Games that are better on easy

Vhite

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,980
0
0
Only game I can think of is Carmageddon, time limit is basicly gone, repair is cheap but enemies are not that much weaker (yet they are still rather weak even on hardest difficulty).
 

Bvenged

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,203
0
0
I always play games on normal or hard before jacking it up to the hardest, but I would have to say most Bethesda games (More-so TES than Fallout) and other RPG's are much more fun on easier/easiest difficulties. No need to reload so often ruining the immersion now, is there?

Just Cause 2 is another good one to play on the easiest difficulty. Nothing like pulling off something absolutely awesome, only to be killed before you can finish it up. Frustrating as hell.
 

newdarkcloud

New member
Aug 2, 2010
452
0
0
The definitive way to play Alpha Protocol is on Easy. Anything else and the frustration simply isn't worth it.

Aside from that, I played the Fallout 1 and 2 on easy. It beats save scumming.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,416
3,394
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Red Faction Guerrilla, mostly because the most fun thing to do in it is destroy buildings and having guards able to kill you gets in the way of that.

Nothing like driving a dump truck though an enemy base.
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
Souleks said:
GundamSentinel said:
Cheesepower5 said:
Mount & Blade. It's still ridiculously hard to make a ballsy move on like 30% difficulty.
Mount & Blade is a game that'll be on lowest difficulty forever for me. The game is hard enough as it is. I'd much rather go on a blind charge through enemy lines than cower behind my shield for most of a battle.
I am pretty much the same way, I like to be the hero that charges through the enemy shield line and takes out 30+ guys.
I find that if you play it on harder difficulties that game just takes forever to get somewhere because your constantly getting defeated or losing large portions of your army.
As far as singleplayer goes I just can't find it in myself to take full damage, but I'm perfectly happy with manual blocking and swinging after a few multiplayer sessions.
 

NoOne852

The Friendly Neighborhood Nobody
Sep 12, 2011
843
0
0
I would say Left 2 Dead (both the first and second) when I just want to mess around with a couple friends. There is still a challenge but nothing that requires to really get into the game.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Woodsey said:
inFamous 1 and 2, so you feel like you actually have superpowers. Crysis for a similar reason. It always bothers me when a game gives you abilities and then just ramps up enemies to match you anyway - give me larger waves of weaker chaps, so it's still a challenge but I feel like I'm blasting through them.
agreed

one example I can think of is kingdom hearts 2, your in a random valley between a couple mountains and there are just near endless heartless flying at you (later on in the game when your beefed up) and you can just tear them to shreds, definitely alot of fun :)

OT: depends on the game and how easy is "easy", but I would say nearly every game? on harder modes the game usually either A) everything becomes a meat shield, so that is just nonsensical length i'm adding for no reason to the game, or B) the game is literally cheating and applying things that aren't possible in the slightest for me to do/counter.

when it does those, I tend to say fuck that shit, and crank it down a notch.

Although, i'm sure i'll get quoted by a hardcore snob and tell me i'm "doing it wrong, that shit is easy, did it the first time while multitasking"
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
GundamSentinel said:
Cheesepower5 said:
Mount & Blade. It's still ridiculously hard to make a ballsy move on like 30% difficulty.
Mount & Blade is a game that'll be on lowest difficulty forever for me. The game is hard enough as it is. I'd much rather go on a blind charge through enemy lines than cower behind my shield for most of a battle.
agreed, as much as I love the damn game, when you have armies of 500 vs 600 (have mercy on you if one is in a fuckin fort and you have to push the siege tower up there) it just takes bloody FOREVER, I wish you could scrap down a couple of those zeroes and make it 5 v 6 or 50 v 60...just too much damn time to decide one battle at one fort, not to mention the computer has so many bloody men in the first place, it takes forever to raise 500 men by yourself, let alone the thousands more you need to hold an empire.

(as you can probably tell, i've become frustrated with my 40+ hour playthrough and have decided to use cheats to move the game along at a pace that i'll finish before I grow and die of old age.)
 

Vuliev

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
573
0
21
GundamSentinel said:
Same here. Gods know I tried, but I just got so annoyed picking my squadmates off of the floor. It's already a game with nonsensically long corridors and annoying elevator rides, so spending way more time than I want on combat was a no-no. ME2 and 3 I can finish on Insanity without a hitch, but the first game makes me pull out my hair sometimes.
Wait wait wait wait, you thought that ME1 Insanity was more difficult that ME2/3? I mean, opinions and all that respectful stuff, but ME1 has really easily broken combat and was basically a pushover for me on Insanity. I've only done Vanguard and Sentinel, but my god was it a cakewalk compared to ME2. Just run double Medical Exoskeleton in everyone's armor (yours included), max pistols and Commando/(whatever the offense focused Sentinel path was), and enjoy 100% Marksman uptime on your Spectre pistol with double scram rail and tungsten/shredder ammo. Maybe throw in polonium rounds if krogan are an issue.

ME2, though...yeesh. Getting through the pre-Horizon missions is a nightmare for my Vanguard and a slog for my Sentinel, especially Mordin's and Garrus'.


OT: Most RTS games. More or less can't be arsed to bother actually developing the mechanical skill necessary to play the game properly, and I usually just end up throwing a bunch of cheats on and plowing through everything in my path. :p
 

Donnie Restad

New member
Oct 9, 2011
111
0
0
I think the Elder Scrolls games qualify nicely for this category. The games are about exploration and massive scale. They're about interacting with the world and growing your own character.

But the combat is just about swinging your sword as many times as you can before your health bar drops too low. It doesn't mix well with me.
 

Idlemessiah

Zombie Steve Irwin
Feb 22, 2009
1,050
0
0
I remember back when me and my mate were playing co-op Gears of War on Hardcore, slaving away through horde, getting killed lots, and one day we decided to put it on easy for a giggle. And tearing through everything with just melee was pure fucking fun.
 

realist1990

New member
Nov 18, 2011
80
0
0
Best of the 3 said:
It depends what I want from my games. If I want a story then I'll go straight to the easiest settings. If I want a challenge, then I crank it up. Games like Half life, Metro, Minecraft, Warcraft 3 and Skyrim for examples, I set the difficulty down low so I can enjoy the experience. Yet when I want to challenge myself I may crank them up, see just how much skill I have to carry me through the game.
Ninja'd

Especially for Minecraft..when i start out I put it on survival eke out a living, and once I have my first hide spot and one mine done I turn it to peaceful, do my best to mine every piece of ore and build a fortress. Then back to survival and defend my base..

In skyrim I lowered the difficulty while doing quests to enjoy the story but while roaming/dungeon clearing I'd put up the difficulty in order to introduce some more tension and thus intrest in the game
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
I find that games that want to focus on story a lot, tend to be more fun on easier settings. I had this with the mass effect games for one. Probably also with the TES games when I followed the story closely. The Witcher 2 as well. Just games in general that don't make their main selling point the combat like FPS tend to do.

That being said, I'm a casual gamer. Like a real one. I put plenty of hours into games, but play 3/4 of the time just for the enjoyment. Not for the challenge or anything like that. So it might be different for 'hardcore' gamers that do like a challenge. Or the 'popular/working person' gamers (as I like to call them) that maybe play 1~2 hours a day tops.
 

Reaper195

New member
Jul 5, 2009
2,055
0
0
I fucking hate hard games. I play them entirely for the entertainment value and the story. Yes, putting Halo on Legendary makes it more challenging. More so that after spending an hour on one section and the next cutscene happens, I can barely remember what happened earlier, since it was all an angry red blur.

Mass Effect 3. ME3 perfected the combat for the series, and playing that on Easy/Narrative as a Vanguard makes you feel like A BIOTIC GOD! (Assuming you only use one weapon that doesn't rape your power cool-down time). There is nothing more satisfying than biotic charging into a horde of enemies, Nova twice with that one perk, heavy melee someone (Which is a biotic punch) and then biotic charge into the next group of hapless Reaper drones. On easy, Shepard should be able to take out a Reaper armada by herself.

Also, all FPSs since I'm terr'ble at those.
 

4173

New member
Oct 30, 2010
1,020
0
0
Baldur's Gates (PC). More latitude to play the class one wants and with the companion(s) one prefers. Less time spent in the ambushed while resting meat-grinder.
 

mysecondlife

New member
Feb 24, 2011
2,142
0
0
Metal Gear Solid series

Although the games are fun, the controls (and stories) are not new-comer friendly.
 

doomspore98

New member
May 24, 2011
374
0
0
Any run and gun game involving hoards. To me, mowing down waves of cannon fodder enemies is less fun if I'm dying a whole bunch.