>>11968987
Very few directly ask for games to be more challenging, but it's a requirement to keep engagement. Also to that point it removes a lot of the "survival instinct" when you know you can just immediately try again, failure should have consequences, similar to when dying or being arrested you lose you weapons, if you didn't then it just makes it a slight inconvenience instead of an actual punishment.
Now that said the bullshit deaths and failures due to things outside of your control are frustrating and shitty and VC has plenty of these as well such as Lance, supercops, and basically every turret mission.
>>11969004
>Not really, we were just trying to make missions more interesting. Difficulty wasn't something we took into account for the most part
I find this hard to believe, but also does explain some of the missions where it sounds like a cool idea but is just boring in practice, SAM comes to mind as one. As said above challenge is almost a requirement to keep people engaged but it's a careful balance of too much challenge and you just discourage people, too little and you bore them to death. Just the right amount would allow skilled players to pass it without too much fuss while making less skilled players adapt and overcome, they need to see a light at the end of the tunnel. GTA in this regard minus VC is pretty good about this due to its massive sandbox and freedom of how to complete most objectives. Vice City always felt like there was very little wiggle room to use different options to me however.
