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?
I could never beat Pokémon Blue because I chose the grass starter.
I won’t stand for this Bulbasaur slander
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.
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.
You mean the one with a type advantage against the first two gyms?
Yes, but overall it wasn’t a great choice.
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.
But the grass starter is the best one?
It has a smaller strength-to-weakness ratio than fire and water which are both equal.