A game that unlocks more story by playing each difficulty?

[Legchomper]

Hey guys, I'm not sure if there's a game that's implemented what I'm about to say or if anyone's ever created a forum about it before but I would like to know what everyone else thinks of this idea. 

Like myself I'm sure most of you, although don't mind a challenge, would choose the easiest difficulty of a game if it lets you get all the trophies in one play through. I know there's games out there that require you to play the hardest difficulty for a trophy and sometimes there's a different ending, but the story itself remains.

I understand most games are aimed at players with the intention of just completing one story but when there's only one trophy for completing the hardest mode, well most people would be put off from putting the effort in, right? 

Well how does this sound to you guys... 

A game that unlocks more content and continuation of the story only with you increasing the difficulty. 

So you start the game on Normal difficulty and you get to see quarter of the game, and then it prompts you to play on Hard mode upon reaching that quarter, Hard mode would allow you to see half the game, and Expert would allow you to see all the game. 

I think this would be a fresh and unique idea that would force people into a challenge if they want to see the story, this would improve a persons skill and knowledge about said game and probably other games with similar mechanics. 

So what do you guys think? good idea? bad idea? 

[PREDRAG-K]

I don't think it would work. People who suck at the game wouldn't get to see the full story. Sure, it may force them to attempt to get better at it. But as soon as they can't, they'll put the game away and say "Fuck it, I'll watch a playthrough on YouTube."

For example, my all time favorite game is Bioshock. I loved the story, and I first played the game on normal difficulty. Had the game forced me to play on Survivor to see the story, I don't think I would've liked the game. I only beat it on Survivor because I already played it a few times, and wanted the extra challenge.

Look at how many people can't even get passed the first or second boss of Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne. It frustrates them, and they don't give the games a real chance. Same thing would happen if games started requiring you to play on the hardest difficulty.

Now, if you mean a natural progression of difficulty as you continue into the game, I think most (good) games already do that. Enemies get smarter and stronger. Endgame bosses are harder to beat that the first few, etc. They don't literally tell you "This part of the game is now hard mode", but it's obvious while you're playing.

[LetsTurnJu-On]

Errmmmmm... It'd be an ok idea, seeing as I only play on the hardest difficulties anyway (most games are far too easy nowadays). But, Normal mode would have to the full story, otherwise your kinda cheating some people who aint great at the game out of the story.

 

Maybe have the normal run through, then the harder difficulties add in extra lore, instead of story continuation. Extra NPCs, quests, etc.

 

I dunno, I'm sure there's a better way to implement it, but it's a bit iffy if the game is too hard for some people and they are cheated out of the story. But adding in extra lore / info / things to do would be fine by me.

[MMDE]

Sounds like padding.

[Saltyie]

It wouldn't work, it removes the purpose of having difficulty options - allowing us to choose how difficult we want the game to be. 

[DEMON]

I can see a secret ending or something like that being added which has been done before.  But not a full fledged story.  Now when I think of it though, Golden Axe, the first one on the Megadrive/CD had this sort of thing.  Pretty much, you could only reach Stage 3 on the easier difficulty, you had to play on Normal I believe to get the full story.

[Dreakon13]

A game that unlocks more content and continuation of the story only with you increasing the difficulty. 

So you start the game on Normal difficulty and you get to see quarter of the game, and then it prompts you to play on Hard mode upon reaching that quarter, Hard mode would allow you to see half the game, and Expert would allow you to see all the game.

 

So a quarter of the game is played on Normal, then you proceed to the next quarter by switching to Hard, then you switch to Expert when it prompts for the rest.  Since it doesn't sound like there's any "replaying" needed... how is that any different than a game getting progressively harder as it goes on, like most games?  Just have it switch automatically without any prompts.  Seamless.

 

 

And for what it's worth, I wouldn't play on the easiest difficulty for all of the trophies if I could.  My default is Normal, because IMO that's the developers intended difficulty for the game to be experienced.  Easy and Hard (or any variation) were only added to pander to certain kinds of stubborn people.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Dreakon13

[CediFonei]

This actually sounds like an idea I've seen in many arcadey games before. Say, take Jamestown for example. In Jamestown, you can only play up to Stage 3 on Normal, Stage 4 on Difficult, and Stage 5 on Legendary. And while I'm OK with how it was executed there, mostly because stages in Jamestown aren't very long, I know lots of people dislike this concept of locking stage progression behind difficulties.

[Redgrave]

I can only see that working on a Souls type game. Any other game most people wouldn't finish because they wouldn't want to bother replaying it so many times or the difficulty would be too hard for them.

[DaivRules]

I don't think it would work. People who suck at the game wouldn't get to see the full story.

 

Since the introduction of Achievements and Trophies we have concrete proof that the great majority of gamers suck at games and don't make it through the full story of much of any games.

 

The idea would work if it were altered a bit. If Normal difficulty concluded a fully contained story and progressive difficulties unlocked tangential stories, post-game stories or prequel stories, it would make the game more interesting. 

 

There would be backlash if however, the Normal difficulty really only game a quarter of the story. Skill varies by player and if the majority of the intended audience payed the same price, but likely couldn't get more than a quarter of the story (and possibly a quarter of the game time) they would feel ripped off. Good luck ever selling them a game from that developer in the future.

[Dreakon13]

There would be backlash if however, the Normal difficulty really only game a quarter of the story. Skill varies by player and if the majority of the intended audience payed the same price, but likely couldn't get more than a quarter of the story (and possibly a quarter of the game time) they would feel ripped off. Good luck ever selling them a game from that developer in the future.

 

Release the game at $20, then release two $20 DLC packs containing the rest of the story at their respective difficulties.

 

For some reason, I think people would be just as offended by that.  If not moreso.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Dreakon13

[SuffyZorugelion]

It wouldnt work in a story based game. Imagine this, you play halfway through a game, then they throw you a huge cliffhanger, then force you to start from the beginning on harder difficulty. That just feels like my save got just wiped. It would drive players away and it would also be a suicide for the developers. Like said above, arcade games are something it could deffinately work with.

Edited March 16, 2016 by LovesAnInjection

[hwnruus]

Elder Scrolls online does this method. You have to pick a single faction to play with. when you finish that faction it unlocks another faction to play so you can keep your character and then finally unlocks the last faction. Difficulty goes up as you increase in rank.

[Komrade_Konrad]

This actually sounds like an idea I've seen in many arcadey games before. Say, take Jamestown for example. In Jamestown, you can only play up to Stage 3 on Normal, Stage 4 on Difficult, and Stage 5 on Legendary. And while I'm OK with how it was executed there, mostly because stages in Jamestown aren't very long, I know lots of people dislike this concept of locking stage progression behind difficulties.

 

^^ I think it worked quite well for Jamestown, but only because it was a very specific type of game.  While some might play it for the story, the main point of the game is to get better at the game and play on higher difficulties.  Because of that, replaying the game on an increased difficulty to unlock more and more stages helps to cultivate the skill required to eventually beat the game on the second hardest setting.  It moves the carrot just a little further each time to encourage the player to reach a certain level of competency and see the ending.  When I beat the final boss, it was a very satisfying event because it had to be done on a higher difficulty.  As I said though, it only works because its a very specific type of game.  The levels are short, the story is secondary, and the way its done provides a nice platform for getting better at the game.

 

Overall, I don't think this would work well in longer or more story oriented games because it makes for a worse environment for encouraging its players to get better.  Too long and people won't want to replay it.  Too story focused and people probably don't go in caring about difficulty. They just want to experience the story, and unless there is a story-centric reason for why playing on a harder difficulty is important, it will just alienate the players who came in expecting something else.  I think it all comes down to what the player expects coming into the game.

 

*Edit - Misread the OP about prompting the player to increase difficulty going forward rather than replay on a higher difficulty, but I think most of my points still stand.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Komrade_Konrad

[Satoshi Ookami]

Sounds like reversed Persona 4.

[thegirlruka]

Release the game at $20, then release two $20 DLC packs containing the rest of the story at their respective difficulties.

 

For some reason, I think people would be just as offended by that.  If not moreso.

You'd have to hire a Hitman or something to intimidate people into agreeing to that

[damon8r351]

The original Star Fox had something like this. Each difficulty level had a different set of levels to play through.

[savageamusement]

Sounds a bit like ghosts and goblins to me, I still haven't completed that game on hard to this day

[CediFonei]

^^ I think it worked quite well for Jamestown, but only because it was a very specific type of game.  While some might play it for the story, the main point of the game is to get better at the game and play on higher difficulties.  Because of that, replaying the game on an increased difficulty to unlock more and more stages helps to cultivate the skill required to eventually beat the game on the second hardest setting.  It moves the carrot just a little further each time to encourage the player to reach a certain level of competency and see the ending.  When I beat the final boss, it was a very satisfying event because it had to be done on a higher difficulty.  As I said though, it only works because its a very specific type of game.  The levels are short, the story is secondary, and the way its done provides a nice platform for getting better at the game.

 

Overall, I don't think this would work well in longer or more story oriented games because it makes for a worse environment for encouraging its players to get better.  Too long and people won't want to replay it.  Too story focused and people probably don't go in caring about difficulty. They just want to experience the story, and unless there is a story-centric reason for why playing on a harder difficulty is important, it will just alienate the players who came in expecting something else.  I think it all comes down to what the player expects coming into the game.

 

*Edit - Misread the OP about prompting the player to increase difficulty going forward rather than replay on a higher difficulty, but I think most of my points still stand.

Indeed, and prompting the player to suddenly increase the difficulty or else stop playing causes its own problems. If you spend the entire game on a lower difficulty, only to find out you can't progress unless you immediately jack up the difficulty, you're going to find yourself thrown into gameplay you might be unable to handle. You'd be used to the easier difficulties, not the harder ones, but difficulty continues to scale up through each stage. That's about as abrupt of a difficulty spike as you could possibly invoke...

Edited March 17, 2016 by CediFonei

[Nasty_Rory]

Payday The Heist only let you play the later levels on  the harder difficulties and going back games such as TimeSplitters (think it was TS2) let you see more of the level if you played the game in two player modes.

 

I dont have anything against it as many games up the difficulty anyway as you progress through them without saying they are increasing the difficulty.  This, and the old COD favourite of infinite spawning enemies, increase the difficulty against the less gifted or time limited gamer.  There is nothing worse than a game that starts off as a walk in the park on level one but requires you to have the reflexes and targeting skills of a fighter pilot by level 6.

 

If the game is reasonable towards the time limited player - the one that doenst have the time to sit and learn every pattern the AI takes etc - then I am all for increasing the difficulty.  But I also think that if that is the case you should be able to unlock a God/Invincible/One shot kills mode so you could replay the game at your leisure to take in all the sights and sounds the designers put there rather than having to continually react to enemies.