What is considered unfair in games?

When is a game unfair and when is it just player skill or lack thereof?

I don't think I've played a game I would call unfair.

You'll hear it a lot, but in most cases if you boil it down, it comes down to player skill/error.

They may be games that are just designed badly in their mechanics, or situations that are unfair yet you created them yourself. Like say, running into a large group of high level enemies in an RPG, but you didn't have to do that.

I've heard a lot of complaints about Souls games being unfair due to traps or enemy ambushes from off camera.

I suppose a lot is down to player skill yeh, knowing ones skill lvl can make what difficulty u choose easier, hence why I usually play hard for action games, or SUPER EASY for alien soldier, cus I'm a tiny bitch like that.

Say god hand, some moves for bosses on lvl die r super fast, so fast that it's almost impossible to react to, so u have to act pre-emptively, I know that much from watching mikekob god hand lps, he doesn't give them a chance to attack n makes it look easy so it's not so unfair.

I tried god hand hard n gave up at mr.gold/silver I couldn't handle it, they whipped me good,but its not unfair I'm just a scrub, I know what killed me each time I'm just not reacting good enough.

We'll have to find examples. Let's keep it to action games unfairness for now. It would usually be certain scenarios that could lead to an imbalance. U would have to push a game to its highest modes to see how fair it is. I don't play highest modes so I can't say from experience.

If u want a true challenge at highest modes then u would want it to be as demanding as possible, so high lvl players would know best if its maybe unfair.

U can dick around on lower modes but highest would require pure skill.

Say god hand, some moves for bosses on lvl die r super fast, so fast that it's almost impossible to react to, so u have to act pre-emptively, I know that much from watching mikekob god hand lps, he doesn't give them a chance to attack n makes it look easy so it's not so unfair.

He can counter so fast because he knows them. There's nothing you can't react to in GH and nothing unfair or impossible, just super tough. Everything can be dodged and if you play it yourself and practice, what you'll find is that it's not as fast as it looks.

But do you mean unfair as in, say Vanquish God Hard which takes away a lot from the player, which could be deemed unfair, or situations you actually cannot win due to unfairness. I have never experienced the latter in what I've played, and the former, that depends who is looking at it. We don't consider it unfair as we wanted a harder mode.

I mean actually unwinnable by design, GH n such r fair, fair for different modes so harder ones would be tougher as it's what one would seek in such modes.

U can still win something that's unfair but it's just that, like say a boss that reads your inputs n breaks rules n deals massive damage n has stupid high life.

Cheap things r unfair I guess. Something even high lvl players would say is rediculous. Things that force the player to cheat n use exploits to win.

Fake difficulty games.

Thank you, now I finally remember what I wanted to write for Stinger. I won't go into too deep as I'll save some points but unfairness is present even in our favorite titles like God Hand, Ninja Gaiden and Souls. 

Unfair in my eyes is when the game decides "you will now take damage/die". Unless you're lucky this will happen and no amount skill can avoid it. For instance the human reflex, outside of fighter pilots, is an average of 7/60's of a second. Which means to register an event and react we need 7 frames. Yet Dark Souls has, on rare occassion, close quarters moves that have a startup of 3 frames. If you are close it is physically impossible to dodge unless you dodged because of other reasons. One will have to adapt a strategy to deal with this, for instance fight from mid-range, but the move in and off itself is 'unfair'.

Ninja Gaiden has a lot of moments where, especially in Razor's Edge, the controls will glitch out or the frame rate will drop so bad that your inputs wont register and Ryu will stay still and die. That's unfair. 

Certain enemies in fighting games will read your inputs. Bosses like Shin Akuma and God Rugal in Capcom vs SNK are by definition unfair.

In the broader sense it is also up to the player, where he draws the line. Say you are fighting a boss and you are, by his pressure, cornered. While you are in the corner he proceeds to do a big explosion type move. You cannot avoid it because you are stuck in the corner, the activeframes of the explosion are longer than your dodge i.frames; you will take damage. Some players will call this unfair. Others will note to themselves "damnit, shouldn't gotten stuck in the corner". So yeah it is very up to the player. But to me elements where the game decides that you are going to die now without your say in it is in my opinion unfair.

On the topic of God Hard difficulty; it's just a big jump from Hard to God Hard - but outside of that it is completely fair. We wanted to test our strength, well we got a mode to do that haha!

Armed & delirious is a infamous example of it done in point n clicks

Fair games let u know how u failed so u can avoid it. I always know what killed me in god hand or crash bandicoot, so I can learn for next time.

Restricting the player so that they have to play a very specific way when one could avoid it on other modes.

Shin Akuma in tekken 7 is bullshit snk boss.

Ninja gaiden 2 has clown cars full of explosive kunai ninjas so that's ridiculous.

Demon Shannon, who has bullshit projectiles n other demon bosses r stupid fast, have armour n can't be juggled n sweeped like other bosses n mobs, so that limits your options.
Maybe not always unfair but a game can be tedious, which is not good either, let alone both.

Frame rate is issue also, god hand PS3 verion I have has massive slowdown for too many particles, usually some bosses have moves that cause slowdown n r not effected by it so u can't react fast enough during slowdown.

Elvis butt stomp on lvldie has so little startup it's so hard to react to, mikekob did note how u best off dodging just in case since it's so fast, I get slowdown as elvis lands n he can still attack during slowdown n even butt stomp again.

Yoshesque really hates lumen sage due to his lack of tells.

Having massive difficulty spikes on lower modes can ruin them, like say vanquish instakills same on casual, that would be unfair for casual mode.

Unexpected qte could be unfair, like beyo qte which r too fast n count as a death for fail.

Camera issues also effect games. Bosses having obscene amounts of life could be unfair.

God hard is kicking my arse for most part, I don't think I'm ready for it but I'm still going.
It's when u have to rely on exploits to stand a reasonable chance that makes it unfair, instead of skill n pattern recognition.

It all depends on where you draw the line. You can say Lumen Sage is unfair because he has a lack of tells, or you can be prepared for this and always dodge around until you see a move you can punish or keep a certain distance. Same with Honda in Nioh, he has an near instant stab (1 frame animation) but it can be blocked. So is it unfair when it hits? Or should you have just kept your guard up all the time? Up to the player in my opinion.

Restricting the player so that they have to play a very specific way when one could avoid it on other modes. 

To a point, but not completely. The Lobby Section in Metal Gear Rising is a ranged encounter, is it unfair? Not really. Just difficult. I get where you're coming from but if there's one thing I don't want to see developers stop doing it's this: break the rules. I'm cool with certain core rules staying in place but it's often the coolest enemies/ encounters that break the rules. I don't mean fully break them like "a grab will now not work on them" or something, but just slightly alter the rules for a bit or a certain foe. Maria in Nioh is a good example. Everyone hates her, but she's at least interesting and different. After having fought humanoids bosses that all had the same tactics fighting one that is nearly immune to ki-drain and is lightning fast - even faster than you - makes her memorable to say the least. There's only really one way to fight her, doesn't make her unfair, just different. The Midget Five in God Hand also break many of the game's rules, but are interesting for exactly that feature.

I'm more proposing ideas I need to find examples for them, it's hard to tell at times. Something unfair is what some would want. Unfair could just be tedious.

I like unconventional bosses they often r more noteworthy than others, mad midget five r good example, the end from mgs3 is a great boss fight in how anti boss fight he is.

Conventional bosses I like too, the rival is a stand out, like azel who is one of the 3 other enemies that can dodge your regular mid attacks like u, so u have to be precise with hits n not bait blocking since u have to hit him first, azel plays by the player rules for most part as a good rival tends to.

Is the rival conventional? They unique due to being like the player. Conventional rival standards.

I guess a boss is unconventional compared to other bosses in a given game.

Something should be telegraphed so the player can react to it, moreso if it's a devestating move, if it's only during a certain range then tells can be adjusted for that. Azel points n spreads his arms to show u he is going to grab u. God hand is nice since usually non up dodge attacks r shown more clearly since u can't up dodge them. Grabs n vertical attacks r shown well usually.

About blocking it's a bit like fighting games like fighting games like tekken where u can block attacks for most part with standing neutral. So u wait for combos to finish n counter or counter during a move u know u can.

Any examples u would say as unfair, unfair isn't unbeatable just unfair. Not fun I'd say, I like a good rival cus they tend to be fair, no cheap insta kills n moves I can't see coming. Arcade game bosses have that issue.

When u have to rely solely on exploits to reasonably stand a chance is bad design, I guess, krauser is fair since u can use knife exploit n regular weapons. It really depends I'll need to find examples.

Let it die has that issue since bosses have super high life n damage n u have to rely on items n weapons to get by. It's tedious more than anything.
Arcade games n free to play stuff need to make money so they jack up the difficulty in artificial ways to get revenue.

Shoa Kahn is a cheap arcade boss. Rugel also.

Any games would u say r unfair, do u think unfair is ok at times. Hardest modes I stay away from cus they r too unfair for my skill lvl, so it's me not the modes.

Roy u play handicap runs so u would know what that is like making it unfair against u on purpose to test yourself and the game.

How cod blops3 has realistic mode for 1 hit kill in a hitscan shooter is rediculous but it's doable, unfair by design but can be done, not my idea of fun but interesting nonetheless.

I'm more proposing ideas I'm not married to them yet haha.

I'm not the most knowledgable for what's unfair.

I like unique bosses they stand out even if execution is lacking.

A lot of the things discussed so far come more under 'disadvantage' than unfair.

Yes, u have to work around that. I do say there is unfair things in games. I'll check tv tropes for some examples.

Birdman wrote:A lot of the things discussed so far come more under 'disadvantage' than unfair.

Again, it's where you draw the line as a player. To you and me it might be just disadvantage, but to more casual players that might be unfair. For me in Ninja Gaiden: Razor's Edge the alchemists dodge nearly random, making punishing hard. Some people call that unfair, I'm just "okay keep up the pressure but stay safe, never know when they might dodge" - I adjust my playstyle and accept it as a disadvantage. But I can wholly agree that some players consider it unfair. It's just a mindset thing.

I'd say something can be unfair for a difficulty mode, like say u play hell and hell in dmc3-4 it's insta kill that's the point of that mode so if u can't handle that then play lower modes,but say u could be insta killed for most part on lowest mode that would be unfair.

So difficulty modes r supposed to be balanced for player skill lvls, so say an enemy shows up that functions on the hardest modes rules it would be unfair to expect a player on the easiest mode to be competent enough to deal with that.

Automata has that issue for hard mode since u can be 1-2 shotted which is unfair for hard, since very hard is insta kill it defeats the point of their being hard mode if it's mostly 1-2 shot unless u r high enough lvl n have best chips,weapons n items, instead of raw skill like other action games. Easy n normal don't do enough damage to be a challenge for me but 1-2 hit is unfair for me, so it's either too easy or too hard for me. That's bad balancing.

I played n beat dmc4 Dante must die n never found it unfair but it was too hard for my skill lvl since I cheated n used items n some exploits to beat it, except credo who I beat fair.

Vanquish romanovs chest beam can't insta kill u on casual I think, so that's fair, not sure about unknown, but that's well telegraphed n close range move so that's on the player. Qte r still insta kill but that's fine since it's a qte.

I'd never say mobs that can dodge your attacks isnt unfair usually, same as armour which means u can't just tap mobs to stop them always attacking, makes it interesting n not mash mash mash brain dead gameplay, that's what warriors/musoh games r for.
Enemies need to have various ways to attack n defend so they need options to dodge n block your attacks somehow. Enemies need to be designed to bring the best out of a games mechanics. That's for another thread tho.

Demon bosses in god hand kill the PS3 versions fps so I have delayed input n less frames to react which was already 30fps, that's unfair since they hit hard n fast enough without game issues as well(seriously fuck those bosses no juggles or launches so u just wail on them n dodge, azel accentuates god hands best mechanics to the fullest)

If their a work around to enemies behaviour n moves then that's fine, like god hand mobs can backflip out of juggles but u can still hit n manipulate them if u know what to do.

Proper unfair is having to rely on luck n not skill. If u could be 1 shot by regular shots in vanquish that would be unfair.

Let's find things we agree r unfair.

Check fake difficulty on tv tropes has some good info.

Technical hiccups r unfair, maybe unless u can use them to your advantage. I can't remember what game had slowdown for one version but not another so they actually put the slow down back in since players where accustomed to it, I think it was a Japanese game maybe a shmup.

I don't find many things truly unfair. Any difficulty higher than normal could be considered unfair simply because you are put at a disadvantage.

I prefer that word. A game would have to be outright broken for me to consider it truly unfair.

Agreed, I don't usually call games I play unfair, often I'm not good enough to tell unless its obvious slowdown control lag n other technical issues that can break a game. I'd rather say it's me than a game.

A game can be unbalanced for sure, that's always something devs have to carefully consider, that's why I say it's unfair to have say enemies set to lvldie ai, speed n damage on easy in god hand if it's on easy since it's locked to lvl1-2, that would be unfair to expect an easy mode player to deal with lvldie difficulty.

Or say dmd damage on easy in dmc, that would defeat the point of difficulties at that point, like automata issue I had, since I can't play at a mode for me it's too hard or too easy for me. Unbalanced.

Souls don't have modes so that's excepted n balanced for that,except ng+, which only changes mob placements n other things for dark souls 2. They typically raise mob life, damage n defence values. Which may lead it to be unbalanced.

Games that r actually impossible to beat r outright unfair, due to poor design and or bugs, or even other factors since at that point they r broken.

Fake difficulty in general is something that may lead a game to be deemed unbalanced n thus unfair. Unbalanced games lead to them being unfair.

artificial difficulty can unbalance a game by giving mobs obscene amounts of damage n life which could make for tedious gameplay since it would be more about dps n endurance leading many to just use as many exploits n dominant strategy as possible since it can take too long which gives one more time to fail.

Action games usually avoid this by raising values by small amounts but just enough to make u have to be more efficient n creative n truly master each enemy n all your moves in conjunction. Focusing more on making mobs more reactive to the player, faster n gaining new n altered moves to make them more interesting n challenging to fight. alongside remixed placements which would not be seen on lower modes or even whole new mobs n bosses.

Rough Difficulty spikes can make an otherwise consistently difficulty game become too hard too quickly n then being called unfair as to expect the player to adapt so rapidly.

A better question is what leads games to be called unfair and unbalanced?

Or is that the same thing? I'm no good a writing haha. I think that question is more relevant n productive to this discussion.

Something that's unbalanced could lead to the player being at a advantage too, so it's unbalanced for or against the player, u can become overpowered in many games, upgrades n rpg systems can lead to the player being as such.

Is this a different topic from what I'm saying? I'm getting confused again.

Did I done right good guys?

Most of what you're saying is in theory. Can you give some actual examples of an unfair game? I can't remember this topic word for word, but just before you mentioned Automata.

I had no issue with hard mode. The dodging and perfect dodge is too easy to do, and you level up pretty fast, meaning only the start is really tough.

I haven't done all the playthroughs for each ending so I don't know how it gets later, but from what I've observed, you'll be way overpowered before then.

A better question is what leads games to be called unfair and unbalanced?

Unbalanced simply means they didn't think it through, that a certain combination or other elements outside of their scope of vision have unforeseen consequences. This goes back as far as the pen&paper RPG's - where it's called "imba". I recall one Dungeons and Dragons campaign where our Cavelier played by a good friend of mine discovered that if he was a certain race and had certain combinations he could, if he was on a horse, deal around 40-50 damage at level 4. Our other damage dealer, the mage, could deal around 7 damage on a lucky critical hit at that level. Yet if we took the horse away, he couldn't do jack-shit. So unbalanced.
It's important to note though that a lot of terms are often used in the wrong context and have started living their own lives. Unbalanced is hardly ever used correctly anymore. Same with unfair.

One example I'd like to note of unfair is present in Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 and to a much bigger extension its followup Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 Plus for the VITA.
Sigma 2 contained two optional co-op missions which required you to fight some insane fights. The first was one where you were in a small arena paired against all the main bosses of the game on the highest difficulty setting. You could only bring one weapon. No healing items available. And you had to fight all of them at the same time. The second mission tasked players to, after a insanely long gauntlet, to one of the final bosses three times at the same time. Now this is pretty insane by itself and these bosses weren't made to fight side by side. In the second mission if you were unlucky all three Fiend Genshins could go berserk and do the perfect combination of attacks (one does the ranged dash grab, the other the shockwave and the other the air-kunai) and you would all be dead. Unfair? Perhaps. What pushed it over the edge was that you could not do these offline (you could, but your AI partner was braindead and couldn't survive - if he died you died). This was made worse by the lag as NGS2 had a horrible netcode. If living in the same street you'd be looking at 5-10fps when compared to the normal 60.

Now on the VITA version they took it a step further. Not only is the online removed, the fight takes place at 200% speed. Nothing else is changed. Good luck. This fight has never been beaten. That is unfair but also very unbalanced in its design.

Wouldn't somethzing that's so unbalanced among technical issues n other factors lead to a game being unfair?

Battletoads nes US version coop has a part where player 2 gets stuck due to a bug with no way to beat it in coop, which is actually broken.
Also battle toads infamous bike stage is so fast most humans can't react to it.

Ninja gaiden 2 in its mechanics is very sound, so things around that can be unfair n unbalanced,so even great games can be unfair n unbalanced.

I guess that coop challenge is made for eldritch 4D beings n not us mere mortals.

I guess that coop challenge is made for eldritch 4D beings n not us mere mortals.

I did complete it though haha! But it was unfair. I recall when I won it was just pure luck, never been able to do it again (nor wished to do so). The VITA version can go **** itself though.

Chance isn't something games about skill should have, at least not enough chance to detract from player skill. Would u say vanquish has a chance issue? as in getting hit which is impossible not to, I die usually because I wasn't killing priority targets fast enough or was in the wrong spot. U will take hits but u need to be smart with your cover n meter so u don't die from those hits.

Again it depends where you put the line in the sand of what is 'chance' and what isn't. Games have a ton of random factors, even Souls, Vanquish, Ninja Gaiden, DMC etc. When enemies attack and which attack they do is random, to a point; which is good otherwise you'd just memorize the entire pattern and go at it. But outside of those factors yeah games like Vanquish have a chance factor. The Dual Bogeys especially but Burns also, every place where you're facing more than one foe at once there's a chance a combination of attacks might occur which is harder to avoid than you'd hoped.

Every game should have a bit of chance in it, otherwise it would become pretty boring pretty fast.
"Luck is a skill," I always say.

Did I make a comment about how god hand mobs can randomly block, dodge or cancel out of your juggles after x amount of hits, that's chance that keeps things dynamic. As long as moves can be predicted once they r used by foes it's up to the player to respond to that. Vanquish u need very good use of positioning so u don't get sprayed to death, since even gorgies r a threat with just a few shots.

Ranges can be used to predict the chance of a foes attack.

As long as their is player choice to respond n manipulate enemies into doing things then that's a way to mitigate chance, various states to manipulate. If u do nothing then foes have more chances to strike.

Yeh I need to find examples.
automata damage is determined by lvl, enemies about the same lvl as u or slightly lower or higher can hit u 1-2 times for a kill, in a game with tons of mobs n bullet hell patterns mostly, so u have to make sure u r even level with mobs or it's easy to get hit just 1-2 times in such a game, unless u use op chips, weapons n programs, but it's very unbalanced due to all this, I have to grind for decent defence n life chips so I don't die in 1-2 hits. Also only flight smhup sections have mobs that scale to your lvl along with animals. Rest r set lvl, each play through mobs scale to what the player may be at, bosses bizarrely enough r same lvl for routes A/B. Lvl is the biggest issue in automata n breaks its difficulty since only way to lower lvl is via dlc apple.

It's super easy to be op, or under powered which is bad design for an action game, its that I have to find the right build n lvl to not be under or over powered. It's very unbalanced for n against the player, mostly for the player That's my issue, all the needless grinding for making it balanced for me. I don't care for it anymore so I didn't really bother to grind for things to see how it would change hard mode, I imagine with right build it could be balanced for me, but that's way too much work for so little returns.

Did I make a comment about how god hand mobs can randomly block, dodge or cancel out of your juggles after x amount of hits, that's chance that keeps things dynamic. As long as moves can be predicted once they r used by foes it's up to the player to respond to that. Vanquish u need very good use of positioning so u don't get sprayed to death, since even gorgies r a threat with just a few shots.

Ranges can be used to predict the chance of a foes attack.

As long as their is player choice to respond n manipulate enemies into doing things then that's a way to mitigate chance, various states to manipulate. If u do nothing then foes have more chances to strike.

All you're describing there is gameplay mechanics. None of this is unfair. But now the word 'chance' has come up.

In reference of chance as a factor in what leads action games to be unfair, those r examples of it being fair due to player skill predicting n using probability to their advantage. Not pure chance. Roy's example was of how it was predominantly chance that let him win not skill.

Dodgy camera can lead a game to be unfair.

If vanquish had a 1hit kill mode is that unfair? I'd say so.

Unfair isn't something that's hard might be tedious, like giving an enemy absurd life pool.

I put an example of an unfair game called armed & delirious, point n click adventure that commits all the sins of bad point n click design.

I'm not great for examples so check to tropes page for fake difficulty, unwinnable by design n unwinnable by mistake. They should be a decent reference point for what's leading to unfair design.

I don't play games I would call unfair n I don't tend to play the hardest modes so I wouldn't know what's unfair for them usually. I'm too shit tier to tell haha.

God hard is kicking my arse, that knrb0 hill bit had me for a while, I needed to be more aggressive n rush to the checkpoint. After that it was decent.

Roy's example was of how it was predominantly chance that let him win not skill.

I don't think that's what he was saying.

He said situations, such as in the Burns fight, are harder to avoid than others. It's chance as to whether or not these situations happen. Same could be said for any game where you are attacked by more than one enemy.

Notice he said 'harder to avoid'. They're still avoidable. You have all the tools.

Chance = chance. In Vanquish if both Bogeys decide to do their ultimate attack while the overheat satalites are up and the cover just happens to go down you will die - simple as that. No skill involved. It's bad luck and a lot of chance upon chance, but it can happen. Is it unfair? Perhaps. Again depends on the player. One could say unfair or "shouldn't have gotten in that place to begin with" and perhaps saved some EMPs for such a situation or w/e.

Hell if a player looks back far enough no game is unfair. If a game lags a lot and has instant kills, well..you know this. So armed with the knowledge you should prepare for it. Making it fair. Up to the player and where they draw the line.

That definitely sounds like the definition of unfair.

Unfair to me is an impossible to avoid situation where you take damage. Utterly impossible by ANY means.

Not super hard or super restrictive. I don't consider a one hit kill mode to be unfair. You play it knowing what it is.

That's what I'm trying to say bird man, actual impossible to avoid failures, whether it be intentional or mistake. I wrote that before somewhere I think.

I don't call games I play unfair, they typically r not.

If a game has a 1hit kill mode but u WILL be hit at least once then that's unfair.

If vanquish in theory had a 1hit mode it would be unfair, unless u could no damage it somehow.

Purely chance is unfair. No skill as u say Roy, skill can't fight pure chance.

Just because u have the knowledge doesn't mean u can still win, just means u know it's unfair in the first place. Knowing it's unfair isn't enough if it's still truly unfair.

If a glitch breaks a game and u know of this but it still breaks the game then that's unfair.

Battletoads nes US version has a bug that forces player 2 to become stuck at some point in a level meaning u can't win with coop.  

If something is impossible, doesn't matter how much u prepare if it's still unavoidable. still unfair.

It's unfair if u can't actually avoid it. U could have used your emp nades earlier to block another death blow, u can't prepare for everything.
Roy u said that u think unfair is when u will take damage/die in a earlier post. No skill involved just bad luck, unfair since it's down to chance.

I mean things other than a games difficulty modes leading to them being unfair, bad camera, game breaking bugs n framerate can break a game. Along with poor design choices.

That's why i bring up chance n how too much against the player can be unfair. The more unavoidable chances to get hit the more unfair it will be. Bad luck not skill.

I'll stop typing now I need some sleep.

I'll come back when I have something useful to say, I need to find examples for reasons why games can become unfair.

I seem to be better at prompting responses than giving examples or in depth reasons for what can make a game unfair. Or what is considered unfair, it's a tad confusing.

R we also discussing what causes unfairness in games? I've gone of track u guys have better wording, I'll take a break from commenting I want to see what u guys think.

Again, it all depends on how far you look back. If a situation like the one I noted occurs, you could always note "shouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place". This really depends on the player and I'd probably go and say "okay that was unfair", but in these situations the term is subjective in my book.

The only thing that I truely, always, completely find unfair is glitches that can't be accounted for. You can, very rarely, die in 5-3 in Vanquish by falling through the stage. Getting it to work has no reasoning, it's a large combination of factors that lead to you falling to your doom. That's unfair.

Roy u said that u think unfair is when u will take damage/die in a earlier post. No skill involved just bad luck, unfair since it's down to chance.

True, but again: if you know it can happen you can prepare for it. Like let's say this scenario:

You're playing Vanquish, but due to a new design choice you'll randomly lose 90% of your health at given moments. There's no reasoning behind it, it just happens. Is this unfair? Depends on the player.
One player might say yes, because it's random. The other might say no, because it is a given so he'll just say "guess I have to stay at at least 91% HP all the time". All depends on what type of person you are.

The technical stuff not the combat itself issues with fps, camera n bugs can break a game rendering it unfair.

Gabriel Phelan Lucas wrote:The technical stuff not the combat itself issues with fps, camera n bugs can break a game rendering it unfair.

Really depends how random it is and if you can adapt. Ninja Gaiden's later fights have a lot of slow-down, but if you keep it in mind and learn how to do inputs during said lag then you'll be fine.

what about things like having a enemy take absurd amounts of damage, but r not any more difficulty to face just have insane amounts of life.

say in theory a Romanov had enough life to take 100 fully charged backlist strikes, not optional as in every single one Romanov.

That comes under fake difficulty since it's life that is raised not ai. That's more tedious than hard, since it still takes ages even if u play perfect. Time wasting. How does that relate to unfair? It's related for sure. What would u say to that?

Things like that r unfair for being unrealistic with how much time u would have to spend on them.

Where does fake difficulty come into play for what's unfair? Check the tv tropes page for it I want to know how that relates.

Camera issues r still a handicap making it more hard than it would otherwise be. The camera is being unfair not the combat itself.

Would it be unfair if say dmc1 easy is as hard as dmd? normal n hard r same just easy is same as dmd. It would be unfair to players who want an easy mode. Modes r for various skill lvls so if it's not balanced for those modes it's unfair. Easy is meant to be easier than hard or above, it would be unfair to have easy as hard as dmd, why even have easy at all then.

what about things like having a enemy take absurd amounts of damage, but r not any more difficulty to face just have insane amounts of life.

That's not unfair, just bad game-design imo (< very important 3 letters). Same with having Easy be insanely hard, it's just hard then - not unfair. It would be a bad game for players who want an easy game but then they'll not find that there. That's more target-audience related.

Fake-difficulty or Artificial-difficulty is up to the user again. Some people like grinding and fighting one guy for 30 minutes and others don't. So what to one person is 'boring design' is interesting to another.

Yeh I wanted to bring fake difficulty up its something that can lead to a game being called unfair.

It's bad design like that I deem unfun due to being pointless tedium, action games tend to avoid obscene life pools, harder modes increase life by a smal but noticeable amount to make u be more efficient to deal that last slither of damage.

Unfun is what can lead to something being called unfair, as a complaint but that's subjective n depends on the game n its audience.
Unfun would be another topic but it's still something that's related to unfairness as a label.

Casual complaint more than anything regarding difficulty, dick move by devs to omit an easy/lowest mode in a game with modes imo. We can talk difficulty on that thread. I say that is unfair difficulty for low mode skill lvl. Souls doesn't have modes so can't complain their.(souls easy mode should just give u a map that's it haha)

Bosses have lots of life, mobs r weaker that's a game design thing since time immemorial haha.

Let's find examples we deem as unfair for a common ground. We'll have to make another thread for bad game design I guess.

The difficulty issue is down to balancing, not unfair just not balanced well for the mode it's supposed to be. So it would be deemed unfair for a low mode player to play it since it's too hard for them.

Souls don't have modes so that's excepted, how do they handle ng+?

Unfair can be when u have to rely on exploits to reasonably stand a chance or only way. arcade fighting game bosses tend to be unfair. But u can use exploits so it's fair I guess but that's not a real challenge of skill just exploits in the ai.

I agree if u have knowledge of unfair things u may be able to prepare for it, unfair isn't always unbeatable. Many nes games had obscure things that no one would reasonably be able to find out except through sheer chance.
now we know of them due to the internet u can bypass that issue. Like Simon's quest tornado in a corner u have to use for something I can't remember.

I wanted to mention factors that can lead to games being called unfair, not as in those factors r unfair but just what they may lead a game to be called unfair even if it's actually not n just maybe bad design n tedium.

I don't find say god hand demon elvis, demon Shannon(except bullshit magic projectiles), belze to be unfair but they r tedious due to their large life pool n fast attacks, same few moves they do, plus how u can't juggle,trip or launch them makes them dull n a grind. Well more so on a KMS run so I can't complain much I don't do handicap runs.

Angra I don't mind so much he much easier more of a large punching bag break after beating Azel.

If a game has a 1hit kill mode but u WILL be hit at least once then that's unfair.

I disagree. Take Nier A. First, the mode isn't forced on you. You take it on if you think you're good enough and you want a challenge. If not, you leave it. It's not asking you to complete it in one sitting. If it were suddenly forced on you against your will, and you couldn't progress, then I MIGHT consider it unfair, but even that is really a stretch.

Second, you can still power up, and have possibly hundreds of hours worth of experience in the previous modes.

Only if a situation arises that cannot be avoided and you MUST take damage, would I consider it unfair. Roy's example is a good one. I was going to ask about that Roy, as I haven't had it happen, but then I didn't put that much time into Vanquish. Might post something in the Vanquish forum.

One player might say yes, because it's random. The other might say no, because it is a given so he'll just say "guess I have to stay at at least 91% HP all the time". All depends on what type of person you are.

I would call that unfair and horrifically designed, but only for the randomness that cannot, under any circumstances be avoided.

That's what I was trying to say bird man, that quote was a hypothetical, say if vanquish had a 1hit kill mode like roys example of 91% life for vanquish. Bad design leads to unfairness.

I fine with a game having a 1hit mode if it's designed for it well enough. U can still beat something that's unfair it's still unfair if u can't avoid being hit at some point.

Also their is a section of automata where u have to walk to one side of a map to the other, u get random moments where u r forced to limp so u can't attack or defend, mobs r still around n can attack u freely, that's unfair. It's meant to be also just for that moment to enforce the story but gameplay wise it's unfair due to it being random, u can easily get hit n fall down a crater near by n u can't get out since u will fall off the ladder due to random forced limping.

I would call that unfair and horrifically designed, but only for the randomness that cannot, under any circumstances be avoided.

I agree, but again that's a personal point.

I am of the notion that a game doesn't have to be fair on the highest settings. While NGB was completely fair it was pretty cool to see NG2 do everything to kill you, it really stacked the deck against you which was novel. All this 'fair difficulty' that's all the rage with Dark Souls is pretty boring and repetative as it holds designers back.

I was going to ask about that Roy, as I haven't had it happen but then I didn't put that much time into Vanquish. Might post something in the Vanquish forum.

It's rare, but I've had it happen. You can famously see it happen in my video here near the end:



Just before the end of the first round I make one mistake and overheat (around 5:50). I am way past the threshold of them transitioning to the second phase but they decide to just keep attacking, to make matters worse all the cover I'm diving for goes away. If they'd even attacked I'd been dead.

I've had it happen once that overheaters were up and suddenly both did their laser attack (blue does the spreader, red the big insta-kill). All my cover went away and I had to focus on their satalites. So what I did was do a quick EMP slide through the big-laser and lived. If I didn't have an EMP I'd been in a dead-situation with no hope of surviving.

Unfun would be another topic but it's still something that's related to unfairness as a label.

A good example of unfun for me would be Shadows of the Damned on its highest difficulty-setting. Enemies gain such a bizarre level of health it's just stupid to an insane degree. Some bosses can take over 30-50 minutes to beat down, the final boss especially.

About Souls and Easy Mode: it exists but within the design of the game itself. Magic and summoning for help is the "easy mode" of the game.

Can the overheaters be avoided at all? Assuming you have meter.