Should people actually play harder difficulties?

I'd like to put forth that players should always select a difficulty that challenges them to the point that losing in a game is uncertain. This is a belief that I've held for a while.

The way I see it, players that barely win a scenario are having more fun than players that completely dominate a scenario. Furthermore, I think this is almost "a one size fits all" sort of deal. Apart from some crazy gamers you may have come across in your favorite online game, I'd like to think that everybody would have more fun if they game over'd commonly, like at the rate of at least once an hour, depending on the game.

Of course, there are exceptions, like if you're just there to see the story... or if the player is just really bad at video games, and selecting easy is hard enough for them.

Personally, whenever someone plays a game with me and is trying to decide a difficulty, I'll nudge them towards the more difficult choice if I know they can handle it. Is this wrong for me to do?

Do some players simply enjoy relaxing games only? Are some players unable to cope with difficulty? Do some players not actually enjoy besting a tough adversary? What do you think?

I'm a fan of knocking the difficulty up a notch(bam!) but only for games where I feel the added difficulty changes my experience with it, in The Last of Us, I played it on the hardest I could first go because it is a game about surviving man and zombeast and having it on any difficulty that isn't hard feels like I'm giving myself a disservice.
Same with the majority of horror games or say something along the lines of Fallout.

But that is my idea of having fun with a game, if another persons idea of having fun in Fallout is setting it to very easy, go for it, I don't look down on them or begrudge them. We both beat the game, just in different ways.
Plus, sometimes it just feels really great plowing through enemies and levels, it is the same feeling as watching a bad ass action scene in a movie, when you watch a movie like, let's say The Matrix you pretty much know Neo is going to survive to the end of the movie, that doesn't detract from the movie knowing that, you still get to see him do his crazy kung-fu shit.
Same with a game, the easy player and the hard player know their goal is to get to the end of the game, there isn't much difference, one just wants to take longer to get to the end then the other in a sense.

I tend to play games on "Hard", but I find it hilarious that you would see fit to tell other people when they are having more fun.

nope, difficulty can be over rated especially if it's someone's first time playing and then people say "You should play this on Harden." If they love the game and replayed it over 10 times, then by all means YES! Go hardcore and try killing a hunter with a knife only. First time playing on easy isn't the biggest sin, you can fallow the story easier, get to see all the features without being pinned down by some insane AI that can see through walls and has an aim bot.

I have a life outside video games and I like to play a lot of games; with those two factors instead of getting frustrated with a game and moving on I'd rather play those games to completion. Therefore I generally play on normal, which is usually the difficulty a game is designed around.

If they complain about the length of a game then yes they should. Back than games took longer with fewer levels because they were more difficult and with no real checkpoint system you had to do it over and over again. Today that is not the case anymore. So if you complain about the length of a game turn the difficulty up.

I do think you are wrong to do that since you don't seem to care to know the other person's tastes before offering your opinion. I think you know that, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this.

People do enjoy different things and some people like playing games on easy. I think I saw a study once that actually showed empirically that the majority of gamers actually prefer their games to be easy. Looking at game achievements and how few people actually seem to finish games, I believe that's probably true. In any event your advice to your friends should be tailored around their play style preference, not yours. They may like what you like, but they might not too,

Ultimately a gamer should do what she/he finds to be fun.

Personally I'm like you in that I'll play on the hardest difficulty I think I can possibly clear. I prefer a challenge, because of that sense of accomplishment (and it's generally a more efficient way to get achievements) for some games that's the hardest difficulty, for a few games that turns out to be easy. Though most of my friends don't play anything tougher than normal ever.

I think I should be asking a game design forum instead... The few instances a player can control difficulty is either when he chooses it or if he advises what his friend should choose.

A game designer on the other hand has to do a lot of difficulty balancing. At first glance, the simplest way to do this is with a simple formula like...
On easy, players of all skill levels should be able to pass this level, with only a 5% failure rate on the first playthrough.
On hard, players of the top 20% skill level should be able to pass this level, with a failure rate of 50% on the first playthrough.

But then there are other things irrespective of the player's selected difficulty mode. How often would you place a save point? Should a player be able to save whenever they want, or should save points be twenty minutes away from each other? If a developer intentionally spaced save points 20 minutes away from each other, it's probably to add tension, and to give a sense of mortality to the player, at the risk of frustration. It's situations like this where some players don't know what's best for them, and where the game designer has the confidence to define the difficulty for the player. Other instances could be like if a designer intentionally strains a particular resource, like no ammo, or if the difficulty spikes due to a particularly challenging enemy.

And that sort of thing is just like me telling my friend what difficulty to choose. In this example, I believe I know what would be the optimal experience for my friend so that my friend would have the most fun time playing.

Should a player be able to save whenever he wants? How about spawning a health pack in front of them at any time?

Why don't RPGs start us off at Level 99? The player wants to be the most powerful level 99, yet the game sets the player to Level 1 so that he may have fun through progression.

My point is that some players that choose sub-normal difficulties are oblivious to the fact that they might be having more fun on a higher difficulty setting.

That's a pretty rude thing to say, duder. You brought up a topic and people are responding as they feel. With both your original comment and this one, you seem to be suggesting that you simply know better and are educating the ignorant masses.

Maybe you "should be asking a game design forum instead"? Perhaps you should. Though, I wouldn't wish someone with such an attitude onto any game design forum I like. If you just want to make the case that you personally enjoy higher difficulty levels and think others may do the same, make that argument, but acting like you know better on what others enjoy is silly.

Game designers try to better understand what will be more fun, but I assure you, if game designers believed that "hard" difficulties were more fun for most players than "normal" difficulties, they'd just tune the normal difficulty to be harder. Their point would be to enrich the fun of the player, and if a harder setting is believed to be more fun for most people then the developer either made a mistake in tuning "normal" too low or they aren't really as interested in most people having more fun. I would venture that developers commonly believe their normal to be the best-suited difficulty for most people while harder difficulties are there for those who might enjoy those more.

First of all, difficulty options exist because different people are looking for different experiences, so saying everyone should be pushing themselves toward the highest difficulty they can manage is sort of against the spirit of having the option. Some gamers aren't in it for the challenge and just like to experience games in a laid back manner, and if that's their preference who are you to tell them they would have more fun playing on hard than on easy?

As more me personally, my preference is very dependent on the game and genre in question. If I'm playing a primarily gameplay and mechanics driven game , or even a story driven game with particularly strong mechanics, I tend to go in for more challenge. If my enjoyment of a game comes primarily from the story or character interactions (like Uncharted for example), I tend to play on normal or lower to avoid any frustration and just get through the less enjoyable parts quicker to get to the good stuff sooner. Also, games that feature a rich and detailed world to get lost in (like Skyrim or GTA) are games I don't ever want to get pulled out of, so I usually play those games on the default difficulty to avoid having that immersion break because of death.

Of course, if I enjoyed a game enough to want to play it a second time I almost always play the second playthrough on the highest possible difficulty.

Sorry for coming off as rude, but it was not intended. By game design forum, I was referring to the fact that the choices that influence difficulty are primarily the responsibility of the game designer, and not the gamer. If I was discussing it in a game design forum, then we could concentrate on how the designer designs difficulty instead.

On your second point, it is true that I am claiming to know better. To be specific, I'm claiming to know better about difficulty than people that don't know how to accurately choose their difficulty. If that comes across as arrogant, so be it, but it does not disprove my point.

but acting like you know better on what others enjoy is silly.

As silly as it sounds, that is exactly the point. Game designers do it all the time.

Some gamers aren't in it for the challenge and just like to experience games in a laid back manner, and if that's their preference who are you to tell them they would have more fun playing on hard than on easy?

Who am I to tell them how to have fun? I'm just a nobody with a theory that everybody would have more fun on an a difficulty that would challenge them without frustrating them.

You certainly do sound arrogant(and uncaringly so, at that), and as far as your point, I'm pretty certain I already responded to it well enough. If you believe "hard" difficulties are generally going to be more fun for most people than "normal" difficulties, then your issue is with game developers, not gamers. If this is true, then developers' "normal" isn't the proper level of difficulty to be challenging and satisfying.

You haven't really made a case for "hard" difficulties beside the fact that many people enjoy challenge, but you would be mistaken to assume that all or most people would prefer greater challenge than what is defined as "normal" by a developer. You may have a case for "hard" being more fun on certain games where it is tuned to have a lower than optimal "normal" difficulty setting, but again, that's more an issue with developers than with everyday gamers.

There is truth to it though. The amount of times I hear people saying a game is 'too easy' only to find out they have been playing it on Normal, is countless.

The argument that is often given is that: 'Normal is the default difficulty, and therefor should challenge me sufficiently. I shouldn't have to bump up the difficulty in order to be challenged'. I think that argument is flawed to begin with, because everyone has different skill and learns at their own pace; it is impossible to create a difficulty that is equally challenging for every person in the world.

Even if true though, if you know most games are too easy for you on Normal, you should just bump up the difficulty instead of being stubborn and keep selecting Normal and complaining about it afterwards every single time.

I play most big budget releases on the hardest difficulty possible, because I know they tend to be games designed for you to see everything in the game (a bit easier than other games). I also choose the hardest difficulty in hack & slash action games as I'm pretty skilled in those types of games and learn them quickly. I often choose Normal on strategy games first time I play them because, while I really like them, it takes me a long time to fully understand them and I'm not that great at them.

I don't agree with OP in the sense that people should always pick harder difficulties, but I do agree that they should in a lot of cases.

There was definitely a time in my life when I agreed, though I wasn't even out of my hard headed indie as fuck high school days before I'd comfortably settled into being a Normal gamer. There are games I've liked enough to play on Hard (like Uncharted 3, surprisingly enough) but for the most part I do like feeling powerful in games. Under perfect circumstances (say, Grand Theft Auto V) it can be extremely fun to be vulnerable, but it's a rare game I play on a harder difficulty that feels fair in its hardness. The Devil May Cry reboot and Bioshock Infinite were another couple I don't mind on Hard, and Resogun is one of those extremely rare games that treats its difficulty setting more like a fun/crazy shit on screen option. But in all those cases save Resogun I played the game on Normal for the story/experience before going directly back in on Hard for the gameplay.

For the most part these days I feel like Hard mode is either for folks who spend most of their free time playing games and have for years in a way I can't even fathom, even as someone who regularly logged 12 hours in the basement as a kid. I have no idea how so many folks play so many games to completion and/or mastery with all the music, television, movies, podcasts, magazines, sporting events and so on to consume. Hell, the life to live around all of that nonsense. Or Hard mode is for someone who has already beaten the game on Normal, understands all the mechanics and wants an opportunity to display their understanding. It's a shame so many games are afraid of a New Game+ option to further facilitate that mindset, I'd definitely try more games on Hard if I didn't have to reset all my abilities to do so.

The big change this past year has been a willingness to drop the game down to Easy if it's annoying me, though. I did it for The Last of Us, Uncharted 1 and 2, and some other game I can't think of primarily because their idea of ramping up difficulty even on Normal was just to stack the numbers against you to the point of absurdity. Five years ago I'd have never thought I'd be that guy, but I've softened on that stance considerably.

I also used to play NBA 2K on Superstar, but I feel like the game has gradually been changing in ways that make me a weaker player against the computer each year, I have competitive games on All-Star but there are days I'll allow five alley oops in a game on Pro. It's wildly frustrating.

I feel the same way. I like feeling powerful in certain games, but I also really like it when my opponents are powerful and I beat them anyway. I found that playing games on hard makes you understand the game's mechanics better. If it is a good game, it's designed to be able to master. I like doing that.

Yeah, I spend a lot of time playing games though. It's a serious hobby of mine. Probably spend around 15-20 hours a week on average. If I have vacation and nothing else going on in the winter, it's not unlikely I clock like 60-80 hours in a week, but that's obviously incidental.

I agree that The Last of Us isn't a game that is great to play on harder difficulties. I've played it on Hard and Survivor, but it just meant finding less loot. Which yeah, it is harder, but not really the type of difficulty I like. Finding loot is fun and there wasn't that much of it to begin with. But as far as combat goes, it doesn't change much as far as I could tell. Still took the same number of hits/shots/whatever to take any given enemy out. But that game had a couple of dumb mechanics like the Clicker's instant kill attack that often triggered from way too far away for me to accept. I thought parts of that game were really, really dumb and annoying. If I wasn't a stubborn idiot, I would've probably turned down the difficulty as well.

The thing that game missed was a hardcore mode. Some abilities and items were just useless. Like investing 100 supplements into being able to stab a Clicker when they catch you. Why would you ever invest that large amount of stuff into an ability that costs a valuable resource to use, that you only need if you made a mistake or move that you can easily redo? You can just let yourself get eaten and retry the encounter. Most of the Clicker encounters spawn you back like anywhere between 10 and 30 seconds. That ability is only useful when doing a self-imposed hardcore mode.

I always play on normal, it's really rare for me to play a game on hard.

I used to start a game on hard and drop it down if I hit a brick wall.

Nowadays, with so many stresses on life and so little free time, I tend to start on medium and normally end up dropping down to easy.

I used to play games for a challenge, but life is challenging enough at the moment and gaming is there for relaxation and entertainment.

I've also got pretty jaded about shooting a load of AIs for hours on end. I play for the story and to enjoy exploring the environments. The combat gives a game a bit of variety, but it is not the core experience for me any more.

You have a good point. Imagine a game company doing a bunch of playtesting on their normal difficulty. Their playtesting eventually leads them to perfect normal difficulty: players of normal skill level are able to pass the scenario, with a tolerable amount of challenge. Other game companies follow suit, and eventually you'll be able to make a game at normal difficulty without even playtesting, simply by going by what other game companies have defined as normal. Even if global player skill increases, with playtesting, difficulty should increase accordingly. On paper, "normal" is foolproof, because it's an average that corrects itself, but unique developers will always disrupt this "normal" equilibrium. Despite the influence of unique developers, we can see evidence of this equilibrium in the history of consoles, with games today becoming easier, yet more complex. If only the "fun" games survive, then natural selection will define the best possible "normal".

Perhaps developers as a whole, have been only accounting for a win ratio per capita, and due to this, they'd forget to include the sensation of overcoming a loss against a challenging opponent. That's a tough argument to get behind, with no way to provide evidence, but I'm just throwing it out there. Perhaps Dark Souls represents the bottled up breaking point of the norm's normal difficulty being too easy, and we'll see a shift in normal difficulty in the future. Too difficult to tell.

So I will concede my argument and admit that I was mistaken. I will still be a little biased towards hard, and I'm still a little saddened to see a player beat something without really trying, but perhaps statistically, normal is right where it should be.

As many have pointed out, not everyone plays games for the challenge. However, some people find the prospect of playing on harder difficulties, in and of itself, intimidating. For some time, I had always played games on the easiest difficulty, because I thought I'd be frustrated with how much I have to replay sections. Once I got over my initial fear, I came to appreciate how challenge can enhance my experience. So unless you're somehow certain that your friends will enjoy the challenge, I don't think you should push them to do something they might not like.

But here's my problem with high difficulties; most developers tend to over-inflate enemies health and make them soak an absurd amount of damage. In this case, the challenge, to some extent, is artificial. I rarely find myself approaching an enemy or a situation differently. I think the way in which Mass Effect 2 handled increasing enemy survivability is pretty good. I also didn't mind it in Bioshock Infinite.

There's nothing developers are worse at that tuning difficulty, because nobody working on the game has any idea how hard the game is. There always seem to be parts of the game that are much, much harder than the rest of the game.

That's why I generally go normal. It's never a cakewalk for me and that way I can handle difficulty spikes. If I like the game enough I'll play it again on higher difficulties.

@starvinggamer: He clearly knows more about fun than you do, he's a fun scientist after all.

There are a shitload of games that are simply tedious on harder difficulties rather than actually more difficult; I appreciate extremely hard games but there's also a lot of games I don't mind just playing on normal.

It's nice to mix it up every now and then. Constantly challenging yourself to see if you can do better is something everyone can enjoy to some extent or another. I usually default to the normal difficulty, but if I think I have room to be more challenged then I'll turn it up. Likewise, if something's too hard it's nice to have a safety net to fall back on with easy. It's all relative to the individual I suppose.

I can play on whichever difficulty I wish, thank you very much.

I really like playing games on hard at this point. I was playing stuff on normal for the longest time but eventually started to notice there was almost no challenge in a ton of games for me.

Even genres I don't play very much I like to start on hard because I feel like I am forced to get good at the game quickly. I don't get mad from dying in games so I don't mind struggling through some sections.

It depends on the game. Some games are hard to figure out what the best choice is because you don't know how hard the "base" difficulty is, or maybe you know nothing about the game. For most RPGs I go with normal, because harder combat does not equal a better experience for me. Shooters and action games I go one step below the hardest (I never do nightmare type difficulties. Fuck that.) But there have been games where I've lowered the difficulty because I had more fun relaxing and just playing. Fighting games, for example, I suck at so I always play on lower settings. I started Bioshock Infinite on the hard setting, but eventually knocked it down because I didn't like the game and just wanted to finish it. I actually did that last, horrible fight sequence on easy just to see the end and be done.

I think it's on a game by game basis, and a player by player basis. I'll get bored if the game is too easy, but frustrated if it's too hard. I'm here to have fun, if I have to keep repeating a section in a shooter, I'm done, usually. I will never repeat my World at War experience, which ended with my neighbor calling to see if I was okay.(Fuckinggoddamngrenadefactorymotherf'ers...)Though there are games where the repetition is fine, and part of the game (platformers, for example.) But if it's story driven, I just want to keep pushing forward without seeing too many reloads, which breaks the immersion.

But as I said, some games make it tough to decide. The Last of Us was a MUCH better game on Survivor, for me. I was hesitant to give up listen mode, since I played first on normal but I thought my survivor run was much more fun and not really that much harder. I've cranked up other games on normal and had a tough time. That's why I'm glad to see more games giving the option to change difficulty mid-game. I don't give a damn about trophies or achievements, or flexing my nuts as a gamer. I just want to enjoy myself.

People should play on whatever they think is fun. I remember having a conversation about The Last of Us where I was told I'd have more fun if I played it on hard. Sure, normal was completely manageable and I didn't have any real problems getting to the end, but I had the maximum amount of fun I was likely to get out of it.

I always play Halo or Gears on the hard setting and that usually feels ok, in the case of Gears totally manageable. I don't fail all that often on hardcore, but if I was to automatically go to insane I'd have very little fun at all, same with veteran in Call of Duty. You never know how the game is balanced until you start playing it. All games are different and people should play them any way they want to.

When I first got my PS2 I'd play games on the easiest setting and progress through all of the difficulties until I got to the hardest I could handle. I liked doing that back then. I was fully prepared to beat Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid 2 on the hardest difficulties by doing that, I doubt I would have had the same, great experiences with those games if I'd have jumped right into the hardest modes.

I generally play on veteran difficulty because even as a very normal, not super-skilled gamer, the hard setting is not impassible, just challenging. However I don't mess with 'insane' difficulties like in Halo 3 because getting one shotted by same guy 100 times is not my idea of fun.

@hencook: I think its good to have a challenge, especially since games tend to be easier beaten these days. But with some games there is always that worry you might not be able to get past something. I tend to usually play on normal to hard depending on the game. I also tend to go back and beat the ones I really enjoyed on harder levels. Right now I'm doing tomb raider on normal but I have many intentions to play it on a harder level after this play through. And yes I do enjoy a challenge and get bord if its to easy.

I always recommend it because you get the absolute most out of the mechanics. People complained about Fear 3, but if you knock it up it becomes an incredibly intense, tactical experience.

But if you just want to experience the story to complete a review on a deadline, then complain about a game being too easy? Can't stop you, I suppose.

I play 5 to 10 hours a week, so if I'm jumping between different games this could cause one to last for months.

Depends I guess, after playing Last of Us and Bioshock Infinite, those games really felt like they were more challenging and enjoyable on harder difficulties, but something like Halo, Gears, or CoD... screw that. Half the time it's not even a real difference in the enemies behavior and they just become bullet sponges. Some notable games that seemed to change the enemies AI after bumping the difficulty up would be FEAR and the original Dead Space. Although I feel in Dead Space it was more of just me running away and the enemies reacted to that by crawling into the vents more frequently to ambush me. Lead to some pretty interesting encounters though in the game.

If I played Last of Us on anything over easy. That thing would remain unfinished.

What's the point to being challenged by unsatisfying systems? If I don't feel room to evolve in the confines of the mechanics, then I don't see much reason to push myself.

I paly on hard ... because as you said normal has become too easy. But I do agree that difficulty spikes are a sign of bad design , yeah new challenges must come but sometimes developers decide "ok... instead of three more like it should , lets put in a thousend more :D". Also would like developers understand that enemies should also have finite resources and no fuckin granade spams , hate granade spamming.

I like a challenge depending on the genre, and depending on how "Hard" is implemented.

NG+ in the Batman Arkham games are an absolute joy. It's a scenario that forces you outside of your comfort zone and to use all tools at your disposal. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the only times I've thought of some really clever tactics in those games is during the Hard/NG+ playthrough.

The problem is that not every game with a "hard" setting is like Batman. Most of the time it just means enemies do greater damage and have greater health pools. Or you're gimped in one way or another. To me, time consuming does not mean hard. I'm of the opinion that unless the "hard" setting will rework enemy placements and challenge the player to find creative solutions to their problems then they shouldn't include harder difficulties.

The last of US battlesystem is fantastic on had or even survivor. It reflects perfect the harsh world the game is set in. Every encounter is fucking dangerous and intense and when you go into these emotional cut scenes after an exhausting and intense encounter you feel even more involved in the story. This game is not supposed to be fun.

No, some games have terrible difficulty settings. Not naming any names, but some games invalidate entire player classes and groups of powers and tactics with their ultra-shitty difficulty settings. It's like they don't even test them.

Other games just have sloppy gameplay. On standard difficulty you can wade through it and maybe have some fun cracking heads. But if the gameplay had any difficulty at all the sloppy controls, latency, poor encounter design etc drag it down and make it a chore. Especially if they don't allow for more advanced tactics or tools to apply at higher difficulties.

Actually I'd say only the very few, very best games are any fun at high difficulty settings. Average games fall on their face.

100% of the time I play on easy, but I also love dark souls and have beat a dozen times.

100% of the time putting a game on hard just means, now it takes 6 hits to kill a guy instead of 3. That's not harder that's just more time consuming.

No, it really isn't. The vast majority of times you get killed in TLoU, it's a cheap death coming from an instant kill that doesn't make any sense, or because you made a plan to kill the 4 enemies that are present, but because you get spotted they arbitrarily spawn in 4 more enemies behind you. It's really dumb. I like TLoU overall, but the combat is inconsistent.

Are you having fun? Cool.

Are you not having fun? Ah well. Hopefully a setting will change that, and if not, then on to the next game.

^ That's all that anybody should care about how other people play games. (unless it involves being a dick in multiplayer or something)

This is how I feel.

I play on normal the first time through, and if I enjoy a game enough to play through it again later and I feel like the mechanics are tight enough, I'll play on a harder difficulty. I want different things from different games, and I'll pick the difficulty I play on as such, thanks.

TLOU combat is all about improvisation and reacting quickly to your environment. I never had cheap death. It is just that clicker can kill you in one attack which makes them even more scary. Also since when is TLOU using a spawn system? Did I miss something here? Especially the thing from spawning behind you.

Thanks for stating your opinion as fact for an argument against my opinion.

I thought TLoU played kind of like shit overall, but the shooting and flanking on easy was decent fun. Maybe increasing the difficulty made your experience better, but I can guarantee you it would not have done anything to make me like the game more. Most likely for the opposite.

@tobbrobb: It is more like I do not understand people who are saying that this battlesystem is not fun or stuff like that. In my opinion you should not have fun playing The last of US. WE need to get away from the video games are only good if they are fun way. Games also should be emotional, exhausting, terrifying intense. Only than games like TLOU can really shine.

It does, a very old school one in fact. Trigger points on your location that make certain enemies spawn and being spotted out of stealth condition also spawns in additional enemies in several encounters. I can only recall two instances where enemies where spawned in behind me, but that's still two too many. The Clicker is cheap because it only needs to be near you. It doesn't have to touch you, it doesn't have to go through an animation like you do, nothing. Just has to be somewhere near you. I saw a video one time of a guy who cut out the mini cinematic where you have no control over when a Clicker kills you. All that was left was the Clicker approaching and you're suddenly dead. It's hilariously dumb and very cheap. Also, in the Clicker tutorial they make it seem like you have at least some opportunity to fight them off. But that clearly isn't the case outside of that tutorial. Lastly, I've been killed several times where the distance between me and the Clicker was crazy big. Often an object was more or less in the way. Definitely cheap.

And yeah, I get why they did it. They probably had the Clicker require an animation to actually hit you before, but they found it didn't make them as dangerous. A good reason to change them, but a very shitty change with the vicinity kill.

@darji: Ok I'm gonna go out on a limb here. Just you know, consider it for a second.

What if a game is "emotional, exhausting, terrifying intense" AND didn't play like absolute shit? Wouldn't that be cool? What if the combat didn't have inherent flaws in it that are completely irrelevant to the mood it's trying to create? I feel like I'm onto something here!

There are very simple fixes to TLoU's combat that would make the game less tedious and frustrating, without destroying the core of the experience. Though I don't blame Naughty Dog for missing some of it. I'd rather have this version of the game with the amazing storytelling than an alternate reality version with more focus on the gameplay anyhow.

I like and appreciate The Last of Us as it exists, but I absolutely agree with this. I had finished The Last of Us last week again for the third time and I was thinking exactly this.

@zevvion: Interesting. Thanks for that info. I always had the feeling if new enemies appear they come from now triggered passages etc. I never actually saw them spawning. But yeah these 1 hit deaths made them really scary in my opinion.

@ tobbrobb: See it like that. If you have fun in a game like the last of us it would destroy the whole atmosphere. That is why I loved this game so much. It was really exausting and intense and when I went into these scnes I could get even more emotional crushed that with having a fun time before.

@darji: I feel like you have twisted something around here. Did you think the scenes were that more impactful SPECIFICALLY because the gameplay isn't fun? I totally see that argument for Papers Please, but in TLoU the emotions and mindset you need to live into are: desperation, fear, sadness and practical/hars decision making. All of which are achievable in a game with rewarding mechanics. See something along the lines of Amnesia.

In Papers Please the goal is to simulate the bleak and soulcrushing work of this bordercheck under hellish circumstances. There the tedium serves a purpose. It is part of the experience. And they pulled it off well.

So going back to TLoU, I see no reason why the gameplay couldn't have been polished up to a higher standard of stealth/survival. Getting better feedback for your actions would not affect the emotions of trying to work with what little you have to get through these harsh encounters. Rather I think it would have made it MORE impactful if the gameplay actually played and reflected your character better.

@tobbrobb: If you go into these emotional scenes right before you were laughing or having fun and a good time,these scenes are way less impactful than they should be in my opinion. For me this combat simulates the harsh and cruel world they live in. It is my perfect example why I think not all video games should be fun to play.

For example: Try and watch the movie you think is the most emotional to you when you are in two different stages. One totally happy and the other one exhausted. You will have two totally different experiences

@darji: Who said anything about laughing? Fun and "simulating a harsh and cruel world" isn't mutually exclusive. You enjoyed the game didn't you? It was fun right?

I'm not asking for the zombies to explode into confetti when I kill them, I'm not asking for the Quake announcer to shout out about my killstreaks. I just want the game to play in a way that is enjoyable. I don't want to be frustrated about mechanics, when that could instead be a scary and thrilling encounter with overwhelming odds. You are right, it's not about "fun" in the sense kids use it. It's about the fun of experiencing the story and the emotions connected with it.

And that's where I'm saying the gameplay fails. It doesn't promote survival instincts the way it's supposed to for me. It's not scary or depressing. In my experience normal and hard difficulty was tedious and easy with the only deaths being cheap and frustrating. And they took away the only thing that played consistently well by limiting the ammo severely. That is not good design, It's just distracting from the main dish in a negative way.

It depends what the harder difficulty consists of. I usually like if it changes how things work in the game like less resources or more stragetic A.I. What I don't like is how Call of Duty and so many other games do it, they just make the A.I more accurate or you more fragile. While I still play most games on hard, There really is no issue to playing medium or even easy unless there are fundamental changes to the difficulty.