Tenacity is underrated

[Cyan]

There is this other PlayStation trophy board where people rate the difficulty of each platinum trophy (on a scale of 1 to 10). I find those ratings quite interesting. 

Crash Bandicoot, the first game in the N. Sane trilogy, I'm sure many of you have played and platted it. Most people would rate it around 8 in difficulty. I admit I had some difficulty in the high road level, but other than that I don't think it was that bad at all. It's a game that requires some concentration and trial and error type of learning. It's not "easy", but it's not 8, no way. I think 5-6 is more like it.

 

I'm currently playing Ni No Kuni which is a JRPG. Needless to say, it requires not so modest amount of grinding. Platinuming the game should take around 70-100 hours depending on how much the person relies on guides and stuff. I'm at the point where I should tame 250 familiars (similar to catching Pokemon) and alchemize 120 items (which requires grinding). People in the other board rate it around 3 in difficulty. How I see it, grinding for dozens of hours is nothing to sneeze at. I'm almost 70 hours in, the game is starting to feel very heavy and it's requiring determination and tenacity. I don't think we should take those things for granted. Finding those attributes within myself is much harder than platinuming a game like Crash. Sure, it doesn't require "skill" but you can't say it requires nothing, or that it's "easy".If you argue that it's still easy, I say go watch paint dry when you have a day off and see how "easy" it is to do the mind-blowingly boring task for a longer period of time. 

 

So, do you fellow trophy hunters feel that tenacity is underrated when it comes to trophy hunting? Or do you feel that grindfest platinums are always easier than platinums that require "skill"?

Edited July 26, 2017 by ID-69

[Tomthehitman91]

I think it depends on multiple aspects.  How much grinding is involved and if it remains enjoyable at all or if it a massive unenjoyable slog. Some of the skill / luck trophies can be much harder than having to repeat something x amount of times. I think it comes down to the individual and is subjective really. 

[thegirlruka]

Tediousness does not equal difficulty. If there is no time limit and you only need to press the X button a billion times or do something that requires an RNG then that is easy. You could do it in a day or you could do it over your entire lifetime, but it's not difficult.

[audiopile]

There should be more of an appreciation for grinding. You could look at it like doing a super hard level of a game over and over again until that one time you actually succeed and get the trophy or S rank etc. There is a small difference though because with grinding there are measurable increments of completion where as with trying and failing it's harder to tell if you are gettin gud. 

 

But you are correct in saying that tenacity overcomes both. 

[Cyan]

“Difficulty” is a bit one dimensional way to measure how much effort goes into platinuming a game. If tediousness does not equal difficulty, it does require effort. So, rather than rating platinum “difficulty” it might be better to rate platinum effort. How much effort will go into getting a plat.

 

There lies the problem. “Difficulty” only takes into account one set of requirements. What I think then is that rating the difficulty of JRPGs is just nonsensical. It gives no indication about how much patience and stamina the plat requires. So instead maybe games like that should be given an effort value if we can’t agree that tediousness can be difficult to endure.

Edited July 26, 2017 by ID-69

[audiopile]

Difficulty is also relative to the person. Some people say a game is easy and others want to punch them

in the face. 

[GoldenShaka]

Yep I get your point, Red faction Guerrilla is a great example of grinding. 

The requirements in term of difficulty are not high and it's an ultra rare platinum due the huge amount of hours needed for the multiplayer trophies.

I mean for me that Ultra rare is a synonym of your 1-10 scale. 

Now, the thing is, in most of cases the grind it's not difficult because it doesn't require your skill in the mechanics to get the trophies, it's an excuse to create a false image of big challenge. But we like to collect trophies, so we go for them. I mean, who can find fun in doing the same move 500 times?

Wait, actually there are people who find fun in that. You know what that means?, that it's something very personal and complicated to be measured on a board.

More people can be agreed about the difficulty of a game, can go closer, some will say it's a 6, other a 7, but very few it's a 2.

Does it need to be recognized our effort?, I don't think so, we embark in those (sometimes annoying) loops, because it's part of our hobby.

Some will find those 100 hours of grinding nice, fun, will them rate the tittle as a 7 or higher in effort? I don't think so.

So, it's something very variable from person to person and that's why I don't see why tenacity should be recognized or measured.

[FarSideOfSaturn]

It's an interesting question. I did consider factoring in the time it takes to platinum a game when I write a review after I've platinumed something but decided against it. I'm generally good with only buying games I'm convinced I'll enjoy so any grinding I have been through feels like a lot less effort when I'm enjoying myself. So naturally I'm going to be more lenient, I can only write about what I've experienced. 

 

But I can understand how if you're dozens or even hundreds of hours into a game and it's getting to the point where it's beginning to wear thin, why determination becomes important. The thing is, at least from my experience is grinding something out can be made more enjoyable by say, throwing youtube or a movie on while you're at it. Or maybe doing a little at a time to reduce the tediousness. Let's say you have something that needs you to complete a hundred of a certain task. You could spend half an hour each day completing that task for a hundred days until it's done. You can even bypass some grinds entirely by rubber banding your controller. I'm not sure whether something that could potentially be manipulated so easily can be factored into difficulty. 

 

Skill based games/trophies are again, in my experience harder to manipulate into something easier to deal with. On the other hand, you could say learning how to defeat that enemy with ten thousand HP without taking damage yourself with no checkpoints to fall back on is a grind in itself. Thinking about it, doesn't practising until you're highly skilled require determination? Don't skill and determination go hand in hand and should be celebrated equally if they aren't already? 

 

Thinking about my own experiences and reading about others, I can only conclude that difficulty, while taking into account varying factors including time, is just too different game to game, player to player to put a broad number on that would apply to everyone. Some players may breeze through a game and enjoy a long grind, others may struggle and need to dig deep to get it done. That's why I pay little attention to difficulty rating when I buy a game, whether it came from a professional, a blogger, your average player, doesn't matter. We're all too different, see if everyone were shit like me this would be much easier. Automatic 10's all round! 

 

 

[Alternatewarning]

I have to agree.  While I rarely play "hard" games, I play a lot of games that require multiple playthroughs, hours of grinding and the like.  I think the best way to distinguish them would be "Skill" and "Effort" as opposed to difficulty.  My 100+ hour JRPGs require a whole lot of effort but not that much skill.  Which is how I like it since I'm not very good at a whole lot of games.  I couldn't hit the broad side of a planet in most FPS, for instance.  So ya, maybe all of my plats are "easy" but they did take a whole lot of time and effort.  Some people think that effort is pointless, though, as you're still doing the same easy thing over and over.  Personal preference.  But ya, I see where Skill vs Effort would be a good distinction to make, at least for some people who are looking into getting a game.

[bladesoframen]

While it is true tenacity is required for many games, the question is usually, what is causing you to be tenacious. Is the game amazingly undocumented (Mystery Chronicles: One Way Heroics)? Have an amazingly awful battle system (Cross Edge)? Or just like to laugh at those who don't read guides (Omega Quintet)? These are all fairly rare JRPG plats, with some wild variation on plat time. However, I'll argue that all of those listed above are easy and not that long, assuming you don't go in blind.

 

Let's take Omega Quintet. This game has a very annoying difficulty mode you need to beat the game on, grindy trophies, and very convoluted requirements to get the true ending. When the game first came out, people were putting plat times at 120+ hrs and what not. However as strategies came out on how to plat the game, the plat time quickly dropped. On my latest playthrough for a plat stack, I got the plat at 77 in game hours with 18 of those hours from the turbo controller running to farm kills. Is 60 hrs of repeating the same attack pattern for the whole game boring, yes, but hard no. If I had a macro setup, I probably could have had it do 50% of the active fights for me. On top of that, am I suffering the 120 manual hours that some people fought against before me, no way.

 

Mystery Chronicles: One Way Heroics has the same story. The game has very few plat achievers and very little documentation, and I ended up spending about 110hrs to get the plat. I sure put up a lot of tenacity. However, I helped someone else get the plat after me and discovered a bunch of new strategies (that are posted on the forums). Now, I would probably put the estimate at < 70 hrs if you follow the tips, much less tenacity than before.

 

Pretty sure this story can be repeated for many other long games. Tenacity is great and all, but you have to ask, are you even approaching the plat correctly if the plat is taking too long. Taking a long time to get a plat means you just took a long time, not that it required you or anyone else to take that long.

[MMDE]

I think it's far more useful to list the time and difficulty, and when you list the times, I see absolutely no reason to adjust the difficulty based on the time. A game can be piss easy and take 300 hours to 100%. If the game has a lot of difficult portions, sure, that does add to the difficulty IMO.

 

Admittingly, I have yet to play the remakes, but just judging by the amount of people who beat CB1 100%, and especially some of these people who has done it, I doubt it's anywhere near 8/10. I see people give games like LBP2 that too, but that game is just nowhere near it. LBP2 is like 3-4/10.

 

Ni No Kuni is just broken and is like 2/10 difficulty max, sure like 60-100 hours plat, but it's just way too easy. There's just simply nothing difficult in the game, at all.  

 

Get Fit with Mel B is a perfect example though. It takes like 20 hours! But you just have to navigate a menu and press up and X once in a while.  That's it... 1/10 difficulty.

Edited July 27, 2017 by MMDE

[rdhight]

I am on the side of "grind does not equal difficulty."

 

Difficulty actually stops you from getting the platinum. Grind only stops you from wanting the platinum.

 

I understand the argument that both are denominated in time — time to do the grind vs. time to git gud — but I don't agree with it. Difficulty can defeat your ability; grind can only defeat your motivation or your patience. I am fine with saying Game A is brutally hard, but potentially quick, while Game B is easy, but a tremendous grind. Maybe for some small pro-player elite or a trophy hunting team, those differences are academic, but for normal humans, grind is not difficulty.

[DrBloodmoney]

5 hours ago, MMDE said:

I think it's far more useful to list the time and difficulty, and when you list the times, I see absolutely no reason to adjust the difficulty based on the time. A game can be piss easy and take 300 hours to 100%. If the game has a lot of difficult portions, sure, that does add to the difficulty IMO.

 

Admittingly, I have yet to play the remakes, but just judging by the amount of people who beat CB1 100%, and especially some of these people who has done it, I doubt it's anywhere near 8/10. I see people give games like LBP2 that too, but that game is just nowhere near it. LBP2 is like 3-4/10.

 

Not to get too off topic, but your difficulty arguement for LBP2 is an interesting case pointing to the 'difficulty' assigned on this site as opposed to in, say, a game review.

 

LBP2 is, in general, pretty easy. However, the difficulty of getting the platinum (ie. the difficulty assigned on this site) has to be the difficulty of the hardest part of the game involved in getting the plat - for example, if a game has 50 levels, 49 of which are easy as fuck (1/10) and 1 of which is very hard (9/10), but all 50 must be completed for the plat, then this sites 'difficulty' must be 9/10. In a game review, however, where the overall game is in question rather than the plat, it would be averaged to around a 2/10.

 

a perfect example of this phenomenon actually does exist in trophy terms - Trine 2.

 

Trine 2 came out on PS3 first, with a trophy list that was very easy to complete - all could be played on easy mode, and it didn't even require completion of the base game. The game itself still offered all the difficulty options (hard mode, hardcore mode etc.), but they were not required to plat, so the 'difficulty', on this site, would be very low.

 

The exact same game was re-released on PS4 as Trine 2: Complete Edition (with a few dlc levels added, but nothing else changed) but had a different trophy list. This list, crucially, required completing the entire game on hard and hardcore mode - a very tough ask - for the platinum.

Suddenly a game that, in an average game review would not have changed in terms of difficulty, on this site would go from a 2/10 to an 8/10 or a 9/10.

 

I think there can often be a major disconnect when people on this site think of a game difficulty.  They tend to remember the average difficulty of a game, without recalling a spike in difficulty for a single trophy.

 

 For some of us, having 95% of the trophies in a game will not do. We want that plat, or 100%, and the difficulty assigned needs to reflect the requirement for the hardest part of that journey, not just the average difficulty of the overall game.

 

 

I do, however, agree with you that grind is not difficult. It's just, well, a grind.

 

Getting my final trophy in Quest of Dungeons (collect X amount of gold) was in no way difficult - just very time consuming. (I managed to re-watch 4 and a half seasons of Mad Men on Netflix while doing it!) but that is not what raises the difficulty - the hardest parts of the game lay elsewhere in that trophy list.

Edited July 27, 2017 by DrBloodmoney

[Kuro-Okami]

5 hours ago, MMDE said:

Admittingly, I have yet to play the remakes, but just judging by the amount of people who beat CB1 100%, and especially some of these people who has done it, I doubt it's anywhere near 8/10. I see people give games like LBP2 that too, but that game is just nowhere near it. LBP2 is like 3-4/10.

I don't agree with this. While i also wouldn't give Crash a 8/10 (more like a 6/10), i do understand when people will give this game such a high mark. The time trials aren't that easy and depending on how adapted you are to JnR games it can require many hours to achieve the platinum in the end. My 6/10 would solely come from the high road also... without that one stage i would even give it a 4. The reason so many people have the platinum in this game just shows that the list is just well done. The game itself has it's flaws but while it beeing hard it doesn't demand too much. It's a challenge where you still have lots of fun with.

 

btt. I don't think that a tenacity is underrated. If a game is fairly easy to plat but it still take such a long time in the end not too many people will have that platinum. Just look at GTA4 or 5. It's not such a hard game but just some people have that platinum cause it is such a long grind. And there are many more games. The thing is... as long as a game is still enjoyable a person can easily invest many hours into a game. Some people might even find it relaxing to grind. At least... it is more stressful for me to play a very hard game than a very grindy game. Cause if i just have to grind for the platinum i can play it a few minutes a day.

[ProfBambam55]

16 hours ago, ID-69 said:

So, do you fellow trophy hunters feel that tenacity is underrated when it comes to trophy hunting? Or do you feel that grindfest platinums are always easier than platinums that require "skill"?

Hmmm, interesting to ponder...I regularly put in 80-100 hours/week into my work...some people might say I'm tenacious but I absolutely love what I do so find it pretty effortless...my gaming time is my time to enjoy a long-time hobby and it fits perfectly into my current lifestyle...it's cheap and quiet and something I can do in the comfort of my own home...even more brilliant is that I can share this hobby with other people effortlessly...to me, tenacity is not a word I would use to describe my gaming experience...as far as grinding or skill are concerned I think my enjoyment of a game is really what defines them and that my rating is exclusive to my own personal experience...

 

take gta iv for example...you have a trophy for getting to max rank...several options for getting there...some might call it a difficult process and others might say it's easy but grindy...I love the game I find it both easy and not in the least bit grindy...the same can be said for the auf wiedersehen petrovic trophy or hunting pigeons...

 

there are some games I would consider more grindy than others but I like to see grinds kind of like waiting for public transit or a flight departure...when I was a kid I would check my watch every two minutes and be pi$$ed if the bus was in the least bit delayed...over the years I shifted to enjoying that time as it's quite relaxing both mentally and physically and now trust that the bus or whatever will "get here when it gets here" and that's just the way it is...a grind in a video game is kind of the same...it'll be done when it's when it's done so why not try to find a way to enjoy it...

 

as far as skill is concerned I see it as having four main factors...

 

1- complex or simple button commands and patterns...the term skill is relative but pressing X 1000 times in a row is definitely less complex than having to coordinate the use of the two joysticks the four shape buttons and the d-pad in a given sequence...part of my skill rating would definitely be determined by this...

 

2 - speed and timing...toss the same simple or complex button patterns into a game with really fast and precise timing and to me your could definitely be saying it's more difficult...

 

3 - improvisation...take the above two points and then consider the ai in a game should there be any...some games have ai that is consistent at all times and even for everyone who owns the game so finding an equation to solving the ai pattern is often quite simple...others have randomized ai so you've always got to be on your toes...i find random ai tends to be more difficult to work with...

 

so we have a game with complex button patterns, super speed off beat timing and a completely random ai...usually my opinion is that this will definitely require skill (not tenacity) but that will all depend on our final and most important factor...

 

4 - enjoyment...I've read that some people find some of the games i've played as difficult...I can remember someone commenting a while ago something along the lines of "you are a god, you have max payne 3 platinum"...at the time I didn't even know the game was supposed to be difficult...I thought it was pretty easy...apparently NYMHC gives some people problems...I thought it was fantastic...speedrun the game aiming for headshots, melee and explosive kills and using bullet time and painkillers efficiently...if there was a co-op option I would've dedicated years to this mode rather than iv co-op...

 

on the other hand I found wipeout HD kind of painful to complete...I don't like racing games very much and had to play through it all twice (my ps3 got corrupted on one of my last gold medal races)...i also have big hands so using the d-pad is never a favourite action for me...I liked the challenge the game had to offer but would definitely put this game at the bottom of my list for overall enjoyment...others would say it's fantastic and easy...

 

so there you have it...is tenacity underrated?...no idea, has nothing to do with gaming to me...are grinds always easier than skill (based on the above criteria) based games?...all relative to enjoyment...and what about games that have both?...f**k, I talk (write) too much...sorry, I'm kind of hyperactive...

[starcrunch061]

17 hours ago, audiopile said:

There should be more of an appreciation for grinding. You could look at it like doing a super hard level of a game over and over again until that one time you actually succeed and get the trophy or S rank etc. There is a small difference though because with grinding there are measurable increments of completion where as with trying and failing it's harder to tell if you are gettin gud. 

 

But you are correct in saying that tenacity overcomes both. 

 

Agreed on all counts. Tenacity is definitely underrated (often by the, "I could do it if I wanted, but I don't!" crowd).

 

But there is a noticeable difference between a guaranteed incremental grind, where each step ALWAYS moves you toward the goal, and a truly difficult task, where tenacity does get you better, but there is no reward unless you complete the task at hand (compare, e.g., 900 BTs in Star Ocean with Impossible Boy in SMB).

 

I definitely have respect for the former, but even more so for the latter.

[MMDE]

8 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Agreed on all counts. Tenacity is definitely underrated (often by the, "I could do it if I wanted, but I don't!" crowd).

 

 

I wouldn't say I underrate it, but I've done it many times too, but rather that I find difficulty to be a different subject than just how long something takes to do.

6 hours ago, Kuro-Okami said:

I don't agree with this. While i also wouldn't give Crash a 8/10 (more like a 6/10), i do understand when people will give this game such a high mark. The time trials aren't that easy and depending on how adapted you are to JnR games it can require many hours to achieve the platinum in the end. My 6/10 would solely come from the high road also... without that one stage i would even give it a 4. The reason so many people have the platinum in this game just shows that the list is just well done. The game itself has it's flaws but while it beeing hard it doesn't demand too much. It's a challenge where you still have lots of fun with.

 

btt. I don't think that a tenacity is underrated. If a game is fairly easy to plat but it still take such a long time in the end not too many people will have that platinum. Just look at GTA4 or 5. It's not such a hard game but just some people have that platinum cause it is such a long grind. And there are many more games. The thing is... as long as a game is still enjoyable a person can easily invest many hours into a game. Some people might even find it relaxing to grind. At least... it is more stressful for me to play a very hard game than a very grindy game. Cause if i just have to grind for the platinum i can play it a few minutes a day.

 

What exactly is it you didn't agree with me about?  My bet is that the game is like 5/10 difficulty, but I also say Spelunker HD (100%) is 6/10 with all the glitches, even if that game takes quite a lot of effort and time.  The thing is, if you put in the effort most people will be able to do it in the end. It's just not that hard. When we're up at 8/10, we're talking about games that a lot of people might struggle a lot with and so difficult that far less people will ever be able to beat it. Similar genre, I gave Fenix Furia a 7/10 and N++ a 8/10 (the latter just because the trophy requirements are pretty relaxed, it could easily have been way harder), just to give some idea about what I consider to be that difficult. Super Meat Boy is probably around 9-10/10 or something.

Edited July 27, 2017 by MMDE

[temp-910724]

It's a completely unmeasurable number, difficulty has some leniences but some people have a higher tolerance for certain kinds of grind. I find MP grinds much easier to do than a grind that requires me to pay attention. 

 

You also grow a tolerance to grinds the more you do them. I will always remember Singularity being an awful boost, since it was my first several day boost but if I did it now it would no problem. 

[Cyan]

Maybe tenacity isn't the best word... Boredom endurance? 

 

My brain wants to be an active participant in whatever I do, so doing something that is not challenging is challenging in its own way. Somebody suggested multitasking (eg. watching videos, grinding in the background). I don't think it's good to multitask if you do 2 similar activities (playing video games and watching TV are both visual). Maybe I should find a good podcast to listen to so I'm not overloading myself visually. 

 

Boredom endurance is a very useful skill in life; I would have done better in school if I could have focused on things that I found boring. 

I just think it's something we can't take for granted and while everybody can theoretically do it, it doesn't mean they can do it in practice. Theoretically all of you could learn to speak Finnish, but in practice, not so likely. 

[Kuro-Okami]

4 hours ago, MMDE said:

What exactly is it you didn't agree with me about?  My bet is that the game is like 5/10 difficulty, but I also say Spelunker HD (100%) is 6/10 with all the glitches, even if that game takes quite a lot of effort and time.  The thing is, if you put in the effort most people will be able to do it in the end. It's just not that hard. When we're up at 8/10, we're talking about games that a lot of people might struggle a lot with and so difficult that far less people will ever be able to beat it. Similar genre, I gave Fenix Furia a 7/10 and N++ a 8/10 (the latter just because the trophy requirements are pretty relaxed, it could easily have been way harder), just to give some idea about what I consider to be that difficult. Super Meat Boy is probably around 9-10/10 or something.

If people put enough effort in anything most of the time they can beat it. Like i stated, in my opinion there are people who will say that Crash is a 8/10. Simply cause they aren't adapted to this kind of game. I mean... the Soulsborne games are also harder but many people have plattet it. That just shows how much loved the game itself is. If you say the game is probably a 5/10 that's also not wrong. Just another value based on your experience. In the end... i guess in summary it would get something between 6-7.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Kuro-Okami

[TristanBrown17]

I definitely see your point with saying that grinding can be underrated in the community, but time to platinum/100% should never hold a place in difficulty. Like I just wrote the guide for the Criminal Activity DLC in Battlefield Hardline. Those trophies alone amount to 40,000 kills, but the only semi-tough thing is kills with a nail gun. So I placed the difficulty low. There's a good reason that the hour estimate is placed on the guides. 

[MMDE]

33 minutes ago, Kuro-Okami said:

If people put enough effort in anything most of the time they can beat it. Like i stated, in my opinion there are people who will say that Crash is a 8/10. Simply cause they aren't adapted to this kind of game. I mean... the Soulsborne games are also harder but many people have plattet it. That just shows how much loved the game itself is. If you say the game is probably a 5/10 that's also not wrong. Just another value based on your experience. In the end... i guess in summary it would get something between 6-7.

 

At this point, for me, Demon's Souls is like 2/10...  Honestly, those games aren't that hard at all, which is also why so many people are able to 100% them. Sure, the games being good and people wanting to 100% them helps on it too, but honestly, they are not that hard. They just feel hard, but aren't really. Once you have played them a little bit, it's easily like 3-4/10 and not much harder than that.

Edited July 27, 2017 by MMDE

[DrBloodmoney]

16 hours ago, MMDE said:

 

At this point, for me, Demon's Souls is like 2/10...  

 

Yeah - wierd that a game you have stacked the platinum for 3 times would seem easy at this point...

 

it's almost as if the difficulty of a game is meant to reflect the process of learning the game mechanics and discovering how to progress through it the first time, and not the difficulty of running through the motions in a game you know like the back of your hand... ?

 

 

 

I can just imagine you seeing an infant who is trying to take their first step:

 

"Pfft, come on, it's easy! Walking is like a 2/10 difficulty you noob!"

 

[MMDE]

4 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Yeah - wierd that a game you have stacked the platinum for 3 times would seem easy at this point...

 

it's almost as if the difficulty of a game is meant to reflect the process of learning the game mechanics and discovering how to progress through it the first time, and not the difficulty of running through the motions in a game you know like the back of your hand...

 

 

 

I can just imagine you seeing an infant who is trying to take their first step:

 

"Pfft, come on, it's easy! Walking is like a 2/10 difficulty you noob!"

 

 

But, it wasn't that hard the first time I played it either. It got some learning curve very early in the game. The first level is by far the hardest. No leveling and almost no gear etc, and the level itself is long with many strong enemies. Same goes for many of the other games. First area of Bloodborne is one of the hardest in the game (with the exception being the forest).

 

As I said, even the first time I played the game, after the first level, I ever only died like 3 times or something while playing through a level to beat it (and the boss). I wouldn't call that difficult.

 

Some games remain hard, even when you learn to play the game properly. This is why I rank N++ a lot higher than Demon's Souls. I've played N++ for hundreds of hours, still difficult AF.

 

Are you going to rate a VN difficult, because it initially took you a while to get how to play the game and what you're supposed to do?  

Edited July 28, 2017 by MMDE

[DrBloodmoney]

4 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

But, it wasn't that hard the first time I played it either. It got some learning curve very early in the game. The first level is by far the hardest. No leveling and almost no gear etc, and the level itself is long with many strong enemies. Same goes for many of the other games. First area of Bloodborne is one of the hardest in the game (with the exception being the forest).

 

As I said, even the first time I played the game, after the first level, I ever only died like 3 times or something while playing through a level to beat it (and the boss). I wouldn't call that difficult.

 

Some games remain hard, even when you learn to play the game properly. This is why I rank N++ a lot higher than Demon's Souls. I've played N++ for hundreds of hours, still difficult AF.

 

Are you going to rate a VN difficult, because it initially took you a while to get how to play the game and what you're supposed to do?  

 

Its not about the difficulty of the game its about the difficulty of the Platinum.

 

do you truely believe that, without a guide, you would rate DS a 2/10?

 

i think that's ridiculous. Figuring out how to get every ring? Fighting the final boss? Even working out that the lizards are finite and which npcs are where? 

 

I dont think so. 

 

A 2/10 puts it one rung above the likes of Mayo and Hannah Montana and MrMassagy. That is simply not the case