Poll: Should every game have difficulty setting?

[Torrasque]

I'd say it depends on the game.
For shooters, I'd say they should have a difficulty setting just because the gameplay can get more difficult for a better challenge, and you feel rewarded when you defeat that challenge.
For puzzle games, the game itself is just a difficulty setting with early levels being set to "easiest" and later levels being set to "hard/hardest". How the game actually manages that difficulty curve usually determines how well the game does as a whole.

An example of a game that should have a difficulty setting, would be a Zelda game. Skyward Sword technically has a "hardmode" because all enemies do double damage (and some other things, but I can't recall what atm). For a game like Zelda, just making everything do double damage is challenge enough. If there was a mode beyond that, say you couldn't repair your shield when it broke or grass/enemies never dropped hearts, then that shit would get intense.

An example of a game that should not have a difficulty setting, would be Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes. The game itself creates a difficulty setting, with certain campaigns and levels being harder than others (like Urukubar's campaign being ridiculously hard). If I could replay a campaign in a harder mode, the campaigns would have to be longer, experience caps raised, and overall it would be completely silly. Urukubar's campaign would be even more impossible too =|

It is easy to say "yes, every game needs a difficulty setting", but it is not always viable to just add one in. Enemy damage, AI smart-ness, map design, tools at your disposal, would all need to be addressed. For games like Starcraft or Fire Emblem, that would just be easy "ok, just add more of everything and give the player less". But for games like Portal or Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes, adding a difficulty curve may accidentally the whole game.

 

[Torrasque]

Here's a nearly universal law for game design deconstruction.

If a statement says, "Every game should...", it is wrong. I can't name an exception. "Passage" shouldn't have difficulty. Like all universal statements about what games need to be, it is wrong.

"Every generalization that has ever been made and ever will be made, is an incorrect generalization no matter what the circumstances. Period." - Philosophy prof I had in my second term.

 

[Xanadu84]

Here's a nearly universal law for game design deconstruction.

If a statement says, "Every game should...", it is wrong. I can't name an exception. "Passage" shouldn't have difficulty. Like all universal statements about what games need to be, it is wrong.

"Every generalization that has ever been made and ever will be made, is an incorrect generalization no matter what the circumstances. Period." - Philosophy prof I had in my second term.

Philosophically yes, an absolute statement is generally going to be wrong, including my own. Do some logical linguistics and you will get an exception. But practically, if you assume that absolute statements about game design are always wrong, you will have correct insight, most likely every time it comes up, and certainly enough to stay an expert.

 

[Torrasque]

Here's a nearly universal law for game design deconstruction.

If a statement says, "Every game should...", it is wrong. I can't name an exception. "Passage" shouldn't have difficulty. Like all universal statements about what games need to be, it is wrong.

"Every generalization that has ever been made and ever will be made, is an incorrect generalization no matter what the circumstances. Period." - Philosophy prof I had in my second term.

Philosophically yes, an absolute statement is generally going to be wrong, including my own. Do some logical linguistics and you will get an exception. But practically, if you assume that absolute statements about game design are always wrong, you will have correct insight, most likely every time it comes up, and certainly enough to stay an expert.

Lol, no I agree with you.
I just think whenever someone says "I wish all X was like Y!" they are begging me to prove them wrong.
The only way you can generalize something correctly is to say what you said, that there will always be an exception to every generalization whether it is has a positive or negative assertion.

 

[Xanadu84]

Here's a nearly universal law for game design deconstruction.

If a statement says, "Every game should...", it is wrong. I can't name an exception. "Passage" shouldn't have difficulty. Like all universal statements about what games need to be, it is wrong.

"Every generalization that has ever been made and ever will be made, is an incorrect generalization no matter what the circumstances. Period." - Philosophy prof I had in my second term.

Philosophically yes, an absolute statement is generally going to be wrong, including my own. Do some logical linguistics and you will get an exception. But practically, if you assume that absolute statements about game design are always wrong, you will have correct insight, most likely every time it comes up, and certainly enough to stay an expert.

Lol, no I agree with you.
I just think whenever someone says "I wish all X was like Y!" they are begging me to prove them wrong.
The only way you can generalize something correctly is to say what you said, that there will always be an exception to every generalization whether it is has a positive or negative assertion.

So there is ALWAYS a exception to a generalization? No exception?

 

[Torrasque]

Here's a nearly universal law for game design deconstruction.

If a statement says, "Every game should...", it is wrong. I can't name an exception. "Passage" shouldn't have difficulty. Like all universal statements about what games need to be, it is wrong.

"Every generalization that has ever been made and ever will be made, is an incorrect generalization no matter what the circumstances. Period." - Philosophy prof I had in my second term.

Philosophically yes, an absolute statement is generally going to be wrong, including my own. Do some logical linguistics and you will get an exception. But practically, if you assume that absolute statements about game design are always wrong, you will have correct insight, most likely every time it comes up, and certainly enough to stay an expert.

Lol, no I agree with you.
I just think whenever someone says "I wish all X was like Y!" they are begging me to prove them wrong.
The only way you can generalize something correctly is to say what you said, that there will always be an exception to every generalization whether it is has a positive or negative assertion.

So there is ALWAYS a exception to a generalization? No exception?

I see what you did there.
I'll just say what the man with 2 dicks says to his hair dresser who asks him if he dresses to the left or the right; yes.

 

[DementedSheep]

Well some games don?t need it like puzzle or adventure but otherwise yeah I gues they should.

 

[Brandon237]

Yes, for games where you could anyway. There are some games that just don't entertain with one difficulty. I also like different types of extra difficulty, being able to set combat balances, but then maybe also add how much you scavenge.

I loved Crysis Warhead, but after killing it on Delta (although I suck at Multiplayer) quite easily, I felt lost. I never ran out of ammo for my best guns (except gauss, but that is not meant to last) and I was at 10 grenades of each kind for half the game. I suppose there it just needed MORE difficulty.

But I digress, difficulty settings are good ^.^