Kirby's Epic Yarn is an interesting game. I can understand it not being everyone's cup of tea, but I feel reactions to it over the years by gamers, and members of the press (fuck you Entertainment Weekly), bring up an interesting point of discussion that applies to the wider gaming culture, and an issue Nintendo in particular has been struggling with...the idea of difficulty, and how to appeal to both casuals and hardcore players.

Kirby's Epic Yarn enjoyed mostly positive reviews when it was released for its unique art-style and soundtrack, yet a common complaint was that it was "too easy", with the fact that it was impossible to die pretty much the biggest point brought up against the game. In some cases, it seemed like that and that alone was a huge turn-off for some, to the point they wouldn't even touch the game. I, however, gave the game a chance, and actually ended up enjoying it quite a bit---it's a very colorful and feel-good game, but beyond that, after playing it, I really don't understand why the lack of death was an issue for so many people. The truth is, Kirby's Epic Yarn isn't an easy game---at least, it shouldn't be for you if you're the type of person who demands a sense of challenge in your video games.

In this post-Demon Souls world, I think a lot of people have become sort of obsessed with the notion that the more you die, the more difficult a game is, and thus the more fun it is, which I find to be a really weird notion. For example, which game would you say is more difficult---Mario 3D World, or Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze? I think everyone would agree it's the latter, as do I. However, my death count in 3D World is much higher than Tropical Freeze. Tropical Freeze is harder, but for me I find myself much more skilled in controlling Donkey Kong than Mario, and thus I am able to catch myself from making mistakes far more easier than if I miss a jump in 3D World. Don't get me wrong, I think using the amount of deaths you incur (and deaths that feel fair, more or less, and not the result of glitches or bad controls) is a good measurement to judge difficulty and how much you'll enjoy the game, but only if the game uses death in the first place. For a game like Epic Yarn which removes the possibility of death, I think judging the game's difficulty based on a mechanic that isn't present in the first place makes no sense. Calling Epic Yarn an easy game because it's impossible to die is, in my mind, equivalent to calling Mario Kart an easy game because you can't die in it.

Kirby's Epic Yarn by no means is a casual game, in my opinion, and actually avoids a lot of pitfalls that other Nintendo games fall prey to. There's very little hand-holding---you're shown the controls in the first level through cute non-intrusive visual aids, but the game does not stop to tell you how to do thing, you actually get to apply it by playing the game. And after that, you're more or less on your own in each level figuring out how to find all the hidden extras. And it ditches the idea of a 'Super Guide'...although the game is incredibly easy to get through due to the lack of death, the game never removed control from the player and plays it for them, you remain in control. Considering how visually interesting Epic Yarn is, it's clear Good Feel designed the game to be easy so that every player could get through to the end and see all it has to offer, but never right-out insulting the player. When you play Mario Galaxy 2 or Donkey Kong Country Returns, you go in expecting a fairly challenging game---and when the Super Guide pops up when you're having difficulty, you feel insulted. But with Epic Yarn, the game doesn't insult you like that. Yes, it's easy to clear the levels, but the game makes that clear. It understand you're playing Epic Yarn expecting to not die, and respects that---it doesn't suddenly treat you differently because you play the game differently.

Epic Yarn's challenge comes in the form of Medals, which are obtained at the end of the level based on how many Beads you collected. Beads aren't infinite---each level has a certain maximum amount, and when you're hit by an enemy, Beads fly out of you like Rings in Sonic the Hedgehog. Although you can scramble to collect them, they'll fall right down through pits, and you'll be unable to retrieve them. In early levels, the game is fairly generous with how many Beads there are---you can mess up a bit, and still score a Gold Medal, but soon the game really ramps up in difficulty, and one hit from an enemy can completely ruin your score and mess you up when it comes to getting the Medal. In some of the last levels in the game, I was an absolute wreck treading carefully around the enemies in fear of losing my Beads, and found myself surprised at how challenging Epic Yarn could be when you actually went for the collectibles. I find it far more difficult than any of the challenges in the other Kirby games, actually, except perhaps Canvas Curse and Mass Attack.

I think the use of Medals are good for Epic Yarn for two reasons:

First, it gives you something solid to aim for when challenging yourself. It's clear through the Medals being awarded to the player that this is a challenge built into the game by the designers, and the levels reach their full potential through it. I think it wouldn't be fair to say, for example, Pokemon is actually challenging because you can do a Nuzlocke Challenge, because that's clearly a self-imposed challenge created by the player, and in no way is the game built around such a challenge nor does it acknowledge your accomplishment when you do so. Epic Yarn provides feedback for the player for challenging themselves, which I think many players need to feel a sense of accomplishment.

Second, the Medals provide a long-term, continuous challenge. It's quite common in Nintendo platformers such as the other Kirby games, Mario, and Donkey Kong, to fill each level with three or so collectible items, to increase the replayability of each level. But often, this just means keeping your eye out for that item, figuring out how to collect it, and then grabbing it. Once you've gotten it, that's pretty much it, you've got the item, and never have to worry about it again. And if you miss the item, you usually don't look forward to replaying the level---you just want to get back to the part where the item is and grab it. But in Epic Yarn, going for the Medals is a challenge that persists through the entire level, it's not a one off deal. You need to find Beads, collect Beads, and then keep them safe. When you replay the levels to get the Medals, you don't just go "oh, I just need to go here", you need to memorize where everything is, the placement of the enemies to avoid them, and focus on dodging hazards throughout the level. This is actual replayability. To be fair, Epic Yarn has the one-off collectibles as well, but the Medals are something the other games lack---there's no corresponding level-wide challenge in Kirby's Triple Deluxe or Mario 3D World, and Donkey Kong Country Returns has the Time Attack, but that's not presented to the player till after they've already beaten everything else, whereas Epic Yarn allows the player to go for the meatier challenge from the get-go.

In a way, I feel like Epic Yarn is comparable to the Wonderful 101...in the Wonderful 101, you can die, and the game is obviously more complex than Epic Yarn is, but often death in the Wonderful 101 is a slap on the wrist. You're pretty much dumped right back where you left off (I believe the Bosses don't even heal from the damage you inflicted), and allowed to continue with no real penalty when it comes to getting through the game. Although Wonderful 101 is certainly more difficult to get through than Epic Yarn, nevertheless anyone can do it simply through attrition. If you want to play the Wonderful 101 for the story, you're free to do so without really needing to learn all the various intricacies. But like Epic Yarn, going for the medals requires much more skill and knowledge of the levels. If you took away the chance of death from Wonderful 101, and getting hit just resulted in losing money as well as your score being negatively effected, I'd argue you'd still have an equally great game, and one that's challenging to boot. Actually, I'd argue perhaps removing death might even make the game a bit better, since dying in the Wonderful 101 felt more frustrating to me than fun, and the score was a bigger impetus for me when it came to the area I wanted to improve in rather than simply surviving.

Epic Yarn in my opinion is one of a few games that I think have nailed a great difficulty scheme that appeals to both casual and hardcore, without offending either. The World Ends With You and, what probably worked off of it, Kid Icarus Uprising are two other games I feel are in the same boat, offering an interesting take on difficulty that eschews the usual Easy/Normal/Hard dichotomy. All three of the games are fairly easy to complete for anyone, but how you complete it depends on what you want out of the game. Good Feel seems to understand difficulty better than a lot of developers, as Wario Land Shake-It also had a similar style based around an interesting scoring system that rewarded players without simply relying on death (although death was present), and I for one am looking forward to Yoshi's Wooly World and will not be upset if that game ditches the concept of death as well.

I don't think death needs to be removed from every game, of course. But I think that in a more diverse gaming ecosystem, games belonging to genres that almost universally feature 'death' can exist, and shouldn't be written off because they can't be pigeonholed by a mechanic that's only necessary because some gamers and developers aren't imaginative enough to think of difficulty beyond life or death.

I love this game. It's so pretty and has an awesome vibe. Everything from the OST to the level design it's perfect. Nicest entry in the series

Watch Da Birdie said:

In this post-Demon Souls world, I think a lot of people have become sort of obsessed with the notion that the more you die, the more difficult a game is, and thus the more fun it is, which I find to be a really weird notion.

Click to expand...

This needs to be highlighted greatly. It is an overly simplistic way that some people think that difficulty is and that all games needs to match some other game's difficulty.

As for what you said about Epic Yarn, I agree. It had the right balance in difficulty from trying to get all of the medals as well as the collectibles. I feel confident in Good Feel's level design.

Though I'm glad they aren't using the same exact mechanics aren't seemingly used in Woolly World. Wouldn't want it to be Epic Yarn with Yoshi's Island gameplay mixed in. Though I'm curious as to what the beads are going to be used for.

I haven't played Epic Yarn, but I definitely agree with your point.

A game can be difficult regardless of the way it punishes you for failing a task. Actually, I wish more games tried to be different. In many cases dying and repeating the level doesn't really add much to the experience.

After we both posted similar thoughts about this on that thread earlier today or last night, I am psyched to sit down and read this post since I know we both love the game.

(The OST too is just awesomely unique in its piano-based tunes.)

I enjoy it a lot because it instantly captures the imagination of my younger cousin and houseguests. It's the only game where I can co-op with them.

Agree with the OP..Kirby Epic Yarn is my favorite Kirby game actually and is not an easy game as OP explained ut but many people just keep saying : you cant die so its easy. Try to collect all the stars and secret is challenging.

I loved Epic Yarn. Simply one of the most charming games ever made IMO. That soundtrack is so good too.

Best Kirby game on the wii. It's so charming and unique. Return to dreamland was same old same old and wasn't even that good

Watch Da Birdie said:

In this post-Demon Souls world, I think a lot of people have become sort of obsessed with the notion that the more you die, the more difficult a game is, and thus the more fun it is, which I find to be a really weird notion.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. It's such a simplistic notion of difficulty. It completely overlooks the actual reasons for deaths in game. To add an example, I recently completed Ori and the Blind Forest.

That is a game I have a ton of deaths in. Like a lot. But I would be lying if I called the game difficult.

I agree completely. KEY is one of my favorite games for Wii and the difficulty issue was never a problem for me. The later levels definitely did make you carefully plan your moves in order to avoid losing beads. Pitfalls ahoy!

I feel that Epic Yarn deserves way more credit than it gets. It's a great game with fun gameplay and a fantastic soundtrack. I never felt that the lack of deaths in the game ever detracted from the overall experience.

Epic Yarn's "easy" reputation is actually kind of funny considering Kirby games with death are generally even easier than this game.

And honestly, is there anybody who actually enjoys losing and being forced to start at the beginning of a level? All this system does is remove that frustration while translating the concept of health into a bead meter that you have to keep topped up. If you mess up then you can have the option to "die" by restarting the level, but if you don't care about getting 100% then you don't have to worry about it.

Definitely agree. Made me incredibly depressed to see so many copies of Epic Yarn rotting in the bargain bin at the store I worked. It's a great game that deserves much more love.

I don't have much to add that isn't captured in the OP. I feel Epic Yarn is one of the best games of the last decade.

I completely agree, I also feel that this concept of collectibles creating the difficulty is something that Nintendo has done well in all their games. For me at least most Mario games are really easy excluding the bonus levels, if you just go toward the flagpole disregarding the collectible coins or whatever it's pretty hard to die more than a handful of times. I'm the one who gets to choose the difficulty and they pretty much always allow me to do so its just the idea that you can die I guess that people feel add to the difficulty, it's more of an illusion then anything.

According to Nintendo's Takashi Tezuka, he said that Kirby's Epic Yarn's target audience was for kids which is why the difficulty level was low. However, with Yoshi's Wooly World, the difficulty will be higher as the game is aimed at more experienced players similar to Super Mario games.

Having played and observed an untold amount of hours of this with my daughters, I can only remember how excruciatingly boring most of the game is to play due to the total lack of difficulty. However it was perfect for my young children since they rarely grew frustrated with the game. There was some late game content that was mildly challenging, but in general the game's charm wasn't enough motivation for me to ever touch it without my kids playing with me.

I agree.

Trying to 100% this game is Dark Souls level of "holy fucking shit I can't believe this enemy TOUCHED ME"

Getting all of the medals in Epic Yarn wasn't the least bit difficult.

Omega Kirby said:

Best Kirby game on the wii. It's so charming and unique. Return to dreamland was same old same old and wasn't even that good

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. Epic Yarn was okay, Return to Dreamland was a masterpiece.

Camjo-Z said:

And honestly, is there anybody who actually enjoys losing and being forced to start at the beginning of a level?

Click to expand...

Depends on the game. I think structure matters a lot more to players than a game's overall and/or level-specific difficulty. Epic Yarn and Super Meat Boy are both forgiving compared to old arcade games, for better or worse. And this lets each game tell a different kind of story by simply encouraging a particular style of play. I haven't tried it, but it seems like Epic Yarn's challenge is to aim for perfect runs of levels to earn Medals, which isn't the same as clearing a level really quick with a few scratches along the way. Difficulty in a game encouraging speed can be enforced by offering a Game Over state occurring upon the last death allowed; here difficulty comes after witnessing the ground you're traversing, such that you have an idea of the level's geography and must use that for collecting and keeping Beads.

dead souls said:

I couldn't disagree more. Epic Yarn was okay, Return to Dreamland was a masterpiece.

Click to expand...

I don't know, for me Return to Dreamland felt too...safe. Like New Super Mario Brothers, really. Some cool new abilities, but I found the overall layout and style to be a bit plain. Of course, I've always felt the Kirby spin-offs are more aesthetically interesting than the main games.

Triple Deluxe was a step in the right direction though, as it had some really unique settings and the level structure felt a bit better. I consider it better than Return to Dreamland easily.

Kirby's Epic Yarn?? More like Kirby's Epic YAWN!!

Kirby's Adventure on NES is the greatest game of all time, in my humble opinion. If I ever needed to find out if any of you were just pretending to be human, like Kurt Russel in The Thing, I wouldn't do that test with the blood, instead I'd have you guys play Kirby's Adventure and whomever isn't having fun is obviously not human and they get to have fun with the business end of a flamethrower. I love Kirby.

When I finally got a Wii, Kirby's Epic Yarn was the first game I bought for it. I was ready to have a blast with it. But once I saw in the intro that you couldn't even take your enemy's abilities, I knew something was very wrong. I was still willing to give the game a chance but sure enough I found out that it had about as much difficulty as a coloring book.

No hand holding?? Really? Every Wii-mote gimmick had an on screen tutorial no matter how often you repeated their use for the first half of the game.

It also doesn't help that Kirby's voice acting was done by a Japanese Schoolgirl who just discovered her bean.

The boss battles were worth it though. Unfortunately, because of that, I tolerated the game just so I could get to the boss battles. I didn't really give a damn about anything that happened in between, and that's when I realized that I couldn't make any more excuses for myself- I was playing a bad game.

Because there's no risk of death, every level just feels like just a puzzle. It's okay, some people are into that. A lot of point and click games are like this and they have plenty of fans. But I'm not into that, nor do I play Kirby games for that sort of experience.

Think about the roots of gaming, like card games, part of the thrill is the thought that with your next action you "could lose it all." It's thrilling and we become "skilled" when we understand how to weigh the risks so that the odds are in our favor. The victories in completing a stage in Kirby's Epic Yarn seemed hollow because I just had to find the right solution, I didn't have anything on the line.

A good example of all of this is Ico vs. Shadow of the Collosus. Ico was a decent game and had plenty of moments where you're given a puzzle and nothing was on the line, you just had to find the right solution. You could put down your controller and watch a movie, come back and your game is still there waiting for you to solve the puzzle, there's no risk of defeat. I enjoyed the game because those moments were also balanced by other times where you had to defeat enemies and there was a real possibility of defeat. In Shadow of the Colossus on the other hand, each boss was a puzzle and you had everything on the line whenever you were in their presence. Without a doubt is was a better game and possibly one of the best games of all time. When you were trying to figure out a boss' weakness, the game had immediacy and you knew that if you didn't get it right, you could lose whatever progress you had made.

Kirby's Epic Yarn is not a terrible game, but it's not a good game either. I've played better games and I've played worse. I'm not a fan and I'm sure the lack of difficulty is the reason why. I agree with reviewers who likened the game to a graphic novel adventure. But just because you're completing the story and playing it as the designer intended, that doesn't make it a good game.

Speaking of which. I though I heard that it didn't start development as a Kirby game. Is that right?

This is one of my favorite games on the Wii. The visuals and music match perfectly with each other. And I think the controls of this game are sorely overlooked. Any game that lets me dash, jump, turn around and let me maintain the dash is aces for me.

NoFaceNico said:

Speaking of which. I though I heard that it didn't start development as a Kirby game. Is that right?

Click to expand...

Originally the game was going to focus on the Co-Op character Prince Fluff.

Getting 100% in Epic Yarn was a good challenge as while you didn't die you did lose a TON of gems.

Easily one of the top Kirby games in the franchise and I would put as one of the harder games.

With Kirby games the challenge has always been to 100% it not to beat it, as they are generally REALLY easy to beat.

While I am glad you enjoyed the game, your defense doesn't hold up really well. The game was super easy, even if you went for all the medals. But not all players are going to try and 100% every game. There are other games, like you mentioned, that have death and still have medals. Or have another score system. Taking away a component doesn't suddenly make it a crazy new way to balance difficulty. Games typically have a win or lose outcome, which is part of the fun. Trying to win. Whether it is chess, basketball, or Kirby. But with Epic Yarn you can't lose, you just keep on pushing through the level. There isn't any real risk in anything you do. Sure you can lose some gems, but even then it isn't hard to save enough gems to get all the medals. It was just a super easy game.

That doesn't mean it is a bad game, it just means that it isn't for everyone. That's fine. Not being able to die isn't suddenly going to make both casual and hardcore games walk hand in hand as there is a game that they can finally enjoy together. Because there are already countless games that do that. In fact, Nintendo already has a huge stable of games that appeal to both. Not being able to die in Bloodborne isn't suddenly going to make it have mass appeal. But just as the intense levels of difficulty in all the games in the Bloodborne line can be a deterrent, the easiness of Kirby's Epic Yarn will do the same.

Watch Da Birdie said:

Epic Yarn in my opinion is one of a few games that I think have nailed a great difficulty scheme that appeals to both casual and hardcore, without offending either.

Click to expand...

Expect that it clearly didn't, or else you wouldn't need to be making a thread titled "In Defense of Kirby's Epic Yarn: The Relationship Between Death and Difficulty".

This is the game I'm playing at the moment (huge backlog) and it rocks. I'm at 85% complete and going for 100%. I'm a 90s SNES gamer at heart and this game is the modern interpretation of that. Such a joy to play. I missed out on all the previous Kirby games like ever, so that makes me sad now! Also, probably looking forward to the Yoshi game in the same style when I get a Wii U.

That is the best OP I have ever read

I agree with the sentiment OP, but I kind of agree with NoFaceNico. Losing progress is a brilliant impetus for making [platformers, action games, puzzle games] exciting. The criticism of lack of difficulty in Epic Yarn by a lot of journalists and GAF members I believe is actually a misguided attempt at articulating the issue that there is little reason to play on in Kirby's Epic Yarn.

While I understand your point about the scoring system as an intentional inclusion by the developers to create a sense of difficulty, and that if you try to set your own personal goals the game becomes more fulfilling, I think we live in a time where players and people need to see proof of a games worth fairly quickly (and usually before purchase). So my point is not quite a fault of the developers solely, but a failure to meet the demands of the modern gaming landscape.

A lower ranking is not a valid enough reason to try harder. You lose nothing tangible. I played Metroid Fusion and there's a boss where This boss jumped all about the screen swiftly and was very powerful. At the time I had immense difficulty with the boss. Eventually I realised I could exploit the boss' behaviour. If I jumped just over it and shot after a specific attack, it would jump again in an arc that was exactly the same. I could jump this arc and shoot again, and again, and again - effectively chain-attacking the boss and cheaping out on it until it just died. I found a short, predictable and easily repeated pattern to victory. Played this way, the boss was a piece of cake. I felt no remorse or shame in my cheap tactic, and played on.

Most players will take the path of least resistance if they can without giving a second thought to the intent of the developer or how the game was meant to be experienced. I believe video games benefit greatly from having a clear punishment for a mistake. When something a player has worked for can be lost, there is real and immediate consequence for failing.

The moving force for getting a player on board with a game is a combination of the possibility of failure, combined with an attainable and luring goal. It's sort of the same as hustling in the real world! When this failure is truly tangible, the player is forced to learn the mechanics properly and master them. With this push, using the mechanics becomes exciting and entertaining.

There's no reason to play on in Kirby's Epic Yarn. There's no end goal that is worth continuing for. The complaints at lack of difficulty are trying to say this. A difficult, but fair game comes loaded with its own attainable and desirable end-game: to have beaten a tough challenge! That's reason enough to play on and feel the sense of accomplishment. If you beat Kirby's Yarn (assuming you are a regular gamer and don't give the beads system too much of a thought) you haven't achieved much more that jumping from platform to platform for a fair few hours of your life. Even if you do give credence to the scoring system, it's sort of like following a diet. You really have to attempt to generate an interest within yourself to adhere to the challenge.

While I think a game without deaths in this style could work, Kirby's Epic Yarn really lacked any worthwhile mechanics to take place in its stead. I think deaths are often unnecessary in games - take Super Mario Galaxy for example. Dying serves no purpose. It's a relic in this game, included because it was carried over without question, not because it was a great component. I would like to see more varied approaches to the moving force by developers, and Kirby's Epic Yarn is certainly a step in the right direction, but ultimately I feel it came up short. I could not incite myself to achieve highly, so I became bored. I think a great deal of other players did too, and unfortunately Kirby's Epic Yarn will not be remembered too fondly.

I agree that Epic Yarn is definitely a game the player needs to sort of find fun in it for themselves, but I consider myself a slightly above-average gamer, and I couldn't move on to the next World without grabbing all the Gold Medals. But I agree it's not for everyone, and some people need a bigger push at the beginning. I guess my real issue is I feel a lot of people who wrote off the game because "no death = no buy" don't seem like they even gave it a chance, although I'm sure there are those who did and still didn't find fun in it, which is perfectly fair.

As for the argument that getting the medals is easy, I don't necessarily agree. I mean for the average Gaffer, yes, I think it's doable with some practice and isn't the hardest challenge in the world, but I consider it difficult enough that the average "casual" gamer will probably not be able to do it, but as I said before, what's so great I think about Epic Yarn is that the side most likely to quit after feeling frustrated---the casual---will never be punished for not being able to clear the Medals, they're still be allowed to continue through and see the ending and experience all the levels. I stand by my belief that Good Feel hit upon a great difficulty balance here, and while I understand the criticism that I shouldn't have to defend a system if it's great, I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of games people consider brilliant that go overlooked, and need to be defended here and there.

I think Epic Yarn has two big barriers to it that prevented people from seeing how clever the difficulty balance could be. First, well, it's Kirby. We've had plenty of Kirby spin-offs that ditched the copy mechanic and changed things up, but Epic Yarn was the first that was more or less a regular platformer, and thus removing such a big element of platformers, death, which was still present in the Kirby games despite being seen as easy, I think bothered a lot of people as it was seen as Nintendo diluting an already simply experience. It didn't help this was around the Wii era, and thus casualization of Nintendo was a big topic for a lot of people. Even though the game likely would've bombed without the Kirby I.P. attached to it, I wonder if the unique system would've been more appreciated had it stayed as "Prince Fluff", and thus there would be no strings-attached going into the game expecting how it would play.

Second, I think a lot of people didn't like how childish it looked, and I also wonder if there was a hypothetical game that had a completely different atmosphere, but kept the same basic system (replacing Beads and Medals with something more "cool), that aimed a bit more towards a 'mature' style, would people be more accepting of it?

But I guess that's just "what-ifs". All I can hope for now is that Good Feel reach a balance that's more appealing to the mainstream in Wooly World, perhaps having a bit more push for experience players, while still allowing casual players to play through the game without having to resort to intrusive handicaps like the Super Guide and such.

One of Kirby's three masterpieces (alongside Super Star and Adventure). True to the developer's name, it's amazing how it's by far the best "feel good" game in the series, a quality I've always cherished in the series.

Hiltz said:

According to Nintendo's Takashi Tezuka, he said that Kirby's Epic Yarn's target audience was for kids which is why the difficulty level was low. However, with Yoshi's Wooly World, the difficulty will be higher as the game is aimed at more experienced players similar to Super Mario games.

Click to expand...

Based Tezuka

Incredible game, one of the best in the Kirby series by far. Really interesting that seasoned gamers and noobs can get enjoyment from the same game in different ways. Me and my gf played thru this game from start to finish, and shes barely a gamer. The parts she had trouble with, i would just pick her up and carry her to safety, and continue the stage from there. And yeah, the later levels are NOT easy, regardless of the no death thing.

Among the various recent Kirby games Epic Yarn may not be the most difficult in a sense due to its lack of death yet I found it more engaging than say Triple Deluxe because of how it handled its scoring mechanics in a way that falling down a pit would have me leak glittery stars worth masses of points into the abyss below undoing my previous stage score snooping in one swift blow and that carried more weight than say just losing one of many lives in RTD/TD where you just pick up from roughly the same place anyway.
At the same time not restricting the gold medal to collecting everything meant that even with a mistake you still potentially had the chance to recover, which is to say I think Epic Yarn handled difficulty in a game without actual death about as well as you could do.
Easy enough for anyone to stroll through yet requires a nose for secret hunting and careful play to get the top marks without delving into frustrating situations like missing one red coin in a Yoshi's Island stage leading to that irritating "not quite perfect 99, do it all again".
Basically it hit a sweet spot for me where I could feel relaxed and not fret about each and every collectable while still aiming for the greater goal.

On a tangent a bit, but I think a lot of people also tie your life count to the difficulty and enjoyability of games.

To drum up an example of what I mean, I really don't find Super Mario World or 3 to be significantly harder than the NSMB games, but I do think lives are more abundant in the latter. I see a lot of complaints concerning the fact that NSMB2 is way too easy because of the amount of lives you end up with due to the excess amount of coins. Those lives aren't going to prevent your death and they certainly aren't going to make getting high scores on coin rushes.

MrBadger said:

On a tangent a bit, but I think a lot of people also tie your life count to the difficulty and enjoyability of games.

To drum up an example of what I mean, I really don't find Super Mario World or 3 to be significantly harder than the NSMB games, but I do think lives are more abundant in the latter. I see a lot of complaints concerning the fact that NSMB2 is way too easy because of the amount of lives you end up with due to the excess amount of coins. Those lives aren't going to prevent your death and they certainly aren't going to make getting high scores on coin rushes.

Click to expand...

I tend to think that some of the NSMB games offer a slightly higher level of challenge or at least complexity in some the actual stages/obstacles to overcome compared to say SMW offset slightly by the extra tricks up Mario's sleeve like wall jumps and triple jumps to help get you out of tight spots and bypass some platforms if you're capable of using them effectively.
Which is to say arguably more challenging level design than SMW in particular but sometimes easier to avert actually dying in said stages while a flub in SMW can just have me done there and then.
Comparing the difficulty isn't quite so cut and dry.

This might seem bizarrely tangental, but I swear it's related.

I often wonder if FFXIII would have been less criticized for linearity if it didn't have a minimap. Really.

I was not under the impression anyone disliked Kirby's Epic Yarn.

Every level has unique assets that are never re-used. The soundtrack is amazing. The gameplay elements are whimsical. The game is just fun, especially in co-op. The story and premise are charming, as is the narration. the game is internally consistent and chock full of fun things to explore based on that consistency.

Of course it's not difficult to beat. It's for children. Not every game is made for you.

You're right in that the game is very difficult if you go for the gold medal. But if you don't, you can literally walk through almost every level. I always tried to get gold, but if I didn't, I didn't replay the level, I just went on to the next one.

At some point -- I think in world five or six -- I just lost interest and gave up.

The game has a unique presentation, but it's boring. I think Rayman Origins/Legends have the best difficulty curve of any recent platformers (with multiple check points spread throughout each level). They're difficult without using traditional lives and game overs.

The upset about no deaths in game reminds me of the system in the Prince of Persia reboot.

Would you guys agree that's similar or different? I'm curious.

Incredibly fun game that I have only fond memories of.

I wrote a review on my blog a couple years back. I loved it in the same way you did, OP. Just in that secret shame sort of way.

Link

Hyperfludd said:

The upset about no deaths in game reminds me of the system in the Prince of Persia reboot.

Would you guys agree that's similar or different? I'm curious.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, there is literally no penalty in Prince of Persia for messing up other than being thrown back a few feet. If you're going for 100% in Epic Yarn, you do have to play with a large level of skill. Especially towards the end.

Ants said:

I was not under the impression anyone disliked Kirby's Epic Yarn.

Every level has unique assets that are never re-used. The soundtrack is amazing. The gameplay elements are whimsical. The game is just fun, especially in co-op. The story and premise are charming, as is the narration. the game is internally consistent and chock full of fun things to explore based on that consistency.

Of course it's not difficult to beat. It's for children. Not every game is made for you.

Click to expand...

There's definitely a crowd of people who say "this game sucks, you can't even die!"

Does the Irate Gamer's opinion count?

When I saw people saying the game was too easy, I thought I sucked a lot more in platformers than I had though up until that point, as collecting the gold medals can be a bit tricky later into the game.

Thankfully, it seems people were just misjudging difficulty with death counter =]

I feel the same way as ugly. Great response by him to an equally great OP.

The reason why challenge can add so much to a gameplay experience is the sheer allure of unlocking the next part of the journey. Earning that next part via a fair challenge is usually a large part of the fun.

The thing is, there -is- room for easy games. I love super hard games, and I also love Kirby, they're just different approaches. Epic Yarn was very enjoyable, I loved my time with it.

I haven't played Kirby's Epic yarn, but Kirby games have always been fairly easy, right? I think that's great, it's thematically appropriate for Kirby's Epic Yarn to be easy, because it presents its world in a welcoming and friendly way towards to player. Souls games do the exact opposite to justify their difficulty, which is also great.

Nintendo more recently has taken a design idea which puts the content required to complete the game as something not too hard to overcome, most players can get from the beginning to the end with little trouble if they don't bother with optional content. The optional content is where the challenge comes from and this is true for a lot of their more recent platformers, at least the one's I've played. For the kind of games Nintendo wish to create I think this is a great attitude to game design. Young players who may not be as skilled, but still want to finish the game can do just that and reach what should be a satisfying conclusion for them. More skilled players can go to take on the optional content, for a greater challenge and hopefully they can get more fulfillment from doing so. It's great, Nintendo can appeal to new less skilled or younger players and their older established audience at the same time.

This is something I've noticed since Super Mario Galaxy and I like it a lot. Like I said, I've never played Epic Yarn, but I think it's something that can be said about lot of recent Nintendo platformers.

Speaking of Yoshi, I always thought Yoshi's Story was pretty interesting in a similar way...

It had death---and in fact going back to it recently, I found it to be a bit hard due to how clunky the controls have aged, especially in the Lava World, but the "Eat 30 Fruits to win!" was a unique concept since it allowed players to take things in stride, either choosing to explore the level, or just eat the first fruit they see.

Of course, unlike Epic Yarn I think they screwed things up---for casual players who just ate the first fruit they saw, they'd probably finish the level before getting any Hearts, and thus wouldn't be able to choose different levels and would get frustrated that many levels they'd never visit. Furthermore, I think not having a set end to a level also bothers both casuals and hardcore gamers...the former might get annoyed when the usual element of going to the right just wraps-around back to the beginning, and the latter probably doesn't want to be forced to play the same easy level over-and-over just go see the rest of the game. Epic Yarn avoids this by still adhering to the usual linearity of a game, while adding in the Medal element to entice re-playability and exploration, but doesn't force you to collect anything if you don't want to at the moment and just want to see the rest of the game.

Also, Yoshi's Story challenge is also very self-imposed based on its scoring system, but I also think it faulted a bit in being a bit unintuitive (seriously as a kid I never exactly understood nor cared about all the scoring elements), whereas Kirby always displays on the top of the screen where you stand in terms of your ranking, and thus it was a simpler matter in understanding what you needed to do to score well. I mean, from Wikipedia this is how long the scoring section is...

Wiki said:

Scoring points[edit]
The player's score in the game is termed Yoshi's Mood (not to be confused with the Smile Meter), and can be viewed on the pause screen as a number associated with a heart symbol.[3] When Yoshi performs an action that affects his mood, this will be indicated by a speech bubble above his head. Depending on the action, the speech bubble may show a number of red hearts, indicating the number of points rewarded (with exception of hollow hearts, which only replenish the Smile Meter). When the player starts a new game, whether in Story Mode or Trial Mode, Yoshi's Mood will always be a minimum of 600 points, corresponding to 100 points for each of the six Yoshis in the group. If a Yoshi is lost, Yoshi's Mood will also be decreased by 100 points.
As the player goes about the courses, points are yielded from eating fruit and defeating enemies. However, the amount of points a certain action will yield, will also depend on the Yoshi in play. For starters, each Yoshi has their own preferred Favourite Fruit, which will yield 3 points per piece. Remaining fruit will then yield 1 point per piece, with exception of the Lucky Fruit, which will always yield 8 points per piece. Melons, on the other hand, are favoured by all the Yoshis, and will yield 3 points per piece. Moreover, each melon collected will yield an additional 100 points, making it the most valuable fruit in the game.[3] The Yoshis also have different preferences when it comes to enemies. For instance, the light blue Yoshi will be in favour of swallowing blue Shy Guys, which in turn will yield 3 points, while any other color variation of the enemy will only yield 1 point.[4]
The player can also score bigger points by achieving multiplier bonuses. For instance, Yoshi will rather prefer to defeat his enemies by stomping or throwing eggs at them, which in turn will multiply the yielded score. In addition, the multiplier bonus can be further increased by defeating several enemies at once. For instance, if pink or red Yoshi hits two red Shy Guys in a row, either with an egg or by stomping them, the first Shy Guy will yield 3 points ×2, while the second Shy Guy will yield 3 points ×4. If the chain is longer, the third hit will multiply by ×8, while additional hits will summit at ×16.[3]
Multiplier bonuses can also be applied to fruit. By eating two or more fruit of one kind in a row, the point(s) yielded per piece will be multiplied by the number of times the piece has been eaten in a row. For instance, when Yoshi eats 10 Lucky Fruit in a row, the 10th fruit will yield a score of 8 points ×10, making a total score of 80 points for the piece.
Aside from bonuses, Poochy the dog will frequently be of assistance to the player, giving hints about secrets and hot spots along the courses. By sniffing out the right spots and performing a ground pound, Yoshi may uncover hidden melons and coins that will aid in boosting the player's score.[4] Poochy may also signify patterns that the player ought to look for across the course, or within a specific area.

Click to expand...

I think going with Medals or Trophies, which are easier for a player to feel they did good, is pretty much always preferable than going with a simple number which a player might not understand how good that is in relation to everything else. Bronze, Silver, Gold, everyone pretty much knows what that means. Yoshi's Story though is enjoyed by quite a few people who like the surprising depth in its system, personally I didn't care too much for the scoring system but loved the game's atmosphere, but I think it didn't do a good job as Epic Yarn did in creating a system that was simpler and accessible.

Of course, I think Yoshi Story had a lot of potential, and I would've loved to see it expanded on more rather than---to put it bluntly---getting two straight up rehashes of Yoshi Island, solid as I felt they were at a base level, which didn't really have anything to add to a game most people consider perfect.