Difficulty in Games

S

Sparrowsabre7

Za Warudo
I was reading this article on IGN http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/120/1200005p1.html

And I thought I'd just ask the resident AUKN gamer crowd how hard (easy now...) they like their games.

Personally, I like a fair balance. I like a game to have challenge, but not so much that it frustrates me or worse, stops me playing entirely.

I think Vanquish is about as tough as I like games to be. On normal it was tough, but not so tough that I raged about it (except the penultimate boss, grumble grumble), it simply pushed you to use everything you had.

I also have a problem with artificial difficulty. I like the level of challenge in Resident Evil, but it's made more difficult due to the unforgiving save system. I think, even if it just allowed infinite saves, no checkpoint system, it would be less frustrating, but still as difficult.

Ultimately, while a lot of gamers decry games getting easier, there is something of a reason for it: not everyone is an ace gamer and lots of people just want to play games for fun. Losing is not fun, it never is, so hard games shut out people who just want to enjoy a game. Admittedly some games take this too far and make everything a cake walk, by having the player be near invincible and the enemies made of paper but I think it's not hard to create a decent difficulty level that is somewhere between the two extremes.
 
I think the change has taken place gradually with the advent of increased realism and the demise of trial and error gameplay, which was an awful way of artificially enhancing difficulty (not to mention pissing people off). People want to be entertained when the play games; most want to be challenged too, but everyone wants to enjoy the experience. What no-one wants is to feel like putting their fist through the screen. I like my old NES, but when I plug it in now I realise how truly bad (and actually, not particularly enjoyable) a lot of those old games were.

Your avatar is also no longer a sprite a few pixels wide in a world of 2D pipes and mushrooms. A lot of the time you're playing a recognisably humanoid character residing in a believable 3D world. Dying dozens of times in these kind of games (especially if it's essential for progression) detracts from the immersion, as we know full well that within the real world once you die, you're dead for good. Personally, I feel a sense of achievement in making it through newer games without dying at all (which also makes me play with an increased sense of awareness). After all, who says you can't give yourself extra challenges other than the ones forced upon you by the game?
 
I've always been one to push for a challenge, so when i get the chance, i'd always go for the harder difficulties instead. Though they've obviously caught onto that now, since a lot of companies make hard...er...normal. Gears of War 3 is a prime example. Completed my first playthrough on hardcore and it wasn't much of a challenge, heck. Even the final boss, who i know a few got annoyed at, i downed first time. I kind of wish they'd go back to their original standards and have normal as in fact, normal, and hard as actually hard.

Overall though, Difficulty has been toned down way to much for my liking. There is a reason easy mode exists, so why the heck make the modes higher than it easier overall? Because more people are going for hard mode? seriously, that's a bad excuse. Sure, unlocking certain levels of hard mode should still be kept in, but some of us, specially when moving on from one game to it's sequel, would prefer to have access to something difficult, and it just isn't there anymore. Bring back stuff like heroic and legendary from Halo 2, now they where hard, and so worth the completion.
 
I have to say I agree with you. I think the 3 tiered system has worked well for years so there should be distinct differences between them, that way, no one is blocked out. (But I also think you should be able to switch difficulty at any point, I got a little way into "normal" Prototype and realised either myself or my Xbox would be dead if I went any further, so I had to restart on easy (which is still pretty tough, but I completed it at least).
 
Two points,

1) Gaming is more mainstream now - hardcore gamers probably prefer games to be hard so as to have a challenge while the casual gamer generally just wants to have fun (how many casual gamers would buy something like Demon Souls or Dark Souls compared to hardcore gamers?).

2) People don't have as much time now in the sense that they don't want to be stuck for hours/days on a particular boss or puzzle.
 
mangaman74 said:
Two points,

1) Gaming is more mainstream now - hardcore gamers probably prefer games to be hard so as to have a challenge while the casual gamer generally just wants to have fun (how many casual gamers would buy something like Demon Souls or Dark Souls compared to hardcore gamers?).

2) People don't have as much time now in the sense that they don't want to be stuck for hours/days on a particular boss or puzzle.
Click to expand...

I think the latter especially is at least a motivator for shorter games. On the one hand I want bang for my buck, on the other, I have other committments, but still want to see the end of it, something that's unlikely for me with Persona 3. I'm about 24hrs in out of an average of 80 required for completion... Which is why short games rarely bother me. I think 8hrs ish is about right IMO for most action games.
 
I now only like proper hard things such as "pure" puzzle challenges or unlockable "extra" levels like in Mario Sunshine, for instance. One of the hardest and most important skills in making the "main" part of a single player game is, imo, presenting the illusion of a challenge and making sure the player feels that they have accomplished something, whilst not actually stopping them from playing through the game as intended.

Like ayase says, games are no longer bound by being 90 minutes long if you don't die, nor by being essentially designed to vacuum up your money each time you die.

I don't have the time, both through being busy but also through there being more than enough individual games that I would like to play, to replay story/"experience" driven games on a harder setting just for the sake of making it harder, but very few games do the Perfect Dark thing of actually making the game play differently, rather than just making the enemies soak up more ammo.

That said, making games too easy is a massive flaw. If you make your game so it feels like it is impossible to lose, then you should have made a sound novel or something.

It's also very good that some people do still make games like D... Souls, too, and some of the SMT games. The industry should always strive to cater to as many playstyles as possible.

As for difficulty being toned down over time, I disagree with the phrasing. When someone makes a game with the intent of it being hard, it is still hard. The emphasis has just shifted.

For example, truly mainstream RPGs from Japan (FF et al) have almost always been "easy" in the main game, whilst still giving the impression of progression, and also allowing for alternative playstyles and extra content to "make" the game harder (lol achievements). This has not changed. People still make hard 2D shooters, and games like Catherine certainly present a challenge. Ninja Gaiden has not been accused of holding your hand too much, and I'm guessing that Guitar Hero 3 in full-on Pro mode is no walkover.

The thing is that people make completely different games now to "back in the good old days". God of War was not just technically impossible on the C64, it wasn't even on the roadmap of game design due to the technical limitations.
 
Looking back into my childhood on the games i used to enjoy the most for their difficulty compared to todays games there's a profound difference.

Me and the missus downloaded and played donkey kong 3D (nintendo N64) onto out laptops last year for just something to do whilst travelling or having to wait around, after pouring hours into the game we where only 7% into the damn thing. Alot of running back and forth - looking for things, delivering things, breaking things to find new places and so on.

In todays games your given your short fix from the few hours that you get from a typical game. To think of a few that work still - uncharted - its essentially tomb raider with more action and better handling/guns/graphics. I can spend the same amount of time playing the original games from yesteryear (like rayman 1) and compare it to most games out right now - i never completed rayman it was too hard to do but years where spent on it. Call of Duty i play on veteran and can complete it within a day at the most.

Todays gaming imo is less challenging, FPS have taken over the majority of the market - why? because your pitted against another human most of the time now-a-days so you still feel a challenge, knowing there's no way of knowing the difficulty of the other person reaction time and awareness being your only defence and mostly tested in every game (unless your the looney running around firing rpgs and throwing frags at everything in hope that someone may die)

Strategy games are so messed up its unbelievable, i remember on the SNES there was a game i used to play called king arthurs world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur's_World) it was basic but it took time to complete. I've got R.U.S.E which guides you through every damn thing each mission (trying to put a story into it is fine but its a strategy game, the main crux of interest isn't going to be why i'm fighting a war its more how i fight it thats important) you get a challege in multiplayer but the main story is just holding your hand through everything and for the most part putting you in a situation where withdrawing to flank is impossible but if that was a real war thats what i'd do so it hacks me off really.

Few games still hold true to difficulty, no more "3 deaths and you have to restart the level" Nobody gets a challenge outta that - sonic the hedgehog if you have no rings your dead thats that, crash bandicoot if you have no masks and your hit - death, donkey kong country - get hit and your dead and if you have no diddy then you start again. Dark souls is a great idea - you die and its over, Sadly i'm yet to try it but if i can get it soon i'll be sure to enjoy it.
 
mangaman74 said:
Two points,

1) Gaming is more mainstream now - hardcore gamers probably prefer games to be hard so as to have a challenge while the casual gamer generally just wants to have fun (how many casual gamers would buy something like Demon Souls or Dark Souls compared to hardcore gamers?).

2) People don't have as much time now in the sense that they don't want to be stuck for hours/days on a particular boss or puzzle.
Click to expand...

Second point applies for me. I have very little time for games so every one I do play has to be fun and accessible.

I prefer systems where there are different scales of difficulty and you can take it or leave it. That way hard can be hard and easy can be easy and so forth. I tend to stick it on normal.

I don't mind missing out content that can only be gained through harder difficulty or replays. I have never fully completed Project Justice 2 Rival Schools but it doesn't matter because I enjoyed getting as far as I did.
 
Tachi said:
Looking back into my childhood on the games i used to enjoy the most for their difficulty compared to todays games there's a profound difference.

Me and the missus downloaded and played donkey kong 3D (nintendo N64) onto out laptops last year for just something to do whilst travelling or having to wait around, after pouring hours into the game we where only 7% into the damn thing. Alot of running back and forth - looking for things, delivering things, breaking things to find new places and so on.

In todays games your given your short fix from the few hours that you get from a typical game. To think of a few that work still - uncharted - its essentially tomb raider with more action and better handling/guns/graphics. I can spend the same amount of time playing the original games from yesteryear (like rayman 1) and compare it to most games out right now - i never completed rayman it was too hard to do but years where spent on it. Call of Duty i play on veteran and can complete it within a day at the most.

Todays gaming imo is less challenging, FPS have taken over the majority of the market - why? because your pitted against another human most of the time now-a-days so you still feel a challenge, knowing there's no way of knowing the difficulty of the other person reaction time and awareness being your only defence and mostly tested in every game (unless your the looney running around firing rpgs and throwing frags at everything in hope that someone may die)

Strategy games are so messed up its unbelievable, i remember on the SNES there was a game i used to play called king arthurs world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur's_World) it was basic but it took time to complete. I've got R.U.S.E which guides you through every damn thing each mission (trying to put a story into it is fine but its a strategy game, the main crux of interest isn't going to be why i'm fighting a war its more how i fight it thats important) you get a challege in multiplayer but the main story is just holding your hand through everything and for the most part putting you in a situation where withdrawing to flank is impossible but if that was a real war thats what i'd do so it hacks me off really.

Few games still hold true to difficulty, no more "3 deaths and you have to restart the level" Nobody gets a challenge outta that - sonic the hedgehog if you have no rings your dead thats that, crash bandicoot if you have no masks and your hit - death, donkey kong country - get hit and your dead and if you have no diddy then you start again. Dark souls is a great idea - you die and its over, Sadly i'm yet to try it but if i can get it soon i'll be sure to enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Lots of well made points there. I think there can be a happy medium in the DK64 example though, by making the main game completable in a reasonable time, but allowing for side-quests etc which can expand the story for those that have time. Arkham City seems to be trying to do that with a lot of worthwhile side-missions, though naturally it wouldn't be as long as DK64.

I think Red Dead Redemption is a pretty good example of the kind of magical game I'm describing :p I sunk over 24 hours into that and I'm not even near finishing any of the challenges, but the side=quests etc are all still fun and challenging, so it's not a chore to play, it also encourages dip-in, dip-out play, since you can boot up to find a few more desert sages/ hunt some bears and then turn it off in the knowledge you've accomplished something.

I think time is definitely the predominant factor in shortening games and making them less challenging. If someone only has a few hours, they don't want to spend half that time wandering around the same area looking for a certain item or being faced with a boss that they just can't beat no matter what.
 
Thanks,

Red dead redemption is - as you say a game where you can run off for hourse doing your own thing and can return to the main storyline as and when you want - for open world games like that (GTA - by the same people who made RDR has also worked for so long merely on that basis of "can i be bothered to do the missions or do i want to go throw a molotov into a crowd of cars and see what happens?") i guess when you've got a good formula then why change it?

My main gripe with the gaming industry is that the great pissing competition just goes round in circles, Wiimote gets slated but playstation bring out Move and its okay? Playstation bring out the eyetoy and xbox bring out kinect years later (better yes but essentially still the same thing) They are more focused on who can piss the highest that the whole origin of gaming on a games console is a minority to what you can do.

Play tv - yeah handy and i own it so no faults
xbox has a setup for Sky i believe
Films can be downloaded onto the consoles, an internet browser is on there, chat features like a msn with a webcam and other software that is brought out - why not focus more time on creating a better quality of game? You can increase the engines and graphics but if the story and the challenge isn't there then your essentially polishing a turd.

Don't get me wrong the upgrade from last gens consoles and this gen is great but the quality of games went downhill. Take DMC for instance - more difficulty levels than you can shake a whippet at, but compare DMC with DMC4 - better graphics and same old characters we learnt to love from the first game but compare the storyline the actual range of levels and content and its a polished turd.

original Dmc had a wide range of bosses, scenes with interesting adventure thrown in and upgrades that took ages to get.
Dmc4 - levels 1-10 as nero levels 11-20 same levels in reverse as Dante, they tried 2 playable characters in Dmc2 and thats known as a failure. Fighting the same bosses you fought with nero and upgrades are easy to get.

They've now rebooted DMC with DMC5 and it looks bloody aweful, go back in time and back to basics - the formula for the first in a series is excellent they put the effort in and it paid off so don't get lazy - put the same effort into it :/

Sorry about the sort of rant but i'd love for the industry to take things seriously and instead of letting a game be released for a console - play it and compare it to previous work, if its worse then tell them to go back to the drawingboard.
 
I like a challenge. Beating Ninja Gaiden on normal mode was quite an achievement and gives me a feeling of superiority.

Tachi said:
Don't get me wrong the upgrade from last gens consoles and this gen is great but the quality of games went downhill. Take DMC for instance - more difficulty levels than you can shake a whippet at, but compare DMC with DMC4 - better graphics and same old characters we learnt to love from the first game but compare the storyline the actual range of levels and content and its a polished turd.
Click to expand...
Except games are getting better. Stories are getting more complex and developed. The depth of gameplay is increasing. As the technology advances, developers are able to do more. It isn't all about making things look more shiny. I can appreciate older games for what they did for gaming, but the majority can't hold a candle to what we have today for entertainment value. This doesn't mean I think older games are bad. I do have retro games downloaded on my 3DS and PS3 after all. However I bought these simply for nostalgia. This the entire basis of the Xbox Live Arcade/PSN/Virtual Console market.
 
Tachi said:
They've now rebooted DMC with DMC5 and it looks bloody aweful, go back in time and back to basics - the formula for the first in a series is excellent they put the effort in and it paid off so don't get lazy - put the same effort into it :/
Click to expand...

Just play Bayonetta instead.

I don't mind struggling against hard games if there's a DAMN good reward to follow.

Can't be ****** with games that have try too hard difficulties though, like Ninja Gaiden and some SMT games. There's no fun whatsoever in being punished for one simple mistake.
 
To add to Shuuya's comment I think one thing which the current gen of gaming gives us is more freedom to experiment. The basic tools are all there, it's just putting them together in interesting ways.

For example Pathologic on the PC. Terrible graphics, pretty shaky gameplay, but conceptually masterful, in that it was a game that was deliberately not fun. The mere act of living was arduous and frustrating, but it made you think about the nature of games and what they should be about.

Not to mention that console arcade games are pretty much designed with this kind of conceptual playfulness built in.

On a semi-related note, though games do seem to be getting pricier in some respects (especially handhelds) compared to some other things that you could spend £40 on it's really not so bad. I mean that's maybe 4 dvds worth. Assuming each is 2 hours and the average game is 8, then that's about equal entertainment value, not to mention the price of stuff like saucepans. My mum bought one with an RRP of about £70 the other day, and that's basically a hunk of metal with a handle.
 
Don't get me started on needlessly spending over the odds prices for practially very little (i've been looking at car insurance, unless you claim on it essentially its throwing money down the toilet and flushing it, gaining nothing in return)

Don't get me wrong, todays games are great, i appreciate the efforts made to create games and some are remarkable in graphics, storyline and execution but with specifics to DMC i'm looking forward to the HD revamp they will release early 2012, the first game imo was a masterpiece, the 4th in the series added a different character and different twist on things but i just feel that it was half completed - making you go back over every single mission you've already done with one character dulled the game.

As for mini's and other downloadable games, has anyone ever played Hogs of War? A ps1 game that was the best update on chess i've seen in ages - 60seconds to move your pig, once you shoot your go is over and somehow you have to win against the hardest veteran pigs at the end, very good for laughs too - no difficulty settings that i can remember but thats why it worked, giving people the choice between easy normal and hard is all well and good but as the difficulties are messed up now shouldn't they put easy as normal and normal as hard and hard to insane or something, don't make easy extra easy, normal into easy and hard onto almost normal.
 
Tachi said:
Don't get me started on needlessly spending over the odds prices for practially very little (i've been looking at car insurance, unless you claim on it essentially its throwing money down the toilet and flushing it, gaining nothing in return)

Don't get me wrong, todays games are great, i appreciate the efforts made to create games and some are remarkable in graphics, storyline and execution but with specifics to DMC i'm looking forward to the HD revamp they will release early 2012, the first game imo was a masterpiece, the 4th in the series added a different character and different twist on things but i just feel that it was half completed - making you go back over every single mission you've already done with one character dulled the game.

As for mini's and other downloadable games, has anyone ever played Hogs of War? A ps1 game that was the best update on chess i've seen in ages - 60seconds to move your pig, once you shoot your go is over and somehow you have to win against the hardest veteran pigs at the end, very good for laughs too - no difficulty settings that i can remember but thats why it worked, giving people the choice between easy normal and hard is all well and good but as the difficulties are messed up now shouldn't they put easy as normal and normal as hard and hard to insane or something, don't make easy extra easy, normal into easy and hard onto almost normal.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of it yeah. Basically a 3D version of Worms, before...well... Worms 3D :p
 
F-Zero GX made me angry on Master difficulty, yet the difficulty in that was perfect. 'GET BETTER!' Sega seemed to scream after every 'Retired' message.

Still can't do it now :(

Further back is Rainbow Islands. Finished that (with all diamonds and secret rooms entered) when I was 10, can I do it now? No.

I guess that sometimes difficulty is what you make it.

The Fire Pit level in Battletoads can just sod right off.
 
Ah yes, the frustrating games of yesteryear. Rad Gravity for the NES used to annoy the hell out of me. It would be interesting to see how hard I'd find it now, but that might be difficult given that I physically destroyed the cartridge in a fit of rage roughly eighteen years ago.
 
ayase said:
I physically destroyed the cartridge in a fit of rage roughly eighteen years ago.
Click to expand...

I nearly did that to SNES Killer Instinct thanks to the last boss, Eyedol. Wonder if he was the first of the 'Cheap Final Beat-em-up Bosses'. Cartridge survived, but has a large crack on its front :(
 
I've always liked games growing up, but alot of the time I spent watching other people play. That eventually changed and I started playing more but I was always rubbish and never completed most games.

When I eventually came to own a playstation I used a game genie to get things done, same with the ps2 I was too afraid of failing. This actually lead to me being reluctant to buy a current gen system but I did. For most games I try to go for the easiest setting available. I went through Yakuza 3 last month without losing a single match only to attempt a challenge after, Rikiyu wiped the floor with me.

To you guys that are skilled out there, kudos, I am playing Gears of War (the first one) at the moment, and I died seven times on the first section where you get to use a fixed machine gun, the Berzerker killed me three times and the NPC following me twice, and I've even died from the swarms three times.

Am I a terrible gamer? put it this way I wanted a mode in FF7/8/9 where you just walked from town to town experiencing the story with none of the fighting...
 
Back
Top