The world would be a better, happier place if everybody understood that the things that are challenging to one person are not the same that challenge the next.
This Obsession With Difficulty is a Little Absurd
- Thread starter Drago-Morph
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i dont understand your stance. you dont like the fact that theres a call for games to be more challenging? why? we dont want more challenging games so we can feel superior to those who couldnt beat demons souls, we want more challenging games because easy games get boring
There are some games that would be ruined if they were too easy - serious FPSs like STALKER or (god forbid) ARMA 2 would lose a ton of their atmosphere and appeal if you could just stroll through them casually gunning down everything in your path.
But what I really genuinely resent is when a game has no option to change difficulty and is locked into easy/casual mode. Post-Cata WoW removed all of the challenge from the levelling experience, and the result is an incredibly dull guided tour of easy quests, mini games you literally can't lose, and neutered quest bosses. WoW was never the hardest of MMOs, but it's ridiculous how far they've gone in 'streamlining' it.
But what I really genuinely resent is when a game has no option to change difficulty and is locked into easy/casual mode. Post-Cata WoW removed all of the challenge from the levelling experience, and the result is an incredibly dull guided tour of easy quests, mini games you literally can't lose, and neutered quest bosses. WoW was never the hardest of MMOs, but it's ridiculous how far they've gone in 'streamlining' it.
Well, Skyrim has some issues, some of which are logical consequences of how it is built or, err, constructed. Pretty much every set (evidently changed when the game goes to the loading screen) offers a number of actors and scripted bits that are very much essential. If you muck up and manage to do something the game is not prepared for, you're stuck. I managed to get stuck repeatedly by some specific event just plain not triggering; say - a character not noticing my finishing a quest, a vital character attacking me and me killing him, a door not opening and no way to retrace my steps beyond save games (which didn't help) or going to the console (which helped, but felt a bit like going all Neo on poor old Skyrim and brought with it temptation galore). Something along those lines.
If you could accidentally kill key characters, Skyrim's story/plot would plain not progress and you would be in sidequest hell for all eternity, until there was nothing else to do beyond killing everyone and becoming mad and evil.
A game like Dark Souls is built completely differently, and when you kill, say, a somewhat vital and utterly handy NPC like a blacksmith or a merchant, you could still finish the game, just with some very noticeable differences. It has to be noted that Dark Souls is pretty much unique in that way, though. Most games these days are so very much scripted and on rails that stepping outside the box would inevitably break them.
As for the difficulty - 'normal' was my first playthrough of choice back when 'normal' still meant 'normal'. These days, 'normal' is already 'kiddiewink' in order not to frustrate folks, and if there is an 'easy' option it's for the intellectually impaired. 'hard' is either today's proper 'normal' or it blatantly shows how broken and rushed the game actually is. It's quite sad, methinks.
If you could accidentally kill key characters, Skyrim's story/plot would plain not progress and you would be in sidequest hell for all eternity, until there was nothing else to do beyond killing everyone and becoming mad and evil.
A game like Dark Souls is built completely differently, and when you kill, say, a somewhat vital and utterly handy NPC like a blacksmith or a merchant, you could still finish the game, just with some very noticeable differences. It has to be noted that Dark Souls is pretty much unique in that way, though. Most games these days are so very much scripted and on rails that stepping outside the box would inevitably break them.
As for the difficulty - 'normal' was my first playthrough of choice back when 'normal' still meant 'normal'. These days, 'normal' is already 'kiddiewink' in order not to frustrate folks, and if there is an 'easy' option it's for the intellectually impaired. 'hard' is either today's proper 'normal' or it blatantly shows how broken and rushed the game actually is. It's quite sad, methinks.
I guess it's because challenging games are a more rewarding experience, and in the wider community there is a cultural backlash against publishers making all of their games as easy as possible in order to draw in their perceived idea of the newer casual market.
If you like challenging games, there just isn't much choice within the AAA market.
I think some kind of tipping point has been reached now however. There is clearly a desire for challenge from a larger sector of the gaming community outside of the hardcore's and it I've noticed more casual players are even getting tired of it.
My gf is THE old stereotype casual gamer, and even she was saying "Yeah, I get it. @!#&%." when playing Assassin's Creed 3's 7 hour baby steps tutorial.
Getting the difficulty in a game right and guiding players without handholding is an art that alot of designers just never learned it seemed, so hopefully all this dialogue about it will raise some awareness and increase demand for it.
If you like challenging games, there just isn't much choice within the AAA market.
I think some kind of tipping point has been reached now however. There is clearly a desire for challenge from a larger sector of the gaming community outside of the hardcore's and it I've noticed more casual players are even getting tired of it.
My gf is THE old stereotype casual gamer, and even she was saying "Yeah, I get it. @!#&%." when playing Assassin's Creed 3's 7 hour baby steps tutorial.
Getting the difficulty in a game right and guiding players without handholding is an art that alot of designers just never learned it seemed, so hopefully all this dialogue about it will raise some awareness and increase demand for it.
Yes, people who say that ARE a vocal minority.Drago-Morph said:
On the other hand, people who feel that the current AAA offering is somehow too boringly easy are a vocal MAJORITY at least on most gamer forums, even if not in the whole buyer audience.
The problem is with hyperboles, and stereotypes. With assuming that every single person who ever said anything about a game being too easy, can be identified with a single "hardcore agenda" and that they agree with everything else that other hardcore gamers have ever said, so these comments all ad up to a single opinion outshouting you.
This word has become worse than the arrow to the knee jokes...Drago-Morph said:
Anyway, its because games don't feel as challenging any more, or at east they rarely do and because of that the gameplay aspect in most games these days feel pretty boring, because a lot of times were just blazing through them so easily that we don't put any effort into it.
That's why Dark Souls is my favourite game this gen in terms of gameplay,because that game pushes the player to play at his best, which makes you appreciate the game more.
It really shouldn't be that difficult. If the game is not challenging, then it is an easy chore. I'm not saying 'the harder the better', but with out any thing to push you to compete, to feel some tension, to test at least some of you abilities you learnt, the game is quickly just skipped through and becomes forgettable.
I don't have problems with high difficulty, as long as the game is designed around it.
Dark Souls for example knows you'll die at some point, and doesn't break the flow as much when you do. You keep everything except your Souls and continue playing. Same with Super Meat Boy, you just jump right back in.
Compare this to other games, Skyrim for example. It's difficulty varies tremendously from each situation, and each time you die, the game says:
"uh, what? You died? I don't even know what to do, now! Hold on, there is this form you have to fill out, it's somewhere inside my locker. Let me go and fetch it. We might be able to roll back the game a bit, so you don't die. I hope you remember where you last saved!"
Dark Souls for example knows you'll die at some point, and doesn't break the flow as much when you do. You keep everything except your Souls and continue playing. Same with Super Meat Boy, you just jump right back in.
Compare this to other games, Skyrim for example. It's difficulty varies tremendously from each situation, and each time you die, the game says:
"uh, what? You died? I don't even know what to do, now! Hold on, there is this form you have to fill out, it's somewhere inside my locker. Let me go and fetch it. We might be able to roll back the game a bit, so you don't die. I hope you remember where you last saved!"
depends. is you sucking at the game your fault for not getting better at it, or the game for having shitty design.
if the former then it's a good game as long as it's possible to get good at it with out wasting away your life on it like AVGN would for Ghost and Goblins. if the later than it's a piece of shit.
also, i like games that give you a choice in difficulty, depending on the experience you want. a great example would be the doom games for DOS and WIN95 way back in the day.
for doom has five difficulty settings. for very easy they got simple and effective "I'M TOO YOUNG TO DIE NEEEEGGGH!" and then you got "Hurt me Plenty!" in the middle with "Hey not too rough guys jezz." right under it.
that's when the names become hard core as fuck.
hard is a reference to A Clockwork Orange, going by "Ultra Violent"
and then you get the big one. the real man's man's difficulty that sets the men from the boys and the girls from, wait girls can refer to adult women as well ok nm.
anyways it's called NIGHTMARE
and boy does the name fit [http://youtu.be/tZnIwcUhaTY]
perfection.
if the former then it's a good game as long as it's possible to get good at it with out wasting away your life on it like AVGN would for Ghost and Goblins. if the later than it's a piece of shit.
also, i like games that give you a choice in difficulty, depending on the experience you want. a great example would be the doom games for DOS and WIN95 way back in the day.
for doom has five difficulty settings. for very easy they got simple and effective "I'M TOO YOUNG TO DIE NEEEEGGGH!" and then you got "Hurt me Plenty!" in the middle with "Hey not too rough guys jezz." right under it.
that's when the names become hard core as fuck.
hard is a reference to A Clockwork Orange, going by "Ultra Violent"
and then you get the big one. the real man's man's difficulty that sets the men from the boys and the girls from, wait girls can refer to adult women as well ok nm.
anyways it's called NIGHTMARE
and boy does the name fit [http://youtu.be/tZnIwcUhaTY]
perfection.
I get that people love difficulty for the challenge. That's easy. What I don't get is why anyone would begrudge people that love games, but really stink at them (me) very easy modes and cheats.
I'm cheating like mad at those games that allow me to do so at this time, and, it is a fun experience like no other. Movies and TV are boring by comparison.
But Halo 2, for instance, easy meant easy. You could play on a hard mode if you liked. Even on easy mode, I would die, realize I can't just run and gun, get to do the point that I died over again and this time, throw some grenades into a dangerous room before entering. It was a pleasure. More of that, please. And especially PC games that don't allow cheats... wassamattawith you people?
It's not like I'm trying to win money. I just want some fun!
I'm cheating like mad at those games that allow me to do so at this time, and, it is a fun experience like no other. Movies and TV are boring by comparison.
But Halo 2, for instance, easy meant easy. You could play on a hard mode if you liked. Even on easy mode, I would die, realize I can't just run and gun, get to do the point that I died over again and this time, throw some grenades into a dangerous room before entering. It was a pleasure. More of that, please. And especially PC games that don't allow cheats... wassamattawith you people?
It's not like I'm trying to win money. I just want some fun!
I don't like it when games are difficult to the point of constant frustration, but if a game isn't challenging me in every way then I don't feel that satisfaction from beating it. That's why whenever I play a new game I always jump straight to the hardest difficulty.
And I am one of those people who'd like the "good ol' days" brought back because I had more fun playing Halo 1 and Morrorwind on max difficulty than I did Halo 4 and Skyrim.
And I am one of those people who'd like the "good ol' days" brought back because I had more fun playing Halo 1 and Morrorwind on max difficulty than I did Halo 4 and Skyrim.
This may be a little off topic to this thread, but I feel it relates.
I can't stand people who heckle games for being too easy when there are difficulty choices. Seriously, have you ever played some of these games on the hard modes? It's like being equipped with a water pistol to a lion arena.
I can't stand people who heckle games for being too easy when there are difficulty choices. Seriously, have you ever played some of these games on the hard modes? It's like being equipped with a water pistol to a lion arena.
My problem with difficulty levels is that they are rarely more of a challenge of your abilities. More often than not they are merely challenging patience.
To beat your average shooter with regenerating health you do not have to play it more intelligently, you just need to spend around 80% more time in cover before you can carry on fighting. The actual game-play doesn't change in any significant way. Merely making enemies weapons more powerful and their health larger is a poor way of making a game harder, and that's what most games do.
I like games such as FTL when enemies use better weapons more often (as opposed to using the same weapons as you but theirs are more magically powerful) and will use abilities that they wouldn't normally use as much. Or finding weapons/items is a lot rarer so you have to make do with what you have and think more carefully about what you use and when.
To beat your average shooter with regenerating health you do not have to play it more intelligently, you just need to spend around 80% more time in cover before you can carry on fighting. The actual game-play doesn't change in any significant way. Merely making enemies weapons more powerful and their health larger is a poor way of making a game harder, and that's what most games do.
I like games such as FTL when enemies use better weapons more often (as opposed to using the same weapons as you but theirs are more magically powerful) and will use abilities that they wouldn't normally use as much. Or finding weapons/items is a lot rarer so you have to make do with what you have and think more carefully about what you use and when.
All this hyperbole that basicly says "people like what I dont like" is a little exhaustingDrago-Morph said:
However to try and be on topic, veneration of difficulty...whats wrong with it? People venerate graphics, music, narrative, story, plot, characters, etc. Whats wrong with venerating difficulty? Why can that not be an enjoyable part of the game like many other pieces to the whole?
Drago-Morph said:
I'm reluctant to respond because whenever I give people the answers, which they do not like, they tend to freak out and try and turn it into a flame war.
That said the bottom line is one between real gamers, and casuals. To a real gamer part of the point of playing a game and progressing is knowing that your doing something not everyone can do, for whatever reason, and will have probably defeated numerous players before you. If progress is accessible to anyone playing the game simply by playing it, it defeats the purpose. To a real gamer the idea of things like easy modes for many games is an anathema because it makes challenge optional, and allows anyone who decides to play see the content which is supposed to act as the reward for defeating the obstacles.
Whether you look down on real gamers or not for having no life, the bottom line is that to a real gamer someone not being able to devote 20 houra a day to gaming as a lifestyle is not an excuse, or a reason to ruin things for those who can and do make gaming an integral part of how they live. Someone who "has a life" and games as "something else they do" is by definition a casual, as they are approaching gaming as a casual interest as opposed to a major priority.
For the most part the issue is one created by the industry. When you have games for real gamers, alongside those for casuals, there is no real problem as long as most sides get their games. The problem is that real gamers ARE a minority nowadays (if a fairly large one, which is why they are so loudly heard), and given that casuals outnumber real gamers, the industry generally wants to cater to casuals to garner larger sales. This includes taking hardcore games like say "Dark Souls" and adding an "easy mode" making the challenge optional in order to increase their sales. Real gamers are profitable, but a successful "serious" game simply raises the question as to how much more money it could make by "casualizing" it.
The basic arguement is that not all games should have an "easy mode" and there is a dedicated audience that wants games where hardcore challenge is simply how the game is, rather than something that is optional. Outsiders might not get it, but the hardcore audience DOES get it, and at the end of the day that's all that matters.
As elitist as I might be on a lot of levels, I truthfully have no real problem with casual gamers as a whole, and even enjoy a number of games developed for that level HOWEVER I also want there to be decidedly non-casual games and challenges out there, and they are becoming fewer and further between. If the industry caters to both sides there is no issue, but as the industry is going entirely one way due to sheer greed, you see these conflicts intensifying. As casual gamers DO outnumber serious gamers, and the business aspects, including internet critics, realize this, there is rapidly becoming less and less interest in defending serious games, and serious gamers, despite the large numbers, because at the end of the day they are simply outnumbered and more money/more hits can be generated by being casual friendly.
There is also the issue of what is good for gaming as a whole. The problem with casual games and gamers is that they tend to sink to the lowest human denominator and kind of settle there. A lot can be done with gaming as a medium, but things aren't going to move forward as they should when things get stuck in that morass for business reasons. Right now we see a sort of "follow the leader" type thing where a serious game, for serious gamers, will do something cool, then people will casualize it and make even more money. With less games being developed to push the envelope for those who can handle it, it slows the growth of the industry, and at this rate soon there will be no more hardcore games, and then no more... or very little... progression and evolution within the industry.
If you never push yourself, how do you ever expect to improve? I also prefer harder difficulties because the easier ones feel like cheating.