Do most people really play the hardest difficulty level?

[algroth]

Sonic: So why do people play in hardest difficulty? Is it a pride thing?

The forum: It's because a greater challenge is more fun.

Sonic: Oh okay, so it's a pride thing.

The forum: ...

[SonicMage117]

"What's the purpose of defeating a greater challenge?"

 

"It's fun and the feeling of victory is greater"

 

"In other words: You are proud of yourself for that sense of accomplishment, I know the feels"

[Lamppost in Winter]

lmao where my exactly 5 other "Relaxed" voters at

Although since I'm super familiar with PoE's systems and have played the beta a lot, I could probably stand to start on Classic, depending on how much time I have to play. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Lamppost in Winter

[JerekKruger]

I certainly don't feel pride in playing on PotD. I play it because Hard and below don't post a challenge at all for me, and like algroth said there being a challenge adds to the experience.

 

That said I really can't help you if you can't understand that Sonic. If you want to believe it's a pride thing go right ahead.

[anameforobsidian]

"What's the purpose of defeating a greater challenge?"

 

"It's fun and the feeling of victory is greater"

 

"In other words: You are proud of yourself for that sense of accomplishment, I know the feels"

 

Since we're quoting, I'll quote myself:

 

I like PotD much better than all the other gameplay modes in PE, because of the decline in difficulty around Defiance Bay.  Even following an appropriate playthrough, you'll outlevel content pretty quickly, and levels really matter in PE.  Not only that, but I enjoy the tactical difficulty of increased mobs more than the increased stats of mobs.  When I started playing PotD, I really learned the value of hybrid characters.  That mage in cloth armor is faster, but speed doesn't matter much to the dead.  That pure-tank fighter can take on a dragon with relative ease, but the far more numerous xaurip swarms flow right around him because he can't deliver a real hit.

 

Once you figured out the tactics, Pillars on normal was a faceroll until the ardra dragon.  Get a mage, cast slicken, kill, repeat.  Get a mage, cast confusion, repeat.  Most of the people who had problems either don't pause the appropriate amount, or use master blaster wizards and pure tank fighters.  With a ranger, mage and a druid, you had enough summons to achieve numerical superiority really easily.  On PotD, the situation is always more dire.  Your frontline will frequently be out-matched and overrun.  It forces you to adapt.  Maybe you give the mage boots of speed and leather armor, turning him into a hit and run character.  Maybe your monk learns to harry kited enemies.  Maybe your fighter ditches the shield for good.  Maybe your cipher makes enemies tank themselves, or uses weird tricks to keep a ton of buffs up.  Etc.  On PotD, tactical decisions matter more, which makes the game more interesting.

[Nail]

Only the hardest way.

[geala]

I usually play on the hardest difficulty that does not enforce artificial restrictions on you. I mainly play story driven games only one time, so I have to get it right soon. So as example, I play Legendary in Skyrim (actually I play Requiem but doesn't matter) because it is just stats adjustment and changeable midgame, but I play Survival in Fallout 4 only because there are mods to get rid of meta-restrictions. I don't play Tactician in DOS2 because of the artificial restriction to not be able to change it (ok, I switched to it during playing, I have to confess, break of the rules...).

 

That means for Deadfire I will start as "Veteran" (although I'm not, I played PoE only a little bit) and switch to "Classic" if encounters will appear too hard to me on the longer run. I like a challenge but I also have another life. I will not play PotD because you cannot change difficulty (at least it is this way in PoE, isn't it?).

[SonicMage117]

I certainly don't feel pride in playing on PotD. I play it because Hard and below don't post a challenge at all for me, and like algroth said there being a challenge adds to the experience.

 

That said I really can't help you if you can't understand that Sonic. If you want to believe it's a pride thing go right ahead.

I wasn't saying that you guys pat yourselves on the back after finishing PoTD, it's not a negative thing so please don't take it as one. However, it's hard to believe that people here say they don't feel some sense of accomplishment and attachment any less than someone who enjoys lower difficulty of the game just for the story. There's really no such thing as seperation of players based on difficulty they play on.

 

"What's the purpose of defeating a greater challenge?"

 

"It's fun and the feeling of victory is greater"

 

"In other words: You are proud of yourself for that sense of accomplishment, I know the feels"

Since we're quoting, I'll quote myself:

 

I like PotD much better than all the other gameplay modes in PE, because of the decline in difficulty around Defiance Bay. Even following an appropriate playthrough, you'll outlevel content pretty quickly, and levels really matter in PE. Not only that, but I enjoy the tactical difficulty of increased mobs more than the increased stats of mobs. When I started playing PotD, I really learned the value of hybrid characters. That mage in cloth armor is faster, but speed doesn't matter much to the dead. That pure-tank fighter can take on a dragon with relative ease, but the far more numerous xaurip swarms flow right around him because he can't deliver a real hit.

 

Once you figured out the tactics, Pillars on normal was a faceroll until the ardra dragon. Get a mage, cast slicken, kill, repeat. Get a mage, cast confusion, repeat. Most of the people who had problems either don't pause the appropriate amount, or use master blaster wizards and pure tank fighters. With a ranger, mage and a druid, you had enough summons to achieve numerical superiority really easily. On PotD, the situation is always more dire. Your frontline will frequently be out-matched and overrun. It forces you to adapt. Maybe you give the mage boots of speed and leather armor, turning him into a hit and run character. Maybe your monk learns to harry kited enemies. Maybe your fighter ditches the shield for good. Maybe your cipher makes enemies tank themselves, or uses weird tricks to keep a ton of buffs up. Etc. On PotD, tactical decisions matter more, which makes the game more interesting.

Thanks for the answer. I think your response answered my question best. You've basically listed all the major differences from other difficulties instead of just saying "It's a preference thing" you broke it down to explain how the enemies strategy and behavior is rethought (instead of the damage just being buffed).

 

 

As for me, I played Pillars 1 in Classic and will likely play Deadfire in Classic, the difficulty and change if a.i revamp doesn't bother me, it's just the risk of time loss. Dying and dying to defeat a boss for me, personally like in say, a Final Fantasy game for a hundred times just doesn't seem rewarding, fun or challenging at the end but just annoying but that is just me.

Edited March 26, 2018 by SonicMage117

[JerekKruger]

I wasn't saying that you guys pat yourselves on the back after finishing PoTD, it's not a negative thing so please don't take it as one. However, it's hard to believe that people here say they don't feel some sense of accomplishment and attachment any less than someone who enjoys lower difficulty of the game just for the story. There's really no such thing as seperation of players based on difficulty they play on.

 

With Pillars? Not really. I started playing on PotD because Hard wasn't challenging enough and I found myself mindlessly auto attacking through most fights after a certain point. This removed the fun of levelling up since there's no excitement in getting new spells and abilities if I don't need them or use them. I didn't decide to play on PotD for the challenge of it: Pillars isn't the sort of game I play for a challenge.

 

I did briefly start a triple crown solo attempt and, had I completed that, I would probably have felt a sense of pride, but I didn't enjoy it so abandoned it.

 

Even with games that I do play for the challenge I wouldn't say I feel proud, but that might be a case of semantics with my meaning something slightly different when I use the word "proud". I do feel pleased to have beaten the challenge, but to me "pride" means something a bit more. In any case I don't feel this with Pillars.

[InsaneCommander]

As others have said, if you play on a difficult setting you consider easy, then it'll be boring and you won't continue to play. So, much more than feeling proud, what matters is enjoying the game.

[SonicMage117]

If you play on a difficult setting you consider easy, then it'll be boring and you won't continue to play.

False...

 

Story and overall experience are much more important to veteran players than challenging them to 200 fights and memorizing tactics. I myself am a veteran player with seemingly too much knowledge for the game than my own good allows.

 

Intesting characters and story should and will always keep a game interesting, if they are playing a video game in today's age just for challenge and find nothing else about said game that appeals to them then they are playing for the wrong reason.

 

As Pillars was designed to be this (a story driven story rpg), I'm highly offended as its my favorite game ever. Just so you know.

[The Sharmat]

That would depend entirely on the player. Lots of people love Planescape: Torment because they like the story despite the fact that the game itself is terribly designed. On a similar note, as you might guess, I love Morrowind because of its fantastic atmosphere and setting despite the fact that, again, it's not a very well designed or difficult game. But that's hardly universally true. Given that video game writing is, on the whole, rather terrible, I have to assume that most players are not like this, however.

 

Pillars has a decent story but I enjoy the problem solving aspects of the higher difficulties and for me that's what puts it above many other RPGs. This difficulty is much more than simply memorizing a formula unless you go out of your way to seek out overpowered cookie cutter builds on the internet, in which case you have only yourself to blame.

EDIT: Also I hate this segregation of gameplay and story in games and only use that language myself because everyone else is so dedicated to it. A story is meant to evoke emotions and gameplay can aid in that by making a desperate fight actually feel desperate. But story driven games often neglect this to their detriment, with things that are supposed to be threatening simply seeming pathetic due to the ease of their defeat; all playing in to the plague of overpowered Mary Sue style player characters in modern RPGs.

Edited March 26, 2018 by The Sharmat

[SonicMage117]

Isn't the real difficulty is from deciding whoever which of your companions and other npc's lives and who out of these dies? Yo decide if who or what you will become im the world? The point of the game was never the combat, the point was to role play and to make story decisions which affect the game in HUGE ways. Which Tyranny and Pillars excel at.

 

I mean, choices and decision making in these types of games are vastly superior to the combat which they feature. Real-time and pause has never been touted as an enjoyable combat system by any player-base - til recent years because it came back but who am I to say such things on a given forum? (I'm SonicMage117)

 

I admit, I'd have fun as a thief if there were more riddle trapped crypts with ultra difficulty I would have fun but that wouldn't be Pillars, that would be another game. This insight coming from a master rpg player who's favorite games are Sonic The Hedgehog Spinball and Doctor Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine, just so you know where I am coming from here.

[Tigranes]

Don't try to tell other people what they feel, and just listen.

 

I certainly won't tell anyone playing story mode why they must be doing it and what they must be getting out of it. 

[SonicMage117]

Don't try to tell other people what they feel, and just listen.

 

I certainly won't tell anyone playing story mode why they must be doing it and what they must be getting out of it.

Who are you talking to? Me?

 

And if so, isn't telling me how to common a bit hypocritical and self-contradictive. Anyway, I'm not telling others what to feel or how to play. Made some general statements about the purpose of the game and asked a few questions, nothing more. If people don't like the questions, they're not forced to answer but doesn't make those questions any less valid even if the majority of community here says it's wrong (which they're not but just an example).

[JerekKruger]

Story and overall experience are much more important to veteran players than challenging them to 200 fights and memorizing tactics.

This is telling other players what they feel Sonic.

[Phyriel]

I started poe on potd. I had a hard time in my first playthrough using unoptimized original characters only. I never finished that session, I quit the game in act 2 kind of disappointed by bugs and imo unfinished state of the game, difficulty was fine but then again hard to say how much of my hardship came via potd setting and how much via bugs... I came back after more than a year when WM2 was just launching and I went for solo potd wizard and I finished it that way. I like potd the most because its easy on this setting to be punished by the game when you turn lazy and careless. Also on potd when you get a power spike getting to certain level and unlocking some spells ( yes i'm talking about you GotA and KFR ) you really get to feel that sense of achievement. 

[InsaneCommander]

 

If you play on a difficult setting you consider easy, then it'll be boring and you won't continue to play.

False...

 

Story and overall experience are much more important to veteran players than challenging them to 200 fights and memorizing tactics. I myself am a veteran player with seemingly too much knowledge for the game than my own good allows.

 

Intesting characters and story should and will always keep a game interesting, if they are playing a video game in today's age just for challenge and find nothing else about said game that appeals to them then they are playing for the wrong reason.

 

As Pillars was designed to be this (a story driven story rpg), I'm highly offended as its my favorite game ever. Just so you know.

 

 

Notice that I didn't talk about playing on a challenging mode, but on a mode above the one you consider easy. As I mentioned before, PotD is not challenging all the time for me. If there was another level above it maybe I wouldn't play on it. If I only had the choice between easy and challenging maybe I would prefer the easy one. But it isn't the case here. So even if I want to enjoy the story, I prefer to do it on PotD.

 

As for me, I played Pillars 1 in Classic

 

Maybe you are doing just what I said. Give it a try, start a game on relaxed or story mode and see if you won't think it's too easy. Maybe you'll prefer to restart on classic. You'll still be able to enjoy the story. If it's all the same to you, story, relaxed or classic, then why are you going to play Deadfire on classic? I imagine it's the mode you feel comfortable, not too easy and not challenging. In that case what I said is not false.

 

After 720 hours on PoE, I became good enough to play on PotD without a challenge all the time. But In most games I don't go beyond normal.

[SonicMage117]

To answer your question, hmmmm... I never actually believed that story mode was for players to focus on story rather than gameplay but to erase combat but I have never played story mode so I am probably missing something. It really has nothing to do with what I consider challenging or a threat but more of "I play normal because it's the best balance and likely the way it's meant to be played." Also it seems to be the default of any game but in a game like Dungeon Of The Endless, Super Easy mode is actually hard and Easy mode is almost unwinnable odds. The balance makes one thing that sometimes titles are of placebo affect and what may be easier for some may be harder for others. And then some people want to just relax. I have to remind myself that the vast majority of members here on casual rpg'ists.

 

As for the story vs combat argument, well it's the first time that I read peeps on a forum argue that story isn't more important that combat anywhere. Just surprised me is all, I guess times are changing.

 

I'm am old dude and as the saying goes, can't teach an old dog new tricks, I guess. Character build (in my time) was never bred for combat exclusively (which seems to just now in recent years to be changing), even in the IE games but how one would interact with the world as a whole and in dialouge, which I got into a discussion about this topic the other day as well but that's another dry football yard with a yacht in the middle.

 

Thanks for the answers, I'm just starting now to understand this shift I think.

[George_Truman]

Well I don't know about you guys but I play PotD for that sweet sense of humility that accompanies defeat.

[Wormerine]

I wasn't saying that you guys pat yourselves on the back after finishing PoTD, it's not a negative thing so please don't take it as one. However, it's hard to believe that people here say they don't feel some sense of accomplishment and attachment any less than someone who enjoys lower difficulty of the game just for the story. There's really no such thing as seperation of players based on difficulty they play on.

 

 

“Pride” is not quite the same as “satisfaction”. While not a negative trait in modest amount, it is tied to showing off. You are proud of something or someone in front of the others: you show it to your friends, you talk about your childks achievements to others, hang your degree in a visible place. Being proud of beating a game on a harder difficulty is absurd. Yes, it is satisfying to me, but I am certainly not proud of sinking over 200 hours into video game. Was it satisfying? Yes. Am I ashamed a bit? Well, maybe a bit. Would I proudly show of my gog achievements to friends and family during a social event? Goodness me, no.

[Katarack21]

"I built this deck by hand. Took me three weeks. Check out the stain."

"Yeah, well, I beat all the dragons on Path of the Damned mode, solo, with permanent death, in this video game. Took me 300 hours. Look at my Steam achievements!" *whips out cell phone*

[InsaneCommander]

To answer your question, hmmmm... I never actually believed that story mode was for players to focus on story rather than gameplay but to erase combat but I have never played story mode so I am probably missing something. It really has nothing to do with what I consider challenging or a threat but more of "I play normal because it's the best balance and likely the way it's meant to be played." Also it seems to be the default of any game but in a game like Dungeon Of The Endless, Super Easy mode is actually hard and Easy mode is almost unwinnable odds. The balance makes one thing that sometimes titles are of placebo affect and what may be easier for some may be harder for others. And then some people want to just relax. I have to remind myself that the vast majority of members here on casual rpg'ists.

 

As for the story vs combat argument, well it's the first time that I read peeps on a forum argue that story isn't more important that combat anywhere. Just surprised me is all, I guess times are changing.

 

I'm am old dude and as the saying goes, can't teach an old dog new tricks, I guess. Character build (in my time) was never bred for combat exclusively (which seems to just now in recent years to be changing), even in the IE games but how one would interact with the world as a whole and in dialouge, which I got into a discussion about this topic the other day as well but that's another dry football yard with a yacht in the middle.

 

Thanks for the answers, I'm just starting now to understand this shift I think.

 

I wish there was an easier mode in FTL

 

As for the story in rpgs, it is not that combat is more important, but that on your third playthrough you might be more interesting in trying different builds and tactics. It depends on the player, of course.

[Mannock]

The Aaron Rodgers difficulty level is all I need.

[The Sharmat]

Isn't the real difficulty is from deciding whoever which of your companions and other npc's lives and who out of these dies? Yo decide if who or what you will become im the world? The point of the game was never the combat, the point was to role play and to make story decisions which affect the game in HUGE ways. Which Tyranny and Pillars excel at.

The only game I've found to have genuinely difficult choices is The Witcher 2, so no.