Challenging Video Games

[Mr Light]

How challenging do you want your video games to be? How frustrated do you get?

Personally, I view games as entertainment, and like them to be relatively easy. I don't like dying, having to repeat ANYTHING, or not knowing what to do. When I play an RPG, I regularly check the walkthrough. Before playing a boss, I always read how to beat him first. If there's a difficulty setting, I put it at Normal not Legendary.

On Halo 2 Legendary co-op, if ONE of you dies, it starts over from the last checkpoint. Screw that!

I easily can get frustrated with a game. If I reach an insurmountable part, I'm more likely to put it away forever rather than play it again a dozen times to get past it. I bought Contra4-DS, played it a few times, and put it away because it was too hard. I stopped playing Final Fantasy X a year ago, I don't even remember why, I think I just couldn't figure out the next person to talk to.

 

[PKerr]

Not bragging but I play every game I've ever owned on the Hardest level possible.

And yes I did get very aggravated with Halo 3 on Legendary.

One of the games I'm having the hardest time with on hard right now is John Woo's Stranglehold and the is an unlockable level after hard called hard Boiled.
I doubt I will ever play the hard boiled level since hard is so damn hard.

 

[CorporalClegg]

If by "legendary" you mean Cybernoid then I say forget it!

But I do like my games challenging and usually play them at the hardest level possible.

 

[Daedalus12]

I found the hardest level in most games to be pretty easy.

The only time it's really challenging for me is playing Team Deathmatch or 1on1 online or in lan against pro or semi-pro players.

It's get really frustrating when you are losing 200 to 20 in a TDM game.

 

[dragunzng]

Generally speaking I play through games on "normal" first since I figure it's what the director intended, if I finish the game and enjoy it enough though, I'll usually go back and try a harder setting, games like Gears of War and God of War spring to mind.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I agree with you, I love playing video games but I do it for fun, not to beat the hardest setting. If I have to repeat something more than once or twice I look at the walkthrough and if I can't do it after that I move on to another game. Trying to kill the same guy over and over isn't fun at all, it's just frustrating and annoying.

I MUCH prefer games that require thinking skills and puzzles rather than physical perfection with the controller. I can usually get puzzles eventually even if I don't get them the first time.

 

[Jono]

I usually start a game at normal and go through the campaign since I want to play out the campaign and get the story. Since I'm a RTS/TBS person I'll then skirmish it and play one or two at normal and then up the difficulty or just increase the number of opponents I have to fight against.

I once went backwards, Monkey Island had the slightly harder more puzzles way and the easier less puzzles. I completed it with all the puzzles and then went back and played the easier way just to see what parts of the game and puzzles you didn't need to do.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I like a certain level of challenge in my games. If I lose, I want it to be a reasonably close game. However, I don't want to get utterly destroyed on a consistant basis. My gaming style of preference is RTS, and the only thing more frustrating than spending hours to get ready to lose is getting trampled to death in less than 10 minutes. I know on CnC3, there are several campaign missions where you are starting a base from scratch and the enemy has a base and army setup already, and the only real way to keep from getting wiped out in 10 minutes is to move up the tech-tree rapidly and only build the super units. I've honestly reached a point in campaigns where if I severely lose very quickly once or twice, I'm online getting tips. At least on skirmish's, it's almost an even battle field and I can impose handicaps.

 

[TrekNut87]

I like a good challenge (though not to the point where I'm throwing things at my TV), it makes the game much more fun for me. That said, I typicall play my games in hard mode.

 

[Mistral]

I guess I'm a freak. I own Halo 2,3, COD3,4, various Tom Clancy games, etc-and I've never finished any of them. I never even tried H3. I pop the game in, run the tutorial and go online. I hate playing against the computer-it feels hollow to me. I like to match wits with others. When I lose it maddens me(actually, it NFL2Ks me-LOL) but when I win the endorphin rush is the best. I just don't see the point in going through the motions against the computer because I've played so many games over the years that before I even start I KNOW that at some point I can beat the computer-so why bother? Against humans I never KNOW the outcome-I can only hope for the best.

 

[Daedalus12]

^^ I have to agree with that. With shooters I can't bring myself to play against computer bots because it's like a walk in the park. Human opponents (the good ones at least) are much tougher and provides a more satisfying challenge.

 

[Kelthaz]

I prefer games to be as hard as possible. Games such as the Touhou series and I Wanna Be The Guy are the reason I'm a gamer.

 

[firehawk12]

No way I would play on anything more than Normal. Most games are so cheap right now it doesn't make sense to play it on difficult level unless you were playing co-op.
Case in point, Vegas 2. The spawns are so fucking cheap that it's not "challenging" on any level. CoD4 has the same thing, since enemies keep spawning no matter what you do.

 

[Holdfast]

Personally, I view games as entertainment, and like them to be relatively easy.

I'm generally the same. I don't mind a few retries, anything more than that, I generally stop playing.

I don't think I get the same competitive buzz as some others in this thread. I play games (rarely, it has to be said) more as occasional time-killers, rather than for a rush.

 

[backstept]

I like a challenge, but if a game has cheats I'll use 'em
I play games to have fun and relax, not get frustrated and quit after 5 minutes
if a game takes too much 'work' to get anywhere I'll stop playing . . .

 

[gh4chiefs]

I had to vote "normal" although that might be a bit subjective and at times even a bit too hard for me. You see, I suck. Period. I love video games, but I just don't have the motor skills/eye-hand coordination/reflexes to be proficient at them. I don't want them to be ridicously easy, but I don't know that I've EVER beaten ANY game on any harder mode than "Normal."

And some games, like Guitar Hero for example, I can't even do on easy.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Normal. I play games for fun, not to be aggravated. I don't mind a bit of a challenge, but when they make difficulties for the sake of it, such as not allowing you to save, and making you do a difficult part over and over again, if you make a mistake, or taking your weapons, or skills off you, then throwing you in the deep end, then I see it as a bad design or laziness rather than difficult game play.

 

[Smiley]

I like normal difficulty levels. The Zelda series is pretty good with this. To get through the main quest, very rarely will the difficulty be because of cheap or lazy design. Some of the side quests can be more difficult, but since they are not required, then I can try them a few times and stop if they are not fun anymore.

I like a game that ramps up the difficulty naturally as you progress. The early stages should be easier, and the final stages should be difficult enough to give a feeling of accomplishment without causing hair-pulling.

 

[Harvey]

I usually play games on the normal setting first, in order to enjoy the story and get a feel for the mechanics of the game-play. Then I set it on a harder or the hardest difficulty, depending on my abilities, and prepare to get frustrated.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

Try "Fallout" I used to play it at work a few years ago. Simple graphics, very hard to beat, but a great game.