Lol! Okay, 350 creatures, moving at 55 MPH, all attacking at once in
3d space? What do we call this skill level? Isn't that like the
suicide level? Smile.
Point well taken. i do know what you are saying, but developing skill
levels is difficult for a developer in large part because there are so
many variables to take into consideration. You have your hard core
gamer who is good at playing games, and you have your gamers who are
not so good at playing games.
For example, I have not only played and beaten Shades of Doom I have
beaten the game on the "Today is a Good Day to Die" level which is
certainly hard to beat. A friend of mine can't even complete area 1 on
"Can I Play Daddy," and should I as a developer take that as an
indication the game is too hard?
That's the very problem developers have to face. What is too easy for
one person is beyond the abilities of another. Some people can't play
Shades of Doom, say it is way too hard, when I found it pretty easy up
until "Bring Them On" or so. Were I the developer of that game instead
of GMA how would I know if the game is too easy or too hard?
On 11/3/10, Yohandy <yohand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I certainly understand where you're coming from, but if the game's too
> difficult, it gets to a point where your fastest reflexes won't help you out
> for long. Since Q9 is Philip's most recent game, let's use it as an
> example.You set game to insane and start walking around. at some point
> during the game a rhino, and about 5 other animals come galloping at you at
> full speed. what do we do in that situation? we can't kill them all without
> taking massive damage in the process, and since there's no way of dodging we
> can't attack them on mass, and hope to survive anyhow. so they all attack at
> once and we die within 10 seconds. In this situation you could say well jump
> away from them. We could do that, but what if there's a pit behind us? Also
> remember Q9 enemies follow you indefinitely once they see you so are we just
> gonna run all the way back to the beginning of the level, at which point
> we'll be trapped regardless? . if we jump forward and over them somehow,
> only thing that'll happen is we'll have another pile of enemies from that
> side added to our current predicament all ganging up on us. I don't find a
> difficulty like that fun or challenging, I find it extremely frustrating.
> Console games have a balance between the easiest and hardest difficulties
> that stays constant, and also within the realm of possibility to complete.
> even games that are extremely difficult and almost impossible to beat have a
> multiplayer option, or a way to get health items, or some such feature
> that'll spread, or lessen the burden of completing the game and that won't
> lead to frustration for the player for the next 3 years. I think if
> developers are going to put an extremely hard difficulty, they need to test
> it out or at least have a team that's good enough at the particular title to
> test it for them, and complete the game first to make 100% certain it's
> doable. Don't just put it out there without the slightest clue whether
> someone will ever be able to complete it. If I had the programming skills, I
> could make a game that has a difficulty setting with 350 creatures moving at
> 55mph and all attacking simultaneously in 3d space, but I know no one will
> ever complete such a game. and if no one can beat it and brag about it, then
> what would be the point? the clue's in the name guys. It's called game
> difficulty setting, not game impossibility setting. or unbeatable game
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.