Why Play On Hard?

[SideSlyGuy]

In the case of fallout 3 because "Playing on hard rewards more exp from fighting enemies" or something to that effect. Other then that I mostly just keep it normal.

 

[kalakashi]

I'll play on whatever difficulty I find the most difficult before I stop enjoying it. There is the fun kind of frustration which when you overcome your obstacle you feel great satisfaction, and then there is the bad kind which, if/when you overcome the obstacle you are just glad to have it out of the way, but you're so wound up you feel no true satisfaction.
Whichever brings me option 1.

 

[Omnific One]

While playing Mass Effect 2 on insanity and dying (AGAIN) I realized I wasn't even enjoying it anymore. And I thought why the hell am I playing something I don't enjoy.

So Escapist why do you play on hard (If you do)? Are achievement points really worth a broken controller.

Yeah, I was playing part of Mass Effect 2 on Insanity and just realized I wasn't having fun. So I just quit and went back to my normal/veteran/hardcore guy. I can't stand really easy levels because there's no challenge at all.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

I actually just beat Bioshock 2 on Hard. it was a fun challenge but when it gets too ridiculous, there's no point. there's difficult, and then there's stupid.

 

[Omnific One]

When they make harder difficulties to be more than enemies with more health and you with less, I will play them. I want the AI to be harder and more complex, not just the amount of hitpoints that makes the difference.

 

[Arisato-kun]

I like the feeling of accomplishment. Knowing that I can handle everything a game can throw at me and still come out on top makes me feel invincible. Plus, it's great when you realize that the hardest difficulty isn't even a challenge anymore. In my case, that's the 'Hell' difficulty of Blazblue.

Regardless of how much I want that feeling of accomplishment though, Demon's Souls still has an uncalled for level of difficulty. But that's part of the fun I guess.

 

[Xeros]

I only play on higher difficulties if:

A) Normal is too easy.

B) It unlocks cool extras.

C) I've been challenged to.

 

[jboking]

The most rewarding experience I've had completing a game to date was finishing MGS3 on the Extreme difficulty. Sure, it was difficult and frustrating at times, but it required me to use all of my abilities and even think about things I hadn't considered before(throw dead animals on enemies to distract them). On games like Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell, hard difficulty makes you think of how to solve the puzzle.

Of course, if you'd like to run through MGS3 just shooting and face smashing everyone, by all means, play on normal. You do kind of loose the point of the 'stealth' genre though.

p.s. I could see how this wouldn't transfer over to other genre's though.

 

[Talendra]

I usually play on hard by default, depending on what genre the game is. I could not care less about achievements but I enjoy a challenge, and most games these days are short enough without beating them with no real risk of dying. That being said if I am continuously dying it becomes no fun and I will notch the difficulty down a level. I just find it more entertaining to give myself a challenge.

 

[Shemsu-Horus]

I always go for the hardest possible level on games, I really enjoy the challenge.

 

[tomvw]

I only play on a harder difficulty than normal if there's a decent change to the game. Like "Dante Must Die" mode in DMC3, which changes the way enemies behave.

On a side note, anyone hate games that force you to play through the hardest difficulty to unlock the "good" ending. That usually ticks me off.

 

[bryanfuel]

these arnt in any order
1) just for the challenge
2) achievements
3) bragging rights
4) you get better at games in general
5) the sense of accomplishment once your done

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Achievements mostly. And I enjoy the challenge. Normal is often just too easy.

 

[TK421]

I start games on the hardest difficulty available. Therefore, I get better at the game, faster.

 

[imaloony]

I generally step away from the hard difficulty if it gets too hard, but it gives you a nice challenge, which you need sometimes to get your blood pumping.

As it is, I've completed very few games on the hardest difficulty (Fallout 3, Prototype, The Beatles Rock Band, and when I get around to it, Mass Effect 1) and I'm very close on others (Mirror's Edge, Gears of War 2, Batman Arkham Asylum). Still, I generally try to stay in the easier difficulties and only switch over if it's too easy or for some achievements.

 

[ineedscissors]

bumping up the difficulty makes replays more interesting

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Site editor snip

My fault I'm afraid, I misinterpreted the meaning of frustration.

I defined it a bit better a little bit earlier in the thread,

'Seemingly insurmountable challenge that provides great frustration UNTIL you beat it'

This doesn't apply to casual games, ambient games, or games of those types, more to what would be traditionally considered a 'hardcore game' (much as I loath that definition)

I'm not denying that it's very much different strokes for different people, and I respect peoples right to play through the game at whatever difficulty suits the experience they want from the game, what my problem is is that the developers of modern games appear to be enticed with the notion that hand holding is required through every part of the game, otherwise they aren't reaching out to a big enough audience.

Again, not a problem as long as that's exclusive to the lower difficulty levels, but I've noticed a few games where, while the difficulty of the enemies may go up or the potency of your weapons may go down as you increase the difficulty (I'll use a standard FPS model as an example here), the amount of assistance remains at a high enough level that you never really have to rely on your own instincts.

This also happens in games without difficulty levels, like GTA 4. Frankly, I found that far too easy to enjoy properly, mainly because half of it is tutorials, and while as you say, this is just my experience, it's the only experience available on that game.

I didn't really touch on this as much in the original post I made, but what I'm basically saying is that while I have no problem with the developer varying their difficulty levels to appeal to a wider spectrum of gamers, I have noticed that some developers seem to be forgetting that challenge is a definite reason why people play games, and sometimes, feeling defeated and broken is intrinsically linked to how everyone plays games, be they playing it on easy or hard. Remove the occasional frustration, and you remove one of the main reasons for playing games, the sense of achievement. A sense of achievement is very difficult to acquire if there's no challenge.

I actually agree with you completely. There should be an Easy mode that's actually easy and a Hard mode that's actually hard. Sadly, that doesn't happen as often as it should. Games tend to skew too far in one direction or the other.

Yeah, nobody knows how to balance difficulty any more. Back in the day, Doom, Quake, and similar games, had up to five difficulties, the lowest all but given you god Mode, why the hardest would give you a tooth pick and your enemies miniguns. This met that just about anybody can find a difficulty which they could be comfortable with for both challenge and fun. However, that makes a lot of extra developement time and money that needs to added to a game. So, to have as much appeal as possible with as little cost as possible, games have gotten insanely easy (I.E. GTA 4). The games that try to get the hardcore niche do so and pushed twenty miles above the intended difficulty (I.E. Demon's Souls). It leaves many gamers that want some middle ground in the dust.

 

[CptShiv]

I love getting my ass kicked at something only to figure out the way to finally do it 2 hours later. Instant satisfaction right there.

Wouldn't that be 2 hour satisfaction?

 

[Miketheman]

Just to say, "I beat (INSERT GAME NAME HERE) on the highest difficulty setting!"

 

[Ishadus]

Depends on the game for me really. Generally I only go up from default settings if there's incentive to do it within the game (achievements, added rewards, etc.). Then I'll go through it regardless of frustration.

One thing I simply can NOT fucking stand though is a game that doesn't understand what a challenge is. Two things are frequently seen as "challenging" by some and I really wish it would stop.

1) Time-consuming/repetitive grinding. Being forced to do monotonous tasks for bloody hours is NOT hard. It is NOT a challenge. It just takes longer. If there's no skill involved, this has nothing to do with risk vs. reward.

2) Being cheap. Giving an enemy that ability that just wrecks your face while you can do nothing but sit there and bend over is NOT challenging either. It's just stupid. On a tangent to this, the second you introduce pivotally fatal randomness into situations it's just poor design. If enemy A just so happens to do action B at the same time that enemy C does action D, and this combination guarantees your death regardless of how skilled you are, that's not hard. It's cheap.

"Oh look that enemy just did that completely unavoidable attack that knocks me to the floor. Annoying, but that's cool I just need to stand back up and-...oh look at that he knocked me back down again before I could even so much as take a single step. Oh what's this? The enemy to the side just lit me on fire as I was sprawled on the floor and defenseless? Well...this sucks I better heal as soon as I stand back up ag-...and I've been knocked down AGAIN by the first enemy before I could move. And now I'm dead. Well...that's just fucking awesome. Am I having fun yet?"

I like being challenged, but that implies a certain fairness to combat. If you could kill any enemy from 100% to 0% without ever being in danger of getting hurt, that would be boring as hell. Having the same thing done to you results in just as bullshitty of a gaming experience.