Is it OK to hate on a game because it's too damn hard?

I say no.

I don't like that Brad thinks Guitar Hero 3 wasn't good because he sucks at it.

Yes it is okay. Especially if its hard because its broken and not because of how its designed.

True, broken games are not fun.

Meh i haven't beaten NG:B and i think it's awesome. But usually when games are unforgivingly (is that a word?) difficult it pisses the hell out of me. Things like cheap deaths, awful camera and a ridiculous amount of enemies are what killed Baroque for me.

Some games are hard for the wrong reason like AI that knows where you are without seeing you

"Some games are hard for the wrong reason like AI that knows where you are without seeing you"

Really, Guitar Hero III wasn't that great. Aside from the soundtrack and the fact that most songs weren't covers, the game really didn't make any notable improvements, except cleaning up the hammer-ons a little. The venues were uninspired and dull, the boss battles were horrible, having unlockable songs exclusive to co-op was lame, the lack of being able to create your own guitarist was disappointing, having only 2 real guitarists in a game subtitled Legends of Rock is a joke, and yeah, the game gets stupidly hard. I don't think it's such a big problem to hate on a game for being really challenging, but it can be annoying if the truth is that person really just sucks and they just unfairly rip the game because of their lack of skill. The ramped up difficulty in GH3 was the least of the games problems.

"I don't like that Brad thinks Guitar Hero 3 wasn't good because he sucks at it."

I don't like that Brad thinks Guitar Hero 3 wasn't good because he sucks at it.

• Arguably the game's most taxing song (in "The Devil Went Down to Georgia")

• A boss who never misses a note unless provoked.
• A boss who attains his power up before you do, which renders your ability to attain a power up a game of chance button mashing more than skillful playing.

Is it OK to hate on a game because it's too damn hard?

No, it's not okay. Your gaming license has been revoked.
Please chop off your thumbs and send them to the game player's union's headquarters :P

If the difficulty makes it unreasonably challenging to a point that the average player won't enjoy the game? Then yea, I most certainly believe that it's ok to hate a game because it's too hard.

"I hate megaman. That game is just balls to the wall cheap."

If the difficulty is forced upon the player and the difficulty ruins the experience then yes I think its perfectly reasonable to down grade a game based on that, however Guitar Hero 3 gives you a choice, the average player isn't going to enjoy playing on Expert so they don't have to.

"If the difficulty is forced upon the player and the difficulty ruins the experience then yes I think its perfectly reasonable to down grade a game based on that, however Guitar Hero 3 gives you a choice, the average player isn't going to enjoy playing on Expert so they don't have to."

"mandeponium said:

I don't like that Brad thinks Guitar Hero 3 wasn't good because he sucks at it.

I'm just going to reiterate a lot of the points being brought up in response to this comment.  And, as a disclaimer, I'm pretty fucking good at Guitar Hero.  I can beat the hardest songs on the hardest difficulty.  So, this isn't an argument from someone who cannot play.

Guitar Hero III reached a new level of cheapness in terms of rhythm game difficulty.  Most, if not all, of the songs were pitifully overcharted (see: Anything above the seventh tier; the five hardest bonus songs), and the general design of these charts deter from playability.  Guitar Hero III sought to implement the sly strum note in the middle of a sweeping stream of hammer-ons/pull-offs, which helps convolute the gameplay (see: "Same Old Song and Dance"); basically, notes that ought to have been fretted necessitate an extra strum.  It's just clunky. 

Moreover, there is a point when the songs cease to be fun.  In my mind, a game ought never sacrifice fun for difficulty, or fluency for difficulty.  I like to use Halo: Combat Evolved as a good example of a game that balances difficulty and playability well.  And, you know what, you can even look to Guitar Hero II as a game that is capable of balancing "oh shit this is tuff" with "wow that was a fun song, though."

Guitar Hero III doesn't just tilt the scale, it drops a fucking brick on one side.  Whenever I play "Before I Forget", "Raining Blood", "The Way it Ends", or, yes, even "Through the Fire and the Flames", I consistently come away thinking it was more torturous than enjoyable (I should not have to avoid a song for fear my hand will cramp afterward)--and, indeed, Brad nailed it on the head when he said Guitar Hero caters to the super-competitive crowd.  It, in fact, does, and it strangles accessibility away from Joe Normal in doing so.

And to add a final point to this already gargantuan rant, the guitar battles are retarded.  Absolutely retarded.  Take, for instance, the final boss battle against Lou.  Here's what you're up against:

• Arguably the game's most taxing song (in "The Devil Went Down to Georgia")

• A boss who never misses a note unless provoked.
• A boss who attains his power up before you do, which renders your ability to attain a power up a game of chance button mashing more than skillful playing.

 
These three things in tandem are so obviously anti-player, it shouldn't even be legal.  Unless you're a sick-bastard who frequents the Guitar Hero pro-circuit, this is a nigh-insurmountable challenge, and it's unacceptable design. 

Fuck Guitar Hero.  It's too hard to be enjoyable."

um  Guitar hero 3 wasn't that good simply because it was the worst in the series, sorry to say.

"um  Guitar hero 3 wasn't that good simply because it was the worst in the series, sorry to say."

"um  Guitar hero 3 wasn't that good simply because it was the worst in the series, sorry to say."

some games are ment to kick you in the balls because they are suposed to be hard (The mega man games or I want to be the guy pop into mind) while others are hard due to unfair AI or bad controls.

If its too hard to play the game because the gameplay is broken, then its ok.

I can hate a game for any darn reason I want to, but that's just my opinion and I shouldn't force that on others.  For example, I hate the Condemned games because I think they're too dark (I'm mostly color blind).  I also dislike Call of Duty 4 multiplayer because I can't ever make out the enemies against the backgrounds - but I understand and appreciate that it's an amazing game.  Same with Condemned - just because I have problems with the game doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have the right to love it.

As far as games being too hard, there's definitely games I can't play for long because of the difficulty level.  Sometimes fighting games like Mortal Kombat can be brutal in their difficulty, and it about drives me bananas.  However, there are games like Donkey Kong Country that I love despite the difficulty I have with the game (those mine cart levels - argh!).  It all depends on the type of difficulty, and oddly enough, the control scheme.  I didn't much care for Bionic Commando Rearmed because I didn't like the control scheme.  I love watching people play it and I love the retro remake ideas we're seeing, but I just didn't much care for the game because I had difficulty with both the game's inherent difficulty and the problems with the control scheme.

And like with Condemned or Call of Duty, there are certain games that I'll never be able to fully appreciate because of my own problems.  I absolutely love to watch the Battlefield games, but I can't distinguish the red name colors against nearly any background.  Even against something stark like white, my eyes play tricks and the letters seem to fade against a background.  One of the reasons I play Halo is because the red and blue costumes make this a heck of a lot easier.  If it ain't my team color, I can blast it.  It would be fair for me to say that I love Halo over CoD4 simply because the difficulty is easier for me, even if it's actually a vision problem and not any fault of the games. 

"I hate megaman. That game is just balls to the wall cheap."

I think it's okay.  I can't like a game if it's more frustrating than fun.

Sure, it is. If a game is too hard, then you don't have much fun playing it. The challenge is to make the game hard but to make it fun while being hard at the same time and avoid being overly frustrating. Also, for the record, Guitar Hero III was too hard.

I think if your bad at a game and it furstrates you then you're probably not having fun, I mean I wouldn't expect someone to like a game if they aren't having fun.

If the game is beatable by design, then you really shouldn't hate the game for being hard.  If it's hard because of glitches and shitty controls, then the hatred is valid.

If the game is crippled by the difficulty then yes but if it's just frusturatingly hard then no, not really..

Absolutely. It's OK to hate a game for any reason you want.

"I say no.

I don't like that Brad thinks Guitar Hero 3 wasn't good because he sucks at it.
"

of course it's okay to hate something if it's too damn hard for you.  I hate Guitar Hero 3.  However, I love Ninja Gaiden and the second one, but I get why people don't

yes and no.  Sometimes people who rate games just plain stink at a game that shouldn't give them that troble at all or just lack skills in general.  I really do hate that and it is especially noticeable if they do a video review.  In this case yes. 

It's okay to acknowledge that a game is rea.ly har but letting it effect your grade is just plain ignorant.  However if it is in due to some sort of brokenness it is fine.

2.  GH3 was a perfectly acceptable ramp up from GH II, and anyone who says otherwise didn't get very far into GH II.  If you think GH IV is gonna be any different of a ramp up, get ready for a fuckin' wake-up call.  Does that mean someone should reem the game in a review because they aren't any good at it?  No.  You have to look at overall design of the game...you have to look at THE GAME...and if a 9-year old can play it on Expert...then you should at LEAST be able to play on Easy.  If not, check your gamer status at the door as you are leaving the building."

I've mixed reactions on this, but I'd have to go on many details, so I'll just say yes and no.

GH3 was cheap on so many levels - so cheap in fact that I won't be buying GHIV.

yes it is ok to hate a game that because you suck at it - its also ok to hate a game that goes from hard to impossible in a singe game - the difficulty of GH3 was way too high even someone like Alex Navarro (who's a fucking drummer by the way so the man has rythym) commented on the ridiculous increase in difficulty

Okay... IMO, it's okay to hate a game that's hard because it's broken.  It's okay to hate a game for simply too difficult, but only if there isn't an option for an easier difficulty.

"jakob187 said:

2.  GH3 was a perfectly acceptable ramp up from GH II, and anyone who says otherwise didn't get very far into GH II.  If you think GH IV is gonna be any different of a ramp up, get ready for a fuckin' wake-up call.  Does that mean someone should reem the game in a review because they aren't any good at it?  No.  You have to look at overall design of the game...you have to look at THE GAME...and if a 9-year old can play it on Expert...then you should at LEAST be able to play on Easy.  If not, check your gamer status at the door as you are leaving the building."

This is the single most ignorant statement I've read in the entirety of this topic.  I'm going to pull a Sarah Palin and not argue it point to point, but I want to single out one particular idea:

"if a 9-year old can play it on Expert...then you should at LEAST be able to play on Easy"

There are people who can blow through Ninja Gaiden, there are those who can skip through the Mega Man games without as much as blinking an eye, there are players who can score one-hundred percent on "Through the Fire and the Flames".

That says nothing about the game's design or acceptable difficulty--that says everything about the aforesaid person's skill/level of memorization/devotion to the game.  Just because these prodigious players can rip through the game on the hardest of settings doesn't mean the game is good for having a playable difficulty.  Again, there is a difficulty vs. fun balance at work, and when a developer shifts that balance too dramatically, as is the case with something like Guitar Hero III, it is completely valid to hold that as a criticism against the game itself. 

Again, I'm not pro-level at Guitar Hero, but I can hold my own against the hardest songs in the series, and even I can readily acknowledge that III is nothing but a skittle-fest in comparison to the technical prowess of II."

I think it's perfectly alright to hate on a game because it's hard.  After all, it's a case of personal preference, and some people may not enjoy a high level of difficulty in the games they play.   I see no problem with someone disliking a game because of it's difficulty, although I may disagree with their rationale.

In retrospect, I think Guitar Hero is different from other games.  Normally, when a game is too hard, it's unreasonable to hate it.  But Guitar Hero (and Rock Band to a lesser extent) is different because it has a learning curve of several months, where most games have a leaning curve of less than an hour.

"Sir_Ragnarok said:

"jakob187 said:

2.  GH3 was a perfectly acceptable ramp up from GH II, and anyone who says otherwise didn't get very far into GH II.  If you think GH IV is gonna be any different of a ramp up, get ready for a fuckin' wake-up call.  Does that mean someone should reem the game in a review because they aren't any good at it?  No.  You have to look at overall design of the game...you have to look at THE GAME...and if a 9-year old can play it on Expert...then you should at LEAST be able to play on Easy.  If not, check your gamer status at the door as you are leaving the building."

This is the single most ignorant statement I've read in the entirety of this topic.  I'm going to pull a Sarah Palin and not argue it point to point, but I want to single out one particular idea:

"if a 9-year old can play it on Expert...then you should at LEAST be able to play on Easy"

There are people who can blow through Ninja Gaiden, there are those who can skip through the Mega Man games without as much as blinking an eye, there are players who can score one-hundred percent on "Through the Fire and the Flames".

That says nothing about the game's design or acceptable difficulty--that says everything about the aforesaid person's skill/level of memorization/devotion to the game.  Just because these prodigious players can rip through the game on the hardest of settings doesn't mean the game is good for having a playable difficulty.  Again, there is a difficulty vs. fun balance at work, and when a developer shifts that balance too dramatically, as is the case with something like Guitar Hero III, it is completely valid to hold that as a criticism against the game itself. 

Again, I'm not pro-level at Guitar Hero, but I can hold my own against the hardest songs in the series, and even I can readily acknowledge that III is nothing but a skittle-fest in comparison to the technical prowess of II."

Working at a gaming center, I can say that your point on this is quite drastic from what I see everyday at work.  I know at least 20 kids (age range from 9 - 18) who started out Guitar Hero III on easy and medium, and now they beat my ass on Expert.  I am by no means GREAT at Guitar Hero III (I can't do TTFAF), but I can 400k at least on one and get past Slayer.  I will say that the last tier of that game is ridiculous in terms of difficulty, and Slayer was a cheap shot to throw in there...specifically because I doubt that even Kerry King himself can play the "Mosh 1" part himself sometimes!

Nonetheless, the argument you present of a difficulty vs. fun balance can easily be said about difficult games like Ninja Gaiden and Mega Man 9.  Go watch the video of Jeff playing Mega Man 9.  Did he look like he was having fun?  NO!  Maybe he was, but from what I saw, it didn't.  Now, I could easily say that Mega Man 9 shifted dramatically from the difficulty level of Mega Man 8 just the way I can say that Guitar Hero III is a dramatic shift in difficulty from Guitar Hero Aerosmith.  Does that mean the game is bad?  NO.  Guitar Hero III fixed a LOT of the problems that Guitar Hero 1 and 2 had.  Hammer-ons were much easier to pull off and not so much of a chore to work with...thereby making it accessible to more players.  Those same kids I mentioned earlier that can wail on GH3...can't do SHIT on GH2.  Therefore, should we say that GH2 is more difficult due to the hammer-on/pull-off mechanic being inferior?  NO.  The tracklisting for GH3 may have flailed in a couple of places, but look back at GH2.  Did anyone ACTUALLY enjoy playing "Tattooed Love Boys"?  What about "Surrender"?  The same thing can be said about GH3 and some of the song choices on that.  The same about GH80s.  The same about GHA.  The fact is that a game based around rock music, in its own, is a very subjective idea.  I could hate the game because I don't like the songs on it.  Do I?  NO.

Saying that a game is too difficult because you can't play it on Expert is the same as saying that Ninja Gaiden made you cry and it's a bad game.  That's the same as saying Contra treats you unfairly.  NO.  It's just that the aim is to IMPROVE your skill at the game.

The same way I see people do it everyday.  Therefore, the idea of GH3 being something "difficult because it's broken" or "difficult because it ramps up to high" is only for those who are unwilling to get better at the game.  I have witnessed first hand the exact opposite of what you are stating, so which side is right and which side is wrong?

Maybe everyone is right.  Maybe GH3 is a huge ramp up from GH2.  On what difficulty?  Expert?  That's the only place you are comparing?  Hell, Hard and Expert are nearly the same thing...just leaving out some of the hammer-ons, so again...it's about ramping a player up to become better at the game...not punishing them.

Besides, if it ends up being too difficult because of a huge ramp up...no one would play it.  And yet GH3 outsells GH2 by a mile?  Sure, it's because of a larger install base...but how the hell is there a larger install base if it's SOOOOO difficult?"

Really, Jakob's entire wall of text and heartrending pictures reaffirm one statement of my previous post, one I'm assuming he didn't read too closely/well. 

. . . there are players who can score one-hundred percent on "Through the Fire and the Flames".

That says nothing about the game's design or acceptable difficulty--that says everything about the aforesaid person's skill/level of memorization/devotion to the game.

I think it depends on the game, but I do think it has a place. At some point difficulty ruins the fun of a game.

"Really, Jakob's entire wall of text and heartrending pictures reaffirm one sentence of my previous post, one I'm assuming he didn't read too closely/well. 

. . . there are players who can score one-hundred percent on "Through the Fire and the Flames".

That says nothing about the game's design or acceptable difficulty--that says everything about the aforesaid person's skill/level of memorization/devotion to the game.

"

 Favorite bands FTW!"