Well. I don't know. If I were to beat Ghost N Goblins today it probably be a 7 or 6 to me, and similiar to Battletoads, 7 or something.. as I've beaten them both before and know the levels.
And for someone like TheMexicanRunner with a world record in Battletoads, or other speed runners of Battletoads, they might give it a 1 or 2 in difficulty. TheMexicanRunner has played the game to death, so its extremely easy for him to if he was to play it today. Doesn't mean Battletoads is a 1 though.
So I'm not sure if that is the best way of judging the difficulty level of a game. Really, what game isn't easy if you've beaten before multiple times?
You sort of have to rate it like its a new player entering the game without any prior knowledge. Meaning you can only compare it to your first time playing it, not the 100th.
No player would think beating G'N'G for the first time with no deaths is easy. (And besides, Bea is not an average player. What she finds easy most of us mere mortals might find difficult, and thats perfectly fine.)
I beat it with a friend yesterday. Remember beating it as a child too. This one is a LOT easier than the third. You have 3 lives, and you can gain more, something you can't on DD3.. and there's seemingly endless continues(?). I'd give it a 5 personally, although there's some annoying platform puzzles so I won't argue if someone insisted 6. The DD game is not easy for platform.
Tiny Toons Adventures
This one is tricky to rate. Most of the game is quite easy. Like a 3 or 4.. but then on the last couple of levels I remember the difficulty level turning quite devious. Like a 7 or 8. It really took me by surprise. Its been a while, but there was something about sending you back like in Ninja Gaiden. So I'm not sure how to rate it. I suppose 6. I'd like to hear someone else's view on it though. Perhaps I just didn't play it well back then. Not sure. I'd need to re-play it.
Solomons Key
Well. It might be a 10 if you wanna beat it with the best ending. You can beat it with the minimum ending, which is the one I did, and I'd say thats around 9. I'm not sure. Its at least 9 or 10.
Castlevania
Yeah, 6 is probably fine. Its Dracula that to me drags it up to a 7, because I sure sucked when I got to him. I did find a better strategy with him eventually, but for a while I found him pretty near impossible. I spent hours on him I think.
Kid Icarus
I'd say 7 or 7.5. Its a game that starts off hard, perhaps a bit too hard(as I suspect it would have been more popular if it was balanced down a notch..) but eases a little when you get the powerups and so on. I think the maze like levels were tricky. Very large. I wrote those levels down on paper. Its lengthy game too.
Contra and Super C
I'm not sure. Most people seemed to have played these to death as a child, which always affects things when they rate. I think they are probably more than 5 though, without the codes that is. More around 6 perhaps. The spread is a bit overpowered though. I'd argue for a 7 if the spread wasn't a part of the game.
Ninja Gaiden 1
6.5? Wow.. Considering its reputation that seems a bit low, doesn't it? Some good players that seems to have rated this. I'd say 8 or 7.5. Its not among the hardest games on the system, as someone seems to suggest, not by far... but its still pretty hard. To put it below 7 is a bit absurd to me.
Ninja Gaiden 2
6.5 or 7? I thought it was easier than the first one, but not by that much. They seem about the same, but I still found the sequel easier. I played it straight after the first one though, so its possible I got a lot free as they're quite similar in gameplay, its just other levels. I have never played the third one. By reputation its supposed to be the hardest one of them.
TMNT
The first Turtles game. Ah, yes. I actually agree with an 8. Its a looong game, has many large levels and has challenging parts, somewhat clunky controls.. and the Techmodrome is difficult. Those astronaut-ghosts... I wonder if they got passed some test-players. The game seems unbalanced. I think this was a game many many children bought back in the day, but very few got very far into. It probably should have had limitless continues.
TMNT 2
Yes, a 5 is perhaps about right. Or 5.5/6 maaaaybe. Some bosses are not a breeze, especially Shredder who can shoot you once and you lose a whole life... I don't know. I suppose its very straightforward.
Punch Out
OK, look... I can beat this game quite easily, as I played it to death as a child.. but I think 7 is probably more fair. Many people can't beat Tyson/Mr Dream. And Super Macho Man and some of the later boxers are also quite a challenge. Lots to memorize. As with Ninja Gaiden and Contra though, its fun factor probably makes it easier to persist despite that its fairly hard. Most people have played themselves blind on some of these games.
Bart Vs The Space Mutants
Well, 8 seems a bit high.... I'd say 7 maximum.
There's some tricky things in the game, but I didn't find it anything brutal.
To make a game where the speed button and jump button is the same is a terribly clunky choice though... I got used to it though.
Battletoads
This one we probably need to talk more about. I think Battletoads probably should be 10. I still think its the hardest NES game I have beaten. Even if its a bit of cliche that its the «hardest NES game», as all lists usually lists it as 1 or 2... I agree there are less played games on NES that are harder(like Q*Bert, Arkanoid and Ikari Warriors), but in my opinion it still probably deserves a 10. My opinon though.
Ghost N Goblins
I want to say 10 on this one too, but I'd accept a 9 or 9.5. As with any game you've beaten though it seems weird to say 10, because it means maximum difficulty, which never really computes if you can beat it... But really, while I agree Ninja Gaiden and Silver Surfer have an exaggerated rumor for being Tier 1 hardest games, Battletoads and G'N'G I think probably deserves to be up there. But thats me.
Q*Bert
I think this one is a 10 too. Most people can beat the first levels without too much hassle, but the later levels really is a nightmare, and YES it does have an actual ending after 9-4 on NES, unlike in the Arcade machines where it just loops forever. My record is level 6-1 I think. Very few people can beat this game.
Little Nemo
I agree with 7. LOL. On the last level I didn't realize you could shoot with the wand. I thought you could only hit with it. To not know that made the game probably around 9 or even 10... but then again, joke was on me in the end.
The Legend Of Zelda
3.5? Thats surprsingly low. Might be that I never played it as a child as everyone else, but as someone who didn't play it before getting older I sure didn't find it THAT easy. I'd say 5.
Top Gun
Um. This one is more than 5 surely?. I haven't beaten it yet, but I thought at least 7 or even 8. If not even 9.. I actually find this game hard. And its reputation is its hard.
I'm taking on some of your suggestions next!
Double Dragon II is a 9 for me. The hardest difficulty is a requirement for this game, plus four lives and no continues (and no additional lives as you suggested). Tricky platforming, many levels, tough bosses, this game has it all. I generally feel that people tend to underrate the difficulty of the NES Double Dragon games.
Tiny Toon Adventures at a 6 or 7 sounds about right. I agree with your assessment. The game isn't too bad until the last level or two.
Solomon's Key ... I haven't beaten it but it's on my short list for a possible 10 difficulty.
Castlevania is an 8 for me mostly based on the last two bosses.
Kid Icarus was a 7 for me too just based on the initial difficulty curve. It gets much easier after the first couple of stages and the dungeons can be tricky to figure out.
I have Contra and Super C both at 7. These are either wildly overrated or wildly underrated for some reason.
Ninja Gaiden is a 9 for me even though I've beaten it many times. The last stage and boss sequence is just too hard to ignore when measuring difficulty, especially the second form of the final boss. Ninja Gaiden II is maybe an 8 or a 9, I can't decide.
TMNT is a solid 9 for me almost entirely for me because of "The Hallway." But I suppose I could be persuaded to drop it a notch just because of having four lives to manage all at once is a nice boost sometimes.
TMNT 2 I'll say 6? I was able to 1CC it. Krang and Shredder are pretty tough especially getting there with enough lives/continues.
Punch Out has to be a 9. This one requires reflexes not often necessary in NES games. I think it maybe gets rated lower since the bulk of the game is pretty easy.
Bart vs. the Space Mutants is an 8 for me because of no continues and the platforming in the museum stage. Took me a bit to even get that far consistently.
Battletoads will get a 10 from me just because it was the one game that took me actual years as a kid to get good enough at it to finish. I find it easy now, but I also find Ikari Warriors mostly "easy" now just because I have the game memorized at this point. Ikari Warriors is definitely hard, and so is Battletoads.
Ghosts and Goblins I agree with you 100%. I say 10 but will not argue about making it a 9.
Q*Bert I haven't played much but it is on my short list for 10 difficulty.
Little Nemo I could go with 7 just because of the last stage and boss. I could maybe lean 6 on it also though.
Legend of Zelda was a 5 for me, but it is one of the hardest games for me to rate and feel good about my decision. The more you figure out, the easier it gets. Plus you can grind out money for the red potion which helps brute force your way through difficult dungeon sections.
Top Gun was a solid 9 for me. Really tough game. I think you can cheese the game by flying as far left/right as you can go. But playing it straight there is very little margin for error. Three lives and that's it. If it had any more than four missions I would probably have ranked it 10.
Kickle Cubicle- I'd give it a 6. The main game is probably a 4 but the bonus levels had me pulling out my hair for the longest time. We'll compromise on the final tally.
Yoshi- Give it a 2. After getting used to it, I could go infinite within about 20 minutes, note: i'm good at puzzle games.
Roger Clemens MVP Baseball- 4. Pretty good AI for an NES baseball simulator, but theres only so many tricks a good CPU can do to confuse you on pitches.
Kickle Cubicle is probably about right. I'll say either 4 or 5 for the main game, and 6 or 7 for the bonus levels included. I would want to play it again more recently to have a better feel for nailing down a number.
I really have no idea what to make of Yoshi. The NES Ending FAQ says beating B-Game Level 99 Speed Hi is beating the game, which seems ludicrous to me. I also find it easy which skews my judgment, but without a clear winning condition I can't pin a number on it at all.
- What? No way, this isn't as hard as Adventure Island. This is a 4.
Blaster Master 9
- Same as above. Not even a 9. Hardest part of the game is the VERY end when you're stuck against the walls and cant jump over the spikes. Even tho its long, its no 9... Its a 6.
I'll add my input on some of your suggestions!
Bionic Commando is a 7, maybe even 8. I believe the swinging mechanics take some getting used to and it makes the game challenging until you get the hang of it. You can eventually grind for unlimited continues which diminishes the difficulty a bit. I think 4 is awfully low however.
Blaster Master is definitely a 9, maybe even a borderline 10. This game is very long, has limited continues, requires repeated exploration to learn the shortest path, and difficult bosses. I know everyone knows the cheat for half of the bosses, but trying to beat them without it is a hefty challenge. The Area 5 Lobster boss is still a bottleneck for me even though I've beaten the game several times. The final boss is no joke either.
I'm really surprised you'd rate either of those that high.
I think I broke out the 3 "hard parts" of Bionic Commando pretty fairly in my reply, upthread, and that the swinging mechanic is tremendously forgiving in much of the rest of the game. To suggest that it rates as tough as some of the other 7's (or 8's) mentioned in the list doesn't seem very realistic to me.
Blaster Master, I agree is long enough, and without passwords and limited continues, actually beating it is tough. (but seriously 9 or a TEN in challenge?)
- What? No way, this isn't as hard as Adventure Island. This is a 4.
Blaster Master 9
- Same as above. Not even a 9. Hardest part of the game is the VERY end when you're stuck against the walls and cant jump over the spikes. Even tho its long, its no 9... Its a 6.
I'll add my input on some of your suggestions!
Bionic Commando is a 7, maybe even 8. I believe the swinging mechanics take some getting used to and it makes the game challenging until you get the hang of it. You can eventually grind for unlimited continues which diminishes the difficulty a bit. I think 4 is awfully low however.
Blaster Master is definitely a 9, maybe even a borderline 10. This game is very long, has limited continues, requires repeated exploration to learn the shortest path, and difficult bosses. I know everyone knows the cheat for half of the bosses, but trying to beat them without it is a hefty challenge. The Area 5 Lobster boss is still a bottleneck for me even though I've beaten the game several times. The final boss is no joke either.
I'm really surprised you'd rate either of those that high.
I think I broke out the 3 "hard parts" of Bionic Commando pretty fairly in my reply, upthread, and that the swinging mechanic is tremendously forgiving in much of the rest of the game. To suggest that it rates as tough as some of the other 7's (or 8's) mentioned in the list doesn't seem very realistic to me.
Blaster Master, I agree is long enough, and without passwords and limited continues, actually beating it is tough. (but seriously 9 or a TEN in challenge?)
It has been a long time since I played Bionic Commando, but I have beaten it multiple times and I'm sure I could beat it right now in a single sitting. I would guess you have a better feel for it than I do currently, but a score or 4 seems awfully low to me regardless. I could be mistaken about a 7, but 4 is too low. I could agree with 5 or 6 and just admit that I'm off-base on this one in general.
However, I will not accept lower than a 9 for Blaster Master. Rating it a possible 10 ...may be a bit of a stretch, sure. I think you put everything together and I don't see how it's an 8. With all of my experience and knowing exactly where to go, I don't think I could consistently beat the game even now. I take all of that into consideration when rating difficulty.
I think we simply need to give each game two ratings: one for playing blind, and one for playing with optimal strategies. Do that, and so many of these debates will magically be resolved.
It has been a long time since I played Bionic Commando, but I have beaten it multiple times and I'm sure I could beat it right now in a single sitting. I would guess you have a better feel for it than I do currently, but a score or 4 seems awfully low to me regardless. I could be mistaken about a 7, but 4 is too low. I could agree with 5 or 6 and just admit that I'm off-base on this one in general.
However, I will not accept lower than a 9 for Blaster Master. Rating it a possible 10 ...may be a bit of a stretch, sure. I think you put everything together and I don't see how it's an 8. With all of my experience and knowing exactly where to go, I don't think I could consistently beat the game even now. I take all of that into consideration when rating difficulty.
4 is probably too low for Bionic Command, and a 5 is probably more realistic. (I'm just trying to save the higher numbers for games that are actually challenging after you're already good at them -- Bionic Commando only has a couple of places that make you break a sweat once you're competent)
Blaster Master -- I still think you're toying with the "10" too readily
But I guess this is the subjectivity of what the numbers even mean.
Do we have a good rubric for the scoring? Or are we pulling all of these middle numbers out of our asses?
According to the OP "10 = one of the hardest games on the system".
Now... that would seem to limit a "10" to some small finite number of extraordinarily difficult games.
I mean, it's a tough game, for sure. But I think an 8 (or I GUESS a "9") would give better overhead for those select few games that fundamentally DEMAND a "10". (though i'm actually at a loss to say what I'd propose for that rank level, personally)
That said... are we really saying that Blaster Master is that much tougher than Adventure Island? (i.e. an 8, minimum, versus the 7 in the table?)
It has been a long time since I played Bionic Commando, but I have beaten it multiple times and I'm sure I could beat it right now in a single sitting. I would guess you have a better feel for it than I do currently, but a score or 4 seems awfully low to me regardless. I could be mistaken about a 7, but 4 is too low. I could agree with 5 or 6 and just admit that I'm off-base on this one in general.
However, I will not accept lower than a 9 for Blaster Master. Rating it a possible 10 ...may be a bit of a stretch, sure. I think you put everything together and I don't see how it's an 8. With all of my experience and knowing exactly where to go, I don't think I could consistently beat the game even now. I take all of that into consideration when rating difficulty.
4 is probably too low for Bionic Command, and a 5 is probably more realistic. (I'm just trying to save the higher numbers for games that are actually challenging after you're already good at them -- Bionic Commando only has a couple of places that make you break a sweat once you're competent)
Blaster Master -- I still think you're toying with the "10" too readily
But I guess this is the subjectivity of what the numbers even mean.
Do we have a good rubric for the scoring? Or are we pulling all of these middle numbers out of our asses?
According to the OP "10 = one of the hardest games on the system".
Now... that would seem to limit a "10" to some small finite number of extraordinarily difficult games.
I mean, it's a tough game, for sure. But I think an 8 (or I GUESS a "9") would give better overhead for those select few games that fundamentally DEMAND a "10". (though i'm actually at a loss to say what I'd propose for that rank level, personally)
That said... are we really saying that Blaster Master is that much tougher than Adventure Island? (i.e. an 8, minimum, versus the 7 in the table?)
Alright, alright, maybe I was mistaken saying "Blaster Master," "difficulty," and "10" in the same sentence. Happy now?
I don't think Blaster Master is a 10, but if someone argued for it being a 10 I wouldn't fight it. It's a 9 to me.
For the record I do not agree at all with Adventure Island's rating in the table, even though I haven't beaten the game and am only going by reputation and the small experience I have. (I have reached 3-2, so not far at all). I would put AI at 10 and Blaster Master at 9.
I do struggle with how I want to rate games at the top of the scale. I would put AI at 10 and Ikari Warriors at 10, but it can be pretty easily argued that Ikari is significantly more difficult. I don't want to say Ikari is an 11 and I don't want to say AI is a 9, so how do I effectively reconcile that? My thoughts currently are there are somewhere between 10-20 NES games that are at the top of the food chain and those are your 10s. I do think you can subdivide that further if you want to, and therein lies the problem. Do you split them up into 9s and 10s and have a whole bunch of games in the 7-8 range? Are those even too high compared to everything else? I might as well just start with where I'm at and look at things later whenever I have more games under my belt.
Alright, alright, maybe I was mistaken saying "Blaster Master," "difficulty," and "10" in the same sentence. Happy now?
I don't think Blaster Master is a 10, but if someone argued for it being a 10 I wouldn't fight it. It's a 9 to me.
For the record I do not agree at all with Adventure Island's rating in the table, even though I haven't beaten the game and am only going by reputation and the small experience I have. (I have reached 3-2, so not far at all). I would put AI at 10 and Blaster Master at 9.
I do struggle with how I want to rate games at the top of the scale. I would put AI at 10 and Ikari Warriors at 10, but it can be pretty easily argued that Ikari is significantly more difficult. I don't want to say Ikari is an 11 and I don't want to say AI is a 9, so how do I effectively reconcile that? My thoughts currently are there are somewhere between 10-20 NES games that are at the top of the food chain and those are your 10s. I do think you can subdivide that further if you want to, and therein lies the problem. Do you split them up into 9s and 10s and have a whole bunch of games in the 7-8 range? Are those even too high compared to everything else? I might as well just start with where I'm at and look at things later whenever I have more games under my belt.
I am sure I will have more thoughts tomorrow!
If you're willing to give Adventure Island a 10 (which I agree strongly it deserves at least a 9), then I'd agree that Blaster Master is a strong 9.
Because, you're absolutely right that it would be hard to find more than a couple games on the system in the same league as Ikari Warriors, let alone enough to have "10" as a fairly distributed top tier of challenge.
I agree that there should end up being around 10-20 games that are rated a 10.
Also, I mentioned in the OP that the ratings should be based on playing the games blind. I didn't say it in those exact words, but I said:
"Keep in mind that some games may seem easy because they are great games that you want to play and therefore have learned. For example, I don't think that SBM3 is a 2 even though it's incredibly easy for me to beat having played it through MANY times (which is probably true for most members here). If a person were to play the game for the first time, I think they would find some of the later levels quite challenging.
Kickle Cubicle- I'd give it a 6. The main game is probably a 4 but the bonus levels had me pulling out my hair for the longest time. We'll compromise on the final tally.
Yoshi- Give it a 2. After getting used to it, I could go infinite within about 20 minutes, note: i'm good at puzzle games.
Roger Clemens MVP Baseball- 4. Pretty good AI for an NES baseball simulator, but theres only so many tricks a good CPU can do to confuse you on pitches.
Kickle Cubicle is probably about right. I'll say either 4 or 5 for the main game, and 6 or 7 for the bonus levels included. I would want to play it again more recently to have a better feel for nailing down a number.
I really have no idea what to make of Yoshi. The NES Ending FAQ says beating B-Game Level 99 Speed Hi is beating the game, which seems ludicrous to me. I also find it easy which skews my judgment, but without a clear winning condition I can't pin a number on it at all.
I think on falling brick type puzzle games you need to judge different than other games. The concept of Yoshi is much easier no matter the speed. Much simpler than say, tetris with oddball shaped bricks. probably why it never became a timeless puzzle game like tetris either. If you screw up in tetris it's much harder to recover and bring yourself back down than it is in Yoshi.
Who's dedicated enough to play any puzzle game that long anyway in endless mode?
Well if this was one of my projects, which it isn't, I'd probably try to figure out a general order for every game. Get them ranked. Then maybe divy them up so that the toughest 5% are 10s, next 5% are 9.5s, etc.
Of course then you're in a trap of comparing Tetris to Bases Loaded 4. How can one even measure them against one another? Maybe the requirements from scaryice's thread are good enough?
You'd also need standardize sutff like "should it be 1CC, should you be free to use whatever the game gives you like the AI Hudson Bee, etc."
Also, I mentioned in the OP that the ratings should be based on playing the games blind. I didn't say it in those exact words, but I said:
"Keep in mind that some games may seem easy because they are great games that you want to play and therefore have learned. For example, I don't think that SBM3 is a 2 even though it's incredibly easy for me to beat having played it through MANY times (which is probably true for most members here). If a person were to play the game for the first time, I think they would find some of the later levels quite challenging.
I do struggle with how I want to rate games at the top of the scale. I would put AI at 10 and Ikari Warriors at 10, but it can be pretty easily argued that Ikari is significantly more difficult. I don't want to say Ikari is an 11 and I don't want to say AI is a 9, so how do I effectively reconcile that? My thoughts currently are there are somewhere between 10-20 NES games that are at the top of the food chain and those are your 10s. I do think you can subdivide that further if you want to, and therein lies the problem. Do you split them up into 9s and 10s and have a whole bunch of games in the 7-8 range? Are those even too high compared to everything else? I might as well just start with where I'm at and look at things later whenever I have more games under my belt.
I am sure I will have more thoughts tomorrow!
That is a very good point, Arnpoly. Ikari Warriors without the ABBA code might be its own tier of brutal difficulty, but if that means its 10.. does that push down all the other 10-candidate games to 9? I'd say no. I still think Ikari Warriors was "meant" to be played with the ABBA code, but thats me. Still is impressive to see someone do it without it.
About Bionic Commando, I also thought that was around 6 or 7 too.
But really, how does one argue a game is hard to someone who found it easy? I suppose we have to agree something is just subjective.
Off the top of my head let's try this. SMB1 is my barometer. I consider that a 5 = average/moderate difficulty. These are all based going in blind without years of practice or guides.
Anticipation - 3
Arkista's Ring - 5
Barker Bill's Trick Shooting - 2
Chip N Dale - 3
Chip N Dale 2 - 3
Clash at Demonhead - 5
Contra - 6
Cowboy Kid - 6
Crystalis - 5
Donkey Kong - 4
Donkey Kong Jr - 3
Duck Tales - 3
Duck Tales 2 - 3
Dr Mario - 6
Excitebike - 5
Fire 'N Ice - 7
Great Waldo Search - 1
Guerilla War - 2
Kickle Cubicle - 4
Little Mermaid - 2
Mega Man 1 - 6
Mega Man 2 - 5
Mega Man 3 - 5
Mega Man 4 - 5
Mega Man 5 - 4
Mega Man 6 - 5
Mendel Palace - 3
Metal Storm - 5
Monster in my Pocket - 4
North and South - 3
Popeye - 3
Power Blade - 5
Remote Control - 2
Rockin' Kats - 5
Shatterhand - 8
Snow Bros - 4
Super C - 7
Super Mario Bros - 5
Super Mario Bros II - 6
Super Mario Bros III - 5
Wacky Races - 3
Also a couple like Dragon Warrior and Zelda seem rather low. Going in blind, I imagine these are going to put up more of a challenge than their current scores let on. Also some stuff like Ms Pac Man is difficult to rank because of the various modes and options involved where it gets to the point where the game is as hard as you want to make it.
The whole "Going in blind" thing when determining difficulty is just silly. It's 2016, when determining the difficulty of a game, you should consider every resource that is available.
Games like Maniac Mansion are a 1. Not using these resources is a choice, it's not cheating to read a guide or use a faq, that is a personal choice. Nothing in the game prohibits you from using a guide and trying to pretend that these resources don't exist is insane.
If you want to make separate scores for going in blind vs not that would make some sense, but the only bar to beating some of these games is literally a 2 second online search and reading a guide. That should be reflected in the score.
The whole "Going in blind" thing when determining difficulty is just silly. It's 2016, when determining the difficulty of a game, you should consider every resource that is available.
Games like Maniac Mansion are a 1. Not using these resources is a choice, it's not cheating to read a guide or use a faq, that is a personal choice. Nothing in the game prohibits you from using a guide and trying to pretend that these resources don't exist is insane.
If you want to make separate scores for going in blind vs not that would make some sense, but the only bar to beating some of these games is literally a 2 second online search and reading a guide. That should be reflected in the score.
I can't believe you would seriously mean this?
To use a walkthrough in a point and click adventure game like Maniac Mansion is obviously cheating. By your logic you should just as well be using the konami code on Contra since its a resource everyone can find online now too. Or you could use a game genie, or save states on an emulator too, as its just as easy to do since its "2016" and you should consider to use "every resource available".
This at least I thought would be uncontroversial. You can't base a game's difficulty on allowing the player to cheat. I'm surprised someone would even attempt to make such an argument.
The "going in blind" argument wasn't even about that. Its an argument on how to differ the difficulty from someone playing a game for the first time vs someone who has played it forever. Of course someone who has beaten Mike Tyson in Punch Out a million times before would find him a breeze the next time, while a new player meeting him the first time would (likely) find him difficult. To me it makes more sense rating a game based on how it is to beat the game the first time.
After spot-comparing a couple of games on here, and comparing to past experience and observations of others, I'd put Fester's Quest at a solid 5.5. Once you know what to do, the game isn't that hard but this is like Maniac Mansion-- you have to figure a lot out.
Also, your starting health situation isn't very forgiving and the random nature of enemy spawns can make certain regions near-impossible.
It's definitely not the hardest Shmup by any stretch of the imagination but if this is your introduction to such a game (as it was for me) it will take you a while to "beat" the game, which is when the game loops back to the start.
With no disrespect for BreaKBeatZ's fine efforts, it seems that a three-tier system is really called for:
Blind difficulty (but with the manual and any pack-in maps)
Difficulty with optimal strats, any completion (no 1CC, not 100%, normal difficulty level)
Difficulty with optimal strats, optimal completion (1CC, 100%, hardest difficulty level etc. -- only if applicable)
I'd go so far as to say that point-and-click adventures like Shadowgate should get a "n/a" in the second and third categories, because it's not that they're "easy" but that a walkthrough renders them meaningless. At least turn-based RPGs require resource management and strategizing, and puzzle games like Lolo sometimes require careful timing or reflexes.
Hopefully, this would satisfy everybody. So, the result might look something like this:
With no disrespect for BreaKBeatZ's fine efforts, it seems that a three-tier system is really called for:
Blind difficulty
Difficulty with optimal strats, any completion (no 1CC, not 100%, normal difficulty level)
Difficulty with optimal strats, optimal completion (1CC, 100%, hardest difficulty level etc. -- only if applicable)
I'd go so far as to say that point-and-click adventures like Shadowgate should get a "n/a" in the second and third categories, because it's not that they're "easy" but that a walkthrough renders them meaningless. At least turn-based RPGs require resource management and strategizing, and puzzle games like Lolo sometimes require careful timing or reflexes.
Hopefully, this would satisfy everybody. So, the result might look something like this:
Game
Blind
All Strats, Any%
1CC/Hardest
Castlevania
7
5
8
Double Dragon
6
6
n/a
Ghosts 'n' Goblins
9
6
9.5
Overlord
9
2
n/a
Shadowgate
7
n/a
n/a
I don't think 1cc runs are meaningful. Why not include other arbitrary categories, like pacifist runs, no-powerup runs, game genie runs, playing eith your feet instead of hands, etc.?
I understand the reasoning behind a non-blind run category, but I don't think I want to add it. It would raise a lot of questions about the difficulty of the game after being practiced. How many runs are we basing a non-blind run on? If I have played Ninja Gaiden 500 times previously, it's going to be a lot easier than if I have played it once previously. Both are "non-blind" runs. I'm also not a big fan of every adventure and puzzle game being a 1 (or "n/a").
Well, I think the point of that third tier isn't just "1CC", but everything that connotes maximum achievement within reason. For a shmup/shooter, a lot of people seem to think it's 1CC; for other games, it might be playing on the highest difficulty level (vs. the default), or achieving 100% completion (rare on the NES, but common on other systems), or the best ending (Metroid).
And for other games, like Legacy of the Wizard, it's a totally meaningless concept since they don't have difficulty levels or different endings and aren't played for score.
The idea behind the non-blind run would be that the player has as much information and practice available to them as possible. No matter how much you know about Ikari Warriors, there's always going to be a fundamental difficulty that comes from the sheer mass of essentially perfect inputs required. But OTOH, other games become trivial once you know the right strat.
Comments
And for someone like TheMexicanRunner with a world record in Battletoads, or other speed runners of Battletoads, they might give it a 1 or 2 in difficulty. TheMexicanRunner has played the game to death, so its extremely easy for him to if he was to play it today. Doesn't mean Battletoads is a 1 though.
So I'm not sure if that is the best way of judging the difficulty level of a game. Really, what game isn't easy if you've beaten before multiple times?
You sort of have to rate it like its a new player entering the game without any prior knowledge. Meaning you can only compare it to your first time playing it, not the 100th.
No player would think beating G'N'G for the first time with no deaths is easy. (And besides, Bea is not an average player. What she finds easy most of us mere mortals might find difficult, and thats perfectly fine.)
Double Dragon 2
I beat it with a friend yesterday. Remember beating it as a child too. This one is a LOT easier than the third. You have 3 lives, and you can gain more, something you can't on DD3.. and there's seemingly endless continues(?). I'd give it a 5 personally, although there's some annoying platform puzzles so I won't argue if someone insisted 6. The DD game is not easy for platform.
Tiny Toons Adventures
This one is tricky to rate. Most of the game is quite easy. Like a 3 or 4.. but then on the last couple of levels I remember the difficulty level turning quite devious. Like a 7 or 8. It really took me by surprise. Its been a while, but there was something about sending you back like in Ninja Gaiden. So I'm not sure how to rate it. I suppose 6. I'd like to hear someone else's view on it though. Perhaps I just didn't play it well back then. Not sure. I'd need to re-play it.
Solomons Key
Well. It might be a 10 if you wanna beat it with the best ending. You can beat it with the minimum ending, which is the one I did, and I'd say thats around 9. I'm not sure. Its at least 9 or 10.
Castlevania
Yeah, 6 is probably fine. Its Dracula that to me drags it up to a 7, because I sure sucked when I got to him. I did find a better strategy with him eventually, but for a while I found him pretty near impossible. I spent hours on him I think.
Kid Icarus
I'd say 7 or 7.5. Its a game that starts off hard, perhaps a bit too hard(as I suspect it would have been more popular if it was balanced down a notch..) but eases a little when you get the powerups and so on. I think the maze like levels were tricky. Very large. I wrote those levels down on paper. Its lengthy game too.
Contra and Super C
I'm not sure. Most people seemed to have played these to death as a child, which always affects things when they rate. I think they are probably more than 5 though, without the codes that is. More around 6 perhaps. The spread is a bit overpowered though. I'd argue for a 7 if the spread wasn't a part of the game.
Ninja Gaiden 1
6.5? Wow.. Considering its reputation that seems a bit low, doesn't it? Some good players that seems to have rated this. I'd say 8 or 7.5. Its not among the hardest games on the system, as someone seems to suggest, not by far... but its still pretty hard. To put it below 7 is a bit absurd to me.
Ninja Gaiden 2
6.5 or 7? I thought it was easier than the first one, but not by that much. They seem about the same, but I still found the sequel easier. I played it straight after the first one though, so its possible I got a lot free as they're quite similar in gameplay, its just other levels. I have never played the third one. By reputation its supposed to be the hardest one of them.
TMNT
The first Turtles game. Ah, yes. I actually agree with an 8. Its a looong game, has many large levels and has challenging parts, somewhat clunky controls.. and the Techmodrome is difficult. Those astronaut-ghosts... I wonder if they got passed some test-players. The game seems unbalanced. I think this was a game many many children bought back in the day, but very few got very far into. It probably should have had limitless continues.
TMNT 2
Yes, a 5 is perhaps about right. Or 5.5/6 maaaaybe. Some bosses are not a breeze, especially Shredder who can shoot you once and you lose a whole life... I don't know. I suppose its very straightforward.
Punch Out
OK, look... I can beat this game quite easily, as I played it to death as a child.. but I think 7 is probably more fair. Many people can't beat Tyson/Mr Dream. And Super Macho Man and some of the later boxers are also quite a challenge. Lots to memorize. As with Ninja Gaiden and Contra though, its fun factor probably makes it easier to persist despite that its fairly hard. Most people have played themselves blind on some of these games.
Bart Vs The Space Mutants
Well, 8 seems a bit high.... I'd say 7 maximum.
There's some tricky things in the game, but I didn't find it anything brutal.
To make a game where the speed button and jump button is the same is a terribly clunky choice though... I got used to it though.
Battletoads
This one we probably need to talk more about. I think Battletoads probably should be 10. I still think its the hardest NES game I have beaten. Even if its a bit of cliche that its the «hardest NES game», as all lists usually lists it as 1 or 2... I agree there are less played games on NES that are harder(like Q*Bert, Arkanoid and Ikari Warriors), but in my opinion it still probably deserves a 10. My opinon though.
Ghost N Goblins
I want to say 10 on this one too, but I'd accept a 9 or 9.5. As with any game you've beaten though it seems weird to say 10, because it means maximum difficulty, which never really computes if you can beat it... But really, while I agree Ninja Gaiden and Silver Surfer have an exaggerated rumor for being Tier 1 hardest games, Battletoads and G'N'G I think probably deserves to be up there. But thats me.
Q*Bert
I think this one is a 10 too. Most people can beat the first levels without too much hassle, but the later levels really is a nightmare, and YES it does have an actual ending after 9-4 on NES, unlike in the Arcade machines where it just loops forever. My record is level 6-1 I think. Very few people can beat this game.
Little Nemo
I agree with 7. LOL. On the last level I didn't realize you could shoot with the wand. I thought you could only hit with it. To not know that made the game probably around 9 or even 10... but then again, joke was on me in the end.
The Legend Of Zelda
3.5? Thats surprsingly low. Might be that I never played it as a child as everyone else, but as someone who didn't play it before getting older I sure didn't find it THAT easy. I'd say 5.
Top Gun
Um. This one is more than 5 surely?. I haven't beaten it yet, but I thought at least 7 or even 8. If not even 9.. I actually find this game hard. And its reputation is its hard.
I'm taking on some of your suggestions next!
Double Dragon II is a 9 for me. The hardest difficulty is a requirement for this game, plus four lives and no continues (and no additional lives as you suggested). Tricky platforming, many levels, tough bosses, this game has it all. I generally feel that people tend to underrate the difficulty of the NES Double Dragon games.
Tiny Toon Adventures at a 6 or 7 sounds about right. I agree with your assessment. The game isn't too bad until the last level or two.
Solomon's Key ... I haven't beaten it but it's on my short list for a possible 10 difficulty.
Castlevania is an 8 for me mostly based on the last two bosses.
Kid Icarus was a 7 for me too just based on the initial difficulty curve. It gets much easier after the first couple of stages and the dungeons can be tricky to figure out.
I have Contra and Super C both at 7. These are either wildly overrated or wildly underrated for some reason.
Ninja Gaiden is a 9 for me even though I've beaten it many times. The last stage and boss sequence is just too hard to ignore when measuring difficulty, especially the second form of the final boss. Ninja Gaiden II is maybe an 8 or a 9, I can't decide.
TMNT is a solid 9 for me almost entirely for me because of "The Hallway." But I suppose I could be persuaded to drop it a notch just because of having four lives to manage all at once is a nice boost sometimes.
TMNT 2 I'll say 6? I was able to 1CC it. Krang and Shredder are pretty tough especially getting there with enough lives/continues.
Punch Out has to be a 9. This one requires reflexes not often necessary in NES games. I think it maybe gets rated lower since the bulk of the game is pretty easy.
Bart vs. the Space Mutants is an 8 for me because of no continues and the platforming in the museum stage. Took me a bit to even get that far consistently.
Battletoads will get a 10 from me just because it was the one game that took me actual years as a kid to get good enough at it to finish. I find it easy now, but I also find Ikari Warriors mostly "easy" now just because I have the game memorized at this point. Ikari Warriors is definitely hard, and so is Battletoads.
Ghosts and Goblins I agree with you 100%. I say 10 but will not argue about making it a 9.
Q*Bert I haven't played much but it is on my short list for 10 difficulty.
Little Nemo I could go with 7 just because of the last stage and boss. I could maybe lean 6 on it also though.
Legend of Zelda was a 5 for me, but it is one of the hardest games for me to rate and feel good about my decision. The more you figure out, the easier it gets. Plus you can grind out money for the red potion which helps brute force your way through difficult dungeon sections.
Top Gun was a solid 9 for me. Really tough game. I think you can cheese the game by flying as far left/right as you can go. But playing it straight there is very little margin for error. Three lives and that's it. If it had any more than four missions I would probably have ranked it 10.
That took awhile!
Kickle Cubicle- I'd give it a 6. The main game is probably a 4 but the bonus levels had me pulling out my hair for the longest time. We'll compromise on the final tally.
Yoshi- Give it a 2. After getting used to it, I could go infinite within about 20 minutes, note: i'm good at puzzle games.
Roger Clemens MVP Baseball- 4. Pretty good AI for an NES baseball simulator, but theres only so many tricks a good CPU can do to confuse you on pitches.
Kickle Cubicle is probably about right. I'll say either 4 or 5 for the main game, and 6 or 7 for the bonus levels included. I would want to play it again more recently to have a better feel for nailing down a number.
I really have no idea what to make of Yoshi. The NES Ending FAQ says beating B-Game Level 99 Speed Hi is beating the game, which seems ludicrous to me. I also find it easy which skews my judgment, but without a clear winning condition I can't pin a number on it at all.
This are things i've taken umbrage with
Bionic Commando 7
- What? No way, this isn't as hard as Adventure Island. This is a 4.
Blaster Master 9
- Same as above. Not even a 9. Hardest part of the game is the VERY end when you're stuck against the walls and cant jump over the spikes. Even tho its long, its no 9... Its a 6.
I'll add my input on some of your suggestions!
Bionic Commando is a 7, maybe even 8. I believe the swinging mechanics take some getting used to and it makes the game challenging until you get the hang of it. You can eventually grind for unlimited continues which diminishes the difficulty a bit. I think 4 is awfully low however.
Blaster Master is definitely a 9, maybe even a borderline 10. This game is very long, has limited continues, requires repeated exploration to learn the shortest path, and difficult bosses. I know everyone knows the cheat for half of the bosses, but trying to beat them without it is a hefty challenge. The Area 5 Lobster boss is still a bottleneck for me even though I've beaten the game several times. The final boss is no joke either.
I'm really surprised you'd rate either of those that high.
I think I broke out the 3 "hard parts" of Bionic Commando pretty fairly in my reply, upthread, and that the swinging mechanic is tremendously forgiving in much of the rest of the game. To suggest that it rates as tough as some of the other 7's (or 8's) mentioned in the list doesn't seem very realistic to me.
Blaster Master, I agree is long enough, and without passwords and limited continues, actually beating it is tough. (but seriously 9 or a TEN in challenge?)
This are things i've taken umbrage with
Bionic Commando 7
- What? No way, this isn't as hard as Adventure Island. This is a 4.
Blaster Master 9
- Same as above. Not even a 9. Hardest part of the game is the VERY end when you're stuck against the walls and cant jump over the spikes. Even tho its long, its no 9... Its a 6.
I'll add my input on some of your suggestions!
Bionic Commando is a 7, maybe even 8. I believe the swinging mechanics take some getting used to and it makes the game challenging until you get the hang of it. You can eventually grind for unlimited continues which diminishes the difficulty a bit. I think 4 is awfully low however.
Blaster Master is definitely a 9, maybe even a borderline 10. This game is very long, has limited continues, requires repeated exploration to learn the shortest path, and difficult bosses. I know everyone knows the cheat for half of the bosses, but trying to beat them without it is a hefty challenge. The Area 5 Lobster boss is still a bottleneck for me even though I've beaten the game several times. The final boss is no joke either.
I'm really surprised you'd rate either of those that high.
I think I broke out the 3 "hard parts" of Bionic Commando pretty fairly in my reply, upthread, and that the swinging mechanic is tremendously forgiving in much of the rest of the game. To suggest that it rates as tough as some of the other 7's (or 8's) mentioned in the list doesn't seem very realistic to me.
Blaster Master, I agree is long enough, and without passwords and limited continues, actually beating it is tough. (but seriously 9 or a TEN in challenge?)
It has been a long time since I played Bionic Commando, but I have beaten it multiple times and I'm sure I could beat it right now in a single sitting. I would guess you have a better feel for it than I do currently, but a score or 4 seems awfully low to me regardless. I could be mistaken about a 7, but 4 is too low. I could agree with 5 or 6 and just admit that I'm off-base on this one in general.
However, I will not accept lower than a 9 for Blaster Master. Rating it a possible 10 ...may be a bit of a stretch, sure. I think you put everything together and I don't see how it's an 8. With all of my experience and knowing exactly where to go, I don't think I could consistently beat the game even now. I take all of that into consideration when rating difficulty.
It has been a long time since I played Bionic Commando, but I have beaten it multiple times and I'm sure I could beat it right now in a single sitting. I would guess you have a better feel for it than I do currently, but a score or 4 seems awfully low to me regardless. I could be mistaken about a 7, but 4 is too low. I could agree with 5 or 6 and just admit that I'm off-base on this one in general.
However, I will not accept lower than a 9 for Blaster Master. Rating it a possible 10 ...may be a bit of a stretch, sure. I think you put everything together and I don't see how it's an 8. With all of my experience and knowing exactly where to go, I don't think I could consistently beat the game even now. I take all of that into consideration when rating difficulty.
4 is probably too low for Bionic Command, and a 5 is probably more realistic. (I'm just trying to save the higher numbers for games that are actually challenging after you're already good at them -- Bionic Commando only has a couple of places that make you break a sweat once you're competent)
Blaster Master -- I still think you're toying with the "10" too readily
But I guess this is the subjectivity of what the numbers even mean.
Do we have a good rubric for the scoring? Or are we pulling all of these middle numbers out of our asses?
According to the OP "10 = one of the hardest games on the system".
Now... that would seem to limit a "10" to some small finite number of extraordinarily difficult games.
I mean, it's a tough game, for sure. But I think an 8 (or I GUESS a "9") would give better overhead for those select few games that fundamentally DEMAND a "10". (though i'm actually at a loss to say what I'd propose for that rank level, personally)
That said... are we really saying that Blaster Master is that much tougher than Adventure Island? (i.e. an 8, minimum, versus the 7 in the table?)
It has been a long time since I played Bionic Commando, but I have beaten it multiple times and I'm sure I could beat it right now in a single sitting. I would guess you have a better feel for it than I do currently, but a score or 4 seems awfully low to me regardless. I could be mistaken about a 7, but 4 is too low. I could agree with 5 or 6 and just admit that I'm off-base on this one in general.
However, I will not accept lower than a 9 for Blaster Master. Rating it a possible 10 ...may be a bit of a stretch, sure. I think you put everything together and I don't see how it's an 8. With all of my experience and knowing exactly where to go, I don't think I could consistently beat the game even now. I take all of that into consideration when rating difficulty.
4 is probably too low for Bionic Command, and a 5 is probably more realistic. (I'm just trying to save the higher numbers for games that are actually challenging after you're already good at them -- Bionic Commando only has a couple of places that make you break a sweat once you're competent)
Blaster Master -- I still think you're toying with the "10" too readily
But I guess this is the subjectivity of what the numbers even mean.
Do we have a good rubric for the scoring? Or are we pulling all of these middle numbers out of our asses?
According to the OP "10 = one of the hardest games on the system".
Now... that would seem to limit a "10" to some small finite number of extraordinarily difficult games.
I mean, it's a tough game, for sure. But I think an 8 (or I GUESS a "9") would give better overhead for those select few games that fundamentally DEMAND a "10". (though i'm actually at a loss to say what I'd propose for that rank level, personally)
That said... are we really saying that Blaster Master is that much tougher than Adventure Island? (i.e. an 8, minimum, versus the 7 in the table?)
Alright, alright, maybe I was mistaken saying "Blaster Master," "difficulty," and "10" in the same sentence. Happy now?
I don't think Blaster Master is a 10, but if someone argued for it being a 10 I wouldn't fight it. It's a 9 to me.
For the record I do not agree at all with Adventure Island's rating in the table, even though I haven't beaten the game and am only going by reputation and the small experience I have. (I have reached 3-2, so not far at all). I would put AI at 10 and Blaster Master at 9.
I do struggle with how I want to rate games at the top of the scale. I would put AI at 10 and Ikari Warriors at 10, but it can be pretty easily argued that Ikari is significantly more difficult. I don't want to say Ikari is an 11 and I don't want to say AI is a 9, so how do I effectively reconcile that? My thoughts currently are there are somewhere between 10-20 NES games that are at the top of the food chain and those are your 10s. I do think you can subdivide that further if you want to, and therein lies the problem. Do you split them up into 9s and 10s and have a whole bunch of games in the 7-8 range? Are those even too high compared to everything else? I might as well just start with where I'm at and look at things later whenever I have more games under my belt.
I am sure I will have more thoughts tomorrow!
Alright, alright, maybe I was mistaken saying "Blaster Master," "difficulty," and "10" in the same sentence. Happy now?
I don't think Blaster Master is a 10, but if someone argued for it being a 10 I wouldn't fight it. It's a 9 to me.
For the record I do not agree at all with Adventure Island's rating in the table, even though I haven't beaten the game and am only going by reputation and the small experience I have. (I have reached 3-2, so not far at all). I would put AI at 10 and Blaster Master at 9.
I do struggle with how I want to rate games at the top of the scale. I would put AI at 10 and Ikari Warriors at 10, but it can be pretty easily argued that Ikari is significantly more difficult. I don't want to say Ikari is an 11 and I don't want to say AI is a 9, so how do I effectively reconcile that? My thoughts currently are there are somewhere between 10-20 NES games that are at the top of the food chain and those are your 10s. I do think you can subdivide that further if you want to, and therein lies the problem. Do you split them up into 9s and 10s and have a whole bunch of games in the 7-8 range? Are those even too high compared to everything else? I might as well just start with where I'm at and look at things later whenever I have more games under my belt.
I am sure I will have more thoughts tomorrow!
If you're willing to give Adventure Island a 10 (which I agree strongly it deserves at least a 9), then I'd agree that Blaster Master is a strong 9.
Because, you're absolutely right that it would be hard to find more than a couple games on the system in the same league as Ikari Warriors, let alone enough to have "10" as a fairly distributed top tier of challenge.
Also, I mentioned in the OP that the ratings should be based on playing the games blind. I didn't say it in those exact words, but I said:
"Keep in mind that some games may seem easy because they are great games that you want to play and therefore have learned. For example, I don't think that SBM3 is a 2 even though it's incredibly easy for me to beat having played it through MANY times (which is probably true for most members here). If a person were to play the game for the first time, I think they would find some of the later levels quite challenging.
Kickle Cubicle- I'd give it a 6. The main game is probably a 4 but the bonus levels had me pulling out my hair for the longest time. We'll compromise on the final tally.
Yoshi- Give it a 2. After getting used to it, I could go infinite within about 20 minutes, note: i'm good at puzzle games.
Roger Clemens MVP Baseball- 4. Pretty good AI for an NES baseball simulator, but theres only so many tricks a good CPU can do to confuse you on pitches.
Kickle Cubicle is probably about right. I'll say either 4 or 5 for the main game, and 6 or 7 for the bonus levels included. I would want to play it again more recently to have a better feel for nailing down a number.
I really have no idea what to make of Yoshi. The NES Ending FAQ says beating B-Game Level 99 Speed Hi is beating the game, which seems ludicrous to me. I also find it easy which skews my judgment, but without a clear winning condition I can't pin a number on it at all.
I think on falling brick type puzzle games you need to judge different than other games. The concept of Yoshi is much easier no matter the speed. Much simpler than say, tetris with oddball shaped bricks. probably why it never became a timeless puzzle game like tetris either. If you screw up in tetris it's much harder to recover and bring yourself back down than it is in Yoshi.
Who's dedicated enough to play any puzzle game that long anyway in endless mode?
Here's some thoughts on 1CCs, if that is how we're considering these. Otherwise you could probably bump down most of them
1943 - 9
Legendary Wings - 3
Gyruss - 6
Isolated Warriors - 5
Roadblasters - 5
Double Dragon - 6
Battletoads - 8
Rollergames - 4
Kick Master - 5
Well that's the only measure of difficulty that actually means anything, so yeah that should be the standard.
Of course then you're in a trap of comparing Tetris to Bases Loaded 4. How can one even measure them against one another? Maybe the requirements from scaryice's thread are good enough?
You'd also need standardize sutff like "should it be 1CC, should you be free to use whatever the game gives you like the AI Hudson Bee, etc."
Here's some thoughts on 1CCs, if that is how we're considering these. Otherwise you could probably bump down most of them
Double Dragon - 6
But Double Dragon doesn't have any continues...?
But if you DID 1CC all those games, that would be the difficulties for me
Here's some thoughts on 1CCs, if that is how we're considering these. Otherwise you could probably bump down most of them
1943 - 9
Legendary Wings - 3
Gyruss - 6
Isolated Warriors - 5
Roadblasters - 5
Double Dragon - 6
Battletoads - 8
Rollergames - 4
Kick Master - 5
Rollergames seemed tougher than that, but I didn't really try to beat it.
Also, I mentioned in the OP that the ratings should be based on playing the games blind. I didn't say it in those exact words, but I said:
"Keep in mind that some games may seem easy because they are great games that you want to play and therefore have learned. For example, I don't think that SBM3 is a 2 even though it's incredibly easy for me to beat having played it through MANY times (which is probably true for most members here). If a person were to play the game for the first time, I think they would find some of the later levels quite challenging.
I do struggle with how I want to rate games at the top of the scale. I would put AI at 10 and Ikari Warriors at 10, but it can be pretty easily argued that Ikari is significantly more difficult. I don't want to say Ikari is an 11 and I don't want to say AI is a 9, so how do I effectively reconcile that? My thoughts currently are there are somewhere between 10-20 NES games that are at the top of the food chain and those are your 10s. I do think you can subdivide that further if you want to, and therein lies the problem. Do you split them up into 9s and 10s and have a whole bunch of games in the 7-8 range? Are those even too high compared to everything else? I might as well just start with where I'm at and look at things later whenever I have more games under my belt.
I am sure I will have more thoughts tomorrow!
That is a very good point, Arnpoly. Ikari Warriors without the ABBA code might be its own tier of brutal difficulty, but if that means its 10.. does that push down all the other 10-candidate games to 9? I'd say no. I still think Ikari Warriors was "meant" to be played with the ABBA code, but thats me. Still is impressive to see someone do it without it.
About Bionic Commando, I also thought that was around 6 or 7 too.
But really, how does one argue a game is hard to someone who found it easy? I suppose we have to agree something is just subjective.
Anticipation - 3
Arkista's Ring - 5
Barker Bill's Trick Shooting - 2
Chip N Dale - 3
Chip N Dale 2 - 3
Clash at Demonhead - 5
Contra - 6
Cowboy Kid - 6
Crystalis - 5
Donkey Kong - 4
Donkey Kong Jr - 3
Duck Tales - 3
Duck Tales 2 - 3
Dr Mario - 6
Excitebike - 5
Fire 'N Ice - 7
Great Waldo Search - 1
Guerilla War - 2
Kickle Cubicle - 4
Little Mermaid - 2
Mega Man 1 - 6
Mega Man 2 - 5
Mega Man 3 - 5
Mega Man 4 - 5
Mega Man 5 - 4
Mega Man 6 - 5
Mendel Palace - 3
Metal Storm - 5
Monster in my Pocket - 4
North and South - 3
Popeye - 3
Power Blade - 5
Remote Control - 2
Rockin' Kats - 5
Shatterhand - 8
Snow Bros - 4
Super C - 7
Super Mario Bros - 5
Super Mario Bros II - 6
Super Mario Bros III - 5
Wacky Races - 3
Also a couple like Dragon Warrior and Zelda seem rather low. Going in blind, I imagine these are going to put up more of a challenge than their current scores let on. Also some stuff like Ms Pac Man is difficult to rank because of the various modes and options involved where it gets to the point where the game is as hard as you want to make it.
Games like Maniac Mansion are a 1. Not using these resources is a choice, it's not cheating to read a guide or use a faq, that is a personal choice. Nothing in the game prohibits you from using a guide and trying to pretend that these resources don't exist is insane.
If you want to make separate scores for going in blind vs not that would make some sense, but the only bar to beating some of these games is literally a 2 second online search and reading a guide. That should be reflected in the score.
The whole "Going in blind" thing when determining difficulty is just silly. It's 2016, when determining the difficulty of a game, you should consider every resource that is available.
Games like Maniac Mansion are a 1. Not using these resources is a choice, it's not cheating to read a guide or use a faq, that is a personal choice. Nothing in the game prohibits you from using a guide and trying to pretend that these resources don't exist is insane.
If you want to make separate scores for going in blind vs not that would make some sense, but the only bar to beating some of these games is literally a 2 second online search and reading a guide. That should be reflected in the score.
I can't believe you would seriously mean this?
To use a walkthrough in a point and click adventure game like Maniac Mansion is obviously cheating. By your logic you should just as well be using the konami code on Contra since its a resource everyone can find online now too. Or you could use a game genie, or save states on an emulator too, as its just as easy to do since its "2016" and you should consider to use "every resource available".
This at least I thought would be uncontroversial. You can't base a game's difficulty on allowing the player to cheat. I'm surprised someone would even attempt to make such an argument.
The "going in blind" argument wasn't even about that. Its an argument on how to differ the difficulty from someone playing a game for the first time vs someone who has played it forever. Of course someone who has beaten Mike Tyson in Punch Out a million times before would find him a breeze the next time, while a new player meeting him the first time would (likely) find him difficult. To me it makes more sense rating a game based on how it is to beat the game the first time.
Here's some thoughts on 1CCs, if that is how we're considering these. Otherwise you could probably bump down most of them
1943 - 9
Legendary Wings - 3
Gyruss - 6
Isolated Warriors - 5
Roadblasters - 5
Double Dragon - 6
Battletoads - 8
Rollergames - 4
Kick Master - 5
Rollergames seemed tougher than that, but I didn't really try to beat it.
Yeah a lot of factors there. Are we considering 1CC? Are you going in blind?
Either way, the slippery platforming parts in the last three levels are the only hard parts other than the trial and error parts
Here's some thoughts on 1CCs, if that is how we're considering these. Otherwise you could probably bump down most of them
1943 - 9
Legendary Wings - 3
Gyruss - 6
Isolated Warriors - 5
Roadblasters - 5
Double Dragon - 6
Battletoads - 8
Rollergames - 4
Kick Master - 5
Well that's the only measure of difficulty that actually means anything, so yeah that should be the standard.
That is not the criteria for ranking these games. I will update the OP to clarify.
Also, your starting health situation isn't very forgiving and the random nature of enemy spawns can make certain regions near-impossible.
It's definitely not the hardest Shmup by any stretch of the imagination but if this is your introduction to such a game (as it was for me) it will take you a while to "beat" the game, which is when the game loops back to the start.
Blind difficulty (but with the manual and any pack-in maps)
Difficulty with optimal strats, any completion (no 1CC, not 100%, normal difficulty level)
Difficulty with optimal strats, optimal completion (1CC, 100%, hardest difficulty level etc. -- only if applicable)
I'd go so far as to say that point-and-click adventures like Shadowgate should get a "n/a" in the second and third categories, because it's not that they're "easy" but that a walkthrough renders them meaningless. At least turn-based RPGs require resource management and strategizing, and puzzle games like Lolo sometimes require careful timing or reflexes.
Hopefully, this would satisfy everybody. So, the result might look something like this:
With no disrespect for BreaKBeatZ's fine efforts, it seems that a three-tier system is really called for:
Blind difficulty
Difficulty with optimal strats, any completion (no 1CC, not 100%, normal difficulty level)
Difficulty with optimal strats, optimal completion (1CC, 100%, hardest difficulty level etc. -- only if applicable)
I'd go so far as to say that point-and-click adventures like Shadowgate should get a "n/a" in the second and third categories, because it's not that they're "easy" but that a walkthrough renders them meaningless. At least turn-based RPGs require resource management and strategizing, and puzzle games like Lolo sometimes require careful timing or reflexes.
Hopefully, this would satisfy everybody. So, the result might look something like this:
I don't think 1cc runs are meaningful. Why not include other arbitrary categories, like pacifist runs, no-powerup runs, game genie runs, playing eith your feet instead of hands, etc.?
I understand the reasoning behind a non-blind run category, but I don't think I want to add it. It would raise a lot of questions about the difficulty of the game after being practiced. How many runs are we basing a non-blind run on? If I have played Ninja Gaiden 500 times previously, it's going to be a lot easier than if I have played it once previously. Both are "non-blind" runs. I'm also not a big fan of every adventure and puzzle game being a 1 (or "n/a").
And for other games, like Legacy of the Wizard, it's a totally meaningless concept since they don't have difficulty levels or different endings and aren't played for score.
The idea behind the non-blind run would be that the player has as much information and practice available to them as possible. No matter how much you know about Ikari Warriors, there's always going to be a fundamental difficulty that comes from the sheer mass of essentially perfect inputs required. But OTOH, other games become trivial once you know the right strat.