It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Ok, I don't normally defend dtgreene, but why are y'all downvoting him? He hasn't even done anything political, he was making a legitimate topic! Yeah, ok, he's done annoying things elsewhere, but is that really a reason to downrate him here when he hasn't done anything wrong? Come on guys, don't drag your grudges to inappropriate places. We've already reserved the #GamersGate thread for that purpose.
avatar
dtgreene: Also, why is this thread "low rated"?
I gotta ask; do you really expect an honest reply to that question every time you type it?
Bump, because this topic actually had some good discussion before some idiots downrepped this topic, making it difficult to tell when there is a new post.

Back on topic, one thing I dislike is when a game starts out hard and gets easier when you progress; that is the exact opposite of what should happen.
avatar
dtgreene: Back on topic, one thing I dislike is when a game starts out hard and gets easier when you progress; that is the exact opposite of what should happen.
Hmmm, so every RPG on this plane of existence? You should also remember that player's skill is growing with time played, so relatively to it game is getting easier and easier.
Late to the discussion (sorry) and only read the OP, not the responses, so sorry if this has already been brought up... but here's my two cents.

I am really tired of the way most/all RPG's have dying almost being "normal". In other words, I'd bet money to donut holes that most (over 90%) of players that played, on normal or default difficulty, let's say these RPG's:

1)Fallout (all of them)
2) Elder Scrolls (all of them)
3) Arcanum
4) actually I could list almost all rpg's so I'll stop....

died at least once if they played through. I don't know about others, but for me, I actually ROLE PLAY when I play an RPG. I get into it, and I come to feel like I'm the character... and DYING RUINS IMMERSION.

How do you role play that? Oh it was just a dream, I replayed that part.
Some sort of higher power (God, Allah, Budda, etc) revived me
Other...

Yeah, I could play them on easy settings, but again, why is it considered NORMAL (i.e. on normal difficulty) for a character to die, most likely multiple times, during a role playing play through? It just ruins immersion for me.
I like it when games don't even bother with difficulty levels at all, and straight up go "This is where the fun is at suck it up or be a quitter".

Bonus points: You unlock hard mode if you complete the game, and it shits in your cornflakes even harder.
Post edited March 23, 2016 by WBGhiro
avatar
dtgreene: Back on topic, one thing I dislike is when a game starts out hard and gets easier when you progress; that is the exact opposite of what should happen.
avatar
Hrymr: Hmmm, so every RPG on this plane of existence? You should also remember that player's skill is growing with time played, so relatively to it game is getting easier and easier.
Actually, the player's skill growing with time played is the very reason that the game should get harder as you progress. A new player is not going to be good at the game, so the early stages should be easy so the player can learn the mechanics and get better at the game. Then, later on, you up the difficulty in order for the player to actually use the skill she's developed over the course of the game.

Also, an example of an RPG that actually gets harder as you progress: Elminage Gothic.
Where are the down votes coming from?

Anyway, I usually just play the game on whatever the default is. Sometimes that results in a quick change to another difficulty (in a couple of cases actually dropping it to easy because the game was that needlessly punishing, 80s arcade style).

But in truth I think that most of the time it just stays on default, so I don't even know what handicaps / difficulties different settings offer in most games. Odds are there are a few games that I would enjoy more if I cranked the difficulty up a bit. Things definitely get more interesting when the odds are stacked against you. But I'm not that much of a gamer these days, I suppose.
avatar
OldFatGuy: DYING RUINS IMMERSION.
I know what you mean. It's not just that though, is it? Loot is nearly always worthless. Any guns scavenged always have precisely three bullets. Even though if you let the enemy live longer he'd have continued to empty clip after clip.

Everything is geared towards you facing massive odds head on. That means death is a regular occurrence and all the game's mechanics, including those mentioned above are all balanced around that reality.

What I'd like is an RPG where there are no bullet-sponges and armour counts for more than your character's level when it comes to absorbing damage (although stats and skills still have plenty of upgrades and potency in other ways). Something where dumb blundering got you killed but it's perfectly possible to survive as long as you take your own survival seriously.
Post edited March 24, 2016 by Navagon
avatar
Navagon: What I'd like is an RPG where there are no bullet-sponges and armour counts for more than your character's level when it comes to absorbing damage (although stats and skills still have plenty of upgrades and potency in other ways). Something where dumb blundering got you killed but it's perfectly possible to survive as long as you take your own survival seriously.
Try Wasteland and Dragon Wars. Both those games fit your criteria.

In fact, in Dragon Wars, upgrading your HP is actually not a particularly good use of skill points, as you have to pay 2 SP for 1 HP, and the skill Bandage only heals you up to an amount rather than by an amount.
avatar
Navagon: What I'd like is an RPG where there are no bullet-sponges and armour counts for more than your character's level when it comes to absorbing damage (although stats and skills still have plenty of upgrades and potency in other ways). Something where dumb blundering got you killed but it's perfectly possible to survive as long as you take your own survival seriously.
avatar
dtgreene: Try Wasteland and Dragon Wars. Both those games fit your criteria.

In fact, in Dragon Wars, upgrading your HP is actually not a particularly good use of skill points, as you have to pay 2 SP for 1 HP, and the skill Bandage only heals you up to an amount rather than by an amount.
I have the original Wasteland as a part of the Wasteland 2 backer rewards. Played the shit out of W2, but the original is buried in the backlog pile. Yes, Wasteland 2 is definitely my kind of RPG. But even with that one it's still balanced in favour of you killing a lot of things. Meaning that each enemy has crap loot (often not even the gun they were shooting at you with) and the amount of bullets your squad and the enemy can take is often quite high.

Also don't get how 7.62mm weapons do more damage than 5.56mm. But let's not start down that road.

I'll look into Dragon Wars. Thanks for the recommendation.
avatar
dtgreene: Back on topic, one thing I dislike is when a game starts out hard and gets easier when you progress; that is the exact opposite of what should happen.
avatar
Hrymr: Hmmm, so every RPG on this plane of existence? You should also remember that player's skill is growing with time played, so relatively to it game is getting easier and easier.
I think a perfect example of what he means is the first "The darkness" game. By mid to late game your character is almost godlike and you shred dozens upon dozens of goons as if they weren't even there.
I like it when you can change in-game so if it becomes too hard or too easy, you change it.

avatar
dtgreene: Actually, the player's skill growing with time played is the very reason that the game should get harder as you progress. A new player is not going to be good at the game, so the early stages should be easy so the player can learn the mechanics and get better at the game. Then, later on, you up the difficulty in order for the player to actually use the skill she's developed over the course of the game.
Agreed. I particularly dislike the beginnings of most RPGs but the endings are no fun either (just the opposite). The sweet middle when you have learned the basics but there is still things to look forward to. :)
avatar
Nirth: I like it when you can change in-game so if it becomes too hard or too easy, you change it.

avatar
dtgreene: Actually, the player's skill growing with time played is the very reason that the game should get harder as you progress. A new player is not going to be good at the game, so the early stages should be easy so the player can learn the mechanics and get better at the game. Then, later on, you up the difficulty in order for the player to actually use the skill she's developed over the course of the game.
avatar
Nirth: Agreed. I particularly dislike the beginnings of most RPGs but the endings are no fun either (just the opposite). The sweet middle when you have learned the basics but there is still things to look forward to. :)
I think you're right about that happy middle. I never had the kind of satisfaction at the end in terms of challenge that I did in the middle for RPG's.
avatar
dtgreene: Back on topic, one thing I dislike is when a game starts out hard and gets easier when you progress; that is the exact opposite of what should happen.
I disagree. Some games benefit from becoming progressively harder, but in others it makes sense for you to end the game as an unstoppable force. KOTOR 1, for example. It'd make no sense given that game's story for your created character to struggle against late-game enemies.

It can also serve as a reward. A lot of games come up with cheap ways of creating/inflating difficulty (damage sponges, restrictive save systems, etcetera), and overcoming that while still having a bit of room to play can be the difference between liking a game and hating it. Bloodborne comes immediately to mind; there are parts of that game that are just plain annoying, like one part where you have to chase a boss through a maze, but stuff like that eventually eases up and the last few fights manage to be great. They're the high point of the entire game for me, even. Marlow Briggs would be the opposite case, where late-game enemies are the same as early-game enemies, only recolored and capable of soaking up stupid amounts of damage. Same thing with the final boss. Harder, yes. Entertaining, no.

Until developers are capable of consistently creating difficulty that's natural rather than irritatingly artificial or gimmicky, I can't really begrudge them for easing up late in their games. Even then, it wouldn't suit every game.
avatar
dtgreene: 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.
Honestly, I've gotten to the age where I don't think I need to justify how I play my games, just to satisfy someone who wants to be more hardcore than thou. If it's a GOOD game, I'll finish it, because I'm invested in either the experience, the gameplay, the immersive world, or the story, or a combination thereof.

Don't get me wrong, I still play things like Hotline Miami because I love the adrenaline charge, right? But at the same time, I don't feel the need to complete it on hard to prove some arbitrary thing to another gamer. It is what it is. I play games because I enjoy them, and I usually select whatever difficulty allows me the most enjoyment.

I think it's a bunch of much ado about nothing and not worth getting worked up over. Now, that said, if a game comes out that has a "story mode" that's completely unavoidable, THEN it's worth getting worked up over, because at that point, I think you have to discuss whether or not it's still even a game, or just a loose collection of cut scenes stitched together somehow.