It's actually not a shame, this is not one of those games. On story driven games, having the highest difficulty be the default is bad and leads to frustration.
It would harm accessibility but TLOU 1/2 would get more acclaim for its gameplay if survivor was the only difficulty
- Thread starter leng jai
- Start date
It's actually not a shame, this is not one of those games. On story driven games, having the highest difficulty be the default is bad and leads to frustration.
For me a game being too easy makes me lose interest much faster and is more frustrating.
I'm disappointed this didn't launch with grounded difficulty as survivor is too easy
You act like everyone is playing the game in the same way as you. Or that everyone is as good as you. I bet a lot of people, the more casual player, will waste more bullets. And it's not like you can pick up an unlimited amount of bullets, like RE4. Every weapon has just one bullet clip.
You praise the accessibility options, but yet you want take take away the difficulty settings, making the game less accessible?
I am sorry mate but this reads as "I am a superdupah gamer and harder automatically means better".
Nope.
In fact, one of the greatest things about this game is how accesible it is, in many aspects, including difficulty, for which you can actually modify some in game parameters. I don´t think this has had a negative effect on reviews, I´d say that is just the opposite in fact.
Nope.
In fact, one of the greatest things about this game is how accesible it is, in many aspects, including difficulty, for which you can actually modify some in game parameters. I don´t think this has had a negative effect on reviews, I´d say that is just the opposite in fact.
OP
OP
My main argument is that it is or could be one of those games but some people automatically assume that it's not because it's a cinematic story driven game with basic gameplay that's only there to facilitate the narrative.
But you still have the story to keep your interest. In a perfect world there would be a mode that was challenging but also easy to get through. But that's hard to do, that's why multiple difficulty choices are the way to go.
In a game like this, limiting your choice to only playing the hardest difficulty is not a good idea.
No, this is not a game that relies solely on it's gameplay to engage you, like Dark Souls for example. The narrative is as much a part of it as the gameplay is.
Gating that narrative behind a hard difficulty barrier would alienate a big part of the fanbase for sure.
I don't think it would. I've already died a bunch of times on Normal so I'd have likely shelved it if it was too difficult. This game is about the journey and the story surrounding that journey.
Well in this case the story is abysmal and didn't need to exist.
Only played it because my wife /son got it for father's day.
I did enjoy the gameplay in spots but wish it was more challenging. I only wanted a sequel for more factions though.
But I agree the difficulty shouldn't be limited but more options would be better
Maybe 2 for what I've seen for now, but I played 1 seveeral times and I think survivor difficulty is a smaller sell on the gameplay because there it actually affects resources to a point that you can barely use anything and even makes you sometimes miss some secret doors due to the knives mechanic as consumables. TLOU 1 is way more fun with plenty of resources, which leads to more varied encounters.
In Part 2 though, I'm playing with everything on survivor but the resources, which I've set on hard, and there is already maybe too much of them. But the brutality of combat and variety of options makes it worth it for me: you actually need to use a bit of everything and you are going to be discovered and forced into open conflict anyway because stealth is harder and you've got resources to deal with open conflict anyway. So it is the best scenario I can think of.
In Part 2 though, I'm playing with everything on survivor but the resources, which I've set on hard, and there is already maybe too much of them. But the brutality of combat and variety of options makes it worth it for me: you actually need to use a bit of everything and you are going to be discovered and forced into open conflict anyway because stealth is harder and you've got resources to deal with open conflict anyway. So it is the best scenario I can think of.
I fully agree with you. I am playing the game on survivor mode and I love that I have to thoroughly explore buildings to gather resources and that I have to come up with a strategy on how to approach a fight. It really ties in very well with the themes of survival and danger that are prevalent throughout the game. So yeah I often improvise, popping in and out of stealth and using all the tools I have at my disposal. I doubt I would like the game as much if I could just charge in guns blazing.
I'm playing on hard and honestly the game throws so many resources at you that the game becomes a cakewalk almost from the start. I would bump it up to survivor, but honestly I'm getting kinda sick of the gameplay anyway (it's so repetitive) so I'll just leave it and power through the game as is.
Games with great gameplay can get away with having no difficulty options, although I believe that more (if not all) games should have better accessibility options.
The Last of Us II has not shown me so far this amazing gameplay loop, so no, it would just get frustrating.
The Last of Us II has not shown me so far this amazing gameplay loop, so no, it would just get frustrating.
You just need to take one look at something like Nolan North's (& Troy Baker's) playthrough of Last of Us to see how idiotic this would be. He can barely get through the game on the easiest difficulty level without frustration kicking in. Survivor would be too much to a big portion of people who play the game. There's a reason why this game has such mass appeal and success and it's not by elitist experienced/hardcore gamers gatekeeping less experienced gamers out of the experience by forcing challenge levels that are way too much for tons of players.
I did something I almost never do. Switched from normal to hard.
I had all my equipment maxed out on normal, which made exploring pointless in a way. It was still something i was doing, but felt gamey, instead of a necessity.
Hard is a lot better, still got a lot of items but need to be a bit more sensible. To be honest, this seems like what normal should have been.
I had all my equipment maxed out on normal, which made exploring pointless in a way. It was still something i was doing, but felt gamey, instead of a necessity.
Hard is a lot better, still got a lot of items but need to be a bit more sensible. To be honest, this seems like what normal should have been.
I don't think you have to remove all accessbility options to accomplish this. One example would be to have survivor difficulty be the recommended difficulty with easier difficulties still present. And you can change mid game. Hell, there aren't even any difficulty trophies so you're not getting punished for it.
Unabashedly playing on "Light", and not going to change. Shooting gameplay has gotten old for me, and have no desire to ratchet it up. The survival tension with resources is also not something I care too much about, given that it's not exactly some kind of deep resource simulation.
I'm enjoying the game just fine, and appreciate being able to progress without wasting too much of my time. Also, lately things have been stressful enough in the real world that I don't feel I need to experience the "full level of tension" that the game can output. Light amount of tension is fine for me right now, and the story / events are carrying the rest.
EDIT: I don't think the game would necessarily get more acclaim by limiting the options. I don't know why that dynamic should exist -- where a game that refuses to cater to different walks of life should be given accolades for "sticking to their guns". There's nothing positive about that attitude, and how can it realistically be expected from a mass-produced AAA game that is targeted at a large segment of the population?
I'm enjoying the game just fine, and appreciate being able to progress without wasting too much of my time. Also, lately things have been stressful enough in the real world that I don't feel I need to experience the "full level of tension" that the game can output. Light amount of tension is fine for me right now, and the story / events are carrying the rest.
EDIT: I don't think the game would necessarily get more acclaim by limiting the options. I don't know why that dynamic should exist -- where a game that refuses to cater to different walks of life should be given accolades for "sticking to their guns". There's nothing positive about that attitude, and how can it realistically be expected from a mass-produced AAA game that is targeted at a large segment of the population?
Last edited:
it must be frustrating to write 3 paragraphs arguing about something and gets a "no thanks" as a reply from users who clearly didn't read what was written.
while i'm playing on normal, i agree with the sentiment that the game's worldbuilding doesn't match the ease of gameplay on the lower difficulties. it's supposed to be a harsh world where it's tough to survive and everyone is human and fragile, except I'm always full up on medkits and molotovs and I'm taking out entire patrols, no problem.
but I think the solution to that problem is to not have you kill entire armies. the shooter/action genre is just ill-suited to that kind of tone. no doubt it would feel more congruous on higher difficulties, but i'm not really interested in that level of trial and error from this particular game. it's too long and poorly paced as it is.
but I think the solution to that problem is to not have you kill entire armies. the shooter/action genre is just ill-suited to that kind of tone. no doubt it would feel more congruous on higher difficulties, but i'm not really interested in that level of trial and error from this particular game. it's too long and poorly paced as it is.
More often than not, high difficulty makes me enjoy games less and even drop them halfway through, so I strongly disagree with what you're saying, OP.
Also, most people play TLOU for the story and characters, not for the gameplay. And even then, I haven't seen anyone complain about the gameplay.
Also, most people play TLOU for the story and characters, not for the gameplay. And even then, I haven't seen anyone complain about the gameplay.
But something can't feel a certain way unless it matters, and a dangerous thing does not matter if it is easy.
First play through on hard was amazing. Will replay in survivor but I had no complaints on hard whatsoever. Felt like a sweet spot. But I almost never leave any areas unchecked. I go all out when it comes to scavenging so there are times when I do find myself maxed out on materials and bullets. Survivor will probably change that lol.
What if I told you that making things matter is not just adding roadblocks for the sake of difficulty, and that a more thoughtful gameplay experience can more effectively tell the story through gameplay.
I am really really REALLY fucking tired of this idea that making a game tougher is just "hard for the sake of being hard." I get that some games are like that, but to act like that is true of all difficulty is myopic and ignorant.
The point is that Survivor difficulty modifications emphasise all parts of the gameplay systems, OP isn't actually saying that TLOUII needs to be a hardcore elite Sekiro-like kinda game. It's just that the more punishing modes really shine a spotlight on how great the stealth, resource management and action systems are. How important it is to get rid of as many guys quietly with limited resources so you can quickly adapt to the change in situation when it becomes necessary to be loud and violent. TLOUII is a game about planning and being careful but also being very good at adapting and moving when required. Spatial awareness is a big thing
Never really got that from the original game, which felt like a weak TPS. This is more like Snake Eater meets Silent Hill. Every decision you make feels more impactful and it's simply not possible to convey that sense of danger and weight on less stressful difficulties. Difficulties which should still exist as accessibility is extremely important but also end up avoiding this aspect of the game for a lot of people.
Never really got that from the original game, which felt like a weak TPS. This is more like Snake Eater meets Silent Hill. Every decision you make feels more impactful and it's simply not possible to convey that sense of danger and weight on less stressful difficulties. Difficulties which should still exist as accessibility is extremely important but also end up avoiding this aspect of the game for a lot of people.
But OP is also saying that invocation of said stealth, resource management, and action systems should not be optional, for the sake of critical acclaim. That point of view reduces the reasons for the playing the game to just those elements. So while I can understand OP's appreciation of those game design dynamics, I disagree that those are the only reasons I would want to play the game. I also disagree that there is a particular level at which these qualities must run in order to get any true enjoyment of the game. For Souls games, which offer little in terms of story or character, it might make sense, but this is not that. Furthermore, it is a sequel to a game that was not that.
Last edited:
And that feeling of skimping by the skin of my teeth helped me enjoy it more.
Not to mention cheesing is usually more boring and usually you end up improving as you play in the areas you can't cheese so as you go you end up not cheesing as much, which helps you really feel like you've improved. You went from doing everything you could to avoid challenge to taking it on because it's fun. That's a pretty cool experience since that game is designed to teach you subtly how to get better by putting you in difference scenarios and asking you to solve them and providing you with tools and things to nudge you in the right direction.
I am not. And that is WHY survivor has been great for me so far. I am BAD at aiming. So each shot feels like this terrifying gamble. I tend to avoid shooting except when absolutely necessary. Which I think is the point and it helps reinforce the world and setting. It's done a fantastic job so far.
I just played a part where I had to activate a generator and escape a room. I had to do it without fighting all the enemies because I could not shoot at them all. It was terrifying...and exhilarating.
BINGO.
Also just in terms of expectations. If people feel like they are choosing the hard difficulty, and hate hard difficulties, they are more likely to find problems and frustrations and be more ready to give up. If people think something is the way something just is, they tend to do better about just dealing with it.
intriguing. I'm bashing through a low difficulty NG+ to try and get all the collectibles, but I may try some encounters on survivor difficulty as this sounds interesting. I'm similarly useless :)