Is it Okay for a Game to be Unfair?

[briankoontz]

Yes, it's completely fine for a game to be unfair - the same as a movie or book can be "unfair" to one's emotions or expectations. It's a work of art, and the artist needs to have the freedom to cause the player to feel betrayed or misled. Like any other artistic aspect of a game, this can be done poorly or done well, and the same goes for all other aspects of game design.

Games are not our slaves. They exist to help us grow as people, even when that growth is merely "blowing off steam" or taking a break.

 

[Cryselle]

I think how legitimate 'fair' vs 'unfair' is in a game is all about what you consider fair or unfair. To me, unfair is when you are beaten by the game's systems over the game's enemies, or when the game blatantly breaks it's own rules.

I would argue that games like Dark Souls require being as fair as possible to be enjoyable at all. Fair is not easy. Mimics are fair. (They don't break the game rules, there are ways to see them ahead of time, and the game even does as good a job of warning you about the first one as it ever gives you a warning. Sure, a lot of people miss the warning, but that's not really unfair.) Unfair in Dark Souls is when you're fighting the camera or hitboxes, and things that should work do not for no in-game reason, but because the systems behind the game screw up.

IWBTG is predicated on crazy-ass split second challenges and memorizing solutions. That /is/ the game. So it's completely fair for it to have those challenges in it.

Rubberbanding AI I hate though. It doesn't make sense that the better you do, the better they do. It puts you in competition with the system, and really just means that your errors are heavily weighted near the end of the race. A flawless run save for one minor error at the start means you usually win, a similarly flawless run with the same minor error on the last lap can mean losing. It doesn't add 'tension' to the race, it just means that instead of a good player getting ahead at the start and making the finish a formality, you get for EVERY player the first half of the race barely mattering at all.

 

[Cryselle]

Yes, it's completely fine for a game to be unfair - the same as a movie or book can be "unfair" to one's emotions or expectations. It's a work of art, and the artist needs to have the freedom to cause the player to feel betrayed or misled. Like any other artistic aspect of a game, this can be done poorly or done well, and the same goes for all other aspects of game design.

Games are not our slaves. They exist to help us grow as people, even when that growth is merely "blowing off steam" or taking a break.

To compare to writing though, if you talk to most truly skilled writers, they will tell you that internal consistency is extremely important when world-building. That doesn't mean you have to be nice to your readers, or only do what is expected. It means that if you set up rules for the way things work (say, magic in a fantasy setting), you want to be very careful about when and how you break those rules. That isn't to say that you /can't/ break your own rules. Just that you want to only do so sparingly and for very good reason.

It's the same in video games. You can break the rules, but you want to be thoughtful about when and how you do so and make sure that it's to good effect. Players will generally accept that the ultimate bad-guy in a game has abilities that transcend the normal rules. But if every mook in the game breaks the rules, then why have the rule in the first place? (And artistic license be damned, I can't think of a single time where the general consensus was that bad controls and a lousy camera made a game better. Only that some games were good enough to survive bad controls and a lousy camera.) Being legitimately unfair in a game is usually NOT an artistic decision so much as it is generally a programming failure.

 

[Bad Jim]

Well firstly it depends on your definition of "unfair".

If you mean that humans and computers don't play on strictly equal terms, then of course. Computers are easily outwitted, but on the other hand have much faster reactions than humans. Allowances must be made on both sides.

If you mean hazards that can't easily be avoided through skill or cleverness or being observant, that's usually a negative. However, death is a reasonable way to teach the player IMO. It's fairly quick in most games, it's usually obvious what killed you, and unlike a tutorial it is inherently skippable if you already know. Being eaten by your first mimic chest can be considered bullshit, depending on the game, but from then on mimic chests are fair, because now you know you should give them a whack before you try opening them.

 

[Metalmacher]

Thought up this idea in the most creative area, the shower. Dark Souls has mimic chests that'll bite your face off. The first one is in a room of other chests and up until that point, no chest wanted you for dinner. So, if you're like me, you die.

Some people say that's part of Dark Soul's allure. It's relentless punishing style arguably strays into unfair territory at times, but it could help augment the feeling of hopelessness pervading the game.

Conversely, rubber banding in racing games just feels like artificial difficulty, a punishment for doing well.

So, can a game be unfair at times to make it a better game, or should it always play by the rules it makes you play by?

EDIT: My B. As some have pointed out, the first mimic is in Sen's Fortress. Same question still applies though, to all games, not just Dark Souls. Think of all those poor offline mode players D=

I never played the game so I gotta ask...
Is it possible to notice the mimics, and escape them before they eat you? Like, say you're opening the chest, it turns out to be a Mimic, then what? Are you locked in animation, can you escape at all?

 

[DoPo]

Like, say you're opening the chest, it turns out to be a Mimic, then what? Are you locked in animation, can you escape at all?

Yes - if you open a Mimic-chest, you die. Which, again, isn't a huge issue because it's both avoidable and death is part of the game anyway. If you walk into a trap, you die[footnote]unless it just takes a big chunk out of your health, which may just kill you when you meet the next enemy, anyway[/footnote], if you encounter a new enemy and take a risky move against it, you can still die. This isn't hugely different - death doesn't that hindering in Dark Souls - at most you may lose some souls (that's the XP and the main currency in the game) but souls are practically everywhere anyway, so whatever.

 

[Metalmacher]

Like, say you're opening the chest, it turns out to be a Mimic, then what? Are you locked in animation, can you escape at all?

Yes - if you open a Mimic-chest, you die. Which, again, isn't a huge issue because it's both avoidable and death is part of the game anyway. If you walk into a trap, you die[footnote]unless it just takes a big chunk out of your health, which may just kill you when you meet the next enemy, anyway[/footnote], if you encounter a new enemy and take a risky move against it, you can still die. This isn't hugely different - death doesn't that hindering in Dark Souls - at most you may lose some souls (that's the XP and the main currency in the game) but souls are practically everywhere anyway, so whatever.

What do you mean avoidable? You just said that if you open the mimic you die, so how can you avoid that? Refrain from opening the chest? Does that mean that you'd start avoiding opening all of the chests in the game?
I'm sorry if I'm prodding so much, for someone who never played the game, but it just seems weird to me... If there is a trap, then I should be able to spot it, if I look carefully. Like in Skyrim. Are there no signs for mimics?

Because, and only if indeed there are no signs, that WOULD be unfair. An unavoidable 1HKO which can only be avoided by limiting yourself to not open chests... That's so unfair, it's unjustifiable, no matter how inconsequential death is in the game.

 

[DoPo]

Like, say you're opening the chest, it turns out to be a Mimic, then what? Are you locked in animation, can you escape at all?

Yes - if you open a Mimic-chest, you die. Which, again, isn't a huge issue because it's both avoidable and death is part of the game anyway. If you walk into a trap, you die[footnote]unless it just takes a big chunk out of your health, which may just kill you when you meet the next enemy, anyway[/footnote], if you encounter a new enemy and take a risky move against it, you can still die. This isn't hugely different - death doesn't that hindering in Dark Souls - at most you may lose some souls (that's the XP and the main currency in the game) but souls are practically everywhere anyway, so whatever.

What do you mean avoidable? You just said that if you open the mimic you die, so how can you avoid that?

So, don't open Mimic-chests.

1. Bloodstains
2. Messages
3. They have a differently placed chain
4. And a broken lock
5. They also breath slightly
6. Attacking will aggro them
7. Lloyd's Talismans allows you to get the items without aggroing them

These are SEVEN ways to deal with mimics.

There.

Because, and only if indeed there are no signs, that WOULD be unfair. An unavoidable 1HKO which can only be avoided by limiting yourself to not open chests... That's so unfair, it's unjustifiable, no matter how inconsequential death is in the game.

Even if there was no visual way of identifying them, simply attacking the chest would also work. Nox also had mimics and, if I remember correctly, there was no actually way of finding them. Unless you attacked. They didn't insta-kill you but were still tough opponents. Since the first one or two I found, I started just attacking all chests at range - it added something like, dunno - 5 minutes in total for the playthrough, but I did not get surprised by any of them.

 

[BytByte]

Thought up this idea in the most creative area, the shower. Dark Souls has mimic chests that'll bite your face off. The first one is in a room of other chests and up until that point, no chest wanted you for dinner. So, if you're like me, you die.

Some people say that's part of Dark Soul's allure. It's relentless punishing style arguably strays into unfair territory at times, but it could help augment the feeling of hopelessness pervading the game.

Conversely, rubber banding in racing games just feels like artificial difficulty, a punishment for doing well.

So, can a game be unfair at times to make it a better game, or should it always play by the rules it makes you play by?

EDIT: My B. As some have pointed out, the first mimic is in Sen's Fortress. Same question still applies though, to all games, not just Dark Souls. Think of all those poor offline mode players D=

I never played the game so I gotta ask...
Is it possible to notice the mimics, and escape them before they eat you? Like, say you're opening the chest, it turns out to be a Mimic, then what? Are you locked in animation, can you escape at all?

The first mimic of the game is more than a few hours into playing and will most likely kill you. You may or may not be warned via bloodstains (it shows other player's last moments before they die) or messages (which could say "trap ahead" or something) depending on if you are playing online or if the right messages get to you. The chests also look slightly different but only if you are actively paying attention to them, which you would have no need to because all of the chests beforehand have not tried to eat you.

Like others said, the first mimic will then teach you to beware of chests for the rest of the game, but I still hold that the first one is unfair due to the game's previous conditioning of your opening chests and the random chance that you may or may not be warned.

Regardless, the thread is more asking if a game can be improved by being unfair or not, not whether my example in question was truly unfair or not.

 

[Silvanus]

It's completely okay as far as I'm concerned; there's great satisfaction and catharsis to be had in overcoming overwhelming odds.

That said, the final few stages of Aaru's Awakening are taking liberties with the idea.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Tough call. There is a gray area between unfair and difficult.

A game based around arbitrary unavoidable ***** slaps would not be fun. A game that deals one out every once and a while to up the stakes is okay. A game that is merely persistently difficult is fine.

I'm playing Dark Souls for the first time myself. There are many, many examples to be had, but I'll use the rolling boulder in Sen's Fortress. There is just enough space to run to safety between boulders, a handful of snakemen who aren't immediately visible to make it interesting, and restricted movement from the wall on one side and the precipice on the other. Any one of those hazards can kill the player pretty easily. Is this scenario actually unfair? Not at all. A canny player can lead the snakemen into the boulder, time his runs, and get through that area without taking a single point of damage. Could it be perceived as unfair by someone who isn't used to this sort of thing? Sure.

 

[FruitBird]

You want an unfair game? Download dwarf fortress and kiss your arse goodbye. With the UTTERLY un-intuitive layout, the insane levels of difficulty that guarantees your fortress will inevitably burn and the dwarves sheer stupidity, this game is the epitome of "unfair". And somehow thats why I love it. It's uncompromising. You didn't fail because you're a casual or a noob, you failed because a dwarf lost a sock and went kill crazy. It takes no prisoners and hates its players equally. Would dark souls have been as memorable is it was just another hack and slasher? Not likely, no. Dwarf fortress is the same. It's known and loved because it's brutal.

 

[Nedoras]

I think whether it's okay for a game to be fair or not is up to the person playing it. Overcoming insane odds when the game is trying to beat you to a pulp and maybe even breaking it's own rules to do so can be enjoyable to some, but absolute torture to others. I personally don't mind it all that much as long as the game itself gives you the idea that you have the odds stacked against you, and it's not going to be easy or even fair. Or if it's optional, like "Hell and Hell" difficulty from Devil May Cry 4. This is a difficulty setting where you die in a single hit from anything, you yourself do less damage, and the enemies and bosses have around 175% of their normal health. Does that sound fair? The answer would be no, but I found it insanely satisfying to beat the game on that setting.

As for the first Dark Souls mimic being unfair, I strongly disagree with that. The first mimic you encounter is in Sen's Fortress, a place that literally a few steps in has a trap in the middle of the floor. A bit further in and you're presented with a room filled with giant swinging blades and very narrow walkways. You get the impression that this place exists to kill you, and it's going to try it's hardest to do so. With that in mind, when you reach the room with the mimic you'll notice the chest is sitting in the middle of the room. The other chests in the game are placed pretty neatly, often against a wall. This one is sitting at an awkward angle in the middle of the room, and if you look at the chest for a few moments you'll notice a few differences. This chest has a different looking lock, the chain on the right side of it is straight compared to the half circle shape the chains on the other chests make, and you can also see that the chest is breathing. Also if I remember correctly the mimics were a slightly different color, although I'm not entirely sure of that. But even if you don't stop and notice that the chest itself looks different and is breathing, it's awkwardly placed in the middle of a room in a building filled with traps. Sen's Fortress tells you just from the first few rooms that it's filled with traps and is designed in a way that if you're not careful and watch your surroundings carefully, you're going to die again and again. The game gave you the warning signs in how the chest looked, how it was placed, and the environment that it was in.

 

[joest01]

I recently started a whatever the highest difficulty on the Korra game is called run. And I got to the Naga fight with the 3 bots. You go down in ONE hit. And they take a LOT of hits. Cheap as hell. I might actually call it quits there. Especially since it thevery little to do with the kind of challenge, or even the genre, I was looking for.

Another section I am stuck on (or rather tried twice and am taking a long breather of a few months is the Archmedes trials in GoW Ascension. The witches at the end of the first floor are a bonified *****.

 

[Doom972]

Every video game needs to be "unfair" because the AI will never be good as a human player could potentially be. That's why the AI-controlled enemies need some advantage over the human player like infinite ammo, more health and hive-mind.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Being unfair doesn't really make a game better. It just makes the game unfair. If there are ways for the player to play unfairly though as a way to compensate, that helps the situation a bit though not by too much. Zelda 2 is an example that comes to mind; it's unfair how the difficulty ramps up, its unfair how much MP is used up by the spells, it's unfair how there's no way to restore that MP. It's also unfair how you can sit in a corner to beat the final boss of the game...which doesn't make up for the fact that getting a Game Over in every dungeon other than the final one sends you all the way back to the start of the entire game.

 

[Thyunda]

Dark Souls isn't unfair - it sets out some rules and then if you don't abide by those rules, you'll die. Don't rush into rooms. Don't get greedy with your attacks. And be really frickin' cautious all the time. Most of my deaths in that game were from trying to get one extra hit or from not really paying attention to my surroundings. Similarly, The Witcher 3 doesn't punish you arbitrarily. You can dodge or roll under enemy attacks, provided you think about the fight and understand your opponent.

I cannot count the number of times in Mafia II when Vito fucking Scaletta got stuck on the scenery or took cover at the wrong angle and stood there gormlessly while some Sicilians filled him full of holes. That's bad design. That's the game being unfair.

 

[vallorn]

Some unfairness is fine. In fact I'm reminded about the development of the game IWTBGT.

Q: You just make it hard as a substitute for good level design.
As IWBTG gets older, this opinion has fallen out of favor a bit, but I still hear it from time to time. I'm not going to pretend to be a master level designer, but comments like this are ignorent to what 'good level design' actually is. Most people think aesthetically, without thinking about the gameplay elements. Aesthetics are actually a big part of it, but that is only a fraction of the whole story.

I Wanna be the Guy is a game about subversion. It's also a humor driven game. Predicting a players actions perfectly as to maximize surprise and humor/frustration is a way a game can have good level design. The level design is accomplishing it's goal and doing so quite well. The pacing of a game like this is also critical. How much the player is expected to die really influences what the next trap should be and how hard it is to overcome.

Random traps are NOT a real crutch. If used wrong, they are SUICIDE for a game's popularity. It's very hard to have a brutal, mean game while still 'tricking' people to finish it. If a game is popular and brutal it probably has something else going on that makes it work. Instead of lashing against them, look at them closer and try and understand how they work. You might not like them, but you'll probably learn something!

IWBTG is FAMOUSLY unfair sometimes, Delicious Fruit falls up or sideways, it tricks you and violates it's own internal logic just to kill you off, and yet it's beloved because IWBTG is you versus the creator of the game, you against his feindish little traps and tricks, you want to beat it just to show that you can overcome it even when it's unfair and tricking you.

So no, unfair games aren't always bad, broken mechanics can be, but when a game is unfair or violates it's internal logic as a core part of the game, people tend to accept that and make it part of the internal logic.