Jump to content
IGNORED

When does "difficult" become "cheap"?


Cynicaster

Recommended Posts

Anybody who has spent any time at all playing coin operated games knows that they are "tuned" much differently than console games, in that they try to strike that delicate balance of being quarter-sucking but still enjoyable. Deviate too far in either direction from that sweet spot and you have a game that is either far too easy to be a big money maker, or far too hard to keep players willing to spend their money on it because they know they'll be dead in 30 seconds.

 

IMO, achieving that balance is one of the primary hallmarks of top notch arcade game design.

 

Lots of games do this well and others do it terribly, and I think many of the games that went on to become time honored classics did so largely because of their success on this front.

 

All coin-operated games are out to kill you dead and take your money, we all know that, but it's how the approach is perceived by the player. I think a game fails when you get that distinct feeling that the game is cheating you out of your lives using cheap, unavoidable tactics rather than making you feel like you're losing your lives simply because you need more practice.

 

When I play Defender the game totally kicks my ass, BUT I always feel like I'm dying because I'm screwing up, not because the game is stealing my lives. Some might argue it's just an illusion, but perception is reality in this case.

 

So, when does difficult become cheap? Two games that come to mind instantly for me are Mouse Trap and Wizard of Wor. Both are maze games where you can have an enemy literally materialize right on top of you and kill you. It's hard to fathom something more maddening than that in a videogame. Space Dungeon is another one that does this. Space Fury treads dangerously close. What others?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when does difficult become cheap?

 

It's an interesting question. For me, Dragon's Lair would probably be top of the list. It looked great for the time but it was a real money trap: it was just so arbitrary which way you had to move to avoid dying when you first encountered a new screen (from what I remember).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point on Dragon's Lair. I hadn't thought about it, but yes it is cheap. Its all trail and error with no real way to know why you failed something. The wrong move will kill you, but so will the right move 1 sec too early so times. Then there are multiple moves that need to be made in some screens before you can move forward. If you have never seen that board you are just about screwed.

 

Fighting games have always seemed pretty cheap to me. They start off easy enough and then at a certain point they are suddenly impossilble. Mortal Kombat 3 was the worst about this to me. You can win the first 2 or 3 battles, then comes Jade and you are screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who has spent any time at all playing coin operated games knows that they are "tuned" much differently than console games, in that they try to strike that delicate balance of being quarter-sucking but still enjoyable. Deviate too far in either direction from that sweet spot and you have a game that is either far too easy to be a big money maker, or far too hard to keep players willing to spend their money on it because they know they'll be dead in 30 seconds.

 

IMO, achieving that balance is one of the primary hallmarks of top notch arcade game design.

 

Lots of games do this well and others do it terribly, and I think many of the games that went on to become time honored classics did so largely because of their success on this front.

 

All coin-operated games are out to kill you dead and take your money, we all know that, but it's how the approach is perceived by the player. I think a game fails when you get that distinct feeling that the game is cheating you out of your lives using cheap, unavoidable tactics rather than making you feel like you're losing your lives simply because you need more practice.

 

When I play Defender the game totally kicks my ass, BUT I always feel like I'm dying because I'm screwing up, not because the game is stealing my lives. Some might argue it's just an illusion, but perception is reality in this case.

 

So, when does difficult become cheap? Two games that come to mind instantly for me are Mouse Trap and Wizard of Wor. Both are maze games where you can have an enemy literally materialize right on top of you and kill you. It's hard to fathom something more maddening than that in a videogame. Space Dungeon is another one that does this. Space Fury treads dangerously close. What others?

 

Not sure I completely agree. I mean, yes, there are some games out there that seem to have been made just to take your money. But I don't think Wizard of Wor falls into that category. Of course, I rarely played that game alone, I always preferred playing with a friend in a cooperative mode. I never saw Space Dungeon in arcades, I've only played the Atari 5200 version, but I love that game. Again, it was always me and a friend playing, one guy is the pilot and the other is the gunner, that would give us hours of fun. Ya, both games had the potential to materialize a bad guy right on top of you but it was rare and we just lived with it like we walked into a minefield or something.

 

There are some games, like Rip-Off and Tail Gunner, that were designed to wear you down and beat you by simply not allowing you to get any help. There was no way to replenish any of those triangle pods in Rip-Off, no way to recharge the shield in Tail Gunner. Those seem like cheap money stealers to me but, at the same time, they also seemed like true challenges to see just how far I could get (not that far, haahaha). Rip-Off is also way more fun in two-player cooperative playing. I always felt that the boss levels in Silent Scope were so goddamn hard that it was pointless for me to try to advance. But then I have seen people get pretty far in that game so it must just be me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Ya, both games had the potential to materialize a bad guy right on top of you but it was rare and we just lived with it like we walked into a minefield or something.

 

I think I know what you're saying but for me, that kind of "random minefield" is treading dangerously close to cheap. If you, as the player, have absolutely no conceivable means of surviving some kind of random element, then the game is cheating as far as I'm concerned.

 

There are lots of games that have sections that are ridiculously hard at first, but they're not random, so you stand a chance if you can muster the tenacity to keep trying.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate of both randomness and pattern-based games. Randomness can be a powerful virtue in an arcade game; that is, right up to the point where it translates as cheap.

 

Admittedly I've not spent an extreme amount of time with any of the games I singled out as "cheap". I realize there are probably all kinds of die-hards who have mastered those games--thereby proving that my assertions about unbeatable randomness are wrong--but I think we need to exclude those exceptional cases for all practical purposes. If some seemingly random enemy is allowed to just appear right on top of you and take one of your lives, that is going to amount to a literally impossible situation for the 99.99% of the population that isn't obsessed enough with a game to deconstruct the code in their brains.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Ya, both games had the potential to materialize a bad guy right on top of you but it was rare and we just lived with it like we walked into a minefield or something.

 

I think I know what you're saying but for me, that kind of "random minefield" is treading dangerously close to cheap. If you, as the player, have absolutely no conceivable means of surviving some kind of random element, then the game is cheating as far as I'm concerned.

 

There are lots of games that have sections that are ridiculously hard at first, but they're not random, so you stand a chance if you can muster the tenacity to keep trying.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate of both randomness and pattern-based games. Randomness can be a powerful virtue in an arcade game; that is, right up to the point where it translates as cheap.

 

Admittedly I've not spent an extreme amount of time with any of the games I singled out as "cheap". I realize there are probably all kinds of die-hards who have mastered those games--thereby proving that my assertions about unbeatable randomness are wrong--but I think we need to exclude those exceptional cases for all practical purposes. If some seemingly random enemy is allowed to just appear right on top of you and take one of your lives, that is going to amount to a literally impossible situation for the 99.99% of the population that isn't obsessed enough with a game to deconstruct the code in their brains.

 

True, but then that could include both Defender and Robotron: 2084 for most people. I mean when the last lander changes into a mutant and everything explodes and now you're just dealing with waves of mutants, most people could never get past that part. Same goes for certain levels of Robotron where the enemies were so fast that it was practically the same as having them materialize on top of you. I like both games but I suck at both of those games, too. Even the spider in Centipede could be accused of cheating when he shows up on top of you if you're at either screen edge.

 

I think if the game gives extra lives or shields or something often enough to combat the perceived cheating aspects of enemy appearances then it's more difficulty and bad luck than cheating. If it takes you a million points to get an extra guy while the enemies are materializing on top of you a dozen times then that sounds like it's on purpose. There's also the problem of dip-switched difficulty levels to consider, right?

Edited by ledzep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheap is when it is blatantly obvious the computer opponent is using its own system information to its advantage. Also, adjusting game parameters to its own advantage including hit boxes and damage levels.

 

Someone mentioned Mortal Kombat 3, and that's the perfect example of this. The AI has the ability to perform actions that a human player cannot, like throwing you out of various moves, performing standing uppercuts, etc.

 

Same goes for certain levels of Robotron where the enemies were so fast that it was practically the same as having them materialize on top of you. I like both games but I suck at both of those games, too. Even the spider in Centipede could be accused of cheating when he shows up on top of you if you're at either screen edge.

 

What you are talking about is different though. It *seems* cheap, but with practice and planning, you can avoid serious problems. In Robotron, it's about thinking ahead (slightly) and preventing that situation from happening. In Centipede (and many other games), it's about staying away from the edges of the screen so you have time to react to things coming into the playfield from the sides. What he is talking about is something that is completely unavoidable (proper word is probably "uncontrollable"), like the enemy spawning out of thin air, directly on top of him without notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great topic! When I started getting into MAME a few years back I thought the same thing: why is it that I loved these games so much back when I was pumping quarters into them, but now that I can play as much as I want, I don't feel the same way? Is it because they 'suck'? Is it because I grew out of em'? I think the answer lies in what you describe as that 'sweet spot'...just enough to keep you playing, not enough to make you quit.

 

Some games do this much better than others. Today I beat 1943 for probably the first time...way back when, I thought the game didn't have an ending, so I never bothered. But today I found out that it does indeed end! And back in the day, I used to get to somewhere around the third level boss on average before I lost my first quarter. And so on, but I never really got that far because funds were limited.

 

Well after seeing what lies in the final level, I can say this: that game defines 'cheap'. I don't care what kind of super Japanese manga skills one has, if you can somehow make sense of the chaos that is the final level, when you get to the boss battleship Yamato, you'll know: no WAY I coulda beat this in the 80s! That last ship's cannons are instant death: one shell hits you from the main cannon and you're dead. Add the bazillion planes and fast moving buttlets and you'd need to dump in quarter after quarter to win.

 

So that's what I call cheap: something that really is quite impossible as the designers didn't really intend for you to see that level anyway...and if you were foolish enough to spend the ten bucks in quarters, the designers wanted to stick it to ya: it wasn't enough to make the game ridiculously hard, but ensuring that if you wanted to see that ending, you were gonna pay for it.

 

I think the first time I ever heard the phrase 'cheap' (or 'cheese' as was kinda popular in these parts) was when Street Fighter 2 came out. Whenever somebody learned how to throw effectively, you always heard someone mumur "cheap." And it was kinda cheap, what could you do? Not much.

 

My fave example of cheap is in RC Pro Am for NES when you get to around, I dunno, the level where you get the third car (where your car actually looks like the RC buggy advertised on the cover art!). That blasted yellow car, after a lap or so, gets an insane turbo and maintains that speed. You're basically racing for second place when that happens, and nothing you can do unless you race PERFECTLY. To me, that's cheap.

 

To wrap my first thought though, the way I combat feeling ripped off about certain games from the past, I limit the amount of times I continue, if that's the case. Black Tiger is a prime example: loved that game! But with unlimited continues, it's kind of a blah game. You need to recreate that feeling of desperation you had as a 13 year old kid, with your last three quarters in the world, trying to get as far as you can. So I stick to around 8 games, which was the average I had when I went to the arcades once upon a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always felt that the boss levels in Silent Scope were so goddamn hard that it was pointless for me to try to advance. But then I have seen people get pretty far in that game so it must just be me.

 

 

Funny you mention Silent Scope: I remember watching a guy, no joke, beat that game in one life. Didn't even use the scope, just the little video screen up top. Knew EVERY placement of EVERY enemy...yes, this man was JAPANESE! Dang, they are amazing gamers...as for me, I was terrible at Silent Scope, but it was a lot of fun at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fave example of cheap is in RC Pro Am for NES when you get to around, I dunno, the level where you get the third car (where your car actually looks like the RC buggy advertised on the cover art!). That blasted yellow car, after a lap or so, gets an insane turbo and maintains that speed. You're basically racing for second place when that happens, and nothing you can do unless you race PERFECTLY. To me, that's cheap.

Rubber band AI always seemed cheap to me. Most racing games suffered from this. There was one racing game (can't recall the name, I think it might have been an arcade game) where the computer could go full speed over grass whereas you could barley go a quarter of full speed if you even nicked the grass. The computer used this to its advantage all the time so you could only win if you played a perfect game. That is my definition of cheap. Difficult means that if you practice you can eventually win most of the time, cheap is where the computer isn't playing by the same rules so you're screwed no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rubber-band AI in racing games is the worst culprit of 'cheap' difficulty. For an example, play Sega's Manx TT on Saturn. You can be ahead the entire race, but nick the curb on the last curve and a racer will zoom past you with no chance of catching him before the finish line.

 

Sinistar was mentioned above - I agree its too difficult. But not Defender or Robotron or Centipede - you can learn to deal with those situations and master the game.

 

I hate games (usually older ones, or home ports of more advanced coin-ops) that have such slow clunky movement that you just can't avoid getting nailed with 'cheap hits'. I feel that the bullet-hell shooters fall in this category too. Why do they make 'em so incredibly tough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same goes for certain levels of Robotron where the enemies were so fast that it was practically the same as having them materialize on top of you. I like both games but I suck at both of those games, too. Even the spider in Centipede could be accused of cheating when he shows up on top of you if you're at either screen edge.

 

What you are talking about is different though. It *seems* cheap, but with practice and planning, you can avoid serious problems. In Robotron, it's about thinking ahead (slightly) and preventing that situation from happening. In Centipede (and many other games), it's about staying away from the edges of the screen so you have time to react to things coming into the playfield from the sides. What he is talking about is something that is completely unavoidable (proper word is probably "uncontrollable"), like the enemy spawning out of thin air, directly on top of him without notice.

 

Yes Austin--that is exactly what I meant. I realize it's a fine line ledzep, but IMO those examples you gave are a different kind of "difficult".

 

But with unlimited continues, it's kind of a blah game.

 

That’s what I’m finding is one of the key trade-offs of having so many classics available to me in MAME that I can play for free. Sure, it’s great to have them to play at any time, but alas, not all of the magic translates properly from the arcade to my personal man-cave.

 

When I was 13 and hanging out at real arcades, I loved the TMNT’s and the Final Fights and the like because of their big fancy graphics and booming sounds that were unattainable on home consoles. Like you said, as a poor kid, each quarter in your pocket was worth far more than $0.25--it wasn’t just change, it was a credit. So, there were stakes—you’re play your ass off because when you ran out of quarters you either had to stand around and watch or go home. When all you have to do is hit a button to “credit up” as often as you like, the stakes are lost and the game loses much of its magic.

 

I guess this is why, for me, I spend 90% of my MAME time either playing games from the pre-continue era, or I limit myself to a single credit (especially on shooters like 1943, DoDonPachi, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same goes for certain levels of Robotron where the enemies were so fast that it was practically the same as having them materialize on top of you. I like both games but I suck at both of those games, too. Even the spider in Centipede could be accused of cheating when he shows up on top of you if you're at either screen edge.

 

What you are talking about is different though. It *seems* cheap, but with practice and planning, you can avoid serious problems. In Robotron, it's about thinking ahead (slightly) and preventing that situation from happening. In Centipede (and many other games), it's about staying away from the edges of the screen so you have time to react to things coming into the playfield from the sides. What he is talking about is something that is completely unavoidable (proper word is probably "uncontrollable"), like the enemy spawning out of thin air, directly on top of him without notice.

 

Yes Austin--that is exactly what I meant. I realize it's a fine line ledzep, but IMO those examples you gave are a different kind of "difficult".

 

Depends on the player, though. I think your "cheap" designation can only apply if it is impossible to advance past that "cheating" enemy. If it's really difficult but some players can manage it then it's not cheap, just really really hard. It doesn't matter if a computer car can drive full-speed over grass and you can't if that's just the way the game is, unless the game description mentions that the A.I. opponents aren't supposed to have any special abilities. And, as the person talking about those racing games admitted, if you do race perfectly, you can win. I always hated how the Moon Cresta aliens had a knack for crashing into me when they reappeared up from the bottom of the screen where they disappeared. Is that cheap or just really hard?

 

How many games out there had a truly, can't get past that enemy or level, impossible cheap aspect to them? How many just had an enemy that was so damn hard that only a few people ever figured out how to defeat them? I would think that learning that someone had gotten past that level would be the motivation needed to try to match that performance. It's possible to play Wizard Of Wor and Space Dungeon for a long time and so long as there is a chance of getting past the "cheating" enemies then I can't see where the game is designed to take your money vs. being designed to make you spend way too much money to finally beat it. Is perception still reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always felt that the boss levels in Silent Scope were so goddamn hard that it was pointless for me to try to advance. But then I have seen people get pretty far in that game so it must just be me.

 

 

Funny you mention Silent Scope: I remember watching a guy, no joke, beat that game in one life. Didn't even use the scope, just the little video screen up top. Knew EVERY placement of EVERY enemy...yes, this man was JAPANESE! Dang, they are amazing gamers...as for me, I was terrible at Silent Scope, but it was a lot of fun at the time.

 

Silent Scope looked like so much fun to play but I always got killed before I could even figure out what to do or what was going on. It was also a $1 to play. So I tried a couple times but that was it. If it was easier, and a quarter I might have kept playing for a lot more $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few people here have mentioned Mortal Kombat. Ultimate MK3 generally seems difficult at first when playing against the CPU opponents. The flaw of the CPU opponents in this game is that they are predictable, and tend to respond to things in the same manner repeatedly (over and over again). They never learn from their pre-programmed mistakes.

 

I was unbeatable with SCORPION, in UMK3, against ALL the regular opponents when playing against the CPU at any difficulty level. Jade, Ermac, it didn't matter they were all easily defeated. The key with Scorpion, is his "air throw" move. When used correctly you can get the opponents to charge you and you can repeatedly throw them around (like rag dolls) until you defeat them. This is an example of almost a "cheat" against a coin-op's CPU opponents, do to something perhaps that was overlooked by the programmer..

 

With Scorpion, my only challenging opponent was Motaro (whom you can't throw) on the highest difficulty setting. Shao Khan laughs and taunts too much, making him an easy target. I always found him easier to beat than Motaro. Everyone else was no contest (unless I tried to play without ever using the air throw manuever), even in the endurance matches. The most difficult opponent of all, of course, was the human 16 year old kid, that would kick your ass and you could hardly do a thing about it lol. The 2-player human versus human matches were an entirely different animal, requiring totally different tactics. I've seen players in head-to-head combat in this game that are unbelieveably good.. Far better than I ever was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think the first time I ever heard the phrase 'cheap' (or 'cheese' as was kinda popular in these parts) was when Street Fighter 2 came out. Whenever somebody learned how to throw effectively, you always heard someone mumur "cheap." And it was kinda cheap, what could you do? Not much.

 

You couldn't do anything once you were already in the process of being thrown; but the idea is to not allow yourself to get into a position where someone can throw you. People who grumble about throws on SFII don't have a legitimate complaint. They need to practice more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You couldn't do anything once you were already in the process of being thrown; but the idea is to not allow yourself to get into a position where someone can throw you. People who grumble about throws on SFII don't have a legitimate complaint. They need to practice more.

 

I used to feel the same way (that throws were "cheap"), but when I began to play fighting games much more competitively in the early 2000s, they became a part of my arsenal and my mantra basically became what you said above. As a player in a competitive match, you have to be prepared for anything. At the same time, you have to be prepared to use anything to your advantage if it means winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree with what's been summed up here several times as "the computer isn't playing by the same rules as you".

It's super crappy when you're trying to avoid some computer-controlled character in a game that shouldn't be able to see you, but knows where you are, because it's an extension of the same damn program that's drawing your poor character too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking more about this, it's really a fine line. Like computer controlled cars who run a set track, and nothing takes them off that track...in a way, the program needs to react to the skill of the player, that's how I prefer it. But I can't sometimes understand the reason for the cheapness; people are just way too smart, really: if there's a way to exploit computer AI, somebody out there WILL find out how. It's a rare game that balances this perfectly, and in an arcade game, it's impossible to expect fairness: the main purpose is to make money in the short term. Home video games don't suffer as much as their goal is to provide entertainment spread out over time.

 

Not too hijack a thread, but what do you guys think are some good games that are difficult without being cheap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first time I ever heard the phrase 'cheap' (or 'cheese' as was kinda popular in these parts) was when Street Fighter 2 came out. Whenever somebody learned how to throw effectively, you always heard someone mumur "cheap." And it was kinda cheap, what could you do? Not much.

 

You couldn't do anything once you were already in the process of being thrown; but the idea is to not allow yourself to get into a position where someone can throw you. People who grumble about throws on SFII don't have a legitimate complaint. They need to practice more.

 

Perhaps it's more accurate to say those who complain about cheap throw in SF2 are really complaining about a technique that 'works' but relies far more on twitch reflex skill (and rewards it) rather than the other more complicated skills required. It takes more hand-eye coordination to know how to work a combo or consistently nail a Ryu Uppercut or spinning piledriver than it is do a throw. One requires timing, range and multiple inputs...the other, timing and ONE button press. It brings the game down to the lowest common denominator and removes a lot of the fun. And I can't tell you how many times the only skill an opponent I was playing had was that throw...that was it, no fireballs, no other moves or combos: just the timing for the throw, and usually, that was enough for them to get a few plays out of a quarter.

 

But your general view is correct: the best players know how to defend against a one-dimensional player like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...