Agree. Though I think that it would be more correct to say that games shouldn't have multiple difficulties(the kind that you choose between easy, normal and hard) and instead just have the one intended by the dev.
If the developer wants its game to be easy, that's fine!If the developers wants its game to be hard, thats also fine! But by having only one difficulty, and thus one vision, makes for a better game overall in my opinion.
Exactly this. I see a lot of people seeing this take as something ridiculous and trying to be edgy or whatever, but no, like you said it's not necessarily about being "hard", it's more about having one well thought difficulty / vision done by the developers.
In so many games I hesitated for like 30 minutes on the main menu wondering what difficulty I should pick, looking online about it, how it's balanced etc, and it's really tedious, because it really depends on the games and how much efforts were put into designing the difficulty levels (most of the time it's quite low.)
The difference in difficulty levels are often quite boring, like just less HP for the player, more HP for the ennemies etc... And it might just lead to more tedious and boring combats. But because of this, some people think that hard difficulty is always boring, and it's not the case, it really depends on how it was designed.
When you have multiple difficulties, it's always much harder to balance things perfectly and it feels more like random tweaks to alterate the game, instead of well thought out challenge and way of playing. It's also a lot more interesting when everyone go through the same experience, because in some games the difficulty can drastically change the way the game is played, which can lead to confusion when people talk about their experience, share things about it etc, appearing like two different games sometimes.
metro.co.uk
