Everyones a Winner?

Guardian games writer Alex Gambotto-Burke touches on a subject close to my mechanical heart today - Difficulty, or lack thereof, in recent video games.

"Peter Molyneux, has been unapologetic in his aims. In his view, it was inconceivable that someone should pay for a game but be unable to complete it, as not only are they denied their money's worth, but they can "feel stupid and unskilled".

Is this true? Think back to the first game you were hooked on in your gaming youth, for me, it was Final Fantasy 7 (cliché i know) but when i got stuck on the roof of Shinra tower fighting Rufus and his Cat, aged what must have been 11 or 12 at the time, i did'nt wuss out and cry over the difficulty. (whats a Materia?) Call me old fashioned but i thought the idea of a game was to overcome a percieved challenge? Come to think of it, I'm almost positive the only game i ever clocked on the Sega Megadrive (my platform of choice for almost a decade prior to the PSX) was Streets of Rage 2, and even that limited success was fleeting.

I must point out that i adored Fable 2, but contrary to what Molyneux suggests, i felt short-changed by the ease with which i completed it. Being punished for sloppy skills is as essential as being rewarded for our accomplisments. His sentiments contradict everything that video games, in my eyes, represent.

People buy games to be challenged, to work for advancement, not to have it handed to us on a plate with a pat on the back and a happy ending. Bring on more ultra-hard games like Ninja Gaiden, there's more reward in overcoming something genuinely difficult than there is in trudging through something that could be so much more.

Guardian: Everyone's a winner in games' open world.