Let's discuss the difficulty (or lack thereof) of video games.

This topic came up in the GamerGate topic, where somebody mentioned the new Star Fox having a "watch the game" difficulty. Other examples of this are "phoenix mode" in recent Fire Emblem (your units auto-revive the turn after they're killed) and Casual difficulty in Dust: an Elysian Tail (in addition to the game being easy and having infinite dust storm and Fidget energy (makes the game quite fun), you get unlimited revives if (note, if, not when) you somehow manage to die). Do you think such difficulty settings are good to have in a game?

Anyway, I have here an example of a game that has a difficulty selection, but lacks what I consider to be the ideal difficulty setting. The game is Metroid: Zero Mission.

Normal: Game is too easy. You will not die unless you're not paying attention (assuming a casual any% playthrough, not 100% (which powers up the final boss) or low%).

Hard: Game is way too difficult. Enemies do double damage to you *and* energy tanks give you only half the health. This means you effectively get killed 4 times as fast. Also, your ammunition is cut in half on this mode. (Incidentally, this mode has one issue: If you attempt a hard 9% run on the US version, you will get permanently stuck late in the game. The EU version made a small change to make hard 9% possible.)

There really should have been a difficulty between Normal and Hard. I'm thinking something like Hard, but without the increased damage, would have worked well.

In case you are wondering, there is an easy mode in that game, which I describe as follows:

Easy: You will not die unless you deliberately try to die, and even that takes too long. If you are simply not paying attention, you will still survive. (Note that lava is the most dangerous obstacle on this mode because the damage from lava was not adjusted on this difficulty.)

It's worth noting that Hard mode has to be unlocked by beating Normal, but Normal is available from the start. Also, to get an ending picture other than the worst one, you have to be playing on at least Normal.

Sometimes. Back when I spent most of my time here in the Witcher 2 subforum, I saw a surprising number of of older gamers who would complain about the part of the game with QTEs that required quick clicking. A well-designed easy difficulty could be the difference between a game being accessible and inaccessible to some people like that.

On the other hand, the latest Fire Emblem. Or really, the last few of them. Ever since they've taken steps to make the game more accessible (Shadow Dragon added overpowered characters who could hit enemies from far away, 12 and Awakening allowed players to turn permadeath off, and now Fates has Phoenix mode), the harder gameplay modes have become comically unbalanced. I'm on the third and final game of the Fates trio, have played all three on the hard difficulty with permadeath on, and it's just not the same as it used to be. There are all kinds of random difficulty spikes, map gimmicks, and mechanics changes that don't mesh well with permadeath, and the whole thing is a tedious mess as a result. The games used to be balanced around the presence of permadeath, but now they're balanced around it being checked off. Basically, the thing I loved most about the series has become an afterthought instead of the core focus like it used to be.

So optional easier difficulties for normal games are good, but trying to make a game/series known for its difficulty accessible to everyone is clearly just a recipe for disaster.

If I ever play Pillars of Eternity it will likely be in Story Time mode.

Difficulty is a social construct.

There is something funny with the difficulty in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. It was too hard for me and when I sought help someone sugested increasing the difficulty level. Strangely that worked and made the game playable....

The difficulty levels in X3:Reunion are strange as nothing else changes than your starting position meaning it only takes longer to get anywhere.

Erm, where do you think this thread is going to go? Everyone's concept of difficulty. There are those who can barely watch a youtube video of someone playing a game, to seriously mad people who map out each pixel of a game. I fit into the last category - at least I did when I was young. Also, you can change the difficulty level in some games yourself, either through mods, or by choosing a random character, or by soloing etc. I mean if BG is too easy for you, put in BigWorld Tactics setup, play solo (even poverty), or play as a halfling fighter with 3 strength!

As for difficulty levels in games, I tend to ignore them as much as possible as they just increase enemy health or nerf your skills. It does annoy me when certain difficulties need to be unlocked, I mean, do I really need to play D2 over and over at each difficulty - it doesn't really change.

Only time I really care about difficulty setting is if I'm playing a score-based game where I want to get as good as possible. Otherwise I play on Normal unless the game get annoying like boss fights, then I switch to Easy just so I can move on. I think most games have a good balance on difficulty these days.

Ideally, the game should be balanced so that players familiar with the genre can play on Normal with some challenge, but not much frustration. The difficulty settings above and below that serve to adjust for player experience/skill with similar games. What we usually get, regardless of how tough the highest setting is, is players complaining that they've beaten the game with one hand tied to their back and it's STILL too easy. Whether it's just boasting or reality, I don't know.

For all the awful mainstreaming that Thi4f had, they really did the difficulty level well: it was completely custom, with a dozen or so options that you could check or uncheck, picking & choosing according to your playstyle. I wish more games had such customisation; it's not that difficult to implement. Instead, Easy, Normal and Hard are just "packages" of difficulty options that you cannot change. And sometimes a setting in the middle would just hit the spot!

I like it best when I can change the difficulty during the game. After al, how am I supposed to know how hard is "hard" and how easy is "easy" in a prticular game? I played games where the "easy" difficulty was harder than what other games would consider "expert" or something like that, and vice versa.

In general, I play on "normal" or whatever its equivalent is. I like a challenge, but I don't want to spend days replaying the same level to "git gud". Maybe once upon a time I didn't used to mind it so much, but now I see it as a terrible waste of time.

Difficulty settings are good to have as long as no other mechanics or balance is disturbed, as 227 said. I have a similar horror story. In Splinter Cells 1,2 3 and 4, enemies were placed with less density within the map but they required using the lowest walking speed and distractions to overcome. It had a skill element, where you had to get through that enemy without making noise, which is very slow and you risk getting caught in their patrol cycle or distract them from the correct distance to ensure they don't turn around as you sneak to the path behind them.

In Splinter Cell 5 onwards, they implemented a system called mark and execute (M&E) which allows you to do a kind of stop motion shootout guaranteed headshot move after taking out one enemy with cqc. So the enemy design changed from alert puzzle-like single guards to one guard and 2 a small distance afterward, all three very oblivious to sound. This also meant 99% of detection was sight based, and that in turn meant there weren't those super immersive night levels where you got to use the nvg. So when they introduced this system for new players, they designed maps around it, and made stealth options for stealth-preferring players a pain in the ass and requiring memorization of an entire area's enemies' patrols and going through speedrun style.

So I'd say that as long as the original mechanics aren't ignored, difficulty options are net positives. Metro Last Light Redux does this excellently. They included two game modes with slightly different mechanics with difficulty settings on each. One is the ''Spartan'' mode where you rambo the enemies like a generic FPS and the other is the sweet sweet ''Survival'' mode inspired by Metro 2033's ammo and filter conservation based survival horror style. In higher levels of the survival mode, enemies get lower HP and you get lower hp, just like Metro 2033 Ranger mode. I don't know about the other, but probably higher hp for you and enemies in Spartan? So I get the sequel to Metro 2033 and a rambo-esque shooter with good writing in a PA Moscow metro setting. Its a net positive without compromising on the vision and style of the original game.

TL;DR
As long as the intended mechanics and narrative isn't harmed, there should be different difficulty levels. I wouldn't say its a priority if the game was well balanced in the first place and the mechanics can be conveyed to all players easily. But when they are too complex, just put in a lower difficulty instead of butchering the mechanics.

I always play on easy. I want my games to offer me a wonderful way to relax, not to increase my blood pressure.

I agree that this should be done more often. In Metroid: Zero Mission, it would have been nice if you could toggle the reduced resources separate from the increased damage from enemies. That way, I could play with Normal damage amounts and Hard mode resources, which would be just right.

By the way, Dungeon Hack has a nice custom difficulty option. Of course, there are still things that could be improved; there should have, for example, been an option to get rid of enemy instant death attacks.

As I've been saying elsewhere, I generally prefer games with no difficulty settings. There is only one difficulty setting.

I feel that promotes the game designers and testers to playtest their games properly. I'm mainly worried that the harder difficulty settings are stupidly hard, ie. almost impossible to finish, just because they couldn't be arsed to playtest them thoroughly.

Also it promotes implementing ideas in the game so that people with different skills can still finish the game, by e.g. advancing more slowly or being more cautious. Those who are more skilled can then maybe advance more haphazardly and dangerously, fighting dozen enemies at a time instead of one at a time.

Maybe I should collect a GOG mix of games which have only one difficulty setting. For now I keep always remembering only two Bullfrog games, namely Magic Carpet and Dungeon Keeper (at least to my recollection they didn't have different difficulty levels).

I prefer to play my games on easy, mostly because when I play games I do it for the story or for the relaxing enjoyment. If I wanted to play a game on hard, I would just go outside...

Depends of the game really. Some games I just play for the story, where with other games I want the challenge. But in 90% of the cases normal is fine for me.