Should games be easier?

[Fe 26]

[BonusKun]

Most games are too easy, please let me have my occasionally difficult game.

The best option is probably adjustable difficulty levels like most games have, but the problem is usually that the game design is balanced around a very easy "Normal" level, with hard mode basically being "fuck you" and ridiculous.

This is the correct answer. If games were just too easy to beat, I'd fucking fall asleep out of boredom.

The original 3D World Runner on the NES is an example of a game I actually beat as a kid and that game was hard as fucking balls. It's a shame I got cheated in the end by a glitch after I killed the final boss. Defeated it and right afterwards the screen flashed and I get a Screen Prompt. "Please insert Disc 2."

[kingoffighters]

The original 3D World Runner on the NES is an example of a game I actually beat as a kid and that game was hard as fucking balls. It's a shame I got cheated in the end by a glitch after I killed the final boss. Defeated it and right afterwards the screen flashed and I get a Screen Prompt. "Please insert Disc 2."

LOL seriously?

[cka]

I was about to ask some serious questions about that "please insert disk 2" on a nes, but then remembered the FDS used floppies

[gameoverDude]

The normal setting should require you to have some skill or at least improve (i.e. "Give me a challenge" as opposed to "Tell me a story"). Don't make players beat the game on lower difficulties to unlock the harder ones though- if someone wants to go straight to Nightmare, let them.

[sleeve]

Wolfenstein II took an interesting approach to this problem by adding *more* difficulty levels: six instead of the usual four.

Just like the last game, you can switch between them whenever you want without penalty. But now there's a lot more difficulty fine-tuning available. This allows you to constantly play the game however you want rather than force you into a specific playstyle to beat the game's AI, which is how games should be ultimately enjoyed I think.

[Hero]

I think it really comes down to a matter of intent.

Most often, easier games are done that way so players can, "complete the experience" according to devs, but in my mind that reads "we don't trust you idiot pieces of shit, but we spent all this money and genius making this game, so you better fucking see all of it."

In contrast, you have difficult games like Dark Souls where its difficulty kinda wraps back around into the general mood of the series overall.

Then you have Cuphead where, the best comparison I saw, you have to consider it like practicing in a band. You may know all the parts to a 2 minute performance, but it's about drilling that until you can do it right all in one go, then well, then perfect, then challenging yourself all over again by experimenting a bit with self-imposed stuff.

BUT ALSO.

You have a game like Mario Odyssey, where the game is rarely tough (until the post-ending), they take out all meaningful punishments, and some moons are as simple to get as "jump on this innocuous rock." While that's a much easier way to approach 3D platformers, it feels in line with the theme of the game overall. It isn't about ball busting difficulty. It isn't about appreciating the dev's brilliance, like it or not, so you're on training wheels the whole time. It's about encouraging exploration and experimentation with a design that is generous and inviting. It's the point of the game.

That makes the difference - you can't really call tough games objectively good and easy ones automatically shit. The way difficulty is implemented most of the time? Yeah, it sucks. That's on the devs though, and not a measurement of some Aristotelian true good of games. Like so many have said here, games tend to be tuned for 'normal' and treat harder modes as an afterthought. Just make enemies damage sponges. Make the player weak as a wet tissue. Whereas games lauded for their difficulty are often designed specifically for that purpose. And I think that's the more important takeaway. It's not about easy or hard - it's about whether or not developers give enough shits to design a game as an engaging GAME, not as busywork for the player as the dev unfolds their "cinematic masterpiece."

[Joust Williams]

Wolfenstein II took an interesting approach to this problem by adding *more* difficulty levels: six instead of the usual four.

Just like the last game, you can switch between them whenever you want without penalty. But now there's a lot more difficulty fine-tuning available. This allows you to constantly play the game however you want rather than force you into a specific playstyle to beat the game's AI, which is how games should be ultimately enjoyed I think.

But Wolf's AI is not good and all this does is change their accuracy and the damage ratio.

[sleeve]

But Wolf's AI is not good and all this does is change their accuracy and the damage ratio.

Fair point. Replace "AI" with "difficulty" and my point stands. The Wolfenstein games are built on dumb AI.

[Joust Williams]

Yeah I understand, but I guess my point with difficulty like that is that now it's practically just RNG and cheesing the game at that point. I played on 5? I think. Some battles I would get crushed only to reload and either do the exact same thing and win or do something lame to win.