This post feels like it was made with me specifically in mind. I both follow the competitive scenes and play somewhat competitively in both Mario Kart (Primarily Wii, now 8 and World as well) and fighting games (Street fighter 6, Tekken 8, skullgirls, them fightin herds, etc). I play these games not cause they are frustrating, but because I always have something to learn and improve on. The only marker for “difficulty” in these games is the players you race or fight against. Not winning all the time is a boon, not a detriment. It means I’m learning against others that are better than me. I watch competitive scenes to learn from as well, and seeing my own progression compared to other people is much more satisfying than progressing against NPCs or static opponents.
I always get irrationally frustrated when people call Mario Kart “unfair”. Yes there is luck, but is this game not skill based if I win 80% of the races? Don’t ask me how to win in MKWii, I WILL launch into the mother of all yap sessions. I will do almost anything to get people to play MKWii online with me nowadays. Anyways yeah great post. I appreciate being validated by a stranger online! (Go play Mario kart wii please Wheelwizard makes it super easy)
Great post, I agree with the thesis that "Gamer" culture often ignores long-term mechanical depth and competitive games in particular, however I would push back a bit on the first section. I have my own gripes about the obsession with Souls games' supposed difficulty, but setbacks and punishments are more than just "psychic" difficulty. While dodging an enemy's single attack may always be the same challenge, defeating the enemy as a whole is a test of consistency and attention - can you dodge that attack eight out of ten times while also doing other things? etc. Because the task is cumulative, modifying the punishment for a single instance of failure does affect the overall difficulty.
Hey, I really appreciate the response! Just want to clarify that I think we’re actually pretty close to the same page here.
You mention that punishment and setbacks aren’t just “psychic” difficulty—that they also test consistency, attention, and endurance across a longer sequence. Totally agree. That’s exactly the point I make: these games define difficulty by how much they ask you to endure over time. You’re describing that perfectly when you say the task is cumulative.
Deeper mechanical or competitive challenges like needing to develop new skills or strategies are often absent. So when people call these games “hard,” they’re often reacting more to how long and punishing the experience is, how HARD it is to BE consistent, not how much it teaches or transforms their play. What I just said is, of course, a matter of my perspective and the linguistic breakdown I am attempting to present.
Ultimately, I’m interrogating how we define “difficulty” in the first place and not at all trying to tell people there's nothing "hard" about a video game experience they thought was hard.
I may be misinterpreting the thesis of your essay but I think the pushback against Mario Kart World's intermission tracks have less to do with people not wanting to have to learn new strategies than they're used to and more-so with the strategies present in these sections simply being less interesting than those you can employ in the traditional 3-lap tracks.
You mention playing with people who play Mario Kart very competitively and how they learn to adapt to the game's mechanics and strategies to learn how to win because they embrace the difficulty of learning something new; however, I think if you do reach out to see how many competitive players are responding to these new style of tracks, many of them are saying what I said earlier - that the issue isn't that they don't understand these new tracks but that the strategies the game rewards you for using during these sections simply isn't as interesting. Many of them reward the simplest strategies and most uninteresting ways of using your items. It seems you acknowledge this with your "highway with no options" line near the end, but it seemed like you were making the point that it's a mistake to use this design to choice to say the game is uninteresting rather than challenging yourself to learn what IS interesting about these tracks. I think I disagree with that because of what I mentioned previously.
Some of the new mechanics in this game, such as the rail grinding and wall riding, ARE very difficult. This is especially true on certain maps where taking advantage of these mechanics to save time are incredible difficult and require lengthy, extensive practice in time trial mode in order to become consistent enough to execute these shortcuts in actual races against human players; thus, I think it's more evident that players are perfectly willing to embrace new changes and learn difficult things that are different from what they already know rather than being frustrated that the strategies they've become attached to no are longer are as effective.
I think mentioning Crash Team Racing in this essay is actually a great example because that game is incredibly rewarding to play should you take the time to learn its mechanics. I have played that game for quite a bit, and beating that game's developer time trials was one of the most difficult, yet rewarding experiences I've ever had in a game. But that game's track design gives plenty of opportunities to take advantage of these mechanics. CTR has some tracks that give you "blue fire" where, if you can maintain this special boost across the entire track, you can potentially lap someone who isn't using this mechanic. In direct comparison to Mario Kart World's intermission tracks, the CTR equivalent would be long, mostly straight sections of track where you very rarely even get the opportunity to use blue fire.
That being said, I still think your points here are very thoughtful, and there are definitely instances in gaming where players harshly reject games that challenge them to retool the way they play or understand games.
I agree on the analysis of what is and isn't difficult. I've often considered older games without save states harder only because you have to redo entire sections of a level. Not because the level itself was difficult. There could be a really awkward jump in a platformer perhaps due to poor game design. Then the punishment of failing the jump and redoing the whole level again!
When I play retro games now most are updated with save states and part of me feels like I'm 'cheating' by using save states. I should be playing them as they were originally intended right? Well if they were made now they would have save states. So it wasn't a design choice it was a technological limitation of the hardware.
In regards to Mario Kart World, I've been playing the franchise since the N64. I've rinsed MK8 to death and I'm seemingly one of the few that enjoy World because it's different. If I want the same game I'll play MK8. Yes, it is hard and punishing but that's the nature of the franchise. It's as much luck as it is skill and that's what draws you back every time!
Mario Kart games always seemed too repetitive to me until Mario Kart World. It's the first one I've truly liked. Seeing all those cool tricks people can do, I actually was inspired to learn a few! Now certain courses are even more special to me because there's an opportunity to perform a tricky maneuver.
The gaming press treats PvP games (especially Fortnite) the way sitcoms set in New York treated 9/11.
Players refusing to engage with mechanics as they exist and insisting everything conform to "standards" is deeply frustrating. Why learn to engage with the depth in a game when you can write it off and preserve your ego? And I agree that game designers are playing into this with ego massaging mechanics to create illusions of player competency, essentially robbing players of the journey to real competency and mastery. It's a big part of why the Zelda team's new philosophy of making players "feel smart" really bothers me, when they could actually create scenarios where success means you have learned something and done something actually smart. The chasm between games that fake feelings of competency in players and games that ask us to sit with real discomfort and failure is vast. And it feels like there are increasingly few titles that sit in the middle (which is why I feel ire towards Spelunky is misplaced).
However when I read "This is the game that asks for more than The Gamer is willing to give." I immediately think to when I gave, and sure I got that top % rank and it only cost me a quarter of my waking hours for the few years I played for, and not like my sleepy evening hours, but my fresh morning hours, my schedule was a privilege few have in the first place. And okay, maybe we aren't talking about top level play, just the willingness to get in the ring. But most people casually playing League are not in that learning mode, their approach to queueing for games is closer to that of a gambler than an athlete. And at what rank percentile is winning a game technically easier than the average Spelunky run?
What's the solution here? Just play PvP games? PvP games are great, but I think most people have a PvP phase and then move on is for good reason. Is this piece just a PSA that Mario Kart World is deep and worth mastering?
Thanks for reading and the comment! I would look again and ask yourself if I am really trying to deploy ire against Spelunky or really any game I mention here!
As for your latter questions, I don't think I am really trying to arrive at a solution as much as I am trying to rethink how we talk about games and what the words we use really mean. The piece isn't about an answer I could give you in one sentence. It's about reading, thinking, and learning.
So I hit post and went to bed (classic "I need to get these thought out in order to sleep" race to hit post before my brain turns to goo), and then realised oh I think the point was that we can change how we personally approach games, ran back to my PC hoping I could edit my comment to see you've already read it.
There is an irony in getting so caught up in my own personal experience whilst chiding someone for not considering the position of others. As I love semantic discussions over what difficulty, etc all mean, I think I got set off but the vibe of "this is -real- difficulty" reminded me of something unpleasant I used to do, which was to diminish things I found personally easy with no consideration for how much more others would struggle with it.
I'll look over it when better rested, apologies for acting like the very thing I'm complaining about.
This post feels like it was made with me specifically in mind. I both follow the competitive scenes and play somewhat competitively in both Mario Kart (Primarily Wii, now 8 and World as well) and fighting games (Street fighter 6, Tekken 8, skullgirls, them fightin herds, etc). I play these games not cause they are frustrating, but because I always have something to learn and improve on. The only marker for “difficulty” in these games is the players you race or fight against. Not winning all the time is a boon, not a detriment. It means I’m learning against others that are better than me. I watch competitive scenes to learn from as well, and seeing my own progression compared to other people is much more satisfying than progressing against NPCs or static opponents.
I always get irrationally frustrated when people call Mario Kart “unfair”. Yes there is luck, but is this game not skill based if I win 80% of the races? Don’t ask me how to win in MKWii, I WILL launch into the mother of all yap sessions. I will do almost anything to get people to play MKWii online with me nowadays. Anyways yeah great post. I appreciate being validated by a stranger online! (Go play Mario kart wii please Wheelwizard makes it super easy)
Great post, I agree with the thesis that "Gamer" culture often ignores long-term mechanical depth and competitive games in particular, however I would push back a bit on the first section. I have my own gripes about the obsession with Souls games' supposed difficulty, but setbacks and punishments are more than just "psychic" difficulty. While dodging an enemy's single attack may always be the same challenge, defeating the enemy as a whole is a test of consistency and attention - can you dodge that attack eight out of ten times while also doing other things? etc. Because the task is cumulative, modifying the punishment for a single instance of failure does affect the overall difficulty.
Hey, I really appreciate the response! Just want to clarify that I think we’re actually pretty close to the same page here.
You mention that punishment and setbacks aren’t just “psychic” difficulty—that they also test consistency, attention, and endurance across a longer sequence. Totally agree. That’s exactly the point I make: these games define difficulty by how much they ask you to endure over time. You’re describing that perfectly when you say the task is cumulative.
Deeper mechanical or competitive challenges like needing to develop new skills or strategies are often absent. So when people call these games “hard,” they’re often reacting more to how long and punishing the experience is, how HARD it is to BE consistent, not how much it teaches or transforms their play. What I just said is, of course, a matter of my perspective and the linguistic breakdown I am attempting to present.
Ultimately, I’m interrogating how we define “difficulty” in the first place and not at all trying to tell people there's nothing "hard" about a video game experience they thought was hard.
I may be misinterpreting the thesis of your essay but I think the pushback against Mario Kart World's intermission tracks have less to do with people not wanting to have to learn new strategies than they're used to and more-so with the strategies present in these sections simply being less interesting than those you can employ in the traditional 3-lap tracks.
You mention playing with people who play Mario Kart very competitively and how they learn to adapt to the game's mechanics and strategies to learn how to win because they embrace the difficulty of learning something new; however, I think if you do reach out to see how many competitive players are responding to these new style of tracks, many of them are saying what I said earlier - that the issue isn't that they don't understand these new tracks but that the strategies the game rewards you for using during these sections simply isn't as interesting. Many of them reward the simplest strategies and most uninteresting ways of using your items. It seems you acknowledge this with your "highway with no options" line near the end, but it seemed like you were making the point that it's a mistake to use this design to choice to say the game is uninteresting rather than challenging yourself to learn what IS interesting about these tracks. I think I disagree with that because of what I mentioned previously.
Some of the new mechanics in this game, such as the rail grinding and wall riding, ARE very difficult. This is especially true on certain maps where taking advantage of these mechanics to save time are incredible difficult and require lengthy, extensive practice in time trial mode in order to become consistent enough to execute these shortcuts in actual races against human players; thus, I think it's more evident that players are perfectly willing to embrace new changes and learn difficult things that are different from what they already know rather than being frustrated that the strategies they've become attached to no are longer are as effective.
I think mentioning Crash Team Racing in this essay is actually a great example because that game is incredibly rewarding to play should you take the time to learn its mechanics. I have played that game for quite a bit, and beating that game's developer time trials was one of the most difficult, yet rewarding experiences I've ever had in a game. But that game's track design gives plenty of opportunities to take advantage of these mechanics. CTR has some tracks that give you "blue fire" where, if you can maintain this special boost across the entire track, you can potentially lap someone who isn't using this mechanic. In direct comparison to Mario Kart World's intermission tracks, the CTR equivalent would be long, mostly straight sections of track where you very rarely even get the opportunity to use blue fire.
That being said, I still think your points here are very thoughtful, and there are definitely instances in gaming where players harshly reject games that challenge them to retool the way they play or understand games.
Was the fighting game passage inspired by core a gamings video on the topic? If not, you should check them out
I agree on the analysis of what is and isn't difficult. I've often considered older games without save states harder only because you have to redo entire sections of a level. Not because the level itself was difficult. There could be a really awkward jump in a platformer perhaps due to poor game design. Then the punishment of failing the jump and redoing the whole level again!
When I play retro games now most are updated with save states and part of me feels like I'm 'cheating' by using save states. I should be playing them as they were originally intended right? Well if they were made now they would have save states. So it wasn't a design choice it was a technological limitation of the hardware.
In regards to Mario Kart World, I've been playing the franchise since the N64. I've rinsed MK8 to death and I'm seemingly one of the few that enjoy World because it's different. If I want the same game I'll play MK8. Yes, it is hard and punishing but that's the nature of the franchise. It's as much luck as it is skill and that's what draws you back every time!
Mario Kart games always seemed too repetitive to me until Mario Kart World. It's the first one I've truly liked. Seeing all those cool tricks people can do, I actually was inspired to learn a few! Now certain courses are even more special to me because there's an opportunity to perform a tricky maneuver.
Insightful
The gaming press treats PvP games (especially Fortnite) the way sitcoms set in New York treated 9/11.
Players refusing to engage with mechanics as they exist and insisting everything conform to "standards" is deeply frustrating. Why learn to engage with the depth in a game when you can write it off and preserve your ego? And I agree that game designers are playing into this with ego massaging mechanics to create illusions of player competency, essentially robbing players of the journey to real competency and mastery. It's a big part of why the Zelda team's new philosophy of making players "feel smart" really bothers me, when they could actually create scenarios where success means you have learned something and done something actually smart. The chasm between games that fake feelings of competency in players and games that ask us to sit with real discomfort and failure is vast. And it feels like there are increasingly few titles that sit in the middle (which is why I feel ire towards Spelunky is misplaced).
However when I read "This is the game that asks for more than The Gamer is willing to give." I immediately think to when I gave, and sure I got that top % rank and it only cost me a quarter of my waking hours for the few years I played for, and not like my sleepy evening hours, but my fresh morning hours, my schedule was a privilege few have in the first place. And okay, maybe we aren't talking about top level play, just the willingness to get in the ring. But most people casually playing League are not in that learning mode, their approach to queueing for games is closer to that of a gambler than an athlete. And at what rank percentile is winning a game technically easier than the average Spelunky run?
What's the solution here? Just play PvP games? PvP games are great, but I think most people have a PvP phase and then move on is for good reason. Is this piece just a PSA that Mario Kart World is deep and worth mastering?
Thanks for reading and the comment! I would look again and ask yourself if I am really trying to deploy ire against Spelunky or really any game I mention here!
As for your latter questions, I don't think I am really trying to arrive at a solution as much as I am trying to rethink how we talk about games and what the words we use really mean. The piece isn't about an answer I could give you in one sentence. It's about reading, thinking, and learning.
So I hit post and went to bed (classic "I need to get these thought out in order to sleep" race to hit post before my brain turns to goo), and then realised oh I think the point was that we can change how we personally approach games, ran back to my PC hoping I could edit my comment to see you've already read it.
There is an irony in getting so caught up in my own personal experience whilst chiding someone for not considering the position of others. As I love semantic discussions over what difficulty, etc all mean, I think I got set off but the vibe of "this is -real- difficulty" reminded me of something unpleasant I used to do, which was to diminish things I found personally easy with no consideration for how much more others would struggle with it.
I'll look over it when better rested, apologies for acting like the very thing I'm complaining about.