Post by: Rize on December 04, 2007, 05:31:11 PM
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorialArt.cfm?artid=14928
In the last few years, I've noticed a rather unusual trend in gaming. A number of recent releases allow the player to adjust the difficulty in the middle of the game. I haven't personally noticed this "feature" in any Wii or DS games yet, but I'm told that Trauma Center (Wii) has it. It's tempting to just lash out at this unusual design choice, but I'm actually quite divided on the subject. In light of this division, I decided to host a debate instead of writing a standard editorial. I'll be representing both the pros and cons.
Cons Dave: Well, I had better start since this was my idea. I'll just come right out with it. Allowing the player to change the difficulty in the middle of the game is quite possibly the worst idea in the history of gaming. It's essentially an admission by the developer that they're either unable to, or simply don't feel like, balancing the difficulty in the proper way.
It was barely tolerable in Devil May Cry wherein the game offers to go easier on you after a few levels of beating the hell out of you. If you make the switch, you're stuck with it until you restart the game. The problem here is that the beginning of the game is too difficult. Any sensible person can see that easy mode should have been called normal mode and should have been available from the beginning.
On the other end of the spectrum is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. This is, by far, the worst example I know of. Instead of the proper RPG development pattern wherein deadly foes dwindle into pests as you develop your character, every enemy in the game keeps pace with your leveling, or more commonly outpaces you. I expect that this is due to Bethesda's unrealistic expectations of your character development talents. The problem worsens if you level up excessively (easy to do with all the enticing side quests lying around). Apparently Bethesda's solution to this vexing problem is for you to turn the difficulty down a bit via a slider. Are we expected to design our own games now?
Pros Dave: Ok, you've given me a lot of ground to cover. First of all, I'm not going to defend every game that uses this dubious "feature". Just because they used it doesn't mean they used it well. That said, Devil May Cry did alright. The beginning of the game isn't impossible, and after enabling the easy-auto mode the balance feels just right. And yet, the player knows that there's more to the game if they're up for the challenge. I'll generally agree that Oblivion's slider is a band-aid for its serious balance issues, but it might be forgiven if you look at the scope of the game.
What I want to mention now is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. If you'll remember, the first time we played it, we got all the way to the final boss and found him rather difficult. After at least a dozen attempts, we knocked the difficulty down to easy mode and beat the game. At that point, the alternative was probably giving up, which would have been a pretty unappealing option considering the time investment up to that point and how story driven the game is.
Cons Dave: The only reason we couldn't beat that boss the right way is because you insisted on playing "light side" the first time through. If you'll remember, when we played "dark side" afterwards, he went down easily. Obviously the game is poorly balanced.
Pros Dave: No, the game is perfect. The dark side is supposed to be the easier path. Just ask Yoda. Here's another example. When we played Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, a game that sticks you with a difficulty in the traditional manner, you insisted on starting the game on hard mode because of our prior Fire Emblem experience and Advance Wars skills. I agreed because Nintendo doesn't usually leave dangerous hard modes lying around, so I figured it wouldn't be that bad. Consequently, in the middle of the game, things became so annoying that we got bored and went elsewhere. Wouldn't it have been nice to change the difficulty down to normal in that case?
Cons Dave: Maybe; but that was our own fault at least. If we had played the game on normal mode like we should have, we wouldn't have had that problem. I never said this idea couldn't be implemented wisely. Perhaps if a game allowed you to downgrade permanently, like Devil May Cry, I could tolerate it. However, it would be even better to encourage a player to use the right difficulty from the start. Metal Gear Solid 2, for example, displays simple descriptions for each difficulty level that try to steer you toward the correct setting among the five available.
Pros Dave: So then it's not the "worst idea in the history of gaming" after all? It sounds like you're admitting that adjusting the difficulty mid-game might not always be bad. You can't count on gamers to choose the right setting, even with prompting.
Cons Dave: I qualified that statement with "quite possibly" you know. Most ideas aren't intrinsically bad. If it's executed well enough, it could be a good idea. However, I doubt that it would ever be so. Developers should pay careful attention to the difficulty balance in their games and get it right. Very few people complain about a game being too easy if there are harder difficulty settings available. If developers appropriately name their difficulty modes, make normal mode skew a bit towards easy, and provide at least one harder level (even if it has to be unlocked), then everything should be alright. What's more, optional gameplay elements can make things easier if there's a question about the difficulty. Think Metroid's energy tanks and Zelda's heart containers.
Pros Dave: That sounds good on paper, but not every game can be designed with that kind of gameplay. That also puts players with a collecting and exploration fetish at risk of making the game way too easy. You're probably right that gamers shouldn't be able to both increase and decrease the difficulty, but I can even think of situations where that might be useful. What if you stop playing a game for some reason and come back three months later? You could set it to easy mode for a short period to get back into the swing of things.
Cons Dave That's not worth breaking the game over. Gamers will swap to easy mode when the game gets too difficult but then feel like they're cheating. If they swap back, they'll likely find the game too hard again. Game designers need to balance their own games or gamers will get fed up and go elsewhere. If you stop playing a game for a while and need to get back into the swing of things, then replay the first level before loading up your old save file. The whole point of challenge in a game is for gamers to rise to the challenge. Unless the game is poorly designed, the majority of gamers should be able to do just that.
Pros Dave: You know, you can't just make things true by stating them. Developers don't always have enough time and resources to do things properly. Anyway, I have nothing else to say on the subject.
Cons Dave: Good. I was tired of listening to you anyway.
Dave: Ahem. Well, it looks like I'm still somewhat divided on the issue. Be sure to stop by the NWR forums and let everyone know what you think about adjusting a game's difficulty level in mid-game. Here's a handy link to the Talkback thread for this article.
Post by: Kairon on December 04, 2007, 06:26:56 PM
Post by: Rize on December 04, 2007, 06:28:06 PM
I like his take better.
Post by: jayz79 on December 04, 2007, 06:29:50 PM
Quote
A number of recent releases allow the player to adjust the difficulty in the middle of the game. I haven't noticed this "feature" in any Wii or DS games yet, but it's bound to crop up eventually.
Hmmm Trauma Center Second Opinion (a launch title) has this feature so at least 1 Wii game already supports this
Post by: Rize on December 04, 2007, 06:39:00 PM
Post by: oohhboy on December 04, 2007, 07:34:06 PM
Post by: shammack on December 04, 2007, 11:57:05 PM
I find the Oblivion example odd. The "proper RPG development pattern wherein deadly foes dwindle into pests as you develop your character" that you mention is, essentially, a form of changing the difficulty of an RPG mid-game. If the game's too hard, you can go and grind for a while or buy better equipment to make it easy. That way, even if you suck, you can eventually get through the whole game if you're willing to put enough time into it. You support that system, but have a problem with changing the difficulty mid-game?
As mentioned, Trauma Center supports this, and I have no problem with it whatsoever. If you get stuck, instead of throwing the controller and then never playing again, you can bump it down to easy, beat the level, and unlock the next one, which you can then bump back up if you're so inclined. Eventually you get all the levels unlocked, but you see that your high score on that level is only from the easy difficulty, so if you really want the satisfaction of beating normal (or whatever), you'll have to go back and try that level again eventually. What's wrong with that?
This is similiar to the way the difficulty works in Guitar Hero (though Trauma Center does it better, I think). If you're playing on expert in Guitar Hero and you get stuck, you don't have access to any of the songs after that point, but you can drop down to an easier difficulty and play through all the songs, which unlocks them in quickplay to play at any difficulty you want. The problem is that when you drop down to the lower difficulty, you have to play all the songs up to that point again (because each career difficulty's songs are unlocked separately). That encourages you not to challenge yourself the first time through and to play at an easier difficulty than you really need, so you can make sure you unlock all the songs.
If you're the type of gamer who likes to see everything the game has to offer, I don't see how a Trauma Center-style difficulty system is a bad thing. So it allows you to get access to the hard version of a level that you can only beat on easy. So what? You still have to beat it on hard if you want that challenge. I'm not seeing the downside.
The whole thrust of this argument is a false dichotomy: either balance the gameplay properly or add an option to change it mid-game. There's no reason a game can't do both. I think Trauma Center might be an example of that, but frankly I don't really know because easy was hard enough for me.
Post by: Ceric on December 05, 2007, 01:34:22 AM
There are some games that after you get cremated enough give you the option to kick it down. I support that for the most part because if you are getting beaten that badly you probably picked the wrong mode. I don't support being able to just bump it back up. I also like the systems that will give you hints when they find out that your getting beaten senseless and doesn't when your doing great and probably don't need them.
Just my thoughts condensed.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on December 05, 2007, 01:55:45 AM
Post by: matt oz on December 05, 2007, 03:15:43 AM
Also, I was a little creeped out by the one-person round table. It's kind of like those Adam vs. Adam commercials on G4.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on December 05, 2007, 03:28:08 AM
I'd rather have the option to freely change the difficulty level in a level based game, but not in a continuous game. If I get to choose the next mission from a menu, I might as well be able to pick the difficulty level for the mission, too. If I get to the next part of the game by walking there in-game, then there's no natural point at which I can change it.
I take issue with games that take pity on me. I got really ticked off at the final level of Sly Cooper, for example, because after I kept dying instant deaths in the lava, the stupid game gave me an item to let me take an extra hit from an enemy. Not only did that not help me at all with the lava, but it made the next part of the level easier before I even got to take a crack at it. I'd rather have the ability to make the game easier entirely under my control.
Post by: Stogi on December 05, 2007, 03:29:08 AM
I also haven't played many games that allow you to switch difficulty in the middle of the game other than God of War and Trauma Center. With Trauma Center, I started on easy, so moving up the difficulty ladder and still being able to skip the tutorial surgeries was a plus for me. God of War was a hard game, but like you said I rose to the challenge and didn't give up even though the game thought I should switch to easy mode.
Post by: Louieturkey on December 05, 2007, 03:40:55 AM
Post by: Chode2234 on December 05, 2007, 04:02:16 AM
Post by: Enner on December 05, 2007, 04:53:25 AM
Post by: Rize on December 05, 2007, 05:08:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: shammack
The whole thrust of this argument is a false dichotomy: either balance the gameplay properly or add an option to change it mid-game. There's no reason a game can't do both. I think Trauma Center might be an example of that, but frankly I don't really know because easy was hard enough for me.
Which argument? Again, I took two sides not one. And in the end, I wrote that I was still somewhat divided on the issue.
By the way, a game in which you unlock levels one at a time and can select the difficulty independently is very different from one where you can make the game easier, kill one enemy, and then make it harder again. I haven't played Trauma Center. Perhaps that wasn't a good example to include since I didn't know the precise details. I don't really have a problem with that. Guitar Hero doesn't use this feature at all in my opinion. In the main game, you play the songs in order. If you swap difficulty levels, they force you to beat all the songs on every difficulty level (a major mistake in my opinion; if you beat a track in guitar hero on expert you should get a check mark on every difficulty below it).
Post by: Rize on December 05, 2007, 05:11:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
There are some games that after you get cremated enough give you the option to kick it down. I support that for the most part because if you are getting beaten that badly you probably picked the wrong mode. I don't support being able to just bump it back up. I also like the systems that will give you hints when they find out that your getting beaten senseless and doesn't when your doing great and probably don't need them.
RPGs can be a mess, but the balance issues are inseparable from the gameplay. If you take out character development, it's hardly an RPG anymore. If you make sure the game is always challenging, then every player, no matter how good, will have to level grind (ala the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games), although these days that sort of RPG is considered classic by many people. The other side of the coin is to make sure the character is overpowered and then many people will find the game too easy. Finally, some developers give you the illusion of character development, so that they can be certain of maintaining the challenge. That's probably the best way for the most people, but there's still some that prefer the old-school method of course.
Post by: Pale on December 05, 2007, 05:17:17 AM
As far as the debate goes, I'm the kind of gamer that doesn't play large scale games for challenge. I play them for the experience.
When I want a challenge, I move to smaller scale games, like Ikaruga, or dare I say, Kid Icarus.
Therefore, mid game difficulty adjustment doesn't ever really come into play for me, as I usually play on the easiest difficulty. The only exception to this rule is when I get something more out of the game for higher difficulties, like the secret ending (which turned out being total bonk) in Kingdom Hearts II.
Post by: Rize on December 05, 2007, 05:24:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chode2234
I felt like I was reading an IM chat between 12 year olds. What was decided?
That sometimes it's good to allow the player to switch difficulties and sometimes it's bad. Both sides had good points, which is why I didn't write a standard editorial. Plus this was a lot more fun.
A permanent downgrade, even in mid-game, is probably best if the feature must be used (provided the player is recommended to keep a save before the switch in case they change their mind).
I also like the Goldeneye method. In that game, you could play any difficulty on the first level. If you went and beat 10 levels on easy (Agent mode), you could play medium (Secret Agent) on any of those levels. However, if you wanted to upgrade the difficulty in mid-game, you had to beat a level, say level 10, on easy then beat it again on medium THEN you could play level 11 on medium. You couldn't jump from level 10 easy to level 11 medium. However, even if that were possible, it still wouldn't be that bad. PartyBear's point about the difference between changing difficulty between discrete levels and in the middle of a continuous game stands.
Being able to switch back and forth in the middle of a level is just not good. After I was forced to use the ridiculous slider in Oblivion, I lost interest in the game within hours. I still haven't finished it. Bioshock will be lucky if I finish it for the same reasons. I've gone ahead on easy mode, but it's too easy to be interesting. However, now I'm even further into the game than when I had to switch down, so medium mode is even more impossible. Although I haven't tried switching on the auto-aim I just discovered yesterday.
Post by: Rize on December 05, 2007, 05:32:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: matt oz
I think the point about changing difficulty when you go away from a game for a while and come back was strong. When I first bought Metroid Prime, I got stuck at one part, and didn't play again for maybe two months. It would've been nice to have some kind of way to ease myself back into the game. A few days later, I got stuck at the Omega Pirate and never played again. That was over four years ago. Now there's no way I could go back to playing the game from that point because I'd have no idea what to do.
Also, I was a little creeped out by the one-person round table. It's kind of like those Adam vs. Adam commercials on G4.
I've never seen that show, don't get G4 over here. Hey at least I'm not continuing to use "we" instead of "I" in the forum.
Anyway, you'd be surprised how quickly you can get back into the swing of a game if you give it a try. For Metroid, instead of killing the Omega Pirate, turn around and go hunt down some energy tanks, by the time you get back, you'll be familiar with the controls again. Also, Metroid Prime has an interesting way of being really challenging at first, even on the regular difficulty level, but it quickly gets a lot easier. Go look up some energy tank locations and read some strategy for the boss fight (the classic ways of making a game easier). Metroid Prime is well worth finishing.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on December 05, 2007, 07:31:55 AM
Post by: TE-Ryan on December 05, 2007, 08:41:12 AM
Most important of all, maybe check out a review first? For example, some people may have jumped for joy when MegaMan Zero made the MegaMan name respectable again, but then immediately regretted their puchase because of the difficulty level. I don't think one review for any of the four games in that series omitted the fact that each chapter is soul-crushingly difficult on even the normal level.
Post by: that Baby guy on December 05, 2007, 10:32:38 AM
Take Astro Boy: Omega Factor. On easy, you can basically use as many super attacks as you want and take a small amount of damage from each attack. On normal, you're limited to ten super attacks allowed in your reserve, I think, and you take a moderate amount of damage, usually it takes about five hits to die, but that can vary based on how you progress. On hard, you're limited to a reserve of three super attacks and three or less hits will usually be all it takes to die.
In Kingdom Hearts, as you increase difficulty, you take more damage every time you get hit and bosses have more life.
The changes vary from game to game, but an understanding of the differences difficulty levels make allows the player to make the right choices at the beginning. If you understand the differences, you should be able to choose a difficulty that suits your needs right away. If something might pop out of nowhere that suddenly makes that difficulty to hard in the late part of the game, there's a design flaw, and the developers messed up, especially if you can bypass that part and move on in the same difficulty level, and have no struggle afterwards.
Now, there are some games that really need difficulty settings added, though. For instance, Super Paper Mario was far too easy for me. In order to face some sort of challenge, I did go through those pits as soon as possible, and by the time I was done, the rest of the game was overly simple. It took four hits to kill the final boss. I delivered those four before there was a chance to get hit in return. That game needed an option to adjust difficulty.
So, in essence, I think that games need to offer an explanation on the different difficulty settings, but don't need to offer the ability to change difficulty on the way through. I'm not saying it's bad if they do offer that, though. I'm just saying if that option is necessary to get through a single level, then continue at the original difficulty, that's a design flaw.
I suppose in that sense, you should be allowed to at least lower the difficulty of mission-based games, since each mission should be progressively more difficult, if you get halfway through the game and can no longer progress, without this option, you'd be pretty stuck, I think.
Post by: Rize on December 05, 2007, 11:16:15 AM
Post by: oohhboy on December 05, 2007, 01:15:47 PM
The real question should have been what do you play a game for? If you there to waste time, why not have a higher difficulty. Same if you wanted a challenge. If you don't like challenges, then ask yourself why are you playing games you are playing in the first place.
Post by: IceCold on December 05, 2007, 03:29:45 PM
QuoteBut that takes all the fun out of the game.. Getting repeatedly beaten by Thardus, then finally killing him, was a great feeling.
Go look up some energy tank locations and read some strategy for the boss fight (the classic ways of making a game easier).
Post by: Djunknown on December 05, 2007, 04:39:05 PM
Quote
The only reason we couldn't beat that boss the right way is because you insisted on playing "light side" the first time through. If you'll remember, when we played "dark side" afterwards, he went down easily. Obviously the game is poorly balanced.
He's not that tough on light side either. The guardian class seems to be the least frustrating route to go, since force powers don't do much to him. I beat him by buffing my character (Force Speed and a few others) slash with lightsaber, run and heal. Keep at it until dead.
In RE:UC, changing difficulty on any mission was put there purposely also for those who want to focus on getting files/items. This increases the replay value since you can focus on just getting through the game the first time, then get the goodies the second time, which may unlock other levels.
Quote
However, we could never get better than a B ranking which means very little upgrading on weapons and opening new scenarios. We will probably go through it again on the ones that unlock other areas and try it on normal again, but if that doesn't work, we'll try it on easy.
Getting an A rank or better seems to be more difficult with 2 player due to the fact its tracking both your stats. One player may be getting head shots like crazy, but if your partner is content with pumping zombies full of lead without properly aiming, that affects the grading. Also in some situations that call for QTE (Quick Time Events), one player may mess up, while the other does fine, causing you to continue, adding on time. This happened to me one time when I was playing with my cousin. The Nemesis scenario at the beginning was something we couldn't get it right for 15 minutes. After enough finger pointing (waggle pointing?), we got it together and moved on.
Quote
you just have to reveal that we're all a bunch of closet schizos (well, more accurately, that we all have multiple personality disorders).
Nothing wrong with talking the voices in your head. But if they talk back, then its time for some professional drugs help...
Post by: Stogi on December 05, 2007, 05:31:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteBut that takes all the fun out of the game.. Getting repeatedly beaten by Thardus, then finally killing him, was a great feeling.
Go look up some energy tank locations and read some strategy for the boss fight (the classic ways of making a game easier).
QFT
There are some games that kick my ass and there are some games that mind**** me; but that's all part of the challenge. Figuring out how to beat a boss, or finally having the quick reflexes needed to win is part of what makes the game fun.
Without the challenge, why would I play games?
Post by: Rize on December 05, 2007, 07:08:16 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 05, 2007, 09:03:19 PM
RPGs can be a mess, but the balance issues are inseparable from the gameplay. If you take out character development, it's hardly an RPG anymore. If you make sure the game is always challenging, then every player, no matter how good, will have to level grind (ala the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games), although these days that sort of RPG is considered classic by many people. The other side of the coin is to make sure the character is overpowered and then many people will find the game too easy. Finally, some developers give you the illusion of character development, so that they can be certain of maintaining the challenge. That's probably the best way for the most people, but there's still some that prefer the old-school method of course.
That's missing the RP in RPG. There is no reason an RPG needs character development in the "god" direction, there is no reason a late-game character needs to be able to withstand fifteen shots in the face. You could have an RPG where the player remains at a constant strength throughout, the development people want to see is of the character's character, not his physical traits.
Post by: Rize on December 06, 2007, 05:49:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Complaining about adjustable difficulty is like complaining about memory saves instead of passwords or maybe saves in general. It's not the game dev's job to guess how capable you are, if you misestimate yourself you should be able to correct it without having to play through the early parts of the game again. If you don't want to use the option don't use it, I've played plenty of games where I could have adjusted the difficulty in midgame but didn't. Takes much less restraint than, say, voluntarily limiting your credits in an arcade port.
RPGs can be a mess, but the balance issues are inseparable from the gameplay. If you take out character development, it's hardly an RPG anymore. If you make sure the game is always challenging, then every player, no matter how good, will have to level grind (ala the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games), although these days that sort of RPG is considered classic by many people. The other side of the coin is to make sure the character is overpowered and then many people will find the game too easy. Finally, some developers give you the illusion of character development, so that they can be certain of maintaining the challenge. That's probably the best way for the most people, but there's still some that prefer the old-school method of course.
That's missing the RP in RPG. There is no reason an RPG needs character development in the "god" direction, there is no reason a late-game character needs to be able to withstand fifteen shots in the face. You could have an RPG where the player remains at a constant strength throughout, the development people want to see is of the character's character, not his physical traits.
The game developer shouldn't have to guess how capable you are, you're right. If they design the game properly, they'll *know*. If you were able to beat level 1, they know you're at least that capable. Level 2 should be a natural progression beyond level 1 so that if you just barely beat level 1, you should be able to grow naturally and beat level 2. If you beat that, they'll you're at least that capable, and so on. A poor game design bumps the difficulty up too much too quickly. It's also a developer's job to make sure that new game concepts are introduced adequately before you have to use them in stressful situations. Zelda games make you use hookshots for simple transportation before making you use it in combat for example. That kind of thing is not an accident. Good designers do it intentionally.
About RPG's. The term is currently applied to a wide variety of game designs. There are some common threads, but I wouldn't say that all RPG's need character development, or that lal players want them. The first console RPG, Dragon Quest, was mostly about stat development, and you didn't even guide it in any notable way. The original term was from pen and paper RPG's and referred to each player having to "play a role" (i.e. act to some degree, and use their imagination to bring the world to life".
Post by: matt oz on December 06, 2007, 09:48:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
Yes, but matt oz completely gave up on Metroid Prime 4 years ago. If it's a choice between not playing the game and finishing it, you might as well seek a little advice. Individual players no when it's time to do this. If you never do it, then you're probably good enough to beat games yourself (at least on normal mode).
Yeah, I don't think I'll ever finish it. I think I actually found all the energy tanks up to that point, because when I first got stuck, I went around the whole game world trying to do everything else I could do. I can't bring myself to sell/trade/give it away though. Maybe one day I'll just start over and try again.
Post by: Rize on December 06, 2007, 05:48:42 PM
He's not that hard. People beat him on hard mode. There are a few tricks that make it a lot easier. Sadly, luck can even make it easier (depending on which colors of supporting pirate troopers harass you, it's more or less difficult).If you did restart the game though, that wouldn't be anything to cry over. I've played Metroid Prime at least 5 times all the way through at this point. Maybe 6. It's a beautiful and fun game that's well worth experiencing at least a second time.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 06, 2007, 09:17:27 PM
So what if it is a copout? Do you think customizable controls are just a crutch for devs who can't figure out the perfect control scheme that fits everyone? You can throw a crutch away but that won't make you able to walk.
Post by: Rize on December 07, 2007, 08:26:09 AM
) I think the majority of games could be designed without the difficulty being adjustable in the middle of the level, but it requires a lot more time and effort to do this really well. Alternatively, a developer with fewer resources or one who is developing a game with more challenging gameplay might be spending their resources most effectively by putting the adjustable difficulty level in.The only case I disagree with completely is Oblivion. As it is, there's a lot to see and do in the game, but the character development is a mess.
As for customizable controls, that's an entirely different editorial. And I could write an entire editorial on the subject (in fact, I may just do that). The short version is that whether controls should be customizable depends on the game. In theory all games should have a good default scheme and then full customization as an option. This creates a number of potential problems though. I'll either write more here, or perhaps an entire editorial on the subject.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 07, 2007, 09:22:54 PM
Oblivion was a total mess anyway, adjustable difficulty or not. Many people hated it, some used mods (on the PC) to fix some of the more glaring issues. I really don't think Oblivion's failure should be blamed on the difficulty slider.
Post by: oohhboy on December 07, 2007, 09:53:30 PM
Changing difficulty between levels is great and all, especially for FPS where it is pretty easy to divide out levels in such a pattern. But the differences must be a bit more meaningful than damage multipliers. GE/PD to Timesplitters 2. TS2 failed in that department by loading you up with pointless collectathons like collecting wanted posters as extra objectives. Although I do admit that might have been the result of having and overly linear level design...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 07, 2007, 09:57:29 PM
Post by: Rize on December 08, 2007, 05:19:25 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 08, 2007, 07:00:29 AM
Post by: Rize on December 08, 2007, 08:07:11 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 08, 2007, 07:17:19 PM
