A Gym Leader position - or, perhaps more likely, an actual Champion position - could work with the phone system like rematches have in past games. From time to time you get the call that you've got a challenger, and fly over to take them on. (Of course, you could ignore it if you wanted.) Game Freak won't have any trouble making lots of different challengers and their teams, since they've done basically that for the Battle Frontiers.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Are the games too easy? (Multiple Difficulty Options?)
- Thread starter munchlaxboy
- Start date
diamondpearl876
Well-Known Member
I agree that you can make the game harder yourself, so why would/should Nintendo work to make it harder when they can focus on other things? Plus, they've tried to make the game harder with things like the Battle Frontier, anyway.
I play the game for the plot, though, so it doesn't bother me.
I play the game for the plot, though, so it doesn't bother me.
Nightfall_
Gamer Extrodinare
Starters are the multiple difficultly option.
SNIVY = HARD
TEPIG = MEDIUM
OSHAWOTT = EASY
SNIVY = HARD
TEPIG = MEDIUM
OSHAWOTT = EASY
randomspot555
Well-Known Member
But that kind of contradicts how Gym Leaders, E4, and Champs have battled. They do their official battles within their gyms or the Pokemon League. When Gym Leaders/E4/Champs are battled outside of those areas, then they're just regular battles. (Talking about the games. Anime is a bit different)
deoxysdude94
Meme Historian
I don't want it harder to play. I honestly don't play for the storyline, I play for the training, completing the pokedex,etc...
BritishLanguage
I enjoy earth day
I believe that the games shouldn't be comparable to Johto in terms of difficulty. inb4 Profesco.
TheEliteEmpoleon
Well-Known Member
If you ink it is too easy, then make it harder for you. And I don't think the cartridge could hold three versions of one game.
G/S/C is harder than the majority because the genius of Game Freak can't even let us do decent grinding. You reach Blackthorn's Gym, which has over level 40 Pokémon, and all you can find on the wild are lvl 20 Pokémon that give laughable EXP. It's not "hard", it's just frustrating and time consuming.
Nuzlocke and such isn't an excuse. Maybe I'll play Pokémon using only my tongue then; it sure is harder. The games are made by THEM not by US the players, they are the ones who should put on a challenge, not us. If we put on a challenge ourselves, it's because something is bad. Pokémon IS easy and simple, and it's not because the game mechanics have become predictable, but because the game is made in such way that the only difficult part is actually not to lose. There's almost no AI, just mindless drones that call themselves trainers sending random Pokémon with ridiculous movepools void of any kind of strategy. Plus, they don't even have the option to switch Pokémons, you just send your Spiritomb against a Hitmonchan with only fighting moves and he just thinks "Lolz, could switch Pokémon, but lets use Mach Punch anyway while Spiritomb freely uses Nasty Plot preparing to ravage my team. Maybe I'll even stop 1 or 2 attacks of his with Detect - he may beat me, but I wasted 2 TURNS OF HIS LIFE, OH YEAH MOHFOCA." And yes, I know now you can turn off the option to see what is the opponent's next Pokémon, but I didn't even knew it existed. Not to mention how the games is getting easier and easier since the very first games.
The main story's gameplay is made towards children. On the other hand, they give us grown-ups who want an actual challenge EV's, IV's, Breeding Moves, Natures and stuff to compete with eachother. You don't need to worry about these details to get through the game, most children don't even know what those Natures are all about, or that you can even breed Pokémon, or even that there are physical and special attacks. That's how they can make Pokémon a popular game for all ages. But guys like me, nerds who get teased for playing Pokémon at the age of 18 and unfortunate to know only 1 or 2 actual persons that play it too - and only 1 who takes it more or less serious - would appreciate that the single-player were challenging enough to make me think of training EV's and worrying about Natures, which I still do, or even a bit of battle strategy not involving only "switch to Pokémon with super effective move". I can't understand why they can't make a Hard mode like this, it would only do good.
Last edited:
Personally, I think that there should be more variety with movesets and the evil team's Pokemon all the time. I'd like to see more ordinary trainers with Pokemon with TMs and egg moves. A more intelligent AI would be nice, but generally I think it's ok for a kid's game.
Like many others have said, if you find the game too easy then you can choose a different starter, underlevel, or do a self-imposed challenge. If you want more, go play competitive or try the Battle Whatever-it-is-at-the-moment.
Like many others have said, if you find the game too easy then you can choose a different starter, underlevel, or do a self-imposed challenge. If you want more, go play competitive or try the Battle Whatever-it-is-at-the-moment.
"Spite" DefaultAsAwesome
Well-Known Member
For mature players, yes. But, of course, we always have Nuzlocke. 
Kelz
More saving. More doing.™
Honestly I think the games are just right in terms of toughness. They're not too easy, but they're not so hard that it can be frustrating.
But as others said, if you would like to give yourself more of a challenge, you can Nuzlocke. If you don't want that big of a challenge, you could also try using generally weaker Pokemon throughout game play.
But as others said, if you would like to give yourself more of a challenge, you can Nuzlocke. If you don't want that big of a challenge, you could also try using generally weaker Pokemon throughout game play.
Hidden Power
Well-Known Member
While self-limiting is one way to increase difficulty, I would like to see an general increase in AI. Things like NPCs using Protect/Detect when they don't help their cause at all should be removed. You don't see them using Toxic and other status inflicting/competitive strategies, or switching out when they do not have type advantage either. Post-game content such as the battle frontier/subway does provide significant challenge, but I believe they tweaked the odds of critical hits and misses. Couldn't they make it difficult without hax?
I'll occasionally play the game in Set Mode instead of Shift Mode (if I'm not rushing for time), and I generally dislike using items during battles.
I'll occasionally play the game in Set Mode instead of Shift Mode (if I'm not rushing for time), and I generally dislike using items during battles.
Zazie
So 1991
Nope. They have been raising the difficulty level in the games after gen 2. Cynthia was pretty insane in D/P and I can't even beat the Kimono Girls after the 8th badge in Soulsilver.
Black and White are a step down, with a weaker elite four and less brutal AI.
Personally I like the AI from 4th gen I just would prefer if they didn't have a huge level advantage as well.
Black and White are a step down, with a weaker elite four and less brutal AI.
Personally I like the AI from 4th gen I just would prefer if they didn't have a huge level advantage as well.
BattleFanatic14
Well-Known Member
I honestly don't think they did this. Luck obviously plays a part, but I've noticed that we tend to focus much more on the bad luck we fall victim to than the good luck that's often on our side. I also used to think the odds were tweaked, but when I started to focus on some of the breaks I received, I realized it does seem very even in terms of odds and fairness. I think it's human nature, at least in Pokémon anyway, to much more strongly notice the bad luck we receive due to the vast majority of battles which we win. This is just my theory, though.
Sorry to go off-topic; I think a difficulty seetting would be a great idea.
Last edited:
fa11ingstar
Member
I think the game is perfect as it is, after you have beaten the game you still can specialize yourself in breeding eggmoves, completing your pokedex, train your pokemons to level 100, EV train ou start another team!
LENGTHY RANT INCOMING WOO because this is something I've wanted to get off my chest for ages now
It couldn't. I believe it was found that Black/White uses up about half of the memory available in a DS cartridge. To be completely fair, though, it wouldn't surprise me if trainer data as a whole took up far less space than, say, map data. If they really wanted to, I'm sure that the folks at GameFreak would be able to add many, many more trainers (or variations on existing trainers) to each game if they felt like it. But even so, we should do our best to remember that memory storage limits are limits, not objectives.
Note how I said "if they really wanted to." The question isn't so much one of capability, but rather of practicality. I argue that it simply wouldn't be at all practical for GameFreak to implement a "hard" mode. (note the quotations; more on those later)
First, it seems to me that some of you need to be introduced to a certain concept called "numerical hard"--basically, the idea that simply making a few numbers bigger (e.g. enemy levels) makes the game harder. (protip: it usually doesn't.) This has the potential to work--but typically only if the numbers are big enough to make a difference. Metroid: Zero Mission is an example of doing it well; between reduced power, reduced defense, reduced damage reduction from suit upgrades, and energy and ammo expansions only giving half or even 40% as much, you're operating at somewhere around 10-20% capacity on Hard as compared to Normal. And because it's an action game, you're forced to learn to deal with your enemies more efficiently; you can't, say, stop and grind for stat increases or theoretically bash your face against that one boss using the same strategy over and over and expect it to work eventually the way you can with an RPG.
Meanwhile, Golden Sun: The Lost Age is an example of it not working so well; enemies universally get 50% more health and 25% more everything else--and considering how that game was already generally quite easy, with the difficulty derived more from puzzles than combat, there wasn't exactly a huge effect (and again, you can just grind to make up the difference). Was it harder? Sure--very slightly. More than anything, though, it was just long.
As this sort of thing applies to Pokemon, well, we can't just give everything a universal stat multiplier. It just wouldn't work with how the games work, between the mechanics of capturing your team and how, with IVs, EVs, and BSTs, every single pokemon has an unalterable cap on each stat for a given experience level. And we all know how, once you get past the early game, opponents require a significant advantage, in level, BST, or even both, to pose any sort of threat. And with the option to grind still readily available, a "hard" mode in Pokemon would be far more like in Golden Sun: TLA than anything--not quite so much harder as it would just be longer.
...Unless, of course, we simply got better AI and movesets all around, which I see is the other big thing people want. And this is where the question of practicality really comes in. Now, I'm no expert on game design, and anyone who is is free to correct me, but...for some reason, I'm pretty sure that the more advanced trainers (Ace Trainers, Veterans, and the assorted boss fights) have had their AI and teams' movesets pretty much hand-picked by the developers. I imagine that would take some time, depending on how difficult it would be to code individual movesets. In other words, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the main reason we're able to have 400+ unique trainer battles in each main game's story is precisely because most of them are set up with that baseline trainer AI (i.e. "AI Roulette" or, for the majority, a level above that) and their pokemon with the basic level up learnsets. Doing this would, I believe, all but require the developers to essentially code at least twice as many trainers into the game (assuming the requisite two difficulty levels). And make no mistake: that would take up quite a bit of time--time that would be better spent making sure other areas of the game are up to snuff.
Not to mention that that would only make certain parts of the game more difficult. If all the regular trainers are using advanced teams with high-level AI, then that effectively takes away what makes people like Gym Leaders better than regular trainers. If you've spent a significant portion of the game having the AI spam high-power moves like Thunder, Earthquake, and Rock Wrecker at you, then by the time you reach anywhere near the end, not only will you be thoroughly used to dealing with those moves, but your mons will be powerful enough to start using them as well. ...and so on.
And if it's done in a manner similar to what cantab suggested, with the bosses primarily being the ones to get boosts in levels, movesets, and AI, well, that just hearkens back to the "good" old days of GSC/HGSS, where--
The point is that Pokemon, almost by design, is not a hard game--at least, not in the way something like Donkey Kong Country Returns is hard. And it's not just Pokemon, but a lot of RPGs that have similar mechanics--most Final Fantasies, or Dragon Quest, or Golden Sun, as a few examples. If you bash your face against that one boss with that strategy enough times, there's a possibility it'll work eventually. If you use another strategy, that might work. And if all else fails, you can always just hang back and grind half a dozen levels and smash the boss into the ground with your statistical superiority. None of that is what I'd really call "hard"; that's why, back in the beginning of the post, I put the word in quotations.
Really, the folks advocating self-imposed challenges are pretty much correct. Nuzlocke runs. Monotype and assorted theme runs. Level or BST restrictions. Scramble(/hit-me-with-your-best-shot) challenges. Or, hell, how about an N run, where you can only ever use pokemon from the surrounding area? You're really only limited by your own imagination, and you get the same "flavor" of challenge that you'd invariably get from a "hard" mode, with the added benefit that the folks at GameFreak don't have to break their backs developing a special mode for a decidedly small section of their periphery demographic. And personally, how difficult a game happens to be is completely irrelevant as long as I'm having fun, and I'm still having fun with Pokemon.
Pre-post edit:
It couldn't. I believe it was found that Black/White uses up about half of the memory available in a DS cartridge. To be completely fair, though, it wouldn't surprise me if trainer data as a whole took up far less space than, say, map data. If they really wanted to, I'm sure that the folks at GameFreak would be able to add many, many more trainers (or variations on existing trainers) to each game if they felt like it. But even so, we should do our best to remember that memory storage limits are limits, not objectives.
Note how I said "if they really wanted to." The question isn't so much one of capability, but rather of practicality. I argue that it simply wouldn't be at all practical for GameFreak to implement a "hard" mode. (note the quotations; more on those later)
First, it seems to me that some of you need to be introduced to a certain concept called "numerical hard"--basically, the idea that simply making a few numbers bigger (e.g. enemy levels) makes the game harder. (protip: it usually doesn't.) This has the potential to work--but typically only if the numbers are big enough to make a difference. Metroid: Zero Mission is an example of doing it well; between reduced power, reduced defense, reduced damage reduction from suit upgrades, and energy and ammo expansions only giving half or even 40% as much, you're operating at somewhere around 10-20% capacity on Hard as compared to Normal. And because it's an action game, you're forced to learn to deal with your enemies more efficiently; you can't, say, stop and grind for stat increases or theoretically bash your face against that one boss using the same strategy over and over and expect it to work eventually the way you can with an RPG.
Meanwhile, Golden Sun: The Lost Age is an example of it not working so well; enemies universally get 50% more health and 25% more everything else--and considering how that game was already generally quite easy, with the difficulty derived more from puzzles than combat, there wasn't exactly a huge effect (and again, you can just grind to make up the difference). Was it harder? Sure--very slightly. More than anything, though, it was just long.
As this sort of thing applies to Pokemon, well, we can't just give everything a universal stat multiplier. It just wouldn't work with how the games work, between the mechanics of capturing your team and how, with IVs, EVs, and BSTs, every single pokemon has an unalterable cap on each stat for a given experience level. And we all know how, once you get past the early game, opponents require a significant advantage, in level, BST, or even both, to pose any sort of threat. And with the option to grind still readily available, a "hard" mode in Pokemon would be far more like in Golden Sun: TLA than anything--not quite so much harder as it would just be longer.
...Unless, of course, we simply got better AI and movesets all around, which I see is the other big thing people want. And this is where the question of practicality really comes in. Now, I'm no expert on game design, and anyone who is is free to correct me, but...for some reason, I'm pretty sure that the more advanced trainers (Ace Trainers, Veterans, and the assorted boss fights) have had their AI and teams' movesets pretty much hand-picked by the developers. I imagine that would take some time, depending on how difficult it would be to code individual movesets. In other words, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the main reason we're able to have 400+ unique trainer battles in each main game's story is precisely because most of them are set up with that baseline trainer AI (i.e. "AI Roulette" or, for the majority, a level above that) and their pokemon with the basic level up learnsets. Doing this would, I believe, all but require the developers to essentially code at least twice as many trainers into the game (assuming the requisite two difficulty levels). And make no mistake: that would take up quite a bit of time--time that would be better spent making sure other areas of the game are up to snuff.
Not to mention that that would only make certain parts of the game more difficult. If all the regular trainers are using advanced teams with high-level AI, then that effectively takes away what makes people like Gym Leaders better than regular trainers. If you've spent a significant portion of the game having the AI spam high-power moves like Thunder, Earthquake, and Rock Wrecker at you, then by the time you reach anywhere near the end, not only will you be thoroughly used to dealing with those moves, but your mons will be powerful enough to start using them as well. ...and so on.
And if it's done in a manner similar to what cantab suggested, with the bosses primarily being the ones to get boosts in levels, movesets, and AI, well, that just hearkens back to the "good" old days of GSC/HGSS, where--
...yeah, pretty much, except the bosses are even more of a potential brick wall. And again, because grinding is such an amazingly viable option...Mav-san said:
The point is that Pokemon, almost by design, is not a hard game--at least, not in the way something like Donkey Kong Country Returns is hard. And it's not just Pokemon, but a lot of RPGs that have similar mechanics--most Final Fantasies, or Dragon Quest, or Golden Sun, as a few examples. If you bash your face against that one boss with that strategy enough times, there's a possibility it'll work eventually. If you use another strategy, that might work. And if all else fails, you can always just hang back and grind half a dozen levels and smash the boss into the ground with your statistical superiority. None of that is what I'd really call "hard"; that's why, back in the beginning of the post, I put the word in quotations.
Really, the folks advocating self-imposed challenges are pretty much correct. Nuzlocke runs. Monotype and assorted theme runs. Level or BST restrictions. Scramble(/hit-me-with-your-best-shot) challenges. Or, hell, how about an N run, where you can only ever use pokemon from the surrounding area? You're really only limited by your own imagination, and you get the same "flavor" of challenge that you'd invariably get from a "hard" mode, with the added benefit that the folks at GameFreak don't have to break their backs developing a special mode for a decidedly small section of their periphery demographic. And personally, how difficult a game happens to be is completely irrelevant as long as I'm having fun, and I'm still having fun with Pokemon.
Pre-post edit:
Well, I dunno about that. Perhaps it's the way my teams have been set up, but I've never had a problem with DPP's Elite Four--Cynthia's the only one that's ever offered a challenge. Meanwhile, both Caitlin and Marshall have been a consistent thorn in my side, and both N and Ghetsis have nearly kicked my butt on separate occasions. To each their own, I guess.Glass Eye said:
I'm glad you posted that. I was trying to formulate something similar, but I couldn't say it right and just gave up. XD But basically, that's how I feel too. A Hard mode simply wouldn't be compatible with the way Pokemon is set up.
And to go along with what many other people have posted about Nuzlocke challenges, etc, I have to say that I've never participated in a challenge like that and I still find I'm naturally making the games more difficult and challenging for myself. And that is simply because I'm aware of the IVs, EVs, and Natures of pokemon. Before, it was just catch whatever, grind the crap out of it and scrape through the E4. Now I'll throw one Luxury Ball after another to catch the perfect Staryu, EV it to the best of my ability (often without Pokerus or Macho brace), and end up with a real force that I can proudly watch as it effortlessly massacres the E4 without having to worry much about levels. The only limit to the challenge you can give yourself in-game is the limits imposed by your own creativity. In such a game, a Hard mode would be arbitrary and nearly useless. At least, that's how I see it.
jireh the provider
Video Game Designer
I can say they should do game synch conditions like the ones in assassins creed revelations. Like a trainer must be fought with attacks of only one type. Etc.
Fail the objective, you'll get only gives you little cash and experience.
Fail the objective, you'll get only gives you little cash and experience.