Timsup2nothin
05-30-2008, 20:11
I think I might be backwards. I'm not a very adept mouse twitcher, so this doesn't apply to other genres, but for turn based games I always start out on the highest difficulty possible. Someone asked what difficulty level they should start MTW on and I said expert while the bulk of the crowd debated the virtues of easy or medium. I felt pretty much like the crazy uncle in the attic.
But it is a general position so maybe someone here can look at my reasoning and tell me if I'm insane, or just eccentric.
First off, I figure there is little satisfaction in beating an opponent that is not playing their best. If I win on a low difficulty it is almost unavoidable that I will immediately play again. I have a lot of great games that merit replaying, playing a less than great game a second time just because it might be worth it at higher difficulty seems silly.
Second, there's the 'learning' aspect. I get mashed, badly, a lot. But I learn. I learn fast. One thing about serious mashings, they don't take very long usually. I can get mashed ten times on a high difficulty in the time it takes to win a game on low difficulty, and I contend that I will learn more from it. I also contend that at least half of what is learned on low difficulties falls into the category 'bad ideas that only work on low difficulty that become habits to be broken'.
Last but not least, you can always back down, and when you do you know what you need to figure out at the lower difficulty...or even if there is any point trying. I freely admit that after a half dozen mashings on Sid level I accepted that the guys who made Civ3 had me beaten and I would never 'master' their game. Had I done it any other way I'd probably still be trying to work my way up that chain.
EDIT: If anybody routinely wins Civ3 on Sid level I'm not sure I want to know.
But it is a general position so maybe someone here can look at my reasoning and tell me if I'm insane, or just eccentric.
First off, I figure there is little satisfaction in beating an opponent that is not playing their best. If I win on a low difficulty it is almost unavoidable that I will immediately play again. I have a lot of great games that merit replaying, playing a less than great game a second time just because it might be worth it at higher difficulty seems silly.
Second, there's the 'learning' aspect. I get mashed, badly, a lot. But I learn. I learn fast. One thing about serious mashings, they don't take very long usually. I can get mashed ten times on a high difficulty in the time it takes to win a game on low difficulty, and I contend that I will learn more from it. I also contend that at least half of what is learned on low difficulties falls into the category 'bad ideas that only work on low difficulty that become habits to be broken'.
Last but not least, you can always back down, and when you do you know what you need to figure out at the lower difficulty...or even if there is any point trying. I freely admit that after a half dozen mashings on Sid level I accepted that the guys who made Civ3 had me beaten and I would never 'master' their game. Had I done it any other way I'd probably still be trying to work my way up that chain.
EDIT: If anybody routinely wins Civ3 on Sid level I'm not sure I want to know.