• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why do "Hard" difficulty settings almost always suck?

Realyn

Member
Hi, my name is Realyn and I'm a hardcore gamer.

I fully respect gamers who come home from work, take care of their kids and then simply want to relax with their games for a hour or two.
Hell, it's not like I don't feel like that aswell from time to time. But if I do I'll try to catch some friends and play [insert random MP game here].

When it comes to SP games however, I want to be challenged. And frankly, that's simply not happening most of the time. The difference from normal to hard is: more enemies, more health and more damage up to a stupid amount. Some recent examples:

- Fire Emblem Awakening: If you play Lunatic without exp grind dlc you can use 1-5 units effectively. Every ranged unit is a 1 shot through the game! Lunatic+ you'll have to reset the 3DS like 10-20 times each for the first 5 chapters until enemies don't have certain abilities like counter which will, suprise right there, one shot you.

-Civ 5: I love that game. I can't check right now, but I should have 500-700 hours played. Problem with the last 2 difficulty settings: If you play smart enemies in your continent won't be a problem 90% of the time. Either you go to war with them yourself or make them start a war with someone else.
It becomes problematic if you play a continent/random map. You have played 250 turns out of ~400. You are doing good. Then you explore the map and find the other continent. Originally 3 Civs started there, but one conquered the other two. Not only does he have a unit on every god damn tile, but he also saved up a absurd amount of money. So even if you kill all those units, he'll just buy new ones.
It's not impossible to win those games ... but yeah, they are not really fun. Especially with 30-60 seconds endgame load times on the average pc people tend to quit at that point and start a new game.

-Diablo 3 on Hardcore: Yeah, I don't need to explain that, right?

-Dragon Age 2: Basically everythings one hits you.

-[random shooter with 3/4 letters]: Instead of spawning 10 enemies we will spawn you 50 enemies. Yeah!!!! 5 times more fun.


The last game I really had fun with on the harder setting was Tales of Vesperia. If I remember correctly it slightly upped the enemie damage and trippled the health. Random battles would take around a minute instead of "10 second loading, 10 second fighting, 10 second" sequences. Boss fights were long enough for you to make mistakes, but not too long to get ridiculous. Also you were able to change the difficulty on the world map.
Other notable mention: Path of Exile. Nearly no server fuckups, immunity when zoning in and so on.
 
Because "Hard" and up are almost never "redesigned" so much as a bunch of things just have their sliders tweaked. (Damage Dealt, Damage Taken, Enemy HP, Etc..)
 
They aren't typically well balanced because the games are designed around the default difficulty. The problem is, default difficulty has become stupidly easy in far too many games.
 
I had so much fun with Lunatic! And a bit of torture. Just pair a person up with Frederick and then soften up the enemy units & use your other guys to kill.
 
My guess would be that by and large games are catered for people who don't enjoy harder difficulties, therefore developers spend less time balancing those modes for people who do seek the challenge.
 
Most games are designed around normal as that is the most commonly picked. It is then the easy/lazy way to just crank up numbers instead of modifying AI, which is not how the game was designed and leads to frustration.
 
Why would devs spend significant resources on hardcore modes, when only a fraction of a fraction of gamers will use them?

Most gamers never even bother to beat games on regular difficulty. "hard" is just something to placate a minority of the gaming population, so going the easy route and bumping up damage or enemy AI and calling it a day makes the most sense.
 
I think the entire problem is decent AI. I always wish when I turn up the difficulty level that enemies get a bit smarter, feel more 'trained' if it was a shooter, work in teams to flush you out and all that -- With the same amount of HP, same amount of enemies but just a mental challenge.

However as AI is at the bottom of developer's progression list, upping the difficulty usually means, as mentioned; more enemies, bullet sponging, you die quicker and fewer resources. It's just so ... Boring.

As you progress, the enemies don't really become smarter or the environment presents now challenges for you to take on as you battle a decent AI no, they just throw BIG GIANT ROBOTS™ at you that can take 16 clips and you just need to run around in a circle.
 
Because unless you pick a game with good AI your always going to get this. Scenarios sometimes limit the AI and games like Call of Duty strive for a more realistic HP count but the vast majority suck.

Fallout New Vegas got a Hard mode mod created by one of the developers and that got some praise for its difficulty.

The worst examples are game modes like "Hell or Hell" in Devil May Cry. You are 1 hit kill and the enemies are incredibly resistant
 
I agree with your sentiments. Most "hard" difficulties are not made to be more interesting or nuanced, but simply slightly more challenging or more annoying in most cases. I, too, enjoy being significantly challenged in games, and I have been left disappointed or bored with most harder difficulties over the last five years or so. But, like many people have said thus far, developers seem to focus more on the default difficulties, and I can't blame them for it. The vast majority of people don't bother with harder difficulties, so there's less of a reason to invest time and money into making them memorable for the minority.
 
Because unless you pick a game with good AI your always going to get this. Scenarios sometimes limit the AI and games like Call of Duty strive for a more realistic HP count but the vast majority suck.

Fallout New Vegas got a Hard mode mod created by one of the developers and that got some praise for its difficulty.

The worst examples are game modes like "Hell or Hell" in Devil May Cry. You are 1 hit kill and the enemies are incredibly resistant

DMC is one of the best examples given that you can get through the entire game without getting hit once. NG:B actually introduced enemies that didn't exist at all on lower difficulties as well. Action games are great for paying attention to this stuff.
 
Because unless you pick a game with good AI your always going to get this. Scenarios sometimes limit the AI and games like Call of Duty strive for a more realistic HP count but the vast majority suck.

Fallout New Vegas got a Hard mode mod created by one of the developers and that got some praise for its difficulty.

The worst examples are game modes like "Hell or Hell" in Devil May Cry. You are 1 hit kill and the enemies are incredibly resistant

Hell or Hell is advertised like that though, that's the appeal, to finish the game flawlessly. It doesn't really fall under what the OP is complaining about.
 
DMC is one of the best examples given that you can get through the entire game without getting hit once. NG:B actually introduced enemies that didn't exist at all on lower difficulties as well. Action games are great for paying attention to this stuff.

One of the better things that can be done for higher difficulties, I think.
 
The worst examples are game modes like "Hell or Hell" in Devil May Cry. You are 1 hit kill and the enemies are incredibly resistant

Hell and Hell was not that bad, and you technically can get hit three times before having to continue (You're given three gold skulls for revives that do not count against you as deaths). There are also three game modes in DMC that are harder than the default difficulty. Heaven and Hell and Hell and Hell are "fun" difficulty settings that are meant to test your abilities in a unique way that none of the others do. Recklessness is specifically punished. If you just want something difficult, then there is still Dante Must Die!

So, I'm not sure if that's fair criticism given how many difficulties already exist in that game that actually vary the challenge in a nuanced way with each difficulty level. I actually felt like DMC was one of the best games in the past couple years to handle difficulty levels well.
 
Lunatic in Fire Emblem is exactly like it sounds. What do you expect? It's the most extreme of difficulties and meant only for those really obsessed with the games. Maybe you should have actually played on Hard instead.
 
I wish "Hard mode" were synonymous with "challenges your mind" rather than "challenges your reflexes/speed."

I understand the difficulty and cost of programming for that, but I almost always skip over hard modes because they tend to just mean either I will be handicapped, the enemy will be overpowered, or there will simply be more enemies.
 
The root of the problem, as I understand it, is that programming a "realistic" AI is next to impossible with current technology and methodology. Game AI just isn't robust enough to react to the human element- we don't play by the same rules, essentially. A human playing an RTS game, for example, could exploit an encounter by intensely micromanaging his units to prevent being damaged as much as he is hurting the AI. While you could program that behavior into the AI, that takes time, money, and digital real estate to store the code. And even that's an oversimplification, because programming an AI to use that sort of tactic with the right units at the right time against the right player units is no small feat itself, if not impossible.

So the easiest way to make an AI harder is to let it cheat. Let it know where you are all the time, give it more health, more damage, more money, whatever. The problem is that when these modifiers get too far away from the default designed difficulty, the whole game basically changes and you get all sorts of weird situations that the developers just don't have the time or money to properly balance.
 
It all depends on if they plan for harder difficulties or if it is thrown together at the last minute. Some games play completely different on higher difficulties with bosses and trash mobs having different tactics, spells and scripts, and the players get high end skills and spells not available on easier difficulties. Examples Diablo series, Borderlands, Titans Quest etc. Some games the real game doesnt start until you hit the higher difficulties, but those are games built from the ground up with higher difficulties in mind.

The worse is when developers get lazy and just bump mobs hp by a certain percent, make their own damage hit for double or triple, or the worst when they have infinite spawning mobs until you pass an imaginary line. Scaling mobs are one thing, but bullet sponges are in their own category. Nothing is fun about killing bullet sponge mobs that take several clips, half a dozen spells, 6 high crits, etc. then you have to worry about passing the imaginary line, because if you arent quick enough a few more bullet sponge spawns.
 
Most games are balanced around normal difficulty, which I think is just fine as that is what 90% of the fanbase will play it at....it takes careful consideration to make a good Hard mode...the best are when the game mechanics are fully utilized and necessary to complete the game at harder difficulties

Games with easily the best Harder difficulties:
-Crysis 1
-FEAR
 
FIFA Legendary has this issue. Even Unknownfucks United play like fucking Real Madrid from the Galácticos Era with insane passing, more speed, impossible defense and incredibly accurate strikes, it's just infuriating and the difficulty sliders only ease the pain a little.

Back in the PS2, Winning Eleven 8 did the right thing, you could see the team changing formation, strategies, and better gameplay from the AI, but without making them Bo Jackson with the body of Cristiano Ronaldo.

Demon's Souls did the right thing by jacking up the damage but keeping that steady, good combat that you endured in your first playthrough. You feel vulnerable and queasy again, but they don't do stupid bullshit like making every enemy fight like Old King Allant and whatnot.

NG:B actually introduced enemies that didn't exist at all on lower difficulties as well.
Interesting.
 
Because good hard modes take time and money to design and implement, yet 95% of players will never touch them or even play a game to completion more than once. From a business perspective it's just simply not worth it. Now, you may ask "then why have them at all, even if they're shit?" Well simple stat changes are easy to do, and if you don't have hard modes people will bitch if they aren't there (even if the vast, vast majority won't touch them), so they kinda just throw them in there late in development as to not displease the vocal minority.
 
http://www.pathofexile.com/

A much better ARPG with an amazing hardcore community.

Play Dark Souls too, it's hard in all the right ways.

I mentioned PoE. And amazing community ... must be a joke? Not only is the community everything from "amazing", but also nearly dead. Have you played HC when the 1 month race started? Ghosttown. They need to get their shit together and lure back players who have quit a month or two ago.

Dark Souls is hard from the get go, yes. Which is quite missing my point.


Thanks, I'll read it later.
 
These days when I get frustrated with a game (mostly shootbangs) switching the game to easy makes it so much more enjoyable.
 
Uh Oh, just today I started Dust (pc) on Hard. It's when developers have the difficulties ordered as:

Easy
Normal
Hard
Crazy!

that makes me feel lame if I pick normal.
 
Cuz devs don't want to put the work in and just troll you.

More like games cost a lot to make and are designed on very tight schedules so developers (rightly) prioritize designing and iterating on the core details of the game such as level design and mechanics over difficulty modes.
 
I like when enemies are different on hard mode.

Most of them just ramp up more enemies and your health is lowered. Which sucks sometimes.
 
Because devs can't make better AI for higher difficulties so they use cheap tricks like making enemies bullet sponges to trick you into thinking it's more challenging.
 
Lunatic in Fire Emblem is exactly like it sounds. What do you expect? It's the most extreme of difficulties and meant only for those really obsessed with the games. Maybe you should have actually played on Hard instead.

Wait, what? You think it is ok that you can only use your Avatar and Chrom, unless you buy dlc? It only costs 1€ or whatever, but I have a real big problem with a design philosophy like that.

Buy DLC or only use 2 out of 100 characters available in the game. Cool stuff.
 
I am okay with the hardest difficulty being insanely hard over the other extreme where a hard difficulty is pretty much indistinguishable from the game's normal one. If I actually need to play on a lower difficulty, that's fine.

Diablo 3 was extremely lame about it though, because you hit a level cap before entering the hardest difficulty (though I'm pretty sure leveling up doesn't give a very useful benefit other than more maximum mana) and the game's loot system denied you the proper stats needed to overcome the difficulty unless you used the auction house.
 
I think the original Halo is one of the most balanced games I've played on the hardest setting of Legendary. Most of the sandbox still works very well, and it doesn't do it in a cheap way by turning enemies into bullet sponges and making them kill you if they so much as look at you.

What it instead does is increase the enemy count slightly, upgrade their health/shields, increase their ranks, makes your shield weaker, and (seemingly) makes the AI more aggressive.

It's a bunch of smaller changes which combine to increase the challenge. Other games in the series managed to pull this off with varying degrees of success (Halo 2 was a disaster however), but they never came close to CE in my opinion.
 
This is why I hate most games past the normal difficulty. Ninja Gaiden is an offender as well with bullshit hitting you offscreen and certain shenanigans that the player has no control over avoiding. I love brutally difficult games, especially those that are clearly out of my league and I have to work up to them. I do not like imbalances and bad design though.
 
Eh. Don't have a problem with baddies having more health or just doing more damage in a higher difficulty. If the game's back system is robust enough the higher difficulty will push you towards new realms of play.

Take Kid Icarus: Uprising's difficulty toggle for example. The higher difficulties pretty much function like a game+ mode. Because you can't bring in any weapon and any power set into any mission and because your weapons and powers are a culmination of all your play time previously (getting stronger and stronger abilities) the higher modes scale quite nicely.

Wait, what? You think it is ok that you can only use your Avatar and Chrom, unless you buy dlc? It only costs 1€ or whatever, but I have a real big problem with a design philosophy like that.

Buy DLC or only use 2 out of 100 characters available in the game. Cool stuff.

I don't care. It's the extreme of the extreme. It's a mode for some people. Definitely not for most people though.
 
OP, I see you mention Tales of Vesperia as a good Hard difficulty mode. I havent't played it in that difficulty yet, but when I played Tales of Symphonia it was fantastic. The enemies made combos and used strategies. It was really a great experience to play it that way.

Another fantastic game on hiher difficulty levels is Shadow of Colossus. The bosses change their patterns on a fun way.

One of my favorite difficulty jumps was on Perfect Dark, in the villa scene. If you played on lower difficulties you must protect the negotiator. If you played on higher difficulties you were the negotiator.
 
Top Bottom