I like my video games like I like my women.

The most recent game I played was COD4, and I feel that was a pretty well balanced game. What I really enjoy is the achievement system, because it gives you the choice of what difficult things you want to do. Some of them seem just totally impossible, and others are a challenge but doable. Like lugging a freaking gnome with you the entire game or the different medals on Portal or the airplane on COD4 that thinks somehow you can headshot every bad guy on the most difficult setting and still jump out of the plane in less than a minute.

 

Totally agreed with you, Sithman.

I'm not ashamed to say I most enjoy playing the MGS games when the setting is Very Easy. It affords you more freedom, more relaxation. In my opinion. Some people love tension and stress, I guess, even in their leisure time.

 

I have less free time than I used to play video games, so I much prefer "easy" games. I don't mind a challenge, but I hate when things get stupid, because it takes the fun out of the game. I've also grown to hate the idea of different difficulty levels in games ever since Shadows of the Empire and Goldeneye for the Nintendo 64. Relying on difficulty to add replayability is just lazy. And not letting you actually finish a game unless you play a certain difficulty level is just incredibly obnoxious.

Amazing.

 

Oh, definitely. I've tried to get into the MGS series before, but have never been able to. Just last night I tried again and was immensely frustrated from the very beginning. Just a lot of tension and stress I don't particularly need. Then I cranked things down to very easy, and so far it's been a blast.

 

You play it on normal. Period. You play it as was intended as the creators envisioned. It was crafted with normal in mind, and for anyone here that says "normal is too hard" you should try it again. It's not that hard, I've never played a game on normal that felt too hard. It's called normal for a reason, because any NORMAL gamer should be able to beat it.

That said though, I will play a game with not much replayability again on harder settings. Old school platformers and stuff like that. But when it comes to story based games, I can usually play it on normal and be content. I playing it for the story, not the game.

And I have issues with that, but that's a whole other post.

 

Actually, it's my game, I bought it, and the designers gave me the option to tune it down. If you want to play normal, that's fine, go right ahead. It's what I usually do, but I appreciate the designers decision to allow other options, because they understand there's no such thing as a 'normal' gamer. Because of that, they're reluctant to produce a game that appeals to a narrow demographic of so-called 'normal' gamers (and mind you, your definition of 'normal' seems to be 'hardcore'. you're forgetting that the vast majority of the market is represented by casual gamers). The inherent problem in 'single difficulty setting' is that there is no 'normal' type of gamer. All players vary in skill level. Thus, to accomodate for more gamers (and thus, to open your game up to a larger market), having an adjustable difficulty setting is necessary. Have a look as this chart:

[image=http://www.secondlanguagewriting.com/explorations/elements/flow.jpg]

As I said, players have various skill levels. That's a fact. To accomodate that (and to enable every gamer to reach the 'flow channel' between anxiety and boredom), developers include adjustable difficulty settings in their games.

 

I agree with you-- to a point. I agree that the Normal setting is the difficulty level at which games are designed to be played. Normal is the setting at which AI, weapons damage, and health revives were designed to function in the game. Thus, if you want to "truest" experience of, say, God of War, you play it on Normal. On that setting, the game will be as frustrating, enjoyable, and challenging as it was meant to be.

However, that only holds true if you want to experience the game as the developers intended. What if the developers designed a game to be very difficult--a true test of a gamer's mettle--but all you were looking for was a relaxing way to spend a few evenings? Then, by all means, change the difficulty setting to suit your desires. Alternatively, what if developers designed a game to be a laid-back walk in the park, but you were looking for something more challenging? Then by all means, ratchet up the difficulty!

Personally, I play all of my games on Normal, and I never use cheat codes.

 

Hammurabi and Sithman got it spot on, I think. Normal is simply the default- it can't cater to the tastes of every individual gamer.

To return to my example of Metal Gear Solid, I have played it on harder settings. Hell, once I even attempted about five minutes of the notorious European Extreme difficulty.

But ultimately I found I only really enjoyed playing on Very Easy. I can take my time, play around and if I feel like it I can ditch the stealth, whip out the AK-47 and cause a spot of blind and bloody mayhem. I'm sure that's not what the developers intended by 'Tactical Espionage Action' (as it says on the tin). But it's how I enjoy playing through the game.

 

same here story is everything

 

No, story is not everything. Try playing one of the console ports of Mafia. One of the best narratives and storytelling formulas I've ever seen in a video game, but the rest of it (the graphics, controls, etc.) just sucked, and I was unable to finish it.

 

I am not so much bothered by easy or hard, though I tend to select easy mode on games. What I hate is missing something. KOTOR 2: to get your first lightsaber together is rather involved. The fastest light side way has many steps and can be easily missed if you do things in a "wrong" order.
But yes I tend to try things out myself but if I feel lost or feel like I am spending way too much time trying to figure something out I go right for the help guides.

 

youre crazy mafia rocked!

 

Story is not everything, but it helps move the game along. A great game has a combination of storytelling and gameplay.

 

Though if one element is really good enough, I'm perfectly willing to accept 'meh' gameplay or a total lack of a story. MGS is one of those games I play for the story, even though I don't really enjoy the gameplay. And some games - Civilization, for example - don't really need a story, and probably wouldn't benefit from one.

 

Of course story is not everything, if it was it would be a book you twit. But unless it's a game of chess, a good computer game must have a decent plot / storyline. JK and XWA are prime examples.

There are games I've never finished due to complicated parts, but ther are games I've finished several times which had rediculously tedious things, like Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis with the Sun and moon disc things on the peg... man that was some shocking trial and error that took ages!

XWA got harder as the plot progressed and it was necessary I thought... even though occasionally I had to use invulnerability to get through one or two flights.

However, I believe everyone took this thread the wrong way, it was bias due to the forum it was posted in. Really, we should be focussed on the women side of things. Sithy, easy women are not great mate, and like a lion savouring the zebra, the thrill of the chase makes the feast so much better my friend

 

See Alpha Centauri.

Also SFL learn how to read Plato's Dialogue properly. Trial and error, pfft.

 

Alpha Centauri's also a great game, one I actually played before any of the Civ games. And yeah, the story in that game was pretty cool. But the point I was making was that Civilization doesn't really need a story. The gameplay itself is compelling that I really don't notice the absence.

 

Don't need it, doesn't mean they can't benefit from one, was what I was driving at.

 

I think he's specifically referring to the console version. The PC version does indeed rock.

 

Yep, the PC version of Mafia rocks, but I had to look on the walkthrough to get my hands on that RR Silver Arrow looking car

Anyone ever played the mid life NFS series (that in my opinion sucked) like Underground etc, at the end the pc cheats so bad, to beat it you need to redo the races hundreds of time till you finally get lucky >.<

 

bump

 

I view videogames as a sort of mental exercise (however, I'm not suggesting everyone has to view them this way). As such, I feel the need to push myself.

 

I tend to be a fairly normal player. I like the story and stuff, so I dont want to get cranked down on something. But playing it on easy is just to boring. Except for FPSs where I have to crank it up to hard otherwise its still too easy. I still find all the HL games too easy on hard lol.

 

Why?

 

there is more to discus