Topic: Game Difficulty discussion

I just read this and thought it was relevant to this discussion.

"People choose different paths for their lives. As people get older, they make choices that sometimes take them away from the time required to be a ‘gamer’. I am now 43 and have made a deliberate decision to keep things simple so I can dedicate time to the things that I enjoy. No kids, and a job that gives me plenty of time off allow me to indulge in epic gaming sessions. I’m sorry if your choices do not allow this but please don’t expect single-player experiences to be diluted to fit a lifestyle you have chosen. After all, you wouldn’t expect 18 holes of golf to become three holes or a two-hour film to be shortened to 30 minutes. We have to choose hobbies that suit us. I also think maybe the feature writer is looking at games in the wrong manner. Yes, something like Sekiro is tricky and takes time to master but nobody said you have to finish it by the first weekend of its release. I for one don’t want to end up being limited to mobile device time fillers for my gaming needs."

I don't agree with every thing he says (not sure if the golf analogy works) but the life choices we make and how it effects are gaming time.

@JohnnyShoulder
I'm not sure it's relevant (though I think it is).
Here's IGN s Dan Stapleton ranting about BB at the time the game released. It's a classic

https://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2015/03/26/how-and-why-bloodbor...

Absolutely crazy. He doesn't have the time but other people do. Surprise surprise.

You can't compare super meat boy to bloodborne either so stoopid.

@themcnoisy I think an option to lock in a harder difficulty would be good. I normally hate when I can’t adjust, but lately that’s been more because sometimes I can’t make the game harder. I think an option to lock it in and the game making fun of you for not doing so is a good compromise.

@themcnoisy
Yea actually I think it was edited since. Originally he was going on about the wolves (the two guys on the bridge) he thought he had to kill every single time haha

@JohnnyShoulder But you can choose to do less holes, or skip if there not a line? Or just do a few and stop? Adjust scoring your own game for that. The move comparison is more like shortening a game. (And to be fair, games are too long regardless of lifestyle)

@Jaz007 Yeah I know, which is why i said the golfing analogy didn't work.

@themcnoisy I really don't think ANY reviewer has the right to criticise a game for being 'too easy' if they are playing the game on 'Easy' mode. If they are playing it on 'insane' and breezing through it as if it was on Easy' mode, then criticise the games difficulty setting.

The point I was trying to make though is that EVERY gamer is different, has different experience and skill level. I believe that every game should have a way of tweaking the difficulty setting to suit the player rather than put them off. If the Devs are so keen for a player to play the game at the difficulty they consider the game should be played at - ie Normal - I see no reason for not offering 'easier' mode(s). Whether they allow players to 'finish' the 'full' game, mock them for picking 'easier' settings etc or not, that's up to the devs to decide. They could mock gamers (like Wolfenstein) and lock off, change the 'final' boss to be a Lieutenant that after beaten, then challenges the player to beat the game on 'Normal' or above to get the 'real' boss, use Trophies/Achievements to encourage gamers to beat the game at Normal or above.

At the very least, its a tutorial, a way for players to build up to 'get good'. Not everyone has been playing games for 40years and its not detracting from all those gamers that want the challenge. Difficulty settings can also go above 'normal' too for players that want more of a challenge than developers initially set too. All a difficulty setting offers is a way to calibrate the game to the skill level of the player rather than to ostracise, anger, frustrate etc players that are not as adept or even some that may find a game too easy to be 'enjoyable'. If those that are 'more skilled' are picking lower difficulty settings than their level, then that is down to them. They are only cheating themselves although they may have 'valid' reasons for themselves - like just wanting to see the story, don't have time to spend 20min's or more on a single boss for example.

I still don't see why games cannot offer difficulty settings for a wider range of people and skill sets. They have numerous ways of encouraging gamers to play their game at the 'normal' level for the difficulty they believe their game is best suited to. If they believe the game should be very unforgiving, then that is 'Normal' for this game. It doesn't mean that 'Normal' should be comparable to a game that is much more forgiving. Easiest in a game like Dark Souls for example could be more like Normal in CoD and Veteran in CoD could be 'normal' in Dark Souls. Its difficult to make a comparison between totally different games of course but the point I am making is that I see NO problem with a Developer setting the difficulty they consider their game should have as 'Normal' - whether that is a walk in the park or brutally challenging - its what the Devs consider to be 'normal' for their game. I also see no reason that the Devs cannot add several difficulty modes to be more inclusive based off of their 'Normal' not what other games may consider 'Normal', easy etc. I also see no reason that Devs cannot use methods to 'encourage' gamers to play at Normal (or higher) - whether that is mocking them for selecting an easy mode, locking off the 'proper ending' and encouraging gamers to replay on Normal (or above) and/or using Trophies/Achievements for beating the game on Normal (or above).

None of that detracts from the game for ALL the players that want the 'normal' difficulty they expect from a game, none of that is stopping their enjoyment at all. All its doing is enabling more sales and letting others get some enjoyment. If gamers only play it on 'easy', so what? How is that stopping those that play the game at the Normal (or higher) settings and maybe getting more 'reward' from playing it at that level too - for example, getting a 'Gold' Trophy (and/or Platinum), seeing the 'proper' ending etc. Those gamers who played on easy may get the practice and experience they needed to play on Normal and maybe more likely to buy future games instead of being put off for good.

That's my view and others may have different views - as they have expressed here. I guess we will just have to agree to differ. I think the positives, especially with numerous options available to encourage gamers to play at the 'normal' (or higher) difficulty, outweigh the negatives. Reviewers are doing a disservice to the developers and to their readers if they are playing games on easy and then criticising the games difficulty. That shouldn't be used as a reason 'not' to add easy modes, more that the reviewer is being dishonest and not the fault of the game or the developers.