From the other thread...

Quote:
One way that the game is especially easy, almost annoyingly so, is in terms of figuring out what to do next. The game barely even gives you a chance to look around before trying to give the answer away. It seems like if you take more than 20 seconds to move on, you hear the voice over saying stuff like, "You know, I'm here to help at any time". And if you don't go into the menu to see the hint, it keeps happening until you get through the obstacle.


This is one reason I don't think difficulty levels will necessarily be the answer to having a game appeal to everyone.

Let's say you started the game on a lower difficulty just to get used to the control and such, but if you see hints like that for a puzzle, then the puzzle would be RUINED. If you wanted more challenge and started over on a higher difficulty, you'd still know the solution to the puzzle. (Unless it was like Zelda 1's second quest, and had brand new puzzles, but since doing something like that could be close to making a whole other game, I don't think we'll ever see that again)



The Goldeneye point was a good one, because of course that game DID have difficulty levels, and did them well. But even the lowest setting could be a challenge (for people new to the game). Could it really be true that the majority of gamers now want NO challenge whatsoever? Maybe it is. Perhaps a game could satisfy different groups of people by using difficulty levels if their tastes aren't too different, but trying to use levels to make a game appealing to gamers with totally opposite tastes just could never work, in my opinion.

I realize by saying that that I'm almost suggesting that game designers stop trying to cater to people who really want a challenge, since they won't be able to satisfy them and capture the mass market simultaneously. But I think regardless of how many gamers want no challenge whatsoever, there MUST be a solid niche that feels differently.

"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood."
-Orwell