Games which work better on higher difficulties

My first arena topic in ... a year and a half? Something like that.

Today I overheard a conversation panning a game which I have played, and it started me thinking. I played that particular game twice, once on normal and once on the hardest level. The experience was very different, with me disliking the first playthrough so much that I honestly have no idea why I allowed it back in my xbox. More on this game later.

For years it has been a generally accepted fact in the gaming world that increasing the difficulty level above normal does little to change the experience, aside from making the AI cheat and the enemies into bullet sponges. Most people find this tedious. Occasionally there's a game which takes on a whole new life when you raise the difficulty. Currently I can only think of a few.

Batman: Arkham Asylum. On hard you no longer get a lightning flash above enemies' heads indicating that they are about to attack. This means you need to pay close attention to what is going on - and that increases your situation awareness to the point where your combo counts spiral and you glide through entire large fights without getting hit. Enemies do cause more damage, yet somehow it feels right instead of cheap, raising the stakes and reinforcing the message that the combat system is all about avoiding getting hit.

Bioshock 1. My hard/no vita chambers playthrough was tense, exciting and atmospheric. Best of all, it forced me to improvise, to scramble, to scrounge, to wring every last advantage out of stealth, and - finally - become an unstoppable dealer of death. On lower difficulties you can simply walk through shooting everything, barely exploring the systems the game has to offer.

Galactic Civilisations II. There's a range between normal and the very highest difficulties where the AI gets smarter and does not yet begin to cheat. I suppose you could say the 'hard' range instead of the 'very hard'.

Mass Effect 1. On normal and lower combat is quite dull. You don't need to do much more than point and shoot. On hardcore it's gone a bit too far the other way, and it takes forever to kill anything. Insane, now insane is just right. You have to use your team's abilities, customise your weapons, play smart, and maintain situational awareness. Shame ME2 didn't learn anything from this.

And now the game which prompted this thread. On normal mode the combat system was broken and lousy, the targeting crap, the camera useless, the gameplay dull, and the experience completely at odds with what your character was meant to be. The upgrade system felt pointless. I have no idea why, over a year later, I felt compelled to try the game again on the highest difficulty. Shortly after beginning this second playthrough I was starting to realise that everything had changed and that the new way worked a far sight better. If you attempted to play as you were meant to, you died. In the first room. Repeatedly. The group of basic enemies shot you down before you could blink. Playing in the opposite way to the developer's intention eventually saw survival of that first room, after half an hour of experimenting and refining my approaches. And from there the game flowered. When a single attack will get you killed, stay unseen. When closing to range gets you smushed, attack from a distance. When your primary weapons are ineffective examine every last alternative in your tool box. Utilise patience. Observe your enemies, watch for their patrol patterns and identify the moments when they are separated into more vulnerable groups. Find the limits of their awareness, their range, their attacks. Progress inch by inch, enemy by enemy. Anticipate each upgrade, value them, choose them wisely, because now the tiny little increases are the difference between life and death. Suddenly most of the flaws become irrelevant. The camera is not battling to keep up with the action. The targeting is under control. You aren't using the broken attacks. The game?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. When being Vader's flashy attack-pitbull assassin won't work, be the stealthy assassin who is at one with the basic force powers. Be the wiser, less ostentatious Jedi of the original trilogy, not the showboaters of the prequels. Hide. Sneak. Skulk. Divide. Bypass. And when you fight, fight smarter instead of harder. Shame that the good version of the gameplay was entirely unintentional!

The people I overheard were panning it as rubbish, a waste of anyone's time. I was tempted to tell them about Sith Lord mode ...

All the same, I wouldn't call it great and I wouldn't play through again. Some of those sections were downright gruelling, with many repeats before I found a way to survive.

What games do you think belong in this category?

I can see why Bioshock 1 is in this category. I loved System Shock 2 and Bioshock seemed to have all the elements I liked in that title but it left me cold. I suspect it was purely a function of the difficulty level. Whereas in SS2, you lived in fear, scrimping and saving ammo, hiding around corners, in Bioshock you just walked around blasting everything to pieces. I should try it on the higher difficulty level, but I found the original experience so disappointing I have not had the motivation to return.

I confess I tend to play games at default difficulty levels, for various reasons:

1) Aversion to reloading saves. In RPGs/Shooters, you have to reload if you die, which is a great immersion breaker. In strategy games, I can't bear to lose favoured elite units, wonder races etc and so reload. I know it's a big character flaw and I should be more self-disciplined.

2) If it is too hard, it stops being fun. In some games, at higher difficulty levels, the experience becomes closer to work than play and I am out. If I want to invade Poland in WW2 in Panzer General, then I want a beer and pretzels lightning war - not to refight WW1 in the trenches against pumped up Polish infantry. If I am a heroic knight starting off on my quest for glory, I don't want to be struck dead by the first irritable specimen of wildlife I encounter.

3) Higher difficulty levels encourage "gamey" play. For example, if the stats are rigged to favour AI in melee, you shoot them to death, or you use grenades or camp behind corners or lure and kite etc. Or in strategy games, you become ultra aggressive and rush the enemy (Civ, I am looking at you). That's the reason I prefer TW battles on "normal" as it can permit more use of "normal" tactics and Civ on middling difficulty, so I can engage in a form of diplomacy other than that espoused by Shaka and Ghengis etc.

My pet peeve is where "normal" is actually biased to the player. And the next difficulty level up favours the AI. So there is no "normal" anymore. Recent TWs and Civs have tended to be guilty of this.

Agreed. I play on normal/default most of the time. If a game is heavily story oriented, or is one where I want to enjoy the atmosphere and relax, I'll play on easy so I can soak up the experience without needing to worry about being stuck on a boss or whatever. Strategy games are the exception to this: I'll take the hardest difficultly level before the AI begins to cheat in a way I find off-putting.

Now and then I do enjoy a challenging game - provided it is the right kind of challenge. I love the infamous Demon's Souls on PS3, for example. When I die I want to know that it was my fault, not because the game caught me in some cheap way (control failures, bad camera angles, bad frame rate, etc), stacked the odds against me in overly cheap ways (hello Civilisation!) or because I can't smash buttons quickly enough. I know when a game has it right because I'm immediately able to say "I should have X instead of Y" while the game over screen loads.

Bioshock on hard with vita chambers disabled reminded me more of SS2 than my initial run did. The medical area is by far the hardest part, and IMO the most enjoyable. Two or three hits will kill you, and you barely have any resources to work with. If you can scrape a victory against the first two Big Daddies the first time you encounter them then the situation brightens as you can buy a good set of survival based upgrades much sooner than if you returned to battle them with better weapons. I didn't die many times, which surprised me considerably. I'm lousy at FPS games and expected to give up early on, same as a lot of other people do. Instead I survived, thrived, and breezed through some of the parts commonly found to be difficult. I actually found the final few levels to be easier on hard than I did on my original run. Bioshock 2 was such a disappointment after this; it felt like most of my preferred gameplay options were missing, I disliked the weapon selection, and the atmosphere was a complete miss.

How about a "hardcore mode"? Not a difficulty, per se, but it acts like one. Dungeons of Dredmoor has three difficulty levels, and a hardcore mode toggle in addition. If you die on any of the difficulties while playing in hardcore mode, your save is deleted. You also cannot just save; you have to save and exit if you want to save, preventing save-scumming. This restriction is not present in non-hardcore mode.
Hardcore mode in DoD makes the game more strategic in that you cant just blindly run from room to room, unless you like rerolling a new character.

Fallout 3 and 4.

Hardcore mode aka blast from the past mode. Many of my first games were, essentially, locked into hardcore mode unless you learned to create backup save files via DOS and over-wrote any save where your character was unfortunate enough to die. I used to dread seeing the prison and funeral scenes in X-Wing and TIE Fighter!

The Mount & Blade series has something similar. You have to choose whether you can exit the game without saving or if everything is saved. I suppose Shogun II's legendary mode also counts. Diablo 2 too, very famous for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Fallout 3 and 4.

---

Turning the enemies into bulletsponges improves the game? Perhaps it makes it challenging, certainly doesn't improve them as RPGs.

Gameboy Tetris! 9-5 was one of my favourite pastimes, with a 1 in 3 success rate. After that, all other versions, including continuous mode on the Gameboy, seemed to pale.

Crysis.

It goes from being an average game you can Rambo through to being a very good stealth game with Korean-speaking guards (they speak Engrish on the lower settings) who you can't overhear the tactics of. When your cover is blown you have to use your suit powers smartly to get out of some situations.

Parasite Eve II. On Normal Mode Aya does normal damage via weapons and the baddies 1/2 dmg. On Bounty Mode, Aya does normal dmg. as do the baddies but.....the high-level golems start showing up right in the first mission. On Scavenger Mode, Aya does 1/2 dmg, the baddies do dbl dmg and weapon choice is severely restricted.

And then there's Nightmare Mode, which the game devs claim no-one has ever beaten........

My favorite console game of all time (for the original Playstation I). Bounty Mode is the most satisfying as it requires the player to plan out their attack and use every weapon in the arsenal to defeat all the various mutants that stand in Aya's way, particularly the lethal golems which normally don't show up until the next to last area. The customization of weapons and armor are unique, IMHO, and can change the way you play. Still have it, and still dust it off once a year to play it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Turning the enemies into bulletsponges improves the game? Perhaps it makes it challenging, certainly doesn't improve them as RPGs.

---

that's only part of what changed, and while it might of been the primary result in 3, in what he calls 4, which i assume is new vegas, the harder setting adds realism by reintroducing the effects of not eating, drinking or sleeping, which meant you needed to take into consideration elements which any survivalist would actually need to plan for, and it also made pretty much everything at the outset more dangerous and realistically restricted some of your options about where you would safely consider going

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easytarget

that's only part of what changed, and while it might of been the primary result in 3, in what he calls 4, which i assume is new vegas, the harder setting adds realism by reintroducing the effects of not eating, drinking or sleeping, which meant you needed to take into consideration elements which any survivalist would actually need to plan for, and it also made pretty much everything at the outset more dangerous and realistically restricted some of your options about where you would safely consider going

---

Hardcore mode was independent of the difficulty setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Hardcore mode was independent of the difficulty setting.

---

True, I still think of it as a difficult setting, it made it more difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easytarget

True, I still think of it as a difficult setting, it made it more difficult.

---

Not if you already roleplayed such restrictions in Fallout 3 anyway. :wink:

True. And it's easy to see how you ended up w/ nearly 5k in posts here. :laugh4:

That's the first time anybody has ever commented on my post count, I feel like a real veteran now! :laugh4:

Most of them actually come from the mafia games in the Gameroom (a few forums down), you should check it out.

Mount & Blade is another game that benefits from high difficulty. There is the saving option, as Froggy mentioned, which means you can't reload after a defeat. Well you can alt F4 before the map screen, but that would be lame and I certainly would never do such a thing. :shifty: The difficultly levels relating to damage also make a huge change, going from kiting around on a horse couching everything on 1/4 damage to full damage and manual block on foot is huge. I enjoyed the game far more when I came off the horse, and again when I discovered the damage level can be changed.

Thief of course, not being allowed to kill completely changes the game, it should not be played any other way.

Brothers in Arms: Road To Hill 30. Turning it onto the highest difficulty and turning off the crosshair makes for an immensely difficult game that requires you to really ensure that you get the most out of both of your squads.

Mass Effect, turning from normal to hard makes gameplay a challenge. Turning on the no-save-unless-quitting choice in M&B makes it a much more tense game. One small screw up and in game months could go down the drain.

CR

Demon/Dark Souls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Demon/Dark Souls.

---

:sweetheart: it did *ahum* get on my nerves sometimes though. Maneater burn in hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

Crysis.

It goes from being an average game you can Rambo through to being a very good stealth game with Korean-speaking guards (they speak Engrish on the lower settings) who you can't overhear the tactics of. When your cover is blown you have to use your suit powers smartly to get out of some situations.

---

I shall have to remember that. I picked Crysis up when it went on sale for a couple of pounds and have not got around to playing it yet. FPS aren't my cup of tea (with a few exceptions) but the possibilities the suit and stealth offered made me think it was worth a try at that price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Thief of course, not being allowed to kill completely changes the game, it should not be played any other way.

---

As soon as I coshed someone with a blackjack in the demo and realised that they were unconscious instead of dead a big smile spread across my face. I replayed that demo level multiple times as I waited for release. It was one of those defining lightbulb moments in my gaming life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Demon/Dark Souls.

---

As excellent as they are, the Souls duo don't really count for this topic because they don't offer a choice of difficulty. New game plus ramps up the difficulty, but again it's not optional if you want to continue with that character.

Which reminds me, why is there no Dark Souls topic?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easytarget

that's only part of what changed, and while it might of been the primary result in 3, in what he calls 4, which i assume is new vegas, the harder setting adds realism by reintroducing the effects of not eating, drinking or sleeping, which meant you needed to take into consideration elements which any survivalist would actually need to plan for, and it also made pretty much everything at the outset more dangerous and realistically restricted some of your options about where you would safely consider going

---

I RP'd these restrictions in FO3 and was pleased to see them built into NV, but I would have enjoyed it more if it was harder to find food, drink and places to sleep.

As it is it seems pretty easy just to carry around purified water, bed down on a nearby mattress or eat some pilfered maize and get around the restrictions that way. Anyone know of a mod which makes them more scarce?

Having said that, even with the plentiful supply of each it is still fun to catch yourself saying to someone on IM "I'm just trying to find a toilet to drink out of" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Turning the enemies into bulletsponges improves the game? Perhaps it makes it challenging, certainly doesn't improve them as RPGs.

---

As I understand it, it also increases their damage. Furthermore, the 10% xp bonus of very hard means you level quicker, which means the enemies you encounter the first time you enter a zone or higher difficulty. I should have mentioned that I also turn off auto-saves. I prefer encounters where you have to think twice and plan before running and gunning in, and prefer games like fallout cause me to frequently run out of ammo, run out of stimpacks, and be broke, so I have to have alternate plans. I also don't reload when I lose companions. I feel this evens out the fact that by the time I reach level 30 I will be near-uber, and that I can insta-heal and sleep of wounds in 8 hrs. I tend to mid-max my skills, avoiding spoilers like knowing that I can get a SPECIAL point x at a certain place with bobblehead, i.e. I make that x a 10 anyway. I really like 1 AG and 1 LUCK, with max intel and max end

Playing the expansions of FO3 at level 30, saving the large battles (end game, evergreen mills, slaver hqs, the mall) until level 30 makes for fun, memorable encounters. It also means the landmarks you discover at high levels have high level spawns when you return via fast travel. I don't play for XP, I play to get my butt handed to me. At level 30 Mothership Zeta is incredibly difficult, and I will probably deplete all my mini-nukes because I am almost out of stimpacks.

The games that come sponteanously into my mind are very, very, very old: Doom and Doom II on ultraviolence. Great memories. The games still weren't that hard, but the pure massacre, butchering hordes and hordes of monsters; it was a fantastic experience at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Bioshock 1. My hard/no vita chambers playthrough was tense, exciting and atmospheric. Best of all, it forced me to improvise, to scramble, to scrounge, to wring every last advantage out of stealth, and - finally - become an unstoppable dealer of death. On lower difficulties you can simply walk through shooting everything, barely exploring the systems the game has to offer.

---

For myself that game was easy/boring on all difficulties. The first 2 levels/areas were pretty decent and difficult (no ammo, interesting, tense). After that the game got lazy, pedantic and easy. One of the worst games I've ever played, just a lazy linear shooter.

Not to sound mean, I just freakin hate that game. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

For myself that game was easy/boring on all difficulties. The first 2 levels/areas were pretty decent and difficult (no ammo, interesting, tense). After that the game got lazy, pedantic and easy. One of the worst games I've ever played, just a lazy linear shooter.

Not to sound mean, I just freakin hate that game. =)

---

The game should have ended shortly after the golf club IMO. The later levels were not much fun on either playthrough. Too many obvious fetch-quests, one really annoying gimmick, not much interesting material for the story, most of the decent characters were gone, dull level design, all culminating in a terrible escort sequence and lousy boss. The combat balance completely fell down; I had become so powerful that giving splicers electrified weapons and more HP was not enough to slow me down, despite some of my weapons suddenly becoming useless. Unfortunately the second game moulded itself on this half of the original. Blergh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

The games that come sponteanously into my mind are very, very, very old: Doom and Doom II on ultraviolence. Great memories. The games still weren't that hard, but the pure massacre, butchering hordes and hordes of monsters; it was a fantastic experience at the time.

---

Agreed. Guilt-free killing is why fantastic games are fun. Doom and Halo were good for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

For myself that game was easy/boring on all difficulties. The first 2 levels/areas were pretty decent and difficult (no ammo, interesting, tense). After that the game got lazy, pedantic and easy. One of the worst games I've ever played, just a lazy linear shooter.

Not to sound mean, I just freakin hate that game. =)

---

I thought I was alone in the world in not liking Bioshock. I got bored of it after the first level...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

I thought I was alone in the world in not liking Bioshock. I got bored of it after the first level...

---

//raises hand

Add another one to that list, it bored me to tears. It doesn't really do anything wrong, besides boring me that is