Devil May Cry 3 Harder Than Ninja Gaiden?

[quote name='magilacudy'][quote name='CapAmerica']
Developers really need to start taking avarage/below avarage gamers in to consideration. We play games for fun, not to smash our our controlers and yell at the TV.[/quote]

May I suggest an easier game for you?

http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/180720.asp


:wink:[/quote]

I have an honest-to-God copy of this, sealed, if anyone's interested. ;)

If anything, this thread says people view difficulty in varied ways -- just like what they think is good or bad. I personally have been getting whupped in DMC 3, but not to the point of frustration. I'm on level 6 on normal mode. Sure, I've died a ton, but I find myself getting better, and the ability to revisit old levels to rack up orbs to buy more items/skills is a small consolation.

True story: The outlet I reviewed DMC 3 for changed my score, because it's too hard for the average gamer.

I haven't played enough Ninja Gaiden to make an accurate comparison.
 
I'm still having nightmares from playing DMD on DMC1.


But that game and Ninja Gaiden (minus the Super and DMD difficulties) weren't hard, they were frustrating because they made you go through lots of backtracking to get to the point where you died. When it feels like my skills are improving, it's usually no big deal (as in Shinobi).
 
I didn't have any troubles with spider in dmc, dmc3 is just challenging in a positive way, some of you are overreacting a bit.
ninja gaiden was challenging too.
but those games ARE FOR HUMANS, not for robots for instance.
it's all in your head
:)
 
[quote name='ViolentLee']
I have an honest-to-God copy of this, sealed, if anyone's interested. ;)

If anything, this thread says people view difficulty in varied ways -- just like what they think is good or bad. I personally have been getting whupped in DMC 3, but not to the point of frustration. I'm on level 6 on normal mode. Sure, I've died a ton, but I find myself getting better, and the ability to revisit old levels to rack up orbs to buy more items/skills is a small consolation.

True story: The outlet I reviewed DMC 3 for changed my score, because it's too hard for the average gamer.

I haven't played enough Ninja Gaiden to make an accurate comparison.[/quote]

That's an excellent way to look at things, but I'm not quite so optimistic. I never really got frustrated playing NG; It's probably like Strider Turbulence suggested. And as for the comic, magilacudy, I would, indeed, hold out for Ultimate F*cking P*ssy Mode.

Another reason I enjoy the easy modes is because they usually come with extras (more items, longer life bar, etc.) I also enjoy cheating (that's a WHOLE 'nother topic, though. I don't suck that bad.) I find cheating extremly fun, but it's a highly controversial (amongst gamers, anyway) topic. There's a slew of information I'd love to type on and on about, but I won't bore you with my rants and raves. (Unless, of course someone else decide's to. :) )
 
[quote name='CapAmerica']Developers really need to start taking avarage/below avarage gamers in to consideration. We play games for fun, not to smash our our controlers and yell at the TV.[/quote]

They usually only take average/below average gamers into consideration; how many games are there now that are really hard? At least in just the standard "normal" mode? The only games I can think of off the top of my head as being difficult on normal difficulty are: Ikaruga, Alien Hominid, Shinobi, Ninja Gaiden, and Viewtiful Joe. That's it; most of the rest of the games I've played were fairly easy to complete on normal difficulty. Now, I am pretty terrible at games myself, but I like playing games that are extremely hard so I can get better, so maybe I won't suck as much.
 
Lets not baby ourselves gamers, Im not a DMC fan but people keep saying its so dam hard. When I earn more cash I will purchase this title and school it on all levels of difficulty.
 
[quote name='gsr'][quote name='Lucky13']HA! What a bunch of new-school sissy's! Ninja Gaiden wasn't THAT hard. Knuckle up people. Why are you folks so afraid of a challenge?

Look, I don't want a game to be unplayable, but NG was a good old school quality challenge. It wasn't a pushover, it was a challenge and you felt like you really accomplished something when the credits rolled.[/quote]

just a couple of things here

no one plays video games to "accomplish" anything...doing something to further your existence on this planet is "accomplishing" something, not beating a crummy video game

you do realize that some of us have lives and actually work 40+ hours/week right?[/quote]

how do you accomplish anything on this planet? working jobs that help us "get by" that 95% of us humans are going to end up with? I don't think so.

face it, your not going to make a difference, that is why in life you must work to make your self happy above all else.

Life is all about survival, and survival takes alot of money. Its a BS system and its exactly why our society is at a standstill.
 
I see Ninja Gaiden's and DMC 3's point of view of a challenge, but I also really admire what a game like Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando does. It helps you play through it. Die, and you respawn very nearby. If you die too many times, a section becomes magically easier. This way, most any gamer can work their way through and experience the whole thing.

Which side of the coin I prefer really depends on my mood. I just hate when games fail you through no fault of you own, but because of shady development and bugs -- GTA San Andreas, love it as I do, is one of the worst in that respect.
 
There is a difference between difficulty and cheap game design. I thoroughly enjoyed Ninja Gaiden for XBOX, and am slowly making my way through DMC3 now. It seems that people are complaining about the difficulty of both games, and others are defending them saying they're old school gamers and what not.

To lay it flat out on the table, both games are challenging to play in that they require some action game skills to defeat multiple enemies at once and bosses, etc. This challenge is generally welcomed by most gamers I would imagine. It is inherent in the learning curve of the game.

However, the difference between them is the way checkpoints/saves are implemented.

I honestly did not have one frustrating time in NG for XBOX simply because I could save any time I wanted to pretty much, and before bosses. Therefore, if I were to die against a boss while trying to figure out its pattern, I would be able to go back and fight him again after restarting at the save point.

When one dies against a DMC boss, the player has to clear the stage again and then fight the boss. So, any secret dungeons, items, etc that the player has collected are gone. This is what I consider "cheap game design." There is no reason to force the player to have to go through the level again when the player dies at a boss. The game is already difficult, but to penalize the player for dying is considered unfair in today's gaming culture. This doesn't apply just to gaming, but life in general - people do not like rework. Give them an option to do it if they want, but forcing people to redo their stuff is frustrating for anyone that obviously doesn't want to do it.

In the past, when games didn't really have saving and check points, it was more understandable. I still never liked the last boss in the original Ninja Gaiden for NES. If you died against him, in section 7-4 or something, you'd get sent all the way back to section 7-1 and had to replay through that whole area just to get to him again. So every time I died against the 2 minute boss fight, I'd have to go through 30 mins of stages just to refight him.

The easiest fix for making DMC3 less frustrating but still retaining its challenge is to allow players to restart at the bosses when they die instead of all the way at the beginning of the stage.

Current generation games such as Ninja Gaiden, Metal Gear Solid 3, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime 2, are all challenging in their own right, but none of these stellar hits force the player to go through as much rework as Devil May Cry 3. It's a shame really that DMC3 has followed in the action/platformer game footsteps of "stages" rather than adventure game "episodes" which allow saves and checkpoints in new zones.
 
[quote name='espionage']
The easiest fix for making DMC3 less frustrating but still retaining its challenge is to allow players to restart at the bosses when they die instead of all the way at the beginning of the stage.[/quote]

You make some good points. However, yellow orbs basically do what you're mentioning. The only problem is, you lose the items you used in the first go-around against the boss.

Here's a question: Would you rather have the respawn feature you mention, or would you rather be able to go back to old stages and re-clear them for more orbs/money (which, incidentally, is in DMC 3)? I know some games with the former, but not the latter. Not sure which I'd rather have, if given the choice.
 
If I had to have one or the other, I would personally prefer respawning over being able to replay stages.

However, the optimal solution is to allow for both; then everyone is probably happy! I like to replay the stages to build up my orb reserves, but when items go up in cost every time you buy them (until the hard cap), it somewhat defeats the purpose of replaying stages if you're not playing them flawlessly. (I never liked the idea of items going up in price each time you buy them - I prefer set prices dependant on difficulty a la Ninja Gaiden heh).

The issue is that DMC3 is still technically designed like a platformer, when it should really be an adventure game. If they threw in save points throughout the stages at those monuments where you could buy things or change your mode, it would definitely alleviate a lot of my frustration.
 
[quote name='gsr'] [quote name='Lucky13']HA! What a bunch of new-school sissy's! Ninja Gaiden wasn't THAT hard. Knuckle up people. Why are you folks so afraid of a challenge?

Look, I don't want a game to be unplayable, but NG was a good old school quality challenge. It wasn't a pushover, it was a challenge and you felt like you really accomplished something when the credits rolled.[/quote]

just a couple of things here

no one plays video games to "accomplish" anything...doing something to further your existence on this planet is "accomplishing" something, not beating a crummy video game

you do realize that some of us have lives and actually work 40+ hours/week right?[/quote]

That makes no sense. Most people BUY games to either collect or beat them. If you want to TRY games, that is what renting is for.
 
Resident Evil 4 had a good system where you respawned at the nearest load door, and none of the rooms were too horribly big, either. Guess that's one reason it's so popular. Of course, RE4 also made it's action fun instead of repetitive as well. That and the people didn't throw exploding shuriken at you...
 
That's funny, False Hope. I was just playing RE 4 with my fiancee tonight, and she mentioned how nice the checkpoint system was (after I died on the Gigante boss). Of course, RE 4 was far from the first game to do this, but it's still done well in there.
 
you know whats hard? getting a five star ranking on all the levels in the mercinaries mini game (RE4).......with leon
 
Harder, even, than spelling Mercenaries correctly?

Just messing with you, masta0031. I still haven't played the game, but it's on my "list."
 
[quote name='ViolentLee']That's funny, False Hope. I was just playing RE 4 with my fiancee tonight, and she mentioned how nice the checkpoint system was (after I died on the Gigante boss). Of course, RE 4 was far from the first game to do this, but it's still done well in there.[/quote]

A rocket launcher will get you through that, no problem. It's worth the 30k.
 
Now ya tell me. ;) I beat him after about 4 tries -- though my ammo is pretty well depleted. After I beat him, I told my fiancee, who was watching, "He better be made out of gold." Lo and behold, he was! Cha-ching!

Sorry to get off topic like this, all.
 
I think its harder than NG with all the trouble its been giving me.

Also...I beat El Gigante on my 2nd try, and I had TONS of ammo...I guess I'm so used to saving it from previous RE games.
 
Gigante is pretty easy if you do it right. Just shoot him a few times in the head with your pistol and he slumps over. Hack him up. Just like breasts, Gigantes are better in pairs.

I had way too much ammo the whole game exept for the last two chapters where I was always running low... I would generally only use 2-3 pistol bullets a guy or 1 shot gun/rifle round and I was still running low. Shooting people in the shin and suplexing them is not only cool as all hell, but economical. I don't see how people that were running low the whole game could finish the end... And why where there only 16 magnum rounds in the whole game? Did I miss someplace you could actually buy ammo?
 
I hadn't played NG in a few weeks, but picked it up tonight and reached the middle of stage 4 fairly quickly and without dying. The camera is not that much of a problem for me, but it was a pain in the ass at first. I think it would be a good decision for begginers to first learn how to block effectively before moving past the first respawn room in stage 1. I use to think this game was very difficult, now I'd say it's just a good challenge.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Gigante is pretty easy if you do it right. Just shoot him a few times in the head with your pistol and he slumps over. Hack him up. Just like breasts, Gigantes are better in pairs.

I had way too much ammo the whole game exept for the last two chapters where I was always running low... I would generally only use 2-3 pistol bullets a guy or 1 shot gun/rifle round and I was still running low. Shooting people in the shin and suplexing them is not only cool as all hell, but economical. I don't see how people that were running low the whole game could finish the end... And why where there only 16 magnum rounds in the whole game? Did I miss someplace you could actually buy ammo?[/quote]

You can't buy ammo from merchants, just upgrades. (According to my friend here, if you upgrade ammo capacity, it automatically refills it.) A pair of El Gigantes sucks, however. Is it possible to get both of them in that lava pit at once? It was kind of a bitch because I didn't know to buy a rocket launcher and they came out. I spent about a half hour on that battle.
 
[quote name='CapAmerica']I'm just saying Developers shouldn't make games so freaken hard that avarage/below avarage gamers can't play them. Add Easy/Med/Hard/Really Hard. options don't just make the game Hard and Really Hard. I just play games for fun. I just like to pick the game up, sit back and enjoy. I didn't spend years mastering my skills, I may have been playing games for the last 20 years but I'm still just a avarage gamer. I can't memorize combos and I'm not super fast at hitting buttons in the right order. So sue me, its something that I've never been able to do. A Hard game hasn't stoped me from playing them. But It does sadly require me to put stupid codes in the game so I don't get 'game over' all the time.[/quote]

You're completely right.

Let's check what Atari's "game standards and procedures" (a 17 year old document) has to say about difficulty levels.

1. Novice: this should be very easy for anyone with any gaming ability, and is geared toward very yound and very old players.

2. Standard: a setting which involves skill to play, but not much. This is the level that most people would play for their first game.

3. Advanced: a setting which is about "arcade" level. Perhaps a bit easier.

4. Expert: this is a "killer" setting, but not so hard that no one will be able to enjoy it. This is for the kids who play your game every day and get very, very good at it.
 
[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='CapAmerica']I'm just saying Developers shouldn't make games so freaken hard that avarage/below avarage gamers can't play them. Add Easy/Med/Hard/Really Hard. options don't just make the game Hard and Really Hard. I just play games for fun. I just like to pick the game up, sit back and enjoy. I didn't spend years mastering my skills, I may have been playing games for the last 20 years but I'm still just a avarage gamer. I can't memorize combos and I'm not super fast at hitting buttons in the right order. So sue me, its something that I've never been able to do. A Hard game hasn't stoped me from playing them. But It does sadly require me to put stupid codes in the game so I don't get 'game over' all the time.[/quote]

You're completely right.

Let's check what Atari's "game standards and procedures" (a 17 year old document) has to say about difficulty levels.

1. Novice: this should be very easy for anyone with any gaming ability, and is geared toward very yound and very old players.

2. Standard: a setting which involves skill to play, but not much. This is the level that most people would play for their first game.

3. Advanced: a setting which is about "arcade" level. Perhaps a bit easier.

4. Expert: this is a "killer" setting, but not so hard that no one will be able to enjoy it. This is for the kids who play your game every day and get very, very good at it.[/quote]

I think Atari had it right here.

That being said though, I think people are missing something. One reason why gaming is better now than ever is the different groups of gamers that play. Some like it hard and some don't. That's great. What I think people forget is, like other types of media, not every game is for everyone. If you don't like a challenge, there are some games to avoid. If you don't like easy games, there are certain games that are not worth playing.

Very few games are going to be able to toe the line and be a game for everyone. The ones that manage will be hearalded as great (I think this is a line that Mario has toed many times), but most games shouldn't try. I'm not sure all these games need easy modes. You just need to know what you are getting.
 
[quote name='eldad9'][quote name='CapAmerica']I'm just saying Developers shouldn't make games so freaken hard that avarage/below avarage gamers can't play them. Add Easy/Med/Hard/Really Hard. options don't just make the game Hard and Really Hard. I just play games for fun. I just like to pick the game up, sit back and enjoy. I didn't spend years mastering my skills, I may have been playing games for the last 20 years but I'm still just a avarage gamer. I can't memorize combos and I'm not super fast at hitting buttons in the right order. So sue me, its something that I've never been able to do. A Hard game hasn't stoped me from playing them. But It does sadly require me to put stupid codes in the game so I don't get 'game over' all the time.[/quote]

You're completely right.

Let's check what Atari's "game standards and procedures" (a 17 year old document) has to say about difficulty levels.

1. Novice: this should be very easy for anyone with any gaming ability, and is geared toward very yound and very old players.

2. Standard: a setting which involves skill to play, but not much. This is the level that most people would play for their first game.

3. Advanced: a setting which is about "arcade" level. Perhaps a bit easier.

4. Expert: this is a "killer" setting, but not so hard that no one will be able to enjoy it. This is for the kids who play your game every day and get very, very good at it.[/quote]

They should use those standards today. Atari definately had it right.
 
I haven't been playing the game constantly...Just whenever I've had a chance - I'm on mission 9..The game does get easier as you go through it, but mission 7 was hell(just to make it to the boss)...I had 5 yellow orbs just so I could get in some sort of rhythm against the boss and take him out on the 2nd or 3rd try instead of starting the whole level over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top