Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Challenge In Games Is Not A Dirty Word

Posted by simoniker on from the word-is-the-bird dept.

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."

24 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Adjustable difficulty levels by neglige · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Players have grown accustomed to difficulty levels that are far too easy and I think it's contributing to their boredom with many games

    The real topic is that games should have various difficulty settings: one for beginners, one for intermediates and one for experts. And the settings should be really different. That way, anyone can pick their favourite level of challenge. And after having played through a game on an easy level, chances are that the player will re-play the game with harder settings.

    Good examples include System Shock (puzzles? shooter? your choice!), DN3D (come get some!), Quake or Civ 3. Or Grand Prix 3/4, where you could enable several stages of realism.

    Also a good choice if your game has levels: first levels are easy, then become more difficult. Baldurs Gate (2) did it like that, although some parts were (for me) extremely difficult. No problem if there is a cheat. And after failing 10 times at the exact same position, I'm inclined to cheat.

    --
    My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
    1. Re:Adjustable difficulty levels by whee · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And F-Zero has just that. From the GameSpy review:
      But is the game too difficult for most? That's pretty debatable. I personally found the difficulty curve pretty harsh -- particularly on the harder difficulty settings -- but F-Zero has always been about the overall challenge.

      I don't understand this reviewer at all. When the difficulty is set higher, the game actually gets harder! What a concept! This amazing technology should be implemented in as many games as possible.

      I think gamers are just getting used to games that are nothing more than busy work and no challenge. Obviously, a few hours of NetHack could solve a lot of problems.

    2. Re:Adjustable difficulty levels by n0wak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that while the enemies get harder on the higher difficulty levels they're not the problem. The problem is not falling off the track. They only have 20 courses and they get quite hard with the 11-15th ones. That's a harsh difficulty curve.

      There are 26 courses, actually. And I'd argue your claim about the tracks being too difficult. Given some practice, most of those tracks can be easily completed on Novice or Standard. The difficulty comes in on, gasp, the more difficult levels (Expert and Master), where the challenge is not just to stay on the track -- but to stay on while going as absolutely fast as possible. That's easier said than done when you also have 29 other racers.

      I find the difficulty curve of the game to be steep, but tolerable. It took me a while to beat the GPs on Expert, but after I did that, I beat the first GP on Master on the first try -- though the later GPs are giving me trouble again. If you practice the courses and vehicles enough, the difficulty curve is fine.


      It's just that, I guess, "practice" is a dirty word when it comes to the lazy, casual gamer.

  2. Ok, I've got to ask... by handsomepete · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many other people share this complaint that games are too easy? Several of the games I have for my PS2 I haven't finished yet because I'm having trouble completing a level (ZOE2, Contra SS) or don't have the time to finish (GTA:VC). I'm sure a large part of it is because I suck or don't dedicate enough time to it, but are gamers at a point where they want every game to be Ghosts N' Goblins hard?

    If F-ZeroGX is as hard as that GBA F-Zero, count me out. That thing kicks my ass.

  3. On a Slight Tangent by NJVil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:On a Slight Tangent by mattgreen · · Score: 2

      Or even more obvious cheats, such as in Frozen Throne on hard mode the computer has infinite resources while you have to keep going from mine to mine and risking your throat in the process.

    2. Re:On a Slight Tangent by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMNSHO, the main problem is that on many games the enemy AI is coded way too close to the end of developement. If the internal data structures in a strategy game are not designed with the AI in mind, developing a challenging and fair AI is a daunting task. Thus, many strategy game developers end up having to create the enemy AI by reusing code. Yes, the same sub-par code that they created 2 or three years ago for the previous version of the game, or maybe just another game that used similar mechanics.After a week or two making sure that the computer uses some of the latest game features that the previous version didn't have, the AI is done.

      Of course, some game makers like Lionhead are making AI in strategy games more of an issue, but many developers are still cutting corners in the enemy AI due to the publisher's pressure.

      If you buy a PC strategy game this fall, and you get the feeling the enemy AI is pretty similar to the one of the previous version, who knows? you might be facing the exact same enemy you played 4 years ago.

    3. Re:On a Slight Tangent by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 4, Informative

      Starcraft is the same. The AI knows from the start the entire map layout AND where you are. Easily demonstrated by cheating to remove fog of war, and watching the AI IMMEDIATELY head in your direction.

      Cheating AI is something I REALLY hate. It's just a kludge developers use to make the AI seem smarter than it is. Without the cheating, most game AI would be dumb as a brick.

    4. Re:On a Slight Tangent by FreekyGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Would it really have been that difficult to come up with an AI that did not cheat by violating the fog of war?

      Yes.

      People who complain about the difficulty of video games (either too tough or too easy) are almost always unaware of 1) how tough it is to have variable "difficulty" settings in a game, and 2) the real-world restrictions that preclude what might seem like "common-sense" solutions to these problems - restrictions that game developers have to face.

      First, what does "difficulty" mean? It's a completely variable term, since everyone has different skill levels, so what seems easy to some seems difficult to thers. There's no objective measure of "difficulty". There's no such thing as a "difficulty meter". In some games, difficulty is easy to adjust - in shooters, you give the player more hitpoints, stronger weapons, or powerups. Or you give the enemies less armor, or whatever. But what about an RPG? A strategy game? Should game designers have to come up with three or more seperate puzzles for each place in the story that calls for a puzzle? How does one gague how easy or difficult a puzzle is? Some people can solve word scrambles in a second, while others can hardly do them at all. Some people think very visually and have good spatial relations while others don't.

      Second, there are a huge number of restrictions game developers work under - time and money, mostly. Every developer in the world would love to have the luxury of releasing games "when they're done". But unless you're Id, forget it. Sure, if you had a team of ten programmers with three years to do nothing but write AI code, you could come up with some very sophisticated AI for games, but that's hardly realistic. So games only have to have AI that's good enough to challenge most players most of the time. And often that means "cheating" by the AI. Ever tried to write AI? How would you design a game AI that could provide a good challenege to all players, with a variable difficulty level, without cheating, without spending ten years doing it, without requiring a supercomputer to do so?

      Strategy AI is hard to write. If it was easy, the military would just write the Best AI Ever and let it run all the wars. Stategy, even basic strategy, is an incerdibly complex subject with a billion variables. Don't believe me? take a look at Chess, a game with extremely simple rules. It has taken decades of time and many supercomputers to write software to beat a human at chess, and even then it is only through brute force, by analyzing every possible move and permutation. Ever wonder why the game of Go doesn't have too many good computer versions? because writing AI for it is so damn hard. he rules are evn simpler than Chess, yet Go makes chess look like tic-tac-toe in terms of strategic complexity.

      Second, there are very serious hardware limitations. Even on fast computers, AI chews up a LOT of CPU time. Programmers have to share the CPU time between all kinds of tasks, and the AI can't chew up 90% of the cycles. There's no point having a near-sentient AI if you the rest of the game runs like molasses. And as much as us high-end, hardcore gamers hate to admit it, a HUGE portion of the gamer audience still uses pretty old PCs. And they buy games, too - a lot of them.

      As is so often the case, this issue is far more complex than it appears. Game design does not happen by itself, and every hour spent tweaking difficulty levels is one less hour spent making the game better in other ways. Every cycle the AI uses makes the game that much slower and that much less accessible to people on low-end machines. Every minute of programmer time spent on any of these things costs money and adds to the schedule.

      In a perfect world, we'd have unlimited game developement budgets and cycles. Until then, compromises have to be made.

  4. article was very one sided by forehead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I can't disagree with the article, as it is mostly an opinion piece, it
    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 .0001 seconds off a lap time
    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.

    --
    --
  5. One of the reasons reviewers get up in arms by Kenshiro70 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. YES! by Apreche · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:YES! by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny, I've died a few times because of 'dumb luck,' (on Half Pipe mostly) bust most often it has been because of my lack of skill, not luck. (and I tend to be a pretty skilled player)

      I spent the last few days working on Master difficulty. I was getting my ass handed to me repeatedly on some of the tracks. I ran the tracks a bunch to practice, and I got better. I just beat the diamond cup with 1st, 2nd, 1st, 5th, and 18th place finishes.

      It was an extremely satisfying experience. (1st on Undulation was great, 2nd on Shift was even better) In fact, it's one of few times I've actually talked smack to computer opponents.

      My *only* complaint about the difficulty is that the computer opponents don't seem to be fazed whatsoever by impacts. When going through the boosts with 15 other racers at the end of Green Tree 2 (Intersecting Track, I think), you never see *them* lose control because of a collision and end up dead last because of it. Other than that, I think the game is perfectly fair.

      I think the key is to just learn from your mistakes. Died on a turn when you got bumped by someone? Remember that and be more careful next time. Lost too much speed going through a corner and got passed by 12 people? Run the track on practice mode and learn how to get through the turn better. Don't like situations where you can't react to something? Learn to avoid those situations.

      Learn the best places on the track to make aggressive moves for position -- learn the places on the track to just relax and keep moving.

      Most of all, learn from defeat.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  7. It's the mentality of kids now by cdneng2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance by Jerf · · Score: 2

    I'm actually torn on whether to purchase Final Fantasy Tactics Advance; on the one hand I really enjoy that sort of game. On the other hand, when even the reviewers are commenting on how easy it is, you know it's going to be easy. And that's sad. I don't want a massacre, I want a challenge. Especially for something like FFTA, where the "challenge" is set by taking your party's level and adding some constant, and that's the opposition's level. (Or so I hear; Tactics Ogre was like that.) Is it so hard to add a difficulty level that consists of adding "4" instead of "1" or "2"? I mean, come on, that wouldn't have taken a full programmer-day, and the art is negligible.

    Sigh.

    And that's for the Japanese version. If I hear that they've dumbed it down even more for America, as they did in the past, I think I won't buy it.

    OK, I admit I'm a little "old-skool" here without trying; being brought up on an Intellivision will do that to you. But are kids today really that incompetent at gaming?

    (Well, I am 25 and can still whale on my cousins with any game I've played, and hold up even when I haven't played the game... maybe ~20 years of playing is hard to keep up with...)

    1. Re:Final Fantasy Tactics Advance by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recommend you buy Disgaea for the PS2 (if you can find it). It's very similiar to FFT and FFTA but much, much more deep. Check the reviews for it, it sounds like it'd suit your needs.

  9. Difficult games... good or bad? by Metroid72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From reading the very few opinions posted, I've noticed the following:
    If you're a casual gamer, you seem to like the *easy* games.
    If you're hardcore (and old school), well you like *real* hard games.
    Honestly, I'd consider myself an old-school casual gamer, I spent a great deal of time with Fzero yesterday, and one side of me felt good (the old school/hardcore gamer), but the other side felt frustrated (the casual gamer, member of the workforce that has a life).
    I personally know that if I spend time with the game I'll master it. I remember my conquering of the original F-zero (familiarize with Novice-Challenge with Standard-Master with expert) - and who didn't feel like a god when conquering King-expert winning all races for the first time. (But two months had gone bye and the day was divided between Mario, Gradius III and F-zero).
    This time around is different, you have dates, you have to work, you read (to keep up with technology), if you live alone, you have house-stuff to do.
    I believe that a game like this is for the dedicated gamer. I beat a lot of difficult games when I was a dedicated gamer, but Unless I take as a personal challenge, conquering F-zero will be a long, long process...

    Happy gaming!!!
    BTW, Is it only me or the story-mode level race in the casino (after Beating Samurai Goroh) is REALLY difficult?? - I've been stuck for hours in that sucker.

  10. Hard games are bad and good... by PhotoBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    During my years at school and university a hard game was always welcome, it meant that the game I'd just spent my hard earned grant money on was going to last more than a few minutes, and that I would get my money's worth.

    However, since finding gainful employment my gameing time has been dramatically reduced. To this end, easier games that I can play without spending hours trying to beat the same area have become much more welcome in my various consoles and PC.

    It's a shame, I do miss the days where I could spend hours playing Super Ghouls n' Ghosts or Sim City. The best solution to this I have seen is in games like GTA, which are broken up into small chunks which you can save after if necessary. Games that let you quicksave are quite helpful like this too, but the temptation to save every few seconds often makes a difficult game defeatable in an afternoon.

    Still I remember the days before memory cards etc, when you had to start from level 1 every time!

  11. Disagree by Kyouryuu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've been a gamer since the days of the NES. From my own experience, I would be willing to say that the majority of games I enjoyed were consequently easy games. Why is that? I think it's because I find that video games, as a source of entertainment, are not fun when you're trying to get through the same damned level or boss ten times. RPGs, in particular, are getting so obscure these days that you'd swear they were written around the gamer buying the complementary strategy guide.

    Make no mistake, I like games I can sit down and play for twenty minutes and leave without caring much about progress. The idea of fighting a boss that takes 45 minutes to defeat, then dying, just isn't too appealing. I'm not a stathead or a completist in this regard - the kind of person that has to find and battle every last secret character.

    There is, as mentioned elsewhere, a fine line between difficulty and frustration. To me, a good challenge is described as one where when the player dies, (s)he can see how it happened and see some route to prevent it from happening the next time. This is as opposed to one challenge after another, to the point where when you die, you blame the game designers for their lousy creation instead of your own skills.

  12. It's not the difficulty, it's the lack of curve by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  13. Re:the problem with F-ZERO.... by n0wak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So with all the super-hard story missions and the insane difficulty in grand prix, I'm wondering if I'll even see the hidden stuff,

    I thought the same. I wondered: "God damn, I'll never beat chapter 3!" So I quit, and focused on the Grand Prixs. And you know what happened? *gasp* I got better, and went back and beat chapter 3.

    I thought I would never unlock Master difficulty. But then I went and practiced the tracks that gave me the most trouble (Half Pipe, Serial Gaps), and *gasp* I improved and unlocked it finally.

    Now I'm saying that I will never unlock the AX courses... well, we'll see in a week.

    It's a game that rewards skill, rather than the perserverence through inane tedium. And the only way to get skill, is to practice. While I can see this turning off A LOT of casual gamers, I find it enjoyable. Just like I find Ikaruga enjoyable (though I still can't one credit it, arg).

  14. Kids nowadays by Scarblac · · Score: 3, Funny

    We old guys have stood on the right altar, Amulet in hand, and choked on a tin of spinach right there.

    And we still love the game!

    Kids nowadays, can't tell a d from a D.

    --
    I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  15. Depends on what makes it difficult by clambake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. User-selected vs. Progressive Difficulty by mowph · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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"...