Slashdot Mirror
Challenge In Games Is Not A Dirty Word
Thanks to GamerDad for their editorial discussing why there should be more difficult-to-complete games out there. The piece takes difficulty complaints regarding F-Zero GX for GameCube as a starting point, saying "This isn't the first time a top quality, high profile game has kicked people in the butts with challenge and it won't be the last. This kind of challenge is good for gaming and we need more games like it." The article goes on: "Players have grown accustomed to difficulty levels that are far too easy and I think it's contributing to their boredom with many games", but also cites specifics: "The most important thing about challenge, and it's one that F-Zero GX gets right, is that the game must let the player know it was their fault that they lost."
When will programmers stop equating difficulty with the computer "cheating" to make it better?
As one example, even on the easiest level of CivIII, the computer players somehow, magically, know more about the map and areas they cannot possibly have seen (even by trading maps with each other). Only by clamping down on the computer players' ability to produce units/buildings does it rein in its knowledge. At the higher levels, not only does it know more about the map than a human player ever could, it outproduces you dramatically.
Would it really have been that difficult to come up with an AI that did not cheat by violating the fog of war? I could understand it if at the highest levels this happened, but when it's pretty obvious on the easiest level, it shows a lack of interest in working on making the AI truly challenging, but rather taking a one-size-fits-all approach and altering the difficulty by manipulating non-AI facets of the game.
While I can't disagree with the article, as it is mostly an opinion piece, it
.0001 seconds off a lap time
seems that the author is not familiar with other segments of the game playing
community.
There are some -- myself included -- who do not want challenging games. If it
takes more than a dozen tries to get through a level, and a trip to gamefaqs
isn't able to clear things up, the game designers did [some of] their players a
disservice.
Those of us in that category like games that entertain. Playing the same damned
level over [and over, and over] just to shave
is tedious and boring as hell. I'd much rather play games that show a lot of
creativity. I don't want to be twitch master of the universe. I don't care if
my initials never make it on the top 10 list. To me, that is not what gaming is
about. It isn't something to master. It is something to distract and entertain.
One of the things I like about the Resident Evil series is the fact that they
are generally playable by a diverse group of gamers. For starters, there is a
choice of difficulty levels. People in it for the challenge take the more
difficult character, and set the difficulty level higher. Those you are just in
it for that adreniline rush that comes when some big nasty monster jumps out at
you when you were least expecting it can use an easier difficulty setting.
There are a great many who like to pick up a game, and just sit back, relax,
and let themselves be distracted for awhile. These sorts of gamers don't _want_
games that get them so frustrated the it ceases to be enjoyable.
To boil this all down a bit, there are a wide variety of gamers out there. They
have a wide variety of tastes. They have a wide variety of motivations for
playing. If game studios are still pulling in the bucks, they must be doing
something right.
--
Quite a few reviewers play games at lower difficulty levels so that they can get a quick sense of the content without having to play a particular level five times just to see the next level. I wonder if that does figure into some of the complaints.
This is exactly what I'm saying. When I got F-ZERO and found out it was hard I was overjoyed. The best part is that it's not the kind of game you can become the master of just by reading a strategy guide. You actually need to play it a lot and increase your skill level. Just like in the NES days, finally we have a new game that is "Nintendo hard."
It really pisses me off that they dumb down all these games for the american audience. Since the Final Fantasies they have been making games easier for the US. The Japanese think that we are too dumb, or that we wont like games that take time and effort to beat. The sad part is that for the most part, it is true. I see too many kids these days, kids who's first console was a PSX, buying strategy guides with their games. Kids with a pc with gamefaqs.com next to their tv.
When I have kids, they're getting an NES. When they master Mega Man 2, Zelda 1, Bionic Commando, Mario 1, 2 and 3, and all the other classics. Then I'll give 'em an SNES.
My kids will be brought up right. Not like the shmucky kids of today who run at the slightest difficulty.
Oh yeah, lastly, if I ever happen to make a video game. I will be sure not to publish an official strategy guide, and include a EULA to prevent anyone else from writing one. I will also make it a game like F-ZERO where all the strategy guides in the world wont help you, you have to practice and build skill. I'll make up for my loss in sales by suing the pants off all the unofficial strategy guides.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Ever talk to a kid about how fast they finish a videogame?
Well, if you do, they'll tell you that they play until they get stuck. Then they go the FAQ, or the convenient gaming guide, that comes out at the same time as the game release, and then they continue playing until they finish the game. Kids nowadays almost play the game like a marathon. Kids nowadays don't spend the time to think about that obstacle in the game, and how to overcome it, they take the easy solution, and use the game guide to get through the problem. They'll put the game difficulty to the easiest setting to finish it right away.
Take a look at 'Stuntman', the sequel to 'Driver'. That game was damn difficult, which critics argued was the reason why it did so bad.
Sure I can see making a game difficult, but the attention span of kids nowadays are far too short to make the game popular if that was the case.
When a game gradually introduces me to new concepts, and I end up mastering a highly complex system of controls, I feel I have really achieved something by performing the manouvers needed for the hard bits.
Yoshi's Island is the best emample of this I can think of. If you sit down at the game for the first time and see all the controls it's overwhelming, but after you are 70% done, it's all become second nature.
Contrast this with Gran Turismo 2 (and it's derivatives for PS2). You are required to comlpete the most difficult things in the game (the licence tests) BEFORE you can get to any of the events where you woiuld learn the necessary skils! The curve actually goes the wrong way, if you pass the very hardest licence, you can finally enter the race where you win a fortune for simply holding the accellerator dowm for half an hour and turning a gentle flat out left turn every few minutes (cue the NASCAR jokes).
The best way to incorporate difficulty is to make the game enjoyable without leaving the people who don't do the hardest things feel they have 'lost'. The old N64 game Wetrix does exactly this, finishing it (by getting a billion points) took a bunck of people exchanging strategies of the net for months, and was the hardest think I eve did in gaming, but it was a complete surprise that the game actually did finish at all until we got there, so everyone is happy!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
It's no fun at all if the difficulty is becuase of a single puzzle that you KNOW how to complete, but can't because:
1) you have to constantly press buttons a random complicated sequence as fast as possible (jump from one spinning disk to the other through five screens while doging the robot lasers, no saving allowed at this point in the game).
2) you have to do long repetitive tasks over and over again (travel across the island, press a button, travel back flip a switch, travel back again press the second button, etc...) just to open a friggin' door.
3) figure out a puzzle that makes no logical sense (give the wrench to the fox and tell him to use it to bash the witch on the head)
4) figure out a puzzle that is complicated for the wrong reasons, or is so totally random that it is impossible to determine without the walkthrough guide (The secret code for the door lock can be found by taking the first letters of each name of the security staff, taking the greek equivlent of thos eletter, dividing by the floor that the elevator starts on in level 4 and then adding 3)
5) adding some kind of arcade-style game into your rpg-style game that is REQUIRED to progress pass a certian point (The king says, "in order to be my royal quard, you must first beat me at tiddlywinks!").
Making games challenging means you actually have to work at it. Dumping a puzzle that pulls you out of the story and takes ten frustrating days to solve doesn't make the game any more fun.
I remember Max Payne's advertisements stating that it was the first game to feature auto-adjusting difficulty to "keep you in the sweet spot" of gaming bliss. I postulate that this technique was invented long ago, and just forgotten by the new generations that want gratification and want it now.
Does anyone else remember the Good Ol' Days where games didn't have a difficulty setting? Take the original "Super Mario Brothers", or Sega's "Wonderboy" on the Master System, for example. The first few levels are ludicrously easy so that even your mom could pick up the controller and have a chance at it.
But get into the game and it would pick up and up and up... not just in number and difficuty of enemies, but also level design. There's no on-screen tutorials, just a well-balanced and rewarding natural curve of challenge. The game forced you to figure out why you were dying and become a better player. It didn't really matter who played it -- you would hit the sweet spot just by playing the game.
Why don't games (nethack excluded) do this any more? Diablo is (arguably) pretty and all, but once you've completed to first level, it doesn't really do anything different... just the same game with higher numbers. You don't have to be any better of a player to finish the 5th level than the 1st. The game rewards you for playing obsessively and racking up your character, not for really being better at playing the game.
Now we have cheats to contend with difficulty. In Wonder Boy's age, the most common cheat wasn't "God Mode", it was "Level Select".. instead of allowing munchkins to walk through the game, it allowed advanced players to skip ahead to where the challenge was.
Did making games more complex actually make them any better or more enjoyable? If you need me, I'll be digging my Master System out of the closet and blowing the dust off of "Choplifter"...