Adaptive difficulty still isn't standard in games

>adaptive difficulty still isn't standard in games

Play on the hardest setting 100% of the time, you pussy bitch.

Git gud

I dont like adaptive difficulty.
If I get stuck at a hard part I wanna actually beat that hard part, not have the game take enemies away and give me a pass.

Bring back the days of being required to beat a game on hard to even fight the real final boss and other shit. People who suck and refuse to learn don't deserve to reach the end.

This modern gaming garbage where everyone should be able to finish a game makes me fucking sick.

It should be an option or you should be able to turn it off because of this

>play poorly on adaptive diffuculty
>breeze through the entire game since they're compensating for how bad I'm playing

Why would anybody like adaptive difficulty?

>If I get stuck at a hard part I wanna actually beat that hard part
Then it should be challenging, yet not excessively so. I think adaptive difficulty should exist to make the entire game challenging, but not decrease the challenge for certain parts.

>Playing on anything other than Ultra-Violence

Because you find most games to be unchallenging? I would want adaptive difficulty to make games more challenging, not less so.

My nigga.

Just play on the hardest setting.

Excessively challenging = bad is a shitter meme.

How exactly would you design that? set areas where the difficulty goes up or down by adding/removing AI functions or enemy placement? because that sounds like a fuck ton more work than just removing obstacles like most adaptive difficulty systems

>do well
>game gets harder
>do worse because game got harder
>game gets easier
>start doing well
>repeat ad infinitum
I disrespect your opinions on game design.

>have friend who goes on and on about gamer culture
>plays nothing but AAA console games on easy
>asked to borrow my bloodborne
>died to the werewolf you're expected to die to and turned it off during the loading screen to return it
>gave up during the guesthouse on re7
>Uses the exp share for babies and still gets stuck on a totem in pokemon

>Just play on the hardest setting.
This often isn't hard enough, or makes the game simply unfun by forcing the player to play slower. Ain't nobody going to say that the Veteran mode on Call of Duty is actually challenging, of it if it is, it's more like a test of your patience to see how circumspectly and conservatively you can go through the game.

>have friend who goes on and on about gamer culture
>gamer culture

What did he mean by this?

Why would I want adaptive difficulty when people think increasing difficulty should effect how many bullets a person can take to the head? There are major problems with AI that need to be worked out before we focus on the currently over compensating mess of adaptive difficulty.

Yeah, but it's more rewarding when you beat shit. The more sweat on my controller, the more fun I'm having.

ymmv, though. I agree that some games are still way too easy on the hardest setting.

>it isn't actually challenging, it's more like a challenge

>How exactly would you design that?
My immediate response would be to make the game faster, which always makes it harder, but that's probably not possible within hardware limitations unless the game as the normal speed isn't that hardware intensive, or there's a way to decrease the graphical quality as the game's speed increases. Apparently, God Hand did this very well, but I haven't played it, so I'm going to read up on how they managed this.

That's such a shitter excuse. I get that RPG games like Fallout 3 fuck it up, but that difficulty design philosophy is usually fine.

>had to put horizon zero dawn on vhard from the beginning
>still breeze through it

Actually, that's not what it would be. There would be things that would encourage staying at a certain level, and it would be more like making sure the player is always challenged.

Besides, it worked in God Hand, didn't it?

Thanks. You just killed any desire I had to buy it.

>The more sweat on my controller, the more fun I'm having.
I want to use Sup Forums buzzwords, but the term "artificial difficulty," comes to mind, where you don't think you're actually overcoming a challenge as testing your own patience.

what backward ass game did this?

It feels like a "cooler" Far Cry 4

not him, but I did the same and had the same experience. On very hard though two hits and you're likely dead, it's just very easy to maneuver to avoid attacks and limit the robots attacks by destroying their parts

Super Smash Bros Melee with Giga Bowser and Crazy Hand comes to mind

So is Call of Duty challenging to you on Veteran? If it somehow isn't, they could make even harder modes that basically amount to playing every single section taking potshots, and going for cover, or even more spawning enemies, or checkpoints farther from each other. This would make the game harder, but it's questionable if this is actually challenging, because you're using the same skills you would under less difficult modes, but playing the game, much, much slower.

>That's such a shitter excuse

I'm an ex CS champion but because I expect enemies to go down in 1-2 shots to the head I'm a shitter? There are entire essays and books on AI programming that say increasing HP is the worst form of difficulty but I'm a shitter? Yeah nah. If I'm paying top dollar for hyper realism enemies should go down in 1-2 shots to the head. Make them aim better. Give them better tactics.

I play every game on the hardest setting, and I've only been aggravated by shit like Fallout 4. Even games designed to crush your balls like BUTCHER or The Evil Within on AKUMU feel good.

Awesome. I'm out. You just saved me eighty bucks.

>increasing difficulty should effect how many bullets a person can take to the head?
This isn't a good way to increase difficulty, as it just makes bullet sponges.

Name five (5) (V) games. For real.

Most modern games like that had enemies with helmets to begin with.

You're welcome user. Glad I could save someone from this mistake

see That was my point user. There are bigger problems with game difficulty than whether or not it is adaptive.

Super robot taisen OG2

Okay. Maybe those games are better designed than I thought. However, I don't like replaying sections that I failed due to having too little patience, (because I hate waiting for my health to regenerate, or waiting for enemy attacks), or not memorizing enemy attacks I could have no way of accounting for before they attacked me.

Why play anything other than normal, how the game was intended?
You see im not a fucking neet and dont have all day to play games.

Death Incarnate and Ultra-violence are the most well balanced difficulty settings in any game ever.

>prove me wrong.

If enemies with helmets taking three or four shots to down is bad, so is enemies with perfect aiming and grenade tossing skills. Honestly sounds like you're a shitter who used to play an online shooter competitively.

I have nothing against the option for adaptive difficulty, but it does take away budget and development time to properly implement.

Literally all of them.

A helmet doesn't stop the fact that you'd be lucky to not get knocked the fuck out if not knocked on your ass by the first bullet.

Okay, what about increasing game speed? I think this would an incredible way to make games harder while not demanding more patience from players. Of course, as I mentioned before, there are hardware limitations with this solution.

90% of the time Normal is brain-dead, mind numbing garbage.

Most games aren't even slighly balanced unless you're playing on the hardest setting.

>If enemies with helmets taking three or four shots to down is bad, so is enemies with perfect aiming and grenade tossing skills.

Except the latter is much more realistic than the former you mongol. If it were real life, the difficulty would be determined by how well the enemy can aim.

It could be possible on PC, but a major developer would have to implement it successfully for it to catch on.

Adaptive difficulty is shit, Spyro 3 is the perfect example.

> Adaptive difficulty, but doesn't tell you.
> Only way to manually set difficulty is through a complicated sequence of button presses that were probably dev testing stuff they forgot to take out.
> game is piss easy anyway because it's a comfy 3D platformer, dying is rare.
> difficulty naturally gets raised to max
> no one even notices
> until certain mini-games where difficulty affected variables have a huge impact on gameplay
> Bently Boxxing becomes nearly impossible with the ultra agessive AI
> inverse happens as well: die a lot on an easy failed minigame
> game becomes even more baby mode than it was before.

Why do you give a fuck about making games hyper realistic? They're toys, nigga.

Depends on what type of game you are trying to make but I'd be fine with that.

Dumb frogposter

>Normal is too easy
>Hard just makes the game tedious by giving everything billions of health or turning the RNG up

>Lists a kid game as the reason why adaptive difficulty is shit.

>why play anything other than normal, how the game was intended
This arguement only works for games where the "difficulty" increase is by adding/taking away health and/or adding/reducing damage dealt. In games where it changes the mechanics it's easily a better experience on higher difficulties

Well, are they?
I should check it because I admit never-ever played on anything than normal.

I haven't played God Hand, but this sounds like one of the best way to always keep the game challenging:

> While in combat, the player can monitor a "Difficulty Level" bar that dynamically adjusts to how much damage the player is dealing or receiving.[7] If the player gets caught up in a flurry of punches and combos, the level will drop. If the player deals a large number of unanswered attacks to their enemies, then the level will increase. The bar consists of numerical levels one through three with a fourth level designated "Die" being the highest overall.[9] During levels one and two, the enemies will not attack the player unless they are in his line of sight or he is attacking them. On levels three and Die, the enemies will attack regardless of the camera position.

This wouldn't work well with games that have regenerative health, because the natural response for players would be to play the game more conservatively and slower, which doesn't make it more fun as much as frustrating and tedious.

I wonder how this influenced speedrunning Spyro 3 in terms of routing it

The only things I really want in terms of difficulty are equivalents to Legendary Dark Knight mode. ie: Shitloads more enemies, all of which are markedly more powerful than the norm, and are placed in droves everywhere you could possibly go.

I would literally cum if I could play ACFA or ACVD with massively increased enemy count per map.

Good fuck punishing the player for doing well and rewarding him for sucking

The 3-5 shots to the head thing is just stupid and unaesthetic unless the enemy is a monster. It also hurts death animations and physics. I don't need games to be hyper realistic, the problem is these games take themselves seriously with cinematic bullshit then every gun is a fucking bb gun because the devs are too lazy to even do crysis level AI.

>Depends on what type of game
I don't think it does. At some point, reducing or increasing health doesn't work, and redesigning levels isn't feasible for every possible difficulty. Increasing speed always makes a game more difficult, and if adjustments have to be made with the game, they shouldn't be that hard. It would also open new possibilities for speedrunning.

Ultimately, I don't give a fuck what setting you play on. If I'm not being adequately challenged, I fucking hate the game. That's just how I operate. Kingdoms of Amalur and Knights of the Old Republic are a couple of the worst offenders. Downright unplayable.

>do worse
>game gets easier
What if it doesn't?

This. Playing a game slower or having to repeat sections because you're too impatient doesn't make them more fun, and it's questionable if it makes them more tedious.

it's questionable if it makes them more challenging*

I'm proud nobody mentioned Mgs v since the adaptive difficulty is a complete lie

That's a blatant shitter excuse, though. Name five (5) (V) action games that actually require patience. Sitting in cover for five seconds waiting for your health to regenerate does not require patience. For real. If you're that impatient, shit's a personal problem.

Would you mind going into detail? I know nothing about that game's mechanics.

This

I should have said this before, but I didn't: by this logic, anybody could just select a lower difficulty if they wanted to get through a game. A compromise is having the player select a minimum difficulty or maximum difficulty or both and then the difficulty would go between them, challenging the player as much as wants. But it's still important that the game actually presents challenges to the player that don't just force him to play more tediously.

>Kojima went off about enemies getting gear to counter your play style(use gas a lot, enemies get gas masks)
>use melee the whole game
>enemies still get gas masks and heavy armor

>Name five (5) (V) action games that actually require patience.
Do I have to? If I have to constantly run for cover, waiting several seconds tor my health to regenerate, popping up, get hurt, and repeat, I consider this a test of patience, when I could avoid dying all the time if I did this, and I only die because I find monotonous.

>Sitting in cover for five seconds waiting for your health to regenerate does not require patience.
I disagree, and if this is getting through the entire game, it also doesn't require challenge.

lol

>I disagree, and if this is getting through the entire game, it also doesn't require challenge.

Define challenge, then.

Sometimes it's restrictively difficult.

What does that even mean?

challenge: a task or situation that tests someone's abilities.

Unless "patience" is an ability, I don't consider games that increase difficulty by increasing RNG, forcing the player to constantly run to and wait in cover more challenging. That's basically what the harder settings of Call of Duty are, unless you've memorized how to get through each section as quickly as possible, which is what speedrunners do, which doesn't make it more fun.

You have to play unnecessarily slowly, or mechanics and abilities become null and void.

Are you retarded

Why would making the game faster be your first thought

This board really is full of retards

>Why would making the game faster be your first thought
Because I know that increasing enemy RNG doesn't make the gamer harder, just more tedious.

>Are you retarded
>This board really is full of retards
kek, I interested in why you had this reaction, or why this solution is so abhorrent to you.

>frogposter
>dumb
at least this is standard

>die ONCE because you forgot to pay attention
>the second try is twice as easy.

It was the last straw, and I dont even know if it was really a thing. Leveling in XIV was such a fucking snoozefest.

>literally wanting the communism of videogame difficulties

Clever, but that argument doesn't follow, or everyone would play on the easiest difficulty.