Are Games Crippled By Easy Modes?

[Venks]

When you start up some games for the first time you have a very important decision to make (once you've passed the loading screens and company logos). What difficulty to play on? Take it easy and make your way through the story? Or play it on hard to truly challenge yourself?

A rose by any other difficulty would smell as sweet?

Rayman games are known, by the few people who play them, for their difficult platforming. Many platformers allow you to jump at various heights depending on how long you hold the button down, but Rayman is one of the games that will send you to the game over screen if you use your high jumps too frequently.
For a long time, in games, it has been a common principle that there needs to be obstacles for the player to overcome. By learning the rules of a game and honing their abilities, players can surpass any challenge.
But what if there is no challenge?

The original Final Fantasy XIII, which I wish was the last story of its saga, was the worst game I think I've ever played in my entire life. And I've played Barbie Super Model for the Super Nintendo.
In an attempt to make the game more accessible to new gamers, Square Enix cut out practically everything that makes a RPG a RPG. There are essentially no NPCs to talk to in the game, the bulk of exploration takes place in narrow hall ways, and each character only has three stats. The only thing the game has going for it is that its probably the most aesthetically pleasant game on the PlayStation 3. The lack of challenge and depth left me completely appalled and keeps me hesitant from trying newer titles in the Final Fantasy franchise.

There are games without challenge that I find myself able to enjoy. Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing are both games that I enjoy even though I don't have to dodge bullet fire.
These games do a wonderful job at presenting unique themes, introducing interesting characters, and placing the player in a role that generally can't be found in other games. In Animal Crossing I found myself really enjoying coming across the random villagers that made up my neighbors. These creatures all have their own odd behaviors and choice of words.
I could tell the game had a powerful hold over me when one of my favorite neighbors had moved away to a friend's town. I was so sad to see her go, but as an awesome last gesture she had sent me a letter along with a piece of furniture. That piece of furniture just so happened to complete the set I was going for. I couldn't of asked for a better memento to remember my virtual friend.

Master Of Your Own Destiny

The white tanooki suit in Super Mario 3D World seems to be generating some distaste amongst 'retro' gamers. For those of you who don't know, the white tanooki suit is an item that appears after dying multiple times in a row within the same level. The item makes you invincible from enemies and spikes that would normally knock you out. The complaint I see the most is that people who beat levels using the white tanooki suit didn't 'earn' their victory. I honestly look at this as a very out dated line of thinking.
Back in the NES days there were a lot of very difficult games. Not everyone wants to spend hours upon hours learning the exact positioning and timing required for intense platforming moments. In today's age of gaming, developers try their best to make their games as accessible as possible so players of any skill level can have fun.
A very young player might get frustrated with a particular difficult challenge and the white tanooki suit is there to assist him. A more patient player who finds themselves failing a few too many times will also see the white tanooki suit appear, but by no means is the item mandatory. If you prefer the challenge and want to learn from your mistakes you can ignore the power-up and focus on the problems ahead. It's simply a choice for you to make.

It's not always apparent to most players, but ignoring certain items is a great way to ramp up the difficulty if it fits your fancy. I've yet to try a 'No Mushroom' run of a Mario game, but I have tried the 'Three Heart Challenge' in Zelda and 'Minimum Level' boss fights in Kingdom Hearts II. By keeping my health low in one game and my experience down in another, I'm able to turn simple hindrances into nightmare inducing spawns of true evil.
Player created challenges like these really require you to learn the ins and outs of the mechanics of the game. A single missed dodge or mistimed attack can be your last. This maybe exactly what you're looking for if you feel you need more challenge from your games.

Pick Your Poison

Now some developers literally have you choose between modes of difficulty. Far too few games actually change the game in meaningful ways when you choose a difficulty setting. More times then not the game merely alters a few values such as damage and health.
I really enjoyed playing Tomb Raider with my partner in love and crime. When ever she was silly enough to put the controller down I'd steal it for myself and shoot some arrows through some unsuspecting hats. I eventually decided to give the game a go by my lonesome on the hard difficulty. It took me quite some time to figure out what the changes were. I was really hoping for end game enemies and attack patterns to turn up early alongside new threats. Much to my dismay the only differences I could note were my opponents dealt more damage and had more health.
Having already played the game a bit I was more then accustomed to dodging molotov cocktails and enemy projectiles. Increasing the damage of these attacks literally has no effect on me since the attacks are unable to land. I'm no Robin Hood but I was having no problem aiming for instant kills with my bow and arrow. Increased health, or not, a killing blow is a killing blow. Even on hard mode action scenes felt too easy and had become repetitive.

Then we have the beautiful game Catherine. This game has you climbing up a tower of blocks as it slowly collapses. You have to utilize several block pushing/pulling techniques in order to ascend. Trick blocks and annoying fellow climbers will slow you down as the tower seems to collapse that much faster.
If puzzles aren't your strong suit I heavily suggest playing it on easy. This game is definitely one of the more challenging ones made now a days. Rather then just changing the amount of time you have to climb the block towers, the difficulty settings actually have their own puzzles. The techniques you have to employ in order to rise from one level to the next change with each difficulty setting.
I really wish more games had differing content between modes. Not that I'd cheat on Catherine to be with them. That would be wrong.

[Oddey]

It's an interesting topic.

On the one hand, easy games can give a great sense of flow, as well as make you feel unbelievably cool. This is a good thing, because it's often crucial to have that flow and feeling of power. Furthermore, easy games can be played by anyone, not just people who are willing to clench their teeth together and bear through it.

Of course, easy games also have the problem of simply being boring to play. After all, pressing a button to win isn't much involvement with an interactive medium. There's also the problem that if you make the game too easy, the powerful feeling instead makes you feel like your actions are meaningless in the game.

Hard games on the other hand are not approachable by everyone. After all, not everyone wants to spend hours figuring out various tricks and techniques for how to succeed at a game. It's also easy to lose interest in a hard game, because grinding away like that only to be met with constant failure isn't always alluring.

But on the flip-side, you beat a hard game and you feel like you're on fire. And sometimes a game has to be hard to serve the story. If it wasn't hard, it wouldn't feel like you'd accomplished much, so the power feeling and control is even bigger.

I'm not sure what difficulty should be based on, but I think it depends on the story you want to tell. Take for example, Assassin's Creed 2, or indeed most of them but the first. They're not exactly difficult. Most of the enemies are easy to kill with simple counter-attacks, and stealth isn't necessary. You also get a preposterously large amount of money to get equipment that isn't even that useful. As I said, this easiness does make the game flow well, and you do feel like a real assassin. But if you notice how easy it is, then you don't feel anywhere near as powerful, and the game ceases to be as meaningful. I still enjoy the games, but I feel that if the difficulty was a tiny bit more towards the difficult side, it might have been a better game. I think that difficulty should depend on the story you're trying to tell, the atmosphere you're trying to provide.

For example, if you take something like Abe's Oddysee, that game is undoubtedly difficult, at least the first time you go through it. But this serves the story, in that you are the skinny guy with no guns or muscle to plow through the enemies and everything wants to either kill or eat you. In effect, it uses difficulty to emphasize the message. But the same difficulty also causes problems, like potentially limiting the audience who will go through the entire thing.

Of course, you could argue that Assassin's Creed's story is that of a master assassin, and thus you aren't meant to have a hard time, being so good at what you do. But personally, I feel that even as a master assassin, the suspension of disbelief as Ezio or Connor mows down about twenty guards in a single fight, isn't spotted sitting on a bench even though he was running from guards moments before, can blend seamlessly into a crowd of courtesans or can make himself completely unknown to authorities by removing a poster or two is stretched just a bit thin. If it seemed a little bit harder for them to do it, it might have been a little less disturbing to my experience of the game.

[MeechMunchie]

Nope!

Seriously though, people with a little imagination can find ways of making an easy game more challenging. It's hard to do the inverse without outright cheating.

[Varrok]

YES!

Seriously though, people with a little practice can manage to beat a harder game. It just takes a little bit of an effort. It's hard for them because they're usually totally lazy, and what they're searching for is not a game, but a movie. Interactive movie.

[Phylum]

You can't say that people with an imagination will make it fun. If there's an easy way there 99% of people will take it. Expecting anything else is silly. Giving the player the option of taking the white tanooki suit is enough to make most people just give up and use it. Part of the reason I was so compelled to play through Super Mario Bros 3 was the immense difficulty (and even then I ended up savestating lots between levels once I ran out of lives because restarting an entire world is bs).

A hard game by today's standards had very different expectations to a hard game from 20 years ago, but that doesn't mean they have to give you the freedom to "cheat" the game like that. Rayman Legends does a fantastic job of introducing immense difficulty very quickly, but giving you lots of options about what to play next, and forcing less experienced players to backtrack through levels they've already finished to complete the greater challenge of freeing all of the teensies/collecting enough lums for a gold trophy. On top of that there are bonus levels from Rayman Origins that can be unlocked in addition to daily and weekly challenges that rank you against every other player. Super Meat Boy gave the player the freedom to chose what level to attempt next too, and a similar idea with backtracking for bandages or dark worlds/warp zones.

If you're designing a hard game you need to give the player the freedom to advance as they see fit. Rather than allowing them to subvert challenges, you need to encourage them to go and build their skill elsewhere if they get stuck.

Some games are killed by an easy mode. Some aren't. It's very much on a case-by-case situation.

e: Also inb4 "wrong forum", Nate/Joe will fix it when they see it you don't need to make a post about it.

[Jordan]

I definitely think games have become a lot more easy over time. Compare anything made today (specifically Super Mario titles) with those that came out for the NES/SNES such as SMB3 or SMW. It's always far more rewarding when there's a bit of challenge involved because you've actually achieved something. I feel like now many games will hold your hand and will give you a solution to a problem even if you've only failed a few times. That's just encouraging players to take the easy route instead of learning how to things the proper way. It does worry me slightly.

In regards to Final Fantasy XIII, I agree completely. As much as I do enjoy playing it there is barely any depth and I don't feel very proud after winning a battle like I would if I were to play another JRPG such as FF7. I hope FF15 doesn't follow in that path.

[Venks]

It's an interesting topic.

On the one hand, easy games can give a great sense of flow, as well as make you feel unbelievably cool. This is a good thing, because it's often crucial to have that flow and feeling of power. Furthermore, easy games can be played by anyone, not just people who are willing to clench their teeth together and bear through it.

Of course, easy games also have the problem of simply being boring to play. After all, pressing a button to win isn't much involvement with an interactive medium. There's also the problem that if you make the game too easy, the powerful feeling instead makes you feel like your actions are meaningless in the game.

It's definitely no easy job to make your games that right level of difficult. And then you also have the fact that a lot of people who find your game too easy can't be bothered to try the game on a harder difficulty setting. I really like how the Megaman Zero games do it. I mean those games even at their easiest are still way too hard for most game players, but none the less I think the concept is great.

In Megaman Zero you are scored on a multitude of things, such as how fast you complete the level and how much damage you receive. Based on your score you're given a rank and the bosses you fight are easier or more difficult based on that rank. Instead of just upping some values the attacking behaviours of the bosses change and you might see the boss use more unique attacks. Basically by performing well you make the game even more difficult.

I do really like it when story and gameplay blend together well. I'm a member of Oddworld Forums for a reason. As for the Assassin Creed games I was very intrigued when the first one came out. But when I actually tried it out I found myself disliking how easy it was to kill everyone and was again disappointed that some missions require you to fight multiple people in plain sight. No option for stealth. I've tried a few of the newer games, but I've never played any of them longer then 20 minutes. When I want a game that takes stealth more seriously I find myself gravitating towards Dues Ex: Human Revolution.

Perhaps I haven't given the games enough time to shine, but they don't really feel like stealth games to me. I kind of went in expecting to be a stealthy assassin like the ninjas on good ol Tenchu(1998) for PS1. Stealth was the main concept. Perhaps that's not what I should be looking for.

Nope!

Seriously though, people with a little imagination can find ways of making an easy game more challenging. It's hard to do the inverse without outright cheating.

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying my Hero's Mode Three Heart Challenge in A Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. I've finally gotten far enough into the game that some of my enemies are starting to take out all three of my hearts in a single strike. It really forces me to learn the behaviours of my enemies as well as have a clear understanding of the properties of my own attacks. I have to be careful not to use anything that might leave me open due to how slow the attack is or if the move doesn't have much range.

When I 100% Super Mario 3D World I'm gonna do a 'mushroomless' run through. Should be a lot of fun.

Oh and yeah it is a shame that some games don't have a easy mode and are pretty hard by default. It's always unfortunate when I try to share a game with someone, but they are unable to enjoy it due to how high the difficulty is.

YES!

Seriously though, people with a little practice can manage to beat a harder game. It just takes a little bit of an effort. It's hard for them because they're usually totally lazy, and what they're searching for is not a game, but a movie. Interactive movie.

No idea why more people don't play visual novels. And I don't mean just romance ones. You can enjoy a very awesome story and influence it in any direction you want! Well if it's a good visual novel that is.

But yeah there are a lot of players who aren't very interested in getting better at certain games. They would rather follow a guide or watch a 'Let's Play' and just follow what they are told. There's nothing wrong with this in my eyes. As long as they are having fun then they are doing things right. But if they are finding something missing from the experience then well they are kind of ruining their own fun.

You can't say that people with an imagination will make it fun. If there's an easy way there 99% of people will take it. Expecting anything else is silly. Giving the player the option of taking the white tanooki suit is enough to make most people just give up and use it. Part of the reason I was so compelled to play through Super Mario Bros 3 was the immense difficulty (and even then I ended up savestating lots between levels once I ran out of lives because restarting an entire world is bs).

If you're designing a hard game you need to give the player the freedom to advance as they see fit. Rather than allowing them to subvert challenges, you need to encourage them to go and build their skill elsewhere if they get stuck.

Some games are killed by an easy mode. Some aren't. It's very much on a case-by-case situation.

Haha. Yeah. I prefer to always play any games with RPG elements as a 'paper tiger', but very often that kind of play style isn't really supported by the game. So with enough frustrating encounters I will eventually put some points into defence because it'll make my play experience much smoother.
I do love playing difficult games though, don't get me wrong. If you think Super Mario Bros 3 is hard then you should try out Super Ghouls n Ghosts. And I highly recommend not abusing save states. Otherwise you'll take all of the challenge out of the game and not have much fun in the long run. I do understand the want to not lose your progress, but in the end it'll make you a much better player.

If you're playing arcade mode in a fighting game and lose after a few matches do you instantly put in a new quarter to continue? Or do you wait the time out and start again from scratch? I mean now a days there aren't many arcades still standing, but hear me out anyways because I'm trying to make a point. If you continue at that same match then you're up against the same bar of difficulty with only the experience of your last bout to help you. But if you restart from the entire beginning you have some easier matches to play around in. You're learn more combos, improve your execution, and get a better understanding of how you play in these earlier matches. So when you go against that one character who took you out before you'll have much more experience to draw from to help you succeed.

As for the White Tanooki suit, I'm gonna have to agree with what MeechMunchie said. You can't really make games easier if you find it too challenging, that's up to the designers. And why do you view it as 'cheating'? If someone beats a game on easy rather than hard does that count as cheating? Or did they simply beat the game on a easier setting that the player found more comfortable?

I do also agree with you though. I really like how Super Meat Boy and Rayman Legends give you a lot of choices in stages. If you find a particular level too difficult you can always try a different one and come back later. I'd like to see this in more games. I feel it lets players who aren't as skilled enjoy more of the game's content. And of course, like you said, by playing the game longer they get more adept at it.

I definitely think games have become a lot more easy over time. Compare anything made today (specifically Super Mario titles) with those that came out for the NES/SNES such as SMB3 or SMW. It's always far more rewarding when there's a bit of challenge involved because you've actually achieved something. I feel like now many games will hold your hand and will give you a solution to a problem even if you've only failed a few times. That's just encouraging players to take the easy route instead of learning how to things the proper way. It does worry me slightly.

In regards to Final Fantasy XIII, I agree completely. As much as I do enjoy playing it there is barely any depth and I don't feel very proud after winning a battle like I would if I were to play another JRPG such as FF7. I hope FF15 doesn't follow in that path.

There's no doubt that games overall have become easier with time. Sure you have a few niche titles that pander towards the hardest of hardcore audiences, but the gaming populace is much larger then it was back in the NES days so the majority of games have a difficulty level that reflects these changes. I honestly have a very difficult time enjoying the bulk of the content in New Super Mario Bros. Wii U due to how easy it is. Sadly the Star World didn't provide much challenge either.

I'm pretty happy with Super Mario 3D World though. The bulk of the game is easy as well, but not quite as easy as NSMBWU. What really keeps me interested in this game is the sheer volume of varied content and interesting themes throughout the levels. The game feels very fresh, so even when I'm going through an easier level I'm still able to enjoy traversing through the game's world.

I can't tell you how happy I am to hear you agree with me about FFXIII. I can't tell you how much hate I get for ripping on that game. There's no depth to that game in any way, shape, or form. I'll probably write a giant article at some point about the 'customization' system in the game and how it's almost as linear as the pathways you travel across throughout the game. The experience costs dictating your choices, no interesting branching paths, and no option to choose only the stats you desire.

It's a real shame any Final Fantasy title could have such poor customization. How can the same company make games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Bravely Default. I mean yeah it totally depends on the actual designers and teams making the games, but surely the main franchise will still see some good games right? The 'Dream Team' left and formed 'Mistwalker' so I definitely have my doubts. And a copy of Blue Dragon for Xbox 360.

Even though XIII was so bad that I've had no interest in trying out XIII-2 or XIII-3 I think I can give XV the benefit of the doubt. The game had completely different people working on it. I'll be waiting for reviews and seeing what my friends think of it first. I do have hope, but if the game is bad I will in no way support it. I don't want to encourage the production of poor quality games.

[MeechMunchie]

I think Joe could tell you that some VNs are really difficult.

I don't really see the problem with different difficulty modes. Fun-hating "hardcore" players can still compete for the top ranks. Surely someone who demands to be presented with a challenge with no choice on their part is as narrow-minded as somone who wants to reach the end with no effort whatsoever?

[STM]

No

[MeechMunchie]

Yes!

"This game is easy, so I shouldn't play it."
"There's no achievement for that, so I guess I shouldn't bother."
"The game doesn't say I need to do that to progress, so I guess it's not worth it."

Someone going into a game demanding clear-cut obstacles and stubbornly refusing to set their own targets is as much a slave to the mindset of a spoonfed infant as one going in demanding an easy route to the exit and stubbornly refusing to challenge themselves.

That's my point - regardless of whether you think a particular game should be easier or harder, you're still refusing to challenge yourself. You shouldn't be bound to the hurdles a system explicitly presents you with. Expect to see plenty of "No White Tanooki" runs of the new Super Mario on YouTube.

Besides, games are as limited by the requirement to be challenging as the are by the demand to be easy.

[OANST]

Sometimes I want the extreme challenge. Sometimes I don't. I 100 percented Super Meat Boy, and had an awesome time doing it. A+ every level, only using Meat Boy, never using characters that make it easier. On the other hand, I've beaten Half Life 2 maybe ten times, and I've never played the game without turning on invincibility. I guess I just want different things from different games.

[Wings of Fire]

I think Joe could tell you that some VNs are really difficult.

Fuck you Remember11

Also as someone with a hand eye coordination disability I'd like to keep my easy modes thank you very much.

[Slog Bait]

In regards to visual novels/interactive movies

I highly suggest anyone who thinks they're all easy play Heart of Darkness (cinematic platformers count, right?) because that is one of the most frustratingly hard games I've ever played

And also Dragon's Lair. A classic. So good.

I think most games benefit from having an 'easy' mode and a 'hard' mode. Maybe an in between, because having to pick one extreme or the other is a pain in the ass depending on the game. I think it's bullshit when you die repeatedly in the same spot in a game and something pops up asking if you want to quit the level you're on or giving you tips on how to get through it. It may work and be really convenient for some people, but please at least give us the option of disabling that because it frustrates me more than being unable to get through that bit of the game.

I also see no problem in games only having one set difficulty, though. There are various games in each genre. If you want to play a specific genre and you want a challenge, you'd typically go for the games known for their difficulty in that genre. If you want an easier game that requires little thought to get through, you can go for one of those instead.

Also what OANST said.

[Job McYossie]

For a long while, I have played most games for the story. Excluding multiplayer games, of course. That was why the Oddworld series is my favourite, with Persona 3 being a close second. I never thought to take into account though, that part of what made the Oddworld games great was the feeling that you really did beat impossible odds. As where in P3 I enjoyed the story and the social links a lot, but the majority of the fighting felt pretty bad. Anything that was not a boss fight had little to do with story or character progression, and just felt like a means to get you to level up for the next boss fight. But then when the boss fights came they felt perfect as you had to revive two of your party members, use some of your special items, and even then finally win with just slivers of health left. But because of the tedium that is the normal fights, the game felt like a chore to level up in. Still a great game though.

[Phylum]

I don't think the white tanooki suit is cheating as much as it's allowing the player to cheat themselves of the challenge in the game. They won't improve from that. once you allow a player to skip challenges in a skill based game like that it quickly becomes a slippery slope of underdeveloped skills, which leads to more situations where the player can't complete challenges.

[Varrok]

It's okay, they will let them skip the further challenges then. Isn't that a vicious circle.

[Phylum]

yes and that's the problem i'm highlighting

[MeechMunchie]

People who choose not to be challenged will do so, regardless of an individual game's design. If you don't give them a safety net, they'll either cheat or play another game. The implications of that mindset are a whole other kettle of fish, but you can't blame the game for how players choose to act.

[Varrok]

If they're not really interested in playing the game to the point that they stop because it dares to require anything from them... why keep them playing? They don't really care. I mean other reasons than just to profit on them, which is a bad, purely commercial approach.

[MeechMunchie]

Why? Games need money to be made, and there's no harm in accomodating them.

[OANST]

I'm sorry, but playing the easy mode on a game that you aren't good at, but enjoy playing does not imply anything about a person's character. At all. This is the point where you realize that you take video games way too seriously.

[Manco]

I was trying to think of the right way to say that. Personally if I’m stuck on one section of a game, regardless of how hard the game is, I’m gonna take an easier solution if one presents itself. I don’t really give a shit about improving myself or appreciating the challenge, I probably just feel irritated with whatever’s giving me trouble and just want to get back to the good parts of the game.

There are games made with the intent of presenting a tough challenge to players – Dark Souls, DayZ, roguelikes etc. These games give no quarter and tend to be unforgiving, and that’s fine. But people in this thread are talking about games making things easier for players as if it’s some kind of sacrilege against the purity of the challenge, and to that I say: most people play games to enjoy themselves and are aware of their own skills and shortcomings. If people want to play a videogame but don’t want to put up with uncompromising difficulty beyond their own abilities, or they get stuck in one particular area and want to be able to move past it and get back to having fun, then let them.

Just because there are people out there who enjoy difficult games and want their skills to be challenged, doesn’t mean all games have to be as uncompromising as possible to all players.

[MeechMunchie]

I'm sorry, but playing the easy mode on a game that they aren't good at, but enjoy playing does not imply anything about a person's character.

Yes it does. It implies they like to have fun.

[Job McYossie]

I'm pretty terrible at video games in general, but I still play a lot. I really love the stories in an engaging medium, but I often wish a game that did not have an easy mode did, because I'd end up getting stuck at a part and not be able to continue at all. This isn't exactly enjoyable, but at the same time, without any difficulty it might as well as be a movie. I think that some sort of obstacle should at least be there, even if the obstacle is tiny.

[OANST]

Yes it does. It implies they like to have fun.

Stop proving me wrong, cunt.

[Venks]

Within the past two hours I have finished the final 9 boss segment in Megaman Zero and finished the Savage Labyrinth in LoZ: Wind Waker for my Three Heart Challenge on Hero's Mode. Even though Megaman Zero was much harder and took longer to do I found Wind Waker to be much more frustrating.

In Megaman Zero it took me awhile, but I learned every boss's attacks and how to dodge them. I had occasional hiccups, but I could defeat 5 of 9 bosses without being hit a single time. It was a very rewarding experience. Then with Wind Waker... The Savage Labyrinth puts you in small rooms full of different enemies. Most of these rooms are really easy as the enemies are all opponents with one or two attacking options. But every now and then I'd lose a heart to having trouble using the 'lock on system' due to certain camera angles. When I finished that mini-dungeon it was more a feeling of relief then exhilaration.

I really enjoy challenge, but now and then it can get to be a bit too much. That's when I grab something out like Recettear An Item Shop's Tale. The game can be hard as well, but it's more a thinking game than a quick reflex test.

[MA]

i usually play games on 'normal'. certain games i prefer to play on hard or veteran/insane/some other variation so i can get the most out of it, like Fallout and CoD2. i've never actually played New Vegas in any other mode but 'hardcore' or whatever that mode is where you have to eat, drink and sleep as well as everything else. that isn't me being an elitist fag, i just find it more comfortable to play that way. i suppose i enjoy the challenge. i'd feel like i was missing out on part of the game if i didn't at least try it.

although in all honesty New Vegas isn't really that tough even with 'hardcore mode' turned on.

[Crashpunk]

Pretty much just like MA, I play on Normal difficulty and then when I think I'm decent enough at the game, I'll put it on the hardest. Some games are more enjoyable when it's harder, (eg. Minecraft and Half-Life)

[DarkHoodness]

Balancing difficulty while keeping a game fun for a wide audience doesn't seem a very easy thing for game devs to pull off successfully - Some do it better than others. But obviously it depends on the game - Game difficulty is just one component out of many which can make a game "good". And there's a wide range of games out there - something for almost everyone, as long as the demand for certain attributes is there.

I play games on "hard" (but not "insane" or "Hardcore") during the first playthrough to get a little more longevity out of them, and because a like a bit of challenge - Even if high difficulty turns out to not actually be hard, it often doesn't stop games from being fun. Although if a game needs to be challenging for me to enjoy it because it has no other decent features, then it's probably a bad game anyway.

[MA]

i played Fallout 3 a few times as an evil character, just being a nasty prick to everyone and choosing the obvious 'evil' decisions, or ones i could get caps from. anyway after a while of being EVIL you get jumped by some Regulators (think Young Guns) who want your hide and introduce themselves as tough motherfuckers, and they prove to be so. when i first bumped into them, because they're so tough (and because i hadn't fucking saved in ages and ages), i shit myself. i like it when a game makes me shit myself.