How "unforgiving" Should Game Difficulty Be?

[rob86 2]

Should a game be extremely difficult and unforgiving, or relaxing and not challenging? I imagine this is a much debated subject for gamers and game designers and I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, there is no doubt that an unforgiving game with few save points makes the game more intense and enjoyable. A fun test of intelligence even. In difficult shooters (such as the old Rainbow Six games, SWAT 4, or Full Spectrum Warrior) I take my time and check my corners and treat my character or team like real people, who's lives are fragile. Fun experience. In strategy games, it makes a game much more interesting if there are consequences to actions. I have to contemplate whether to attack or not. Attacking too early could be a fatal mistake that I should consider carefully. While the lack of saving does make a game more intense and exciting, that is only when things are going well. I don't know about anyone else, but I am not flawless in my gaming skill. Suffering a stupid, meaningless death seconds from a checkpoint or an accidental death to a game bug (ever throw a grenade to have it bounce off your cover and into your face instead of over? What kind of moron would throw a grenade like that?) or a wrong mouse click. and having to redo 15-20 minutes of a level over and over begins to get extremely frustrating and becomes a complete waste of time. I often find myself so angry I could throw my computer / controller out the window and just keep playing it over and over trying to succeed so I won't be ticked off anymore. When I play strategy games, like Civilization, it is so much more enjoyable to play realistically, accepting the consequences of a not so successful war, or to live with an unexpected enemy attack. However, I find it nearly impossible to live with a set back after an hour or more of planning, my cities being razed or my army being wiped out, when I can just load up a save and change the situation with God-like powers. Thus, I end up playing a completely boring and easy game because the option to "Cheat" is so easy. So I really can't decide. Is it better to have a game that's very challenging and unforgiving, or a game that is so easy you could play in your sleep? Sure, getting stressed because of a game sucks, but isn't a game that's too easy kind of boring? I'm kind of pleased at the switching trend from manual/quick saves to checkpoints. They seem to work pretty well in most cases, and it relieves me from the task of obsessive saving around every turn. Sometimes it kind of sucks not being able to manually save before a part you have trouble with, but I guess nothing is perfect...

[magnafrost 0]

True , nothing on earth (well almost) is as irritating as having to re-do the same tough part a million times because of screw-ups. Because of difficulty, not so much! For instance, in "Uncharted" , there's a place where we sit on a train and fire a gun at a helicopter that keeps moving and shooting at us. Its so damn hard and took me nearly 10 tries but it felt good! I conquered the helicopter. But there are also times (like in MOHAA) where I'm trying to break into Guantanamo Bay and I'm almost there and one headshot blasts me to oblivion. That sucks! Its not so much the difficulty there as the uncertainty. Personally if you needed a metric, I'd count 2 things. One is how much time is lost in repetitive actions that bore you. Other is the gradient of the life bar. Having to re-do after a single shot death that could be avoided sucks much more than having to re-do after a gradual death which you find more challenging, and can advance more and more steadily till you finally make it. Am i making sense ? :|

[Liquidized 1]

Yeah, i like games that're somewhat easy and enjoyable (besides online, online has to have hard players)... Such as Bully for the PS2. I wish they had autosave (or maybe i disabled it?) because my disc was retarded and wouldn't function to the point where i'd have to restart. Games such as Counterstrike don't really require skill. Why do i say that? You can just get a gun and start shooting him and the head. That's barely any skill besides when to ambush. Shooters that require tactic i believe are like Metal Gear Solid 4 (PS3) such as if you do CQC (close quarter combat) and then start shooting him but what if he jumps back up and grabs like a frag (grenade)?... I'd really just prefer a easy/medium game with extremely fun gameplay. i absolutely hate the Devil May Cry (let it stand, i loathe most capcom games) because it's repetitive, too hard, and has a idiotic story. See, Capcom has the same technique over and over and if you don't like one of their games, you won't like the rest because they're all the same. Endless Mashing.

[Adell 0]

I understand what your getting at, but really having limited save points to a game isn't the cure to a easy game or what makes a game hard, though it could add to it. I just see having limited save points as... poor design, not everyone can play as long as some players, especially casual players and there is also the moment when light either chips out or some unimaginable external force stops you from playing (like your mother visiting or something). I think I prefer games that cater to both casual and hardcore players, with an option in difficulty setting for the hardcore players who love a higher level of difficulty.