Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

What are you playing. Hands out of your pockets!

Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Easy. Games are meant to be easy and meant to be something to enjoy.
9
50%
Hard. Games are better when they challenge you. Easy is boring.
9
50%
 
Total votes : 18

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby skrotkanon » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:48 pm

I've been playing all games on the highest difficulty possible for years but I've recently scaled it back simply because most developers don't know the difference between challenge and idiocy.

(I like hard games because it forces me to understand the mechanics. If I'm not getting mentally stimulated I quickly grow bored.)

The japanese are generally better at balance. Monster Hunter, Devil May Cry, Dark Souls, anything by Platinun Games.

I think balance means that whenever you die it's clearly your fault. You weren't careful enough, you didn't prepare or maybe you had a shitty build/team because you hadn't bothered to study the mechanics.
If you don't learn anything from dying the balance is bad. You don't have to die either, just taking a bunch of big hits should be enough to make you focus and think about what you're doing wrong. Any lesson is fine, like seeing the callout of a new attack or finding out a particular character is very badly suited for a boss/area.

The worst possible balance is shit that insta-kills you just because, like rocket launchers in Fallout 4 or grenades in Fallout 4 or Legendary Glowing Mirelurks in... you get the point.
So I don't think games should be either hard or easy, I just enjoy games that are both a tactile and mental challenge.

I don't really play games to relax, I just watch Twitch or a show instead if I need to chill.
  • 3

User avatar
skrotkanon
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:30 pm
Show rep
Title: Sleepyhead

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby iMURDAu » Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:01 pm

Oh yeah I love me some Monster Hunter difficulty. I don't think I've ever gotten carted on MH4U when it wasn't my fault. Usually I faint from poor spacing or being overly aggressive with an attack sequence and getting murked or just being cocky and not keeping my health up or not having prepared properly and being caught with the wrong gear or items.
  • 3

"Our landfills are third world bling"
- Doug Stanhope
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Route 11 by Scoopalicious
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby skrotkanon » Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:56 pm

iMURDAu wrote:Oh yeah I love me some Monster Hunter difficulty. I don't think I've ever gotten carted on MH4U when it wasn't my fault. Usually I faint from poor spacing or being overly aggressive with an attack sequence and getting murked or just being cocky and not keeping my health up or not having prepared properly and being caught with the wrong gear or items.


Exactly :)
Not for everyone but MH does challenge masterfully
  • 2

User avatar
skrotkanon
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:30 pm
Show rep
Title: Sleepyhead

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby iMURDAu » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:36 pm

Someone on another site recently described the core gameplay of Monster Hunter as "going outside and trying to kill a grizzly bear with a butter knife".

Changing the subject real quick back to the topic, there were a few retro styled new games (made within the past 5-6 years) I played that really blur the line between trial and error style difficulty and "haha you're dead cuz you didn't know you were supposed to jump immediately when the screen scrolled but hmmm now that you know that wouldn't you like to replay the level?".

I can't see that having gone over well in the 8-bit era.
  • 2

"Our landfills are third world bling"
- Doug Stanhope
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Route 11 by Scoopalicious
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Matthew Notch » Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:44 am

Dude, we were THERE in the 8-bit era. That's all we got half the time. Battletoads, amirite? Memorize the level and that's what we called fun?

I think that's another reason puzzle games remain my favorites. You catch the mechanics really quickly, but especially if there's some sort of endless mode, getting really good at executing those moves quickly is suuuuuper rewarding. It's like the feeling you get from leveling up in a game, except your actual real life is what leveled up. Nothing better than that.
  • 5

It's Dangerous to Go Alone


"I desperately want Jiggery Pokery now."-- Pikajew

"I do feel that if she happens to favour attractive, successful, intelligent men I will be at a disadvantage."--Anglerphobe

"I have a beautiful sphincter and Mexico is gonna pay for it."--Kate
User avatar
Matthew Notch
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4950
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:48 am
Location: The ICT
Show rep
Title: The Last Finisher

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby skrotkanon » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:06 am

Monster Hunter, Dark Souls and Horizon Zero Dawn is kind of like that. Sure, the numbers go up but mostly you have to understand the game. You need to bring the right weapon, armor and items but when you find out that perfect strategy on your own that turns an impossible boss into a doable one, it feels fucking great.
  • 3

User avatar
skrotkanon
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:30 pm
Show rep
Title: Sleepyhead

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Piter Lauchy » Sun Jun 04, 2017 2:46 pm

The type of difficulty where you have to think was never appealing to me. I play video games partly to avoid thinking. I do like the difficulty where there's no secret easy path and you just have to practise; platforming games are ideal for that. The rush you get when you finally beat a level like that is a very good one.
Obviously, the game has to be engaging and fun even with many replays and that's the hard part to design. Rayman Legends pulled that off masterfully with the music levels.
  • 3

The Oatmeal wrote:Live life passionately and love everyone like they are family, because Jesus is always with you. Jesus loves you seriously bigtime. He'd hug you until your eyeballs exploded out of your skull if he ever met you. He'd windsurf across oceans of dead Nazis which he personally slaughtered just to tell you that your new haircut is the bee's knees. [...]
Praise Jesus, especially when it's sunny outside because Jesus would totally be cool with you praising while you get a nice tan.
User avatar
Piter Lauchy
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:33 am
Location: Bier und Wurst
Show rep
Title: Idk, someone give me one

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby jbobsully11 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:35 am

Not that I play that many games anyway, and it depends on what I'm in the mood for, but in general, I find myself getting more into games that require me to think. Both of the Portal games are great for that (actually, I'm still at the end of Portal 2). If I'm in the mood for something relatively mindless, I'll play FreeCell, Tetris Attack, or old Windows 3.1 games that I downloaded.
  • 2

Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.

(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
User avatar
jbobsully11
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2935
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:22 pm
Location: not the outskirts of nowhere anymore, NJ, USA
Show rep
Title: The Sporadically Employed

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:47 am

Games work best in my opinion when they're nintendo hard, not gimmick hard. Fallout and Mass Effect for example.
  • 1

"Schmibby Dibby Kabibby"- Alex Hirsch
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 11861
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Tempest Goddess

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Lindvaettr » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:53 pm

As others have said for themselves, it really depends on the type of game and the mood I'm in. Games like Shadow Warrior I prefer playing on easy, because the fun for me is running around blowing shit up and killing everything. I hate getting stuck in some area where I have a hard time defeating all the enemies, because I just want to kill them and chill out.

Other games, I prefer challenge. I'm enjoying the combat in Assassin's Creed: Origins much more than other Assassin's Creed games because it's much more difficult. I can't just run into the middle of a group of 20 enemies and kill them all without taking a hit. I have to consider enemy number, type, level, and a lot of other things. If I'm up against more than a small handful, I'll usually run away and pick them off as I can, since straight combat with that many is too easy to lose.

That said, it also depends on how the difficulty is increased. I can wipe the floor with the AI on Normal difficulty in any Total War game, but I still never increase combat difficulty, because Creative Assembly's way of increasing difficulty is to just throw tons of buffs on all their units and give them a bunch of extra gold to build bigger armies. That kind of difficulty is just frustrating to me. There's nothing more infuriating than meticulously crafting an army to have the best troops for the right situation, only to have the whole army routed in a few minutes to the AI's army of basic levy spearmen who all have huge boosts every stat. I'd rather get bored of a game because it's too easy than sick of a game because I feel like it's only winning by being cheap.
  • 2

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Marcuse » Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:28 pm

That said, it also depends on how the difficulty is increased. I can wipe the floor with the AI on Normal difficulty in any Total War game, but I still never increase combat difficulty, because Creative Assembly's way of increasing difficulty is to just throw tons of buffs on all their units and give them a bunch of extra gold to build bigger armies. That kind of difficulty is just frustrating to me. There's nothing more infuriating than meticulously crafting an army to have the best troops for the right situation, only to have the whole army routed in a few minutes to the AI's army of basic levy spearmen who all have huge boosts every stat. I'd rather get bored of a game because it's too easy than sick of a game because I feel like it's only winning by being cheap.


Alllll of this.

One solution for Medieval 2 is to download the Stainless Steel mod, which does seem to rebalance the AI away from huge boosts and mega multistack kill armies being flooded at you. Also in vanilla, the AI doesn't seem to like it if you have sight range over the areas your enemy are ruling, because it can't make up the map movements and results. In effect it forces the game to play fair instead of generating the activity for those areas, and it can help to negate the "flood of super death armies".
  • 1

“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien

“The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6373
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep
Title: The Pedestrian of Antarctica

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Lindvaettr » Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:52 pm

Marcuse wrote:One solution for Medieval 2 is to download the Stainless Steel mod, which does seem to rebalance the AI away from huge boosts and mega multistack kill armies being flooded at you.


Unless I'm playing another mod (Broken Crescent is absolutely fantastic, and I come back to it at least once a year), I always play M2TW with Stainless Steel. You're 100% right. It makes the game much more challenging without cheating. I also really enjoy the option to keep discontent higher for longer in conquered settlements. One of the biggest flaws with Total War games (I haven't played either of the Warhammer games, so maybe they've fixed this) is how easy it is to completely demolish even a powerful faction by accidentally wiping out their entire military in a few battles over two turns, and then all that's left is defeating a couple garrison units to take their cities. When I have to slow down after a battle, station my armies in the surrounding area, and defend while I consolidate control over my new territory, I can actually enjoy the long, drawn-out wars.

Marcuse wrote:Also in vanilla, the AI doesn't seem to like it if you have sight range over the areas your enemy are ruling, because it can't make up the map movements and results. In effect it forces the game to play fair instead of generating the activity for those areas, and it can help to negate the "flood of super death armies".


I didn't know that! It makes sense though. I don't know how many times I've carefully scouted an area, found no armies anywhere, and then immediately run into a full stack on my next turn. Maybe it's just my proclivity for playing as Spain, but Portugal seems especially prone to doing this from the very start.


On another note, I was enjoying Assassin's Creed: Origins this morning, but now I really feel like a game of M2TW. But what faction to play?
  • 1

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Marcuse » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:59 pm

If you keep spies stood in their territory, ideally with sight on all of their cities, it forces the AI to make sensible recruitment decisions. From what I've read it kind of just makes it up where you can't see, presumably to aid with how heavy it is on the CPU. That's where you get the ultimate deathstacks from.

but now I really feel like a game of M2TW. But what faction to play?


Late Byzantine, export your faction to Ireland and start from there. Yes I have tried it, no it didn't work so well.

I also really enjoy the option to keep discontent higher for longer in conquered settlements. One of the biggest flaws with Total War games (I haven't played either of the Warhammer games, so maybe they've fixed this) is how easy it is to completely demolish even a powerful faction by accidentally wiping out their entire military in a few battles over two turns, and then all that's left is defeating a couple garrison units to take their cities. When I have to slow down after a battle, station my armies in the surrounding area, and defend while I consolidate control over my new territory, I can actually enjoy the long, drawn-out wars.


I've been experimenting with the Byg's Grim Reality addition to SS. In terms of difficulty I actually think that version IV is too hard, whereas the reversion to II doesn't affect the game enough for me. In IV you literally can't have an army in the field without a family member to lead it, or they will immediately and invariably rebel. I think that's too far when it should be at least possible for army groups to move within settlements. I'm reasonably sure it's not really historically accurate either. BGR IV also adds a thing where you can't recruit good units in settlements without a high religious percentage for your faction. While it makes Lithuania unplayable, it does represent a greater degree of assimilation without being overbearing.
  • 1

“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien

“The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6373
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep
Title: The Pedestrian of Antarctica

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Lindvaettr » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:26 am

Marcuse wrote:Late Byzantine, export your faction to Ireland and start from there. Yes I have tried it, no it didn't work so well.


I think I'll end up going with France for this one, but I've never gone romping off to start in a new location. Maybe next time I'll set off with Denmark to colonize Cyrene.

Marcuse wrote:I've been experimenting with the Byg's Grim Reality addition to SS. In terms of difficulty I actually think that version IV is too hard, whereas the reversion to II doesn't affect the game enough for me. In IV you literally can't have an army in the field without a family member to lead it, or they will immediately and invariably rebel. I think that's too far when it should be at least possible for army groups to move within settlements. I'm reasonably sure it's not really historically accurate either. BGR IV also adds a thing where you can't recruit good units in settlements without a high religious percentage for your faction. While it makes Lithuania unplayable, it does represent a greater degree of assimilation without being overbearing.


How do you feel about BGR2 vs. no BGR at all?
  • 1

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Is it better for games to be hard or easy?

Postby Marcuse » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:46 am

BGR2 doesn't really feel like it's there at all. It adds in a few small touches, but it's not noticeably different from SS without BGR. The majority of things I see and take note of, like the local lordships, the weird "offends the nobility" trait and the regional titles (like King of France, Rex Siciliana) are in the main SS mod already.

but I've never gone romping off to start in a new location


I have done it a couple of times, with the Byzantines. Their position in Anatolia and Epirus at the start of the Late era campaign is completely untenable. I tried in the same game to build a Black Sea empire around Trebizond and Tmutarakan, but was beaten up by Kiev and Novgorod. Before Trebizond was conquered by the Turks I fled to Libya with everything I had left and established an empire in North Africa at Tripoli, then made a desperate gamble bid for the island of Sicily, which paid off. I managed to rebuild my empire, vassalise Sicily in Naples and drove the Papal states out of Rome. I met a roadblock when the HRE turned on me (with them in possession of a huge amount of land in Europe, France being a single province faction and England in disarray) and I just couldn't push further up than about Venice/Genoa. I did grab all of the African coast and some of southern Iberia.

There's two things you can do to make it work, first you have to create an army tough enough to take several cities without being reinforced, because you're going to lose a ton of money in transit. Using that army, you need to take enough cities to rebuild an economy and pay off that negative balance. Build diplomats and priests before you go, you need them. Accept vassalage, it's a tighter alliance than normal because the AI usually never breaks it, but there's nothing stopping you (aside from the rep penalty) breaking it. My Tripolitianian empire accepted vassalage to both the Moors and Fatimids at the same time, but eventually eliminated the moors, while keeping the Eastern flank tight by continuing to pay fealty to the Fatimids who were the ascendant power in the Holy Land.

So, big army, make money, accept vassalage where necessary. It is often the hardest task in MTW2 though, so it's worth doing at least once.
  • 1

“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien

“The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6373
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep
Title: The Pedestrian of Antarctica

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests