When is easy, too hard?

N

N3mi5is

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
915
Just finished reading the article on Gears 2 in the new game informer, and they are adding in a difficulty that is easier than casual, because of complaints that casual was too hard? :confused:

I'm usually going through a game on the hardest difficulty and left wanting more.

If I play through gears on anything less than insane it's boring to me.

Do some people suck that hard at a game so they make the easiest difficulty easier!?

Opinions?

Edit: Also, they are making the campaign difficulties different in coop. For example. A player hosting a coop match on Insane, has a player who is playing on casual join. The enemies will be Insane for the host, but will be casual for the guest. Not sure how this can be accomplished while fighting side by side, but why? Don't join a game on a difficulty setting you can't play on!
 
Gears of War doesn't really grab me and I had like 3 copies of it, but I appreciate the higher difficulties in my other games.. RainbowSix, Call of Duty, Total War, etc.

As for GOW2's coop difficulty, I'm guessing it's just a matter of absorbing/giving damage. The player on insane would do less damage and probably have less HP than his casual partner. I doubt they make the AI any better.
 
I normally play on the hardest just to have an added value. Plus normally you get higher gamer points.

I didn't think anyone played easy.
 
Depends on the game. There are a ton of people that bought Gears and Halo that aren't really into shooters, so the difficulty probably was a factor for them. You have to please the casual gamers, too.
I'm all for having plenty of difficulty settings.

Some people played Ninja Gaiden and thought it was WAY too hard, while I didn't think it was bad at all. Same with God of War. I tend to crank the difficulty on those up, while others wanted easier settings. I'm all for making the game approachable to more people.

It all depends on your experience with the genre.
 
N3mi5is said:
Just finished reading the article on Gears 2 in the new game informer, and they are adding in a difficulty that is easier than casual, because of complaints that casual was too hard? :confused:

I'm usually going through a game on the hardest difficulty and left wanting more.

If I play through gears on anything less than insane it's boring to me.

Do some people suck that hard at a game so they make the easiest difficulty easier!?

Opinions?

Edit: Also, they are making the campaign difficulties different in coop. For example. A player hosting a coop match on Insane, has a player who is playing on casual join. The enemies will be Insane for the host, but will be casual for the guest. Not sure how this can be accomplished while fighting side by side, but why? Don't join a game on a difficulty setting you can't play on!
Click to expand...


Yes, you'd be surprised that many people are just bad at games. The amount of people who play games at hard difficulty, and are capable of playing at hard difficulty, are in the minority, and thus the developers make more money by making games easier.

It's to be expected. But the thing you have to understand, many old school gamers are use to this, because games use to be so much more difficult than they are today, and many gamers today who find hard their difficulty of choice were the casual gamers of yesteryear complaining that Gradius was too hard, or Wizardry was too hard, or Ghouls N Ghosts was too hard, or Ninja Gaiden was too hard, etc.
 
I prefer a more cinematic, story centric singleplayer experience, kind of like CoD4 provided, and part of the experience that anoys me is dying all the time, I'm a fairly well skilled FPS gamer and sort of expect to play an average FPS game through and never die.

Having parts where you die and constantly respawn to attempt the same lame part over and over again completely and utterly destory the gaming experience for me, it really pulls me out of the singleplayer and makes me totally aware that I'm playing a computer game, it destroys the immersiveness.

Having high difficulty settings is nice for those people who really push competative gaming hard, but I find that multiplayer online is better suited for a real challenge, I do like to play competatively and I've never found a game or AI that reacts as dynamically and as well to playing on a good server online. if you're after a challenge I'd definately say go online and play there, if you really want a challenge try picking up the slack of a bad team in TF2 so they can actually win, it's next to impossible no matter how good you are, that's a fantastic challenge.
 
N3mi5is said:
Just finished reading the article on Gears 2 in the new game informer, and they are adding in a difficulty that is easier than casual, because of complaints that casual was too hard? :confused:

I'm usually going through a game on the hardest difficulty and left wanting more.

If I play through gears on anything less than insane it's boring to me.

Do some people suck that hard at a game so they make the easiest difficulty easier!?

Opinions?

Edit: Also, they are making the campaign difficulties different in coop. For example. A player hosting a coop match on Insane, has a player who is playing on casual join. The enemies will be Insane for the host, but will be casual for the guest. Not sure how this can be accomplished while fighting side by side, but why? Don't join a game on a difficulty setting you can't play on!
Click to expand...

If you're a girl gamer :p haha j/k!

Okay, more serious though, you'd have to be pretty bad to think casual is hard, or a young kid, but they shouldn't be playing these games anyways should they? :D. Really, easier than casual.. will the monsters just stand there waiting for you to shoot? haha.
 
Anyone remember when no one really "beat" games? When the idea was to get the highest score you could?
 
Frosteh said:
I prefer a more cinematic, story centric singleplayer experience, kind of like CoD4 provided, and part of the experience that anoys me is dying all the time, I'm a fairly well skilled FPS gamer and sort of expect to play an average FPS game through and never die.

Having parts where you die and constantly respawn to attempt the same lame part over and over again completely and utterly destory the gaming experience for me, it really pulls me out of the singleplayer and makes me totally aware that I'm playing a computer game, it destroys the immersiveness.

Having high difficulty settings is nice for those people who really push competative gaming hard, but I find that multiplayer online is better suited for a real challenge, I do like to play competatively and I've never found a game or AI that reacts as dynamically and as well to playing on a good server online. if you're after a challenge I'd definately say go online and play there, if you really want a challenge try picking up the slack of a bad team in TF2 so they can actually win, it's next to impossible no matter how good you are, that's a fantastic challenge.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I'm an average FPS player. I couldn't get through Gears on Hardcore difficulty. I struggled mightly on Halo 3 at Heroic difficulty (though I did finally get through it). I wanna follow the story and find out what happens next. I'm not too interested in proving my (lack of) 1337 shooting skills.
 
Frosteh said:
I prefer a more cinematic, story centric singleplayer experience, kind of like CoD4 provided, and part of the experience that anoys me is dying all the time, I'm a fairly well skilled FPS gamer and sort of expect to play an average FPS game through and never die.

Having parts where you die and constantly respawn to attempt the same lame part over and over again completely and utterly destory the gaming experience for me, it really pulls me out of the singleplayer and makes me totally aware that I'm playing a computer game, it destroys the immersiveness.

Having high difficulty settings is nice for those people who really push competative gaming hard, but I find that multiplayer online is better suited for a real challenge, I do like to play competatively and I've never found a game or AI that reacts as dynamically and as well to playing on a good server online. if you're after a challenge I'd definately say go online and play there, if you really want a challenge try picking up the slack of a bad team in TF2 so they can actually win, it's next to impossible no matter how good you are, that's a fantastic challenge.
Click to expand...
+1

I usually run through a game on easy or normal first just to get the whole experience. And if it's a game I REALLY enjoy I'll go through it again on a harder difficulty. But as you said if you wan't a challenge go online.
 
Difficulty in Gears of War is easy for them to manipulate. It's just how much damage it takes to kill an enemy and how much it takes to kill you. So in co-op the player on easy can kill his targets quicker and take more damage, while the one who wants more challenge will need more shots to kill and get killed more easily.

As for single-player games. I play on normal most of the time since I just want to play through the experience. If I want a challenge I play against people. I can get through Call of Duty 4 on Veteran, but it's pretty obvious to everyone that Veteran is not the way to enjoy Call of Duty 4. Veteran is just plain stupid and should never have been put in the game. It's not real difficulty to overcome with skill, it's FPS dance dance revolution where you memorize a sequence of moves or you fail.
 
Frosteh said:
I prefer a more cinematic, story centric singleplayer experience, kind of like CoD4 provided, and part of the experience that anoys me is dying all the time, I'm a fairly well skilled FPS gamer and sort of expect to play an average FPS game through and never die.

Having parts where you die and constantly respawn to attempt the same lame part over and over again completely and utterly destory the gaming experience for me, it really pulls me out of the singleplayer and makes me totally aware that I'm playing a computer game, it destroys the immersiveness.

Having high difficulty settings is nice for those people who really push competative gaming hard, but I find that multiplayer online is better suited for a real challenge, I do like to play competatively and I've never found a game or AI that reacts as dynamically and as well to playing on a good server online. if you're after a challenge I'd definately say go online and play there, if you really want a challenge try picking up the slack of a bad team in TF2 so they can actually win, it's next to impossible no matter how good you are, that's a fantastic challenge.
Click to expand...
^ This....

Plus...as a general rule...the more options available to the consumer, the better. That's one of the reasons Stardock stuff is doing so well IMO (or, perhaps more accurately, one of the reasons I buy Stardock stuff)

I suck pretty bad at most games even if I enjoy them. I only get a few hours a week to play in the first place, and I don't want to spend it getting cut to pieces three seconds after a level loads.

I actually play games to unwind...I don't really want to be frustrated by them, so it's nice to have a "walk in the park" type setting sometimes.
 
If I paid for the game, I'll go medium or normal to get the most value. Then try again on hard.
But hard I'm not a big fan of for most games.
E.g. COD4....now it just takes less hits for me to die. Which means I have to go grab cover every 4 seconds. I'm more of a rambo player i just wanna run and gun and kick ass meaning i must go to normal mode haha.


Now Ninja Gaiden is another story. I would love to finish the game on hard (though I gave it to a friend...)

If its a game I couldn't care less about, i'll go easy...mainly just to go through it (ya i play videogames for weird reasons sometimes).

Oh and strategy games, they kind of bore me so I go easy on those too.
Unless its starcraft.
 
Frosteh said:
I prefer a more cinematic, story centric singleplayer experience, kind of like CoD4 provided, and part of the experience that anoys me is dying all the time, I'm a fairly well skilled FPS gamer and sort of expect to play an average FPS game through and never die.

Having parts where you die and constantly respawn to attempt the same lame part over and over again completely and utterly destory the gaming experience for me, it really pulls me out of the singleplayer and makes me totally aware that I'm playing a computer game, it destroys the immersiveness.

Having high difficulty settings is nice for those people who really push competative gaming hard, but I find that multiplayer online is better suited for a real challenge, I do like to play competatively and I've never found a game or AI that reacts as dynamically and as well to playing on a good server online. if you're after a challenge I'd definately say go online and play there, if you really want a challenge try picking up the slack of a bad team in TF2 so they can actually win, it's next to impossible no matter how good you are, that's a fantastic challenge.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I kinda agree here, kinda.

You're totally spot on about the immersion thing; dying (and dying frequently) just pulls you out of the immersion. However, I have to overall agree with the OP; games these days are way, WAY too easy, and it's obvious they're pandering to the majority to make the console kids feel happy about themselves. I don't why they bother though since it's known now that most people just don't finish games.

Pathetic.

I'm rarely faced with a challenge these days and I'd like to see "hard" difficulty actually mean it. I play all games now on the hardest settings from the get go, no fannying about. If I play on normal or easy I know I'm just gunna storm through the game with no hassle and I just lose interest if I never feel there's a real challenge. For me, I don't want or need a game to be forgiving, ever. I love a challenge and if I get stuck at a certain point, it just inspires me to try harder and harder till I do it.


One of the most beautiful moments I've had in a game, a little thing, was playing Postal 2;

I got stuck in a bad part of the level, couldn't get out. The game then sent a message, "It looks like you're stuck...". Ok, so I thought I was gunna be moved or something and set on my way. But then suddenly I was killed instantly and all my weapons and stuff were sprewn across the area, "There...", it said, "now don't stand in that spot again!".

Brilliant! I actually laughed aloud at that! That's how games should be. Mean, vicious and unforgiving. That's the challenge I like. :cool:
 
As a general rule, I usually always play games at their easiest / easier settings. I don't play games to get up a gamer score, or anything like that. I play them to enjoy them, and their storyline. I don't like having to spend time being frustrated because certain parts are just too damn hard!

Now, with that said, I found Gears of War to be generally a very easy game on the lowest setting. Though a few levels really took me some time to complete, specifically the one in the house (where you have to defend it for a while) and then the very last boss fight. If the game weren't so linear, I would probably replay it at a more difficult setting.

I am probably the epitome of the 'casual' gamer, at least for most games. I just crash on the coach after a long day and zone out to them. When I was younger and was a heavy gamer, I would play games at their hardest levels no problem. But that was when I had a usable PC. Now I only have a 360.

i would hardly say it's because I suck at games, or anything along those lines. I just find it relaxing to sometimes mindlessly mow through a level without having to duck for cover or respawn.
 
depends.

i prefer better ai to more damage taken/less done


but most ai is fuckin retarded
 
Martyr said:
depends.

i prefer better ai to more damage taken/less done


but most ai is fuckin retarded
Click to expand...

Precisely, hard mode just means you die in fewer shots, and you need to shoot enemies more to kill them. Sometimes they send more enemies into the same fight. It's not really giving more challenge to overcome, it tends to be the same problem with the same solution and often makes it less fun to play. For example, if upping the difficulty just means giving enemies 100% accuracy at any range(the most popular difference between difficulties in FPS games) , then you just end up crawling through the game shooting around corners at an achingly slow pace. This has very little to do with fun or skill.

If you give it some fudge factor then the player can move from cover to cover, toasting enemies on the move; they have some freedom to do something fun and bold(Max Payne anyone?). If the AI would get smarter at higher difficulties, then that would be a welcome change to the gameplay and worth adding to the campaign.
 
I agree with the fact that hard games make the story and whole experience more annoying. However, it can be rewarding....

At times I wanted to break my Ninja Gaiden disc because I couldn't beat a boss (Alma, first time...damn!). But then once you defeat that challenge, you feel like a small god. Haha.

Games that are too easy though can be annoying. Bioshock felt too easy on Normal mode. I did not find Gears Of War that difficult but the last level was stupid.
 
Pac Man.........

Easiest game concept there is, yet....How many levels were you able to do?

Game so easy, its hard.
 
Pac Man is damn hard, also, play some original Donkey Kong and see how far you get!

I play modern FPS on normal or whatever the default level is (as the designers intended it?) and then if I replay I step it up.
Although if I hear it's an extra easy game I'll try a harder setting.
 
Heres a good example, I played Rainbow 6 Vegas: 2 last night on the normal difficulty and was doing great and having a lot of fun (after my brain adjusted to the seeminly 50 degrees FOV) but they had to throw in a sort of "boss" area in the first map where you just get torn to pieces again and agian. I continued to play it just to beat it but as soon as I did I turned it off, can't believe how frustrating that was.
 
N3mi5is said:
Just finished reading the article on Gears 2 in the new game informer, and they are adding in a difficulty that is easier than casual, because of complaints that casual was too hard? :confused:

I'm usually going through a game on the hardest difficulty and left wanting more.

If I play through gears on anything less than insane it's boring to me.

Do some people suck that hard at a game so they make the easiest difficulty easier!?

Opinions?

Edit: Also, they are making the campaign difficulties different in coop. For example. A player hosting a coop match on Insane, has a player who is playing on casual join. The enemies will be Insane for the host, but will be casual for the guest. Not sure how this can be accomplished while fighting side by side, but why? Don't join a game on a difficulty setting you can't play on!
Click to expand...


That's a shame it's being made easier. A tougher challenge leads to more game involvement and varying tactics.

I found GoW on the PC to be too easy on Casual with the exception of the final battle against Raam. What a nightmare, the Kryll get me everytime..
 
I tend to play games on the "normal" or "average" or whatever they choose to call it, just because I figure that's the level the game was probably designed for, and any level above or below that has been added later by making the enemies more or less easy to kill. And even if that's not the case, the labels are pretty arbitrary. There's no internationally-defined standard for "difficult" or "easy" in games.

As was mentioned earlier, increased difficulty rarely means anything more than enemies that can take and deal more damage. It's fine for people who crave the bragging rights of having beaten a game at it's toughest difficulty, but it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay except the frustration of trying to beat situations that have been made artificially difficult beyond their original design, to the point that you sometimes rely on ai exploits or bugs or just dumb luck to get past them.

That Postal 2 situation was funny, though :)
 
In the hitman games the varying difficulty settings change a wide range of things and it explicitly lets you know what these are in the latest blood money game. Extra saves, AI is more forgiving, less restrictions etc. It also inherently offers difficulty based on what you consider 'completing' a level. I always play to get the Silent Assassin rating which is damn hard on your first go. Sure, you can plow through guns playing and 'complete' each level with relative ease, but where's the challenge in that?

Much as I crave increased difficulty in games, I hate it when a game makes it 'unfair' to be difficult. Like the AI's guns are more powerful or other such biases. It's just a weak and lazy way to increase the difficulty and just leads to frustration rather than making it more challenging.

I always play on the hardest setting not for bragging rights, but to get the most out of a game. With truly quality games being rare these days, when I pay good money for a game I don't wanna plow through it, I wanna have to take my time with it. Playing on the hardest settings achieves this well for me.
 
spine said:
...I always play on the hardest setting not for bragging rights, but to get the most out of a game. With truly quality games being rare these days, when I pay good money for a game I don't wanna plow through it, I wanna have to take my time with it.
Click to expand...
Sadly the hardest settings doesn't always deliver. I just see this as a sign of what a bunch of gurls the youth of today. You kids are just wimps. I don’t buy the casual gamer angle because their as many more casual gamers plugging in for old school coin ops and 2600 games and most of those are much harder than today’s games. Nope it just a reflection of too many hormones in the milk or something.:D Man up already.
 
Darakian said:
The concept is still around. Ever hear of speed runs? :p
Click to expand...

Fair enough, haha! I was watching a Morrowind speed run. Like 8 minutes or something I laughed the whole time.

I tend to play games on their defaul difficulty setting because I like to experience the story and game as it was intended to be played. The only time I turned up the difficulty was in the Rainbow Six games to help boost my own reaction times for MP. I'm not playing games for an ego boost.
 
Chombo said:
I tend to play games on their defaul difficulty setting because I like to experience the story and game as it was intended to be played.
Click to expand...

No matter what difficulty you're playing the game on, you're still playing the same story. But if the game is so easy that it requires no forethought or concentration, and I'm just plowing through the levels, it bores the ever living crap out of me. The lower difficulties make the game last not near as long as well.

Take for example Rainbow Six: Vegas 2. I went through the entire campaign on the "realistic" setting (hardest difficulty) and it only took me ~6 hours. It should only take 6 hours on normal, not the hardest difficulty. But thats another topic altogether.
 
I thought FEAR had a great "hard" level. It seemed to me that the AI was much more team oriented. Didnt rush you as much, tried to counter and flank more.....not just harder to kill.
Another game I recall that was like that was that lone SIN episodes game. Although not as elegant as FEAR the AI was much different as you cranked up the difficulty.
 
N3mi5is said:
No matter what difficulty you're playing the game on, you're still playing the same story. But if the game is so easy that it requires no forethought or concentration, and I'm just plowing through the levels, it bores the ever living crap out of me. The lower difficulties make the game last not near as long as well.

Take for example Rainbow Six: Vegas 2. I went through the entire campaign on the "realistic" setting (hardest difficulty) and it only took me ~6 hours. It should only take 6 hours on normal, not the hardest difficulty. But thats another topic altogether.
Click to expand...

I guess I could have worded my thoughts better. What I was getting at is that I like to experience the game without having the experience broken up by quick loads. Not that I don't like a bit of a challenge. If there is no chance of dying then there is no urgency or apprehension, which can take away from the experience. I guess I don't play enough games to feel that I am not challenged.

I have yet to play Vegas 2 (probably wait for the bargain bins on that one) but I played Vegas 1 on realistic (haha realistic sure) and it really wasn't that difficult.

IMHO there shouldn't be a difficulty setting, the AI should be able to adapt to your playstyle.
 
Nytegard said:
Yes, you'd be surprised that many people are just bad at games. The amount of people who play games at hard difficulty, and are capable of playing at hard difficulty, are in the minority, and thus the developers make more money by making games easier.

It's to be expected. But the thing you have to understand, many old school gamers are use to this, because games use to be so much more difficult than they are today, and many gamers today who find hard their difficulty of choice were the casual gamers of yesteryear complaining that Gradius was too hard, or Wizardry was too hard, or Ghouls N Ghosts was too hard, or Ninja Gaiden was too hard, etc.
Click to expand...

A lot of the old school games were hard because of bad game design partially due to limited hardware capabilities. For instance jumping from one platform to another in Super Mario Brothers was hard as shit because the physics sucked balls. The physics were not very responsive or intuitive. However if you were to port those exact same levels in SMB3's engine, jumping would be a breeze. Likewise I think it was Wizardry that had a portion where you had an option to save a rat. If you did not about 20 hours later you would find that you could not progress in the game at all. There was absolutely no indication that you had to save said rat or that it would have any impact on anything.

I wouldn't say all old school gamers are simply better. I'd say a lot of us are simply conditioned to put up with more stupid repetitive shit. The third level of original Battletoads was not difficult, it just required retarded amounts of replaying and memorization. Skill had nothing to do with it at all. The most intelligent person with the quickest reaction time on the planet couldn't do it the first time, yet a monkey trained to memorize it could eventually do it.
 
Neurofreeze said:
A lot of the old school games were hard because of bad game design partially due to limited hardware capabilities. For instance jumping from one platform to another in Super Mario Brothers was hard as shit because the physics sucked balls. The physics were not very responsive or intuitive. However if you were to port those exact same levels in SMB3's engine, jumping would be a breeze. Likewise I think it was Wizardry that had a portion where you had an option to save a rat. If you did not about 20 hours later you would find that you could not progress in the game at all. There was absolutely no indication that you had to save said rat or that it would have any impact on anything.

I wouldn't say all old school gamers are simply better. I'd say a lot of us are simply conditioned to put up with more stupid repetitive shit. The third level of original Battletoads was not difficult, it just required retarded amounts of replaying and memorization. Skill had nothing to do with it at all. The most intelligent person with the quickest reaction time on the planet couldn't do it the first time, yet a monkey trained to memorize it could eventually do it.
Click to expand...

True. Kinda like the underwater dam level in Teenage Mutant Ninja/Hero Turtles for the NES. It was difficult because it was so fucking badly made. If you've never experienced this pain, then I'd almost say go get the rom and an emulator, but then again, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies. Well actually, maybe I would...:D
 
doesn't affect me if they add an extra easy option, i'll still play on hard :). They have to make games easy for the causal gamer, that way they can sell more copies, who wouldn't do that? I haven't really seen extra rewards from the game from just playing on hard. I mean you know you can beat it on hard, but besides that you don't get anything else!
 
rxteenager said:
doesn't affect me if they add an extra easy option, i'll still play on hard :). They have to make games easy for the causal gamer, that way they can sell more copies, who wouldn't do that? I haven't really seen extra rewards from the game from just playing on hard. I mean you know you can beat it on hard, but besides that you don't get anything else!
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, playing halo on more difficult difficulties nets funnier dialog in the cutscenes...can't really think of another game that does anything like that though.
 
I REALLY enjoyed playing Battletoads for the NES... that is my kind of difficulty lol. Then again I used an emulator and save states :D

Without saving every two seconds, SNES era games and circa '96-'98 era PC games had difficulty down right.
 
Well I mean...you gotta understand that not everyone has the same reaction times or thinking strategies. A game needs to be made for everyone to be able to play it and have fun. That's why they usually create more than 1 difficulty.
 
i almost always skip the easy but start on normal before doing hard and insane difficulties. the reason is to get the feel of the game and to see if its worth getting stressed out over. i'm almost finished w/ my first run through gears (hardcore) and i'm struggling a bit but i'm getting there. i'll probably wait for my friend to come back and co-op through insane but i'm willing to do it. same w/ halo3 and ninja gaiden. some games though, after one playthrough, i can tell i'm not willing to sit through the reloading after dying 4 times
 
It really depends on the game....I'm not a big shooter fan but I loved that Gears provided a decent challenge without being frustrating. However, I didn't finish the game because I got tired of trying to defeat the last boss....something below casual would have been welcome in that instance.

edit- also, who cares if game makers add a kiddie/grandma difficulty level? The only people who have a problem with that are ones who measure their e-pen0r by how well they can play a difficult game.
 
I don't think anyone objects to there being an easy setting, but more that the difficulties overall have become ALOT easier. This is fact, and as someone noted earlier, totally expected. Easy games sell better.

How successful would the Sims games be if they were really difficult?

I just wish that when they put a hard difficulty setting in a game they actually mean it. When playing a game on hard you should expect to die, alot. And if you get stuck in a certain area you have to come back to it the next day afresh having thought about how to solve it. Old Skool. That's what hard should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top