Friday 19 January, 2007

it sucks when you cant beat a level. When the degree of difficulty surpasses your talent (and will to play) the game becomes a lot less fun. I think it is probably at this point when those who want to become masters at the game distinguish themselves from those who don't, and spend countless hours trying to beat the level that is bugging them so. I am not one of those people. But playing this game definetely showed me what made a game great, and what I want to do in my own game. Colorful levels, simple but difficult challenges, basic storyline, etc... the rewards of completing a level were bragging rights, since anyone who can get far in this game without warping are obviously great, and the cheats and hidden itemsmake any level worth exploring. After playing this game for a while, it is clear why this game is considered a classic, and why putting aside maybe a day or two to learn how to beat it might still be a waste of time, but fun nonetheless.

your bringing up the question of difficulty level. I've always thought games should innately have three difficulty levels. Where they are defined as such

Easy - Almost anyone can beat the game on their first try with next to no deaths.
Normal - A beginning player will die on average 2-3 times per level. With a little practice the game is still challenging but not frustrating
Hard - Only short work for those with no life

What do you think? Do you like the idea of splitting up difficulty levels? Do you feel there is an intrinsically ideal difficulty of the genre of "video game?" What about a game that modifies itself on the fly to adapt to the skill of the player? Would that be cheating?