How would you respond to this prompt?

depending on how strict the teacher is, I'd take the opportunity to rage against walking simulators instead of actually answering the "hard" question. since they specifically said that games can be different each time you play them, argue that the shitty indie walking sims aren't actually games since they have the same outcome/experience every time they're played.

Gotta fucking clean out the files from my image folder

Difficulty alone is not enough to make me stop playing a game. It really comes down to whether I believe that overcoming the challenge presented by the game will be interesting or not. A game like Dwarf Fortress is hard, but the difficulty comes from the intellectual challenge of controlling thousands of interacting variables which must be balanced to survive. For example defenses must be designed in 3D to keep enemies out while allowing traders in during peacetime and and giving some kind of access to clean water during sieges. Managing water itself is a matter of designing systems to control pressure and restrict flow. All of these problems are interesting and fun to solve.

In my opinion an example of a boring challenge is that presented by "hardcore" platformers. These don't challenge the player intellectually, but rather demand pixel-perfect real-time control of a character. This is a skill which almost anyone can master, but simply requires lots and lots of practice. It is also a fundamentally useless skill outside of this specific class of games. It is really no different to the false challenge of "grinding" in many RPGs and MMOs. It is difficult in that it requires time and effort, but it is about as boring as learning to juggle and far less fun at parties.

Unfortunately there's a sizable community of troglodytes who fucking love all kinds of grinding. They should be exterminated.

I took the oppurtunity to argue that modern games were dumbed down shit that were basically big tech demos

Until we get rid of cutscenes I will not rest.

I have never quit a game because it is too hard. I may find it difficult but it's never been the overruling factor in my decision to stop playing a game.

I have quit a game because it is poorly designed though, and I do that very frequently. Diablo 3, which can have an insane difficulty curve if you want it to, is still designed with loot grinding in mind. You can beat the game, but after a certain point the gameplay doesn't feel rewarding or decisive enough to warrant further play. One could argue that the "insurmountable odds" of getting a good sword or axe could be construed as difficulty, and while I think the game has some limited meaningful build decisions, it never amounts to more than glorified busywork as you grind out the same boss fights over and over again.

Most FPS games have "insane" difficulties that rarely amount to more than memorizing enemy spawn locations and weapon damage values to know when to attack and when to take cover. However, most times, if the level design isn't fun or doesn't let you tackle the situation presented in a meaningful manner, it'll make me drop the game in disgust on any difficulty.

Compare this to games that revel in their difficulty and the determining factors that usually drive players away: Dwarf Fortress has a huge knowledge gap for people to learn and play the game, but one of the first things that will stop people playing it will be the interface and controls. The interface can be described as obtuse at best without any mods and requires a manual about as thick as most 800+ page tomes. However, conquering the interface and controls wouldn't be seen as the difficulty in Dwarf Fortress. The different interactions and random events in the game itself form the basis of the games difficulty, and micromanaging each element is the intended "difficulty" inherent to make it a game.

That's my take on difficulty at least. If a game is well designed, the difficulty will feel natural and not force the user to quit, as long as they are aware of their own level of skill. Most people will aspire to beat a games challenges if it continues to be fun and well designed around overbearing odds.

You should say games used to be hard before faggots demanded everything be nerfed. I miss bosses actually being bosses in Vindictus.

Here's how I did my mandatory response to the guy in pic 1 from

I don't think I've ever stopped playing a game because it was too hard, but I've stopped playing because it's too complex.

Dorf fortress does seem like a fun game but you cannot learn it via playing the game.

Is there even such a thing as an industry that doesn't pander to normalfags? Isn't that part of what makes an industry an industry?

How many people in your class said "Dark Souls because I die in like 5 hits D:"

You can't just take the difficulty without considering fairness. Both are important. The harder the game, the more important it is that you don't lose because of bugs, bad interface, or other fake difficulties.

A game that I found was too hard was Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA attempting to rapidly press the button prompts to clear the songs on extreme difficulties was rather difficult. Often I'd lose track of my location on the screen or my fingers couldn't keep up with the correct inputs was they were so rapid and varied and sometimes the imputs blended in with the background which had some vocaloid chick/trap dancing with flashing lights, which was often distracting.
However I wouldn't say I quit playing it, more that I never really had a chance to play it again as I was only able to play it once or twice at a friends house because why would I buy a PS4?
The game is clearly designed for shit taste weaboos, Hatsune Miku a slut, the game could be improved by being more like elite beat agents and not simply a weeb jerk off fest.

A game I found too easy would be Dark Souls 3, I came into the game expecting a challenge only to be let down as I was led by the nose in a snorefest slay-a-thon from point A to point B wherein a boss would be waiting wait whereupon I would then dodge his attacks and strike as the boss moved ever so slowly and telegraphed his attacks ever so painfully obviously.
It was a nice game to switch my brain off and play casually letting instinct take over, over thinking thoughtfully about my actions.
I would improve the game by having working multiplayer at release, I didn't get invaded that often which I think was intended to be the challenge of Dark Souls and perhaps that was why it felt so easy. In addition I would have made the bosses more difficult, with faster movement and less disgustingly obviously telegraphed attacks, added more enemy variety in NG+, and perhaps made teleportation something you gain access to in a limited capacity rather than it being available to you within the first 5 minutes of the game.

I'm not sure how seriously I answered this myself, there's some genuine complaints in there though.

Dwarf fortress.
It's too hard because the world is fucking brutal.
I didn't stop playing it but I seriously need to git gud.

Funny I always imagine the first players with generic japanese thug /villain voices and doing all sorts of animu styled attacks and taunts a la godhand.
FUCKING OWL IS A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT EVEN TIGGER WAS EASY COMPARED TO THAT FUCKING BITCH

I have never played a game that's 'too hard'.
Some games have been difficult but certainly not too difficult.
Because i'm not some casual gay

Some games just arn't fun and are to difficult to have fun in. Its just the truth. If a game is overly hard with no reward, its just to hard. If the base game play is not super interesting but pointlessly difficult then its to hard. Alpha Prime is a great example of a game thats way to hard for what it is.

Balancing difficulty to keep it fun enough to remain interesting and not so hard the player gets bored and leaves is a real issue. If someone gets bored of playing your game they probably won't buy the 2nd or any other games you make.

Enjoy your dead end degree in something you could have just done on your own without the debt. I'll see you at walmart. :)
Kids calling me mean names dousn't hurt my fee fees.

The only acceptable answer is an arcade game and the only acceptable reason you stop playing is "ran out of money."

Ghosts 'n' Ghouls is too hard. It was purposefully made to be difficult because it was made during a time in which most people played games at arcades. Players would pop their quarters into the machine in exchange for a limited number of lives, and once they died, players would then have to insert more quarters to continue from where they were defeated. Therefore, game makers intentionally created games that would be difficult; Publishers wanted to make their money's worth, and if their games were easy enough to complete with a single stock of lives, they wouldn't make nearly as much money. The design philosophy was intended to wring consumers dry. When home consoles became prevalent, the need for "quarter bait" died, but the design philosophy was still used, for whatever reason. Perhaps designers of the time didn't wish to or couldn't reassess their products, especially when porting arcade titles to home consoles?

This is why Ghosts 'n' Ghouls, and other games like it from said period, was and were designed to be difficult.

Perhaps developers could have allowed players a a chance to acquire extra lives through exceptional performance through a level. Many games of the time did this, but many of these games gave players the opportunity to partake in mingames that would offer various rewards that could provide the player with benefits, like a point bonus or extra lives. These minigames often played like slot machines that doled out prizes at random, which can be frustrating for a down on his luck player who wants to acquire some extended play time. Perhaps they could have offered various difficulty levels that only allow the player to play through a specific portion of the game's levels, or reach a specific ending? If players want to see the "true ending", then they'd have to play on hard and collect special items along the way that unlock a secret boss fight or area? In this way, newer players could spend time honing their skills on easier modes without having their motivation crushed into a finely blended paste by such unforgiving situations, and veteran players could still wow the crowed with their "single quarter speedrun spectacular" performances.

Today, the " free to play, casual phone and social media, and pay to win" style games are modern revisions of the quarter bait of yesteryear, but they exist without the incentive to improve that said classic games offer. In these new, microtransaction-ridden slogs, he who pays the most gets the most benefit. Perhaps this is an indication that something needs to be done about various monetization models? I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think both quarter bait and microtransactions are unnecessary and counter-productive.

I've found Dwarf Fort to be too hard, but that's because I don't have the full control scheme memorized and typing "help" so often is torture.

It's definitely for people with better memory for controls than me, and could be improved by having a manual.

What do you have aids. Take your meds and git gud

quite a projector you got there

At this point I'm completely convinced that any game not designed for a reasonable player to never die is now considered "hardcore."

Skyrim is too easy.
How to improve:
fucking anything would work, look at: gothic 2, dragon age origins, mass effects, ANYTHING.