The "No one can hear them scream" save option is... weird.

[IAmSquidget]

I don't get this option, What's the point? It doesn't really make the game HARDER, just more annoying.

I just finished a Nightmare run with this option on, and the only real practical change was that I burned maybe an extra 6-7 tools over the span of the campaign. Tools become like Ink Ribbons in Resident evil, a resource spent to make a save point. But since I had dozens of tools to spare, it didn't really matter.

I mean, OK, fine, I guess it rewards me for map knowledge. Knowing the best times to save. But that's such a small thing, barely worth bothering about. I have no urge to ever try this option again.

(It could have been worse, it could have been "save only on the Otago." Some of us have kids, playing for 90+ min between save points would be intolerable.)

TBF, I don't really have a suggestion how to make the game harder without making it more annoying. Unless they overhaul the whole roster and capped XP system, dead marines end a campaign super quick. So anything that causes a lot of permadeath won't work.

[kordelas]

Usually in video games, a normal level of difficulty is a level how developers intended their game to be played. Anything below or above it is for those who find it too difficult or too easy respectively.

[Sure_hand]

i agree with you OP

[IvantheFormidable]

Broadly, the idea is to create artificial tension and guide the player into accepting their mistakes, or unfortunate scenarios, and rolling with it, rather than simply reloading and trying again. The only thing that games can "threaten" to create tension is your time. Thus, the only way the game can get an approximation of the visceral nature of the scenario, especially in an isometric style, is to "threaten" the player's time. In my view, it's much the same reason for the popularity of permadeath games/settings and rogue-likes. If progress, measured by amount of time put into the run, is on the line, it's much more tense for the player than it is if they can simply reload.

For example, on normal settings, if something after one of those warning screens manages to damage my squad more than I am willing to accept, I can simply reload the autosave before that point and refit and re-engage. On NCHTS, I would have to reload to the previous rest area. Which, for some may seem tedious as they're dedicated to reloading for an optimal outcome, thus wasting their time, whereas for others it creates a new layer of cost/benefit analysis as they attempt to more strategically utilize their rests. Do you try to push your team a bit further before resting, thus creating a better load point if things go south further in the level, or do you rest frequently early in the level, and risk running out of tools in the later, more difficult parts?

It's good that they didn't make it mandatory, but I enjoy playing the game that way as it encourages the player to live with their choices. To me, it seems like the devs started with NCHTS and those warning screens, and then toned it down into the standard setting after getting some feedback from play testers. But that's just a hunch.

A more confusing design choice, imo, is for the devs, seemingly, to have reversed course and force a reload upon squad wipe. I find it odd that the game doesn't consider having your Marines wiped out (a very real possibility, both story-wise and gameplay-wise) as an acceptable outcome.