Why are games so easy these days?

[Rack]

When I play Mass Effect I want to know what happens net in the story, I want to see new planets and be immersed in the atmosphere. I want to gain new abilities and different play styles that result from them. Dying gets in the way of all of that and so I'd rather never die at all.

On the other hand when I play Binding of Isaac I want that level of challenge because there's otherwise not much to it.

That's basically why games difficulty split into divergent paths. Challenge focussed games are really really hard, narrative, exploration and spectacle focussed games are often quite easy. Though for my tastes not easy enough.

 

[Kahunaburger]

While the question of what makes games difficult and how to improve difficulty settings is certainly worth discussing, I find the attitudes of the aggressively hardcore types saddening.

We're a community traditionally (not exclusively, I know) comprised of people who's hobby is belittled by large numbers of non-gamers. Why do we turn on ourselves with the same snobbish, exclusionary behaviour? Sure, maybe it's irritating to you that some people are having it "easy" or "not doing it properly," but why would you *want* gaming to remain marginalised and limit its audience? Why would you want to ignore those who share your hobby but enjoy it for different reasons to you?

The argument is not "games should not have an easy difficulty setting." It's that "more games should have a setting or combination of settings that presents an authentic challenge."

 

[Eamar]

While the question of what makes games difficult and how to improve difficulty settings is certainly worth discussing, I find the attitudes of the aggressively hardcore types saddening.

We're a community traditionally (not exclusively, I know) comprised of people who's hobby is belittled by large numbers of non-gamers. Why do we turn on ourselves with the same snobbish, exclusionary behaviour? Sure, maybe it's irritating to you that some people are having it "easy" or "not doing it properly," but why would you *want* gaming to remain marginalised and limit its audience? Why would you want to ignore those who share your hobby but enjoy it for different reasons to you?

The argument is not "games should not have an easy difficulty setting." It's that "more games should have a setting or combination of settings that presents an authentic challenge."

And I accepted that in my opening statement. Look back at some of the OP's posts and you'll see that some of his comments do come across as rather "anti-easy setting," it was that attitude I was bemoaning, not the legitimate discussion about how to make games more challenging for those who want that (something I can certainly get behind).

 

[Kahunaburger]

Also, most gamers (myself included most of the time) find no enjoyment in frustration.

I think the question devs are asking themselves is "how can we prevent gamers from losing?" when the question they should be asking is "why is losing a frustrating experience?" Losing can be fun [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Losing]!

IMO, games with good death mechanics make dying/losing an entertaining part of the experience. See also: Dwarf Fortress, Cat Mario, Super Hostile maps in Minecraft, the roguelike genre, Super Meat Boy, and so on.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Two words "dice rolls"

Old games had them, newer games, thankfully, don't, at least as much.

Back in the day YOU didn't actually play games, you told the computer to do something and it used random uncontrollable dice roll to determine if you, really it, won an action.

Now that we get to actually play the games its considerably easier because its based on you ability to do something, not a computers ability to pull numbers out of its ass.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Also, most gamers (myself included most of the time) find no enjoyment in frustration.

I think the question devs are asking themselves is "how can we prevent gamers from losing?" when the question they should be asking is "why is losing a frustrating experience?" Losing can be fun [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Losing]!

IMO, games with good death mechanics make dying/losing an entertaining part of the experience. See also: Dwarf Fortress, Cat Mario, Super Hostile maps in Minecraft, the roguelike genre, Super Meat Boy, and so on.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you have to understand a lot of gamers aren't so interested in being challenged or proving their skill as they are in achieving something tangible. A lot of gamers for example just want to get to the rest of the story. One thing recent Silent Hill games have gotten wrong is that increased difficulty for higher tension essentially detracts from the original games' main appeal; the bloody story. If I'm dying over and over again and eventually have to dig up a save from 2 hours ago so I can clear a section without using any medkits just to see the next cut-scene, that is really annoying. Even Super Meat Boy doesn't force you to complete every level.

I like playing Super Meat Boy and I find achieving a grade A+ run on a certain level to be quite cathartic, but the game never forces you to complete any specific level you might just be sick of. Of course, you have the choice to either complete every level, skip the ones that tire you or anything in between. I don't see any problems with that, but apparently there is still an underlying feeling of supriority from part of the community who think anybody who can't complete or would opt to not complete every level of Super Meat Boy shouldn't be allowed to play videogames.

I agree - games shouldn't require only hard difficulty settings. There should be an option to make them easy. It's more that I wish genuine challenges were more common in video games

RE: survival horror and difficulty, I agree with you on that as well - dying repeatedly isn't scary, and in games that don't incorporate death well is mostly just irritating.

Speaking of games where death is part of the mechanics, I wonder if the survival horror genre could benefit from lifting a pair of complementary mechanics from the roguelike genre: procedural generation and perma-death. Procedural generation in horror games would do what it does in Minecraft - make enemies genuinely unpredictable, and unpredictability is scary. Perma-death works well with procedural generation, because dying permanently is less of a penalty when you won't have to play through the same levels again. Perma-death also interfaces well with the resource management aspects of the survival horror genre, and would definitely keep players on edge.

Most importantly, though, it would keep a sensation of difficulty and danger without significantly interrupting the narrative. If the game's balanced around perma-death, the threat is less that you miss a QTE 10 times in a row and get frustrated and more that a combination of attrition and bad decisions backs you into a corner you can't get out from. Thematically, this seems much more like the sort of difficulty a horror game should have. As a bonus, having an option to perma-death off leaves us with the sort of game that is balanced very effectively around people who want the experience, the atmosphere, and the story without having to reload 20 times per story segment.

 

[Barry93]

This is probably because I've played games for 15 years, but I often find that I beat a game on the hardest difficulty in a day or two. There needs to be more difficulty levels like Dead Space 2's Hardcore mode, where you were only allowed to save your game 3 times throughout the game, and there were no checkpoints; If you died, you went back to your last save. There needs to be more of that in games these days.

 

[emeraldrafael]

When I usually hear this question, I have to ask the person what they found was so hard about a game back in the day, and more often than not, it comes down to something that today would be a broken game mechanic or if it was from the person's era of gaming they wouldnt dare take it. EDIT: and of course if they're playing every new game they play on the hardest difficult or not, and usually hte answer is no and but if moderate is this easy then hard wont be much more challenging.

usually thats immediately drown out by "well people are so used to easy now they couldnt takea challenge, and all games have to hold your hand or you hate it" and thats true to the extent that if youre used to a certain way then its going to be challenging, but its for the better in the long run.

would games be as popular of a medium if every game decided to fuck the player and drop them off somewhere with no hint of direction or idea of how to play? or if every game was like the "hard" games of yesteryear? doubt it.

Personally I dont care for difficult, but then agim im on of those people that plays a game to play it, so i always have a first go on easy just so i can experience the game in full wihtout having to worry about it beating my ass and frustrating me so I dont get to finish it.

 

[CrashertheSmasher]

Didn't Extra Credits cover this topic?

 

[Broady Brio]

Isn't it because of the movement to mainstream audiences? Gaming used to be a small market. Of children. Now everyone has a console of some sort, of all ages.

 

[T8B95]

Because you're not twelve anymore. Games are more or less the same difficulty they've always been, you've just had 10+ years of experience playing and learning from them. You've gotten better, and the games haven't gotten harder.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Personally I could use more games with alot more depth. These days they are rarely anything more than a clickfest or a boring buttonmash. Those games are needed too, but the lack of other types of games is just making it all look so fucking beige and boring.

Speaking of things roguelikes do right...

I think the problem is less that games are getting easier, more that a lot of devs are conflating "easy" with "shallow" and deciding they want to balance their games around easy/shallow.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Modern warefare 3 had the difficulty curve of circle, as well as gears of war 3, halo reach, homefront, fable 3, assassins creed revelations, countless others!

Maybe you should stop looking for difficulty in the most mass market appeal games. If you actually want difficulty, or complexity, you cant expect to find it in a game designed to appeal to the lowest common denomonator in terms of difficulty. Its like complaining your cheeseburger doesn't come with pineapple.

Itd be a lot easier to recommend games if I knew whether you had a PC, but try Far Cry 2 (No Death Run perhaps), Fallout New Vegas on Hardcore, Mount and Blade, The Binding OF Isaac, Amnesia, Demon/Dark Souls, Starcraft/II, League Of Legends.

 

[Eusebius]

Games are no longer an endurance test like they were in the arcade days. Games were harder on a technical level back then because developers were limited in what they could do and the presentation of games in arcades necessitated a format in which you could easily pump the quarters out of a kid's pocket. Also, games are now being developed for a wider and more mainstream audience that is not willing to invest the practice time it would take to play technically harder games. Game developers want their games to attract newbies too, who haven't built the skills yet.

Also it's possible that you're just not a kid anymore and are more difficult to challenge.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

Because you're not twelve anymore. Games are more or less the same difficulty they've always been, you've just had 10+ years of experience playing and learning from them. You've gotten better, and the games haven't gotten harder.

haha, thats total bullshit and you know it.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So im currently ploughing through mass effect 3, while the universe is huge (im making a point of visiting every system and draining it of everything i can find), and there?s many ''ooohhhhh'' and ''aaahhhhh'' moments of delectable eye candy, i cant help feel i have been cheated. Iv heard about how crap the ending is (PLEASE, no spoilers) but every mission so far is run and shoot enough ammo at any enemy until it drops. i wasn?t aware i was playing gears of war 4. And i'v found many games lately to be far far to easy. Modern warefare 3 had the difficulty curve of circle, as well as gears of war 3, halo reach, homefront, fable 3, assassins creed revelations, countless others! games these days seam to cater to people of a lesser intellectual capability.

Im no brainiac, but i would like more of a challenge than shoot this, run here, stab this. collect the right armour or weapons and the games play them self?s. i have smashed many a controller in frustration over the original resident evil, silent hill, metal gear, conkers bad fur day. games can be knocked over ina few hours now, it used to take weeks. This was meant to be an observation and has turned into a rant, my apologies, but frustration is making my brain melt!! im interested to know what does the wider gaming community think of the level of difficulty today?s games have. i just cant justity spending $100 on a new release to find im twiddling my thumbs the day after.

Halo Reach is too easy? Really? Then I guess you've played the game solo, on legendary, and with all the skulls on before making that complaint right?

No?

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Halo Reach is too easy? Really? Then I guess you've played the game solo, on legendary, and with all the skulls on before making that complaint right?

No?

Yeah, didn't think so.

+1

Say what you want about the Halo series, it does difficulty settings right.