No, not really, if it's just fair difficulty.
But if the difficulty is caused by bad design, then it kind of does.
But if the difficulty is caused by bad design, then it kind of does.
Poll: Does difficulty turn you off from a game?
- Thread starter Ironbat92
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes
I was able to beat some of the more challenging titles growing up (Ninja Gaiden Trilogy on NES for example) but those were days when a single game would have to last you about 6 months at a time.
These days I consider forced challenge to be the antithesis of fun.
I only play games on their upper difficulties when the game has earned it through excellent game play and sheer fun factor.
I'll play Starcraft 2 campaign on brutal only because of how fun the experience was on normal then hard.
If I was forced to play brutal from the start I never would have beat the game. The same could be said for games like Dragon Age or Rock Band (imagine learning drums or guitar on Expert from day 1).
I was able to beat some of the more challenging titles growing up (Ninja Gaiden Trilogy on NES for example) but those were days when a single game would have to last you about 6 months at a time.
These days I consider forced challenge to be the antithesis of fun.
I only play games on their upper difficulties when the game has earned it through excellent game play and sheer fun factor.
I'll play Starcraft 2 campaign on brutal only because of how fun the experience was on normal then hard.
If I was forced to play brutal from the start I never would have beat the game. The same could be said for games like Dragon Age or Rock Band (imagine learning drums or guitar on Expert from day 1).
Depends on the game and my intrest.
I don't really like hard games and play games mainly for fun rather than challenging myself, but it can be fun at times.
I don't really like hard games and play games mainly for fun rather than challenging myself, but it can be fun at times.
Only BS difficulty like unavoidable instant kill attacks or the game being hard due to a poorly implemented mechanic.
I like XCom forcing me to think about my tactics and not rush in like an idiot. I do not like it when my best soldier dies because a basic enemy gets a critical hit through three walls.
I like XCom forcing me to think about my tactics and not rush in like an idiot. I do not like it when my best soldier dies because a basic enemy gets a critical hit through three walls.
Probably the opposite for me... I love me some hard games... S.T.A.L.K.E.R. seris is one of my favorite... but if a game is too easy, I just get bored with it... it's why I just can;t play spunkgarggleweewee... as Yahtzee would put it... because it's pitifully easy boring... you're just sort of drug along by the belt while occasionally shooting at things that are a slightly different shade of brown than you...
Though, don't like obtuse games... you know games that are hard just because they're terribly designed... like the Witcher series... or Morrowind... stuff like that...<.<
Though, don't like obtuse games... you know games that are hard just because they're terribly designed... like the Witcher series... or Morrowind... stuff like that...<.<
If the difficulty is legitimate and not just bad mechanic's/design, then no, I actually welcome it.
One game that's on the line for me recently is halo 4's legendary, you can shoot a grunt with an entire clip of a BR and not kill them. I hate to say it's a bit too difficult, but some of the parts are just so frustrating that I can't stand it. I like Halo's story but this game is the first one I think I'll have to skip legendary or maybe just take a much longer time.
One game that's on the line for me recently is halo 4's legendary, you can shoot a grunt with an entire clip of a BR and not kill them. I hate to say it's a bit too difficult, but some of the parts are just so frustrating that I can't stand it. I like Halo's story but this game is the first one I think I'll have to skip legendary or maybe just take a much longer time.
There is a difference between a game being difficult and being bullshit. Difficult is when you die in a game to something that was your own fault, like running out of cover, or accidentally jumping off a cliff. Bullshit is when the game screws you over in a way that you couldn't possibly predict, like spawning a death trap that you had no idea was there, or giving you a task and an unrealistically short time limit to complete the task.
In XCOM, the closest thing to bullshit is when someone on my squad keeps missing shots that were in his favor. Other than that the game is pretty fair, if unforgiving.
In XCOM, the closest thing to bullshit is when someone on my squad keeps missing shots that were in his favor. Other than that the game is pretty fair, if unforgiving.
I like challenging games, but I wish games would do exactly that, challenge me. Most "hard" difficulties on games just make it unfair. Best example of this would be the AI on Supreme Commander, I like playing against bots, but harder bots on that game aren't any more intelligent, they just got massive resource and build time boosts meaning they can pump out more crap than me.
That isn't hard, or challenging, that's just bullshit mechanics creating false difficulty.
That isn't hard, or challenging, that's just bullshit mechanics creating false difficulty.
No/yes.
Difficult games like Halo CE: Anniversary with it's slightly more difficult than the original Legendary of the original Halo CE, is really fucking hard. But it is fun because I've played the shit out of Halo CE and it is a comfortable challenge to me. Its the kind of challenge that you can get through if you play enough, eventually get good enough, or are just patient and methodical enough.
Then you have games like Kingdom Under Fire and it's Orc campaign. That campaign is listed as the hardest, and its not because you face a lot of enemies that all out-class and out-rank you, or because Orcs are bad in that game. Its because Orcs don't get a heal in the game. Every other race gets either instant or really good combat healing, Orcs get this shitty enrage which heals each individual soldier of a unit by a small amount... So when I got to the second (think it is the second, it's been a while) level and was facing against a whole lot of Liches and their meteor spells that took 15-35% of a unit's health if it hit (and it always hits) I couldn't get past the level just because of a goddamn lack of heal. I had 2 heavy calvary units-2 for fuck sake!!!-running around the map the entire time, racking up points to burn on enrage heals, but that still wasn't enough. If I was playing dark elves, their tree of healing would have won that level. If I was playing humans, their instant heal would have carried me through that. But because Orcs have a shitty heal that doesn't really do anything, I lost the level...
So you see, Kingdom Under Fire isn't hard because it is challenging and gets you to think in new ways or tests your skill, its hard because it is fucking stupid at times. Stupid-difficulty is what turns me off of games. Kind of like when you play a shooter and you can't come out of fire because all the enemies will instantly target you and instantly kill you as soon as you do.
Difficult games like Halo CE: Anniversary with it's slightly more difficult than the original Legendary of the original Halo CE, is really fucking hard. But it is fun because I've played the shit out of Halo CE and it is a comfortable challenge to me. Its the kind of challenge that you can get through if you play enough, eventually get good enough, or are just patient and methodical enough.
Then you have games like Kingdom Under Fire and it's Orc campaign. That campaign is listed as the hardest, and its not because you face a lot of enemies that all out-class and out-rank you, or because Orcs are bad in that game. Its because Orcs don't get a heal in the game. Every other race gets either instant or really good combat healing, Orcs get this shitty enrage which heals each individual soldier of a unit by a small amount... So when I got to the second (think it is the second, it's been a while) level and was facing against a whole lot of Liches and their meteor spells that took 15-35% of a unit's health if it hit (and it always hits) I couldn't get past the level just because of a goddamn lack of heal. I had 2 heavy calvary units-2 for fuck sake!!!-running around the map the entire time, racking up points to burn on enrage heals, but that still wasn't enough. If I was playing dark elves, their tree of healing would have won that level. If I was playing humans, their instant heal would have carried me through that. But because Orcs have a shitty heal that doesn't really do anything, I lost the level...
So you see, Kingdom Under Fire isn't hard because it is challenging and gets you to think in new ways or tests your skill, its hard because it is fucking stupid at times. Stupid-difficulty is what turns me off of games. Kind of like when you play a shooter and you can't come out of fire because all the enemies will instantly target you and instantly kill you as soon as you do.
Fun and a hard game is fine. But difficulty caused through crappy controls i hate because thats annoying.
This poll should have a 'Yes, if the difficulty is too low' option.
That said, I'm gonna go with the crowd on this one and say it depends on what sort of difficulty.
The sort of difficulty that requires you to take a step back after a fail or two, take a look at what's going wrong and adjust your strategy? Great! ^^
The sort that tests your response speeds and is only passable by actually becoming better at the game you're playing? Still great!
The sort that can instantly kill you by something that was practically impossible to foresee? ... Not so much. I don't mind losing, but I do want a fighting chance, however slim.
What game I actually play depends on my mood, though. Generally I'll go for something like Dark Souls or 'Any Bullet Hell Ever', but for actually relaxing I'll swap to WoW or Pokémon.
That said, I'm gonna go with the crowd on this one and say it depends on what sort of difficulty.
The sort of difficulty that requires you to take a step back after a fail or two, take a look at what's going wrong and adjust your strategy? Great! ^^
The sort that tests your response speeds and is only passable by actually becoming better at the game you're playing? Still great!
The sort that can instantly kill you by something that was practically impossible to foresee? ... Not so much. I don't mind losing, but I do want a fighting chance, however slim.
What game I actually play depends on my mood, though. Generally I'll go for something like Dark Souls or 'Any Bullet Hell Ever', but for actually relaxing I'll swap to WoW or Pokémon.
First I'd like to say to the OP that XCOM has several difficulty levels. 'Normal' is supposedly quite easy, though I haven't played it myself - and there is an even easier setting. The infamous hardcore mode is also an optional setting not suggested for new players. So the difficulty in itself shouldn't be a reason to skip XCOM.
Firaxis and Microprose have a tradition of including diffulty settings that are supposed to be almost impossible to beat, but they put in a lot of easier settings to.
I get bored by games that don't challenge me in some way. Difficulty isn't the only way to make a good challenge, but an otherwise good game can be completely ruined if it is too easy. Poorly designed difficulty can be just as bad and unchallenging though.
Firaxis and Microprose have a tradition of including diffulty settings that are supposed to be almost impossible to beat, but they put in a lot of easier settings to.
I get bored by games that don't challenge me in some way. Difficulty isn't the only way to make a good challenge, but an otherwise good game can be completely ruined if it is too easy. Poorly designed difficulty can be just as bad and unchallenging though.
Generally speaking, challenge turns me on.
But, 'challenge' is a funny thing. It's something that has to be done right. As there is such thing as, badly designed difficulties. I made a post about such a thing a little while back.
I can't figure out what's worse. A game that's TOO easy, or game that's TOO tedious.
But, 'challenge' is a funny thing. It's something that has to be done right. As there is such thing as, badly designed difficulties. I made a post about such a thing a little while back.
Since I love to be challenged, I naturally veer towards harder difficulties (Especially during replays. Unless the games Normal difficulty is challenging enough. a la XCOM) And when a game lazily feigns 'Hard mode' by making enemies into bullet sponges and increasing the damage you take, then that's not hard. There are no new challenges here. It's the same crap I already played through, except again; and more tedious, and not any more fun at all.
I can't figure out what's worse. A game that's TOO easy, or game that's TOO tedious.
I don't care for difficulty in games. I tend to get frustrated rather easily and in games where difficulty is poorly implemented (Call of Duty's enemies with their Telescopic-Xray vision and perfect accuracy with a never ending supply of grenades and a throwing arm that would make Payton Manning jealous come to mind) I just end up throwing a controller and not having any fun with it at all. I played through Call of Duty 4 on Veteran (with the exception of "No Fighting In The War Room") and surpassing the difficulty of that was no where near offsetting the frustration of dealing with those enemies. The only part of it I enjoyed was the bragging rights (that I continue to redeem even today) for getting the Mile High Club achievement. At no point during that run on Veteran did I have an ounce of fun, only being able to tell my friend to go fuck himself because I had the achievement and he didn't.
The only time I am willing to play a game above Easy/Normal is when there is a reward for it. Preferably I want a tangible reward like bonus XP (Fallout 3) or bonus items (multiplayer armor in Halo 3/4), but if it's a game and/or I feel that I'm capable of beating it, I will go for achievements (Mass Effect, Spec Ops: The Line). If it is just for the sake of being difficult, I won't bother.
TL;DR Dying/failing repeatedly isn't fun and the "fuzzy, feel-good feeling" from surpassing a challenge isn't worth the frustration. Unless there's a good reason/reward for playing a difficult game/setting, I won't do it.
The only time I am willing to play a game above Easy/Normal is when there is a reward for it. Preferably I want a tangible reward like bonus XP (Fallout 3) or bonus items (multiplayer armor in Halo 3/4), but if it's a game and/or I feel that I'm capable of beating it, I will go for achievements (Mass Effect, Spec Ops: The Line). If it is just for the sake of being difficult, I won't bother.
TL;DR Dying/failing repeatedly isn't fun and the "fuzzy, feel-good feeling" from surpassing a challenge isn't worth the frustration. Unless there's a good reason/reward for playing a difficult game/setting, I won't do it.
Once it gets to stupid levels then yes, especially when they add checkpoint nonsense so you are doomed to keep grinding the last 10-15 minutes till you get that one move right... then we are just done.
The games I've played most recently are Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Devil May Cry 1 & 3, God Hand and XCOM.
What do you think?
captcha: full tilt
What do you think?
captcha: full tilt