Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On Auto-Dynamic Difficulty In Videogames

Posted by simoniker on from the and-auto-dynamic-release-dates dept.

Thanks to Game Matters for its discussion of the problems with difficulty levels in videogames, as the weblog, authored by 3D Realms' Scott Miller, talks about why "games should only rarely allow players to set their own difficulty level." Miller argues: "One of the most common ways games sabotage their potential to appeal to larger numbers of players is by being too difficult... Practically everyone designing games nowadays is a hardcore player with elite skills. It's therefore easy for game designers to misjudge the difficulty of their own games." He describes 'auto-dynamic difficulty', related to Max Payne, as "...a few variables that rate the player's ability, and the player's rating (completely internal to the game) determines the damage that both the player's weapon delivers, and the enemies' weapons deliver against the player." Miller ends by pointing out: "If a player completes your game, they are much more likely to buzz about, spreading the word that it was a great game."

25 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Bull by Mork29 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've found very few games which are to difficult to beat on the lowest difficulty setting. A good example of why a user should set it is JK II: Jedi Outcast. I played it on easy the first time for the challenge of the puzzles, and then upped the difficulty the second time to challenge my skills. I get to play the game twice, but for different purposes. More bang for my buck. Not only that, but you souldn't make a game more beatable to get buzz. The point of a game is the challenge. It's not to make it easier and easier until the person can get through the levels. As long as game makers make sure that their "easy" setting is truly easy, you should have no problem. Let the user decide how difficult it should be. Some people want to get through a game without dying, others want to have to restart a level 100 times to truly feal that they earned the next level (masacists are weird....)

    1. Re:Bull by Metroid72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of a game is the challenge

      Many years ago when the only thing I used to do was to play videogames and go to school, I would have agreed with that comment.

      However, now after having a job and having "actual things to do" I realized that the point of a game is just fun. The best game for me now is the one that you can pick up quickly and maximize the fun.

      I've played challenging games recently, an interesting example is Ikaruga, the game is challenging, but it "gets easy on you" as you play (opening more lives, continues, etc.). However an extreme is F-Zero GX; the game is beautiful, but unless the only thing you do is play F-Zero GX for many days, you won't be able to beat it.

      But anyway.. that's just MY opinion. Remember.. for every taste, you have colors.

    2. Re:Bull by Datoyminaytah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > the point of a game is just fun.

      This is true, but to competitive people the challenge of "beating" the game IS the fun.

      But, like you said, tastes vary.

      --
      assert(birth_date<time-86400)
  2. Max Payne? by Fizzl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, Max Payne has auto-dynamic difficulty?

    Infact, I was suspecting it. I'm in the process of playing Max Payne 2 through, and indeed it seems that on a third to fifth try of one particularly nasty spot I suddenly miraculously got through it even thou I felt I got a lot of hits.

    Which is good. I hate games where I have to endlessly reload to get past some point. ...Half-Life's end comes to mind. I hated it and actually went through the final encounter with cheats on for the first time. I tried it some 10-20 times without them thou.

    --
    Bot Assisted Blogging
    1. Re:Max Payne? by BladesP9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now this is exactly the kind of thing I don't want going on. How do they expect players to improve at their game if they dumb down the game to the players level? I understand making it so the player can enjoy the game - and believe me I'm a big fan of entertainment over challenge. However I also think that the mark of any well-designed level or game is that every time you lose you've at least gotten a little bit further than you did on the previous try. If the game auto-adjusts the level on me and makes it easier, that would do more to turn me off the game than anything else. Game makers should strive to make their games balanced, fun and challenging. Dumbing down the game on the third or fourth is insulting to me, as a gamer. I'd rather work to improve at the game and beat it that way than have the game stoop to my level.

    2. Re:Max Payne? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do they expect players to improve at their game...?

      They don't. They expect players to shell out money for it, have fun for a while, and then vow to buy the next game to come out of that studio the minute it hits the shelves.

  3. Re:3DRealms eh? by Decado · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree wholeheartedly. The nice thing about choosing a difficulty is that you get to decide how much challenge you feel like, if you can only afford one game a month then you can play em hard to make the experience last. With ADD your only option is to play it clean through, knowing all along that the enemies are handicapped to accomodate you. That sucks.

    --

    Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece

  4. Max Payne & ADD by lxt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, the one thing that does make Max Payne different is the fact that once you have completed the game, you unlock a harder mode of difficulty - so although many people can be happy that they've completed the game and so spread the word, not as many people can say they've completed the game in New York Minute mode. It means that everyone can 'complete' the game, but only the best can fully complete it.

  5. bad way to scale difficulty by *weasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By changing the inherent rules in the system halfway through the game? please.

    the last thing a gamer wants to see is a shot that used to kill a bad guy suddenly not killing bad guys anymore. give the bad guys bigger guns, grenades, cover, backup -- something like that. don't ruin the verisimilitude because you have no imagination.

    scaling difficulty is fine - but assess it between 'missions' and adjust those for skill for chrissakes and don't change the physics of the game and try to masquerade that as 'difficulty'.

    and imo, when a game scales difficulty it should be akin to GoldenEye for the 64. On easy maybe just making it from point A to point B is enough to complete an area. But on 'hard' there should be more stringent requirements (no alarms, rescue a prisoner, steal some data, assassinate a general, destroy a depot, etc, etc).

    having to alter the physics should be the first clue that your AI and design aren't capable of being challenging in the first place.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    1. Re:bad way to scale difficulty by hymie3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and imo, when a game scales difficulty it should be akin to GoldenEye for the 64. On easy maybe just making it from point A to point B is enough to complete an area. But on 'hard' there should be more stringent requirements (no alarms, rescue a prisoner, steal some data, assassinate a general, destroy a depot, etc, etc).

      Yes! This is the way to do it! Tie Fighter had something that was similar. Within the level (this is from memory, I could be wrong, and if I am, this is the way that it *should* have been), you had a goal to accomplish. Kill all of the X-Wings, lose at most one wingman. But then there were "optional" missions within the mission that were more difficult. Kill all of the X-Wings *and* all of the A-Wings *and* don't lose any wingman. (and then there were "secret" objectives like "capture, don't destroy the shuttle").

      You didn't gain anything extra by doing the extra crap other than getting promoted more quickly or becoming a super sekrit Emperor drone with a sekrit tatoo on your arm.

      Design the mission/level so that most players can complete it. Add additional subtasks/goals that are optional, but greatly increase the difficulty of the game.

      Thief:The Dark Project also had this feature.

    2. Re:bad way to scale difficulty by kaisyain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because everyone knows that in real life the guys who are wearing red vests take exactly 3 shots from the MP-5 to kill.

      Personally, I think it would be a welcome relief to find that all bad guys of a given type don't take exactly the same amount of damage, that I can no longer memorize enemies' damage capacities and thus know I only need to shoot X twice before turn to shot Y three times. Instead you shoot people/things until they fall down/die or your risk being killed in return.

      Or knowing I can take exactly four more shots from the pistols the bad guys on this level are using before I need to use a health pack that will restore 50% of my hit points.

      Games shouldn't make their mechanics so transparent because it in turn makes the game more mechanical. It turns into more a puzzle and removes a lot of the suspense aspects. I played through Resident Evil: Code Veronica and in that game I never know exactly how many hit points I had, how much those green plants healed me, or how much damage enemies did. Sure, you had a general idea but by keeping all of that bookkeeping behind the scenes it added a lot of suspense and got rid of a bit of the min/maxing common in FPS.

      Adding more variety and less predictability into the game -- within some limits, of course, you'd be pissed if a pistol suddenly started doing more damage than the minigun -- seems like it is only a good thing.

    3. Re:bad way to scale difficulty by *weasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      while I'll agree on principal to your desire to see less of a game's mechanics as obvious as they are ... changing the rules mid-game is still not a good solution to either problem (static difficulty or visible mechanics).

      I'm talking about the difference between a headshot taking out enemies early in the game, to a headshot being insufficient later on. The game establishes an expectation of verisimilitude when the same tactic has the same effect across many enemies. When that tactic is suddenly less effective without in-game context (do these new bad guys have invisible face armor?), it is unacceptable.

      Variety is good. unpredictability is good. I -like- the games that purposefully introduce inaccuracy into my character's aim. Just because i can hold my mouse steady shouldn't mean the character can hold an actual rifle steady - particularly not for the 200th shot in an afternoon.

      I didn't mind at all that there was no conventional health meter in JP:Trespasser (though the game sucked), and it sounds like Code Veronica does the same thing, with better effect.

      But changing the rules of the game and masquerading that as a dynamic 'difficulty' adjustment, or trying to hide the game mechanics by making weapon effects unpredictable is assinine.

      adjust the difficulty by giving the enemies armored vehicles, bulletproof vests or better aim. Don't make -their- mp5 magically do more damage than -my- mp5, or have their faces mystically become bullet-resistant.

      hide mechanics by hiding the health meter from players and giving them subjective hints (heavier breathing, slower movement, etc). Don't try to prevent min/maxing by adjusting the stopping power of a handgun from shot to shot.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    4. Re:bad way to scale difficulty by kisrael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now that we're well beyond using hand-drawn sprites, I wish we saw more games (are there any?) that didn't just have 4 or 5 basic types that were all clones of each other, but ones where enemies or bystanders come in a wider variety of body types and other variations...

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  6. summary ?? by kayen_telva · · Score: 3, Insightful

    make the games easier so our industry can rack up the dough ??

    sorry, guess Im feeling cynical this morning.
    but it does seem like most gamers I know finish games
    very quickly and then move on to something else.
    Seems like if they were more thought provoking
    instead of run around crazy shooting everything
    people would find them more enjoyable and
    recommend them

  7. Difficult to say... by wickedj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've played racing games where if I'm dominating the track, the 2nd place driver all of a sudden can go 50 mph faster than me and turn on a dime in order to catch up. I've also seen the effect where if I make a mistake and wreck, the competition slows to a crawl to allow me to catch up. I can understand this in games such as Mario Kart or other arcade racing games but I don't want this in my Gran Turismo or other "real" racing games.

    Also, in some of the RPGs I've played, the monsters get stronger as I get stronger. That's ridiculous. I understand meeting new monsters that are stronger but when the little slime you had a hard time with at level 1 is still giving you a hard time at level 20, that's just plain ridiculous. Even worse is that you still get the same xp and gp.

    There may be some really good reasons out there to have auto-adjusting difficulty, but for me personally, I don't believe it's that great a feature.

  8. Difficulties... by sbryant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I remember playing Red Alert on easy first, then again on hard. It was more fun for me - I got double the challenge. Did the same with Half-Life. I liked being able to do that.

    I can understand what Scott is saying, and I think that a properly implemented ADD will give you this too. A bad ADD will mean that a poor player who got lucky ends up in a situation they can't win, and gets frustrated and gives up.

    I had another idea though: instead of just changing some variables (hit points or whatever), what about changing the gameplay? For example, you could change puzzles or add new ones. Eg: remove a box, so the player can't just jump up somewhere - they have to be more creative. You could also add access (eg: remove walls etc) to areas which are hidden to beginners - let them focus on the mission, and send the experts a different (more difficult) way round. How about making better players go off to find a key/card to open a door, but letting the other players through without needing it. Are there any games that already change the maps according to player skill?

    The key to really making it work is finding the balance of what to do for which skill level; being able to accurately judge a player's skill is an important part of this. It's a lot of work, and sometimes it's easier to let the player choose their skill level.

    One other thing occurs to me. Remember Doom's nightmare mode? I don't think you could ever reasonably have something like that with an ADD system, but there are some (strange) people who find it fun.

    -- Steve

  9. X-Com did this years ago. by Teddy+Beartuzzi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    'Course, it was a bug, and it accidentally kept setting the game to Easy.

    Sounds like a lot of work for nothing to me. Just give the user enough difficulty levels so that they can set it to what they need. I've played a few games where even Easy mode was too hard, and Impossible mode was anything but.

  10. Re:3DRealms eh? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The solution is really simple:

    Dificulty: [Auto]
    Easy
    Medium
    Hard
    Nightmare

    Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted like a fetus.

    --
    Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  11. Say No to Dynamic difficulty scaling by p7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dynamic scaling is not the way to go. I am guessing that the majority of gamers play games because they feel they have overcome a challenge. I think this applies to the non hardcore gamer too. Do you really think people would enjoy Dance Dance Revolution if it slowed down to match a players ability and let them hit the wrong pad?? With online play becoming more and more common, I think the dynamic scaling could set you up for a big letdown. Here you go finish the game and think you did really well and then you get online and can't score a frag.

  12. Ramping up difficulty the lazy way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "...a few variables that rate the player's ability, and the player's rating (completely internal to the game) determines the damage that both the player's weapon delivers, and the enemies' weapons deliver against the player."

    What a stupid way to set the difficulty in a game!
    I don't know about ya'll, but there's nothing I hate more than shooters which ramp up the difficulty by making you shoot everybody 5-6 times before they drop dead.
    I mean please, talk about the lazy way out.
    Give me smarter enemies, or more enemies or heck even just less ammo and fewer health packs.
    But please don't kill all sense of realism and fun by forcing me to cap every enemy in the chest ten times before the stop shooting back!

    How about taking some of that genius computer code that automagically determines how good your playing and using it to develope enemy AI that doesn't just hang around picking it's nose until you get w/in ten feet of it, or constantly try to shoot through walls!

  13. Challenge != Fun by Psykechan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's important for developers to remember that challenge does not equal fun. I personally think that difficulty levels should default to the easiest level possible and gamers looking for a challenge could manually set them higher.

    That's not to say that ADD couldn't be implemented properly. One of the best examples of this I have seen is in "Sly Cooper and the Thievius Racconus" for PS2. If a player died multiple times on a given level, they would be given a lucky horseshoe that would allow them an extra hit before dying. It made the game much more enjoyable for my casual gaming friends.

    On the flip side, "Mario Kart 64" (N64) had the worst ADD as enemies would always be a few mistakes behind you. It didn't matter if you performed average or godlike, a few slip ups and you would be overtaken. I referred to this as "cheating opponents" and will not even think about buying MK:Double Dash until I know that this "feature" isn't in the game.

    If Auto-Dynamic Difficulty can prevent frustration, then it is good. If it causes frustration, then it should be left out.

  14. The way things ought to be by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Skill level adjustment is not a linear argument. It depends on the type of game. While auto-adjustment may make sense for an arcade-style game like Max Payne (where you do the same thing throughout the whole game) but it is unwelcome for simulators (racing, sports).

    What I really appreciate (thanks, KoTOR) are games that let you change the difficulty level at any time. I also appreciate games that offer you hints (Popcap's Bejeweled, Sierra's Phantasmagoria) to keep the pace from lulling.

    Indeed, the purpose of games is entertainment! Some people are willing to spend 8 hours every consecutive day until a game is finished, while others would prefer to spend 3 hours a week. Neither party should be penalized. I'm sure these demographics are related to the article I read about the average age of gamers rising ever closer to 25.

    1. Re:The way things ought to be by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I really appreciate (thanks, KoTOR) are games that let you change the difficulty level at any time.

      Somebody mod this guy up - this is the first comment I've seen here that I agree with 100%.

      Let me play on "medium", but give me the option of switching temporarily to "easy" if I run into trouble.

      Note that - give me the option. I don't want the game to dumb itself down; sometimes I actually want to try and get through a tough bit by myself. Other times I want a walk through the park. But I should be the one choosing, not the game.

  15. Needless difficulty is a problem by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Challenging games are fun, but sometimes they are downright stupid. After having enjoyed a couple Alone in the Dark and Silent Hill games, I decided to try Resident Evil. All I have to say is the first thing I did was to enable the cheat for double saves. As an adult, I simply don't have the time or patience to go through artificially great swaths of a game over and over just to feel like I won't run short, especially given the poor weapon control in that game! I just don't remember any of the other games being so troublesome.

    --
    Vote in November. You won't regret it.
  16. Max Payne 2 Auto-AI doesn't work well. by ScorpiusFan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just finished Max Payne 2, using the first-person mod, and I found the AI to behave "unfairly" after the first few maps. The AI reached a point where it would: 1) Always rush you; 2) Once an enemy character appeared through a door or around a corner it would target you in less than a second. The whole immersion factor of a shooter game was totally lost at this point. The game became more of a puzzle, trying to determine the best place to stand while defending against multiple enemies rushing towards you, who had no sense of self-preservation, and knew where you where, even through walls and doors. No, Scott Miller, that was not a fun game with the auto-adjusting AI difficulty. Perhaps 3DRealms should give up beta testing and game-making altogether.