Hmmm difficulty is.. difficult

[NvrMore]

Reading through the Zelda:WW thread, the point of game difficulty and what constitutes such seemed to be quite a major focus of discussion, and indeed I've noticed that it is frequently brought up in other gaming discussions as well. However whenever the subject of a game's difficutly is discussed, it usually becomes apparent that in 95% of cases, for those who claimed a game is hard or too hard, there are others who claim it is the opposite and vice versa.

For example, in the other thread, references were made to Super Mario Sunshine being too easy and to Zelda ALTTP and OoT being challenging or even tough, yet personally I found SMS challenging in parts and have seen as much critisism of it for being too hard, and never once found OoT difficult in the sense of it killing me or taking me near to death.

Similarily, there is always disagreement regarding what constitutes difficulty in a game, be it killing you many times, testing your skill and reflexes, challenging your adaptability etc.

So, although the the question of what constitutes difficulty remains prominent (what constitutes difficulty in your opinion?), do we confuse difficulty with challenge and involvement?, and in comparison how valuable is difficulty in relation to these other matters with respect to the playability of a game?, especially when taking into account that (imo) difficulty is largely an individual matter which can vary hugely for a person depending on such factors as their experience, type of games they are most accustomed to.

[Eternal Champion]

Good points.
Recently I got back into NES games, and also recently re-played Super Metroid. For me, Super Metroid is more challenging because you are not led by the hand at all, requiring more decision-making on the player's part. This is arguable, of course.
For me "difficulty" means that the game is involved, I have to think about what to do next, and is something that I can't easily whip through.
I think shooters present a different kind of challenge, many relying on cheap hits...to me that's not really challenge, just cheap. But that's a very different sort of gaming experience.

Another example is Zelda: Link's Awakening on GBC. THAT is challenging to me, figuring out the various puzzles. I am stumped very often. I like that, because you stumble upon something you missed and it is very rewarding.

Concerning Zelda: Windwalker, how does its length/challenge compare to Zelda: Link to the Past? (sounds like there is a second quest, ala the first Zelda...that gives it replay value)

[Sylentwulf]

Zelda WW is pretty damn short. If you skip ALL of the sidequests, it's VERY short, if you DO all of the sidequests, it could probly be very long. I personally don't think sidequests should be included in "how long a game is". They're SIDE QUESTS.

As far as difficulty level goes, some of the puzzles in Zelda WW were pretty difficult, it was just the fighting/monsters that were too easy. I'm on the last dungeon and haven't used ANY of my bottles for healing purposes (Health or magic, not ONCE, no fairies, no potions) That's not a brag, just a fact.

Eidt - I thought Super Mario Sunshine had a good level of difficulty if they hadn't totally and entirely RAPED the camera's so bad. I had to stop playing and sell this game because on the theme park island, the camera WOULD NOT let me see climbing up the back of something, and there was no way I could finish it blindly (I tried, a LOT) Most people complained about the scrolling SMS area's being too hard, I thought those area's were a BLAST!

[NvrMore]

I wasn't so much focussing on the difficulty of Zelda:WW (I haven't played it yet (and it kills me >:( ) so I can't really comment on it), but rather difficulty in general.

I guess I should have used the easiest and hardest games threads as an example, but Sylent's comments about SMS (excluding technical probs) are part of what I was talking about. Like him, I founf SMS's difficulty ok and even some of the non-pack platform levels to be quite challenging. Whereas others have remarked that they found the entre game easy. Likewise with other games.

Which is what brings me to the question of what it is people consider difficulty to be in a game, such as Eternal Champion's comments that he considers it to be closely linked to invovement and taxing gameplay, but distinguishes between that and the life-loss style difficulty of shmups.

Likewise is difficulty as you regard it to be, neccesarily a good thing or does it just get confused with challenge and involvement, which don't neccesarily involve such matters as dying or progression prevention.

For example, I found OoT to be challenging, but never actually got stuck or died, yet I greatly enjoyed the game despite the fact that because of such I could say it wasn't difficult.
Yet, I died loads of times in Battletoads and had trouble progressing beyond certain points and honestly must admit it's not one I really enjoyed playing despite the fact I managed to beat it.