Games can have separate difficulty settings, while other games may only have a single difficulty. Which method in games do you prefer and what difficulty do you normally try first? Of the games that have only one difficulty, do they tend to be easy, hard or just about right for you? Do you think games should always challenge players?
-
Having a single difficulty is ouright stupidity for many kinds of games. It's actually one of the main problems I had with Spartan Assault. There is a spectrum of gamer skill levels. New guys, regular joes, seasoned players and hardcore gamers. Having multiple settings is best for the most part. There are games that obviously aren't appropriate for multiple difficulties though. Limbo for example. Obviously no point in having difficulties there.
-
由Toa Axis編輯: 1/27/2014 11:22:29 PMDifficulty settings should only be in a game if the developer moulds different gameplay aspects around it. Look at 1999 mode in Bioshock Infinite. All they did was make all of the enemies bullet sponges, make Booker extremely sensitive to damage, and add a needless penalty for death. There's no challenge there, just an exercise in frustration.
-
-
Multiple difficulties are always better. I get bored quickly if I'm not being challenged. I usually go Hard or the equivalent on my first playthrough.
-
I liked how inFamous has a short mission to determine the difficulty you should play on. However, you can always change it. All in all, I do like having multiple difficulties to choose from since it can change the experience. I usually start on the Medium difficulty if given the option.
-
I usually play on the easy or medium setting first. So I can take in the story and get a feeling of the controller. One I beat the game then I up the difficulty. I think it's good to have different difficulties in games because people play games for different reasons. some like the challenge other enjoy the story some like to just have fun