By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How developers increase difficulty the wrong way

salaminizer on 04 February 2010
largedarryl said:
salaminizer said:

I'm not really a fan of what usually happens in strategy games, where a higher difficulty level means that the AI will get a shitload of bonuses and you'll get penalized in every aspect. I don't play Civilization IV, or Fall from Heaven 2, which is more difficult than Civ4, in a level higher than Prince. at least in King's Bounty the game tells you what happens in Normal or Hard (i.e. things cost more, etc)

 

I wouldn't call Fall from Heaven 2 harder than vanilla Civ4 (unless they can actually fix the AI to work with the added game mechanics).  They made fantastic progress with Civ 4 difficulty levels, but unfortunately you can't program an AI to account for all the different human play styles that attempt to exploit AI weaknesses (AI doesn't adapt, but human continually adapts).

King's Bounty is a fantastic example of how to do difficulty modes.

 

I do agree with the concensus here, most difficulty settings in games don't do the intended purpose.  When I choose hard, I don't want annoying.

well, TBH I picked up Civ4 because it's a good example about the bonus/penalties, but yes, it does manage the AI smartness better than most games.



the words above were backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Around the Network
Senlis on 06 February 2010
Esmoreit said:
The cheapest trick of difficulty in the book? Rubberbanding. We have all played MArio kart and we all know how it works.

You are in the lead, drop a banana and the number two will be behind you in seconds.
You're the number two, hit a banana and play catch-up for a whole round. It's way to damn cheap.

yes, that is pretty lame.  I am trying to remember what me and my friends used to call it, catch-up handicap maybe.