D
Deleted member 3315
Guest
Something I've appreciated about FromSoft's mainstream breakthrough is how we've started to discuss what makes a high difficulty level good. Many have realized that it's easy enough to make a game difficult, but hard to make a game satisfyingly difficult. Most have come to the conclusion that the key to satisfying difficulty is to make it the player's fault for failing rather than the game's fault, therefore encouraging the player to get better.
But while there is frustrating difficulty and satisfying difficulty, I posit that there's boring easiness and satisfying easiness. "Good easiness" can make the player feel powerful right off the bat much like good difficulty can make the player feel powerful because they've earned it; bad easiness can make the player feel bored much like bad difficulty can make the player feel frustrated.
So I'd like to ask: what is the key to good easiness? What separates the usual Kirby feeling-powerful easiness from, say, DS/Wii-era Zelda boring easiness?
But while there is frustrating difficulty and satisfying difficulty, I posit that there's boring easiness and satisfying easiness. "Good easiness" can make the player feel powerful right off the bat much like good difficulty can make the player feel powerful because they've earned it; bad easiness can make the player feel bored much like bad difficulty can make the player feel frustrated.
So I'd like to ask: what is the key to good easiness? What separates the usual Kirby feeling-powerful easiness from, say, DS/Wii-era Zelda boring easiness?
