Games like Pokémon and Mario often get criticised for being to easy. Harder games (like Cuphead and Dark Souls) on the other hand, rarely* get criticised for their difficulty (it almost seems like they're getting praised for it).

Do you think this is fair? Should games get criticised for being either too hard or too easy? Why (not)?

(*Of course they do get criticised by some people, but I feel like it doesn't happen nearly as much as the other way around. Maybe this isn't true, maybe it's just me, but that doesn't matter. This thread is about your opinions.)

I usually don't understand broad sweeping blanket statements like this. Anything can be criticized for anything in a specific context.

Your example for instance is Pokemon. Pokemon isn't criticized for being easy, it's criticized for never posing a challenge ever. No one expects Pokemon to be hard, it's fanbase is too broad between the ages of 7-40 for them to make the games difficult. People just don't like that there is rarely ever a challenge in the games at all.

That being said I do like how in Pokemon the challenge is more so catching the creatures than fighting them, but i'd still like the occasional difficult battle.

Dark Souls is beloved for it's consistent difficulty because it makes every fight, every moment to moment gameplay second, memorable. It's much easier to consider a game unmemorable if most of your time is spent tackling a consistently easy challenge. At the same time, a game can become less memorable if it's just difficult every second, which is why I think I prefer Dark Souls over it's successors.

I've always thought that almost any game should have a difficulty setting from the beginning, to adjust to anyone. I mean, if people want a more relaxed experience, go for easy. If they want a challenge, go for hard. That could pretty much work for almost any game.

A game shouldn't be criticized for being too easy if it fits the game. Mario and Pokemon both appeal to casuals, but can up the difficulty to satisfy those wanting a challenge.

The only exception is if it's a game directed towards a mature fanbase. For instance, no one would enjoy God of War if you had 10x as much health and the opponents were flatout idiots.

At the same time, a game can't just be hard for the sake of it. If a Mario game had places on the ground that'd automatically kill you, it'd probably be a hard game, but it wouldn't make it more enjoyable.

You have to see the context of the game honestly. It either is or isn't a fair piece of criticism

How would you accomplish this in a platformer? Not Cuphead mind you - like a .... Mario 64?

Funny you should bring up Pokemon and Mario, seeing as most of the time both games are amped up hugely come post game.

Post game Mario levels are lots of times super hard and fun and challenging, yet the reveiwer typically just plays till he beats the game. Which is like 1/3 of mario games total levels.

Then pokemon, when you get ot actual say online battles, you will suck. They do something like complain about egg hatching, natures, ev, iv's, ect and say that its bull and too hard to do. That's bull. In a day I could could catch the pokemon I want, get the Nature I want, get the hidden power I want if I want, get amazing IV and EV train it to be how I want. If I wanted to waste my whole day I could do multiple. The system is not hard. They have methods of doing it fast, such as pokemon with Synchronize to get nature you want. Destiny knots to get good IV's passed in egg breeding. Everstones to pass on ability if need be. Power items to very quickly train up EV's.

As for the "hard" games you listed. I find them more frustrating for being unnecesarily hard for the sake of hard. They aren't any different htan many other games I enjoy, they just crank the enemies damage and hp up or yours down so that your a glass canon instead of surviving. A lot of these hard games feel like playing Mario Maker where they have trick death spots for the sake of killing you only. No way of knowing they are there until you die. That annoys me. As someone said above, if you gave God of War guy a crap load of more health the game woudl be less fun, in the same way I find giving him a sliver of health no fun either.

i would say no, because it's always a question of personal skills. a game that for is hard, could be for another one easy, but that doesn't mean the game isn't great

If there's a good reason for it. For example,a hard game can be criticized for its difficulty if its entirely unfair and a result of poor game design rather than an integral part of the game's core challenge. Any element of a game can be criticized, but the criticism has to justified with clear reasons.

Being hard isn't the problem being unfair is though. Donkey Kong country is rather hard
, but fair so it shouldn't be criticised for being too hard, because that would limit the complexity such a genre can offer. Unless it would be next to impossible to complete those levels, but that rarely is the case. Offering no challenge whatsoever troughout the game and having no difficulty progression makes games boring so that obviously should be criticised. Furthermore completing something that is hard is usually rewarding, but that doesn't hold for things that offer very little challenge.

Fair enough. In some games isn't possible to have that option. Platformers like Mario 64, for example. In Cuphead would be as easy as having an option to lower the bosses HP. I know that this doesn't work for any game available, but it'd work for many of them, the vast majority I'd say.