of games that are as equally-infuriating as the last stretch/loop of Ninja Gaiden?
The Double Dragon section with the piston-blocks in infuriating because it either DOESN'T have a pattern, or the pattern is really well concealed in its complexity.
It can really ruin the enjoyment of the game for me, because compared to any other timed-platforming in that series, it is seemingly random whether you'll make it through unscathed or get pummeled by pistons to near-death.
Story time!
I was playing through Double Dragon and I had two or three games in a row where I came to a dead halt at the pistons. My wife was messing around on her phone watching me occasionally and generally enjoying herself that I was having so much trouble there. I got back to the same spot again and my wife asks me if she could try. She does not play games but I figured I wasn't having any luck so she might as well give it a shot. So she takes the controller and almost makes it all the way through unscathed ... she got hit by the very last one. I was stunned ... how did she figure that out on her own? The answer is while I was playing she was searching online for the visual cues and she executed it near flawlessly! The lesson here is that there is a method to getting through that section without getting hit!
I've played a LOT of Double Dragon 1. It's one of my favorite go-to NES games for a quick play through. I've never figured out a pattern for those pistons though.
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
This is a common trope, but I cannot accept it. I am curious how many people who say this grew up with these games vs discovering them after, let's say the age of 15.
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
I'm going to export this to your Zelda 2 thread where it will be more relevant and not take this one over with Zelda 2 talk
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
I'd agree with that.
I find a really tight, well designed, 1 - 10 hour experience, following dozens of hours of practice/mastery, more satisfying than a game where you're more-or-less going through the motions for 20 or 30 hours and "anybody can beat it".
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
This is a common trope, but I cannot accept it. I am curious how many people who say this grew up with these games vs discovering them after, let's say the age of 15.
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
THIS.
My favorite kinds of games are ones that take hours to master, but you can beat them quickly when you know what you are doing. It's so satisfying beating a tough Nintendo game in 15 or 20 minutes.
THIS.
My favorite kinds of games are ones that take hours to master, but you can beat them quickly when you know what you are doing. It's so satisfying beating a tough Nintendo game in 15 or 20 minutes.
Indeed. The NES comes from that era in video games before the technology was robust enough to support the lengthy, "epic" designs of later console generations. With these limitations came the classic addage commonly associated with the Atari and early acrade games: "Easy to learn, hard to master".
I think that still remains largely the appeal of games on the NES to this day. The fact that I can boot up Contra, be playing within literally a few seconds and probably even finish the game in 20-30 minutes is such a pure and liberating gaming experience, especially when you compare it to, let's say, Assassin's Creed X (boot up, wait for logos, start game, watch opening cutscenes, play through tutorial, etc.).
Alot of games back then, and even into the SNES era, were intentionally made hard not so much for the sake of being hard, but to artificially extend the length of the game, since the carts didn't have the capacity to hold a larger game. If you look at most games from back then on paper, they are actually really short, especially compared to whats out there now on modern systems. So they made the games harder to make them feel alot longer, so you felt like you got your money's worth.
This is a common trope, but I cannot accept it. I am curious how many people who say this grew up with these games vs discovering them after, let's say the age of 15.
It's not "articifical". It's "challenging". A game that takes 20-30 hours to master but can be beaten in 45 minutes after that, is worth much more to me than a game that will always take 20-30 hours because it's like watching or being in a movie. The latter game will always be the same. The former has opportunity for variation and can be a different experience each time.
Paradoxically, I agree with both stances entirely. The issue with the first lies in proving programmer/designer intention, which is very difficult to do unless someone comes out and says "Lol, you guys are retarded; we made this game in a week and intentionally made it more difficult due to RAM limits" etc. I seriously feel some games are/were made this way, but I wouldn't doubt if most were not.
The part I agree with arch_8ngel on, is the part about games taking a bit to beat, but once you complete them once, you can beat it much quicker.
HOWEVER....
GETTING to this point is going to vary greatly from player to player, in a highly-subjective manner. What's easy for you guys (Zelda II) is difficuly for others (myself). As discussed in the Zelda II thread, you guys make great points, but almost none of that applies to someone walking in fresh with no idea/history of the game. I agree with whomever said "I'm curious how many of you played this before age 15/after finding out about it heavily", and that's a damn solid point and line in the sand IMHO. I admit I have more knowledge than the newbie player, and thus should in theory have an easier time playing through, but I'm finding the opposite to be true via experience...mostly due to my personal level of skill in the game as I've said.
It's that very experience that comes from playing the game over and over that makes it seem easier to some, and like a giant uphill battle to someone who lacks that same experiene with the game.
I think you'll find that all NES game cartridges are of the same material and consistency, and thus any one cartridge is as hard as another. Hope this helps.
Nyuk...nyuk...
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
Thanks for the tip! I'll see if I can get past him.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
Thanks for the tip! I'll see if I can get past him.
No prob! That boss gave me a little trouble at first as well. Then I realized that I was focusing too much on the hunchback which only wastes your time. After that, it's really not that bad.
I'm trying to beat Castlevania roght now, and I am stuck at Frankenstein because I always lose the holy water before I get to him. I can almost defeat him with the crappy knife powerup that shows up on the stage right before him, but I feel like without the holy water it ain't happening!
The key in that fight is to pay attention to the jumping pattern of the hunchback and place yourself where he won't jump into you. Don't bother whipping him. That only delays his pattern and can throw you off. The knife isn't that bad a weapon to use on the Frankenstein monster when he retreats to the far right of the screen.
Thanks for the tip! I'll see if I can get past him.
No prob! That boss gave me a little trouble at first as well. Then I realized that I was focusing too much on the hunchback which only wastes your time. After that, it's really not that bad.
Yeah, Frankie gave me some problems, too. Usually if I don't have the holy water I try to dodge Igor and whip the crap out of tall, dark and gruesome. I can usually get enough strikes to do damage, retreat, and try again. Haven't done as much with the knife, though it might be good, too.