Today I had to restart playing Persona 4: Golden, after trying to play through it a second time for the past week. Still stuck on the first dungeon's first few levels, I felt like I was on the cusp of being able to power through but by doing so I'd end up sacrificing any gains in the social parts. So I had to restart to get any enjoyment, something that for some would have been a coup de grace for the game.
This begun to make me think about difficulty in games, specifically difficulty selection, in the sense of how grossly flawed they are.
Persona 4: Golden uses the traditional form of difficulty. You pick Safety (i.e. Very Easy), Easy, Normal, Hard and Risky (i.e. Very Hard), once you've picked your poison you run headlong into the game with no opportunity to change afterwards. Already, this presents problems: “What is normal?”. The likely response you'd get is “well, it is the difficulty designed for most people”.
However, Persona 4 offers a classic example of the problematic nature of that response. The original Persona 4's difficulty was seen as too difficult by the West (since it was designed, fairly, with the East in mind), where it was recommended for those not deeply familiar with JRPGs to stick to Easy. When Persona 4: Golden was released, in recognition of this, the Easy mode was moved to Normal and the old Normal became the new Hard. It is possible for someone to make a mistake in this difficulty selection from such imprecise descriptions as Persona 4 has.
Sadly nothing like this, and more like the image you can find in the Failtoid section.
When the mistake occurs, up to two things occur. First is the potential shame or sigh of realisation you've messed up the difficulty. The player either feels inadequate and must lower the difficulty down to the negatively loaded term “Easy”; or alternatively feels the tedium of having to increase the difficulty. The second thing is you may be locked to that difficulty, and therefore have to go through hour after hour repeating content.
Frustratingly, for me, Persona 4: Golden ticked all the boxes. So I had to spend an hour or two repeating content a second time.
I don't believe there is a graceful way to do difficulty options at the beginning of the game (either categorising or burdening the player to customise the different parts of difficulty). Despite this, I don't think there is much of a reason to not allow mid-game difficulty tweaks.
Another part of difficulty that frustrates me is the often blunt nature of it. Too many times, difficulty boils down to just a tweak in amount of health an enemy/you have and how much damage an enemy/you do. Maybe even deciding to throw more or less enemies at you. While more difficult to design, especially as it would have to be a case-by-case basis, a difficulty structure created that rewards more tactical or stronger skill-based play at higher difficulties is more rewarding for the player. This is especially as lazy difficulty tweaks tend to only reward repetition. However, I believe this line of thought is best suited for another day when I can provide a more in-depth discussion on it complete with examples.
"I promise I'll do it later" is an excuse I use way too often for article/intro ideas; and yet I stopped doing the weekly analytical articles due to lack of ideas.
And now, we go onwards with full force to the recaps.
This week, I've been mostly listening to: It's All Coming Back To Me Now by Pandora's Box.
Yes, including the introduction with the bizarre story/poem.
- Riobux