148: Hard Times

[Kieron Gillen]

Hard Times

"Once upon a time, games were competitors. Now, primarily, they're entertainers. They aimed to beat you. Now, to be beaten. Our language says much, really. While we've talked about difficulty curves forever, the problems now are 'difficulty spikes.' No one ever critiques a game for a difficulty-trough - because the former stops you getting anywhere and the latter is just something you coast through."

Read Full Article

 

[oneplus999]

Anyone who accuses Portal of being short clearly never went for all of the achievements or played it with developer comments on

 

[Saskwach]

I dunno about this one. I've hread DMC4 is still ball-bustingly hard at the highest levels but accessible at lower difficulties, and Ninja Gaiden was a masochistic hardcorefest that did well.

 

[ccesarano]

I think what people should look at when it comes to challenge is what it is like to run a Dungeons and Dragons game. If you want your players to have fun, you need to encourage them to play smart, but at the same time you don't want them to die. It's no fun to take five steps and then die in the first encounter. You want there to be rising action. The first room has three or four guards in it capable of taking up 1/4 of the health and resources of the players if they run and gun, but if they instead explore and see that they can climb the rafters above and drop the chandelier on the guards, they can get by without a scratch. This will pay off when they have to fight the Minotaur capable of taking up 3/4 of their helath and resources, who is going to be next to impossible if they run and gun, and yet enough of a challenge even if they're at 100%.

Now, video games have checkpoints, and it is a good thing. Because I might go through running and gunning a room the first time, then die at the Minotaur, but when I start in front of the guard's room again I see I have more options open. Thus I learn that, later in the game, I should look for alternative routes.

I like the games best when I can get by with the skin of my teeth. The Halo, Gears of War and Call of Duty method of health and regeneration works pretty well for this, as it allows you to try, try again.

Some games, though, really do need to work on this. Devil May Cry 4's Human mode is a joke, but since I was new to the series it was necessary in order for me to complete the next difficulty mode. As I learn better ways to play, I find myself barely making it through some encounters, and it turns me into a better player.

Also, let's compare Mega Man 1 to Mega Man X. Mega Man 1 requires you to memorize each stage if you want to beat it, because otherwise it is impossible. Mega Man X doesn't, yet it still presents a challenge. Guess which game I love to pop in and kill an afternoon with even to this day?

While some games are too easy, I think people just need to suck it up and enjoy the challenge that's there. We're not all masochists, and even if checkpoints and recovering health make a game "easier" (let's see how many tries it takes for you to defeat General Raam on Insane), I get a game I can fully experience and extra immersion, too.

 

[Cousin_IT]

I dunno about Ken Lavines grandma, but my Grandad completed Super Mario World so I think thats a rather patronising take on old people Besides if I dont like a game it doesnt matter how easy it is im not gonna play it through.

I dont mind games being "dumbed down" to an extent. But its true that given the option to play a game on easy or hard I do tend to go for easy. Once Ive completed it on easy/normal I really dont see the point of playing through it again on harder settings. Ive completed the game, I know what happens; I dont get any real thrill out of the idea of enemies taking more bullets to kill & me dying easier & the frustration taht causes.

Theres pleanty of games I havent completed, but I dont think I can say any of them I quit because it got too hard. Ive not completed any half-life game, Boiling point, Medievil 2 & others because in Boiling Points case the bugs were too frustrating: in Medievils case the game just gets monotonous & boring; & in half-lifes case I really dont find the games much fun after playing for a while. Story, variety & setting drive me to complete a game, & if I have enough reason to want to continue then I will do my best to get past harder parts unless they truely are impossible. But most of the games I found myself stopping playing didnt do this. It wasnt that it was too hard to progress to the end, it was that I really couldnt be arsed to do so.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I, for one, am glad that the game industry is no longer held hostage by those who want to "bottom" for their games.

-- Steve

 

[Melaisis]

Most games nowadays appear to come equipped with a 'I Win' button built into the game world - and I'm not just talking about those dodgy cheat packs you can put into your system. I mean, for instance, let's look at DMC4 which has been brought up in this very thread: Have any of you actually mastered Pandora yet? For those of you who don't know - Pandora is the gun that Dante acquires which has miscellaneous uses - one is that it can shoot missiles which cripple even the 100-foot last boss in a number of hits. Certainly, such numbers increase with difficulty levels - and it becomes harder to stay alive, but as long as you're agile, even the climax remains a piece of piss.

The Final Fantasy series is a great example of the decline in difficulty over decades: In FF8, its harder to actually gain the final summon than it is to use it. That is to say, there's little point going after Eden unless you're really dedicated to gaining its power. In FFX, you can simply get the Magus Sisters by opening a few chests on your adventure, and then sit back in the final battle against Jecht spamming 'X' to win.

 

[Human Bomb]

What about the finale of FFX where it could have been an AWESOME knock-down-drag-out fight against the summons (that some people may have put dozens of hours into buffing. Instead you have auto re-raise on you for the whole fight. Think about it.. if you bothered getting all the summons, and then leveled the crap out of them. You would have been sealing your own demise, and the fight would have been far more satisfying.

As for the difficulty "curve," consider Ikaruga. Murderously hard, and yet with persistance you develop the skills to beat it. I like games that have that sort of arcade feel. That need to have a particular skill set mastered to progress.

 

[hungSolo]

-- Compare what happens when you say "Knights of the Old Republic," which practically beat itself, and "Deus Ex: Invisible War," which was nigh impossible --

I just finished DX:IW on whatever the second difficulty setting is (let's call it medium), and I kind of suck at games. Did I miss something in that statement?

 

[adamandkate]

Anyone who accuses Portal of being short clearly never went for all of the achievements or played it with developer comments on

Yeah but is really trying to find every little pointless feature and listen to directors commentry (that nobody enjoys on a DVD, so why would they enjoy on a game). I find achivements a way of adding content via the cheapest and fastest mode possible.

 

[Burld]

I noticed that too. I don't think anyone can find Invisible War close to impossible on the easiest setting, and it's not too hard on the harder settings. Can anyone hazard a guess as to why he wrote that?
Anyway, on a more relevant note, I don't see what there is to complain about as long as there is a very easy and genuinely difficult setting, and a few things in between. If you can't beat a game then it's similar to being denied the last song on the album you bought. I find it odd that Mr. Gillen claims 'there's a problem with entryism: No one appreciates the top end, since everyone follows the path of least resistance'. That's not a problem with games, just with consumers, and feeling too much pity for those missing out on the harder settings is a bit strange; it's their fault for being
I'll stop there before I insult anyone.

 

[Cowtippers]

I have never finished any Mario game on the NES/SNES ever.

But Halo on Legendary difficulty is easy as pie for me.

 

[ccesarano]

(that nobody enjoys on a DVD

I frequently listen to Developer Commentaries, depending on the movie. The Director's commentary on any Kevin Smith film is good fun, for example.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I too listen to developers' commentary all the time, for movies and games. Heck, the reason I bought the Legendary Edition of Halo 3 was for the extra discs; the helmet was an extra I could've done without.

(The commentary track for Apollo 13 by Mr. and Mrs. Lovell is amazing, by the way.)

And anybody whining about Portal being too easy obviously hasn't tried the challenges.

-- Steve

 

[oneplus999]

Anyone who accuses Portal of being short clearly never went for all of the achievements or played it with developer comments on

Yeah but is really trying to find every little pointless feature and listen to directors commentry (that nobody enjoys on a DVD, so why would they enjoy on a game). I find achivements a way of adding content via the cheapest and fastest mode possible.

Honestly if you have even a passing interest in game design, you will find the commentary interesting. I'd highly recommend it. However, I'll admit this still doesn't add that much to the length or difficulty of the game.

Really its all about getting the Aperture Science achievements on the bonus levels That took me a while and had a very enjoyable difficulty curve.

 

[oneplus999]

whups i don't know how to delete a post...

 

[General Ma Chao]

Well if you want your game to succeed in the mainstream, you need adjustable difficulty minimum. If you're prepared to consider a niche game a success, you can go ahead and make a hard game. I wanted to be challenged for awhile but I found the rush of finishing a hard game is far too fleeting for me to justify doing it. I want the pleasure to come as I go through the game, not when the last boss finally dies. I think more people feel the same way. A game that isn't bring them pleasure isn't a game, it's a chore that they paid money to do. Food for thought.

 

[QmunkE]

I too disagree with the "hardcore games will play on easy" opinion - I always play any of the Half-Life games on hard first time through, otherwise there's no point - this is partly due to the fact I've played the series for so long I know what to do to not die repeatedly. That said, I'm not a big fan of the method of making the game more difficult, i.e. making your guns really weak and your enemies really tough and having the same guns do more damage to you. Not sure how I'd do it, but the SMG shouldn't take a whole clip and more to kill a normal soldier!

I did find it somewhat irritating that Mass Effect forces you to unlock harder difficulties, especially since it suffers from that almost ubiquitous RPG syndrome of getting to the tipping point where you basically become indestructible and all enemies just fall over in front of your magical god-powers/ridiculous mega-cannon pistol.

The growth of "shock damage" (a.k.a. the demise of the health meter) is also a major contributor to ease of games. The shield+health system from the first Halo game was so much better than the latter two. Legendary difficulty in the Halo series was pretty tough, but the sections I tended to die on a lot where just where there were a billion flood jumping on me and shooting me full of spikes when I had no long-range weapon, where I couldn't just run away and hide for a second or two and then come back and shoot some more. Not the best way to make a game a challenge, it just gets a bit dull.