Intrinsic said:
HoloDust said:
Sorry Curl, but no. I'm actually fairly against difficulty levels, if anything they more often than not break the experience.
Not every game is for everyone, in some things you're good, in some you're just not.
If anything, more games should be like Souls (and most much older games, while we're at it) and have only one diificulty (or at worst very, very narrow leeway) and it's up to player to either figure it out, or look for another game that suits it needs and skills.
I'll give you an example from similar hobby, boardgames - I mostly like to play so called Euro-games (it has nothing to do these days with country of origin), but mostly of medium weight, medium-hard at most (that being 3.5 out of 5 complexity on Board Game Geek). anything above that is no go zone for me...at least at the present time. There are some amazing games that are more complex, I just don't want to play them, either cause I don't have time, patience or both. But never have I thought that any of them need an easy mode, nor any of them actually have it. Why? Balancing of mechanisms - if anything, if there is lighter version, it's usually completely different game, often by different designer, that resembles its heavier counterpart, but aimed at wider market.
Which brings me to the very point - most video games these days are made for mass market, and they will have wide diificulty level scale because publishers want to sell as many copies as possible. But luckily, there are still games and developers that do not aim for mass market (although some of them do become popular) that do not want to sacrifirce fine balance of underlying mechanisms and then it's up to each person to decide if that game is for them or not. |
This is like saying if you can't drive a manual then dont drive at all.
|
No.
He's saying that if you only driven automatics and buy a car with manual you should learn to drive with the manual transmission. It might be harder initially but as time goes you get better.
