You're literally arguing for self-delusion here. I can't ignore something that exists simply because I don't like it. What you're arguing for literally sounds like insanity to me, because it sounds like you're suggesting that you just pretend things you don't like are somehow magically not there anymore.
Most games with multiple difficulties require you to choose a difficulty when starting a game, the very existence of that screen presents me with an incontrovertible fact that multiple difficulties exist and I am choosing one. So either the solution is for me to never play games that have the difficulty choice a mandatory screen when starting a game, or to delude myself and pretend I never saw something that I very much did see.
I can guarantee that the game would be scaled very differently if there was only one difficulty, with much more attention put into combat. I love Breath of the Wild and Dark Souls, they're as difficult as you want them to be based on your in-game experience. Want to rush Ganon first thing? Crack on. It'll be near impossible but go for it. If you have the experience in Dark Souls you can completely bust your character in the first hour of the game, making the rest of it a joke.
They can both be hard if you want them to be, but you can make them easier by playing the game and figuring it out. I don't want a slider to make that choice for me, I want to make it myself in-game.
Sliders are lazy and unbalanced game design in my opinion. I don't like them, I have the right to prefer games without them as much as anyone else has the right to want them.
It's hypocritical for someone with my preferences to be called selfish, that's the point I was trying to get at from the start. I don't see why it's wrong for me to prefer games that are designed a certain way, but everyone has this mentality that 'more options can only ever be a good thing' and it just doesn't ring true for me.
Last edited by DechCJC; 2020-09-14 at 03:33 PM.
I never play on easy, only normal because if there is no challenge then what is the point?
But the balance is rarely right. Normal is often under-tuned and hard has the issue where it's brokenly over-tuned in random locations. It's not balanced because they've made it so that 'normal' can be beaten by basically anyone and then they've just stuck a %damage increase to mobs and a %health decrease to the player; It's badly balanced and from my experience, games with 1 set difficulty level are the most enjoyable.
Last edited by DechCJC; 2020-09-14 at 03:38 PM.
I play most of single player games on easy or normal at most.
I don't find hardcore challenges really appealing when I play alone. I'm more into being immerge into a world and live an adventure.
On the other side I really like difficulty in multiplayer games. Clearing mythic raid in wow, ranked competitive in HotS or Overwatch. Apex, Division 2, Dauntless. I go up the whatever hardest content they offer.
-Snip-
Accidental double. Ignore
Last edited by DechCJC; 2020-09-14 at 03:40 PM.
Whatever floats your boat, fuck anyone who thinks their opinion should play a role in how you personally chose to enjoy something.
- - - Updated - - -
Well a lot of games name their easy mode "story mode" these days for a reason. I enjoy the challenge myself but I can totally understand why a lot of people would prefer to enjoy a game like Uncharted, The last of us etc. on story mode.
No, it should be a balanced difficulty level where some areas are challenging and others are not based on your experience and gear. It should only feel like Legendary if you decide to go fight creatures that are blatantly far stronger than you, a random rat shouldn't pose a threat. The rat shouldn't become as dangerous as a dragon when I turn a slider up, there should be a constant realistic level of challenge.
I will keep referring to Breath of the Wild because I feel that it's a perfect example of a RPG with one difficulty balanced right; Anyone can enjoy it, it's as easy or hard as you want it to be.
I typically go for the default normal experience, but have no shame in turning down the difficulty if it becomes too frustrating. I bought the game to enjoy myself and experience it, not get frustrated with it. I don't want the game to be too easy though, as there's simply very little sense of accomplishment if you can walk all over everyone.
I think games like Fallen Order and Ghost of Tsushima did it well where the enemies and game play are largely unchanged because the game is just more forgiving in how much damage you can take or how many mistakes you're allowed to make before you die, and not by a huge margin. Dying after making the same mistake 2-3 times feels much less frustrating than dying after making the mistake once.
I don't like it, honestly. Games like the latest Tomb Raider, I go straight to the difficulty below the highest difficulty. I beat the game on that, then go back and beat it on the highest difficulty.
I've never understood how to do it on games like Skyrim, Legendary difficulty. At level 1 you have like NOTHING and deal 1 damage to a health pool of 300 and get one shot so like.. Yeah. lmao
Look, we don't agree. That's fine. I don't expect everyone to. I just think it's hypocritical for others to label me as selfish for wanting a game without difficulty sliders; It's been proven to work well with multiple franchises and I have my reasons to prefer it. I don't believe that more difficulties are always a good thing, though I will admit that it has its place. I don't see the point in arguing it further.
If the difficulty is worthwhile, I'll play it on hardest difficulty. If the difficulty only means that the enemies just have more hp/damage, and have stupid combos that cannot be avoided or make the game a headache rather than enjoyable content to overcome, then I won't play it on hardest difficulty.
Case in point: Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Playing it on hardest difficulty wasn't a challenge, it was just tedious and mind-numbing. Not to mention, when you'd die because of a stupid mechanic or ability the enemy it just didn't feel worthwhile. Witcher 3 I played on Death March and enjoyed it because even if you could die easily, you had multiple paths of being able to take on monsters and felt like if you mastered the game then you could have an enjoyable battle.
"Why of course the people don't want war…. But, after all… it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
How many different ways to I need to express this before you comprehend this? I cannot ignore facts simply because I find them objectionable, I cannot engage in self-delusion by pretending a choice doesn't exist when a choice exists. No matter how many ways you try to frame it, the fundamental fact of multiple difficulty options existing and most games mandating that you select a difficulty when starting a game means you are required to make a choice of which difficulty to play on before playing a game, or you're limited to playing games that either don't offer difficulty options or don't force you through a difficulty select menu prior to starting a game.
What you are asking me to do is to pretend that something doesn't exist, when it does exist, because it is inconvenient for me. You are asking me to lie, to myself. What you're asking of me is as unreasonable to me as if I were to ask you to stop thinking, it is practically impossible.
It is a simple fact that, for me, the existence of difficulty options can be a decisive factor in whether or not I enjoy a game. Not every game handles difficulty settings the same way, some just do a simple numbers pass changing the health and damage multipliers, while others alter the gameplay itself. Having to deal with sorting through that additional information can be a chore, to the point where a game stops being fun because I'm too busy trying to figure out exactly what the difficulty settings are changing and then trying to figure out which difficulty would be the most enjoyable for me.
Just accept the fact that the existence of difficulty options can be a large enough issue to ruin a game for me, and there is literally no argument you can make that will change this. I don't go around demanding that games have their difficulty options be removed, so I think it is fair that I ask people to not demand difficulty options be added to games that lack them.
normal is the new easy, most games are more fun in harder difficulties
For me it's quite the opposite, if I never die/lose in a game, I'm frustrated
I dont really understand people who don't like challenges in games (except for story oriented games). That's why most people like PvP games (fortnite, lol,..)
ALL games need some of difficulty slider, or some people wont like it, thus less sales.
Wow with only mm+ and hm+ raids would lose a lot of subs, same for wow with only heroic dungeons and normal raid (thats why I'm not a fan of classic/vanilla anymore)
If a battle system is not enjoyable, I dont even try easy, I just drop the game... it means it's a bad game anyway
Last edited by vashe9; 2020-09-14 at 04:23 PM.
I can agree that not all games even need a difficulty slider. There are games that, as you said, the difficulty can be controlled in game by decisions the player makes. I'm just saying that the existence of that slider should not be something that detracts from your experience. Play Skyrim on Legendary. Play it on Normal. Play it on any difficulty you like. Just don't insist that should be the only option for how other people play Skyrim.