What do you prefer?
A game that is extremely difficult to even finish on it's own for most people, or a game that is average/easy to beat but contains extra features such as secret bosses, optional encounters, or having things like S rank walled behind high level skillful play?
Wich one of these two is the better design philosophy?
Hard game, designed around its hard difficulty but with an easier mode for plebs so they don't have to bitch and moan.
Average for the extra goodies.
Extra goodies are always welcome, and with a low ceiling for plebs, it will sell better, so we're more likely to get more in terms of sequels.
I generally prefer the second because im a Explorer type player. Optional Secrets and Unlockables are my jam, and geting good results ranking systems tend to push the barriers further then the standard of your average "Hard to beat" game because they want perfect play, not just good enough to survive play. A hit may not kill you, but if it tanks your ranking it might as well, and that is on top of things such as time limits.
I hate extremely hard shit to achieve like "Don't take damage trophies" (Pure Platinum from Bayo) or unfair like "Pantheon of Hallownest all bindings" (Hollow Knight). There are no rewards in these two cases, but my ocd kills me just thinking of not completing everything.
But if the developers see that more people buy their games when they're easier, then they're going to make their games easier and easier by default.
This chain effect is half the reason why modern AAA games are so easy now, it's this exact sequence of events.
And they aren't wrong, the best games are the ones easy to pick up but difficult of master, and im not talking exclusively about VIDEO games when i say that, and there are breaking points for how easy things can be allowed to be, but Harder does not necessarily mean Better.
And it isn't that long ago we had DARK SOULS OF X, not that Dark souls was hard, but you get my point, Difficulty being a selling point is hardly (HA HA) ancient history where we stand.
>the best games are the ones easy to pick up but difficult of master
Not really.
He's actually right.
But i'm less lenient than him on how low the difficulty of a game should dip in it's standard difficulty.
Regardless, a game that is accessible by most, but has additional depth that, once mastered, allow you to take on greater challenges and perform feats that someone just scratching the surface can't, is truly good design.
"Hit once you ded lol" is something any monkey with a keyboard can design, havinga mkore moderate difficulty curve and leaving gameplay depth open for those that want to explore it requires a much more skilled dev team that knows what they're doing.
"Easy to learn but hard to master" usually just means that the game is piss easy but gives you a bunch of completely unnecessary tools to push and break the game far further than is even remotely necessary. It can work but don't pretend like every game should be like this.
I think I prefer the latter by just a bit, because it allows you to kind of marvel at how far you've come.
>"Easy to learn but hard to master" usually just means that the game is piss easy but gives you a bunch of completely unnecessary tools to push and break the game far further than is even remotely necessary.
That's not what it means at all and i'm starting to question what kind of games you even played that approach it this way.
Especially this part
>bunch of completely unnecessary tools to push and break the game
Makes me think you see games as something you only play on Normal once and then never touch again.
That's the only way you'd reach such a conclusion.
This kind of design is obviously very reliant on replay value on higher difficulties with actual changes (aka most Platinum Games titles, extra enemies, better attack patterns etc).
Do you want every game to be Dwarf Fortress?
Name one game that demands actual "mastery" from you for its highest difficulty.
This sort of shit only really works for PvP games anyway because PvE games are almost always shoddily made and easily exploitable, requiring players to go out of their way to gimp themselves and thus negating any possible notion of a "challenge".
No, but people also seriously misunderstand what "easy to pick up" means. Very few multiplayer games are actually "easy to pick up", for instance. Singleplayer games that are "easy to pick up" meanwhile ramp up in difficulty, but rarely actually demand that players advance from the basic strategies they started out with. You can do fancy and difficult shit, but you, never, ever have to.
TWEWY’s difficulty design
>game decides to let you change difficulties on the fly
>also lets you de-level
>game rewards you for doing so by increasing the the drop rate of items
>it also drops the best items on the higher difficulties
>if you’re unable to keep up with the combat system at first, the game allows your partner to be set on auto until you git gud
>also allows you to earn experience for not even playing the game
I think Kid Icarus Uprising had the best system but it's not something you can apply to every game.
I think the dream is something like MM Zero, something with a lot of grit that rewards you for playing well but doesn't punish you for taking a simpler route. I thought Celeste handled it pretty well for a recent example (though I've been pretty surprised at how many people I know who have played it haven't done the C-sides), but the general design in that game in terms of how you learn is so procedural that it belongs almost in its own category.
>rewards you for playing well but doesn't punish you for taking a simpler route
Don't most people consider MMZ games to be really hard to even just finish?
Especially the first one.
Most people suck at video games. MM Zero is easy if you swallow your pride and use the elves.
Twewy was also nice because if you played enough it didn't matter if you were shit, you could lower your level to the minimum and cranked up to the hardest for the bonuses because of Food and Clothes and how it rewarded chaining multiple battles.
I certainly don't, i considered the Elephant mission hard when i just played it, but that was mostly nerves due how it was formatted, it is harder if you have the Elixir Effect about Cyber Elves though, but that was the whole point of them though, you CAN use them to make the game easier, but people won't want to, they were kinda like the Super Guide, but less insulting about it.
Then again, im a Mega Man fan so im biased as hell regarding that series.
>another TWEWY fan
I've never used a Cyber Elf in any MMZ game. I have, however, save-scummed before boss fights in order to mimic infinite lives.
That's like saying that you never smoked a blunt your entire life but shoot up heroin daily.
Not exacly a good trade off.
That's only somewhat acceptable in MMZ 1 were lives were retarded and you were encouraged to savescum anyway.
The former usually, it's more satisfying when a game's challenging on a basic level rather than feeling self imposed, not to mention basic challenges are usually given more attention while things like extra bosses and ranks are treated as secondary. It's also nice to have games which are just hard and require you to practice, fuck this "aw yes sweetie you can beat the game :) it's only challenging if you impose x and y rules on yourself". Ranks aren't good because they're too discrete and boring but scoring can actually be really fucking good if it has a lot of depth. Psyvariar is an example of a game that's easy to 1cc, but offers an insane amount of extra challenge and depth when playing for score and it's beyond just "kill all enemies to get more points". Rank as a small addition to scoring is decent because it gives clear milestones to aim for, but the rank being the main draw over scoring isn't good.
Have you never played shmups, action-puzzle games, roguelikes/lites or beat 'em ups? Plenty of those demand mastery, obviously it's not the same as getting to a high level at PvP but it's waaay more than enough to satisfy anyone looking for a challenge.
Also forgot racing and flight sims
Easy to pick up means that you can instantly understand things like the controls and basic gameplay without investing time into learning it, it doesn't mean the game itself is easy until you do some extra challenge and in fact it hasn't been used for games like that. Also most games can be difficult to master depending on your definition for what constitutes mastery, but very few come with the built in systems and mechanics that make this enjoyable and encouraged.