>tediously easy endgame with undertuned encounters splattering against your complete build
>frustratingly difficult endgame with overtuned encounters making you reload a save five times per enemy
Which is worse?
>tediously easy endgame with undertuned encounters splattering against your complete build
2nd is worse. Bad design that you can get through easily > bad design you need to savescum to get over with.
This is true if the game isn't well designed. The second one is fine if the game is just really hard, but someone who knows what they're doing can succeed consistently.
1 purely because of how common it is
2 sounds bad on paper but the few games that do this are actually beloved and have overwhelmingly positive reviews on steam
>2 sounds bad on paper but the few games that do this are actually beloved and have overwhelmingly positive reviews on steam
Examples?
Hollow Knight, Dragon's Dogma, Library of Ruina, Monster Hunter 4U, Jump King
please don't involve dragons dogma in trollposts.
>s that do this are actually beloved and have overwhelmingly positive reviews
so it's good because other people say so? what's it like having no thought of your own
difficult endgame
git
u
d
Is the lamb ok?
This is the song that doesn't end.
It goes on and on, my friend.
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue singing it, forever, just because...
This is the song that doesn't end
Both are fine.
The more common frickup I see is overtuning early game encounters to be more difficult and tedious than necessary, especially in games where the endgame is a pushover.
It’s only true for jarpigs. Actual wrpgs rely on a time tested system to create both challenging and not frustrating endgames, yet still feeling like a god after level 20. Of jrpgs i played only persona 5 and i needed to grind mercilessly to get through the last dungeons
>Of jrpgs i played only persona 5 and i needed to grind mercilessly to get through the last dungeons
No you didnt. Persona games are notorious for becoming hilariously easy by the midway point.
they were easy by the midway point, it's the end dungeons i'm talking about moron. that's what happpens when your systems are playtested for a few monts and not decades
>Actual wrpgs rely on a time tested system to create both challenging and not frustrating endgames, yet still feeling like a god after level 20.
>t. has never played jrpg OR wrpg once in his entire life
1, because it punishes you for playing the game correctly, while 2 punishes you for not playing the game correctly.
Is that question about House at the End of Time? It's the worst, as it boils down to question "did you take Blind Fight Feat?". If you did, it's easy, if you didn't, it's pure frustration even at max level.
I'd take easy endgame over hard one anytime. Breath of Fire 2, SMT 1 and Gothic 1 will make you burn out time and time again.
>deleting everything and winning
>being frustrated and hating the game
Gee, I dunno, which is worse OP?
Due to how poorly balanced most systems are by the time you get to end game you are a god who can one turn basically every enemy.]]
Like look at Pathfinder for instance. The game is ironically at its hardest the earlier in the game.
>The game is ironically at its hardest the earlier in the game.
That's not ironic, that's just standard CRPG shit because you have almost no tools at your disposal. Power gains in these kinds of gains aren't linear, they're exponential. So a level 10 character is way stronger than even a level 8 character, who makes a level 3 character look pathetic.
i guess that's the legacy of gygax being incredebly moronic and making d&d a survival horror
That actually sounds kino.
It is, with a right dm. Look up maps/adventures for Tomb of Horrors and Curse of Strahd
You are a level 1 peasant. You gain no levels. You have no skills. Kobolds are raiding your village. Good luck!
d&d with gygax wasn't a survival horror, it was more like pikmin, you were expected to have multiiple sheets
Lol. Intermittent difficulty of course. How is this even a question?
No I don't want a trivial boss fight that cheapens and undermines the whole game. And no I don't want to fight yet another trash encounter against skeletons #54-62 except now they're red and angry and have enough stats to beat all the previous bosses and heroes combined or shitty moronic Elder Scrolls bandits in full daedric armor, or le hordes of demons small fry in Pathfinder.
Just let me dab and one shot trash mobs, have to use abilities for elites, and actually plan and prepare for boss fights. God, I should stop coming here, it just makes me realize how moronic game devs are and how moronic people are for buying their shit.
Why not both
The first is just the game saying "dude calm the frick down, the game isn't even that hard"
By contrast, the latter is legit tryharding shit
>7 wolfs eating 1 lamb
They're going to be even hungrier than they were before.
1 is worse
the game implodes if you try to play it correctly, while in 2 its just a slight design error and you can easily try a little harder to overcome, you can learn more to overcome an overtuned challenge, you can't play worse to beat a game that badly tuned at its core
Yeah though the real problem is OP being an over-simplifying homosexual. I think the real question is whether the difficulty curve ever reached a satisfying apex before falling apart.
I think it's a fairly reasonable design for difficulty to peak about 75%-80% of the way through, especially if the game is really long. I think the catch is that the high water mark has to really test you and feel like a good challenge, and it has to come late enough that you feel reasonably powerful with access to the full breadth of gameplay mechanics, while still falling short of total godhood.
Players generally seem to find difficulty engaging as long as they are invested in the game. If you've made it to the endgame and completed your build, surely you are invested. Putting the player on the backfoot for once and forcing them to adapt sounds preferable. Err on the side of difficulty.