Why are games so easy nowadays?

...

Badly designed, rushed out to meet deadlines, made to appease casuals

t. buttblusted bloodborne baby
play on death march nigga, then we can talk

Death March is kinda hard for the first 20hrs buddy, after that you can steamroll everything, 1 on 1's become a complete joke and the only difficulty comes from multiple enemies and even then you'll have a really comfortable routine to make them easy enough.

> not a single day w/o W3 thread
I wonder how Sup Forums looked like when the game released? (Was busy playing it and avoided spoilers)

Death March is artificial difficulty at its finest

Because you can actually fit a sufficient amount of content onto disks (or distribute digitally and ignore any storage caps) and thus you don't need to pad out the game by making it impossible to beat and/or by forcing the player to replay the early levels over and over again to fool the players into thinking they're getting a decent amount of gameplay for their money.

I think the hardest game I played until now is How to be a man and Witcher 2. But Witcher 2 is only hard because the devs don´t know how to make good gameplay. But I don´t know anything about witcher 3 gameplay.

It's hard only first 10 hrs (if ya played on normal and know how battle system works)

>you don't need to pad out the game by making it impossible to beat and/or by forcing the player to replay the early levels over and over again
people are just spoiled by savepoints and quicksaves

and if games doesnt have them people whine

>OMG GOTY GOTY POOLAND DOES IT AGAIN
>I never played a witcher game but I can safely say wither 3 is the best in the series
>look at this webm where geraldo is gonna fug sum bitches! god, he's so handsome and badass

Because them being challenging is a sin nowadays.

If a game is hard the autists will start yellin muh artifical difficulty and muh bad design.

Despite me loving the living shit out of W3 (it's srsly the best game I played in the past 10 years or so) I have to agree with this

It got to the point where I took off my master witcher armor and wore some pretty clothes from 15 levels earlier just to make the game more challenging on Death March. Game is still 10/10 in my book.

I also completed Tyranny last night, same deal.

Many of the games nowdays aren't badly designed or rushed, but they are balanced around some dudebro who is playing game with one hand and snapchatting with another. Low skill, instant gratification, short attention span type of crowd.

This was the biggest flaw of tw3. Ennemies have 0 pattern, no aggro, and Geralt is just OP as shit (dodging window are hude, stamina a joke).
Because of that + the "press x to follow red line" gameplay, this was one of the most boring game i've ever played.

Most gamers are too busy with work and gf to sit down and fight the same boss 20x times.
They just want to have a good time.

Better, more fluid controls

A lot of old games like RE2 were most challenging due to sluggish controls and camera angles

How was Witcher 2 hard? Did you forget to use potions?

I played on the hardest difficulty and never touched a potion
There was that one cave full of zombies that made me rage, but that's it. And after that, I unlocked enough stamina and qte skills and literally oneshotted everybody with cinematic kills.

wider audience

>I played on the hardest difficulty and never touched a potion
Why would you do this to yourself? Did you not know about potions or did you deliberately not use them for added difficulty?

>Games need artificially inflated difficulty to be fun
Muh hardcore vidya

It's not that, it's that many games are just generally easier. You don't have to give enemies more HP to provide added """difficulty."""

Example: Skyrim holds your hand from one point to the next throughout the whole game, while Morrowind would just let you get lost (it was often up to you to remember where to go and what to do).

It was easy without potions

Maybe during the first couple of hours. After that though it gets real easy real fast

>everytime you want to fight you need to fight against 3-4 people, one will always block you and the others will gangbang you.
>roll more than in souls 3
>roll roll roll roll roll roll attack repeat 3 hours
>you die once go back to a save from literally 1 hour ago
> fight against this squid face thing
>game literally waits 10 min until it tells you what to do
>if it hits you once you will loose the half of your hp regardless of difficulty level
> after you get 3 tentacles down you don´t know what to do
> touch tentacle die
>hitboxes are a fucking joke

No dude, I am not anti difficulty I did the souls triology for fucks sake (not that it´s the hardest game ever), but the combat in witcher 2 is so stupidly bad that I just got a infinite health mod.

Or I just don´t want this oil on your weapon drink this shit and this shit before.

>it was often up to you to remember where to go and what to do

The game has a journal.

Actually, it's more accurate to describe it as a wiki.

I've only played on death march and the game is still generally pretty easy. The combat just doesn't have much depth to it.

They never properly balance games to be hard throughout. I love TW3, but death march was brutal at the start and then you can just kill everything in seconds as you level up. Even without any grinding or any sidequests at all, you out level all the quests you're given and it's hard to even find high level enemies besides a few areas. They introduced level scaling option, but that takes the magic away. And it's still too easy even if they're above your level. RPGs should only let you steamroll if you took the time to grind.

Management games are suffering too. SimCity 4 and RollerCoaster Tycoon made you have to kind of at least wait for money to build stuff. Cities: Skylines and Planet Coaster are hard to get your place rolling, but then the money just flows too easily.

>tfw Sup Forums will unironically defend witcher 3 combat even though it was never meant to be good

I'm nearing the end of B&W on Death March.
I think there was no practical way they could have increased the level of difficulty further without making the game tenuous.

I have absolutely no problem with the current difficulty of human enemies. Their strength comes in numbers, and the Hanse fights on Death March where you don't kill the signal bearer and have them swarm you is just about the level of difficulty that I like. If you use positioning to get them to clump up at choke points and use the right signs or bombs, you can destroy huge groups much faster than if you just did Quen bubble and hacked/slashed, which is good.

My main problem are the larger sized monster enemies, like all the big flying ones. The problem was, once they were on the ground, they were too slow. If you kept spamming attacks, they just keep getting interrupted by your attack animation and this was usually the fastest way to kill them as well. If they made it so they had additional invincibility frames at certain points on the ground, it would have been a 'better enemy' but less realistic in terms of gameplay (you have to wait for an attack phase to attack, etc which makes no sense if they're already grounded). I think a lot of the choices in TW3 boiled down to a decision between fun/lack of realism vs tenuousness/realism. This goes for a lot of the bigger monsters as well, where there didn't seem to be an optimal attack pattern against them vs just rushing in an spamming attacks (golems/gargoyles/chorts/leshens etc.). I think they did Fiends okay if they had utilized their hypnosis ability more often, because it would introduce the need for Cat potions.

cont'd

>Why are games so easy nowadays
Because majority of the players are casuals, it's LITERALLY as simple as that and there's no other reason

It's not even difficult though?

I only died a few times in the beginning but now I steamroll everything

All you need to do is disable the softlock

>Badly designed

Badly designed games are unplayable and very hard. Most of old games(if not all) are badly designed.

You don't need to die from bullshit to enjoy a game.

However having said all that, I think they vastly improved enemy design in B&W (as they did with everything else). Shaelmaars had an interesting attack pattern and counter (even though it wouldn't work in an open terrain environment, hence why it was limited to the arena). Giant Centipedes are incredibly fun to fight with the Yrden mechanic (dodge spit, dodge spit, dodge spit, dodge spit, yrden, hit hit hit, and Cat helps too), as are Archespores (aard or just hit them three times then dodge away from explosion, repeat). It felt like there was really a tactical way to dispose of them. And the difficulty is tuned just right that I'm still occasionally accidentally dying to Archespore explosions

Vampires could have been done better, as right now it's just a waiting game with Black Blood.

However, aside from designing more interesting attack patterns and movement there was no real way to improve the combat. Limiting dodge to require stamina for one thing would be a TERRIBLE mechanic, especially against human enemies that swarm you, unless they made running (holding shift) the new dodge and allowed you to just run past/through enemies in a group to get into better position, in which case it would in the end have the same outcome.

>sonyggers are sill angry

And 2 years later she's fishing for a beta provider as a single mother

Can you imagine Plato saying this shit?

...

I don't think any one can defend Witcher 3 combat. It was garbage. Heavy swing, Light swing, a crossbow and some shitty magic. Not exactly revolutionary combat.

TW3 combat is good in my opinion. In a scale of [terrible- bad - below average - average - above average - good - excellent].

Yes we've all played games where the combat is excellent and fined-tuned to near perfection, but the reality is that those games constitute less than 1% of games in existence. TW3's combat could be better, but bearing the scope of the project in mind along with the resources they were limited to, I'd rate combat as good. Gameplay on the other hand, I would rate as excellent.

That just proves the souls games aren't hard at all if you fucking struggle in the Witcher 2. The only thing the game demands of you is to know when to use your abilities.

Luckily she means men

even there was hundreds of human enemies, you could still easily cleave through all of them with Whirl and that Severance rune upgrade.

>Implying what I said is far from the truth

Face it bro, all these girls who act like whores in their early twenties end up that way

>bro

You wouldn't need either of them and could still take on hundreds of enemies, or as many until your sword broke. I think it's less of a matter of could you, rather than a matter of could you do it more effortlessly or stylishly. Whenever there are multiple viable alternatives to an encounter I consider that good combat. For example, yes you could spam whirl, but you could just as effectively spam aard or igni with a signs build, or go full manticore bomber (though limited to only a handful of lethal bombs and 10 of each max, you'd have to use positioning and some swords/signs to help).

Most skills in TW3 appear to be geared towards quality of life/utility rather than to get stronger. Which I'm fine with. For example gourmet makes food last longer so you don't have to re-eat. Or skills to make it so you don't need to re-apply oils, or wolven armor letting you apply more oils. Their philosophy towards gameplay seemed to be the same (make it so enemies can be killed by just spamming attack, but also make it so if you were clever about timing your attacks or using the right tools at the right time you could do it in a stylish way, or sometimes faster way).

>Fire Emblem Conquest Lunatic
>Monster Hunter 4U 140 GQ Apex
>Super Mystery Dungeon Mystery Jungle Grass starter
>Paper Jam hard mode Bosses
>Young Xehanort
>Dreadking Rathalos


NO

NEW GAMES ARE NOT EASY

MY BLEEDING ASSHOLE IS EVIDENCE ENOUGH

>PJ
>Hard