Slashdot Mirror
On Auto-Dynamic Difficulty In Videogames
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."
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....)
Oh, Max Payne has auto-dynamic difficulty?
...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.
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.
Bot Assisted Blogging
...is to make those parts of the game that you have to solve fairly easy, while still adding lots of extras with varying difficulty (just don't fall into the trap of rewarding the good players with items that makes it even easier for them...instead focus on fun but useless rewards)
Personally I think it is bad that the player has the option to solve everything , so a few impossible or near impossible spots should be added as well, just to teach the player that they aren't supposed to go exploring every cranny of the map, but instead focus on their mission.
Then again, some hardcore players will never give up until every single resistance is dealt with, however little they have to do with the mission...
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?"
Project Gotham Racing 2 has the best difficulty curve I've seen. Basic/bronze medals are very easy to get, and give you a good feel for the course. Silver medals are the sweet spot, you won't have trouble if you are good, but it's not a cakewalk. Gold medals will take some retries, and platinum medals are punishment :)
Not to mention that you get to see your Kudos rank on Xbox Live after each course. It was a motivating factor to keep playing because I kept getting higher and higher on the lists.
I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
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.