/v/ - Video Games

Having easy mode is a waste of time. Normal mode should be the standard difficulty the game is meant to be played on and Hard should be for once you've already got gud and have the option for replay value.

Hard modo only

A game should be difficult and rewarding in more than just the carrot and stick linear mindset. Just one overarching difficulty that tests most people's limits, but is a good time. Then dlcs/mods/add-ons should branch out for truly skilled/dedicated types of people.

>>16294493

>In the case of a game is made with a difficulty slider,

I think you missed the point in the OP

make the game as hard as possible for you the developer can actually beat the game in

>>16294488

>those dubs

I can't prove you wrong

>>16294470

What's even the difference between normal, hard, and easy modes? Most devs usually just half-ass it artificially by changing a few numbers around. Higher difficulties simply make the enemies spongier to kill and/or your attacks do less damage. They're virtually the same exact enemies as they are in lower difficulties, but take longer to kill.

I just wished that enemies on higher difficulties had special attacks or patterns that were exclusive only to harder modes. I think some of the DMC games do this, but I forget if it was 3 or 4.

>>16294470

You have to make an easy difficulty for disabled or journos or lefties so they won't be discouraged from buying and trying the game. Why cut out half of your potential customers? Best way to do this is to reduce the stats of the enemies so they are slower and weaker and easier to defeat. Medium shouldn't exist, if the game can be beaten anyone who can beat medium can learn to beat hard. The second playthrough should be harder, stat boosted foes, but your should keep some of your skills and equipment and the foes should drop a new class of items alongside new skills and plot to learn.

>>16294540

Both 3,4 and 5 too have new attacks for enemies at higher difficulties but also treats them as NG+ or NG++ in 3's case for when they get those new moves.

Can't really just pick them at the start and immediately see them.

>>16294544

I do like NG+ with more challenge to balance it, especially when there's road block content in the games levels which you'll now just have the tools to instantly get this time.

>difficulty slider

single worst feature in gaming history

>>16294554

>uses low int meme

>Can't properly read the fucking op while he reddit spaces

I use "in the case" assuming the product is already being made with such a thing in mind where one will be the difficulty they focus and design the other 2 around, I never say every type of game needs it, I propose in the case it is which do you use as the starting point.

I also even cover how it doesn't seem like a one size fits all when used in the case at the end of the OP if you read it.

Then the rest of your shit again comes from the fact you can't read the fucking first line of the post.

>Normal

Everything is carefully balanced, skill and learning required to progress at all.

The game is designed around this mode and the next.

>Harder

The AI gets smarter without cheating.More advanced strategies are included it its behavior and required for the player.Ideally the player would be pushed(and required) to discover new ways to do things.

<Unfair/challenge

A challenge, possibly adjustable in severity, to a player's autism levels.This mode is exclusively made for challenge with no pretension of fairness.The player must seek every advantage, exploit every vulnerability and corner case of the AI design.

Only in this mode it would be reasonable to apply the kind of "scaling" or "AI cheating" that we normally see on games, instead of proper difficulty.

No retard proof mode.

No censored/sanitized mode.

No elongated tutorials that never stop through up the game.

No cheating progression paths set up so even the most retarded of streamers can go on/muh accessibility.

No random dropping of anvils to the head to make for streamer reactions/highlights.

>>16294574

>paragraphs are reddit spacing

Perhaps your int is 1, not 2.

I say almost no game needs it. The cases where a generic easy/normal/hard modes are a good way to go are extremely limited, and even for those you have to look at each game individually. Just because most games have easy/hard modes doesn't mean they should, just like most games shouldn't have a minimap but they do anyway because everyone else is doing it.

EVEN ASSUMING that you have the generic easy/normal/hard, you can't generalize about what you should "design the game around", you can't design the game around a difficulty mode, you design the game you want to make and then add difficulty modes on top of it to accommodate more player types and play styles, add challenges, or just tone down the more extreme parts of the game if that's what you like and wanted to make the game around. In an ideal scenario you'd carefully tailor each difficulty mode so none of them is the "real" game.

The only hard modes I've ever enjoyed are the ones where they actually change the enemy variety and/or map layout, like the normal/hard campaign in advance wars or hotline miami 2's hard mode, since those actually have something resembling fairness.

>>16294488

HEIL!

If a difficulty level isn't made decently it shouldn't be put in. Period. There should be three main options, Easy - Normal - Hard, and they should be fairly different.

Easy should drop 'hard' levels, feature reduced story elements (cutscenes, dialogue), no achievements, no newgame+, and only pit the worthless player against the weakest, most basic enemy at half health/damage.

Normal would be the game as designed for those with reasonable skill and ability. Full story, normal achieves, advanced enemies in appropriate areas.

Hard should have special enemies in every group/squad.

I imagine something like the Batman Arkham games, with weakened basic grunts on Easy, the game as is on Normal with shock prods, guns, shields, etc in use where they are introduced, and making Hard mode like the NewGame+ without the gadgets, while every group is 2-3 special guys larger.

There should be an alternative difficultly level called "human", where random people can play as any enemy in the game, to antagonize the player. Imagine how people would freak out if a grunt started taking active cover, and flanking the player.

>>16294620

>sub 100 words

>sub 10 in this post

>a Paragraph

Sure thing, totally isn't habit :^).

>I say almost no game needs it.

So what you're saying is you have nothing to contribute to the thread since the dribble you're spouting has nothing to do with the topic? Very cool.

>>16294678

So you're saying it should more be like a mind set type of design where each is more planned out at the start and made in tandem?

>>16294703

RE6 did that but it was semi wasted due to how ineffective a single enemy in that game could be.

>>16294711

>nothing to do with the topic

You must have the worst reading comprehension in the entire board if that's the conclusion you came to. But seeing that your best argument is "muh reddit spacing", maybe you are just retarded.

>>16294730

>Topic is about how you'd design around 3 tier difficulty

>raving about how it doesn't apply to every game is on topic

>sensitive over being called reddit

Don't have to worry about that if you just stay there.

>>16294470

Most people seem to be missing the point of the thread.

If you're gonna call a difficulty normal then that should be the one the game is designed around, it can be as hard or easy as you want it, but have that as a baseline and add or take for the others, just keep it fair.

Black

Brown

White

Slanty-Eyed

I like the way Monster Hunter does it because you have so many options all on one character without any starting over or NG+ stuff to mess with.

>Low rank village

>low rank guild

>high rank village

>high rank guild

>G rank guild and a few super high rank village quests

>DLC super super G rank quests

And it isn't just quest difficulty, you can use any gear you want, choose not to use meals, use co-op or not, constrain yourself in whatever ways you want. Since there isn't any stats to increase you have total control over your power level. Now obviously this doesn't fit all games, but I think it shows a great way you can go without traditional difficulty selections and still make difficulties for pretty much every player. They are (mostly) all balanced around being able to take the quests on with level appropriate gear solo with any weapon and still have time to spare if you're good enough.

There shouldnt be any difficulty settings in games, just the game then when you beat it a harder version that adds more enemies, more variety, levels, objectives,etc. giving the option of easy normal hard is useless because easy is too easy, normal is too easy and hard is just everything is a damage sponge but you die in 1 hit. how about instead of different difficulty you get different game modes?

you raise a good point OP. I'd say either normal or hard should be the base difficulty depending on the game.

-if we're talking about a game where difficulty is based around level design or combining mechanics, like a platforming or puzzle game, I'd make the normal mode map first, then alter sections of a level or add new stuff for hard mode. easy is just normal with less levels/easier enemies/more lives and/or time/simplified obstacles

-if we're talking about games where difficulty is marked by numbers/enemy spawns or types/AI routines, like a beat'em up, an FPS, or an RPG usually I think it's better to design enemies with a complete moveset, then make AI behavior dumber and tweak values and spawns for normal and easy.

The only problem I see with taking hard as baseline is that 'hard' could end up being normal, and 'normal' and 'easy' could turn into easy and very easy respectively. On the upside it's quite likely that 'hard' won't end up being "enemies turn into sponges with inflated stats that kill you in 1 hit".

Another thing worth mentioning is that rationale is not always applicable. rhythm games for example have charts which have to be made from scratch for every difficulty.

>>16294480

>Having easy mode is a waste of time

then plenty of games would be unplayable to kids. most notably rhythm games.

>>16294470

>Game played before release

<Game journalist mode

Gather good reviews and add a purple filter to let people know that the reviewer actually play it on easy.

>Game played after release

<Hard mode AKA pre-7th gen Normal mode

>>16294711

>>16294574

Do you even know what reddit spacing is you tryhard faggot? The amount of niggers here that never went to their writing classes is astounding.

It depends on the game, but changeling the playing is often preferable so from a design perspective balancing everything around the most challenging difficulty then working backwards to make things easier might be one strategy. Then maybe tacking on an unreasonable nightmare difficulty just for shits and giggles.

Also avoid meme difficulty aka

>Super Ghost and Goblins is good

>I want to be the Guy is trash

There are exception to meme difficulty's too. For example Kaizo Mario is also acceptable, but if your making a Kaizo game then teach the player the gimmicks. One of the biggest pitfalls of Kaizo maps is they don't teach players how to do the proper advanced techniques to finish the game, such a shell jumps and spring jumps.

>>16295238

>then plenty of games would be unplayable to kids. most notably rhythm games.

Kids should not play video games.

>>16295314

My black cat steals my smigarettes as well. I shouldn't have named her Toby.

Depends on the genre and The complexity of the game. Take strategy games for example, an easy mode should allow you to learn the base mechanics of the game, including how units work, making you try them out in sandboxy-esque fashion. Normal should allow you to win with basis of strategy and every next one should make you learn more complex strategies.

It depends entirely on the game though. Some games benefit from having no selectable difficulty others do benefit from having it.

>>16294470

Normal, Hard, Extreme

If a developer designs a difficulty simply by inflating/deflating values with nothing else of value i.e.

normal

<deal 1.0 damage, take 1.0 damage

hard

<deal <1.0 damage take >1.0 damage

extreme

<deal absurdly less damage and take much more

His studio should be raided by the taste police section of Internal Security and everyone involved summarily executed.

>>16294470

Green - Veteran - Career

Green: Default (or normal). You're new to the game, you just finished the tutorial. Everything progresses as intended for a substantive playthrough.

Veteran: Hard. You beat the game once or twice, you know how it works now. Frequency of enemies in creased. New (and challenging) enemies not found in Green mode. Additional mechanics, elements, or areas.

Career: Autismo. You can play the game blind-folded; it's all muscle-memory now. All the same features of Veteran mode, but with off-the-wall settings, and perhaps additions. Example: both you and enemies deal "realistic" damage to each other, making even low-tier enemies a threat if you fuck up once. Some enemies maybe gain additional movesets.

The best games don't have difficulty sliders at all. Instead they can be made as hard as people like by omitting certain techniques or features. Take Metroid of the Mega Man X games for instance. Even better when the game itself has adaptive difficulty, like a lot of arcade shooters.

Bunch of elitists fucks here all wanting max difficulty. But I guess "bunch of elitists fucks" is generally a good description of /v/.

Either way, to phrase the question as you did is to admit defeat.

In a perfect world, the game would not be designed around one difficulty and then have a few numbers changed to make up the other difficulties. Each difficulty should instead be targeted to a different playstyle. Where you would pick easy if you wanted everything to be straightforward. Medium if you wanted some challenges and hard if you want to be pushed at all time. Instead of just tweaking a few hitpoint and damage numbers, it should do other things.

In easy more you might simply run through a canyon without much hindrance. The enemies would not often surprise you and the tactics you have to use are run and gun with plenty of medkits or whatever.

In medium, the canyon has a few places where you will have to think about the path you take, by for example flooding some pieces. The enemies will be using cover to their advantage and your supplies are somewhat limited.

In hard mode, the floor is lava, all is crumbling down and you have to make hast and your enemies will ambush you at the worst moment.

I doubt many developers will choose to do this. It would take more time (but not drastically so, the path a hard player must take would also be available to the easy player, but they would not be punished for failing to follow that path correctly. So in game design, there isn't that much that changes. The biggest problem is likely the players which will demand that hard mode can be done the easy way. Because hard mode will be a lot more challenging and probably more fun, and I am a gamer too that paid for a form of media that demands some form of skillful interaction but what I really want is to play using my tv remote with 3 eyes closed and the hard mode doesn't allow for that yet I paid for it why are you not making hard mode easy and whatever…

Easy modes should not exist. People who cannot play on normal mode but can play on easy mode are incapable of learning the game, either due to their own helplessness, or due to the game being obtuse. They are playing for the purpose of seeing pretty colors and don't actually care about the experience, while the easy experience is objectively worse for everyone else. Pandering to the crowd who requires an easy mode invalidates everything else a developer does, since that crowd just doesn't care. What's worse is that people who play games on easy mode have a harder time moving to harder difficulties than just simply starting the game on normal, because easy modes teach you how to play the game incorrectly. Beginner difficulty for X-COM: UFO Defense, for example, neuters enemy stats like accuracy and reactions, and is the only difficulty in the game that reduces enemy armor values, and by 50%. This teaches players to stand in the open and exchange fire with aliens, which is the worst habit to fall into. A person who begins the game on veteran difficulty would quickly learn to take cover when possible, while a beginner-player may assume that he is unlucky, or that the game is simply designed for masochists who like to lose. This is why you will notice notable people insisting that UFO Defense was really hard - they played babby mode and never learned the basics.

'Normal' modes are what the game should be based around. A game should be appropriately challenging and capable of giving you opportunities to improve your skills. Though what is an issue with many games is the implementation of hard mode. Hard mode should be tailored to an advanced challenge. Multiplying the health of enemies by 1.5x doesn't make a game more fun. The issue is that people who make these difficulties don't actually play them, so they don't understand what they are doing. A hard mode should have AIs slightly enhanced, better enemy composition in certain areas, or just change up enemy movesets. Hell, even platformers can have a good hard mode by making once-simple challenges more complex.

Easy is valueless and needs to go. Normal should provide good resistance to the overwhelming majority of players. Hard should make you feel like you're being out-played. Other difficulties are unnecessary 99% of the time.

>>16294554

>but not really an easy mode.

LFR is looking at you

>>16295305

>I want to be the Guy is trash

Not really, it's mostly a puzzle game

You can instantly restart and saves are 10 seconds apart for a reason

>>16296882

Trial an error meme difficulty is trash as opposed to the memorization of a traditional hard but fair arcade style game like Ghouls 'n Ghosts.

There should be no difficulties. Just one default difficulty and all that work trying to rebalance the game invested into allowing people with disabilities to rework the controls instead.

Have it so that each difficulty mode eventually scales up to hard. For instance, normal mode would have normal up to the mid-game, where the difficulty mode changes to be the equivalent of hard mode's mid game. In easy mode, it scales up to hard mode only at the very end of the game. In hard mode, it stays the same throughout. This allows players, regardless of what difficulty they choose, to experience challenging content, just at different points in the game.

>>16297291

Halo

>>16295325

games should ONLY be played by kids, video games are absolute trash an any adult who wastes their time on video games is a fucking pathetic waste of a life

>>16297360

Then why are you here?

>>16297360

You're trying way too hard, m8.

>>16297365

>>16297380

the responses of two neets under attack, once you put a 'gamers' feet to the fire about how pathetic their hobby is they curl up into a little ball and sob

A game should be challenging without being artificially hard.

Scaling enemies come to mind as an example of what is artificially hard: what's the point of getting +1 to damage if the enemy gets +1 to damage resistance?

>>16297360

The first round of video games for the PC was for adults because only nerds who could afford it and were passionate about it had them. Despite this kids can and did play these games that adults assumed they're too stupid or ignorant to be able to play. Stuff intended for kids that is entertainment even up to the new 00's is the dumbest shit possible like an "adventure game" where it's just you typing out words the game asks you to or "fun" math problems and coloring books with funny moving images. Even now, today in the modern times, the primary target for games is kids not because they're kids but because adults just think they're too stupid to notice anything.

Are there games where the difficulty is mastering the mechanics, rather than picking a set of values ranged from "easy" to "hard"?

>>16297360

>>16297483

>adults dont consumer entertainment shitposter is back

>>16297614

What about enemies that scale not with your character, but with how well you do in the game? So that the game pushes back when you blast through it.

>>16297786

The primary target for games is anything with arms and a half-functioning brain. The causual audience is just far bigger than those who consider themselves "gamers", which is why a lot of stuff is at least kid friendly.

Its less about what people think, and instead all about catering to the biggest target demographic.

>>16297795

Games like Monster Hunter or DS come to mind. At first they feel really hard, but as you get better the game it becomes more manageable. Also stuff like Rocket league or non-shit FPS.

>>16294601

>Have to beat the entire game twice in order to get the true ending

>Allowing devs to literally double their gameplay length by adding almost nothing but a cutscene and then cockblocking you out of it

Yeah, how about NO.

Anyway, is there any (good) game that actually has dynamic difficulty? I mean: a game where it automatically adjusts the difficulty depending how you do. For example, if you are dying shittons it will go a little easier on you in the next stage. Conversely, if you no-damage a stage, it raises the difficulty for the next. I can see this resulting in an absurd see-saw effect, so the changes would have to be minor and subtle so you wouldn't even notice it.

>>16295532

Lots of NES games were actually hard.

I like the way Gundam Breaker works.

Easy - enemies are shit, but you get next to no rewards. Good for testing builds.

Standard - how the game is meant to be played.

Hard - enemies are tougher and deal more damage, more "player" characters show up as minibosses, but you get more rare and higher quality items

Extreme (unlockable) - enemies do stupid damage and have crazy health, but you get some top tier items

Newtype (unlockable after beating Extreme) - you die if touched. Only way to unlock endgame tier items and max out your Gunpla.

Honestly, I think that games should have a baseline that everything is balanced around and just let you tweak different aspects of the game instead of changing all of them at once.

Let's take a first person shooter, for example. Some potential difficulty tweaks:

>Damage given/taken. These should be adjustable individually, so if you think EVERYONE including you should die in one shot, go for it. Or if you want to be able to be unshackled from cover, give yourself some extra health

>Supply frequency. Do you want to have an ammo-fest run and gun or be scrimping and saving every health pack you find?

>Enemy numbers, self explanatory

>Turn special injuries on or off, if you get hit there's a chance you'll get hehmoraging or a punctured organ or broken legs and must take some time to heal it and deal with debuffs until you do.

Stuff like that.

The hardest one the devs intended you to play on seriously. Joke difficulties a player was never intended to beat are the only ones that should be higher than the one the game was designed around. While adding things and weighing numbers in the player's favor are easily done and work, you can't make a game enjoyably hard with the opposite.