I think the exp. Share is a difficulty setting

[DarkraiDragon]

Here me out. From what I heard, X and Y were considered easy pokemon games because of the exp. Share, and they added it to Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire.

Now you can turn it off, allowing you to use each pokemon to level up instead of just sharing the exp. So I am starting to think that Nintendo cleverly added a difficulty setting by adding the exp. share into the game. Think about it, when you have it on, it is easy mode, but when you have it off, it is normal mode.

I personally think it was a good idea on Nintendo's part to do this, since so many kids will buy it, and if they don't have a sibling that has played the game before, they can get through the game with little difficulty, but they will still have some, and they can change it anytime they want, and it won't effect the core of the game, but how fast you progress through it.

Maybe this was unintentional, but that is what I believe.

 

[Mister Coffee]

That's actually a pretty good deduction. It actually would not surprise me if that was true. I feel like Nintendo's main target audience is always the younger kids and making the game easier in the grinding factors might make the game easier and more attractive to younger audiences. I have not played the new Exp. Share in the new games, but it does sound like it has almost made grinding a nonexistent factor, which I think is most of the tough work when advancing through the game.

Now if only we can convince them to go the opposite direction and make the games more challenging... not more grinding, but maybe make the NPC trainers smarter while fighting by changing a setting in the game or something.

 

[illumine]

They didn't add it to the game. It was a previously useful item that they altered to make the game easier. Generally, the rest of the design is not out of keeping with this move to make the games more straightforward. Its effect is to share experience around a team, it does not hence function in any direct sense as a difficulty setting. If it was meant as such, they would have done more to discourage its use, which they did not do. It was rather an element of the game which made it significantly easier - like, say, status effect attacks - and ommitting it is more akin to a Nuzlocke, which may increase difficulty, plausibly, but is just something that players can do with what's given them in the game - not using Potions could also help in a way - not two separately implemented difficulty modes.

e.
v.

 

[Benermerut]

Does grinding really translate to difficulty, though?
It can be tedious and time consuming, definitely.
But difficult? No.

 

[Mister Coffee]

They didn't add it to the game. It was a previously useful item that they altered to make the game easier. Generally, the rest of the design is not out of keeping with this move to make the games more straightforward. Its effect is to share experience around a team, it does not hence function in any direct sense as a difficulty setting. If it was meant as such, they would have done more to discourage its use, which they did not do. It was rather an element of the game which made it significantly easier - like, say, status effect attacks - and ommitting it is more akin to a Nuzlocke, which may increase difficulty, plausibly, but is just something that players can do with what's given them in the game - not using Potions could also help in a way - not two separately implemented difficulty modes.

e.
v.

I don't think that he was saying that the Exp. Share had never existed before the way it was done in generation 6, I think he was saying that the overhaul that Nintendo did on the Exp. Share in contrast to how it used to be was an over all attempt to add a feature into the game to make the game easier for younger players but had comfortably turned it into a natural feature within the game that is directly manipulable within the overall playing features of the game rather than to make it an awkward option that a player would have to go out of their way to look for within the games options. If an easy setting is implemented into the game, where it never did before, it is naturally easier to implement into the game if it appears as a normal playing feature within the game that had always previously existed. If you build the feature in terms that players already understand, players will more naturally want to use it since it's the game's item feature.

Does grinding really translate to difficulty, though?
It can be tedious and time consuming, definitely.
But difficult? No.

In most video games I've played, the amount of time and resources spent on a video game always determines the difficulty. If a player can not spend the time they need in order to grind to get to the appropriate level in order to progress the games goals and continue the story forward, that player has hit a time based difficulty which may take a longer period of time, in this case the difficulty level is based on personal time constraints.
(A better example of this is any MMORPG that requires any form of grinding to progress and then the easy modes are based on the ability to purchase items that would increase the exp gain in order to save time, thus lowering the difficulty level of grinding.)

 

[illumine]

I don't think that he was saying that the Exp. Share had never existed before the way it was done in generation 6

Nonetheless their image relies mostly upon that. Otherwise it's just an existing item altered in such a way as to make things significantly easier, in a series which is in any case attempting to be more accessible - hence, it appears for instance alongside 'rivals' who have been replaced with friends, etc. - and straightforward, which isn't a difficulty mode - which generally wouldn't require altering how one's Pokémon level up or improve across a team. In general, if the game only includes the option of an 'easy mode,' but the player could optionally make things harder on themselves, for instance by limiting their levelling or item use, this wouldn't count as including an easy and hard mode in any real sense. Obviously, you could compare it to an 'easy mode,' although it isn't a difficulty setting, or it is something designed to make the game considerably easier, but that much is clear. This is generally why it is criticised, or for taking an existing item and then orienting it towards making the game more comfortable.

The exp. feature does not constitute a difficulty setting, but rather simply does as it says, or alters how experience is distributed around the team, which may make things significantly easier like other items, but does so as a result of its effect or indirectly. A difficulty mode would usually alter how quickly or otherwise a player can get through things, perhaps, but not how the game is played. The game itself suggests that it be used, because it is a feature that helps with the game, and does not treat the apparent 'hard mode' as an actual form of playing the game. This may instead be treated as like a Nuzlocke: an alteration which allows for the game to be made harder.

 

[Desert Stream~]

I doubt this for a couple reasons, (And I'm gonna use my normal excuse because I'm lazy)
The game is easy without the Exp. share. You can beat the game with one decently trained pokemon. Meanwhile, on games like D/P/Pt, it's hard to beat Cynthia with a full team of 6.

Basicly, it could be a difficulty setting, but it would be Easy/Easier, not Normal/easy

 

[Mister Coffee]

A.K.A. Fake difficulty.

I don't know if it is necessarily "Fake Difficulty", however boring and uninteresting it may be as a form of difficulty, it has been a staple form of difficulty in video games since 1987 when the first "Final Fantasy" game was released. The point being, grinding is a form of difficulty, any way of reducing that difficulty is a form of making the game easier.

I do understand that the pokemon games on their own are relatively easy and don't need the help in being easier, but it still doesn't dismiss the idea that it could have been in fact an attempt by Game Freak to make the game slightly more simplified for a younger audience that could possibly have a more difficult time in understanding team design and management.
I think it's totally a viable possibility.

 

[Mister Coffee]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

Just giving slower experience or making your opponents higher level isn't more difficult. It just makes it take longer to level up and makes it take longer for you to reach your opponent's levels.

Winning in Wi-Fi battles against other players in a competitive environment is difficulty. That relies on the player's skill.
Grinding for exp on lower level wild Pokémon is not and has never been difficult. Having to take 2 days doing it instead of 2 hours doesn't make it any more difficult.

Just because it's been a staple form of 'difficulty' in video games since 1987 doesn't make it any better. That's a fallacious argument.

I'm not arguing with you about it being a better form of difficulty or even that it should be used as difficulty at all. The point I'm making is that it is a form of difficulty that is used in video games commonly such as pokemon games. time consumption and tediousness is a form of difficulty, if it was easy to do than it wouldn't consume so much time or seem tedious. It's not mentally challenging, it's not completed through cleverness or pure skill, it is a difficulty that asks the player to spend all their time on the game which is an individual form of difficulty based on how much time the player naturally has to spend playing the game.

I think the miscommunication here is the difference between "Difficulty" and "Challenging".
A game that requires lots of grinding may be difficult but not challenging.
A game that is difficult due to how well the NPC's challenge the player is both difficult and challenging.

All I'm trying to say is that I just don't think the theory can be completely dismissed as being wrong. I personally would think that if Game Freak did such a huge over haul on the exp system, I think there was more to it in gameplay mechanics rather than just making an old item flashy and new, from what I've read about it, it does sound like it was an attempt to make the overall play through of the game more simple than it already is, and with the setting of flipping it on and off sounds to me like the description of a game option based toggle switch.

 

[JohnnyGolduck]

I look at it like this. Myself and a lot of people at the pokecommunity could beat the Elite Four with Pokemon 10 levels lower than the Champion's with very minimal grinding. That's where the difficulty comes in. Grinding up to levels higher than the Champion's is just a time consuming easy-mode. And I'm not saying I've never done that :)

 

[smocks]

I think the Exp. Share DOES contribute to the level of difficulty of the game, however, i do not think it is THE "difficulty setting".
With or without the Exp. Share, the storyline, plot, and all opposing Pokémon (& their levels) remain the same. For example, Kalos's Pokémon League is considered to be easy from all the teams (except the Champion's) to not be a full team of 6 Pokémon with average levels than the regular games have teams of six and higher levels around the half-point of the game.
The difficulty of a game contributes to the whole game itself, if you want to change the difficulty, you must change the way you play. That comes in not choosing to use the Exp. Share and limiting yourself on what Pokémon you use (like nuzlockes, mono-type teams, etc.)

 

[Rosehip]

The Exp. Share is only a minor influence in difficulty in X/Y/OR/AS. The games as a whole are easy, with or without the item. The AI, Pokemon of choice of the AI and wild Pokemon on offer also influences difficulty, and in XY specifically, the AI was ez modo. The number of Pokemon for the E4 was kept to a low number, for example.

The difficulty of a game contributes to the whole game itself, if you want to change the difficulty, you must change the way you play. That comes in not choosing to use the Exp. Share and limiting yourself on what Pokémon you use (like nuzlockes, mono-type teams, etc.)

Exactly. Sadly, Pokemon isn't notorious for its difficulty - it's meant to be accessible by anyone, after all, and Gen 6 shows that more than ever in my opinion. To make the game hard, you must give yourself rules to abide. It's why those Nuzlocke challenges caught on, after all. They offered something to the games that isn't inherently there.

I look at it like this. Myself and a lot of people at the pokecommunity could beat the Elite Four with Pokemon 10 levels lower than the Champion's with very minimal grinding. That's where the difficulty comes in. Grinding up to levels higher than the Champion's is just a time consuming easy-mode. And I'm not saying I've never done that :)

Unfortunately, E4 changes between games. What's easy in one is crazy difficult in another. Where as I could beat Johto's Elite Four with Pokemon 5 to 10 levels beneath theirs, Sinnoh's proves much more unforgiving.

Maybe I went all over the place, here's a tl;dr - there's more to difficulty than the Exp. Share, and the way you play + the fanmade challenges players are offered has to do with overall difficulty.

 

[JohnnyGolduck]

Unfortunately, E4 changes between games. What's easy in one is crazy difficult in another. Where as I could beat Johto's Elite Four with Pokemon 5 to 10 levels beneath theirs, Sinnoh's proves much more unforgiving.

Maybe I went all over the place, here's a tl;dr - there's more to difficulty than the Exp. Share, and the way you play + the fanmade challenges players are offered has to do with overall difficulty.

I just played Platinum and Soul Silver back to back. I guess it depends on the Pokemon you use or what type of battler you are but I had much more trouble with Johto's than Sinnoh's. Or Diamond/Pearl's Elite Four could be tougher, I haven't played them in a while. If you wanna use Raticate and I wanna use Dragonite I'm gonna have an easier time against so-and-so. There are so many variables!

Since there isn't an official easy-mediam-hard mode you have to make your own, so all this whole conversation is silly! There are so many ways to play Pokemon it's up to the individual. Some people may think certain things are easy where others think it's difficult and vice versa. But I do agree with the orginal post that EXP share is easy mode. But what I think doesn't matter. That's why Pokemon is great. I think Golduck is the best but Golduck sucks {XD}

 

[Rosehip]

I just played Platinum and Soul Silver back to back. I guess it depends on the Pokemon you use or what type of battler you are but I had much more trouble with Johto's than Sinnoh's. Or Diamond/Pearl's Elite Four could be tougher, I haven't played them in a while. If you wanna use Raticate and I wanna use Dragonite I'm gonna have an easier time against so-and-so. There are so many variables!

Since there isn't an official easy-mediam-hard mode you have to make your own, so all this whole conversation is silly! There are so many ways to play Pokemon it's up to the individual. Some people may think certain things are easy where others think it's difficult and vice versa. But I do agree with the orginal post that EXP share is easy mode. But what I think doesn't matter. That's why Pokemon is great. I think Golduck is the best but Golduck sucks {XD}

Hee hee. I'm a competitive battler, so I guess that automatically makes the games easier for me. In the end, it's really a bunch of hoopla. Too many ways to make the game easier or harder, most being RNG based (example being IV/EVs/Natures).

 

[JohnnyGolduck]

Hee hee. I'm a competitive battler, so I guess that automatically makes the games easier for me. In the end, it's really a bunch of hoopla. Too many ways to make the game easier or harder, most being RNG based (example being IV/EVs/Natures).

I battle competitively too. I'm just saying there are a lot of variables. It what keeps Pokemon interesting.