Previously, I had addressed the thread through a quick barrage of loosely-connected thoughts regarding the nature of altering difficulty, in that the issue cannot be truly addressed without considering the ways difficulty is altered and the reasons these particular changes are made, as summarized here:
As for the topic of difficulty in general, it can be a rather nebulous subject, as the idea of difficulty could relate to sundry elements; the question is one of what is altered to create changes in difficulty as such and why.
However, I am unconvinced this is an adequate approach to the topic, as there is more underlying the questions at hand. As there is a lot more to sift there, let us delve into a quick exploration, shall we?
On the Subject of Difficulty and Engagemenr
The topic at hand has been presented as dealing with the difficulty level of games, especially that of Zelda games, but I suspect it might better be framed around the idea of user engagement. Now, it seems that sometimes
difficulty is used as shorthand for engagement; working through a difficult segment of a game, after all, often requires the player to be engaged, lest the entire endeavor end in tragedy. The inverse plays a role as well, where a player might reject an easier game because they feel less involved in it.
But
that doesn't necessitate that making something difficult must also increase the level of engagement provided, nor that decreasing difficulty will automatically provide less -- such an assertion would be fallacious. It does, however, present a suggestion of what underlying factors might form the base of the request, that the original poster simply doesn't find aspects of the game engaging.
In such a case, we might look not to the request for increased difficulty, but rather to the different elements and changes that would create such an effect.
These changes might not even require an increase in overall difficulty in order to address the root of the complaint.
One element I'd noted in my previous post is crafting an element of strategy into the various encounters, whether through changes to how food consumption works (real-time-not-a-free-action, or perhaps only varieties one might theoretically be able to chow on in high-intensity situations, or even relegating the activity to campfires or places in town) or through new combinations of enemies with different attributes, strengths, and weaknesses in strategically diverse locales.
Given
Souls style combat is intrinsically tied to this thread, one might note that the combat in those games is governed by its own structure, a methodical dance that demands engagement. This doesn't even require those to be difficult, necessarily.
Some might find these games engaging even if they don't find them especially difficult; others might find them both especially boring and also difficult.
In the same way, one person might revel in the engagement of deciphering where to go and what to do, and another might be entirely disconnected. And the perceived difficulty involved, or lack thereof, could affect both differently.
Which can bring us back to
Breath of the Wild. Changes might help some people become more engaged, but they might also detract for others. It's not as simple as saying we need an increase in difficulty or in engagement.
Thoughtless difficulty increases are oft detrimental in implementation. Consider the phenomenon of the bullet sponges, tweaked to make a game harder, but also liable to do nothing good for engagement.
In summary,
to say something needs to be made more difficult doesn't inherently point to what improvements could be made. Sometimes it could even be detrimental.
On Levels of Difficulty and the Multifold Path
So we've covered that the level of difficulty itself might not always be the ultimate source of complaints, but the subject remains an oft-debated source of contention. This, again, isn't as simple as often presented, and this isn't an attempt to give an ultimate position to which we must adhere.
For a start, though,
there are myriad reasons someone might not be able to or want to make their way through a difficult game, even if they'd enjoy it otherwise, and even if the response is to simply get good at it, be these reasons related to a person's physical or mental capabilities or even external time constraints making the process less rewarding.
And, again and related, "increased difficulty" or even "levels of difficulty" might be catch-all as a term, but it makes for a poor one-size-fits-all. After all,
different people will struggle with different things for different reasons.
One way around this is through property sliders, allowing the player to alter different properties individually. This might be as simple for someone as changing the input or output of damage. It could be that puzzles of a certain sort are troublesome for a particular reason. A system of this sort could be am option for many games.
A game could adapt to the way you play, analyzing different aspects of your performance, altering different factors to accommodate.
Kid Icarus: Uprising used its Fiend's Cauldron to allow the player to alter the difficulty of individual stages. Even a game like
Zelda, despite lacking in individual stages, could adapt a similar concept, with sites littered about to be interacted with to that end.
As for
Breath of the Wild one complaint that seems to be brought up a lot -- perhaps in part resultant from the go-anywhere-do-anything-anytime approach -- is a lack of difficulty progression, where Link becomes more capable and equipped to deal with the game's challenges but the world doesn't throw additional challenge to overcome in response.
And some of this, if the same overall design philosophy remains, could be alleviated through the aforementioned responsive analysis, where the game responds to what the player has accomplished, what they breeze through and what causes difficulty.
And then there's the possibility of areas that are more or less challenging, pockets to alter the flow and create a less homogenous world.
However, it is worth recognizing that, unless difficulty levels remain static, with no curve or progression, you always run the risk of someone being able to play the game but unable to complete all the content. And if some form of reward is tied to this content for whatever reason -- lore, thematic connection, et cetera -- you thus run the risk of someone being unable to access whatever that might be.
This, of course, follows from a general difficulty progression, or perhaps pockets of increased difficulty, disconnected from any implementation of difficulty or accessibility settings, which could affect the overall difficulty but might not ameliorate this factor for everyone.