Normally I run through first on the easy setting just to get the story out. I hate being stuck on a particular section when all I want to do is get to the next bit of the story. Although I'm finding that I'm sticking all my FPS/Sandbox games up to max now. [Modern Warfare 2, Saints Row 2, etc, etc]Beach_Sided said:Following on from the 'Games that you have to play on easy setting' post, I am not scared to admit that I always play games on the easiest setting.
I get my enjoyment from playing the game, progressing through it and seeing how it develops, and then finishing it and moving on the the next game. And I hate getting stuck somewhere and becoming frustrated with a game because I can't work something out or get past a certain section.
Does anyone else out there also usually play on 'easy' settings......?
It's NOT the game's fault because it offers higher difficulty settings to match my skill levels where the desired underdog effect and fear of Helghast is restored. I mean if it isn't a challenge where you are killed occasionally... then you're not playing it the way the developers intended. The developers seem to understand less skilled players don't want to die all the time and more skilled players need the challenge.Coldie said:It's true, games commonly change the enemy AI on higher difficulties, but it's rarely noticeable, except some games where it ends up outright cheating, Master of Magic being the prime example of psychic cheating bastard AI (also, fun). Few developers can pull off a challenge on AI alone. (I'd apply Sturgeon's Law to this in that the few games that DO alter difficulty mainly by AI are the few good games that anyone considers worth playing)
The most common tuning tool used by difficulty settings is handicap. On lower difficulty settings enemies deal less damage to the player and have less resources, with the the player dealing more and having more. On higher difficulty settings the roles are reversed. There may be many variables, but the end result ends up the same - armies of simple mooks that take 10fireballsthermonuclearballs to kill - each - (Bit of an exageration that isn't that? I haven't seen something like that outside of an RPG) and Sith Lord bosses that take hundreds of Lightsaber blows to the face without flinching. Yawn. The other side isn't much more fun, either. Keeling over after a couple bullets is no fun, unless you're playing a stealth game where this is a justified mechanic.
Changing the amount of enemies or static loot is much more rare now, but it might occasionally happen. All the more experience points to mop up.
Never heard of Killzone, but this sounds like it's the game's fault, not the difficulty's. Wanting to select a higher difficulty setting for the atmosphere is definitely a concept I support. See Silent Hill 3 for rapid atmosphere buildup on higher difficulty settings and see System Shock 2 for reference of how you can (and will) be the underdog fighting against overwhelming odds, regardless of difficulty.Treblaine said:Playing through Killzone 2 on easiest settings DOES affect my experience of the story ... easiest setting the Helghast are just too wimpy and dopey...
exactly this. except for horror games. i'll just freak out and start running in those.Furburt said:Hello! I'm the opposite, I always play on the hard settings. I like the challenge, and the way it makes the game seem longer, more value for money.
Yeah i agree with you but I must admit I have a general level of gaming skill which Im sure we all have so I can normally get away with normal or a middle range difficulty setting to start off with before i ramp uporeopizza47 said:I believe in playing through first on the easy setting, and then if you liked the game enough to play again, moving up. Trying to play hard mode on a game you have no experience with is instant deathwish. Gaming is all about the story for me anyway.