To start out, I am a shooter fan. I enjoy other games, but really, my poision of choice usually invovles blowing some guy away. Lately these days, I find myself only really playing my shooters on the hardest difficulty. Now this isn't a bragging post or anything stupid like that, but my thinking is as follows. Let me use the example of Freedom Fighters. On it's average difficulty, I wouldn't say I walked through the game, but aside from one or two sections, I usually came out on top. It's only when I went back on the hardest difficulty that things changed. I was forced to try other ways, explore areas I hadn't before, use different weapons, etc. In effect I experienced so much more of the game thanks to harder settings. So my question is, do you think there are other shooters like this? Where it's only when playing on harder settings that you fully experience the game? Does this also hold true in other genres? Have you not experienced StarCraft unless you finish it on the most insane difficulty? Or am I completely wrong in thinking this?
Experiencing more of a game on the hardest difficulty (Or why you should?)
- Thread starter YT
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm a competent player in most games (Save for StarCraft, I get my ass handed to me on a silver platter against a single "Easy" A.I. enemy. I'm pathetic, I know...), but I just don't like the super hard difficulties, because oftentimes it just devolves into predicting the exact pattern of how to play through. There's only one way to do it, and you've got to do it just right. Like pretty much every game in the Halo series, and COD. You went the wrong way? Dead. You poked your head out from behind the rock when you shouldn't have? Dead. You picked the wrong gun? Dead. After a certain amount of re-dos with absolutely no difference in what happens, I just quit.
This. I hate having to replay sections of game more than a few times, because then it becomes busywork, and I had enough of that in High School. I didn't play Mass Effect 2 on insane because it devolved into me dying a bunch of times until I finally got through a level. It was ridiculous. When I play games, I want to have fun, not sit around playing the same thing eight times.Pandaman1911 said:
I play games to have fun. I try to find which difficulty gives me the best challenge to fun ratio. For most games i tend to play on easy because usually when i turn up the difficulty I get my ass handed to me, which in my opinion, isn't fun. I did however play MW2 on veteran and I beat the game on that difficulty, but on my replays of the game I keep it on recruit. I found MW2 veteran rather easy but I attemped other CoDs on veteran and couldn't make it past the first level (WaW), but each gamer find different difficulties fun and to each their own I say.
Agree that harder difficulties can open up new experiences, challenges and rewards but also as mentioned potentially bring more frustration and repetition.
Think it really depends on the particular game and how the difficulty is scaled and what this brings to the table. Some games do it well (adding challenges, different elements) and for some it is either arbutary (e.g. just more enemies or less health) or just ridiculous. If I really like the game the later type of scaling will probably still be ok with me.
Typically I play a game on "normal" first up and if I really enjoy the game I will start to replay it through on hard and onwards.
If the game is designed well it can flow but if it's poor (e.g bad controls) increasing difficulty can add to the frustration.
Miss the Wolf3D/Doom stye difficulty explanations of old, heh.
Think it really depends on the particular game and how the difficulty is scaled and what this brings to the table. Some games do it well (adding challenges, different elements) and for some it is either arbutary (e.g. just more enemies or less health) or just ridiculous. If I really like the game the later type of scaling will probably still be ok with me.
Typically I play a game on "normal" first up and if I really enjoy the game I will start to replay it through on hard and onwards.
If the game is designed well it can flow but if it's poor (e.g bad controls) increasing difficulty can add to the frustration.
Miss the Wolf3D/Doom stye difficulty explanations of old, heh.
eh, I don't see the point in harder difficulties. maybe in the old-school FPSs, but even then I'm not sure "more and/or respawning enemies" really adds all that much to the experience - but it's a Maybe.
It's a No if all they do is give the same enemies more HP and kill you faster. The only difference that usually makes (I'm looking at you Mass Effect 2) is eat up more time.
I'm an idiot often enough that my first playthroughs are sufficiently fun in Normal, and result in enough failure. And once I like a game, I replay it just for the feeling of "oh, I loved this and that", which are rather independent of difficulty. Serious Sam can be fun on Tourist, too.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I take enjoyment out of game elements that are hardly touched by difficulty anyway.
It's a No if all they do is give the same enemies more HP and kill you faster. The only difference that usually makes (I'm looking at you Mass Effect 2) is eat up more time.
I'm an idiot often enough that my first playthroughs are sufficiently fun in Normal, and result in enough failure. And once I like a game, I replay it just for the feeling of "oh, I loved this and that", which are rather independent of difficulty. Serious Sam can be fun on Tourist, too.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I take enjoyment out of game elements that are hardly touched by difficulty anyway.
If I want a challenge in a shooter, I'll hunt the world's most dangerous game: man. I'd rather be on a level playing field where genuine skill and the ability to react to a totally unpredictable opponent is what matters than have to overcome an artificially imposed handicap.
I don't generally enjoy games on harder difficulties, unless I can work to get better at the game, and then play them successfully, like Rockband. For most FPS's, It just doesn't make sense.
I usually skip over the "insane" difficulties (because I suck), but when it's integrated in an interesting way and/or comes with rewards, then I sort of have to try it.
Case in point: Bayonetta. In that game it's used as an incentive to keep playing after you've beaten Normal, and it really works. The fact that you have to stay on your toes at all times to avoid getting killed is what makes it awesome. You have to continue moving and punishing attacks to succeed.
Games like CoD on the other hand just start punishing you for moving forward. So I suppose what I hate is when a game uses difficulty to make the player camp, moreso if there's no reward. I'll still never play easy mode though, because:
[small]Also, games that test your tactics as opposed to your reflexes (Valkyria Chronicles, Persona series) feel great on tougher difficulties. Taking out a battalion with only a scout and a shocktrooper can be a comfortable ego boost.[/small]
Case in point: Bayonetta. In that game it's used as an incentive to keep playing after you've beaten Normal, and it really works. The fact that you have to stay on your toes at all times to avoid getting killed is what makes it awesome. You have to continue moving and punishing attacks to succeed.
Games like CoD on the other hand just start punishing you for moving forward. So I suppose what I hate is when a game uses difficulty to make the player camp, moreso if there's no reward. I'll still never play easy mode though, because:
When I first played Devil May Cry I was pretty bad even at the easiest difficulty, but I eventually worked my way up to all S ranks on DMD 
. I can say that was definitely worth the money I spent on the game.
CoD on the other hand is just weird. Hardened and lower is just a 4 hour cutscene, while Veteran is just a load of 'fake' difficulty, i.e. spam.
. I can say that was definitely worth the money I spent on the game.CoD on the other hand is just weird. Hardened and lower is just a 4 hour cutscene, while Veteran is just a load of 'fake' difficulty, i.e. spam.