|
|
Post by spidershinobi on Apr 16, 2017 20:48:31 GMT
Difficulty settings have been a thing since the early years of video games. The assumption that there's an Easy and a Hard difficulty level ocasionally transcends games, even. But what are your thoughts on difficulty settings? Are they important for you, or are they unrelated to your playing habits?
• Now I'm adding a hard mode to this topic: each time you post, write below your message 1 example of a well implemented difficulty, or one of a badly implemented one, or an odd ball situation involving this subject.
For me, I noticed that starting with the N64 generation finding good games became much harder. At least in my head what seemed to be a constant demand to have games become easier and easier - making sure the player never sees the "Game Over" screen - made companies force game design towards forgiving and hand-holding scenarios to pit the player against. I think this "curse" was lifted in the last generation because games considered hard finally began moving copies off the shelves again, and a few studios here and there acknowledged that their fanbase may be interested in facing challenges, but it's not like new games won't keep being ruined due to poor game design. So, what are your experiences?
As for examples of the examples you guys could give me:
Tales of Xillia: from Easy to Unknown there are 5 difficulty levels here (iirc), and while they weren't designed with that "hardcore" mentality, they do mean to serve that guy who absolutely sucks at everything and just wants to enjoy the story up to the guy who really gets how the game works and is bringing in bonuses from a previous playthrough; and the best part is that everyone between those levels of skill can pick something close to their needs.
Wario World: It's a beat'em up with light exploration elements and very light puzzle moments. The problem? Wario faces very light opposition, most enemies can't throw a punch before getting sent to the next dimension, and those that do manage to hit the man leave him in a long, flashing, "hit cooldown" state that lets the player ignore every potential threat. To make it worse, you can upgrade Wario's health.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827 
|
Post by Balder on Apr 16, 2017 23:56:59 GMT
We had a pretty similar thread about this a while ago. I'm not saying we can discuss it again, but I'm just stating it.
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,460
|
Post by stratogustav on Apr 17, 2017 6:53:06 GMT
The thing about difficulty as you said with your examples is that somehow nowadays games manage to meet expectations. At least in the sense that the games I want to be easy are easy and the ones I want to be hard are hard.
For example I like Kirby to be easy and I like Dark Souls to be hard. Although when it comes to games like Bloodborbe, Nioh, or any Souls game, it is not that they are hard per se, they simply require you to make the right decisions when it comes to combat, that keeps your brain awake and functioning as oppose of other games where you can basically day dream and still be fine.
Odly enough games as easy as Kirby can also keep you engage without relying on difficulty. I feel that's the beauty of game design that only the best developers really explore regarding of the difficult they choose for their game.
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,820
|
Post by Cervantes on Apr 17, 2017 19:17:16 GMT
For me, I noticed that starting with the N64 generation finding good games became much harder. At least in my head what seemed to be a constant demand to have games become easier and easier - making sure the player never sees the "Game Over" screen - made companies force game design towards forgiving and hand-holding scenarios to pit the player against. It's annoying because various games started feeling like extended tutorials. The worst case I can think off was Twilight Princess: three hours in, and the game was still explaining what was a rupee to me and telling me what to do at every step. That was the exact moment I abandoned the Zelda series, only coming back after the awesome and much more open A link between worlds. Man, I sure am glad that games like Ninja Gaiden and Demon/Dark Souls kept the ball rolling for hard games, and as much as I hate a lot of games nowadays pitching themselves as "similar to Dark Souls" (when they're nothing like it), I'm glad DS was such a relevant influence over the last few years. On the FPS front, developers have been rediscovering the fun behind 90s shooters, so we are getting less COD look-alikes and more things like DOOM, the newest Wolfenstein, Shadow Warrior etc. The problem with a drive to develop only easy games is that they don't just affect how fast the character/the enemies die, they also affect level design (no exploration so the player never feels lost), pauses to the action for constant tutorial messages, repetition (so the developers are sure the player learned how to hit the trigger or jump or something) and, worst of all, padding (as you never die, the game would be really short without any useless crap). That aside, stratogustav made a very good point: some games are supposed to be easy and there's no problem with that. Now let's think of a few examples: Ninja Gaiden Black: Usually a hard mode only means that all the enemies will become bullet sponges and the computer will be a cheating bastard. NGB took a very different approach, the one I like the best: the hard mode barely changes anything about the enemies' stats; what it really does is changing enemies' locations and including new creatures and bosses (and remixing the existing bosses, giving them new attacks and mooks). That's great because you actually experience new things if you dare to tackle on the hard mode, it's not just the same game anymore; because of that, it's worth to play the game at least twice. It's a similar approach taken by the very first Legend of Zelda, which also had a "remixed" second quest (Ocarina of Time had that in the form of the Master Quest, which was sadly not included in the original game). God Hand: I still love the game very much, but for first-time players the difficulty is all screwed up. It uses one of those dynamic-difficulty systems; the problem is that it changes its own difficulty too fast. So, as soon as you start dodging a few attacks (just a few), the enemies subtly become ultra fast and powerful. I never got the impression that I was improving at the game, as every time I did I immediately died. I had to let the enemies hit me every now and then just so I could keep the difficulty at a playable level: you will die faster if you're doing good than bad, which makes zero sense. Of course, getting much better at the game alleviates that, but until that happens the first impression is terrible. |
|
Dan E. Kool
Walking Trash Can Robot
Now With Extra Pulp!
Posts: 3,325
|
Post by Dan E. Kool on Apr 18, 2017 22:26:10 GMT
Like stratogustav said, it's good to have games with different difficulty levels, both depending on genre, but also just on the player's mood or preference. Wait til you get old and your reflexes get wrinkled. Then you'll learn why there's an easy mode. Examples: Well implemented difficulty: Ghouls and Ghosts on Genesis. Famously tough and often cheap - it was an arcade game after all - the home version gives you infinite lives from check points (right? Haven't played in a while, but that's how I remember it). So completing it is just a matter of persistence. But if you manage to master it and can keep the golden suit of armor without taking a hit, you get to see the "real" ending. Poorly implemented difficulty: Jurassic Park on SNES. The worst is when a game isn't even difficult, it's just annoying. When you're spending minutes stuck in a dead end with respawning enemies and you can't figure out where to go... And it's a Jurassic Park game, so who cares. Odd ball: Wario Land II on Game Boy Wario can't die. It's a weird gameplay mechanic that takes some time to get used to, but once you do, it's really neat. An enemy might set Wario on fire, for example. Your instinct is to avoid it or to kill the enemy, but once you let it happen and Wario's running around on fire, you find out that it's the only way to get him to break through the wall in your way. So the challenge isn't in surviving, but in solving the puzzles without any explanation, just through trial and error. Very cool game. |
|
fsfsxii
Space Striker
What to believe...
Posts: 916
|
Post by fsfsxii on Apr 20, 2017 8:57:40 GMT
Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 has the best difficulty balance in the history of games.
On Master Ninja mode and Ultimate Ninja mode, if the enemy grabs you its insta-kill, they also shoot rockets out of nowhere and you enemies are buffed. Also bosses have a lot of unblockable attacks, and in such cases as fighting Elizabet, your only hope of beating her on MN mode is to cheat.
Thats what i call difficulty.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Apr 20, 2017 10:45:21 GMT
Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 has the best difficulty balance in the history of games. On Master Ninja mode and Ultimate Ninja mode, if the enemy grabs you its insta-kill, they also shoot rockets out of nowhere and you enemies are buffed. Also bosses have a lot of unblockable attacks, and in such cases as fighting Elizabet, your only hope of beating her on MN mode is to cheat. Thats what i call difficulty. You just defeated your own point. You should never have to resort to cheating in a game to beat it on the hardest difficulty. If it's unbeatable, then it's unbalanced. |
|
fsfsxii
Space Striker
What to believe...
Posts: 916
|
Post by fsfsxii on Apr 20, 2017 11:02:16 GMT
Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 has the best difficulty balance in the history of games. On Master Ninja mode and Ultimate Ninja mode, if the enemy grabs you its insta-kill, they also shoot rockets out of nowhere and you enemies are buffed. Also bosses have a lot of unblockable attacks, and in such cases as fighting Elizabet, your only hope of beating her on MN mode is to cheat. Thats what i call difficulty. You just defeated your own point. You should never have to resort to cheating in a game to beat it on the hardest difficulty. If it's unbeatable, then it's unbalanced. My sarcasm wasn't in your face, it seems. Cervantes would prolly get it. |
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Apr 20, 2017 11:36:54 GMT
You just defeated your own point. You should never have to resort to cheating in a game to beat it on the hardest difficulty. If it's unbeatable, then it's unbalanced. My sarcasm wasn't in your face, it seems. Cervantes would prolly get it. Ah... that went right past me. But in my defense some people love challenging games. There's a reason bullet hell shooters and Dark Souls exist. |
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,820
|
Post by Cervantes on Apr 20, 2017 11:37:48 GMT
You just defeated your own point. You should never have to resort to cheating in a game to beat it on the hardest difficulty. If it's unbeatable, then it's unbalanced. My sarcasm wasn't in your face, it seems. Cervantes would prolly get it. I did!  |
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,460
|
Post by stratogustav on Apr 20, 2017 14:46:27 GMT
Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 has the best difficulty balance in the history of games. On Master Ninja mode and Ultimate Ninja mode, if the enemy grabs you its insta-kill, they also shoot rockets out of nowhere and you enemies are buffed. Also bosses have a lot of unblockable attacks, and in such cases as fighting Elizabet, your only hope of beating her on MN mode is to cheat. Thats what i call difficulty. Get the plat. I'll probably get Raiden IV at some point. |
|
fsfsxii
Space Striker
What to believe...
Posts: 916
|
Post by fsfsxii on Apr 20, 2017 21:48:28 GMT
Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 has the best difficulty balance in the history of games. On Master Ninja mode and Ultimate Ninja mode, if the enemy grabs you its insta-kill, they also shoot rockets out of nowhere and you enemies are buffed. Also bosses have a lot of unblockable attacks, and in such cases as fighting Elizabet, your only hope of beating her on MN mode is to cheat. Thats what i call difficulty. Get the plat. I'll probably get Raiden IV at some point. I've a few Team Missions to complete, the guy i used to play with is a big jerk so i ditched him. I was looking on gamefaqs and found someone to play with, hopefully i'll be able to get it soon. |
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,820
|
Post by Cervantes on Apr 23, 2017 0:41:01 GMT
Let me add one more game to discuss:
Red Dead Redemption: I have just finished it. It's much harder than your usual open-world; sometimes, three shots are enough to leave you dead, and as Marston controls like shit (he's slow and clumsy), you'll usually be ambushed before you can even take your gun or see where the shots are coming from. Also, GOOD LUCK WITH THOSE COUGARS.
Here's the thing: there's no problem with that in story missions, as you go back to a checkpoint. But when you're just exploring, doing side-missions or looking for some bounties, dying means you're sent to a city miles away from the place you were. Going back takes a long time, it sucks.
Conclusion: open-world games either have to be slightly more lenient than linear games or dying should not send you so far from your last place. I still remember being very annoyed by this while playing GTA San Andreas years ago: the punishment from dying was the boredom of going back to the mission.
|
|
Balder
Supreme Overlord
Trying to cut down the amount of movies I watch
Posts: 6,827
|
Post by Balder on Apr 23, 2017 2:18:52 GMT
Let me add one more game to discuss: Red Dead Redemption: I have just finished it. It's much harder than your usual open-world; sometimes, three shots are enough to leave you dead, and as Marston controls like shit (he's slow and clumsy), you'll usually be ambushed before you can even take your gun or see where the shots are coming from. Also, GOOD LUCK WITH THOSE COUGARS. Here's the thing: there's no problem with that in story missions, as you go back to a checkpoint. But when you're just exploring, doing side-missions or looking for some bounties, dying means you're sent to a city miles away from the place you were. Going back takes a long time, it sucks. Conclusion: open-world games either have to be slightly more lenient than linear games or dying should not send you so far from your last place. I still remember being very annoyed by this while playing GTA San Andreas years ago: the punishment from dying was the boredom of going back to the mission. Pretty much sums up how I feel as well. Such a great game with so many tedious things. |
|
|
|
Post by spidershinobi on Apr 23, 2017 2:47:02 GMT
Dan E. Kool Nice that you mentioned a Wario game. In Wario Land 3 that's exactly the situation, but Wario can't actually die throughout the game (I didn't play the one you talked about, so it may be case as well, I don't know). And now for some discussion, I disagree with what stratogustav said. I tried playing one of SNES Kirby games, and I couldn't get past the first world; the game was too easy for me to feel invested at all even if I was enjoying everything about the aesthetics. Situations like the one in Kirby and even in other beloved games like The Legend of Zelda, as already mentioned here by Cervantes , actually restrict me as much as a super hard game would. Btw, you can play mage in Dark Souls for an "easy mode", so there are tools there for people who can't play as well or don't want to learn as much. That reminds me of watching a Ninja Gaiden Σ video of someone fighting the final boss on Hard, and the guy actually beat the final boss using just about only ninpos (they are considered almost useless for bosses), so that required him buying multiple magic refills and just gearing himself up for a lame-playstyle that I didn't even think was possible before. Now to keep up with my own rule: Catherine (in purple because it's good, but dubious): c'mon, everyone sucks at Catherine, that's why a game with an Easy, Normal and Hard difficulties got a hidden Very Easy difficulty setting via update. The problem? Easy is already too easy, Normal is ok but pushing it, and Hard is so much harder than Normal that it feels like at some point they should have considered a mid-Hard level to bridge the difficulty gap. An interesting case of a game that is great for losers and destroyers, but kind of misses the mark for those in between. Dr. Mario 64: fun story mode with enough challenge, and once you beat it you have access to multiple opponents of enough difficulty levels to throw that player VS AI party, not to mention the existence of other modes outside of versus to go crazy in.
|
|
