Low Difficulty

[l0calh05t]

Do not make the game exceedlingly difficult as the OP seems to want! I do not have the time for such nonsense, and games like that just aren't fun. (like when magicka was updated a while ago and went from difficult but playable to nearly impossible... i stopped playing after that)

I do agree with the not fencing in and no glass ceilings (either via no level cap, or somewhat slower xp gain) points

For excessive difficulty there can always be a hardcore mode (needs, stronger enemies etc)

[jimbo]

I appreciate that some people like really difficult games.
Those people are not me.

I sure hope there will be an option for those people, to get all the punishment they want. But for the rest of us who don't have all the time in the world, and just want to enjoy as much of the (hopefully large) game as possible, I hope there will be a difficulty slider that goes down to the "we know you have a job and a family" setting.
I never played Wasteland - I was 8 years old and didn't know more than a few English words at the time (push, pull, open, look... spot the theme?), but I did play Fallout 1 and 2 twenty+ times, each. I feel their difficulty was just right - but perhaps an ultra-hardcore mode could be added to that.

Thanks.

With all due respect, 9 times out of 10 when someone comes out with the (tired, tired) 'job and family' excuse for wanting things easy and simple it turns out they were just as averse to challenge when they were 16. So Fallout's difficulty was 'just right' huh?

We all have jobs and families here. You're not special. The fact that we don't have as much time to enjoy games as we did before doesn't mean we can't enjoy the same kind of games we've always loved in what time we do have.

[TheLastBrunnenG]

Variable difficulty for the win. You want a hardcore, nut-crushing, "killer DM" game? Great, click "difficulty = 5, hardcore mode = yes, saving = save points only" when you start a new game. But don't force everyone to play the way you like it. Give us options!

With all due respect, 9 times out of 10 when someone comes out with the (tired, tired) 'job and family' excuse for wanting things easy and simple it turns out they were just as averse to challenge when they were 16.

Lose the attitude. I have a job and a family, I spend what time I can with them. It's precious to me. When I have free time, I game. I want to be able to have the possibility of finishing the game some time within a year after I get it, given that I may only have 15 minutes a day to play. If the game is brutally unforgiving and requires ages of planning and tons of replays just to complete the simplest encounters, then I want no part of it. But if the devs give me that same game and the option to select "difficulty = 3, hardcore mode = no, saving = limited save slots", then they'll have me hooked for the game, the DLCs, and probably the sequel too.

[jimbo]

Lose the attitude. I have a job and a family, I spend what time I can with them. It's precious to me. When I have free time, I game. I want to be able to have the possibility of finishing the game some time within a year after I get it, given that I may only have 15 minutes a day to play. If the game is brutally unforgiving and requires ages of planning and tons of replays just to complete the simplest encounters, then I want no part of it. But if the devs give me that same game and the option to select "difficulty = 3, hardcore mode = no, saving = limited save slots", then they'll have me hooked for the game, the DLCs, and probably the sequel too.

Nope sorry, you're not special either. It may come as a surprise to you but most of us here have jobs too. Some even friends and families! Amazing I know..

Would you ask this same thing of whoever makes the movies, books, tv shows that interest you? That they limit themselves to 1/4 hour flicks, byte sized easily digestible chapters, simplified plotlines with few characters because hey I've only got 15 minutes to spare for this stuff?

Now I'm not opposed to letting people tone down combat difficulty to their hearts content, but most of the things the OP said (if you took some of your precious time to read it) can't be adjusted with a plain old difficulty slider. Things like how quests develop, the amount of information the player is given, how much direction is provided.

And please, don't go telling people in this forum to 'lose the attitude' when you don't agree with something. It's not nice.

[TheLastBrunnenG]

Apologies, I was tired, and it was late. Poorly phrased on my part, but your post insulted people who bring up "limited time to play" as a legitimate point when talking about game difficulty. I wasn't talking specifically about the OP's post but about things that can be fixed with a checkbox or difficulty slider, such as presence (or lack) of a quest-marker arrow, in-game overall map and mini-map, quest log, etc.

No, I wouldn't ask print houses to make only pamphlets instead of novels, or for studios to make only shorts instead of movies, because I have bookmarks for books and I have DVR for TV shows and movies. One thing many people on this board (not the OP specifically) bring up when asking for a "harder" game is a prohibition on savescumming or in-combat saves. I can understand the appeal for hardcore gamers, but again, that's the kind of option that can be toggled on or off to give the game broader appeal, if the option is present. Point being, if I know the next section of a game will take an hour to complete and won't let me save, and any error on my part makes me replay the entire section, then I probably won't every come back to the game to finish that part. Which could be avoided with (un)limited saves - that's an example of the kind of "harder" game element that should be left as an option, not hardcoded. I should have made that clearer in my previous post.

[The_A_Drain]

Here's how I see it.

Design the game at the default difficulty, which, in my mind should be the hardest non-special difficulty (such as arrange modes, etc) that you plan to have.

Then adjust to add lower difficulties, that way the guys at the higher end of the difficulty scale are happy because you don't end up in situations such as the beginning of a game being INSANE, but not through difficulty, through unfair results of doing things like "Enemy's do 50% more dmg" which can lead to a regular encounter suddenly being 1 hit KO's, and other stupid situations. And the guys who want an easier mode are happy because they get to see it through. Imo downgrading enemies health/dmg or upping player health/dmg (or giving them damage reduction) works better because it doesn't matter too much if enemies die to these kinds of scaling issues, because it's supposed to be easier.

You don't *have* to design for the hardest difficulty I guess that's just my opinion from my own perspective, designing at the difficulty you feel the game should be played at lets you put out the experience you want, while giving options to those who want more/less.

You should even include a god-mode right there in the options menu for those that want it (this isn't a troll or sarcastic post, I'm being serious) because I feel that everyone should have access to the game, and not just the bits they have the skill to reach. It's what annoys me about MMO's, I can't see the higher level stuff even just for the small story/cinematic stuff without 24 other people, or YouTube.

Additionally, seeing as it's crept into this topic from the others. My opinion on restricting saves in any way is not a positive one, keep that shit to games where Death is by default supposed to be permanent, but even then still let me save&quit anytime I want, like Nethack.

[qstoffe]

Yes, I think the game's NORMAL difficulty setting should be more like that of older games instead of following the consolization trend.

IMO normal difficulty means that the typical player for this kind of game should need to reload a few times in battles that are designed to be harder than normal. I really liked the difficulty setting in BG2. The tactical combat allowed for such diversity. It was really hard for most people on the first playthrough. Though if you know what you're doing and have played the game before it's super easy. If you just click attack and use healing potions it's literary impossible. That's a good design of difficulty imo.

It's rather sad to see the new trend in modern consolized games were NORMAL difficulty actually means braindead bashing without ever having to reload.

[Lucius]

You don't *have* to design for the hardest difficulty I guess that's just my opinion from my own perspective, designing at the difficulty you feel the game should be played at lets you put out the experience you want, while giving options to those who want more/less.

In my opinion, all games should be designed and played at the hardest difficulty and the game designed down from there.

Edit to clarify: games today you have Hardest, Hard, Normal, Easy. I think games should be Normal, Easy, Easier, I-Win-Button.

Additionally, seeing as it's crept into this topic from the others. My opinion on restricting saves in any way is not a positive one, keep that shit to games where Death is by default supposed to be permanent...

Death will be permanent by default in this game. It's the whole point to this type of party system. Whether that means we should have limited saves is an entire different discussion though.

[The_A_Drain]

In my opinion, all games should be designed and played at the hardest difficulty and the game designed down from there.

Edit to clarify: games today you have Hardest, Hard, Normal, Easy. I think games should be Normal, Easy, Easier, I-Win-Button.

Mostly I agree, but it's not uncommon (or in my opinion, a bad thing) for developers to include special modes designed for incredibly advances players that are outside the norm, although the only genre I see do this often nowadays is SHMUPS.

Additionally, seeing as it's crept into this topic from the others. My opinion on restricting saves in any way is not a positive one, keep that shit to games where Death is by default supposed to be permanent...

Death will be permanent by default in this game. It's the whole point to this type of party system. Whether that means we should have limited saves is an entire different discussion though.

Just read that back to myself and it's not what I mean at all, my bad. I meant games like Nethack, where they are specifically designed not to be reloadable (although you can still cheat if you really want) and you get one chance and one chance only. That's fine for very specific kinds of games, but it's most definitely not what I want here. I have a lot of fun getting into difficult situations and trying out different tactics, then reloading when they inevitably go horribly wrong.

Whereas a game designed to limit my chances, such as Nethack which only allows saves so you can leave the computer, or Resident Evil which has a finite amount of save items available, incurs a different style of play from what I am used to in a party-based RPG. I like to be able to experiment without losing my progress, whereas people who do want an Iron Man mode are perfectly able to just delete their own saves.

[tsiguel]

After reading the thread I'm still wondering, what is exactly low or high difficulty? Would you say Fallout 1/2, Arcanum, OG Wasteland were easy games?

I remember that choosing a character would affect the difficulty of the game significantly: on my first play of Fallout, my character's ST was 4, so naturally a lot of weapons were quite ineffective until I got to the power armor, Replaying the game with ST 5 was much easier yet a lot of fun. Arcanum was much easier to play as a mage rather than a techie, but both were fun.

I would say I don't like hard games, I like to play my game while having a cup of tea in one hand and leaning back on my chair, not that I don't have time for hard games. When I finish a game I like I think That was really entertaining not that it was easy or hard. So what would be easy/hard compared to the games we know?

Sorry that was a bit messy

[cah]

I think games should be Normal, Easy, Easier, I-Win-Button.

What do you gain from the I-Win-Button? Bragging rights?

[Clockwork Knight]

I think games should be Normal, Easy, Easier, I-Win-Button.

What do you gain from the I-Win-Button? Bragging rights?

Well, an i-win-button would allow even your post-stroke grandma to win.

Which is great because as a gamer I'm not interested in good games, but in profitable, accessible products with a maximized player base paving the way for the next grand evolution of RPGs.

[Smejki]

If there will be multiple difficulty levels include easy. There is no reason for doing so. Bullying newcomers or people who just enjoy non-combat activities is stupid.

[cah]

Bullying newcomers or people who just enjoy non-combat activities is stupid.

That term would be more applicable to the people who expect a post-apocalyptic wasteland game with rangers, mutants and robots to be about non-combat activities.

[Interloper]

If there will be multiple difficulty levels include easy. There is no reason for doing so. Bullying newcomers or people who just enjoy non-combat activities is stupid.

Yeah, as mind blowing as the concept of multiple difficulties is to "hardcore" gamers, it really is the most simple, optimal solution here.

The I win button should immediately cut to a screen with "You're Winner!" on it and then play the credits.

[Fed]

I don't see how making the game less attractive to some people would make it more attractive to others.
Thus I belive that there should be at least 3 levels of difficulty: "tell me a story", "as intended", "ironman".

Seriously - if somebody needs to feel ilite because he can beat the game that 75% (50%? 33%?) players cann't... Maybe he would agree to pet his ego with a big colorfull achievement?
The guys (&girls) who like the feeling accomplishment that comes with a hard earned victory can play and enjoy the game on "hard" difficulty even if they know that there is a "low" difficulty, no?

[Burzmali]

A few points.

I don't want to win all my battles because I am prescient and know where all the enemies spawn and how they react to me moving within 16 squares with a stealth rating of 82 and visibility at overcast. Basically, don't force me to reload dozens of times to difficult encounters because knowing the future is the only way to win without saving after every shot. I've beaten JA2 on hardcore more, this was the biggest disappointment. Not memorizing the enemy locations created the risk that an enemy would pop out and 1 shot one of my characters, forcing a reload. Which leads too...

Don't punish me for losing characters beyond the loss of the character. In JA2, BG2, and pretty much any western RPG where you have a party and can recruit replacements or resurrect characters, losing a character is almost always a reload. The cost in time to replay that section is lower than the cost of losing the character or the permanent side effects of losing the character.

[Vryheid]

After reading the thread I'm still wondering, what is exactly low or high difficulty? Would you say Fallout 1/2, Arcanum, OG Wasteland were easy games?

Games like Fallout 1/2 and Arcanum were "hard", but only due to the lack of a tutorial, bugs, horribly unbalanced combat systems and how difficult it was to advance each game without a walkthrough. Anyone with a basic grasp of where they aught to be going next and which combat strategies were actually effective could beat every encounter in those games with very little in the way of positioning or strategy. A good example of this would be the Frank Horrigan fight in Fallout 2, where simply knowing in advance that getting a certain key card could let you convert all the turrets in the room to your side, making the battle a cakewalk.

I'd much rather judge the difficulty of a game based on the challenge the battles would pose to a player who has a basic understanding of all of the elements of the combat system. By that standard something like Digital Devil Saga is hard, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance is laughably easy, Baldur's Gate is mildly challenging and Fallout Tactics is dead in the middle (in my opinion at least). Wasteland 1 unfortunately falls on the "not very difficult" side of the equation, since hitting the progressively more challenging gear check levels for each area basically makes every battle a matter of advancing and mashing the attack command.

I'm hoping that the bosses in Wasteland 2 learn to do more than mindlessly spray bullets at your party.

[cah]

Seriously - if somebody needs to feel ilite because he can beat the game that 75% (50%? 33%?) players cann't... Maybe he would agree to pet his ego with a big colorfull achievement?

Old-school games do not have a goal of making everyone feel like a winner. You have to work to deserve it. There even exists a term for that: "Nintendo hard".

[Irx]

For me a perfect difficulty is when it feels challenging and you are often on the verge of loosing, but still don't really have to reload in every battle, unless it is a boss fight or a content for higher levels.