There's a pretty significant chance this was the first video game I ever played, at a whopping 2 years old. And it took me until today, twenty years later, to beat every level without cheats. I don't think I've ever finished a harder game.
Here's a hot take: more games released nowadays should have the balls to be this brutally hard. It's a leap of faith, because you have to trust that the game is engaging enough at its core to keep players pushing through even the most punishing sections. And honestly, it works here most of the time. Frogger (1981) is a fun game, and SCE Cambridge was at least smart enough to recognize that its core tile-based gameplay should stay intact even in a modern setting. Compare this to Pac-Man World, which has pretty much nothing to do with the arcade game, and gets stuck in generic 3D platformer mode as a result. The foundation is strong here, and that's how it gets away with the difficulty.
Truthfully, I don't think the game is unfair in the way it's so often accused of. It's completely unforgiving, requiring pattern recognition on a level you will never ever see in a modern AAA game, but it's rarely unfair. Be honest: would the game be nearly as memorable if it wasn't so hard? No, because then it would just become Frogger Beyond, or Temple of the Frog, or whatever other reboot that nobody talks about. It's addictive and punishing, but rewarding, and that's how I was perfectly okay throwing 15 hours of my time at it.
Having said all that, this game is wildly imperfect, as anyone who's played it for any significant amount of time could tell you. The presentation is rough, especially when compared to Swampy's Revenge, and punches well below the weight of the PS1 hardware. The emphasis on arcade-style score attacks makes zero sense here, as it's enough of a challenge just getting through the levels in one piece. And on the subject of the difficulty, I'll admit I have a very hard time believing that an entire QA team was able to beat Big Boulder Alley with just three lives.
But I did, and that was a glorious feeling, and that counts for something.
Here's a hot take: more games released nowadays should have the balls to be this brutally hard. It's a leap of faith, because you have to trust that the game is engaging enough at its core to keep players pushing through even the most punishing sections. And honestly, it works here most of the time. Frogger (1981) is a fun game, and SCE Cambridge was at least smart enough to recognize that its core tile-based gameplay should stay intact even in a modern setting. Compare this to Pac-Man World, which has pretty much nothing to do with the arcade game, and gets stuck in generic 3D platformer mode as a result. The foundation is strong here, and that's how it gets away with the difficulty.
Truthfully, I don't think the game is unfair in the way it's so often accused of. It's completely unforgiving, requiring pattern recognition on a level you will never ever see in a modern AAA game, but it's rarely unfair. Be honest: would the game be nearly as memorable if it wasn't so hard? No, because then it would just become Frogger Beyond, or Temple of the Frog, or whatever other reboot that nobody talks about. It's addictive and punishing, but rewarding, and that's how I was perfectly okay throwing 15 hours of my time at it.
Having said all that, this game is wildly imperfect, as anyone who's played it for any significant amount of time could tell you. The presentation is rough, especially when compared to Swampy's Revenge, and punches well below the weight of the PS1 hardware. The emphasis on arcade-style score attacks makes zero sense here, as it's enough of a challenge just getting through the levels in one piece. And on the subject of the difficulty, I'll admit I have a very hard time believing that an entire QA team was able to beat Big Boulder Alley with just three lives.
But I did, and that was a glorious feeling, and that counts for something.