Does anybody else find most modern games a bit too easy?

What's shocking to me nowadays is how easy some games have got.

The first console I ever got at the age of five was a Sega Mega Drive, I used to go nuts at some levels on the very first Sonic. Metal slug in the arcades is a real challenge to play as are bucketloads of other 'Retro' games. The Mario games (All Stars e.t.c) used to take hours of effort.

These days we get games that hold our hand all the way to the end, with on screen prompts and lock on reticules that basically take all the effort out of actually aiming at someone.
Even games that I've enjoyed playing over the past 6 months or so have had gripes.

For example Bioshock, yeah I think the games great, fair enough. Then there's the Vita-Chambers or whatever there called. What's that about? You die and you get revived instantly? Furthermore all the enemies you were killed by are still stood around picking their noses at the same amount of health you left them with and wondering why they cant use the majic chambers. Sure I used my own method to play the game by just reloading when I died but still..

Ok, rant over opinions please? ^^

dnv2:
Does anybody else find most modern games a bit too easy?

What's shocking to me nowadays is how easy some games have got.

The first console I ever got at the age of five was a Sega Mega Drive, I used to go nuts at some levels on the very first Sonic. Metal slug in the arcades is a real challenge to play as are bucketloads of other 'Retro' games. The Mario games (All Stars e.t.c) used to take hours of effort.

These days we get games that hold our hand all the way to the end, with on screen prompts and lock on reticules that basically take all the effort out of actually aiming at someone.
Even games that I've enjoyed playing over the past 6 months or so have had gripes.

For example Bioshock, yeah I think the games great, fair enough. Then there's the Vita-Chambers or whatever there called. What's that about? You die and you get revived instantly? Furthermore all the enemies you were killed by are still stood around picking their noses at the same amount of health you left them with and wondering why they cant use the majic chambers. Sure I used my own method to play the game by just reloading when I died but still..

Ok, rant over opinions please? ^^

Guitar Hero 3 on Expert.

Ranzel:

Guitar Hero 3 on Expert.

Yes, I was thinking that too, but is'nt that because your using something other than a standard controller or keyboard/mouse?

Well, you should remember that you were five years old then, and didn't have the cognitive abilities that you do now. Looking back at game I thought were hard and playing them again, I realized so many things that I didn't back then (gameplay and story-wise), and it was punishingly easy. Sure, putting something on extremely hard mode will put you into the kind of situation Yahtzee was talking about with the doom fortress (from MOH: Airborn), but on the normal setting, and even sometimes the hard setting, they can still be easy enough. As for the non-standard controller thing, you get used to it after a while, look up "Through the Fire and the Flames Guitar Hero" on YouTube, and you'll see plenty of people who can do insane feats with that non-standard controller. I know that you might think, "Oh, well, they practiced a lot," and that's really just it, practice with something and you'll probably get better. That said, I come full circle and say that you've probably been 'praticing' at gaming for a while, and are picking them up faster and getting good faster, thus making the games seem easier.

LordOmnit:
Well, you should remember that you were five years old then, and didn't have the cognitive abilities that you do now. Looking back at game I thought were hard and playing them again, I realized so many things that I didn't back then (gameplay and story-wise), and it was punishingly easy. Sure, putting something on extremely hard mode will put you into the kind of situation Yahtzee was talking about with the doom fortress (from MOH: Airborn), but on the normal setting, and even sometimes the hard setting, they can still be easy enough. As for the non-standard controller thing, you get used to it after a while, look up "Through the Fire and the Flames Guitar Hero" on YouTube, and you'll see plenty of people who can do insane feats with that non-standard controller. I know that you might think, "Oh, well, they practiced a lot," and that's really just it, practice with something and you'll probably get better. That said, I come full circle and say that you've probably been 'praticing' at gaming for a while, and are picking them up faster and getting good faster, thus making the games seem easier.

Yeah I was maybe thinking the same thing, but dont you think some games could include higher difficulty for better gamers.

I've been playing since five and I'm now nearly 21 so you could say I've had a fair bit of time to get better. Plus it's probably one of my most time consuming hobbies.

Well, they could contain ever higher difficulty levels, but then they tend to just become slaughter-fests, whereas it is possible to lose somehow on lower levels of diffuculty. I mean, look at the Warriors series(s) from Koei. Playing on chaos mode is just silly, because you have a upper limit of weapon strength, and it makes it just reverses that punishingly easy to punishingly easy for the computer. Now if it was just making the A.I. more intelligent, then that would be more of a fun challenge, rather than a frustrating challenge, and even if it didn't increase an enemy's health, attack, defense, or speed, it could still be an interesting trail fighting against a computer that is about as intelligent as you are.
Back to what I was thinking about twenty-million words ago...
That ever increasing A.I. limit would also require longer production time, testing, more memory taken up, and therefore more money put into it, which isn't necessarily desireable from the game company's standpoint.

YES. Modern games are too easy.
I think this is dumbing down the skill level to appeal to a "broader" audience. (cough mmo worlds cough).
If you want a truly challenging game..
http://www.nethack.org/
Procedurally generated levels. Save and quit, but no reloading. One life only.
Random items means you can't merely memorize what to do and what to use.. you must "learn" each game. Quite challenging, only a few people have actually beaten it, but it's been proven that the majority of games can be beaten (some guy won either 7 or 12 times in a row on a telnet server).
That there^ is offline though, you just run the program. Have fun ^_^ I still can't get past level 8.

I think this is dumbing down the skill level to appeal to a "broader" audience.

I'd have to put my money on this too. It certainly wouldn't suprise me. But with that said there are going to be exceptions, people will start coming in and pointing out games that are hard now (on standard levels of difficulty), and games that were easy in the past.

But the whole thing with games, is that they're supposed to be FUN. I'm not the sort of person that will play a game on its "Uber Hard" difficulty level, but I like the fact that it's there. I've never completed a game and said "man that was like, so totally easy... I rocked it in like... 4 hours" because that's just f**king pathetic. What I will say though, is whether or not the game was FUN (there's that pesky word again). And to add in a dose of confusion, I might say being challenged was what I found enjoying, and in other games it may have been the ease in which I took peoples heads off... it really does depend (but what doesn't these days, eh?)

In short, easy or hard... it bothers me not, so long as it retains a high level of enjoyment.

Raph Koster said that games are fun because they are systems in which we learn. Stuff we need to learn = challenge, which is why a "totally easy game" is no "fun": because we aren't learning anything (we don't have to get better when playing it).
A lot of games are fun because of the "experience" (taking off heads, throwing chickens etc).
Interestingly, a lot of people LIKE easy games.. but I think this is because they do not like being challenged (cough WoW cough). Yes I know WoW is hard at the "level 70 raids blah blah", but for the first half of the game it's not hard.
You could say that what matters in videogames is Power.. the more powerful the player is, the more "fun" it is. And hard games are even more fun because of the challenge you must overcome to acquire the "Power" (Ninja Gaiden for example).
EDIT: Oh, the "dumbing down" is definitely happening. Compare 10 random NES or SNES or SEGA games to 10 random games released this year. Admittedly some of the old games were "stupid hard", but most of them were just.. challenging. Demanding of skill. Unlike the hand-holding fests we see nowadays. It's why I've been playing emulators more and more and buying modern games less and less..
I remember reading an article about Halo 3's playtesting.. where a woman missed a cache of grenades ten times in a row, so they moved the location of the grenades so players would see it.. talk about hand-holding. Seems like modern games are designed to be beaten, not designed to be challenging.
Abusing the edit button.. but has anyone played the Marathon series? I actually found out about it through the Escapist. It's a grittier, tougher "Halo".. with the most profound philosophy I've ever seen in a work of art. And it's HARD. Not just the combat, but the levels themselves are designed to mess with your head and make you think about what to do.
http://trilogyrelease.bungie.org/

Id like to redefine a bit.

Action games got easier. I don't really notice a difference in RPG games. Hell, maybe those got even a bit harder since they are no longer turn based.

I must say I like it a bit easier, though bioshock indeed falls in to (yahtzee quote) games that your mum could play bit. Then again, it made a nice and a bit relaxed game time for me, which I liked.

Ranzel:

dnv2:
Does anybody else find most modern games a bit too easy?

What's shocking to me nowadays is how easy some games have got.

The first console I ever got at the age of five was a Sega Mega Drive, I used to go nuts at some levels on the very first Sonic. Metal slug in the arcades is a real challenge to play as are bucketloads of other 'Retro' games. The Mario games (All Stars e.t.c) used to take hours of effort.

These days we get games that hold our hand all the way to the end, with on screen prompts and lock on reticules that basically take all the effort out of actually aiming at someone.
Even games that I've enjoyed playing over the past 6 months or so have had gripes.

For example Bioshock, yeah I think the games great, fair enough. Then there's the Vita-Chambers or whatever there called. What's that about? You die and you get revived instantly? Furthermore all the enemies you were killed by are still stood around picking their noses at the same amount of health you left them with and wondering why they cant use the majic chambers. Sure I used my own method to play the game by just reloading when I died but still..

Ok, rant over opinions please? ^^

Guitar Hero 3 on Expert.

I'll see your Guitar Hero 3 on Expert and raise you Ninja Gaiden on Hard.
I don't know myself if games have been getting harder since yore. I'm too young to comment. I'll make an educated guess from an FPS perspective though and say that the "Normal" difficulty" is being made easier while the harder ones are about the same, if not harder. No real evidence behind this except gut feeling of Bioshock and CoD 3. Seriously, those games are simple on normal but deadly at higher difficulties. I was silently screaming at my TV screen during a certain CoD set-piece.
Maybe this is to not patronise casual types while keeping 1337 types challenged?

I kind of feel like this idea is based around Bioshock, which WAS very easy, but then again, IMO it was more a story based game than anything else. The fact that it was easy on normal, and to be honest every other difficulty, didn't deter from the fact that the overall story was amazing. In fact, the difficulty and use of Vita Chambers as they were are pivitol to the story at many times. I say this without spoiling the game, but it is true. Nobody wants to read a book, only to have to backtrack and re-read parts over again because you just couldn't "understand" what you just read.
It just seems to me that there are few if any other examples of this downward slope, and even this example has a reason for its level of difficulty.

In most "modern" games, when increase the difficultly, all you are really doing is changing a damage mulipler; it's cheap cheap cheap design, yes, made for the benefit of a more casual gamer ( i would include myself in that crowd ). Gaming has turn from a niche to a more mainstreamed pasttime,and with money comes a flood trying to make a buck, and in that flood is a larger and larger percentage of crap. If you aren't happy with you experience ( aka you died too much or too easily ) then you might not buy the next POS they put out...like Halo 12 or MGS 27...

I think as game design changes the games have gotten easier. As classic and awesome Contra and ghouls and ghost are, they are hard and won't sell to the more casual gamer. Games are now designed to give a euphoric sense of accomplishment, if they player is killed in one shot, or beats the game to find out he/she missed a shield in level 4 and has to go back to beat it again, and after getting the shield finds out the last room was really an illusion and they have to beat the game again... the player will probably quit, and that means less sales of the game. Games are now designed with less challenge in mind, if the player is happy their wallets are open (sort to speak).

Definetely. Gears of War is a complete case in point here. Three boss battles (if you count the Berserker), and all of them sweatless. For the massive alien, it was a simple case of repeatedly shooting his weak spot till he stumbled across the clamps, and then shooting them. The Berserker basically required a good reflex and a little thought. And you basically just had to stay in cover for Commander Raam.
But yes, a lot of games nowadays are shorter and easier. Now, I don't expect, nor do I like, games that are rediculously hard. But I do believe that games need to be at least challenging. This especially goes for John Woo's Strangehold - which I did actually enjoy. But even I admit that even on Hard Boiled mode the game is still pretty easy.

Believe it or not, I blame the ease of modern games to the addition of the save game. Two reasons, first in the old games you needed to play through everything to get to that point that killed you when you die. If you make any mistakes along the way then you have to deal with them. Now when you die, you just reload past all of the stuff you did correctly, and back to the point that killed you. Meaning you basically get to start at the hard part with a perfect game behind you.

Also, because of save games, the games themselves have increased in length. To take the classic Ghouls and Ghosts as an example, it is only about an hour to play through. It is really hard though, so you end up starting from the beginning again. Due to the save game you don't start over, so they have to make games longer. Now, imagine a 10 hour game that was GnG hard the whole way through. It would be a nightmare to play, with deaths every 15 seconds. So they ease up a bit on the difficulty so the player can manage to work through it all.

Just for fun, try this.. play Halo 3.. any level. But when you die, restart from the beginning of the game. Even the easiest levels feel more tense and difficult then legendary when you put that shackle on. Especially if you do it co-op and get everyone to agree that on ANY death you all start over.

Modern games have selectable difficulty levels to allow folks to choose how much of a challenge they wish to face. I'd rather have that than a game with no choice that's either too hard or too easy "as shipped".

Besides, one way I get more replay value out of my games (yes, I play them more than once... what, am I made of money or something?) is to play through again after dialling the difficulty mode up a notch.

-- Steve

PS: regarding the Halo 3 mention above, try using the Iron skull which does exactly what xbeaker suggests, only automagically. Just make certain your friends agree if playing co-op, and you want to keep them as friends... and if that's too easy, try adding Thunderstorm (enemy AIs with rankings get promoted one rank) and Mythic (enemy AIs get double health) skulls to make it extra spicy.

xbeaker:
... Especially if you do it co-op and get everyone to agree that on ANY death you all start over.

Haha battle toads double dragon was hard for this reason, I remember getting to the bike part a few times and always beating it solo but if I was playing co-op I almost never got it finished... it wasn't that the part was hard by any means but it was long and if one player messed up they take the other player down with them. Now compare that to gears of war for example, one player dies and the other had to go over and "help them up".

Anton P. Nym:

PS: regarding the Halo 3 mention above, try using the Iron skull which does exactly what xbeaker suggests, only automagically. Just make certain your friends agree if playing co-op, and you want to keep them as friends... and if that's too easy, try adding Thunderstorm (enemy AIs with rankings get promoted one rank) and Mythic (enemy AIs get double health) skulls to make it extra spicy.

No, the Iron skull just sends you back to the last save point when any member dies. I mean if anyone dies, you restart from Landfall. If you want, use the Iron skull because it will keep anyone from lieing about their death. Trust me, you won't need anything to make the game harder. On heroic the game will be all but unbeatable with this restriction. You really don't notice how often you die in a game when you have infinate lives and an easy respawn point. Even on the easiest levels, a single lucky plasma grenade will have you starting over.

Iron sets you back to the beginning of the level in my experience... though, come to think of it, I've only dabbled with it in solo play and I haven't played an entire level through with it. (Hate. Hate. Hate.) Perhaps it works differently in co-op.

Restarting the game every time you die would be insanely difficult at Normal and all-but impossible on Legendary. I can't imagine anyone sufficiently die-hard to complete this... even if Halo 3 is "short", it's still a minimum six-hour game (barring speed-running techniques) and human endurance alone will prevent anyone from completing it.

Besides, the completion rate for games is dismally low in the marketplace today from what I've heard. Something like 80% of Live-aware games purchased go uncompleted, if I've got that right.

-- Steve

(PS: I have a devil of a time with the Catch skull. It is teh eVil.)

New games seem pretty easy to me, but I think that's not too much of a problem.
Nevertheless, I would like to, more often, see some sort of challenge mode that either lets you play through the main game, or fight stacks of enemies or something, with a special twist. (IE, you can only take one hit) That way you'd have Resident Evil 4 be still fairly easy for everyone, but The Mercenaries as a great challenge for those looking for something more.

As long as among the easy games, there are still some dedicated challenge games (Crysis comes up; play on Realistic and DIE) then I don't see a big problem with it.

That is the point though. Take away the #1 thing that makes things so easy, and all the sudden the easy-modern-game becomes just as hard, if not harder then the old-school games. I'm not sure if the skull brings you to the save point or the beginning of the level actually. I just assumed it was the last checkpoint because that is how Halo 2 (Legendary) did it. That was actually how I came upon this idea. My friends were all complaining that they dumbed down Halo 3 based on the fact tat they could blaze through it on Legendary co-op. Then I pointed out the fact that a single death did not reset you and they all seemed to agree that was the cause of the ease of play. So we started this permanent death variant.

It really adds new dimension to the game. Every encounter is a tense fight with people calling out for ammo, taking cover, and calling out enemy locations. You don't get that tension the first few games. It is only after the 2nd or 3rd death that the tragedy of death really hits home. Especially when you are a few chapters in. It isn't about finishing it, but about how far you can get before you die. It adds a lot of replay beyond the standard speed runs and such that always felt like work to me.

Katana314:
New games seem pretty easy to me, but I think that's not too much of a problem.
Nevertheless, I would like to, more often, see some sort of challenge mode that either lets you play through the main game, or fight stacks of enemies or something, with a special twist. (IE, you can only take one hit) That way you'd have Resident Evil 4 be still fairly easy for everyone, but The Mercenaries as a great challenge for those looking for something more.

As long as among the easy games, there are still some dedicated challenge games (Crysis comes up; play on Realistic and DIE) then I don't see a big problem with it.

Reminds me of Steel Battalion. When you were about to die, you had about 5 seconds to eject. If you did and you have enough money for a new mech, you could re-enter the battle. If you failed to eject, or were out of credits, it erased your save game.

Honestly, I find it quite refreshing to stand some chance of seeing the end titles of a game without having to cheat my balls off. I know a lot of you derive some perverse pleasure from adroitly jumping through arbitrary hoops in order to make it to the next cut-scene, but, frankly, if I'm made to play through the same part of a game more than five times, I'll generally give up and look for something more entertaining to do, like punching myself in the face or pulling my hair 'til my scalp bleeds.

You miss the point of these hoops though. I am not going to make a game unnecessarily difficult for myself under normal circumstances. First I play through a game. If I make it to the end of the game and find I still want to play it then it sometimes makes it more fun on a second play though to set some personal (albeit arbitrary) condition to keep it interesting. Some games it could mean moving up to the next difficulty setting. Some games it means playing through start to finish with a friend in co-op. Some times it is to pick up a few achievements I missed the first time. But on occasion the harder difficulties are not really harder, there is no co-op (or I have already done standard co-op a few times). Sometimes you have start making a few house rules just to mix it up a bit.

But everyone's mileage varies. I have a friend who always starts games on the hardest difficulty available (and bitches when hard, nightmare, or whatever is locked at first) because he likes his first play through to be as intense as possible. Then he goes through on subsequent plays on easy levels and just enjoys reliving the game by blazing through it, or attempts the 'break' it by doing the most insane things he can thing of. On the flip side one of the guys I work with immediately breaks out the Gameshark and starts by giving himself every weapon and turning on god-mode.

I think one of the great things about modern games is most of them allow for a wide range of play styles. The only down side is it takes away some of the accomplishment when you do beat the game if there are cheats, or it is too easy. Being the first to save the princess mean more when you really had to work for it.

I'd say that games have generally become slightly easier but still at a decent difficulty level. I played super Mario bros 3 (GBA version) recently and there were sections where I was getting really frustrated with it. Compare this to your average FPS and you can see that games have become generally easier. I think it's because of the fact that video games have become more mainstream. Games nowadays are aimed at more casual gamers who want to have a good time, not necessarily challenge themselves. Because of this fact, games have been dumbed down slightly to fit with the skill level of your average gamer.

some random guy:
I'd say that games have generally become slightly easier but still at a decent difficulty level. I played super Mario bros 3 (GBA version) recently and there were sections where I was getting really frustrated with it. Compare this to your average FPS and you can see that games have become generally easier. I think it's because of the fact that video games have become more mainstream. Games nowadays are aimed at more casual gamers who want to have a good time, not necessarily challenge themselves. Because of this fact, games have been dumbed down slightly to fit with the skill level of your average gamer.

If thats the case, what was the logic in making the frustrating bits of Mario Bros 3, or any old game(anything before PS2) so frustrating, considering games weren't mainstream and for the most part people had LESS skill? Why would developers make games hard when no one played them? The games being hard just equals less people playing them.

If anything, things should be in reverse. Games should have started off mind-numbingly easy, and today the games should be mind-shatteringly hard.

Ok, so it seems we have a lot of mixed opinions here.

I'm guessing that's something to do with the fact we seem to have a mix of 'Casual','Normal' and 'Elite' gamers, and I use all those terms loosely.

I myself like a bit of a challenge, as said by xbeaker I like to play a game through again usually on a harder difficulty to challenge myself a little more.
Everyone can say that games have got longer and that compensates for them being easier but IMO it really doesn't.

If a game is a easier, and lets say your a pretty good gamer who gets through most games without breaking much of a sweat then would'nt you just end up completing these longer games faster? So then you've basically spent money on a game that's damn easy but longer and finished it in a couple of weeks/days whatever. The amount of games that I've played this year that I finished within a couple of days/a week or so has been staggering, and when I'm paying £40 for some of these games I would'nt mind an option to play them again on a harder setting that at least gives me a challenge.

Gears of War was terrible for this, I paid £35 for it and the difference between difficulty was a cheap damage multiplier and then you could just duck out of the way after taking a shotgun blast to the head and be fine after a few seconds.

Ok so lets take it in a different direction, for anyone who likes the challenge element in their gaming post five games you think challenged you. They can be anything from old SNES games to newer stuff.

I'll start with.
1. DMC 3 (Had a few nice higher difficulty modes for you to play thorugh)
2. Stranglehold (Hard boiled mode is still pretty easy, but the one after is pretty intense)
3. Streets of Rage (Series in General on Harder modes)
4. Castlevania
5. Metal slug series (Using only the standard amount of continues, usually about 3 I think?)

My problem is that we haven't come any further with difficulties. Normal is the base line, easy is enemies do less damage/have less resources in RTS's, hard they do more or have more. There's nothing inventive about that and drives me incredibly mad when I see a game do it. How about a hard mode that makes the AI better, so that you actually have to think more and plan better? I mean, if we're using an FPS as an example, easy would mean enemies are prone to stand out in the open, and are not coordinated. Hard would be enemies constantly seek cover and support each other (they move to engage you, fire at different intervals, and support each other during advances). I'm sick and tired of games where the developers stick a couple more guys in a level and make them twice as strong and say, "lol my game requires so much strategery and is so hard"

Ok so lets take it in a different direction, for anyone who likes the challenge element in their gaming post five games you think challenged you. They can be anything from old SNES games to newer stuff.
I'll start with.
1. DMC 3 (Had a few nice higher difficulty modes for you to play thorugh)
2. Stranglehold (Hard boiled mode is still pretty easy, but the one after is pretty intense)
3. Streets of Rage (Series in General on Harder modes)
4. Castlevania
5. Metal slug series (Using only the standard amount of continues, usually about 3 I think?)

1. Ninja Gaiden
2. Nethack
3. Ikaruga
4. Perfect Dark 64
5. Metroid (nes)

6. Pretty much all multiplayer games I've played competitively. Humans are still the best challenge.

Sanguinans Sabulum:
My problem is that we haven't come any further with difficulties. Normal is the base line, easy is enemies do less damage/have less resources in RTS's, hard they do more or have more. There's nothing inventive about that and drives me incredibly mad when I see a game do it. How about a hard mode that makes the AI better, so that you actually have to think more and plan better? I mean, if we're using an FPS as an example, easy would mean enemies are prone to stand out in the open, and are not coordinated. Hard would be enemies constantly seek cover and support each other (they move to engage you, fire at different intervals, and support each other during advances). I'm sick and tired of games where the developers stick a couple more guys in a level and make them twice as strong and say, "lol my game requires so much strategery and is so hard"

There are good examples of AI, though I do entirely agree with you that difficulty should be more about the thinking process rather than just giving enemies more of what they need to be 'Harder' so to speak.

as long as its fun, i like a game, but from time to time, they present me with such a difficulty curve that i cant be arsed going over it again and again to get it perfect, to get to the next level, because that isnt fun, i do things that are fun to me, but when it becomes too difficult, i quit, because im not having fun, for games like devil may cry, extremely fun, but when you get to an extremely tedious section where your being timed while trying to kill so many monsters while trying to balance on a moving platform which you have to keep jumping off to stay fighting monsters, at that point, i get bored, and move on, i like finishing games, but if i cant have fun, the games have no point.

Although, i have been playing older and older games now, i even dug out my sega, thats right, i still got one, and, overall, the older games give you a greater challenge, but are more fun, to me at least, because you have less options, and you dont HAVE to think things through, its more of, get the timing right, and if you go this way, you cant do that any more, and if you collect this, you have a new function, but these days, with the modern games, there are so many functions that the possibilities are truly endless, which is a downside for me, cos i want dumb games, games that numb the brain and let you do stuff that you shouldnt be able to do, games that have real substance, and have real gameplay, which, i have to admit, halo 1 had these qualities, and i liked it, but since xbox live emerged, online play is so full of exploitational /b/tards, who want to "pwn n00bs" that no-one can have fun.

the fun in games, is lost to people who dont stop playing

Crysis had some inventive forms of difficulty. On harder modes, your crosshair is taken away, and the foreign-soldier enemies stop speaking English.

Katana314:
Crysis had some inventive forms of difficulty. On harder modes, your crosshair is taken away, and the foreign-soldier enemies stop speaking English.

That's pretty cool and other developers should take note of these kind of ways to make the games more challenging. It's not A.I but it's something different at least.

dnv2:

Ok so lets take it in a different direction, for anyone who likes the challenge element in their gaming post five games you think challenged you. They can be anything from old SNES games to newer stuff.

I'll start with.
1. DMC 3 (Had a few nice higher difficulty modes for you to play thorugh)
2. Stranglehold (Hard boiled mode is still pretty easy, but the one after is pretty intense)
3. Streets of Rage (Series in General on Harder modes)
4. Castlevania
5. Metal slug series (Using only the standard amount of continues, usually about 3 I think?)

1. Ghosts 'n Goblins... may be the hardest game ever. Made all the more frustrating because it rarely feels cheap
2. Castlevania (I'm with you on that one dnv2)
3. Ninja Gaiden (the first one)
4. Halo 2 - Legendary - Co-op
5. Gran Turismo - license challenges.

But as I mentioned in a previous post (I think) what I really want to see is less of the difficulty be ramped up by making enemies harder to kill and more of it being more challenging due to changes in the level. Smarter AI would be great (though it is rare that even the best AIs are all that smart to begin with) Close off the obvious easy path and make the player take an alternate route through the level. Put items, weapons, and enemies in different locations. This goes for all games, not just FPSs. Racing games already do it with the better AI drivers (though some cheat and just add rubber band physics and challenger cars that far outclass yours) The Legend of Zelda series has been doing it since the first game with the alternate dungeons. With modern design tools it should be a simple matter to reconfigure levels slightly to change the challenge a bit.