Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove
God I love Devil May Cry. That is quite possibly the best action rpg ever made. Go away Diablo.
My rule of thumb is that if I can't beat the highest level of a game, it's well balanced. This means there's always room to improve and whip the AI a little more effectively. Games from the Nintendo era fit this fairly well, primarily to satisfy the arcade audience. if players keep dying, they keep pumping in quarters. For better or for worse, games lately favor accessibility - any schmo can beat the game without too much undue effort. This isn't completely bad, players feel ripped off when they can't make any progress in a game they paid 50 bucks for. Anyway, harder modes and endgame content often exist to satisfy the need for a challenge. Guild Wars doesn't have any challenge left. Any idiot can beat all of hard mode and the elite missions given time. There aren't obstacles to be overcome, the learning curve is a slight downward slope, and there's not motivation to become engaged in the game. For the thick, this is a bad thing. For the tired old argument of playing with 4 skills/solo/drunk: Would it be a good game for the Arsenal to play a youth soccer team while hopping on one leg? Would the Tour De France be a better challenge for riders if they had to have flat tires? The biggest part of the fun of a challenge comes from trying your very best to improve yourself. When you add artificial roadblocks, you remove that idea of trying your best. TL;DR version: Bah, games are too easy today, you kids get off my lawn. |


(ok at some times replace fun by frustration by bad controls for the pc version (played the same level on a PS2 of a buddy and was ten times easier thanks to decent controls)) but still the game was and remains great