Difficulty is Hard

ThreeKneeNick

New member
Aug 4, 2009
741
0
0
I think everything should be taken in moderation, a few easy bits, a few hard bits, and a few bits where you lose half an hour of progress for a mistake. It provides the most diverse experience, giving you parts where you need to up your game for hard bits, than relax for the easy bits, than really concentrate hard on the bits that are like doing the trapeze without the safety net of saving every two minutes. This also does away with predictability.

This felt like half an article to me too...
 

TheMadDoctorsCat

New member
Apr 2, 2008
1,163
0
0
This is why I HATE GTA3 on the PC, widely considered one of the best games of all time.

It's fun driving around this seventies-style landscape with its stereotypical pimps, hookers, afros and queers... but then you have to do a mission, often in two or three parts, that auto-fails if you so much as roll your car by accident. Some enemies can explode your car with a single hit in the later levels, and it's almost pure luck as to whether they do or not. And don't even get me started on the water. (You can fall in, literally be touching a dock that you could easily climb back onto, and still have no way to save yourself from dying.)

And there's NO QUICKSAVE KEY. Every single time you fail you have to reload and go back to your home base and try again. (You'll make the same journey from your home to the people who give you missions at least sixty times. It feels like a damn chore.) And when you're on mission, you end up driving around at about ten miles per hour, desperately avoiding the areas with the shotgun mafia / Columbians, scared to do anything that might cause you to annoy the police.

Presumably that decision was made by a Rockstar suit who has a crippling fear of actually letting the people who play his games have fun.
 

crimson sickle2

New member
Sep 30, 2009
568
0
0
Don't know why you ragged on the new Prince for difficulty. I died less in Devil May Cry 4, #1 still kicks my ass though. The main problem was that each level was at the same difficulty range. The difficulty curve disappeared, anyone that could make a game similar in format to PoP and make a great difficulty curve would be a genius.
 

gl1koz3

New member
May 24, 2010
931
0
0
The annoying death animations can get on nerves indeed. Could try punch a designer of Mass Effect 2 now.
 

paketep

New member
Jul 14, 2008
260
0
0
Shamus, Ubi DID learn something from 2008's PoP.

They decided that low sales were because the fact that it came without DRM provoked tons of piracy, and then went on to develop the stupidest most offensive DRM in the market: UbiDRM.

It makes you think if it isn't better that publishers don't learn the lessons since it's better than them learning the wrong lessons. After all, the latter is more probable since I can probably count Kotick's, Riccietiello's and Guillemot's total number of brain cells with my two hands.
 

Slackboy2007

New member
Feb 9, 2010
13
0
0
Here are my suggestions on how to keep (almost) everyone happy:

1. Replace locked content with checklists. In other words you can jump to whichever checkpoint you want, whenever you want, and the game will keep track of the ones you've completed.

2. Unlock the 'Customisation' mode from the start so players can alter the game to how they want to play it (including making it harder).

3. Match official Achievements to certain (usually default) settings as appropriate for simple bragging rights.

4. Allow players to upload to Facebook (or their social networking site of choice) which levels they have completed and under which conditions/customisations (and have a video recording mode if possible) so that they can show off and challenge their friends to do the same or better.

5. Include an optional rewind feature (if the hardware will allow it) in addition to the usual checkpoints. (Also add a fast-forward feature for all cut-scenes...)

6. Do everything you can to keep the game moving and interactive (in other words don't punish your player with non-interactivity and pointless repetition for being crap).




To explain:

1. Replace locked content with checklists.

Locked content is the biggest sign that videogaming hasn't matured as a mainstream medium. Every other medium, such as books and DVDs have all of the content unlocked at the start, and that's the way it should be for games too.

Actually, that's not quite true. DVDs do have locked content in the form of Easter Eggs, that the viewer has to either:

i. Find themselves by laboriously trudging through menus.
ii. Find by looking for the instructions on the internet.

This is meant to be fun, and I'm sure that it is for a certain demographic of people (let's call those people 'idiots' as a shorthand), but for the rest of us it's at best an annoyance, and at worst a reminder that all human beings are selfish, evil, repressed misanthropes who hate existence and want to make it worse for the rest of us.

This isn't a digression, the point I'm making is that modern videogames are ALL Easter Egg in their horrible, sado-masochistic (or should that be sado-machoistic?) attitude to locking out content that their customers have paid for.

It's annoying because the solution is so simple: have the content unlocked from the start (but greyed-out to avoid spoilers) and have a simple checklist system that tells the player if they've completed that particular task, and under which particular conditions (easy, medium, hard, custom, etc).

To those players who would complain that this takes away the sense of achievment we can easily cater for you too: let's have something in the options menu called something like "Lock content until completed in sequential order" and then Bob's your uncle. [As an aside though: wouldn't such a thing just highlight how stupid locking content is in the first place?]

There's a big difference between being frustrated because you can't perform a particular skill (let's call this 'good frustration'), and being stopped from seeing the next story point in a game (let's call this 'bad frustration'). The latter leads to massive annoyance because it's being caused by someone else (the game designer), and the former is much less annoying because it's being caused by you, and you're in control of it.

The only thing that the player should be unlocking is their own skill level: the content should always be available.



2. Unlock the 'Customisation' mode from the start so players can alter the game to how they want to play it (including making it harder).

Not much more to say on this one, but it might be necessary for the makers to state something like "Customised modes have not been fully play-tested for quality" as a disclaimer. Or something.



3. Match official Achievements to certain (usually default) settings as appropriate for simple bragging rights.

In other words, if you have certain things activated/de-activated in the Customisation mode then you can't get the Achievement.



4. Allow players to upload to facebook (or their social networking site of choice) which levels they have completed and under which conditions (and have a video recording mode if possible) so that they can show off and challenge their friends to do the same, or better.

This is to cover people who have made the game harder using the customisation mode, and also want the bragging rights that go along with it. Not sure why I suggested facebook as you could probably do this stuff on Xbox Live or PSN instead, but unfortunately it's impossible to delete a piece of text that you've written it on a computer.



5. Include an optional rewind feature (if the hardware will allow it) as well as the usual checkpoints.

Edge magazine did an interview with the makers of Limbo, and one of them said something like this:

"Never make your player complete the same puzzle twice."

All game designers should have that statement tattooed on their souls.

If you add an instant rewind feature to 90% of the videogames that people have cited as being too annoying in this column, then most of them instantly become engaging and fun.

Some people would say that such a feature would make the game too easy, but it would actually do the opposite. Imagine how good you could get on a game like Ninja Gaiden with a feature like that. You'd more quickly trial-and-error your way through every enemy and combination of enemies (which is essentially what the game is anyway) and you'd be demanding harder enemies as a result. The designers would have to allow you to make the enemies harder and the game deeper and more satisfying: Hello Customisation mode.


6. Do everything you can to keep the game moving and interactive (in other words don't punish your player with non-interactivity and pointless repetition for being crap).

Consider something like a scrolling beat-em-up. The challenge of the game is to reduce your numerous enemies's health to zero before yours does. There's no real reason why you can't still have this game mechanic in place, but without the annoying reloading. Just have it so that you have an energy bar for each small stage of enemies, and if yours goes to zero, then both yours and theirs resets to 100% (resurrecting the ones you've killed) and you have to beat them all over again.

It's the same game mechanic but without the reload (albeit you might need a teleport as part of the reset) and the interactivity is uninterupted. Admittedly there's repetition involved, but if you unlock all the content from the start (see point 1) then the frustration is just about player skill which is what the game is designed to help improve, as all games are really just the training for themselves.



As a final note on all of the above: I think it would sell more games and get higher review scores, and hence get higher bonuses for the people making them. Imagine Ninja Gaiden 2 with all of the above recommendations being followed. It would stop being an annoying trudge through the same loading screen, and instead become an accessible and (what it really is) a fun and deep fighting game. AND it would garner much higher review scores and better sales, AND players would also regulary customise it to make it more hardcore than it already is (albeit still with a crap camera). It wouldn't just belong to the domain of the small-minded people of this world who think that something is only worth doing because other people can't do it (but I get the impression that that particular game was made by someone with that backward attitude, which is a shame).

As any keen student of the perverted arts will tell you: sado-masochism is only enjoyable when it's optional.


*Achievement Unlocked: Read an entire post even though it's more than three paragraphs long. 20g.*
 

Motiv_

New member
Jun 2, 2009
851
0
0
Phishfood said:
perhaps we could have more games with a "custom" difficulty.

Have 5 sliders
* Enemy Health
* Weapon Damage
* Ammo drop rate
* Health drop rate
* Enemy count

Adjust to taste. For example: I love expert level on l4d, but if we could just have the odd health kit it would be more fun.
This is actually a great idea. I loved the earlier Battlefield game's approach to bot's difficulty, basically you had three sliders.[footnote]Pulling this entirely from memory[/footnote]

Enemy Difficulty
Allied Competence
Ally to Enemy Ratio

And it worked beautifully. I could get to that magical point where I'm being challenged but not frustrated. It was a beautiful feeling. I think other studios should try it, myself.
 

copycatalyst

New member
Nov 10, 2009
216
0
0
Again, Prince of Persia (2008) referenced as a broken-because-it's-too-easy title. Go back, play that game again, and every time Elika saves you, slap yourself in the face. This exercise will provide your own punishment for failure, and perhaps then it will click that there is no problem with difficulty in that game.

Mr Young indicates that punishing the player is a bad thing, but it appears that without it a game can seem too easy, regardless of the actual challenge faced. In mechanical gameplay terms, being saved and thrown back on to a ledge after a failed jump or parkour run is no different from dying and having the game plop you back there as a checkpoint. But to some players, it gets in their head as "So I can never die? This is too easy!"

It would be a different story if the game dropped you on the next ledge, so that failing or succeeding the jump or run would yield the same result. It does not. Without the time reversal mechanic, the parkour sections are actually more punishing than in previous PoP titles. They just did a good job at fooling you otherwise.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Casimir_Effect said:
I must be the only person who enjoyed the combat in Sands of Time. It was simple to pick up and tricky to master, but otherwise felt nice and fluid.
See, I liked it too. I liked that I could just push one button and do something really cool looking instead of trying to dial in a 6-six step combo and look like a fool when it didn't work. I find Arkham Asylum's combat to be a spiritual successor to SoT in a way.


kouriichi said:
Alot of producers forget the differance between "challanging" and "a**hole" these days.

I was playing assassin's creed Brotherhood, which i am loving by the way, and to get 100% on a mission, you have to go without taking a single hit. This would be easy, if the 30 minute mission didnt end a cutscene and have you attacked by 3 armed men who you cant counter.

The cutscene litterally ended to me having 3 of the toughest guys in the game charging me. Ofcourse, i get baby tapped and fail the full sync. Because of the way the game is set up, you eather have to restart the whole 30 minute mission of walking some people to some place, or say screw it, and retry for full sync at another time.

Thats where the line from, "Difficult" to "a**hole" is crossed.
Ninja'd. I'll say, the missions themselves are good for placing checkpoints, but if you flub the 100% sync you need to do the whole frakkin' thing again. This is especially fun during the war machine missions, where the mission is "sneak around this complex with hyper-alert guards without breaking cover, then do a multi-stage platforming run, then pilot this war machine with clumsy controls and destroy the bad guys base." All well and good, but the 100% sync criteria is always "and don't get hit while piloting the clumsy vehicle section and getting shot at by dozens of dudes."
 

Toeys

New member
Mar 30, 2010
90
0
0
ImBigBob said:
And this is precisely why Demon's Souls is overrated. I don't want to have to spend 10 minutes trudging through the easy parts only to die again. Yeah, it keeps the tension, but when you die, and when you feel like your death is more luck than skill, why bother to keep playing?
I don't really get why some people think this. In my opinion Demon Souls requires you to think before you act. Of course you end up getting to Flamelurker and he burns you, again and again. But thats more of a hint to go do something else until you're badass enough to take him out. The game has a lot of good old Diablo's mechanics, but when you die you atleast keep your gear in Demons Souls. Most of the challenges i saw as hard were optional. The main story you could avoid dying in aslong as you were careful.

The single player of Black ops has a lousy difficulty though. I'm talking about playing it on "Veteran". The only thing they've done in alteration to the difficulty is telling the AI to use "the force". They basically fire headshots on you while having their backs towards you. It changes between endless respawncorridors to "clear room then proceed to next" type of gameplay. They rarely use cover, cause their autoaim owns both your brain and skills.

It was the same in Modern Warfare 2, but they really cranked it up to a fucked up level in Black Ops.
 

ImBigBob

New member
Dec 24, 2008
336
0
0
Toeys said:
ImBigBob said:
And this is precisely why Demon's Souls is overrated. I don't want to have to spend 10 minutes trudging through the easy parts only to die again. Yeah, it keeps the tension, but when you die, and when you feel like your death is more luck than skill, why bother to keep playing?
I don't really get why some people think this. In my opinion Demon Souls requires you to think before you act. Of course you end up getting to Flamelurker and he burns you, again and again. But thats more of a hint to go do something else until you're badass enough to take him out. The game has a lot of good old Diablo's mechanics, but when you die you atleast keep your gear in Demons Souls. Most of the challenges i saw as hard were optional. The main story you could avoid dying in aslong as you were careful.

The single player of Black ops has a lousy difficulty though. I'm talking about playing it on "Veteran". The only thing they've done in alteration to the difficulty is telling the AI to use "the force". They basically fire headshots on you while having their backs towards you. It changes between endless respawncorridors to "clear room then proceed to next" type of gameplay. They rarely use cover, cause their autoaim owns both your brain and skills.

It was the same in Modern Warfare 2, but they really cranked it up to a fucked up level in Black Ops.
The part that made me up and quit the game was that mud level where you have limited mobility. I had been playing normally, carefully planning out my path, which is the fun part of the game. But there's a part with one of those big guys with the club who takes several hits to go down, and considering you're knee-deep in mud, you can't roll or dodge, so you just get pummeled. Even when just running through the level at top speed, that guy shows up and kills me before I have a good grasp of the area and my abilities, which just made it all even more frustrating.

Oh, and having to go through that stupid falling puzzle to get to the Firelurker every time was a pain in the ass. And trying to figure out why I don't have access to magic despite being at least a third of the way through the game. And how if I use an item and then screw up, the item is gone for good, so I would have been more productive had I not even turned the game on.
 

kouriichi

New member
Sep 5, 2010
2,415
0
0
Falseprophet said:
Ninja'd. I'll say, the missions themselves are good for placing checkpoints, but if you flub the 100% sync you need to do the whole frakkin' thing again. This is especially fun during the war machine missions, where the mission is "sneak around this complex with hyper-alert guards without breaking cover, then do a multi-stage platforming run, then pilot this war machine with clumsy controls and destroy the bad guys base." All well and good, but the 100% sync criteria is always "and don't get hit while piloting the clumsy vehicle section and getting shot at by dozens of dudes."
Exactly. The sneaking challanges arnt all that hard, and neather are the combat ones. Its just the way it sets them up. I have almost 100% sync on almost all the missions, except the few that are just horribly set up.

Like one where you have to chase down and assassinate this dude. It would be easy, if he wasnt always alerted to you. And the part that makes it broken is that he stays on a wall half the time, which you cant assassinate him on.
 

Toeys

New member
Mar 30, 2010
90
0
0
ImBigBob said:
Toeys said:
ImBigBob said:
I don't really get why some people think this. In my opinion Demon Souls requires you to think before you act. Of course you end up getting to Flamelurker and he burns you, again and again. But thats more of a hint to go do something else until you're badass enough to take him out. The game has a lot of good old Diablo's mechanics, but when you die you atleast keep your gear in Demons Souls. Most of the challenges i saw as hard were optional. The main story you could avoid dying in aslong as you were careful.

The single player of Black ops has a lousy difficulty though. I'm talking about playing it on "Veteran". The only thing they've done in alteration to the difficulty is telling the AI to use "the force". They basically fire headshots on you while having their backs towards you. It changes between endless respawncorridors to "clear room then proceed to next" type of gameplay. They rarely use cover, cause their autoaim owns both your brain and skills.

It was the same in Modern Warfare 2, but they really cranked it up to a fucked up level in Black Ops.
The part that made me up and quit the game was that mud level where you have limited mobility. I had been playing normally, carefully planning out my path, which is the fun part of the game. But there's a part with one of those big guys with the club who takes several hits to go down, and considering you're knee-deep in mud, you can't roll or dodge, so you just get pummeled. Even when just running through the level at top speed, that guy shows up and kills me before I have a good grasp of the area and my abilities, which just made it all even more frustrating.

Oh, and having to go through that stupid falling puzzle to get to the Firelurker every time was a pain in the ass. And trying to figure out why I don't have access to magic despite being at least a third of the way through the game. And how if I use an item and then screw up, the item is gone for good, so I would have been more productive had I not even turned the game on.
Well what can i say, i like it HARD ;)
 

ThisNewGuy

New member
Apr 28, 2009
315
0
0
For people who enjoy this topic, I suggest a research paper done by Jenova Chen that talks about what is the perfect balance of difficulty. He called this perfect balance "flow."

http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/thesis.htm
 

remethep

New member
Aug 4, 2009
3
0
0
Stupid difficulty settings makes me remember Crackdown 2.
You have normal, where after a certain point at least 50% of the enemies (supposed to be a street gang) wield RPGs and dress in power armour, and then a plethora of harder difficulties where the percentage goes up.

Crackdown 2 is for me a good example on how not to do difficulty.
And as Shamus says, much of the problem is how the game is sold.
The game communicates that you are the superman, Wolverine saving the day.
Try saying that to yourself when the combined firepower of Texas comes towards you the moment you peek over a ledge...

Another example (recently installed and even more recently uninstalled) is Settlers 7.
It looked cute and cartoony, and made me remember the good old days spent enjoying Settlers 2.
And for quite some time (first 4-5 story missions) it was just that.
Charming, fun and I could do tings at my own pace.

But then it decloaked and appeared before me as it really is.
A game made for mentats as an exercise in logistics, supply chains and balancing on the head of a pin. They should have renamed it "Adam Smith: Atlas Shrugging!"
And a game where you also have to be fast about it, since the CPU (knowing better how to play the game) will build itself into the equivalent of the Third Reich unless you rush.

Say a game is hard, hardcore or 1337, and sell it to those who think or feel they are.
But I hate it when a game turns out to be something completly different (and difficult) than it sells itself to be.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
I didn't mind the fact that you didn't die in Prince of Persia. In fact, I was always falling off ledges and losing fights, so the fact that the girl comes in and saves my ass simply works the exact same way as the quick load button. As an anti-frustration mechanic, I think it worked really well.

I hadn't played the previous games much but I liked a lot about Prince of Persia 2008. Sure the fights were poor, the gameplay was far too repetitive, the ending was an annoying cliff hanger, and the game did not get progressively more difficult, but I liked the art style, the characters, the setting and the music (especially the music).
 

Playbahnosh

New member
Dec 12, 2007
606
0
0
Shamus, did you just ran out of characters? Did you have something to do urgently? I mean, that article ended quite abruptly, almost in mid-sentence, and I know you'd have many more things to say on topic. I know I would. You guys have some word or character limit to these columns too? It just doesn't make sense. I mean, if you have something to say in your own column, say it. I would've liked to hear some more from you on ramping and difficulty in general. Ah, well...
 

TheTinyMan

New member
May 6, 2010
63
0
0
Shamus has said a lot in the past that I've disagreed with, but this was no such thing. I think that you perfectly describe my ideal failure consequence in most games. If I'm playing a game that is intended as a more long-term simulation, like Minecraft, I don't mind a little more penalty (although I think that Minecraft's is a little ridiculous) but if you make me re-do the easy stuff, or worse re-do some hard stuff as I seem to recall some Devil May Cry games doing, then I'm just going to get impatient and tell my friends that your game is repetitive.
 

Dogstar060763

New member
Jul 28, 2008
14
0
0
"...Difficulty, if you'll pardon the expression, is hard. Here's to the game designers who take the time to get it right."

Very few - if any - of them do. I cannot understand what the problem for the developers is here. Is it really beyond the wit of modern developers to provide both an 'Easy' experience for the nervous and inexperienced (where 'easy' does actually mean easy) and an 'Insane' experience for those who consider themselves well above such trivialities?

As a player who likes to play on 'easy' most of the time, I find that some games (actually, many games) seem determined to p*ss me off from the start, as quickly as possible. Their sole job, it seems, is to underline and exaggerate my own inadequacies as a player, whilst doing their level best to deter me from playing at all. But I'm getting wiser. Now I understand that the moment a game (any game) kicks me out of the experience back to the 'menu' or 'game over' screen it is the game that has failed me, not the other way around; after all, I came to the game wanting to play, wanting to stay engaged, and I would have stayed if the game hadn't thrown a fit of pique and ejected me. Sometimes repeatedly.

Developers have to understand that being sent to the 'game over' screen is an antiquated, clumsy device that has no place in modern game design. The job of the developer is to keep the player engaged by hook or by crook. Keep the player entertained and in the game! Punishing mistakes by ejection from the experience is thoroughly counter-productive and in the end (with enough repetition) will encourage player abandonment - and how may times have we heard developers bleating on about wanting players to see the 'whole game'?

Do us a favour, fellas, and walk the talk. I want to finish every single game I purchase; I realise talented and highly creative developers have put years of hard work into filling these games with content and gameplay. But I look at my (dwindling) games collection and feel nothing but frustration that so many of those titles will never be completed, never even wholly seen by me. I'm not willing to be kicked in the balls for trying - all for the lack of a helping hand from the developers to make progression seamless and, while challenging, never impossible.

Developers need to change their mindsets regarding difficulty. They can cater very well for both 'sightseer' gamers (like me, who just want to go along for the ride most of all, but who need to feel they will always be able to get to the end of the game) and their vocal (minority) of hardcore 'madgamerskillz' players (who will always shout the loudest on forums - half the problem, imo), so why don't they?