Poll of the Day > I think I'm gonna stop playing WRPGs on the higher difficulties.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'd say this is one of the only genres where the high difficulties literally just ruin the game. Dying over and over, trial and error, borderline impossible enemies. Then in games like Deus Ex you have to put all of your skill points in to combat skills or else you won't stand a chance, in a game where there is so much more creative, fun aspects than just combat and you can't even take advantage of them.
Wish there was no difficulty level options in these games so the devs don't make us feel like we suck at the game.
I would always start WRPGs on the highest, then I eventually give up and stop playing, but that stops starting now.
At least JRPGs have new game+ so you can usually replay the game on the highest and do well. That's something I wish WRPGs would do too.


---

I have mixed feelings about it. On hand, I like having a challenge and get annoyed when things are too easy, but it can get to be a pain at times. Before trophies/achievements were a thing, when I saw easy/normal/hard, I would just default to normal. If I saw easy/normal/hard/hardest, I would go with hard. However, given trophies often have things tied to difficulty, I got tempted to kill two birds with one stone by going as hard as possible from the start.

Nowadays that I don't game as much, I tend to appreciate the "easy" settings a lot more for games where I'm more interested in the story than the gameplay.

And some of the difficulty trophies are just too much of a nuisance. I could never get that last Ghostbusters trophy, for instance.

Ferarri619 posted...

At least JRPGs have new game+ so you can usually replay the game on the highest and do well. That's something I wish WRPGs would do too.

Some do, some don't. And not all JRPGs have New Game+

---

i just go for the middle ground difficulty and if it sucks ass i cheat with cheat engine or something

no shame im here to feel strong

---

Zeus posted...

Some do, some don't. And not all JRPGs have New Game+

Sure not all, but many. The ones that don't have it usually don't have a difficulty level to choose which is good.

---

I just usually play on normal. I might go to higher difficulties for new game + or something... I just usually like to play for fun. But I dont want the game to frustrate me... Haha.
---

I happily play on lower difficulties.
I don't care about combat in those games, I just want to play around in the story and characters and world and stuff.

---

If a game actually has set difficulties I usually choose hard unless it's something I know I want the hardest on. Some high difficulties can really suck the fun out of a game and I'm usually too stubborn to lower the difficulty after I've started. Most of the time if it's worth playing on the hardest difficulty, it's worth playing more than once.

On the other hand, stuff like skyrim just gives more control over the difficulty than I'd like. I want a set challenge. The game is clearly unfun on the hardest settings but it can feel hard to stick to a difficulty when I have the option to fine tune every aspect. The only one that really matters anyway is AI and usually that doesn't change.

---

Hold up dude you arent allowed to just play games the way that is more fun for you

---

I stopped playing higher difficulties all together once I had kids. Don't have time to throw myself against a difficult boss over and over again.

Games like Dark Souls are the exception, as there's no options for difficulty. I'll tough it out through those as much as I can manage, but if I have the option it's "normal" or whatever the default is.

---

I generally start games on normal. I really like games with adjustable difficulty settings so I can change midway if I'm having trouble or the game is too easy. With series I'm familiar with and know I'm decently good at or are exceptionally easy, such as Kingdom Hearts or Pikmin, I'll select Proud/Hard mode.

I almost always play them for the story, so I generally drop difficulty to "Casual" or "Narrative" or whatever else they call the easiest setting. I have way more fun that way.

It's not even as if I CAN'T play them on harder difficulty (for example I beat games like Greedfall and Dragon Age on the highest possible difficulties because it's necessary to perfect/platinum the games), but playing that way takes the focus almost entirely off the story/characters/setting and moves the majority of my attention onto game mechanics, tactics, and builds, which isn't really the part I actually care about when it comes to RPGs in general.

Hell, I'll generally take a freeform tabletop RPG with almost no rules of any kind over one with tons of mechanics but an incredibly generic setting. If I want to think tactically I'm more likely to play a board game or 4x style video game.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Hell, I'll generally take a freeform tabletop RPG with almost no rules of any kind over one with tons of mechanics but an incredibly generic setting.

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd
I also do that, I just had to call you out.

---

just start on normal and move up from there, like any other game. some games' normals are easy, and some are hard.

it's true though that games tend to do a terrible job of coming up with interesting ways of making the game harder, and then the harder difficulties don't scale properly with the game mechanics.

(actually that's why to start on normal. it's the setting that is going to be the most fine-tuned by the devs. the harder difficulties will likely have all kinds of balance issues, as you noticed, because they don't put any effort into balancing the game that way.)

---

I always go for the hardest difficulty on modern games unless its something known to be extremely difficult like dark souls. Generally with modern era games anything under the hardest difficulty is just stupidly easy

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Hell, I'll generally take a freeform tabletop RPG with almost no rules of any kind over one with tons of mechanics but an incredibly generic setting. If I want to think tactically I'm more likely to play a board game or 4x style video game.

No mechanics vs tons of mechanics is like the worst of two possible extremes. All other things being equal, I wouldn't find either all that appealing.

Sahuagin posted...

it's true though that games tend to do a terrible job of coming up with interesting ways of making the game harder, and then the harder difficulties don't scale properly with the game mechanics.

Yeah, usually it's just enemy buffs. Granted, a lot of it is done that way because it's cheaper. There's not really any additional dev cost in changing a basic parameter whereas programming enemies to act differently or adding a new boss takes up dev time. (And we don't even often see additional enemies added, or upgrades for enemy types (although some Bethesda titles do that).)

---

play spelunky

no difficulty level but the game still makes you feel like trash lol

---

Zeus posted...

No mechanics vs tons of mechanics is like the worst of two possible extremes. All other things being equal, I wouldn't find either all that appealing.

For TTRPGs?
It's actually fine, if you are willing to trust your other people.

That's literally improv.

Too many mechanics you devolve into a wargame, which, is also fine if everyone knows what they're getting into.

---

To be clear: Both are totally fine and different strokes for different folks.
The important bit is finding the balance of what you personally prefer, and, what your friends prefer.

---

I like when games actually tell me what the difficulty settings do.
If it's just "enemies deal more damage and you deal less damage" then fuck that.

---

Difficulty in most games is pointless. I always play Skyrim on lower difficulties. There is zero fun in back peddling for 20 minutes to kill one enemy because the top difficulty turns it into a tank that soaks up arrows all day long.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Difficulty in most games is pointless. I always play Skyrim on lower difficulties. There is zero fun in back peddling for 20 minutes to kill one enemy because the top difficulty turns it into a tank that soaks up arrows all day long.

tbh, I am kinda tempted to try that solely because I always fall into doing the same stealth-archer build and I'm thinking that if enemies posed less threat I'd be more willing to try out the other play styles... although sneaking around is also just a lot of fun. (And, come to think of it, the other thing I've never tried is just sneaking past enemies to complete objectives without killing them. That might be a fun playthrough idea as well.)

---

Zeus posted...

tbh, I am kinda tempted to try that solely because I always fall into doing the same stealth-archer build and I'm thinking that if enemies posed less threat I'd be more willing to try out the other play styles... although sneaking around is also just a lot of fun.

Yes and no. On lower difficulties stealth archer only gets stronger since you typically kill common enemies in one shot meaning you rarely get caught. Obviously it makes it so you can do other play styles more effectively but the most effective play style will just shine even brighter.

it depends on the game, some hard modes force you to play differently in a way that changes the game completely, turning some action games to stealth games for example


---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Yes and no. On lower difficulties stealth archer only gets stronger since you typically kill common enemies in one shot meaning you rarely get caught. Obviously it makes it so you can do other play styles more effectively but the most effective play style will just shine even brighter.

On most difficulties you either one-shot them or get several shots that count as stealth off. It's more a matter that if everything else is easier, I won't feel as inclined to default to the easiest possible playstyle because I can just handle things normally.


---

Wanded posted...

it depends on the game, some hard modes force you to play differently in a way that changes the game completely, turning some action games to stealth games for example

Yeah but I'm specifically mentioning WRPGs for a reason.
I beat Bayonetta and DMC 1-4 on their hardest difficulties for example. Action games are an entirely different ballpark.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Yes and no. On lower difficulties stealth archer only gets stronger since you typically kill common enemies in one shot meaning you rarely get caught. Obviously it makes it so you can do other play styles more effectively but the most effective play style will just shine even brighter.

In Skyrim it wouldn't matter since the AI is stupid. All you have to do is hide anyway and the bandits or whatever just patrol around with lower health.
---

When it comes to wrpgs like bethesda gamea where you make your own character and can practically do whatever you wish most of the fun to me is actual role playing. I make a backstory and personality for my character and stick to it. Like in morrowind I had a character obsessed with anything dwemer. Had the whole house decked out with random dwemer artifacts and used nothing but dwemer weapons and armor. Stuff like that

---

Revelation34 posted...

In Skyrim it wouldn't matter since the AI is stupid. All you have to do is hide anyway and the bandits or whatever just patrol around with lower health.

What else would they do? That's kinda how all NPCs behave in games.

---

Zeus posted...

What else would they do? That's kinda how all NPCs behave in games.

Be smarter and actually find the person.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Be smarter and actually find the person.

They look for him, they can't find him, they return to patrol. A more realistic option would be running for their lives when it keeps happening.

---

"Must have been the wind"

---

YoukaiSlayer posted...

"Must have been the wind"

He says as he sheathes his sword and walks calmly past his fallen comrade who lay lifeless on the floor with an arrow jutting out of their nostril

---

I'm playing ghosts of Tsushima ng+ on lethal. It's a good reminder that sword fighting is very deadly.

---

Zeus posted...

They look for him, they can't find him, they return to patrol. A more realistic option would be running for their lives when it keeps happening.

I think this does make sense. You would look for a little, and then get back to patrolling...

Revelation34 posted...

Be smarter and actually find the person.

I mean, how long do they keep looking for? Hours upon hours. Eventually, if they can't find the person, it would make sense to think they're gone. And like Zeus said, if it keeps happening, most would probably run for their lives... Which I think happens in some other games or something...
---