What creative solutions to game difficulty could be added other than the archaic HP/DMG modifiers?

[Dreadpoet]

The post is about unique ways, other than hp and dmg, to increase level of difficulty. I agree with a prior post that you should never dumb down A.I. That is like breaking your own game. You are left with.. limiting resources, slowing level of progression (exp.), additional enemies, time constraints, etc.

If you are wanting to play at a high level, the point is to not die...even when things seem insurmountable. Meaning you are super careful with your resources, level of aggression, skill selection, etc. If there is real world consequence to dying, you will be making better choices than running in "guns blazing."

There should be some frustration at higher levels. Though he meant it in another way, Fredrick Douglas once said, “If there is no struggle, there Is no progress” You do not get better by relying on safety nets (saving every moment of the game), similar difficulty throughout, and/or "God Mode." I do agree that it would be great idea to keep independent autosaves at the ends of missions. This would allow those who want to replay a prior mission to go back. There is also the possibility that you may hit a bug and need to get back to a prior level.

I will leave you with this... Team Ninja was both praised and criticized for the level of difficulty in their Xbox release of Ninja Gaiden. The long time gamers praised the title because it returned back to a time when a player had to game at a high level of skill to win. Others, probably younger players, criticized the game because they died to often. Having means of changing the level of difficulty to please both player types is ideal.

 

[lelxrv]

And that's a valid opinion.

Now let's work on keeping the tone respectful of all other opinions.

This is why I would always argue for such restrictions to be options. There's no huge reason for games to insist on denying players preferences such as this. (Unless they're integral to the actual gameplay, like Dark Souls.) My philosophy is, wherever possible, "Let the player decide."

If it's an option - by all means. Something a player can choose before starting a game. Like "hardcore" option in Diablo II, for example.

Sorry for rude tone, but my Vietnam flashbacks kicked-in. I love Watchdogs, and when it denied not only manual saving, but even replaying certain missions without starting over... Ugh...

 

[Tree_Fox]

What if you had enemies use weapons tailored to the environment they're in?

For example, in the demo we saw the maelstrom gang members using automatic weapons, but what if at higher difficulties the gang members in the tight spaces used shotguns, the ones in that open-ish area used automatics, and on the far railings you had a couple with carbines.

I feel that would make the player consider what gear they have and how best to approach the situation.

 

[Poison19]

Sorry i understood post wrong.

 

[Dreadpoet]

Must go to doc for full health regeneration (chems and bandages will only go so far). Must eat and sleep to upkeep improved speed, accuracy, melee damage, exp., etc.

 

[SigilFey]

I will leave you with this... Team Ninja was both praised and criticized for the level of difficulty in their Xbox release of Ninja Gaiden. The long time gamers praised the title because it returned back to a time when a player had to game at a high level of skill to win. Others, probably younger players, criticized the game because they died to often. Having means of changing the level of difficulty to please both player types is ideal.

I played only Ninja Gaiden Black. And I do remember resisting the urge to hurl the controller. It was a great game, overall, but the difficulty bordered on the "huh-huh-huh-bet-you'll-never-get-past-this-part" mentality -- rather than cleverly designed challenges based around established mechanics. I remember being smacked by something that came completely out nowhere. No warning, no time to react, just a cheap kill forcing me to spend more time playing through the level again.

Now, granted, I think the formula inspired some of my all-time favorite games: Kingdoms of Amalur, Dark Souls, Shadows of Mordor, Dragon's Dogma... The difference is that all of those games establish clear mechanics then come up with ways of creating challenge without trifling with the player or allowing the AI to "cheat".

I love Watchdogs, and when it denied not only manual saving, but even replaying certain missions without starting over... Ugh...

Initially, I was the same way. I remember being really nervous while playing the original Assassin's Creed -- not being able to save every 3 minutes like my OCD spamming of the F5 button on PC. Thing was, even though you could replay earlier stages, I didn't feel the need to. I sort of like how the system encourages you to press on. Especially the first time I play a game, I'm often tempted to go back a lot until I feel I've got a handle on how the game is going to work. Sometimes I overdo it.

What if you had enemies use weapons tailored to the environment they're in?

This is such a simple and brilliant idea, I'm not surprised at all that it's probably never been considered before. AI sniper enters a building...switches to an SMG or pistol. The rest of the AI army goes, "What the...?... OOOH!"

 

[lelxrv]

Initially, I was the same way. I remember being really nervous while playing the original Assassin's Creed -- not being able to save every 3 minutes like my OCD spamming of the F5 button on PC. Thing was, even though you could replay earlier stages, I didn't feel the need to. I sort of like how the system encourages you to press on. Especially the first time I play a game, I'm often tempted to go back a lot until I feel I've got a handle on how the game is going to work. Sometimes I overdo it.

Well, I hate what Ubi does with their games regarding this aspect. Good thing Watchdogs was the only game I bought from them since Far Cry 3, because it's the only game that appealed to me. I didn't have to suffer through every game they made since then. Even GTA is compromising enough to let you replay any mission you want at any moment. Still, it's nothing like a proper save system, that allows you to manage your progression. To change direction of your choices, revisit your favorite story or gameplay moments.

 

[SigilFey]

Well, I hate what Ubi does with their games regarding this aspect. Good thing Watchdogs was the only game I bought from them since Far Cry 3, because it's the only game that appealed to me. I didn't have to suffer through every game they made since then. Even GTA is compromising enough to let you replay any mission you want at any moment. Still, it's nothing like a proper save system, that allows you to manage your progression. To change direction of your choices, revisit your favorite story or gameplay moments.

To be fair, I would prefer a manual save system, as well. I'm not really bothered by it because of the general nature of the Ubi / WB games. The individual mission segments are normally so brief and so linear that I rarely feel the need to go back. (Basically, you can't really lose or miss something.) I would have to say, if anything, their save system makes the games easier, as players can't accidentally forget to save their progress.

Plus, I believe that handling it this way increases both the stability and size of their gameworlds. The game doesn't need to save the state of the world itself in detail (only the player character's state). Fewer moving parts, fewer things that can go wrong.

(Too bad the system rubs you the wrong way. Shadow of Mordor and Mad Max are excellent.)

 

[Garrison72]

-More destructible cover to hide behind for easier settings.

-More waves of enemies on boss fights for harder settings.

-Stricter economy/less junk loot for harder settings.

-More death by wrong dialog choice in hard settings ( Iorveth meeting in TW2)

-This one is a big ask, but advanced attacks/movesets for enemies in harder settings.

 

[BaalNergal]

Starting zones.

Very easy is the inside of a padded room.

Easy could be an apartment, or someplace safe.

Normal is on the street, headed towards a job.

Hard is in enemy gang territory.

Extreme is in prison, right before the riot starts.

 

[baggins_oz]

Thanks for the thread - if there is one thing that annoys me in modern games it is the design choice of higher difficulty simply making enemies bullet sponges. Thus the need to keep upgrading weapons to the next "colour" until you get to the "legendary"... so the gun that I start with which could easily kill enemies is somehow unable to hurt an enemy 10 levels later? WTF?
I know that this is simple "Skinner Box" psychology; people to want to improve and get the next shiny reward, but it is getting old and done to death.
(I know it is a game, but there needs to be some realism too! A gun is a gun. A bullet is a bullet. A school boy with rifle can still kill a seasoned Marine with one shot...)

Be clever with the game design. If the player needs a reward - dangle the carrot of some fancy new tech/weapon - and make them earn it. Not just hand it to them straight away. Make them work at it for multiple quests and levels. Does anyone remember finally getting a lightsaber in the first KOTOR? Or finally getting power armour in Fallout?

I'd like to see developers focus on Improving Enemy AI and strategy, improve their armor, give them better equipment and as a last resort as a blunt instrument they can use their sheer numbers...
Or like the first Shadow of Mordor's nemesis system - each time you kill an enemy it removes that strategy from further encounters. This forced me to become creative, and stopped me from using the "cheap" kill (which leads to boredom).

 

[Poison19]

Oh forgot to mention something. I don't want game to have "missions" like in GTA, where you can't do nothing else if you pick up mission. I prefer traditional quests which you can pick and decide what to do by yourself.

 

[Suhiira]

One (of several) things I didn't like about Fallout 4 was by the time I gave up on the game (never did finish it) the supposed high end weaponry I'd acquired felt less lethal then the starter 10mm I left the vault with because opponent hit points had scaled up so much.

I to very much favor opponent accuracy modification as a scaling factor. At the beginning they should be just as bad of shots as your starting character. Unfortunately this solution doesn't really work with FPS style games because player accuracy is pretty much of a constant throughout the game. So the only choice is more, or harder to kill, opponents. This goes back to a comment I made elsewhere about game design choices imposing limits on flexibility.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Unfortunately this solution doesn't really work with FPS style games because player accuracy is pretty much of a constant throughout the game.

Player accuracy shouldn't factor that much.

 

[BaalNergal]

Player accuracy shouldn't factor that much.

Player accuracy factors massively in FPS-style games. I actually do far better with scoping and iron sights in Fallout games than I do with VATS; this is because I learned how to do that kind of aiming with Halo and Call of Duty.

Part of why I'm glad they dropped skills from Fallout 4 is simply because, to me, I never saw the point of having skills for using guns when I was simply better at aiming than the game's skill system could account for.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Player accuracy factors massively in FPS-style games.

Sure. But if the game has an attempt to be an RPG that has skills to govern aptitude, it shouldn't. No matter how "FPS-style" it was.

There's no point in having skills if they are there only as a token feature so that the developer can point towards them while promoting the game, even if they do nothing of note to the gameplay itself.

I don't personally like FPS games very much, unless they are "oldschool" and kinda over the top (like Serious Sam). I think FPS combat in general is boring as hell.

 

[BaalNergal]

Sure. But if the game has an attempt to be an RPG that has skills to govern aptitude, it shouldn't. No matter how "FPS-style" it was.

There's no point in having skills if they are there only as a token feature so that the developer can point towards them while promoting the game, even if they do nothing of note to the gameplay itself.

I don't personally like FPS games very much, unless they are "oldschool" and kinda over the top (like Serious Sam). I think FPS combat in general is boring as hell.

I'll agree, but at the same time it doesn't change that they decided to have FPS-style combat. That means that, unless they intentionally make aiming as unrealistic as humanly possible, skills to govern aptitude are going to be at-best a secondary influence on the combat.

I kinda think this is a case where trying to accomplish their vision is going to mean some of the RPG aspects are going to have a massively lesser impact than was intended.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

If RPG staples compromise their vision, they should leave them out instead of forcing them in as meaningless and halfassed features.

If FPS combat is what is desired, don’t downplay it with forced RPG stuff and just make the FPS you wanted as good as possible. Bad and pointless systems don’t do anybody any good.

That kind of game wouldn’t be one I’d pay money for, but I’d not be an intended audience anyway.

 

[Suhiira]

Player accuracy shouldn't factor that much.

Player accuracy factors massively in FPS-style games.

And this is the "problem" with FPS with mechanics in games are suppose to be RPGs.

For FPS games such a system is highly desirable, in fact one could say critical. But it has no place in an RPG because the game centers on the character, it's stats, skills, etc.

There's no point in having skills if they are there only as a token feature so that the developer can point towards them while promoting the game, even if they do nothing of note to the gameplay itself.

Exactly.

I kinda think this is a case where trying to accomplish their vision is going to mean some of the RPG aspects are going to have a massively lesser impact than was intended.

Agreed.

 

[Poison19]

Here we go again