I always play in normal with the exception of when a game isn't that good I'll drop it to easy just to push through as fast as possible. I did this on Deadpool.

It depends on what I am playing.

Playing games on easy feels like a total waste of my money to me. Normal then hard later

I play on easy to feed my superiority complex its that simple!

You're not all that into them?

I normally do normal by default, but when I'm playing call of duty's SP I go for the highest difficulty because I wanna to get the most trophies from the campaign story.

But everything else I keep s**t simple because Its not fun on easy, and it's too boring on hard.

And that's how I stay a happy gamer.

Starting on hard I find helps me slow down and appreciate all the game mechanics more.

depending on the game i will start on normal or hard

I play games on normal first to enjoy the story without the potential frustration of hard modes blocking me for a while.

Been playing games so long now that playing on Easy is just not worth my time. I play games to get challenged and to become better at the game.

Taking in the story and the sights when you have fought your way to get there is so more rewarding.

Easy mode is nice for newcomers. And that's all.

allways on the last hard here.

Well my backlog of games is forcing me to play on easy. I usually play games on the highest difficulty level but that backlog is why I'm playing on easy

only a wussy would play any game on easy. Easy is boring. Medium is fun. Hard is fun plus challenging. Hardest is fun but stuff will be broken. Bloodborne is perfect.

I play games on easy if there's a really good story I don't want interrupted through repetitive deaths and restarts.

I played Bloodborne as a waste of skin NG+++, that's how I roll.

I used to focus more on easy, but these days I go the route of normal, because it's the just the right challenge for me.

depends... if a game has a trophy for playing on the hardest setting, i'll play on that setting to reduce the amount of times i have to play the game. if there's not difficulty trophy, i'll play on normal, usually. if the game isn't that difficult to begin with, and has no difficulty trophy, i'll play on the hardest setting as well.

edit: i will only play on easy when i'm cleaning up trophies.

I always start at the hardest available. I've always been of the opinion that, if I want to experience the character's struggle the way it was intended, it can't really be very balanced. I get more out of games the first time around when I struggle and it inevitably makes me better.

Hard is the new Normal.

It's your game. Play it on whatever setting you want.

I play on the hardest difficulty if a trophy is involved or if it is just too easy.

Hard mode on Yakuza 4... full of regret. You dont get the completion trophy unless you play on Normal mode. Who'd want to replay the game in normal when your characters are max level with godly items?

I play all games on hard - makes them last longer! I also am a sucker for hard/punishing games, +400hrs in Bloodborne/Dark Souls series.

I also enjoy removing as much of the HUD as possible in games to add immersion, as long as the gameplay does not become too hard to play.

I am not a fan of the hand-holding trend in games lately. PRESS X TO RELOAD - always thought that was a sad one (blasted across the screen when your clip is running dry in a shooter).

Well I've been a gamer since 1991 and started with the NES and I always play on the easiest setting.

The main source of a challenge I want is from multiplayer. I like fighting the best players I can find in Street Fighter but if I'm playing an action game I just want fun, which doesn't translate to dying and repetition. I want to ensure a smooth experience.

Of course, there's times when I will choose normal/hard, specifically it depends on the game and my preferences, plus if I already played it or if I shoot for Trophies.

When I was younger I always chose Normal, often Hard. Now I'm of zero patience so I don't do it as often. Why would I want to grind in an RPG to kill damage sponges? The exception to this is TRPGs, I love needing to be tactical.

I don't like wasting time getting frustrated so Souls games are horrible to me, same for any game filled with repetition, like Dungeon Crawlers.

Everyone has preferences, it doesn't make them more or less hardcore. I mean, my favorite genres are Fighting, Visual Novel, Tactical RPG, Card Game, Board Game, ect, so my difficulty is derived from people or tactical issues, strategy, not from a game designed to put you on edge, barely giving you the tools to win. No thanks.

Wuchang is great. Nine Sols didn’t have a physical copy so I never played it but I’ve heard good things so I will check it out. I stopped playing sports games many years ago when before the card dlc’s or whatever they’re called.

Last comment… ):

Great month for others, but not me. Hate soccer and soulslikes. Maybe Nine Sols is good.

🫡 it was fun while it lasted, N4G.

FC26!

I hated that he died. The game was good but you never want to see a character you can relate or enjoy to die off like that. We wanted more Joel not less. Still a really good game but that part will always sit poorly with many

I really didn’t mind his fate. It was the way it was executed was the problem

Not gonna lie, I think they made a big mistake. I mean I like a big unimaginable shock moments as much as the next person. It was just too soon though. If you’re going to kill off the main character you need a solid back up that people love just as much to carry the weight of the loss. If you’re setting it up for a trilogy then he really should have died at the end of 2 or half way through 3.

Who cares, that was like 6 years ago.

I don't mind the story, I think it is interesting in its own. But I would much prefer it stays as a story between Joel and Ellie (And I don't hate Abby, but it just feels like a third wheel when I play the game, feel like it is not a story about her). Joel can live with the consequences in a different way than just get killed off, his emotional conflicts between him and Ellie, Abby and everyone else would have a lot of interesting stories to tell, not any less than just get killed off.

So we as players, who controlled Joel in the first game, can get immersed and feel the guilt with him, instead of getting angry that he got killed.

TLOU Part 2 was a great game, but the entire game made me mad

Personally I liked that they killed off Joel, his death scene was great. The story was good and how revenge drives a person. The last quarter of the game was dumb after Tommy told Ellie where Abby was located. She leaves the farm goes in an arduous trek killing many more people along the way. Finds Abby in a cage releases her they fight, Ellie gets two fingers bitten off, and suddenly she doesn’t want to fight and kill Abby anymore, lets her leave with a warning even though she was the one losing the fight. Why go the rough all of that hassle just to let the focus of your hatred just leave. Should have stwyed home with Diana and keep all her fingers intact. Still a great game with a good story and I liked Abby I saw no reason for all her hate.

They could have killed Tommy and made it a revenge story with Joel and Ellie going after Abbie.

ND was trying so hard to make me sympathize with Abbie and it just wasn't working. I just don't understand how you make a "revenge is bad story" while having me mow through hundreds of NPCs just to get to the main culprit and just...not finish the job. Druckman is a terrible story teller.