I don't think its a bad idea to have different scores. I still argue playing a game blind are the most accurate way of rating a game, meaning you rate it by the first time you beat the game, so if we those ratings seperated I'm at least not complaining.
To make a score based on how difficult the game is later on after several re-plays must be difficult to judge, but the idea isn't bad. More opinions please.
This thread has become a difficult read, it's a mess of debating methods of measurement, and shock/awe over which games are blasphemously considered more difficult than others in the eyes of other members. I appreciate the OP's intent, but the wheels are falling off pretty quick.
This thread has become a difficult read, it's a mess of debating methods of measurement, and shock/awe over which games are blasphemously considered more difficult than others in the eyes of other members. I appreciate the OP's intent, but the wheels are falling off pretty quick.
No. Its not difficult in the slightest. The ratings simply have to be based on going into it blind. Thats what OP has said the whole time.
This thread has become a difficult read, it's a mess of debating methods of measurement, and shock/awe over which games are blasphemously considered more difficult than others in the eyes of other members. I appreciate the OP's intent, but the wheels are falling off pretty quick.
No. Its not difficult in the slightest. The ratings simply have to be based on going into it blind. Thats what OP has said the whole time.
Well that's my opinion, so, "yes". It isn't the OP that has made this thread into a headache, it's everything since.
This thread has become a difficult read, it's a mess of debating methods of measurement, and shock/awe over which games are blasphemously considered more difficult than others in the eyes of other members. I appreciate the OP's intent, but the wheels are falling off pretty quick.
No. Its not difficult in the slightest. The ratings simply have to be based on going into it blind. Thats what OP has said the whole time.
Well that's my opinion, so, "yes". It isn't the OP that has made this thread into a headache, it's everything since.
I don't see it. Debate about if a game is more or less difficult was supposed to be the point of the thread. Or so I thought.
I'm not sure how to rate the difficulty of arcade games. The goal for an arcade game is usually high score and achieving high scores as the loops become progressively harder is not easy. Rolling the score in DKjr is not easy.
I don't think this thread has gotten far off track. I would expect some discussion over how games are rated to take place, and I don't mind. As long as pegboy keeps edit/deleting his rage posts about 1cc runs being the only acceptable way to play games, everything should be fine.
I'd rather have ratings from players that are legitimately good at the games they are rating instead of listening to credit feeders that don't know what they're doing. If they haven't 1cc'd the game, they have business giving it a rating, because they aren't actually good at the game they are rating. But that's just me.
I'd rather have ratings from players that are legitimately good at the games they are rating instead of listening to credit feeders that don't know what they're doing. If they haven't 1cc'd the game, they have business giving it a rating, because they aren't actually good at the game they are rating. But that's just me.
Ranking Bionic Commando at a 7 seems high to me as well. You can grind for more life bars in the first stage and can easily get infinite continues. The swinging mechanic takes some getting used to, but in many of the stages, missing the hard swings doesn't kill you, it just makes you loop back through the level.
Double Dragon II isn't a 9. The only hard parts of the games are the awkward platforms and bad jumping. Even on the hardest difficulty, as long as you can perform the super knee with regularity the enemies are pretty easy, including the final boss, even when invisible.
Ninja Gaiden 1 - I also thought it should be higher than a 6.5, but in my previous thread a lot of people said they found the game easy and wanted me to lower the rating. I only beat it once, and it was HARD for me. I think this might be another example of a quality game being rated lower than it deserves because people are incentivized to play through it.
Mike Tyson's Punch Out seems correct around a 7. I can't justify rating it a 9 when many people can beat the game blindfolded. It requires good reflexes, but isn't at the top echelon of NES difficulty.
Oh, I forgot I wanted to discuss some of these!
I can agree that I'm offbase with Bionic Commando. I would bump it up from a 4 though, either 5 or 6 makes sense! But whatever the community decides I guess!
I have a Double Dragon II blind spot because I was playing it for score and the super knee is never the optimal way to increase score. Because of that I never used the move, but also I never got a feel for the timing on it either so I could only pull it off like 20% of the time. The mandatory 1CC and highest difficulty requirement still puts it at least an 8 in my book.
I stick with my 9 on Ninja Gaiden. I agree it's the classic case of being underrated due to popularity. For a blind player the last level gauntlet is such a huge difficulty spike that unlimited continues don't matter. 6.5 seems awfully low to me.
I don't think it's right to rate Tyson lower just because a small subset of people have an amazing talent at this game. The nature of the game lends itself to being able to play it just on audio cues, but not that the game is any easier just because some people are able to do that. The list has 6.5 and that just seems so low. It's still a 9 to me, but if that makes me an outlier then that's fine.
---
Thanks again for putting this list together and dealing with all of my disagreements on the ratings!
I'm working on a new spreadsheet to keep track of all rankings by forum member, based on individual that rates using the criteria for this thread. Previously I was just updating by changing the rankings based on comparing current input to the existing score and marking it somewhere in the middle. It's taking some time to complete, but I'll update the rankings once I'm done.
There are some people that I don't know how to factor in. For example, Bea_Iank is a beast at gaming and thinks almost every game is easy. I'm, not sure if I should include her 5.5 rating of Ghosts and Goblins or her 7.5 rating of Battletoads in my averages. I'll figure it out though. No offense Bea, I just think we need continuity and to avoid outliers.
By the way, please try to include specific number rankings. It's great to hear explanations, but it's hard to determine what people mean when they write "I think XXX game is really hard" or "I don't think XXX game should be higher than a 5, but I could understand 7 as the max".
You could consider looking at TheMexicanRunners speadsheets. He is as you might know someone who tries to beat every single NES game, and he has a blind rating for most of the games he plays.
Mostly the ratings seems alright. I've seen one big "flaw" in GameFaq, which I suggest ignoring and that is the rating of Q*Bert.
It only has 3.20, but I imagine it has something to do with people thinking it is a loop game that has no ending, and basing it on the first few levels, never experiencing the latter part of the game. Most people can testify after level 5-4 it becomes nightmarish and very hard. As I've mentioned earlier it does have an ending if you beat level 9-4. I think its a 10, or at least 9.5.
Thanks Svank. I'll factor in TheMexicanRunner's rankings, but I don't think I'll use GameFAQ's. I see a lot there that doesn't make sense and I think our forum members probably are better judges than GameFAQ's. Ikari Warriors is ranked a 4, with MUCH easier games, like Zelda II, Ninja Gaiden and Castlevania ranked much higher.
Cool that you're adding TheMexicanRunner's scores. Yes, some odd scores on GameFAQ for sure. I get your decision.
I'm wonder if Ikari Warriors might actually be a 4 or somewhere around there if you play it with the ABBA code, as I'm sure its no breeze even with the code.. but I am only guessing as I haven't played it. Arnpoly might know.
Another good place of reference is Electricfrankfurter's(StanJR) Top 30 hardest NES games. He made this project some years ago on this forum. He and others tried to collect the hardest NES games. Its a really good job, and perhaps the "best hardest NES list". He has even reviewed every game in depth.
Most of these games probably are in the 9-10 area. Although I personally consider Silver Surfer an 8... but whatever.
Some people disagree with him on placing Castlequest so high I've noticed, but as I haven't played it so I wouldn't know.
StanJR based his ratings on 5 hours+ of playing all of the games though, while TheMexicanRunner only has rated games he has beaten. Both very qualified opinions though.
StanJr's list is a nice resource, but an update is definitely needed for Overlord and (to a lesser extent) Star Voyager. Overlord's difficulty is so wildly overstated, and Star Voyager really isn't as tough as its reputation suggests -- it took me less than 24 hours to beat. If you know what to do, it's a 7.
So you disagree? You think people that are bad a game should be the ones giving it a rating?
Well who is a list like this for? The casual gamer looking for something new to play, or the hardcore gamer/ collector ranking his pixelated conquests.
Neither answer is wrong. I personally view lists like these for the former reason myself.
So you disagree? You think people that are bad a game should be the ones giving it a rating?
Well who is a list like this for? The casual gamer looking for something new to play, or the hardcore gamer/ collector ranking his pixelated conquests.
Neither answer is wrong. I personally view lists like these for the former reason myself.
I don't think it matters who the list is for. The numbers should be the same when people games based on their difficulty compared to other NES games instead of basing them on their personal gaming ability. That was in my criteria for ranking in the OP.
This list is not based on 1CC runs. If you like the extra challenge of a 1CC run, you can either (a) not participate, or (b) rank the games based on the criteria provided, even though you like going the extra mile afterward and achieving a 1CC win.
I'm wonder if Ikari Warriors might actually be a 4 or somewhere around there if you play it with the ABBA code, as I'm sure its no breeze even with the code.. but I am only guessing as I haven't played it. Arnpoly might know.
It's hard to answer because I've never used the ABBA code! I have heard that in some places in the game the code has no effect, so it's probably still a 10 even with the code. The game is best played anyway through repetition and/or locating all of the hidden powerups and enemy placements.
I'm wonder if Ikari Warriors might actually be a 4 or somewhere around there if you play it with the ABBA code, as I'm sure its no breeze even with the code.. but I am only guessing as I haven't played it. Arnpoly might know.
It's hard to answer because I've never used the ABBA code! I have heard that in some places in the game the code has no effect, so it's probably still a 10 even with the code. The game is best played anyway through repetition and/or locating all of the hidden powerups and enemy placements.
Ah, okay. I see. Yes, I heard the ABBA code stops working at the last couple of levels or something.
Edit:
I've beaten Faxanadu (Hudson Soft, 1987) today. One of my last 'childhood favorites' on the NES left for me to finish.. so whoop. A couple of years ago I made an attempt to get far into it, but I think I stopped somewhere around the mist level when things get a bit more maze-like and less straightforward, and I didn't have enough time to play it, so I put it aside for a while, and despite having the passwords I just didn't pick it up again.. Faxanadu is sort of 50% action 50% RPG. The story is about this hero in medival fantasy time, and there's a strange story of a meteorite(with evil forces) hitting the world, making the dwarves starting to attack the elf kingdom, and some tree of life stopping to give water and so on... and you as the hero being sent from a king to save the day. Quite a stupid story, but the game's atmosphere and gameplay makes up for it. For every new city you find there's new upgrades(weapons, shield, armour) and items to buy, so part of it is killing enough monsters to get the money so you buy stuff and move on.
I'm unsure how to rate Faxanadu on a difficulty scale. I don't play too many RPG games, so I don't know if a RPG-game being quite long and grindy equals difficult, as I would expect the bulk of them to a bit like that. There certainly are parts where you have to wander through long and complex dungeons/castles, memorizing where everything is, and figuring out what to do and where to go. There's some tough monsters and such but if you keep some potions with you and upgrade your stuff its never brutal. If you die you go back to the last church you visited, lose your money(in later part of the game just some of your money) and you can try again. So thats sort of like unlimited continues. So you'll never 'game over', and there's even passwords. The last couple of levels were the hardest. Very large dungeons with many rooms, and the challenge was trying to figure out where to go. It sort of reminded me of the dungeon levels in Kid Icarus. I beat the last boss on the first try and I think he probably should have been a bit harder. The real issue was finding where he was at. I just used some magic and hit him sometimes. The dragonboss on the level before was a lot tougher. Its not a very hard game, I can't remember anything that made me stump, but the large maps to memorize and the grindiness sometimes makes it a challenge. Its a game you need to stay a bit focused.
I see its on 6 at the moment. I suppose I would say its somewhere around 6.5-7.
Fortunately I have been keeping difficulty rankings for all games completed on my blog! Here's what I've come up with so far:
...
Tetris 3
...
I think these line up pretty well with the consensus so far. One that is really controversial is Tetris because there is no consensus at all for what it means to "beat" it.
So much lost lore, no one cares about the manuals
From the manual:
A-TYPE Game
This is a test of endurance where you must try to get a high score by completing as many lines as possible.
Choose the LEVEL (falling speed of the blocks) on the LEVEL setting screen. (The higher the LEVEL, the faster the blocks fall down.)
During the course of the game, the LEVEL gradually increases and the game gets increasingly harder. When the blocks have reached the top of the game field, that's the end of the game.
Parts in bold are key. In other words, as long as you "try" to play the game, if you're a toddler who simply held "down" when you start the game and don't get a single point then CONGRATS! You beat Tetris with great success! Tetris is a game where you can keep racking up as many points as you like, and you can not lose but must eventually win. In the B-Type game you just play up to 25 lines and call it a win.
For games with unclear goals it's essential to read the manual on how to play the game. If the manual has different lore / rules in different prints then the game has more than one victory condition.
If you lose all your lives in Super Mario Bros. than that's also the end of the game for you. That doesn't mean you've beaten it though.
Tetris does have ending sequences though and I would consider getting the best of both game A and B as "beating" the game.
How come Dino Riki only gets only a 4 while Captain Skyhawk has a 6 and Abadox a 7?
Dino Riki is more than a 4. I thought that one was very hard?
I'm playing Ninja Gaiden 3 these days. Its definitely tougher than the first two. I'd say 8.
Nah dont be fooled. Once you have enough practice the game is fairly easy until the last stage (7). I dont think I can say its an 8, maybe a solid 7. Once I gave it some practice I was able to beat it relatively quickly. About a week, or two.
How come Dino Riki only gets only a 4 while Captain Skyhawk has a 6 and Abadox a 7?
Dino Riki is more than a 4. I thought that one was very hard?
I'm playing Ninja Gaiden 3 these days. Its definitely tougher than the first two. I'd say 8.
Nah dont be fooled. Once you have enough practice the game is fairly easy until the last stage (7). I dont think I can say its an 8, maybe a solid 7. Once I gave it some practice I was able to beat it relatively quickly. About a week, or two.
I took me also about 1 or 2 weeks while Abadox (a 7) took me one night (because it has unlimited continues).
Comments
To make a score based on how difficult the game is later on after several re-plays must be difficult to judge, but the idea isn't bad. More opinions please.
This thread has become a difficult read, it's a mess of debating methods of measurement, and shock/awe over which games are blasphemously considered more difficult than others in the eyes of other members. I appreciate the OP's intent, but the wheels are falling off pretty quick.
No. Its not difficult in the slightest. The ratings simply have to be based on going into it blind. Thats what OP has said the whole time.
This thread has become a difficult read, it's a mess of debating methods of measurement, and shock/awe over which games are blasphemously considered more difficult than others in the eyes of other members. I appreciate the OP's intent, but the wheels are falling off pretty quick.
No. Its not difficult in the slightest. The ratings simply have to be based on going into it blind. Thats what OP has said the whole time.
Well that's my opinion, so, "yes". It isn't the OP that has made this thread into a headache, it's everything since.
This thread has become a difficult read, it's a mess of debating methods of measurement, and shock/awe over which games are blasphemously considered more difficult than others in the eyes of other members. I appreciate the OP's intent, but the wheels are falling off pretty quick.
No. Its not difficult in the slightest. The ratings simply have to be based on going into it blind. Thats what OP has said the whole time.
Well that's my opinion, so, "yes". It isn't the OP that has made this thread into a headache, it's everything since.
I don't see it. Debate about if a game is more or less difficult was supposed to be the point of the thread. Or so I thought.
Donkey Kong Jr - 3"
I'm not sure how to rate the difficulty of arcade games. The goal for an arcade game is usually high score and achieving high scores as the loops become progressively harder is not easy. Rolling the score in DKjr is not easy.
I'd rather have ratings from players that are legitimately good at the games they are rating instead of listening to credit feeders that don't know what they're doing. If they haven't 1cc'd the game, they have business giving it a rating, because they aren't actually good at the game they are rating. But that's just me.
Back on topic please
My own thoughts on a few of the games discussed:
Ranking Bionic Commando at a 7 seems high to me as well. You can grind for more life bars in the first stage and can easily get infinite continues. The swinging mechanic takes some getting used to, but in many of the stages, missing the hard swings doesn't kill you, it just makes you loop back through the level.
Double Dragon II isn't a 9. The only hard parts of the games are the awkward platforms and bad jumping. Even on the hardest difficulty, as long as you can perform the super knee with regularity the enemies are pretty easy, including the final boss, even when invisible.
Ninja Gaiden 1 - I also thought it should be higher than a 6.5, but in my previous thread a lot of people said they found the game easy and wanted me to lower the rating. I only beat it once, and it was HARD for me. I think this might be another example of a quality game being rated lower than it deserves because people are incentivized to play through it.
Mike Tyson's Punch Out seems correct around a 7. I can't justify rating it a 9 when many people can beat the game blindfolded. It requires good reflexes, but isn't at the top echelon of NES difficulty.
Oh, I forgot I wanted to discuss some of these!
I can agree that I'm offbase with Bionic Commando. I would bump it up from a 4 though, either 5 or 6 makes sense! But whatever the community decides I guess!
I have a Double Dragon II blind spot because I was playing it for score and the super knee is never the optimal way to increase score. Because of that I never used the move, but also I never got a feel for the timing on it either so I could only pull it off like 20% of the time. The mandatory 1CC and highest difficulty requirement still puts it at least an 8 in my book.
I stick with my 9 on Ninja Gaiden. I agree it's the classic case of being underrated due to popularity. For a blind player the last level gauntlet is such a huge difficulty spike that unlimited continues don't matter. 6.5 seems awfully low to me.
I don't think it's right to rate Tyson lower just because a small subset of people have an amazing talent at this game. The nature of the game lends itself to being able to play it just on audio cues, but not that the game is any easier just because some people are able to do that. The list has 6.5 and that just seems so low. It's still a 9 to me, but if that makes me an outlier then that's fine.
---
Thanks again for putting this list together and dealing with all of my disagreements on the ratings!
There are some people that I don't know how to factor in. For example, Bea_Iank is a beast at gaming and thinks almost every game is easy. I'm, not sure if I should include her 5.5 rating of Ghosts and Goblins or her 7.5 rating of Battletoads in my averages. I'll figure it out though. No offense Bea, I just think we need continuity and to avoid outliers.
By the way, please try to include specific number rankings. It's great to hear explanations, but it's hard to determine what people mean when they write "I think XXX game is really hard" or "I don't think XXX game should be higher than a 5, but I could understand 7 as the max".
You could consider looking at TheMexicanRunners speadsheets. He is as you might know someone who tries to beat every single NES game, and he has a blind rating for most of the games he plays.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KDNGI76HoMNyYLL6RqWu4PqUbw-lI920tf7QTclnLLE/edit#gid=0
There's also the GameFaq's ratings:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/games/rankings?platform=41&genre=0&list_type=diff&view_type=0&dlc=1&min_votes=1
They're rated 1.0 to 5.0 in difficulty.
Mostly the ratings seems alright. I've seen one big "flaw" in GameFaq, which I suggest ignoring and that is the rating of Q*Bert.
It only has 3.20, but I imagine it has something to do with people thinking it is a loop game that has no ending, and basing it on the first few levels, never experiencing the latter part of the game. Most people can testify after level 5-4 it becomes nightmarish and very hard. As I've mentioned earlier it does have an ending if you beat level 9-4. I think its a 10, or at least 9.5.
I'm wonder if Ikari Warriors might actually be a 4 or somewhere around there if you play it with the ABBA code, as I'm sure its no breeze even with the code.. but I am only guessing as I haven't played it. Arnpoly might know.
Another good place of reference is Electricfrankfurter's(StanJR) Top 30 hardest NES games. He made this project some years ago on this forum. He and others tried to collect the hardest NES games. Its a really good job, and perhaps the "best hardest NES list". He has even reviewed every game in depth.
http://electricfrankfurter.blogspot.no/2011/07/top-30-hardest-nes-games-ever.html
Most of these games probably are in the 9-10 area. Although I personally consider Silver Surfer an 8... but whatever.
Some people disagree with him on placing Castlequest so high I've noticed, but as I haven't played it so I wouldn't know.
StanJR based his ratings on 5 hours+ of playing all of the games though, while TheMexicanRunner only has rated games he has beaten. Both very qualified opinions though.
So you disagree? You think people that are bad a game should be the ones giving it a rating?
Well who is a list like this for? The casual gamer looking for something new to play, or the hardcore gamer/ collector ranking his pixelated conquests.
Neither answer is wrong. I personally view lists like these for the former reason myself.
So you disagree? You think people that are bad a game should be the ones giving it a rating?
Well who is a list like this for? The casual gamer looking for something new to play, or the hardcore gamer/ collector ranking his pixelated conquests.
Neither answer is wrong. I personally view lists like these for the former reason myself.
I don't think it matters who the list is for. The numbers should be the same when people games based on their difficulty compared to other NES games instead of basing them on their personal gaming ability. That was in my criteria for ranking in the OP.
This list is not based on 1CC runs. If you like the extra challenge of a 1CC run, you can either (a) not participate, or (b) rank the games based on the criteria provided, even though you like going the extra mile afterward and achieving a 1CC win.
I'm wonder if Ikari Warriors might actually be a 4 or somewhere around there if you play it with the ABBA code, as I'm sure its no breeze even with the code.. but I am only guessing as I haven't played it. Arnpoly might know.
It's hard to answer because I've never used the ABBA code! I have heard that in some places in the game the code has no effect, so it's probably still a 10 even with the code. The game is best played anyway through repetition and/or locating all of the hidden powerups and enemy placements.
I'm wonder if Ikari Warriors might actually be a 4 or somewhere around there if you play it with the ABBA code, as I'm sure its no breeze even with the code.. but I am only guessing as I haven't played it. Arnpoly might know.
It's hard to answer because I've never used the ABBA code! I have heard that in some places in the game the code has no effect, so it's probably still a 10 even with the code. The game is best played anyway through repetition and/or locating all of the hidden powerups and enemy placements.
Ah, okay. I see. Yes, I heard the ABBA code stops working at the last couple of levels or something.
Edit:
I've beaten Faxanadu (Hudson Soft, 1987) today. One of my last 'childhood favorites' on the NES left for me to finish.. so whoop. A couple of years ago I made an attempt to get far into it, but I think I stopped somewhere around the mist level when things get a bit more maze-like and less straightforward, and I didn't have enough time to play it, so I put it aside for a while, and despite having the passwords I just didn't pick it up again.. Faxanadu is sort of 50% action 50% RPG. The story is about this hero in medival fantasy time, and there's a strange story of a meteorite(with evil forces) hitting the world, making the dwarves starting to attack the elf kingdom, and some tree of life stopping to give water and so on... and you as the hero being sent from a king to save the day. Quite a stupid story, but the game's atmosphere and gameplay makes up for it. For every new city you find there's new upgrades(weapons, shield, armour) and items to buy, so part of it is killing enough monsters to get the money so you buy stuff and move on.
I'm unsure how to rate Faxanadu on a difficulty scale. I don't play too many RPG games, so I don't know if a RPG-game being quite long and grindy equals difficult, as I would expect the bulk of them to a bit like that. There certainly are parts where you have to wander through long and complex dungeons/castles, memorizing where everything is, and figuring out what to do and where to go. There's some tough monsters and such but if you keep some potions with you and upgrade your stuff its never brutal. If you die you go back to the last church you visited, lose your money(in later part of the game just some of your money) and you can try again. So thats sort of like unlimited continues. So you'll never 'game over', and there's even passwords. The last couple of levels were the hardest. Very large dungeons with many rooms, and the challenge was trying to figure out where to go. It sort of reminded me of the dungeon levels in Kid Icarus. I beat the last boss on the first try and I think he probably should have been a bit harder. The real issue was finding where he was at. I just used some magic and hit him sometimes. The dragonboss on the level before was a lot tougher. Its not a very hard game, I can't remember anything that made me stump, but the large maps to memorize and the grindiness sometimes makes it a challenge. Its a game you need to stay a bit focused.
I see its on 6 at the moment. I suppose I would say its somewhere around 6.5-7.
Fortunately I have been keeping difficulty rankings for all games completed on my blog! Here's what I've come up with so far:
...
Tetris 3
...
I think these line up pretty well with the consensus so far. One that is really controversial is Tetris because there is no consensus at all for what it means to "beat" it.
So much lost lore, no one cares about the manuals
From the manual:
This is a test of endurance where you must try to get a high score by completing as many lines as possible.
Choose the LEVEL (falling speed of the blocks) on the LEVEL setting screen. (The higher the LEVEL, the faster the blocks fall down.)
During the course of the game, the LEVEL gradually increases and the game gets increasingly harder. When the blocks have reached the top of the game field, that's the end of the game.
Parts in bold are key. In other words, as long as you "try" to play the game, if you're a toddler who simply held "down" when you start the game and don't get a single point then CONGRATS! You beat Tetris with great success! Tetris is a game where you can keep racking up as many points as you like, and you can not lose but must eventually win. In the B-Type game you just play up to 25 lines and call it a win.
For games with unclear goals it's essential to read the manual on how to play the game. If the manual has different lore / rules in different prints then the game has more than one victory condition.
If you lose all your lives in Super Mario Bros. than that's also the end of the game for you. That doesn't mean you've beaten it though.
Tetris does have ending sequences though and I would consider getting the best of both game A and B as "beating" the game.
How come Dino Riki only gets only a 4 while Captain Skyhawk has a 6 and Abadox a 7?
Dino Riki is more than a 4. I thought that one was very hard?
I'm playing Ninja Gaiden 3 these days. Its definitely tougher than the first two. I'd say 8.
Originally posted by: Svankmajer
Originally posted by: ruudos
How come Dino Riki only gets only a 4 while Captain Skyhawk has a 6 and Abadox a 7?
Dino Riki is more than a 4. I thought that one was very hard?
I'm playing Ninja Gaiden 3 these days. Its definitely tougher than the first two. I'd say 8.
Nah dont be fooled. Once you have enough practice the game is fairly easy until the last stage (7). I dont think I can say its an 8, maybe a solid 7. Once I gave it some practice I was able to beat it relatively quickly. About a week, or two.
How come Dino Riki only gets only a 4 while Captain Skyhawk has a 6 and Abadox a 7?
Dino Riki is more than a 4. I thought that one was very hard?
I'm playing Ninja Gaiden 3 these days. Its definitely tougher than the first two. I'd say 8.
Nah dont be fooled. Once you have enough practice the game is fairly easy until the last stage (7). I dont think I can say its an 8, maybe a solid 7. Once I gave it some practice I was able to beat it relatively quickly. About a week, or two.
I took me also about 1 or 2 weeks while Abadox (a 7) took me one night (because it has unlimited continues).