How would you beef up the difficulty? (Brain Storming)

[Ellen of Kitten]

I've been walking down nostalgia lane recently, watching some vids of Super Metroid, and thinking back to some of my all time favorite games in the past. (I'll be using Super Metroid as my example, but you could imagine I'm talking about any number of games. I often felt the same about many older Resident Evil games for example.) I love [Super Metroid] to death, but I often wish that its difficulty curve was higher than it is.

I don't mean, "I Want to be the Guy" or "VVVVVV" or "Devil May Cry 3" (before they released the toned down version). I mean, high enough to be a challenge, but not so high that I want to cry out in frustration. A nice sweet spot of difficulty that provides satisfaction upon completion, without the frustration of more than one or two multiple attempts.

In my own experience, I've seen difficulty adjusted by increasing the damage enemies can soak, or lowering the life that the players character has. Games with ammo as a resource (old RE games) would provide fewer instances of ammo being found, or each find would provide fewer bullets. But I'm really looking for more creative ideas.

I also plan on submitting this thread to the Extra Credits people for a topic I'm proposing to them (uh, Difficulty Curve, of course). I don't think they'd need the help, but what is a forum if not for added discussion and the value of the ideas we discuss? Go think tank, go! What would you do to insure that the difficulty curve is bolstered without ruining the experience, or falling into cliche habits?

Spoiler: captcha funsies

 

[Sixcess]

I like games where ramping up the difficulty means more enemies, rather than the common tendency to tougher enemies.

DOOM is a great example of this. On the lower difficulties a room might contain 1 imp or a guy with a pistol. On Ultraviolence the same room has 3 imps, or 3 guys with shotguns and a chaingunner. Ammo drops remain the same, but it doesn't go as far because you're using up more in each room. It also avoids the change in gameplay style that's forced on you if raising the difficulty means you're suddenly dealing with rank and file enemies that suddenly take a full clip to put down and can one-shot you. Increasing the number but not the individual toughness of enemies means the flow of combat doesn't change, each enoounter is just more intense.

Sadly this seems to work best in old school loadsandloadsofenemies shooters, which aren't too common these days.

 

[Snork Maiden]

I don't mean, "I Want to be the Guy" or "VVVVVV" or "Devil May Cry 3" (before they released the toned down version). I mean, high enough to be a challenge, but not so high that I want to cry out in frustration. A nice sweet spot of difficulty that provides satisfaction upon completion, without the frustration of more than one or two multiple attempts

I thought VVVVVV did hit the sweet spot, certainly if you're not trying to get all the trinkets. VVVVVV can be finished in one sitting and while it is hard, I just don't see it as deserving of it's "super hard platformer" status. I can understand why IWBTG and Super Meat Boy don't appeal to some people, but I thought VVVVVV was so perfectly set that anyone with a passing interest in platformers would enjoy it (and be able to finish it).

or lowering the life that the players character has.

I don't think there's anything wrong with lowering life, per-se. Making the difficulty higher should mean the player has to go through with making less mistakes, which mean they have to improve their decisions, have better reflexes, whatever. I don't think this works in games like CoD (where you already have low life!) since you never want a situation where the difficulty becomes 50/50 luck/skill.

 

[Reallink]

I'm honestly not a fan of increasing damage ratio's, because then you aren't changing the difficulty for a good player as much as forcing them to make fewer mistakes. I think Guitar Hero etc are examples of good difficulty. The gameplay stays the same, and the level to fail stays the same, but volume changes. This is different to the above mentioned increased enemies, as you are limited by chances (bullets) and again forced to 'make fewer mistakes'. Guitar Hero might seem 'make fewer mistakes', but I think it is more 'increase your skills'. I admit 'fail less' and 'succeed more' seem the same, but hopefully you get the gist of it

In a creative way, I think difficulty could be incorporated in the character. E.G each character is a different difficulty, and each plays differently. Though I will have to get back to you on a way to make it work.

 

[Tallim]

I'm honestly not a fan of increasing damage ratio's, because then you aren't changing the difficulty for a good player as much as forcing them to make fewer mistakes. I think Guitar Hero etc are examples of good difficulty. The gameplay stays the same, and the level to fail stays the same, but volume changes. This is different to the above mentioned increased enemies, as you are then limited by bullets and again changes to 'make fewer mistakes'.

In a creative way, I think difficulty could be incorporated in the character. E.G each character is a different difficulty, and each plays differently. Though I will have to get back to you on a way to make it work.

Games already do this to some extent. The original Resident Evil you could argue that playing Jill makes it easier than playing Chris. 2 extra item slots and the lockpick.

Demon's Souls has you select a class at the start, this has little overall effect on the game but does alter how hard/easy the first sections are for you.

I don't believe it has been used as a deliberate thing very often however.

 

[Reallink]

I'm honestly not a fan of increasing damage ratio's, because then you aren't changing the difficulty for a good player as much as forcing them to make fewer mistakes. I think Guitar Hero etc are examples of good difficulty. The gameplay stays the same, and the level to fail stays the same, but volume changes. This is different to the above mentioned increased enemies, as you are then limited by bullets and again changes to 'make fewer mistakes'.

In a creative way, I think difficulty could be incorporated in the character. E.G each character is a different difficulty, and each plays differently. Though I will have to get back to you on a way to make it work.

Games already do this to some extent. The original Resident Evil you could argue that playing Jill makes it easier than playing Chris. 2 extra item slots and the lockpick.

Demon's Souls has you select a class at the start, this has little overall effect on the game but does alter how hard/easy the first sections are for you.

I don't believe it has been used as a deliberate thing very often however.

The Resident Evil example is good, as long as they make it clear that:
A. The character is recognized as easy or hard and this is made clear to the player.
B. The reason for difficulty change is incorporated into the story. So (because I didn't play it) if Chris just didn't have storage or a lock pick for no good reason, its pointless

 

[Tallim]

I'm honestly not a fan of increasing damage ratio's, because then you aren't changing the difficulty for a good player as much as forcing them to make fewer mistakes. I think Guitar Hero etc are examples of good difficulty. The gameplay stays the same, and the level to fail stays the same, but volume changes. This is different to the above mentioned increased enemies, as you are then limited by bullets and again changes to 'make fewer mistakes'.

In a creative way, I think difficulty could be incorporated in the character. E.G each character is a different difficulty, and each plays differently. Though I will have to get back to you on a way to make it work.

Games already do this to some extent. The original Resident Evil you could argue that playing Jill makes it easier than playing Chris. 2 extra item slots and the lockpick.

Demon's Souls has you select a class at the start, this has little overall effect on the game but does alter how hard/easy the first sections are for you.

I don't believe it has been used as a deliberate thing very often however.

The Resident Evil example is good, as long as they make it clear that:
A. The character is recognized as easy or hard and this is made clear to the player.
B. The reason for difficulty change is incorporated into the story. So (because I didn't play it) if Chris just didn't have storage or a lock pick for no good reason, its pointless

No they never made the differences clear particularly. They also never explained how Jill could carry two extra items. On top of that Jill's lockpick could open some doors and also drawers which contained items (often health or ammo). Chris *could* open the drawers but he needed keys for it which took up an inventory slot.

Jill can also get the Shotgun earlier due to plot and one of the bosses is much easier for her because of her secondary character coming in and toasting it.

The game is just plain easier as her. By default the game selects Chris at the character select. I believe (IIRC) that Jill can't take as much damage as Chris but it isn't a massive difference.

 

[irani_che]

increase enemy numbers
more agressive or tactical AI
less helpfull ally NPCs

The idea of limiting ammo can completely change you tactics in a game

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

I'm honestly not a fan of increasing damage ratio's, because then you aren't changing the difficulty for a good player as much as forcing them to make fewer mistakes. I think Guitar Hero etc are examples of good difficulty. The gameplay stays the same, and the level to fail stays the same, but volume changes. This is different to the above mentioned increased enemies, as you are then limited by bullets and again changes to 'make fewer mistakes'.

In a creative way, I think difficulty could be incorporated in the character. E.G each character is a different difficulty, and each plays differently. Though I will have to get back to you on a way to make it work.

Games already do this to some extent. The original Resident Evil you could argue that playing Jill makes it easier than playing Chris. 2 extra item slots and the lockpick.

Demon's Souls has you select a class at the start, this has little overall effect on the game but does alter how hard/easy the first sections are for you.

I don't believe it has been used as a deliberate thing very often however.

The Resident Evil example is good, as long as they make it clear that:
A. The character is recognized as easy or hard and this is made clear to the player.
B. The reason for difficulty change is incorporated into the story. So (because I didn't play it) if Chris just didn't have storage or a lock pick for no good reason, its pointless

The original RE game took difficulty at an interesting angle. Each character was slightly different, but those slight differences played a big role in how the game was played.
-Jill had 8 items slots and a lock pick, but less life (which was not clear) than her counterpart. The lock pick would get her through simple locks, which gave her access to some areas at different times than Chris. Jill had access to more variety of weapons.
-Chris had lots more life than Jill, but could only carry 6 items at a time. He could fine small keys would would open locks Jills lock pick could handle, but that took exploring potentially dangerous areas first. Chris could find one or two weapons that were area specific, and usually more of the core weapon ammo (Pistol, shotgun, magnum).

Jill was easier for ME to play because I got so good, I never got hit. So her HP was never a concern, while carrying things was. She encountered a greater variety of ammo thanks to the Grenade Launcher (Flame, EXP, and Acid rounds), so if you didn't know what you were going to be facing in the next area, you'd be toting around a lot of ineffectual ammo, or otherwise less effective (Pistol VS Hunter... may as well reset right there.)

This is the kind of unique game play difference that I like. Chris was hard for me at first because of the storage limits, but his beefier life made getting out of scrapes easier. Jill would die well before Chris would.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

In my experience the higher difficulties force a player to improve their skill at a given game, so that "sweet spot" you're on about OP doesn't really exist. A challenging difficulty level for a beginner is a routine cake-walk for a veteran. I think the closest we've so far come to a dynamic difficulty curve is the AI Director from the L4D series, but even that system isn't perfect. Of all the possible solutions I think the AI Director idea is the one to pursue, but work needs to be done to make the thing less bloody sadistic.

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

The game is just plain easier as her. By default the game selects Chris at the character select. I believe (IIRC) that Jill can't take as much damage as Chris but it isn't a massive difference.

I tested this eons ago when I was still playing RE1. Chris can take half again as much damage as Jill could. I would play Jill a lot, but occasionally play Chris. I might get mauled so much playing Chris that I felt he was about to die. But his heart monitor claimed I was in middle caution rather than danger. Jill would have surely been in danger.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand for me.

 

[Tallim]

The game is just plain easier as her. By default the game selects Chris at the character select. I believe (IIRC) that Jill can't take as much damage as Chris but it isn't a massive difference.

I tested this eons ago when I was still playing RE1. Chris can take half again as much damage as Jill could. I would play Jill a lot, but occasionally play Chris. I might get mauled so much playing Chris that I felt he was about to die. But his heart monitor claimed I was in middle caution rather than danger. Jill would have surely been in danger.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand for me.

Thanks for the info. Much like you I got so good that I rarely (if ever) got hit so I never tested the actual differences. Was Chris slower also? Really can't remember now as I almost never played Chris.

On topic: They could have easily added a difficulty rating to both characters to more accurately represent the differences.

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

In my experience the higher difficulties force a player to improve their skill at a given game, so that "sweet spot" you're on about OP doesn't really exist. A challenging difficulty level for a beginner is a routine cake-walk for a veteran. I think the closest we've so far come to a dynamic difficulty curve is the AI Director from the L4D series, but even that system isn't perfect. Of all the possible solutions I think the AI Director idea is the one to pursue, but work needs to be done to make the thing less bloody sadistic.

I've heard of, but am not familiar with the AI Director for L4D. Can you explain how it modified difficulty?

 

[Reallink]

I'm honestly not a fan of increasing damage ratio's, because then you aren't changing the difficulty for a good player as much as forcing them to make fewer mistakes. I think Guitar Hero etc are examples of good difficulty. The gameplay stays the same, and the level to fail stays the same, but volume changes. This is different to the above mentioned increased enemies, as you are then limited by bullets and again changes to 'make fewer mistakes'.

In a creative way, I think difficulty could be incorporated in the character. E.G each character is a different difficulty, and each plays differently. Though I will have to get back to you on a way to make it work.

Games already do this to some extent. The original Resident Evil you could argue that playing Jill makes it easier than playing Chris. 2 extra item slots and the lockpick.

Demon's Souls has you select a class at the start, this has little overall effect on the game but does alter how hard/easy the first sections are for you.

I don't believe it has been used as a deliberate thing very often however.

The Resident Evil example is good, as long as they make it clear that:
A. The character is recognized as easy or hard and this is made clear to the player.
B. The reason for difficulty change is incorporated into the story. So (because I didn't play it) if Chris just didn't have storage or a lock pick for no good reason, its pointless

The original RE game took difficulty at an interesting angle. Each character was slightly different, but those slight differences played a big role in how the game was played.
-Jill had 8 items slots and a lock pick, but less life (which was not clear) than her counterpart. The lock pick would get her through simple locks, which gave her access to some areas at different times than Chris. Jill had access to more variety of weapons.
-Chris had lots more life than Jill, but could only carry 6 items at a time. He could fine small keys would would open locks Jills lock pick could handle, but that took exploring potentially dangerous areas first. Chris could find one or two weapons that were area specific, and usually more of the core weapon ammo (Pistol, shotgun, magnum).

Jill was easier for ME to play because I got so good, I never got hit. So her HP was never a concern, while carrying things was. She encountered a greater variety of ammo thanks to the Grenade Launcher (Flame, EXP, and Acid rounds), so if you didn't know what you were going to be facing in the next area, you'd be toting around a lot of ineffectual ammo, or otherwise less effective (Pistol VS Hunter... may as well reset right there.)

This is the kind of unique game play difference that I like. Chris was hard for me at first because of the storage limits, but his beefier life made getting out of scrapes easier. Jill would die well before Chris would.

The issue here becomes that this stops being difficulty and becomes an alternative in gameplay. As there are pros/cons that are given to each character (Storage space, life) this becomes a choice of personal preference. The issue of the lock-pick is different however, as it adds length and challenge for one of the characters. This is actually a really good example, as not only does it increase the challenge, it adds new content as a reward for replaying on a harder difficulty

 

[Kevonovitch]

don't need to do much really it's really simple;

add more enemies, with smarter ai (ie, using more abilities, smarter and faster tactics, such as, settings traps, luring player's, forcing them into enviroment traps/death, tricking them into dead ends, swarming symoltaniously.)
make them tougher def hp and dmg wise.

 

[retterkl]

Check out the difficulty options on Mount and Blade.

It lets you twig lots of things about the battle to set a custom level of difficulty.

For example you can set the damage you take at 1/4, 1/2 or 1, and your allies damage at 1/2 or 1. Then you can set the amount of troops that are present on the battlefield at any one time (you are likely to be outnumbered in most of the early game, and also this is to do with processor power) and this can go further if you download the battlefield size modifier seperatly.

Then it gives you a % difficulty after you've changed all the settings. I think it ranges between 25% to 200% difficulty or something like that.

 

[Cogwheel]

In my experience the higher difficulties force a player to improve their skill at a given game, so that "sweet spot" you're on about OP doesn't really exist. A challenging difficulty level for a beginner is a routine cake-walk for a veteran. I think the closest we've so far come to a dynamic difficulty curve is the AI Director from the L4D series, but even that system isn't perfect. Of all the possible solutions I think the AI Director idea is the one to pursue, but work needs to be done to make the thing less bloody sadistic.

I've heard of, but am not familiar with the AI Director for L4D. Can you explain how it modified difficulty?

I haven't played L4D in some time, but the gist of it is that, while changing the difficulty does adjust some things in and of itself (damage dealt to you for the most part, I think, and Easy has no friendly fire) the director changes things further. If you're doing well, the game throws more zombies at you. If you stand around for too long? Zombies. If you run ahead of the group, it will hit that person with a Smoker, Hunter, Jockey or Charger, all of which require that someone else saves you once you're caught.

If you're doing poorly, the game might ease up a bit, then place some medkits at the next applicable spot, that sort of thing. It both adjusts difficulty constantly, and ensures that every game is different.

Sorry if that wasn't terrible helpful, been a while since I played.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

In my experience the higher difficulties force a player to improve their skill at a given game, so that "sweet spot" you're on about OP doesn't really exist. A challenging difficulty level for a beginner is a routine cake-walk for a veteran. I think the closest we've so far come to a dynamic difficulty curve is the AI Director from the L4D series, but even that system isn't perfect. Of all the possible solutions I think the AI Director idea is the one to pursue, but work needs to be done to make the thing less bloody sadistic.

I've heard of, but am not familiar with the AI Director for L4D. Can you explain how it modified difficulty?

Basically the AI Director was an algorithm written into L4D that constantly monitored player progress throughout the level. If the players were breezing through a certain area then areas that would normally spawn health and ammo might not be stocked, and the waves of infected attacking the group would become more numerous and contain more 'uncommon' or 'special' infected. Likewise, if a group was getting pummelled then perhaps a few health packs would appear in the next house along their route. Yahtzee covered it in an old review of the original L4D he did a few years back if you care about that kind of thing.

In other words it's a scaling difficulty system that keeps the pressure of the campaign (depending on Easy, Normal or Hard difficulty setting) either slightly uncomfortable, quite uncomfortable or ... well ... you get the idea.

 

[Silverfox99]

I see all forms of difficulty falling in to two categories. Reaction time and thinking. The most enjoyable and difficult games combine these two. Portal is a good example. You had puzzles to figure out but you still had to jump at the right way to complete the level. (in some of the puzzles but I hope the idea gets across).

In a shooter the problem is once you figure out the best way to kill an enemy (figure out the puzzle) it then is only about reaction time. Maybe have a enemy with random appendages that changes how you would kill it? The enemy could have four different heads fleshy, armored, ooze like and all bone. Each head would have a different weapon that could take it down easily. A hammer for the bone. Fire attack for the ooze, normal gun for the fleshy, and a electric attack for the armored. Each time this enemy spawns it could have a different head. Now add different arms with different weapons, and different legs - one enemy would have many different combos.

Ex. It has a bone head so you have to use a hammer, but it spawned with flamethrowers and jumpy legs. That is a way different fight then a enemy a with a fleshy head, rocket launcher, and fast legs.

Then towards the end game you have larger groups, at this time you would know how to take most of the combos down, but now with the groups your have to prioritize your targets.

 

[not_you]

Well, one of the best difficulty curve increases I've come across happened in Metro 2033...

As Bullets are indeed currency, the number that you find decrease as the difficulty goes up, but also with that, The amount of damage you take increases (which is normal) BUT the amount of damage the enemies also decrease....

Now, some people may be thinking, "hang on, that's a stupid idea, if I use less bullets to kill enemies then why do you think this is getting harder?"

Well, my answer to that is this:
If you've played the game, you will then understand that the enemies are very fast moving and numerous, the guns (Iron sights that is) look like you're aiming down a sponge cake (and since I don't believe in crosshairs in First Person Shooters) It's not entirely what you call very fair...

But, from ALL the games I've played, this one seems to have done difficulty the best for me... I played through on "Hard" first off, which was challenging... Then moved up to "Ranger" mode, which also hides the HUD... Which, mind you, is also a good implement... so... Yeah...
but that's my two cents anyway.....

EDIT: There's also Hitman... How with higher difficulty settings, you get less and less intel on your map....