dtgreene: Except that not allowing difficulty selection could result in a game that is too easy, with no way (other than using self-imposed restrictions that often involve ignoring interesting mechanics) to make the game hard enough to be fun to play.
Given the fact that my main point of contention is the only difference in difficulty is just changing numbers (increase enemy damage output and decrease player damage output for longer battles), I dont find it to be that big of an issue. I also find that older games tend to be harder than modern games anyway so lack of difficulty never was that big an issue.
dtgreene: RDR2? (Could you please spell out a game's name rather than using an acronym the first time you mention the game?)
Red Dead Redemption 2
dtgreene: Chrono Trigger can be too easy for experienced RPG players (though I note that Final Fantasy 7 is worse in that regard, not counting two optional isolated bosses that aren't even in the original Japanese release).
CT is easy for experienced RPG players but there are difficulty spikes, notably Dragon Tank and Magus. CT isnt a hard game but I also dont really see how the experience would change from making it harder (unless they rebalance the damage output of dual/triple techs, damage formula, etc.) which would make it a new game.
dtgreene: Early Mega Man games have some difficulty issues. In MM1, Guts Man's stage isn't well designed, as it throws you off the deep end, introducing a mechanic in a context where, if the player doesn't succeed multiple times in a row, the player falls and loses a life. Fortunately, the developers learned, and a comparable case, Ring Man's stage in MM4, is handled much better; the mechanic is introduced where you only have to pass it once and failure isn't a death, and then it builds from there.
In MM2, which (in its English NES release) actually *does* have a difficulty selection, there's another issue, and that's that you can run out of weapon energy. At this point, if weapon energy is a death, it can be painful to farm new energy to try again, particularly since, unlike in MM1, placed energy pick-ups don't respawn until game over. The final stage has a particularly bad example of this issue: If you don't have enough energy to defeat the boss (which is immune to the Arm Cannon, your only free weapon), you have no choice but to intentionally get a game over, which takes too long. (Basically, it's a softlock if you don't have enough energy to kill the boss).
Mega Man 4-6 require playing too many levels from the last save point (that is, the last point a password can take you) to the end of the game, making them pretty much not feasibly winnable unless you have a huge block of time to play, are willing to leave the NES on, or are using an emulator with save states.
This seems to be more of a level design/program design issue as opposed to a "difficulty" issue. MM1 not sure how an easier difficulty would solve it unless they redesigned the stage. MM2 kind of proves this with them having a difficulty level but not properly accounting for the different difficulties (Im guessing normal allows you to damage Wily with the arm cannon?). I guess 4 to 6 could be solved with more frequent checkpoints between levels but I wonder if Inafune thought about that.
dtgreene: Incidentally, the original Zelda *does* have a difficulty selection. If you name your file ZELDA, or if you continue after beating the game, you will be essentially playing the game's hard mode, where things are re-arranged, the dungeons have been re-done, and some new (and rather evil) mechanics are added. (I remember one of the dungeon items being in what is probably the *last* place a player will look, to the point where a player will likely think they've completed the dungeon before finding it.
This sounds like an example of difficulty level done right. Although more obscure (and likely intended for people who have beaten the game at least once), this new difficulty basically creates a new game with redone dungeons, rearranged items, and new mechanics. That, Im all for.
I find that in most cases, different difficulty levels is just the devs moving a slider left or right and calling it a day. Higher difficulties do not necessarily convey a different experience to warrant replayability and at worst, even break the game (for example, Shadow of War basically requires you to build specific builds to survive the early stages which defeats the open nature of the game).
dtgreene: Final Fantasy 9's optional superboss can be beaten without touching the controller during the fight, provided that you have a good setup for that and are lucky, yet nobody (to my knowledge) considers that boss to be easy. (With noting that luck is needed, as this is basically an RNG boss, who randomly uses attacks like Meteor which does something like 110-9999 damage to the party, possibly killing everyone except the character who was almost dead (I saw that happen in a youtube video).
I dont find this to be a good example because we are talking about two different types of games. FF is an RPG which is about strategy when selecting actions. The player is expected to sit and watch their characters attack and even create master setups where they can kill bosses with one button click if they want. FF7 has Cloud solo kill Emerald Weapon using counter-limit breaks without the player pressing a button either.
COD/Battlefield is an FPS where the player is expected to constantly move and react which is why I think this isnt a good comparison. Furthermore, it an extreme example of BS difficulty setting since at the easier levels, you dont even need to play to win while at the hardest difficulty setting, you need luck to win (due to enemy grenade spam). Difficulty levels do need to balance between not being so extreme on either end as to ruin the experience but it happens.
If difficulty changes did result in pretty significant changes in experience (not to the extreme of your Zelda example but still significant), then I am all for them. I do think KH2 did a great job with critical mode, providing additional abilities that allows you to hit harder at the expense of having lower health which meant that battles ended quicker but you needed to be more defensive. Playing on level 1 (self-imposed but provided by the game) also creates a very different experience, requiring the player to understand the game and enemy moves to survive. I find that alot of games dont meet this standard and often hurt the experience with difficulty levels. If done well, Im all for it but if they cant, I rather they just have one setting that was the "intended" experience they want to give to players.
