this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
102 points (94.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
1063 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
102
Younger users of Lemmy: Did you ever love a game that you just really sucked at? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago by NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
105 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So I was watching a few youtubes and remembered how the vast majority (of like the ten) nes games me and my sister had were hard as all hell. I loved to play Little Nemo and Street Fighter 2010 but I am pretty sure I never made it past the third level of either. Let alone infamously hard games like The Lion King.

Which got me thinking. Basically every game for the past 20 years has been designed around instant gratification and being accessible. We outright had to make a new concept "hard but fair" to account for games like Dark Souls that are designed to be difficult but beatable as opposed to putting you in a death spiral if you hesitate too long on a hard jump (hello Ninja Gaiden).

So do the younger folk even have a concept of a "favorite game" where you likely never experienced more than fifteen minutes worth of content?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I could never beat PokΓ©mon Blue because I chose the grass starter.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I won't stand for this Bulbasaur slander

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right?! Type advantage against the first 2 gyms, mid game has a couple of surprise difficulty spikes, but late game Venusaur is a front end status workhorse and tank. Choosing Bulbasaur is playing on Easy lol.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

IIRC the original design intent was that the starter choice was intended as a form of difficulty selection for the player. It's not super well-signalled, but Oak kinda says when you're choosing that Bulbasaur is easy, Squirtle is medium, and Charmander is hard. Their respective difficulties reflect their match ups to the first two gyms and also to most of the fights in the early game.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You mean the one with a type advantage against the first two gyms?

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, but overall it wasn't a great choice.

[–] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

I beat that game at 10 years old with only my starter. Like I knew in concept you should train other Pokemon but I just had a level 86 Blastoise by the end of the game.

[–] Outdoor_Catgirl@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But the grass starter is the best one?

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It has a smaller strength-to-weakness ratio than fire and water which are both equal.