Support NeoGAF

[BibiMaghoo]

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..)

This.

It is lazy, but at the same time, 100% understandable. So I am a bit mixed opinion on it. On the one hand, little effort is being put in for those that want a greater challenge. On the other, why would a dev bother putting so much work into something 99% of people will never touch.

 

[Orenhy]

Sadly today for a hard game experience, you need to go multiplayer, games like SC2, Counterstrike GO, DOTA2 etc though problem being the difficulty curve is insanely high.
Otherwise puzzle/arcade games are your only good options.
Single player games are just not designed with real challenge in mind, developers prefer today to focus on immersion and worldly experience over designing a real new challenge.
There are so many games i would like to play that i don't just because i know they won't pose enough challenge to justify the time spent, i want to fear death, and a reason to actually think and use all the tools given to me in game, and not to just find the "style of play" that suits my personality.

 

[nubbe]

MegaMan ZX on hard is awesome

No power ups, different boss movements

 

[Sethos]

This.

It is lazy, but at the same time, 100% understandable. So I am a bit mixed opinion on it. On the one hand, little effort is being put in for those that want a greater challenge. On the other, why would a dev bother putting so much work into something 99% of people will never touch.

Maybe more people would actually bother if it was done well or had focus, like the Souls games.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

This.

It is lazy, but at the same time, 100% understandable. So I am a bit mixed opinion on it. On the one hand, little effort is being put in for those that want a greater challenge. On the other, why would a dev bother putting so much work into something 99% of people will never touch.

And it's one reason why Ulduar is the only good raid since BC, it's not even a seperate mode (with actual granularity! No need to cripple-nerf every 3 weeks!)

 

[BIONIC-ARRRMMM!!]

Uncharted and CoD are probably the worst I've experienced this gen. These fucking games do not have good gameplay mechanics to support the increase in difficulty, they are designed with you getting hit in mind due to the regenerating health.

I remember I couple of guys who say they enjoy playing CoD on Veteran. You motherfuckers should get your head checked, there's nothing fun about that shit.

 

[Arkos]

Get the Metal Gear Legacy collection and enjoy fantastic hard modes.

Also I'm surprised no one has mentioned Halo. Heroic is actually the intended difficulty, and I've always felt that Legendary scales pretty well

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Maybe more people would actually bother if it was done well or had focus, like the Souls games.

I have played both Souls games, and neither has a difficulty option does it? News to me if it does.

But I am fairly confident most people do not replay single player games on higher settings. I believe we have had publishers that state most people do not even finish games at all, let alone on higher settings.

I don't think the effort a dev puts into a higher difficulty mode has any bearing on if a player will replay a game they finished. And lets be honest, this is only an issue to someone replaying, because otherwise they would not know the difference between the settings in play.

 

[Naked Lunch]

Bayonetta, Vanquish, Ace Combat, Halo, Armored Core, Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry (to name a few) say youre wrong. Hard difficulty is designed for those games to get the most out of them - not to mentioning providing loads of replay value.

 

[Rambler]

STALKER is a fun romp, even unmodded, with master difficulty.

What's cool about STALKER is that hard mode makes EVERYONE more deadly, including the player.

 

[Sentenza]

I can't think of a single title that made playing the same game and switching from the easiest-to-the-hardest setting as satisfying and rewarding as Thief 1 and 2.

It made guards smarter, a bit stronger and it added a whole bunch of additional conditions to clear a scenario ("Steal X money and jewels", "you are a professional thief, not a killer, don't kill anyone", "don't knock out more than 3 people or your intrusion will be noticed", "complete the additional task XY" etc).

 

[Sethos]

I have played both Souls games, and neither has a difficulty option does it? News to me if it does.

You missed the point. Point is, if effort has been put into making a game challenging and it has been done well, people will play it -- It's the main draw of the souls games and people love it. There's a large segment for it and by just brushing it aside saying "Oh, only 1% will play it" is wrong, because only 1% will play it because it's shit. If done well, people will come. Stop making babby games, focus on making them more skill based and people will STILL play them if they're good.

 

[plainr_]

All 3 Uncharted games on Crushing are like completely different games. So much fun.

I wish this mode was unlocked from the get go. Crushing is seriously the best way to play it.

 

[Parakeetman]

Most of the time hard mode usually just means, more accuracy from enemies and less life for you. Which equals bad time overall. In first person shooters anyways.

 

[Septimius]

I played the entire Mass Effect series on hard, and I enjoyed it very much. It's hard, alright, but it feels realistic. You can't just run around being stupid when you're fighting enemies. You have to work to flank them, and stay behind cover when there are 4 enemies shooting your way.

It also makes playing vanguard much more fun. dashing around, killing everything.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

You missed the point. Point is, if effort has been put into making a game challenging and it has been done well, people will play it -- It's the main draw of the souls games and people love it. There's a large segment for it and by just brushing it aside saying "Oh, only 1% will play it" is wrong, because only 1% will play it because it's shit. If done well, people will come.

The comparison is a poor one. Having a game that is popular because it is difficult, has no relevance to harder settings in games that have not been designed this way. The thread is discussing the setting itself, the choice of having a harder version of a game, and it being made poorly.

These are entirely different beasts. By your suggestion, all games should just be designed to be hard and challenging, because people like that?

I think you will find 'most people' do not like a challenging game at all. They want a game they can play and have fun with. This usually means the opposite. Why do you think games get easier by the year? Because 'most people' want them that way. You vastly overestimate the number of people that want hard games to play.

 

[Sethos]

The comparison is a poor one.

No, it's not a poor one because one has selectable levels and the other is forced on you. It's still possible to make a great hard mode that people want to play, add some incentives, push the game as that mode, make it a focus point and then water it down from there -- Not the other way around. Developers tweak for the lowest common denominator and just pile on top from there, which is the wrong way around.

Bit like Ranger Mode in the Metro games. That had a lot of difficulty levels but yet Ranger mode was decent and a lot of people praised it / played it because the developers actually focused on it, made it good.

 

[dab0ne]

Because Hard modes don't do anything but make you die easier and allow the enemies to take more damage... usually. If hard mode meant the enemies were smarter then they would be more fun but since they just turn the protagonist into a wuss and the enemies into tanks it ends up being more annoying and cheap than anything. I call it "Slot Machine difficulty" when games do this. The difficulty of winning doesn't lie in the actual challenge of the gameplay.

 

[Harabec]

The game I played that had the best difficulty settings was Galactic Civilizations II. The AI didn't get free cash or units on harder difficulties, the AI algorithms were just better and the AI responded to your unit types by building the counters.

Since it is a turn-based game they are able to put the more complicated AI in, but the turn times do get noticeably longer, especially late game.

 

[QaaQer]

this thread reminded of one of the reasons Demon's Souls was so great: no difficulty slider. The game was tuned the way the director wanted it, period. Too many times, devs try to shoe horn so many options for the player, the gameplay loses focus and things cannot be tuned.

 

[Riposte]

Anyone who makes a big deal about just the idea of enemies having advantages in terms of health and damage is suspect. You shouldn't want games to be fair, you should want them to be a proper challenge. You have human intellect and time so in most cases the advantage will still be yours.

EDIT: To be clear, "fair" in this case is pretty much the scrubby idea of "fair". e.g. throws are not fair, camping is not fair, picking a good character is not fair, etc.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

No, it's not a poor one because one has selectable levels and the other is forced on you. It's still possible to make a great hard mode that people want to play, add some incentives, push the game as that mode, make it a focus point and then water it down from there -- Not the other way around. Developers tweak for the lowest common denominator and just pile on top from there, which is the wrong way around.

Bit like Ranger Mode in the Metro games. That had a lot of difficulty levels but yet Ranger mode was decent and a lot of people praised it / played it because the developers actually focused on it, made it good.

Ok, the metro Ranger mode is a better example, given that the reason people buy the game is not its difficulty, which the Souls games are. I understand what you are saying now.

However, you seem to be someone blinded by your own preferences. People - as in most - do Not want hard games. The majority want games that are fun to play. Hard games can be frustrating (see Souls) and that is not fun. Games are easier than they used to be, because that is what most people want. To experience a game, finish it, and move on. This is why 'hard' games are rare to non existent. This is why the Souls games have a niche. This is why 'Hard' modes that change the game are a waste of resources to a dev.

 

[Tacitus_]

Anyone who makes a big deal about just the idea of enemies having advantages in terms of health and damage is suspect. You shouldn't want games to be fair, you should want them to be a proper challenge. You have human intellect and time so in most cases the advantage will still be yours.

Nothing challenging about hordes of enemies running towards you with hitscan weapons and instant aim. At least with projectile weapons or melee combat you can use skill to dodge attacks.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It's an issue of AI. When was the last time a single enemy in a game offered a challenge besides bosses who just have a bunch of special powers. That's why they just change the sliders and spawn a bunch of enemies, to simulate challenge.

 

[D-e-f-]

STALKER is a fun romp, even unmodded, with master difficulty.

Both BioShock games on the hardest difficulty are also incredibly tense experiences and actually felt more immersive to me that way.

 

[Sethos]

However, you seem to be someone blinded by your own preferences. People - as in most - do Not want hard games. The majority want games that are fun to play. Hard games can be frustrating (see Souls) and that is not fun. Games are easier than they used to be, because that is what most people want. To experience a game, finish it, and move on. This is why 'hard' games are rare to non existent. This is why the Souls games have a niche. This is why 'Hard' modes that change the game are a waste of resources to a dev.

Yes, Press A to awesome is what people want these days but brushing any challenging gameplay aside because of that is wrong. It's the same argument when some developers do, say a PC port that is fucking awful and then say "Eh, piracy and nobody wanted to play" NO, just do it properly! Hard mode in games has never been a focus point in the past 10 years, it was never given a real chance but it's just brushed aside with "Oh people don't want to play that" based on the current majority hard modes which are complete garbage.

It's the same shitty circle: Let's make rubbish Hard modes -> People don't want to play it -> Aww people aren't playing it, why should we focus on it -> People play it even less.

But let's just agree to disagree, as that's probably where we are at.

 

[Arkos]

What's cool about STALKER is that hard mode makes EVERYONE more deadly, including the player.

This is a good point. Playing Halo on legendary is fun I think, but it also takes away the ultimate badass feeling in a way.

It would be interesting for a game to have two different sets of "difficulties," one that maintains relative levels but just raises/lowers them (as it sounds like you're saying STALKER does), and one that that is asymmetric and buffs the enemies and/or hinders the player (more like most games).

Would more adjustable or customizable difficulty levels be way hard to program is? Because now that I think about it, it could add a lot of replayability and variety of gameplay to a game.

Edit: I mean we're already complaining that the AI etc doesn't really change over difficulty levels, so would it be so hard to just allow the user to tweak the damage settings etc?

 

[soldat7]

Halo and Vanquish have awesomely hard difficulty levels.

 

[Boogiepop]

MegaMan ZX on hard is awesome

No power ups, different boss movements

Came in here to give a shoutout to this. For me, it turned what I found to be a somewhat mediocre game into something amazing. Still need to play through the hard mode of Advent, now that I think of it...

 

[Pinko Marx]

Nothing challenging about hordes of enemies running towards you with hitscan weapons and instant aim. At least with projectile weapons or melee combat you can use skill to dodge attacks.

I think you're exaggerating here. I play all my games on hard from the get go and have never run into an issue with instant aim or anything you've mentioned.

 

[Instro]

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..)

Yeah this. It disappoints me to no end when games do this because I don't really feel like I'm getting something substantial out of playing at a higher difficulty level, which I generally do when the option is available.

 

[Epic Drop]

I noticed this when I played through shadows of the damned on the hardest difficulty. They gave the enemies (especially bosses) so much health as to be ridiculous. It didn't make the game harder, it just made it more tedious.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Yes, Press A to awesome is what people want these days but brushing any challenging gameplay aside because of that is wrong. It's the same argument when some developers do, say a PC port that is fucking awful and then say "Eh, piracy and nobody wanted to play" NO, just do it properly! Hard mode in games has never been a focus point in the past 10 years, it was never given a real chance but it's just brushed aside with "Oh people don't want to play that" based on the current majority hard modes which are complete garbage.

It's the same shitty circle: Let's make rubbish Hard modes -> People don't want to play it -> Aww people aren't playing it, why should we focus on it -> People play it even less.

But let's just agree to disagree, as that's probably where we are at.

I understand why it is frustrating, I'm just pointing out the reason why. I like no more than you, to spend $60 on a game and 'finish' it in 12 hours of button pressing with no challenge.

But what you are essentially asking for, is that Devs spend what I would consider a large sum of money, to pander to the wants of the few, who may not even buy the game anyway. Surely you can see why this would be an issue?

I don't in principle, disagree with you at all. I just understand why.

 

[QaaQer]

Ok, the metro Ranger mode is a better example, given that the reason people buy the game is not its difficulty, which the Souls games are. I understand what you are saying now.

However, you seem to be someone blinded by your own preferences. People - as in most - do Not want hard games. The majority want games that are fun to play. Hard games can be frustrating (see Souls) and that is not fun. Games are easier than they used to be, because that is what most people want. To experience a game, finish it, and move on. This is why 'hard' games are rare to non existent. This is why the Souls games have a niche. This is why 'Hard' modes that change the game are a waste of resources to a dev.

funny times when a 2 million seller is niche. And is easy games what most people want? I read somewhere only 20% of people ever finish the games they buy.

and when I look at the most popular games with dedicated fans (COD multiplayer, Dota2, Starcraft, Certain Nintendo franchaises, monster hunter, etc), they are all difficult to win at.

I think easy, anyone can win games are part of the reason that the aaa industry is contracting. The do not give players a sense of victory or accomplishment, and that is what I believe hooks people and makes them gamers. Take out the challenge and frustration, and what is left?

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Anyone who makes a big deal about just the idea of enemies having advantages in terms of health and damage is suspect. You shouldn't want games to be fair, you should want them to be a proper challenge. You have human intellect and time so in most cases the advantage will still be yours.

It's more difficult, but it's most often a cheap and/or unclever difficulty.

It's you, the skilled player, forced to grunge thru enemies that soak a whole clip that once went down on one burst, now psychicly know where you are when alerted in a game where LoS and sound plays a defining role, where a spell that have a stated 30% chance of effect now hover around 60% in the AI's hands, where a computer AI does not need to charge to Flash Kick, but you cannot due to input, etc, etceter-AH.

There is nothing noble or respectable about bumping up enemies HP and damage output 35% and calling it heroic.

Where is the "no tutorials"?

Where is the better AI?

Where is the increased objectives?

Where is the increased number of nuanced attacks?

Where is the increased ammount of abilities at the players disposal, whose use are indirectly enforced by these?

No, we get in these examples broken difficulty, narrowed-before-its-time gameplay, out of control RNG, and watered-down rewards to avoid the T-ball efforts that pass themselves off as "Normal" nowadays.

Fair difficult is infinately better than this, it incintivizes mastery, puts blame squarely on the player's shoulders for failure, and encourages trying again.

There's a reason why terrible difficult-for-ugly-reasons games from the NES era are forgotten or hated when they are remembered (TMNT), and hard but fair ones are beloved to this day and spawned multiple sequels and spinoffs (Megaman and Castlevania), and it is they were BAD. This sort of off-handed dismissive mode is, of itself, BAD when done this way, like those games of old.

funny times when a 2 million seller is niche. And is easy games what most people want? I read somewhere only 20% of people ever finish the games they buy.

DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN, DOROTHY! DO NOT!

 

[BibiMaghoo]

funny times when a 2 million seller is niche. And is easy games what most people want? I read somewhere only 20% of people ever finish the games they buy.

and when I look at the most popular games with dedicated fans (COD multiplayer, Dota2, Starcraft, Certain Nintendo franchaises, monster hunter, etc), they are all difficult to win at.

I think easy, anyone can win games are part of the reason that the aaa industry is contracting. The do not give players a sense of victory or accomplishment, and that is what I believe hooks people and makes them gamers. Take out the challenge and frustration, and what is left?

Across three platforms over how much time? It is hardly stellar is it..

I have read similar statements, which kind of add to my case. What are the likely hood of that percentage decreasing with harder games more generally in play?

They are multiplayer games... I'm not sure if you are serious. Good AI and good players are not comparable in skill. Obviously.

Fun? I do not find frustration fun. Although I enjoy a sense of accomplishment as much as the next guy.

A game does not require being difficult or frustrating, to be rewarding and fun for the player. That is a horrendous view to have, and fortunately not one commonly held, otherwise you would not see games - like COD mulit - throwing out rewards to the player for the crappest of performances in game.

 

[Tacitus_]

I think you're exaggerating here. I play all my games on hard from the get go and have never run into an issue with instant aim or anything you've mentioned.

Was mainly complaining about "modern shooters", COD games and their ilk. Playing COD on Veteran is just a frustrating ordeal.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Across three platforms over how much time? It is hardly stellar is it..

I have read similar statements, which kind of add to my case. What are the likely hood of that percentage decreasing with harder games more generally in play?

They are multiplayer games... I'm not sure if you are serious. Good AI and good players are not comparable in skill. Obviously.

Fun? I do not find frustration fun. Although I enjoy a sense of accomplishment as much as the next guy.

A game does not require being difficult or frustrating, to be rewarding and fun for the player. That is a horrendous view to have, and fortunately not one commonly held, otherwise you would not see games - like COD mulit - throwing out rewards to the player for the crappest of performances in game.

You're conflating success of one example as a roadmap for everyone in that field, whereas a cursory glance at this generation shows this methodology isn't the salvation it's cracked up to be.

That, and you conflate your own tastes for again, everyone. This isn't a well-thought out or researched view, but don't worry! Smart people at publishers ain't figured this out yet either, so don't feel bad!