This is certainly something that makes games easier. I'm not, however, convinced it's an advancement. Would Dark Souls play the same with checkpoints and the ability to quicksave/quickload? Having an actual penalty for death beyond slight annoyance means that risk and resource management are actually important.scar_47 said:more recent games tend to allow you to save whenever you want
Actually, this is damn true too...Al-Bundy-da-G said:You're older now and your reflexes are much better developed. It's the same reason why Super Mario World was a challenge when you were a child but now you can blow through it in about 45 minutes.
My one complaint about difficulty settings is that usually it only involves upping the health that enemies have and the damage that enemies do.Kahunaburger said:I'm personally of the opinion that games with difficulty settings should be designed to be hard, then given progressively easier difficulty settings. It's easier to make a hard game easy than vice-versa.Elamdri said:3rd: Difficulties exist for a reason. The fact is that giving someone else the opportunity to enjoy the game does not hurt you the player as long as there is a difficulty level that challenges you.
I am not trying to twist your words.mad_mick said:Stop twisting my words, I?m not saying i want the most hardcore extreme game mankind has ever seen, (dark souls can suck my dick) i just don?t see why games have to be spoon fed to people who don?t want to accept that they may die in the trial and error that is gaming. the Alone in the dark remake they did a few years ago, if a level was too hard you could SKIP THE ENTIRE GAME and get the same pay off as someone who completed the game for real, what the fuck is the point of that. Games can be fun without being easy enough that a blind toddler could knock it over in an afternoon.Zhukov said:[snip]
I really like the way Halo does difficulty. The enemies actually have more capabilities on higher difficulty settings, and a big part of what makes easier difficulty easier is that some of those capabilities are taken away. Worlds better than the "difficulty means stun-locking enemies to death takes 10 seconds instead of 5 seconds" of Jade Empire or the "difficulty means you have 1 second to get back into cover instead of 2 seconds" of Call of Modern Battlefield.Elamdri said:My one complaint about difficulty settings is that usually it only involves upping the health that enemies have and the damage that enemies do.
Now, take a game like Halo, I really felt that when playing on harder difficulties that the enemies played SMARTER. That's not something you see very often.
I really like this idea, too. Combined with higher difficulty = smarter enemies with more abilities, it could make for a much more interesting way to vary shooter difficulty than the way most of them do it now.bullet_sandw1ch said:the higher difficulty could change the HUD up, so it would really be harder. for example, on shooters you would have only 2 or 3 mags, and full auto would be uncontrolloble, and there would be no bullet counter, you'd have to check (google the G36C, it has a transparent window on the mag).
Maximum difficulty usually means that enemies have more health, you have less health or they even aimbot. I can't speak for ME3 but this is pretty much the trend.Zhukov said:Naturally, you are playing all these games on maximum difficulty settings. Right...?
Hey, don't forget that there were GOOD decisions. Many games were very short because we couldn't fit a lot of data on older mediums, and difficulty was a way to make games longer and more replayable to justify their cost.getoffmycloud said:You have to remember old games were often harder due to bad design decisions
I agree, the first time I played SotC I got killed a few times by different colossus. But after each death I learned how to avoid it. And if you REALLY wanted a challenge you could do the time attack mode or Hard mode after beating the game.mad_mick said:I agree. And that?s what im getting at in a round about kind of way, no middle ground. either death at every step or paper mashie ai. We need more games like ico, or shadows of the colossus. Amazing games, not too hard, not too easy.scorptatious said:Two words:
Dark Souls.
But yeah, personally I usually play games for fun. Sure challenge is nice, but I kind of prefer a game that has an interesting story or fun gameplay mechanics rather then raise my blood pressure. Hence why I stopped playing the original Rayman. That game is absolute bullshit in terms of difficulty curve.
I also kind of resent the statement about how people who enjoy those kinds of games are of "lesser intellectual capability". Sure, I can agree that most games are trying to appeal to a wider audience, but is that really such a bad thing? We were all casual gamers at some point.
I see absolutely no reason for you to be bothered by this. No-one was forced to skip anything. What does it matter to you how someone else chose to play *their* game?mad_mick said:if a level was too hard you could SKIP THE ENTIRE GAME and get the same pay off as someone who completed the game for real, what the fuck is the point of that.
Well, there's this [http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/easy-games].mad_mick said:Why are games so easy?