Games of any substance and length will quickly find that at a critical point the player will become bored with the game. Gameplay has not changed enough to keep things interesting. It's one of the main issues for gameplay designers, and it has several solutions.
Methods used by many RPGs who lack the ability to have gameplay change to much have character development and the unlocking of new abilities. Basically because of RPGs' nature to be massive or extensive simply small upgrades to one's character keeps them playing. It's a method that tends to work well for most people to keep things interesting. Other games introduce new gameplay elements using the development of a character. Take the Zelda franchise, who introduce new gameplay through acquiring items, or Kameo who introduce it through acquiring new forms.
The main way, though, to make a game's core gameplay become, theoretically, more interesting is to have the game get harder. This is the origin of the difficulty curve. Make the game get harder to keep the struggle going. It's often used in conjunction with other elements, but it tends to be what many games do in order to allow for a longer and theoretically more fulfilling game.
I recently had my second playthrough of Conker's Bad Fur Day. A game which I have praised many times, and which I still consider one of the best platformers made to this day. The game tends to have a lot of varied elements which it introduces just when the game's core gameplay is getting a bit duller. It has set pieces, and set pieces, placed in often enough, can make a game far and away more interesting. But it is in some of these pieces that I began to question gameplay designers. Take for instance a section wherein you have to race several cavemen on hoverbaords through a lava canyon. The section is fun, but it is extremely difficult. I have to try this section upwards of 15 times to get past it spread over two or three play sessions. Later, a platforming section took me 20 tries to get right, and considering how far it sends you back after dying, it becomes extensive and frustrating. It was at that point that I asked a question:
Can games be too hard?
Sure, challenge is an extremely important part of a game, but when is difficult too difficult?
Difficulty settings are, obviously, a way to remedy this problem. If a game is too hard, adjust the settings. On the other hand, platforming is something that difficulty is nigh impossible to adjust without changing level design or core gameplay mechanics. Then you have examples of hellishly difficult games which don't allow for an easy setting. Ninja Gaiden for X-Box came to mind, for me. There is no easy setting on the game and the normal setting is far too difficult for many people.
Like I said, challenge is important. I'm not very good at video games, I admit, but is there a critical point where difficulty is over-compensating and where gameplay designers may need to rethink a section? Is there a way to solve the easier modes in many platformers issue?
Methods used by many RPGs who lack the ability to have gameplay change to much have character development and the unlocking of new abilities. Basically because of RPGs' nature to be massive or extensive simply small upgrades to one's character keeps them playing. It's a method that tends to work well for most people to keep things interesting. Other games introduce new gameplay elements using the development of a character. Take the Zelda franchise, who introduce new gameplay through acquiring items, or Kameo who introduce it through acquiring new forms.
The main way, though, to make a game's core gameplay become, theoretically, more interesting is to have the game get harder. This is the origin of the difficulty curve. Make the game get harder to keep the struggle going. It's often used in conjunction with other elements, but it tends to be what many games do in order to allow for a longer and theoretically more fulfilling game.
I recently had my second playthrough of Conker's Bad Fur Day. A game which I have praised many times, and which I still consider one of the best platformers made to this day. The game tends to have a lot of varied elements which it introduces just when the game's core gameplay is getting a bit duller. It has set pieces, and set pieces, placed in often enough, can make a game far and away more interesting. But it is in some of these pieces that I began to question gameplay designers. Take for instance a section wherein you have to race several cavemen on hoverbaords through a lava canyon. The section is fun, but it is extremely difficult. I have to try this section upwards of 15 times to get past it spread over two or three play sessions. Later, a platforming section took me 20 tries to get right, and considering how far it sends you back after dying, it becomes extensive and frustrating. It was at that point that I asked a question:
Can games be too hard?
Sure, challenge is an extremely important part of a game, but when is difficult too difficult?
Difficulty settings are, obviously, a way to remedy this problem. If a game is too hard, adjust the settings. On the other hand, platforming is something that difficulty is nigh impossible to adjust without changing level design or core gameplay mechanics. Then you have examples of hellishly difficult games which don't allow for an easy setting. Ninja Gaiden for X-Box came to mind, for me. There is no easy setting on the game and the normal setting is far too difficult for many people.
Like I said, challenge is important. I'm not very good at video games, I admit, but is there a critical point where difficulty is over-compensating and where gameplay designers may need to rethink a section? Is there a way to solve the easier modes in many platformers issue?
