Easy Does It – The Case for Lowering The Difficulty

lcpiper said:
Same with Fallout 4, all Bethesda did for Survival Mode was added a health mechanic so that the player spends most of his time looking for meds, food and water, and a bed. Which wasted too much time for me so I dumbed down, and turned the mobs into bullet spounges so you had to bead them to death with magazines of ammo. But my preferred mods made both my own weapons and the enemy's weapons much more lethal, so now it doesn't take a lot to kill or be killed and that is the perfect amount of attention for me. Most of the time it's pretty easy because I know where the bad guys usually are and can get the drop on them. But every now and then I get caught out and surprised by that random spawned set of mobs and I get to laugh at how I got punked.

As for the guy's article, I can't read it cause it's blocked, and I don't give a damn what he thinks, he votes with his wallet and sets his own settings like everyone else. Let the window-licker play it his way, I like my own way better.
Click to expand...

When I started Fallout 4 I started on Easy for the first 10 levels till I got my bearings with the mechanics. Helped me settle into the game. Then upped a level and then every 20 levels or so I upped and upped. I play it on the level before Survival. I can't be bothered with Survival as life is just too short. lol

I think the worst game I ever tried was the first Dead Rising game. It took 15+ minutes to get into the first zombie swarm and there was no auto/player choice save point. So I was getting killed after 15 minutes and 12 seconds. Then having to play through to 15 minutes and 16 seconds then 15 minutes and 18 seconds.

After the 5th time I ejected the DVD and traded it in.
 
nightanole said:
That being said, who wants a point and click adventure that is just one long hallway with cut scenes?
Click to expand...

And yet that is exactly what BioWare did with knights of the Fallen Empire and Knights of the Eternal Throne expansions for Star Wars the Old Republic.

The producer came up with those turds is gone. Here's hoping the new guy can figure it out.
 
Merc1138 said:
The problem is that while I had time as a kid with the original x-com for that crap, I don't have the time now for it. There's a difference between challenging mechanics, and complete bullshit, which is what x-com does.

3 units within squares adjacent to an alien in x-com, needs 2 shots to kill, 95% hit chance for all 3...

Miss...
Miss...
Miss...
Squad wipe, 2 more hours of gameplay to get back to having a reasonably useful squad OR spamming save/load constantly which is equally annoying. Who has time for that crap? I sure as hell don't. Challenging is making sure I have squadmates covering eachother, using overwatch at the right times, setting up angles, knowing not to try and melee the muton, etc.
Click to expand...
...But they had a 5% chance to miss as well. If you never see them miss in that situation, functionally it's a 100% chance to hit.

Coming from a fellow Xcom player, we tend to remember the 95% shots that miss way more than the 65% shots that hit, but nobody laments those...
 
deton8 said:
...But they had a 5% chance to miss as well. If you never see them miss in that situation, functionally it's a 100% chance to hit.

Coming from a fellow Xcom player, we tend to remember the 95% shots that miss way more than the 65% shots that hit, but nobody laments those...
Click to expand...
And yet you've entirely missed my point.

When that situation results in a squad wipe that sets you back hours for no reason other than for the sake of kicking you in the nuts unless you want to save/load every turn, it makes for a shitty game experience that I might as well not bother spending time/money on.
 
TheOne5 said:
I'm stuck on the part where you have to chase the apc. I kept getting killed by the helicopter and haven't touched the game since. I got stuck on the last level of Bioshock Infinite and haven't touched it since either.
Click to expand...
I had to change the difficulty when Psycho splits off in the beginning. Kept getting my cover blown. And that helicopter.
 
daglesj said:
When I started Fallout 4 I started on Easy for the first 10 levels till I got my bearings with the mechanics. Helped me settle into the game. Then upped a level and then every 20 levels or so I upped and upped. I play it on the level before Survival. I can't be bothered with Survival as life is just too short. lol

I think the worst game I ever tried was the first Dead Rising game. It took 15+ minutes to get into the first zombie swarm and there was no auto/player choice save point. So I was getting killed after 15 minutes and 12 seconds. Then having to play through to 15 minutes and 16 seconds then 15 minutes and 18 seconds.

After the 5th time I ejected the DVD and traded it in.
Click to expand...

Try three things, set the difficulty to Survival, install the Mod that reduces the need to drink and eat, and the chance for illness to something that doesn't monopolize your every moment in the game, then add one more mod like the ones that amp up the damage for players and for mobs and NPCs.

This shouldn't slow down your gameplay much, but I think you might enjoy it more.

What have you got to lose?
 
I came from that "Nintendo-hard" generation and beat many of those games, including Battletoads, without needing to use a Game Genie. However, as others have stated, that was a long time ago when I was much younger and my twitch reflexes were better. I spent the better part of my 20s playing games on the hardest difficulties. I grinded through the hell of Demon Souls. Then I had an epiphany. Who the hell am I trying to impress with my super awesome single player gaming abilities? I then began to play games on the difficulty I felt most comfortable with considering the game, AI, and my general mood that day.

Play the game the way that makes you happy. It is your free time. No need to be stressed out about it.
 
lcpiper said:
Try three things, set the difficulty to Survival, install the Mod that reduces the need to drink and eat, and the chance for illness to something that doesn't monopolize your every moment in the game, then add one more mod like the ones that amp up the damage for players and for mobs and NPCs.

This shouldn't slow down your gameplay much, but I think you might enjoy it more.

What have you got to lose?
Click to expand...

What does he have to loose? Progress obviously. It almost sounds like you've never played on survival.
 
Merc1138 said:
And yet you've entirely missed my point.

When that situation results in a squad wipe that sets you back hours for no reason other than for the sake of kicking you in the nuts unless you want to save/load every turn, it makes for a shitty game experience that I might as well not bother spending time/money on.
Click to expand...
Squad Wipes are part of the Xcom experience, as is losing the game outright (one can argue that the Ironman setting is the way the game was meant to be played, with no save/loading if you have a bad mission)

I guess whether you find the prospect fun or not is a matter of personal taste. I don't enjoy them per se, but I enjoy the sense of peril that they might happen.
 
ZodaEX said:
What does he have to loose? Progress obviously. It almost sounds like you've never played on survival.
Click to expand...

Well, it's all I have played on for the last year or more. So from my point of view, it almost sounds like you don't know your head from your asshole :D
 
lcpiper said:
Well, it's all I have played on for the last year or more. So from my point of view, it almost sounds like you don't know your head from your asshole :D
Click to expand...

Basically on survival you loose more progress than normal due to limited save points.
 
deton8 said:
Squad Wipes are part of the Xcom experience, as is losing the game outright (one can argue that the Ironman setting is the way the game was meant to be played, with no save/loading if you have a bad mission)

I guess whether you find the prospect fun or not is a matter of personal taste. I don't enjoy them per se, but I enjoy the sense of peril that they might happen.
Click to expand...
And again, there's a difference between squad wipes due to the player screwing up, and squad wipes due to "*shrug* it's x-com" where the game might as well just use a much simpler mechanic of wiping your squad every 1-3 hours just because.
 
ZodaEX said:
Basically on survival you loose more progress than normal due to limited save points.
Click to expand...

That is entirely subjective. It's true if you don't save when opportunity presents itself, it is also greatly effected by the player and their skill at the game. If a player has established numerous locations for available beds, then he can sleep without needing to make a long trek to find a bed. If the player makes sure he has a save before beginning quests that are frequently dangerous. And if the player is facing a particularly dangerous task all he has to do is exit at which point the game saves his status, and a death will put him right back to that point.

By ramping up the damage model and reducing the health impacts of survival mode, you greatly change the game dynamic. A mutant Suicider with a mini-nuke is far more dangerous when he is a bullet sponge, then he is when you can kill him with four shots from a 10mm pistol. But a unexpected random spawn of Robot Worshipers is deadly if you are running around like you don't think anyone is near you. Whoever gets the first shot in becomes paramount to survival with these mods.
 
Youn said:
Tell that to the Angry Video Game Nerd XD
Click to expand...

Seriously LoL. I was a fan for life from the first time I watched his rage over TMNT on NES. He reflects so much of my childhood rage over certain games. I don't ever remember thinking that any game I had as a child was good or bad. Maybe fun and less fun. Even Battletoads, which took me a couple years to beat, became less about the fun factor and more about the mental challenge to perfect all of the twitch races. I had to grow up before I realized that there was a such thing as a "bad game" and reflected on how many of them I had played...
 
c_porter said:
I think Kosta comes from the same school as that game designer that bitched about combat getting in the way of her storytelling. Seriously people, just go make movies if you feel that way.
Click to expand...

There is a large market for games that play as interactive movies. Unfortunately, Making this the basis for a AAA game that continues to ween people away from actual mechanics
 
There are some games I play solely for the story and environment, so I don't care about difficulty. I just want to play the game (The Witcher, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc). Other times, I want to be punished and challenged (Dark Souls, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin).
 
Olle P said:
You get good at a game by playing that game, a lot. "These game reporters" play many games for a short while, meaning that they can't get good at any one game.

For me the best difficulty setting is the one that makes the game most realistic, and here's how I define "realistic":
Most games are more or less derivatives of Role Playing Games, meaning the player takes the role of some protagonist. That protagonist can be assumed to have certain skills and abililties, most of which differ from those of the player. The protagonist is placed in an environment and situation typically never experienced first hand by the player.
Now the player has to decide what actions the protagonist should carry out, and then also perform those actions. "Realistic" is when it's as easy or difficult for the player, given his/her knowledge and gaming skills, to make the right decisions and carry them out as it should be for the protagonist in the given situation.

If the protagonist is supposed to be some hero who is not likely going to die from a stray bullet and who can easily defeat enemies, then that's how I as a player should experience the game, no matter how good or bad I am at playing it!
For those wanting more of a challenge then reducing the skills and abilities (and thus expected performance) of the protagonist is the way to go.

Then we have games that are more of real life simulators. Those are a completely different breed...
Click to expand...
I disagree with your premise. Anyone who is even decent at video games can pass the cuphead tutorial with hardly any sort of trouble. It doesn't take 10 minutes to pass the tutorial. The directions are right there. Most decent players have played platformers that have double jumping and some timing mechanics. This guy got stuck at the first double jump. It's this same guy who writes a review about a game telling the readers that the game is too hard.

Thus an article about game difficulty by gaming journalists is really suspect. One can make the argument for a game like dark souls being too hard, but to a game of that difficulty, the "hardness" makes the game. These kind of games are actually quite rare.
 
We all play games for our enjoyment....except those that do so as a job, that they probably enjoy.
There's a case to be made for whatever difficulty anyone plays a game at.

My favorite mechanic is permadeath.
Difficulty is less important when you can just pound your head against the wall for hours hoping for a good instance of the 2nd law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top