How do you prefer to play single player games?

[Noddie]

When you're playing a story-based game do you prefer to play on easy, Normal or hard difficulty settings?

Sometimes I think the decision is made for you when easy mode skips a bunch of content (that really annoys me). Seriously, devs. Flipping quit it.

Easy:if you basically want to kick back and enjoy a chilled experience, see all the game has to offer and not spend hours trying to beat that level or boss. Maybe you have (gasp) a life outside of gaming (kids, partner, job, chores, other hobbies etc) and don't want to spin 8 hours of content out to 18 hours with repetitive guff, side quests and borderline unbeatable bosses. Maybe you're getting on (as many gamers are now) and don't have the reflexes you used to. Maybe you don't find wash-die-repeat-wash-die-repeat until you fluke it much fun. Maybe you like to sit there with a single malt and chill whilst you play without a bumpy difficulty curve raising your bloody pressure.

Normal: Personally. I usually play on "Medium". I'm not going to kid myself i'm a hard-core gamer. I'm not, and I never really was although I was a very keen one years ago. I like to have a challenge in the game, sure, but I want it to be fun, and getting stuck for an hour before googling the answer isn't fun. Usually all content is in this difficulty level, so that's good.

Hard: You can try this for extra challenge after beating medium. To be honest, often just a way of spinning out a 8 hour game to 20 hours. But, then again, if you would like to experience it all again without completely repeating yourself this is a good way to do it. Sometimes it has extra parts in it as a "reward" for playing on Hard. Occasionally the devs stuff it up and it isn't actually possible to complete the game on this difficulty level, no matter what you do.

What do you prefer to play?

 

[Morbad]

Depends on the game and the source material.

If I'm playing a D&D based CRPG, I play with the "core rules" equivalent setting. If I'm playing a less abstract title, or one that is supposed to simulate something, I'll play on the difficulty setting that gives the characters or units I control mechanisms that most fit. Often this is "normal", but sometimes it's a higher-difficulty setting. For example, Crysis and Deus Ex I play on "delta" and "realistic", respectively. The goal, in any case, is to have my character play by the same set of rules as the other actors in the game, whenever possible.

Gameplay is important, even in story based games, because gameplay is the means by which the story is revealed, if not written. If I only wanted the story, without the gameplay, I'd have read the novelization or watched a YouTube recut.

 

[Arioch]

Medium/Normal all the way for me, I take it as the way the devs designed the game to be played.

I think the last time I played a game on Hard would’ve been Goldeneye & Perfect Dark on the N64, due to them having extra mission objectives on harder skill levels (and associated unlocks if you completed certain objectives).
Most games seem to up the difficulty by either giving you less things or make baddies into damage sponges. I’m very partial to customisable difficulty settings, though off the top of my head there’s only ARMA 3 and SkyrimVR (through ini edits) that have them in games I’m currently playing.

I still like to flash up (original flavour) Doom on Nightmare though

 

[lysan]

I love to play both, however I want to make the choice myself, I don't want to be shoehorned into a mode, SP or MP.
Right now I play a lot of Arma, MP and SP, it's a hate and love relationship it's full of bugs but when it works it's beautiful, the Old Man SP is pretty nice, when it works, warlords as MP is also great when it works and all the kiddies are at school and not polluting the teams.

 

[Old Duck]

I don't like bullet sponges, as it breaks my immersion. So if hard means I have to empty 20 clips into a enemy NPC who is wearing a T-shirt, I'll pass. If hard means a smarter AI or more enemies who are not bullet sponges, then I'm all for that. I'm also okay if hard mode means I'm no longer a bullet sponge, either.

I like how Dragon's Dogma does hard mode, as you are rewarded extra loot for picking a harder mode. Rewards scale with challenge, and that adds incentive.

 

[Vasea Azure]

I dont play games to challenge myself, I got enough of this in real life. With the specific exception of Dark Souls games, due to their very nature that for some reason I keep playing/banging my head against lol.
I always pick normal or medium depends on my mood and game.

 

[lysan]

I don't like bullet sponges, as it breaks my immersion. So if hard means I have to empty 20 clips into a enemy NPC who is wearing a T-shirt, I'll pass. If hard means a smarter AI or more enemies who are not bullet sponges, then I'm all for that. I'm also okay if hard mode means I'm no longer a bullet sponge, either.

I like how Dragon's Dogma does hard mode, as you are rewarded extra loot for picking a harder mode. Rewards scale with challenge, and that adds incentive.

Then playing the Arma Old man SP would be just up your alley

 

[Mole HD]

I always play single player RP games on easy. I'm more attracted to the story than any challenge on offer...no other reason.

 

[Darkfyre99]

It really depends upon the nature of game. I generally avoid "story-based" games, usually because they're railroading you into following a singular storyline, completely ignoring the main advantage of a video game: its interactive so you can give the player actual agency in the game's setting.

That being said, I either choose normal, difficult, or ideally survival difficulty levels. This depends upon what the nature of the difficulty increases are. Like @Old Duck above, its whether a game makes enemies the enemies bullet sponges to make the game harder, or if it makes enemies smarter and/or makes the player less of "action hero," that determines where I put the difficulty level.

Fallout 4's survival difficulty kind of nailed the sweet spot for me: enemies weren't exactly bullet sponges if you took time to aim, but you yourself could easily be crippled if you got shot. Combined with the survival mechanics, I really felt like I was surviving in post-apocalyptic world. Pity the "main story" was so dang obvious, as well as mandatory to advance other parts of the narrative.

 

[amigacooke]

I play in the mode that allows me to make progress, which tends to be 'easy'

 

[Old Duck]

Speaking of, I have my eye on STAR WARS Jedi: Fallen Order, and having watched videos of game play, I don't like how enemies survive multiple hits from a lightsaber as if it were a wet noodle rather than a laser sword that cuts through solid steel. This is a game I will likely play on easy mode just for the sake of immersion. A game like this tends to draw me in more from the story than the "challenge" anyhow.

 

[lysan]

Game designers are lazy, I read a business case a few years ago, where a small group of people wanted to build an amazing (on paper) game, however they could not get the financing needed to start the development.

The idea was that everything around the character was reflected in the local media, news papers and radio/TV, so all the events of a big enough importance would be covered. Basically it was GTA on steroids (open world) and I would guess that to make it happen you would need more than the 20 MIL USD they were asking for. but the idea was interesting.

 

[Chris Simon]

Speaking of, I have my eye on STAR WARS Jedi: Fallen Order, and having watched videos of game play, I don't like how enemies survive multiple hits from a lightsaber as if it were a wet noodle rather than a laser sword that cuts through solid steel. This is a game I will likely play on easy mode just for the sake of immersion. A game like this tends to draw me in more from the story than the "challenge" anyhow.

It's challenging even on easy.
The difficulty of the game doesn't increase or decrease your damage or enemy health. Rather it increases or decreases enemy damage to you and more importantly - higher difficulties tighten the parry timing. I.e. on easy, you can press the parry button when you see enemy starting their attack and it will commence automatically. On highest difficulty you have to parry exactly on time (we're talking microseconds) or else you get hit.

It's easier than Sekiro but it requires a lot of finese and foresight even on easy. One of the differences between Souls games and JTFO is animation canceling or lack thereof. In JTFO you can't cancel your attack by dodging or parrying. That means no split-second decisions. When you commit to an attack you commit to the attack and better hope the enemy doesn't attack back and isn't faster in hitting you.

In other words - aside from parry timing the difficutly doesn't matter much. On easy you are three-hit kill, on hardest you are two-hit kill. The only really noticeable difference is in the boss fights where the parrying matters MUCH more and therefore they are much easier (read: less frustrating) on easy.

That all being said, I loved it and I wholeheartedly recommend it.

 

[Dutchman141]

I usually play on normal or easy, it depends how strongly story driven a game is.
When the story is strong then I play on easy, I like a good story.
I play games for fun and relaxation, playing on hard and get myself frustrated doesn't fit in there.
I don't care for achievments, a game needs to deliver fun and some "away" time from my daily stuff.

 

[Rick6549]

Most games i play dont have easy mode, its all the way or nothing

 

[Kayweg]

I will usually start out on the normal/medium settings.
I have a similar view on this (rightly or wrongly) as the one Arioch states further up the thread, i take it as the dev-intended default setting.
Of course, the problem is that it's a very subjective thing, difficulty levels i mean.
In some games i played, the mid setting felt too easy to me personally, in others too difficult.
At the end of the day it's not a competition, you adjust the settings and play with what fits your approach.
Once you feel comfy, you may want to up the ante and play on a harder setting, and if not, no harm done either.

 

[Demascus]

Depends on the game. If the devs version of a "harder" difficulty means the AI cheats then thats a no for me. For the total war series, on higher difficulty the A.I. gets a massive economic boost and adhears to non of its rules. A faction with a single settlement with a burned hut can produce and support multiple massive 20 stack armies.

If it is a difficulty that punishes hard for player mistakes or the AI is clever and makes me think. Then yes, bring on the tears, dark souls edition! XD

 

[Noddie]

Yes, that's the one that annoys the crud out of me. The "difficulty" is just upping the health count of the enemy so they're harder to kill. Maybe slightly, but make the effort to plonk some extra enemys in and maybe take out some pickups.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I've played and loved the Baldur's Gate series for decades. They have always had "difficulty" sliders but I've mostly always played on Core Rules. Even then it can absolutely brutally unforgiving at low levels. In early versions - it was even possible to create a character that could never get any further than the first map without an inevitable death game over.

Absolutely loved it

 

[Sysmon]

The enemies rarely make sense on hard mode in games where they just scale them up on higher difficulties, so I tend to play on easy to medium depending on the feel. The few games that do change difficulty by adding more enemies, reduce timers or set other criteria I happily play on the higher difficulty setting - at least for later playthroughs.

S