|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do a lot of gamers play in 'hard' mode?
I'm not actually very good at video games, and I always play in the easiest mode available.
I also notice that, like Crysis 3, there's really only one Xbox edition--the one that comes out 14 May and includes the 'limited' content.
The PC version comes in both standard and limited editions--the standard edition is $45; limited is $50. The PC preorder is limited to the 'limited' version.
I would be pretty happy if there were a standard Xbox version that was $5 cheaper than the limited: I'd definitely buy it, since I'll never even try 'ranger' mode.
|
Some people like a challenge. Some people are naturally so good that nothing challenges them but the hard mode.
I have a friend who is incredibly good at league of legends, easily defeating pros who spend eight hours a day practicing this game, but he doesn't care about money or renown, he just likes a challenge.
I tend to play on normal difficulty, sometimes on hard if normal is too easy. Sometimes, i turn it up to ultra hard, just for the fun. It's much more rewarding when you beat nearly impossible odds then to breeze through encounters.
Think of it like this. If every encounter your party came across was APL-2, you'd grow bored of it. It would be too easy. And you would advance slowly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong--I like a challenge. I am usually quite challenged by normal mode (like I mentioned, I am not very good at video games). I'm one of those guys who really enjoys games, but the combination of available time and poor skills means it takes me a year to finish Halo: Reach (true story). I just finished Dishonored (started it in October), haven't even reached the half-way point of Bioshock: Infinite. But the difficulty against wandering monsters in D&D are all about rolls and balanced encounters. A level one mage doesn't stand a chance against a level 18 encounter with a death knight. But a skilled gamer behind a keyboard or controller is a completely different story.
I'm curious to know if I'm the standard casual gamer (I recently read that most people never get more than halfway through a video game)--how many people ever play a game at any setting more difficult than normal?
Who is really upset by the Metro: Last Light DLC / Preorder / Limited Edition release model? If it's a small set of hardcore gamers, then it seems like a potentially profitable strategy to sell a difficult setting to those people.
iPhone autocorrect is really kicking my butt today.
Or as that last sentence was originally typed:
iPhone 5 automobiles search rations kicked my brute toads.
|
|
Traditionally the 'hard' mode of a game is what a lot of people who keep playing past an initial onset end up playing. Form the type of game it is it sounds like it would be the more interesting mode of play.
Plus there is usually the reason that if you want to see the "real" ending to a game you have to beat it on hard mode.
Basically it comes down to these companies having no idea how to properly monetize things still. Like they haven't for like 10 years now.
There are hardly any games whatsoever that have a "Beat the game on hardest difficulty to get the 'real' ending" clause. And most of those were released a decade or more ago.
Most people who play metro, play for hard mode, because it's not really a well known game. Almost indie so to say.
Here in Germany it has to be one of the more advertised games of the summer, so that is not universal truth...
It's pretty well known. If you have Steam for your PC games you've been staring at it a lot lately. I don't think charging more for hard mode is a good idea but I can dissect the thought that went into it. 1. Most people don't play hard mode. 2. Hard mode took extra work / programming. 3. People who want a harder game will pay for it. 4. Money! Not the best way to go, but we'll see how it goes for them. If enough people whine / complain / refuse they may change their minds about it. Or they may release it as free later. Who knows. Myself, I have too many games on my plate right now, I'll pick it up later in the summer. The chatter about it is very good and I'm expecting it to be one of the better summer games.
|
|
The point is that it didn't take more work/programming. All it took was changing several variables and unshackling the AI. That is a few dozen numbers and three lines of code. Why would i have to pay additional 5 bucks to play the game ”the way it's meant to be played” as they say on promo materials?
Do a lot of gamers play in 'hard' mode?
I think for those of us that grew up on Atari 2600 and the NES, there's a high likelihood of playing exclusively on hard mode in modern games to get a sliver of the challenge of classics like Ninja Gaiden or Battletoads. Too little challenge, and it doesn't really feel like playing a game anymore... more like mindless data entry at work would feel if it had pretty graphics and a controller.
The point is that it didn't take more work/programming. All it took was changing several variables and unshackling the AI. That is a few dozen numbers and three lines of code. Why would i have to pay additional 5 bucks to play the game ”the way it's meant to be played” as they say on promo materials?
And they figure you'll pay for it. I didn't say it was nice, I didn't say they didn't already have the better AI in place (although they had to develop it beforehand). I simply said they want to make money. As a developer, they probably get more of a DLCs price than they do off the original game. They may figure that they were doing more work than they had to in order to just push the game out the door (minus what's offered in the DLC) and they deserve the money. Or they may just be evil capitalists. The question is how many people will pop for the DLC.
Given that 4A/THQ was giving away Metro 2033 for free a few months ago, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of being a bunch of money-grubbing jerks.
Yes, but THQ isn't publishing Last Light.
Kinda hard to publish things when you no longer exist.
4A is the developer, but the Publisher is Deep Silver / Koch Media. They picked up Metro and Saints Row iirc when THQ bit the dust. I must admit, I know little about them as a publisher. I'm not sure how much they would have to do with the DLC situation or how much was already laid down by THQ...
Actually the Hard Mode DLC was a leftover from THQ days. Deep silver apologized for it but didn't remove it.EDIT: Which only means that they saw it as an awesome idea to make more money...
Or they are trying to recover the costs of acquiring the ip they got from THQ. The question as to whether it's "stuck with it" v. "thinking it's a good idea" will be answered by future releases from them.
I don't see how you can characterize it as not needing any extra work.
Although the base AI engine is the same, adjusting settings, adjusting game-world objects and NPC stats/scripts, modifying stats of gear, and all the work to get it to work JUST RIGHT, is still work to do that wouldn't be needed if this mode was just not offered.
Sure, it is much less work compared to the game as a whole, but it still is extra work/time/money, and if only some players want this then the same work gets proportionately more expensive per player. If all players wanted to buy this, then they would likely include it in the game, or just drop some other easier mode.
The question is how much is already in the game v. how much is actually added to it by the DLC. In other words, is the DLC using code / assets already in the game (just activating what is already there) or is it adding code and assets. Hard to say from the outside, especially without knowing the size of the DLC (which I don't). Pre-planned DLC could be either and, obviously, is going to use assets already in game and may / may not add to the game assets / code...
|
|
The game costs 50 bucks. I ain't paying more for a DLC that just ramps up the difficulty without adding any extra content beyond reducing the number of ammo you get, and having enemies dealing more damage as well as the AI having no constraints.
Because that's how AI is made. They make it the smartest they can and then they limit it by reducing vision and a number of reactions it can have. Removing those constraints means selecting those lines of code and deleting them, or adding a few. That is not worth 5 dollars.
So don't buy the DLC?
The game costs 50 bucks. I ain't paying more for a DLC that just ramps up the difficulty without adding any extra content beyond reducing the number of ammo you get, and having enemies dealing more damage as well as the AI having no constraints.
Because that's how AI is made. They make it the smartest they can and then they limit it by reducing vision and a number of reactions it can have. Removing those constraints means selecting those lines of code and deleting them, or adding a few. That is not worth 5 dollars.
There is a lot more to AI than that. I doubt an enhanced AI (these days) is going to just allow it to "cheat" by looking through walls, being inhumanly accurate etc. Pathing is important in AI and the range of choices available to AI characters. If the AI makes better tactical choices it makes a huge difference. And then there's the "budget" on processing for different aspects of the game (including AI). The DLC might be a cheap accuracy / perception bit or it might be more complex. There is no way to know (short of access to the code) until someone plays it. So, wait and check the forums about it and make your (informed) decision then. If the extra cost is that annoying wait until the game drops in price and then buy it and, if you want it, the DLC. The word is that this game is very good. I plan on buying it, but not at the moment, so I'll make my decision on the DLC then.
Played it, finished it. It was immeasurably fun. No replay value whatsoever however. Not challenging enough though.
Did you play "Ranger" mode or just the regular game? Would you bother to run it through again at the higher difficulty or would you say one time only? Thanks.
|
|
Maybe i would, if i didn't have to pay for ranger mode. I played on hard mode, and while ammo was scarce, you died easily and enemies had to be shot multiple times (plus shots to armor didn't work), it was still pretty easy.
I'm not giving five dollars for reduced amounts of ammo and removal of the hud.
Pretty much, 85% one time only since the game is pretty linear (no kidding it's in a metro with tunnels)...
Maybe i would, if i didn't have to pay for ranger mode. I played on hard mode, and while ammo was scarce, you died easily and enemies had to be shot multiple times (plus shots to armor didn't work), it was still pretty easy.
I'm not giving five dollars for reduced amounts of ammo and removal of the hud.
Pretty much, 85% one time only since the game is pretty linear (no kidding it's in a metro with tunnels)...
Thanks. And yeah, the metro tunnels pretty much make it the definition of a linear "on rails" shooter :)
|
|
Brilliant!!
I just finished the game; I'm very sad and very surprised at the ending.
Absoultely wonderful, immersive, beautiful experience. Yes, it took me over a month to finish it, but, hey--I've been playing Fallout 3 for over three years now; I'm slow like that.
Nonetheless, one of the best-looking games I've played this year and a definite contender for my personal year's best list.
Big thanks to Hama for bringing this game to my attention.
Very highly recommended.
Brilliant!!I just finished the game; I'm very sad and very surprised at the ending.
Absoultely wonderful, immersive, beautiful experience. Yes, it took me over a month to finish it, but, hey--I've been playing Fallout 3 for over three years now; I'm slow like that.
Nonetheless, one of the best-looking games I've played this year and a definite contender for my personal year's best list.
Big thanks to Hama for bringing this game to my attention.
Very highly recommended.
Sounds very Russian. And very good. I still mess around in FO3 and FO:NV. And I have barely scratched the surface of Skyrim. It might be awhile but I have to give this one a go...