Why Easy Games Fail Yahtzee's Game Theory
To quote Meatloaf, "Two out of three ain't bad."
Read Full Article
To quote Meatloaf, "Two out of three ain't bad."
Read Full Article
Why Easy Games Fail Yahtzee's Game Theory
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I glad that the game theory is still being utilised and even refined!
I feel like gratification is one of those things that while a bit awkward to describe is easy enough to "get".
I feel like gratification is one of those things that while a bit awkward to describe is easy enough to "get".
Ah good old game theory. I must say I agree, this is part of why multiplayer shouldnt be relied on as a main component for a game, no matter how well you design it there's still pretty much a guarentee somebody will end up rage quitting.
It would probably help people if they could separate "easy" from "simple." A game doesn't have to be one to be the other.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Easy/Hard depends on the ability of the average person to quickly overcome the challenge in a given situation. Simple/Complex depends on the number of tools and pathways and obstacles available to the player (basically, the number of 'moving parts'). To my mind, a game's Easy/Hard index should ideally be the opposite of its Simple/Complex index.
While I didn't play it, your description of Ninja Gaiden leads me to believe this game was both easy and simple -- not much of a challenge, and a very small number of ways to beat it. Easy + Simple = Boredom. And then you've got the Souls games -- hard and complex. A recipe for frustration.
Compare that to your "intentionally difficult" games, which usually have a high degree of challenge, but pretty simple controls and mechanics. Yeah, it's frustrating, but you get a sense that you're thiiiiis close to grasping it -- your failure is a result of you just not having it yet, not the game being stupidly obtuse.
And then you've got games like Dead Rising. It's a pretty easy game (excluding the occasional curve-breaking boss fight). Basically, bash the slow-moving zombies. But there are so many different ways to do it, and that makes it a different kind of fun. Easy (in difficulty), but Complex (lots of moving parts).
In not so many words, you've got games that don't have much going on, but what's going on is crazy difficult, and you've got games that have a lot of easy stuff going on. Two different kinds of fun/challenge balancing.
That's why it's quite strange that Yahtzee called Dark/Demon's Souls too hard. In essence, it provides him with what he says is a good balance between context and payoff. I think it was just because his schedule is too pressed in order for him to be able to spend a lot of time fighting through the challenges.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
I think the problem with Dark Souls is that some of the bosses/areas are slightly cheap when it comes to "skill". Most of the game was quite good, but several places were a bit ridiculous. I loved the game, but some of the bosses were just tuned a little too high, Four Kings comes to mind, and the only way I beat Ornstein and Smough was waiting for an hour or two until someone finally joined my game. When I finally did beat them it didn't feel nearly as gratifying as beating someone like Sif, or the Capra Demon. Coupled with the fact that you lost pretty much everything on death, and had to play the super careful game if you had a lot of souls saved up on that first death made quite a lot of the game more harrowing than was necessary at times. And don't get me started on Plague Town or the super dark underground section that I forget the name of. Awesome ideas, but I'll be damned if I didn't have to stop playing for long spurts of time because of those sections.irishda said:
You put Cave Story on the list of deliberately hard games? With the exception of the secret final level, I didn't find Cave Story all that difficult. It wasn't exactly a walk in the park, but I thought it's difficulty level was pretty reasonable. Now, Poacher, that's a game I'd call deliberately hard.
"I think it's never a bad day to over-analyze shit so let's get started."
-Yahtzee
I'm going to remember this quote.
-Yahtzee
I'm going to remember this quote.
Yahtzee, you Charismatic Stallion, how dare you have a nuanced approach to things that is not black and white?
I never thought of Super Meat Boy as frustrating. I'm not saying I'm awesome at the game. I died. A lot. But it never had me angry or frustrated. I kept wanting to get through the next level time and again. And if it took 200 lives, so be it.
I never thought of Super Meat Boy as frustrating. I'm not saying I'm awesome at the game. I died. A lot. But it never had me angry or frustrated. I kept wanting to get through the next level time and again. And if it took 200 lives, so be it.
But didn't demon's souls/dark souls sucessful BECAUSE it was hard? The fact that it was so hard made a breath of freash air in the current market . It's a case of right place right time in my opinion . Hypothetically speaking , if every game was as hard as those two ,they probably wouldn't have been so sucessful . There definately is a market for difficulty games right now due to the lack of hard games .5ilver said:
Also, i'm not sure , but wasn't Catherine somewhat sucessful? And that game was hard AND a puzzle game , another genre that is slowly dying . And to be fair WoW was hard when it came out way back when .
I like this, I really have nothing else to add to this. I think Yahtzee's game theory could use this as an addition of some sort.Dastardly said:
Maybe "gratification" is better understood when called "achievement". That word certainly fits the happiness you get from activities varying from chopping a zombie in half to building a castle. Sure, "achievement" is increased when semi-frustrating challenge and/or intriguing context have come up before, but that's part of the balancing act.
I never got into the fourth chapter of Super Meat Boy, but that's not because the challenge wasn't fair enough. It may be because the sense of achievement was not enough. After beating some ridiculous boss level, my sense of achievement is flattened by the fact that worse challenges lie ahead.
On the other hand, I almost completely beat Rayman Origins (I haven't gotten the time challenges done even to get the purple smile-things yet.) That game has achievement down much better than SMB, thanks to the hundreds of smiles popping up and the screams of the enemies across most levels. Also, the difficulty curve is perhaps better than in SMB.
I never got into the fourth chapter of Super Meat Boy, but that's not because the challenge wasn't fair enough. It may be because the sense of achievement was not enough. After beating some ridiculous boss level, my sense of achievement is flattened by the fact that worse challenges lie ahead.
On the other hand, I almost completely beat Rayman Origins (I haven't gotten the time challenges done even to get the purple smile-things yet.) That game has achievement down much better than SMB, thanks to the hundreds of smiles popping up and the screams of the enemies across most levels. Also, the difficulty curve is perhaps better than in SMB.
I have to agree with what Yahtzee says about Poacher. It's got a (slightly unfair in favor of the enemies, but nonetheless) fitting difficulty level, you've got your general context, which makes beating the boss fights all the sweeter. But I have one complaint about Poacher. I'M DROWNING!! *dead* I'm that far in the game. And I can't get any farther. Because good ol' Derek can't swim, he can only jump. Underwater. Which is pretty awesome, when you think about it, but still.
Oh, yeah. I'm Replying. Um... Ninja Gaiden. The Game Theory. Poacher.
... Magenta. That is all.
Oh, yeah. I'm Replying. Um... Ninja Gaiden. The Game Theory. Poacher.
... Magenta. That is all.
Basically this.krazykidd said:
I feel that "not too easy, but not too hard" is less a requirement for a good game and more a requirement for the sort of game that Yahtzee likes to play.
Personally, I like difficult games, as long as those games are designed with difficulty in mind. So a roguelike like Brogue is fun to play, despite the fact that I've never even successfully made it to the endgame and have only come close a handful of times. Why? Because death feels fair (there's something you could have done, 5 moves back or 5 levels back, to avoid it) and it's a chance to try a new character that explores new levels and finds new stuff.
People who play stuff like Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy know what they're getting into, and in fact actively seek that kind of challenge out. "I will give this a negative review because it was too hard for me" strikes me as missing the point.
I'd suggest the psychobabble term "validation" as a replacement for gratification. The feeling that you are a good person. Solving a challenge is internal validation (I'm smart/fast/lucky). A good plot is external validation (I have a mission/Bad guy is bad/I rule you weakling scum).
Plus, then you can make jokes about getting more validation from the car park where you buy the game. Oh, wait, now I've already made it. And there was really only that one. And it wasn't really that good. Never mind.
Plus, then you can make jokes about getting more validation from the car park where you buy the game. Oh, wait, now I've already made it. And there was really only that one. And it wasn't really that good. Never mind.
Better name than 'gratification:' viscosity (in that a nice thick clam chowder is way better than boiled water with a few celery sticks in it. Also sounds like 'visceral', which is what Yahtzee is trying to qualify).
As for lack of challenge hindering the other elements of gameplay, I believe its a matter of degree. Which is why I would love to see Yahtzee's take on Warriors Orochi 3 (among other reasons). It's not a hard game, but the shear joy gleamed from killdozering your way through hundreds if not thousands of troops makes up for it, imo.
Of course, Yahtzee will probably hate it anyway, but his opinions have surprised me in the past.
As for lack of challenge hindering the other elements of gameplay, I believe its a matter of degree. Which is why I would love to see Yahtzee's take on Warriors Orochi 3 (among other reasons). It's not a hard game, but the shear joy gleamed from killdozering your way through hundreds if not thousands of troops makes up for it, imo.
Of course, Yahtzee will probably hate it anyway, but his opinions have surprised me in the past.
As an alternative label for "gratification," I recommend "indulgence."
The examples that Yahtzee uses for "gratification" (mowing down tons of easy squishy enemies, running over civilians in GTA, hitting people with a purple dildo-bat in SR3) all involve indulging some desire or fantasy that can be enjoyable even if there is no challenge or context in the matter. The fun comes from the indulgence, so I say it comes down to Context, Challenge, and Indulgence.
The examples that Yahtzee uses for "gratification" (mowing down tons of easy squishy enemies, running over civilians in GTA, hitting people with a purple dildo-bat in SR3) all involve indulging some desire or fantasy that can be enjoyable even if there is no challenge or context in the matter. The fun comes from the indulgence, so I say it comes down to Context, Challenge, and Indulgence.
I like this. And then, when you have a fanservice-y (in the non-sexual sense) moment in a series, that also applies to Indulgence because of the Context. For example, shooting bottles with Garrus on the Citadel in ME3: the context tells us why this is awesome, then the indulgence kicks in and we all collectively squee.remnant_phoenix said:
I guess you could say it taps into the "fanboy" part of all of us.
